NanoImport← All documents

Full documents in your language

AREI table-beet field trial

A table-beet trial report with treatment groups, yield values and a statistical comparison.

Download PDF in English

APP “Institute of Agricultural Resources and Economics”

STENDE RESEARCH CENTRE

„Impact of organic products on table beet yield and quality”

Researchers:

MSc in Agriculture, Solveiga Maļecka,

Research assistant Margita Damškalne

APP “Institute of Agricultural Resources and Economics”

Stende Research Centre

Dižstende, 2025

The purpose of the trial:

To compare the effect of organic products on table beet yield and quality in agroclimatic conditions of Kurzeme.

1. Test methodology and conditions

Table 1.1

Test methodology and conditions

Table 1
Test siteAREI Stende Research CentreAREI Stende Research Centre
Commissioning clientJikoEntJikoEnt
Name„Influence of organic product on table beet yield and quality”„Influence of organic product on table beet yield and quality”
LocationSCL crop sequence field No. 10SCL crop sequence field No. 10
CropTable beetsTable beets
Variety‘Kestrel’ (Sakata)‘Kestrel’ (Sakata)
Sowing rate60 d.s. m260 d.s. m2
TreatmentControls without NPKControls without NPK
TreatmentControl with NPKControl with NPK
TreatmentChitoHumus 0.1 L ha-1 without NPK (C1)ChitoHumus 0.1 L ha-1 without NPK (C1)
TreatmentChitoHumus 0.2 L ha-1 without NPK (C2)ChitoHumus 0.2 L ha-1 without NPK (C2)
TreatmentChitoHumus 0.1 L ha-1 with NPK (C1)ChitoHumus 0.1 L ha-1 with NPK (C1)
TreatmentChitoHumus 0.2 L ha-1 with NPK (C2)ChitoHumus 0.2 L ha-1 with NPK (C2)
Soil typeVelenė podzolēta surface-cut light moraine sandstoneVelenė podzolēta surface-cut light moraine sandstone
Soil characteristics5.27 pH, organic matter content 2.52 %, K2O 369.5 mg kg-1, P2O5 238.8 mg kg-15.27 pH, organic matter content 2.52 %, K2O 369.5 mg kg-1, P2O5 238.8 mg kg-1
Soil treatmentAutumn crop in spring sown and cultivated 25.05.2025., following the principle of the only differenceAutumn crop in spring sown and cultivated 25.05.2025., following the principle of the only difference
Pre-plantPapaverPapaver
Basic fertilizerComplex mineral fertilizer YM NPK 11-11-21 N55 kg ha-1 or 500 kg ha-1 before sowing according to the scheme, handmade25.05.2025.
TopsoilNitrate N35 kg ha-1 or 230 kg ha-1 (N15.4%, (nitrate nitrogen N-NO3 – 14.1%; ammonium nitrogen N-NH4 – 1.3%); calcium oxide (CaO) – 25.6%; calcium (Ca) – 18.6%; boron (B) water-soluble – 0.3%).06.07.2025.
Foliage fertilizersOmex Calmax Zero (calcium (Ca) 7.14 %, boron (B) 0.33 %, copper (Cu) 0.04 %, iron (Fe) 0.05 %, manganese (Mn) 0.1 %, molybdenum (Mo) 0.001 %, zinc (Zn) 0.02 %. Density 1.32, pH 5-6)04.07.2025.
SeedProvided by the PerformerProvided by the Performer
SeedHand made26.05.2025.
Care of volumesField measurement according to the trial scheme, weeding and DAP application
Herbicide-
FungicideScore L ha-1 (diphenocanazol 250 g L-1) with a ritch sprayer (for control of leaf spot (Cercospora beticola, Ramularia beticola))04.07.2025.
Insecticide-
Organic productChitoHumus (C1 – dose 0.1 L ha-1 and C2 – dose 0.2 L ha-1 used 2x per season with a ritch sprayer, water consumption 200 L ha-104.07.2025. 12.07.2025.
Area30 m2 (3.0x10 m) - 4 places30 m2 (3.0x10 m) - 4 places
Number of variants66
Repeats44
Number of fields2424
Area to be counted15 m2 (1.5x10 m) - 2 internal grooves15 m2 (1.5x10 m) - 2 internal grooves
Phenological observationsSprouting, 13-15 AE13.06.2025. 04.07.2025.
Recording / observationsEach repeat determined for 5 beets: leaf length, cm; beet weight, kg; root diameter, cm; Brix, % (with Digital Sugar Refractometer)25.-26.09.2015. 15.10.2025.
Harvestingdetermined the yield of each field by hand25.-26.09.2025.
Data processingMicrosoft Excel using single-factor variance analysis with iterations.Microsoft Excel using single-factor variance analysis with iterations.
ReportMethodology and conditions of the experiment, characteristics of meteorological conditions during the vegetation period, results and their brief description.Methodology and conditions of the experiment, characteristics of meteorological conditions during the vegetation period, results and their brief description.

