Efficiency of sugar beet cultivation in the Steppe of Ukraine

Abstract

Purpose. To determine the features of the economic and energy efficiency of growing sugar beet in the Steppe of Ukraine. Methods. Field research was conducted during 2020–2022 in the Chkalov Agrocompany LLC (Kirovohrad region). The scheme of the experiment provided for the cultivation of sugar beet against the background of the use of a water-retaining agent (without hydrogel; hydrogel Aquasorb, 300 kg/ha), under application of different fertilizers (without fertilizers – control; manure, 20 t/ha; N170P180K350; Leonardyt, 400 kg/ha; Parostok 20, 400 kg/ha) and foliar application of fertilizers during the growing season (without foliar feeding; Humifild SE, 2 kg/ha in the BBCH stage 30 and 39). Organic and mineral fertilizers (PK) were applied in autumn at ploughing and nitrogen was applied at cultivation in early spring. The water-retainer was applied to the soil two weeks before sowing the crop in the zone of the row, based on the data of the GPS tracker. The rest of the agricultural activities corresponded to the generally accepted crop cultivation technology in the area of research. The calculation of economic indicators was performed using prices of 2023. Results. In terms of income from the sale of sugar beet roots, the best treatment was the use of Aquasorb hydrogel, fertilization of sugar beet with Leonardyt and foliar application of fertilizer Humifild, where 106.8 thousand UAH/ha was obtained. In terms of costs for crop cultivation technology, the most expensive treatment was the application of mineral fertilizers (75.9–84.4 thousand UAH/ha). In contrast, application of new organic fertilizers provided better results in terms of the costs of growing sugar beet. In particular, in the treatments where hydrogel was not applied, the costs of fertilization with Leonardyt were 37.3–39.8 thousand UAH/ha, while with the use of Aquasorb, the treatment with Leonardyt had a cost of 43.3–45.8 thousand UAH /ha. On the other hand, the costs of using organic fertilizer Parostok were 39.6–42.1 and 45.6–48.1 thousand UAH/ha. In the treatment with Parostok followed by foliar application of Humifild, a profit of UAH 60.6 thousand/ha was obtained. In case of application of Aquasorb hydrogel and fertilization with Leonardyt fertilizer followed by foliar feeding with Humifild, a profit of UAH 61,00 per 1 ha was obtained, which was the maximum in the experiment. Profitability of 145.0% was obtained with the application of Parostok 20 fertilizer and 143.8% with Humifild applied against the background of Parostok. In the treatment with Leonardyt, the profitability was 142.6%. With the use of Aquasorb hydrogel and Leonardyt fertilizer, the level of profitability was somewhat lower and proportional to the increase in technology costs (133.2%). Conclusions. In the case of applying Aquasorb hydrogel (300 kg/ha) to the row zone before sowing and fertilizing sugar beet with Leonardyt or Parostok 20, more than 300 GJ/ha of energy yield was obtained. The maximum accumulation of energy in the harvest (312.5 GJ/ha) was obtained in the treatment where moisture retainer, Parostok 20, and Humifild were applied. When Parostok 20 was used as the main fertilizer, the coefficient of energy efficiency was 4.70, while with foliar application of Humifild it was 4.72. In the treatments where moisture retainer and Parostok 20 were applied, with or without subsequent foliar application of Humifild, the coefficient of energy efficiency was 4.60 and 4.63, respectively.