The environmental situation and current yield performance of sugar beet production in Germany are described and compared to those in other European regions. A continuous increase in yield performance and enhanced technical quality have been achieved through progress in breeding and improvements in crop management systems. This rise in yield potential has been brought about not by increased production intensity, but by better use of natural resources and production factors. In Germany, legislation rules many environmental aspects of agricultural plant production, and special laws are in force concerning fertilizer use, soil protection, and pesticide use. In sugar beet, nitrogen fertilizer use has decreased greatly and may be reduced further in some regions. A further reduction of potassium and phosphorus fertilizer use does not seem to be appropriate. Conservation tillage contributes to soil protection and is already performed on > 100 000 ha of land growing sugar beet. Strategies of integrated production aim to reduce pesticide use to the bare minimum. Integrated pest management is effective to control insects, nematodes and leaf spot diseases. Pesticide use in sugar beet is dominated by herbicide application. The most promising strategy to reduce the amount of active ingredient seems to be the growing of genetically modified herbicide‐tolerant varieties. Possible directions for future research are discussed, and the prospects for sustainable development, in terms of economic, ecological and social factors, are considered.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In Europe, the framework for sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) production was subject to considerable changes and for the future it is expected that sugar beet cultivation might concentrate around the sugar factories for economic reasons. Based on data from a national sugar beet farmers’ survey and multi-year crop rotation trials, the effects of cropping interval (number of years in between two subsequent sugar beet crops) and of preceding crops on sugar yield were elucidated under current Central European management conditions. The dominating sugar beet cropping interval was ≥4 years in the farm survey with pronounced differences between regions. However, the cropping intervals 2, 3, and ≥4 years did not affect the sugar yield. Therefore, significant differences in sugar yield between regions were assumed to be caused by multiple interactions between year, site, and farmers’ skills. Throughout Germany, the dominating preceding crops in sugar beet cultivation were winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and winter barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). In the field trials, the sugar yield was 5% higher after pea (Pisum sativum L.) compared to maize (Zea mays L.) as preceding crop, while differences between the preceding crops pea and winter wheat, and wheat and maize were not significant. Repeated measurements of canopy development and leaf color during the growing season revealed a higher N-availability after pea as preceding crop. However, decreased growth after maize was not completely compensated for by high N-fertilizer doses. Overall, the causes for the differences in sugar yield between the preceding crops remained open. The results do not support concerns about substantial yield losses in sugar beet production due to a reduction in the cropping interval from 3 to 2 years. Nevertheless, short rotations with maize and sugar beet might increase the risk of Rhizoctonia solani crown and root rot infestation. Leguminous crops such as pea offer the potential for higher sugar beet yield with lower N-fertilizer doses.

No abstract