67
Effects of Foliar-Applied Methanol on Sugarbeet Production
K.A. Rykbost and R.L. Dove1 1
INTRODUCTION
This and a companion study reported on pages 48-49 evaluated the response of
crops to repeated foliar applications of methanol under Klamath Basin conditions.
A similar study was conducted on sugarbeets at the Malheur Experiment Station in
1993. Findings from that study will be in the Malheur Experiment Station Annual
Report.
PROCEDURES
The sugarbeet variety ACH 199 was planted with a hand operated Planet-Junior
type planter in 22-inch rows on May 13. Seed was planted at 10 seeds/foot at a
depth of 0.5 inches. Plant stands were thinned to 8-inch spacing in mid-June. A
broadcast application of 300 lb/A of 15-15-15 analysis fertilizer was incorporated as
beds were formed. An additional 50 lb N/A as Solution 32 was applied on July 7
with a ground sprayer and incorporated with irrigation. Weed control was achieved
with Betamix, applied at 0.25 lb ai/A on June 3 and 0.33 lb ai/A on June 8, and
hand weeding as necessary to control escapes. Flea beetles were controlled with
diazinon applied at 1.0 lb ai/A on June 7 and carbaryl applied at 1.0 lb ai/A on
June 14 and June 24. Solid set sprinkler irrigation was used throughout the season.
Three row plots, 38 feet long were established to accommodate seven treatments
arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Treatments
included solutions of 10, 20, 40, and 80 percent methanol with 0.1 percent Triton
X-100 surfactant, and solutions of 0, 20, and 40 percent methanol with no surfactant.
Solutions were applied at 20 gpa with a backpack sprayer on July 18, July 28, and
August 11 between noon and 1:00 pm. Weather conditions on these dates and
throughout the season are described elsewhere (pages 3-8 and 48). Beets were
harvested by hand on October 19. All beets from the center row of each plot were
weighed to determine yield. A 30-pound sample from each plot was sent to the
Imperial Holly Sugar Corporation laboratory at Hamilton City, California for tare
and sucrose content determinations. Total sugar production was calculated from
measured yield and sugar contents. Gross value was calculated from total sugar
production and processing contracts, assuming a net selling price of $24/cwt.
1/
Superintendent/Professor and Associate Professor, respectively, Klamath
Experiment Station, Klamath Falls, OR.
Acknowledgments: Funding for the study was provided by the California Beet
Growers Association. Imperial Holly Sugar Corporation provided laboratory analyses
of tare losses and sucrose content.
68
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
An error in calculation resulted in applying 1.0 percent Triton X-100 surfactant
to all treatments that included surfactant on the first application date. Minor leaf
bronzing injury 'was observed on all plants in the four treatments by the following
day. Symptoms remained evident for about two weeks. No other visual foliar effects
of any treatments were observed throughout the season.
Methanol treatments did not affect beet yield, sugar content, total sugar
production, or gross crop value (Table 1). Similar results were obtained from a
sugarbeet experiment conducted at the Malheur Experiment Station, and from
experiments with potatoes at several Oregon locations. Reported benefits from
repeated foliar applications of methanol to C3 crops in Arizona cannot be
demonstrated for potatoes or sugarbeets grown at high elevation, short-season areas,
or low elevation, long-season areas in Oregon. None of the field studies with either
crop produced a sufficient economic response to offset costs of methanol and its
application. Growers are advised against the use of methanol in sugarbeet crops.
Table 1. Effect of foliar applications of methanol on yield, sugar content, total
sugar production, and gross value of sugarbeets at Klamath Falls, OR, 1993.
Beet
Treatment sYield
Sugar
Content
tons/A
Total Sugar
Production
Gross
Value
lb/A
$/A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
22.8
22.1
21.7
21.2
23.2
23.3
22.4
17.0
16.9
17.1
16.7
16.9
17.0
17.4
7720
7450
7410
7050
7850
7930
7770
954
918
913
871
967
978
959
Mean
CV (%)
LSD (0.05)
22.4
6
2.1
17.0
3
0.7
7600
7
740
937
7
92
1
/ 1. 20 gal/A water, applied on 7/18, 7/28, 8/11.
2. 20 gal/A, 10% methanol, 0.1% Triton X-100, applied on 7/18,
3. 20 gal/A, 20% methanol, 0.1% Triton X-100, applied on 7/18,
4. 20 gal/A, 40% methanol, 0.1% Triton X-100, applied on 7/18,
5. 20 gal/A, 80% methanol, 0.1% Triton X-100, applied on 7/18,
6. 20 gal/A, 20% methanol, applied on 7/18, 7/28, 8/11.
7. 20 gal/A, 40% methanol, applied on 7/18, 7/28, 8/11.
7/28,
7/28,
7/28,
7/28,
8/11.
8/11.
8/11.
8/11.