*Selection of fertilizer and AAL is determined by the Institute’s procurement.

2. Trial design

Figure
Original experimental graphics are preserved. Labels are translated in the accompanying text.

3. Description of meteorological conditions

Table 3.1

Description of meteorological conditions,

2025. (Sende HMS data)

Table 2
Ten-day periodMean air temperature, °CMean air temperature, °CMean air temperature, °CMean air temperature, °CMean air temperature, °CMean air temperature, °CTotal precipitation, mmTotal precipitation, mmTotal precipitation, mmTotal precipitation, mmTotal precipitation, mmTotal precipitation, mm
ten-day periodIIIIIIMonthly meanLong-term mean± from long-term meanIIIIIIMonthly totalLong-term valueRelative to long-term value, %
March5.11.34.93.80.13.74.16.84.315.238.539
April3.211.177.15.81.34.947.411.363.638.1167
May6.3812.79.011.1-2.14.358.81.464.546140
June14.214.114.214.214.7-0.525.821.216.963.971.489
July16.519.319.318.417.31.125.42.2102.1129.778.1166
August17.216.51315.616.6-1.021.99.955.28783.4104

Characteristics of meteorological conditions in the 2025 growing season

The average spring temperature in Latvia in 2025 (March–May) was 6.9 °C, which is 1.0 °C above the seasonal norm, thus becoming the 10th warmest spring in the history of observations (since 1924). Stands 1.0 °C above normal. The lowest air temperature this spring (−10.4 °C) was recorded in Alūksne on March 17, while the highest air temperature was +28.4 °C in Skryje. The average air temperature in Latvia was above normal for almost all of March, except for a few days in the middle of the month. Following the two-and-a-half-week heat wave that began in late February, the first half of March was particularly warm. Warm weather conditions continued in the second half of March, as a result of which March with an average air temperature of +3.8 °C was 3.6 °C warmer than normal and became the 2nd warmest March in the history of observations. In early April, the spring weather continued, but after a few days the air temperature dropped and a week-long cool period began. In the middle of the month, the air temperature increased rapidly, reaching a maximum on April 18. The average air temperature in Latvia on 18 April was 17.9 °C, which is 11.8 °C above the normal for this date. Despite cool periods and even recorded minimum air temperature at the end of the month, April with an average air temperature of +7.4 °C was 1.3 °C warmer than the monthly norm. On the other hand, May was cool throughout the country. The average air temperature in Latvia was below normal for almost the whole month, on some days even about 5 °C below normal. In the first half of May, the average air temperature was even lower than in the warm periods of March and April. The average air temperature in Latvia in May was +9.4 °C, which is 2.0 °C below the monthly norm, making May the coldest month in this century.

The total precipitation in spring in Latvia was 147.5 mm, which is 20% above the seasonal norm (123.1 mm). The lowest precipitation was in Vičaci (54.5 mm), while the most rainfall-rich spring was in Madona, where the total precipitation amount was 280.9 mm (105% above the norm). Stands 1.7% of the norm. March with 24.0 mm was the only spring month that was drier than normal (35% below normal). In April, the precipitation amount in Latvia reached 39.2 mm, which is 9% above the norm, while May was the wettest spring month with a total precipitation of 84.7 mm (68% above the norm). In mid-May, prolonged rain was recorded almost throughout Latvia. In Kurzeme, the western Vidzeme and the central regions of the country, the amount of precipitation was relatively low until the end of May, while in Latgale, Sēlija and Eastern Vidzeme, the rain continued, as a result of which May was very wet in these regions. In Madona, where it rained more than 3 times the May norm, this was the wettest May in the history of observations.

Snow was not a frequent phenomenon this spring – in March the average snow cover thickness in Latvia did not reach 1 cm, while in the other months it was 0 cm. In the first days of March, snow cover of up to 8 cm in thickness remained at some stations in the east of the country, but it soon faded. Short-term snow cover in the eastern part of the country also formed in mid-March and early April, but it fell everywhere within one or two days. Snowfall without snow cover formation was observed in the middle of May.

The average air temperature of the calendar summer (June–August) in Latvia was +16.4 °C, which is 0.3 °C below the seasonal norm, thus becoming the coldest summer since 2017. The lowest air temperature this summer (+2.4 °C) was observed in Zosēni on August 21, while the highest air temperature was +32.4 °C, which was recorded on July 3 in both Mersrags and Riga. In Stendē, Latgale and Priekuļi 0.2°C below normal. In the first half of June there were periods with average air temperature above and below normal, while in the second half of the month the average air temperature in the country was below normal, as a result of which June with an average air temperature of +14.5 °C was 0.7 °C colder than normal. At the beginning of July, air temperatures increased rapidly, reaching a peak on 3 July, when daily maximum air temperature records were set at 23 monitoring stations. In the following days in the 1st ten-day period of July the average air temperature fluctuated, some days being several degrees below normal, but in the 2nd and 3rd ten-day period the air temperature increased and the remainder of July was steadily above normal, in Ainaži even a week-long heat wave was registered, and on the night of 20 July a tropical night was observed in Mersrags. The average air temperature in July was +18.9 °C, which is 1.1 °C above normal. In August, the weather was mostly cooler than normal, although some days were warm. The 3rd ten-day period of the month was particularly cool – the average air temperature for several days was even below +12.0 °C, which is about 4.0 °C below normal. Although the air temperature increased at the very end of August, August with an average air temperature of +15.9 °C was 1.0 °C colder than normal and became the coldest in this century (including 2012).

The summer of 2025, with a total rainfall of 272.6 mm, was 22% wettier than the normal (222.6 mm), becoming the wettest summer since 2016. Only at some stations the summer was drier than normal. However, in most of Latvia this summer was wetter than usual, especially in the eastern part of the country. In Gulbene the summer was the wettest with total precipitation of 414.0 mm or 88% above the station seasonal norm. In Stendē 20%, Rēzekne 25%, Dobele 15%, Priekuļi 26% above the norm.

The beginning of June was very humid throughout Latvia, in many observation stations in the 1st ten-day period the amount of precipitation was twice or even three times greater than the ten-day period norm, and on average the ten-day period was 123% wetter than the norm. In the 2nd and 3rd ten-day period of June, rainfall was less in most of the country, but in the eastern part of the country, especially in eastern Vidzeme and Latgale, rainfall was frequent. The first two days of July were without precipitation throughout the country, and also on 3 and 4 July significant precipitation (at least 1 mm) was observed only at selected stations. However, after that the wet weather returned, the most precipitation was observed in eastern Vidzeme and Latgale. On July 9–11, 85.4 mm of rain fell in Madona, which already exceeds the station’s monthly norm of 67.4 mm. However, also elsewhere in Latvia days with intense precipitation were observed in July – in Kalnciems on July 16 (51.1 mm), in Liepaja on July 20 (39.3 mm), in Stendē on July 23 (39.1 mm). At the end of July and the beginning of August a lot of precipitation was observed in the middle of Kurzeme and Zemgale – especially on 30 July, when the precipitation in Dobele, Kuldīga and Stendē exceeded 30.0 mm, and in Saldus 52.9 mm fell during the day. The night to 1 August was also rainy, in Riga the precipitation amount reached 41.7 mm, while on 4 August in Gulbene it fell 49.4 mm in two hours. In the middle of August, rainfall ceased in most of the country, while at the end of August rainy weather returned to Kurzeme and the surroundings of Riga.

June and July were both wet. In June, the total precipitation in Latvia reached 91.1 mm, which is 30% above the norm, and in July – 107.0 mm, which is 41% above the norm. August with 73.9 mm was the only summer month that was drier than normal (4% below normal), albeit only slightly.

4. Results

A medium-late red table beet variety Kestrel, which is perfectly suited to Latvian climatic conditions and has proven itself well in Estonia. Beetroot of the Kestrel variety has neat, round roots. Beetroot has good taste properties and can be used both fresh and processed. Vegetables are well suited for both transport and storage.

The use of basic fertilizer provides 4-33% higher yields. The proportion of large beet was higher in fertilized varieties. On average, the total number of beet roots (51-55 pcs.) in the unfertilized variants was higher in the repeat. Significantly higher yields were obtained when using the bioproduct without fertilizer.

When analyzing the average sample (medium size roots), it is shown that in the fertilized variants, using the bioproduct, significantly higher root weight was obtained, but in the unfertilized, using the bioproduct 0.2 L ha-1. Similar results are shown by the analysis of the average sample sheet length. The sugar content of beet roots was equivalent in all variants.

For objective evaluation of the bio-product, the trials need to be continued, because one year results give an incomplete picture of the effects of the investigated products in different agroclimatic conditions.

Table 4.1

Table beet root harvest, Stendes PC, 2025.

Table 3
VariantTable beet yield, t ha-1Table beet yield, t ha-1Table beet yield, t ha-1Table beet yield, t ha-1Vid.against K, t ha-1against K, %
NPK 049.4038.0533.7052.3341.36
NPK0 C152.4544.1042.5355.1547.265.900114.3
NPK0 C252.9354.9062.1056.0057.6716.308139.4
NPK72.8350.6056.4858.9355.33
NPK C171.8060.8847.2580.4062.847.508113.6
NPK C268.7053.8062.9862.9859.924.583108.3
RS0.05----13.08113.081-

Table 4.2

Table beet harvest root fractions, Stendes PC, 2025.

Table 4
- Yes, I did. DesignationLargeLargeLargeAverageAverageAverageSmallSmallSmallTotal pcs,Total kg
- Yes, I did. Designationgbkg% of totalgbkg% of totalgbkg% of totalTotal pcs,Total kg
NPK 01.90.7293.919.62.78440.626.90.82355.648.44.337
NPK0 C11.40.6792.720.93.14941.028.61.02856.350.94.856
NPK0 C22.00.9133.622.43.59140.830.51.14455.654.95.648
NPK3.01.4355.924.03.90447.223.90.63246.950.95.971
NPK C13.82.1618.319.63.64743.322.00.70048.545.46.508
NPK C22.41.1844.821.33.41542.526.40.86552.750.15.464

Table 4.3

Average root weight of the sample, Standes PC, 2025.

Table 5
- Yes, I did. DescriptionRoot weight, kg (at harvest, avg. 5 beets)Root weight, kg (at harvest, avg. 5 beets)Root weight, kg (at harvest, avg. 5 beets)Root weight, kg (at harvest, avg. 5 beets)Vid.against K, %against K, kg
NPK 00.2010.160.1560.2190.184
NPK0 C10.2240.2110.2120.2150.216117.10.032
NPK0 C20.2540.2520.2570.2420.251136.50.067
NPK0.2280.2030.2080.1980.209
NPK C10.2990.2810.2570.2980.284135.60.075
NPK C20.2530.3210.2840.3550.303144.90.094
RS0.05------0.036

Table 4.4

Average root diameter of the sample, Stand PC, 2025.

Table 6
- Yes, I did. DescriptionRoot diameter, cm (at harvest, avg. 5 beets)Root diameter, cm (at harvest, avg. 5 beets)Root diameter, cm (at harvest, avg. 5 beets)Root diameter, cm (at harvest, avg. 5 beets)Vid.against K, %against K, cm
NPK 07.36.16.47.46.8
NPK0 C17.47.87.877.5110.30.7
NPK0 C27.16.876.76.9101.50.1
NPK776.67.16.9
NPK C17.57.57.47.67.5108.30.6
NPK C27.17.97.78.37.8111.90.8
RS0.050.577

Table 4.5

Average root sugar content of the sample, Stendes PC, 2025.

Table 7
- Yes, I did. DescriptionBrix, % (at harvest, avg. 5 beets)Brix, % (at harvest, avg. 5 beets)Brix, % (at harvest, avg. 5 beets)Brix, % (at harvest, avg. 5 beets)Vid.against K, %%
NPK 09.110.310.610.810.2
NPK0 C110.711.210.711.711.1108.60.9
NPK0 C21211.110.98.810.7104.90.5
NPK1110.812.112.611.6
NPK C112.51211.611.511.9102.40.3
NPK C2111112.311.511.598.5-0.2
RS0.051.209

Table 4.6

Average sample sheet weight, Stand PC, 2025.

Table 8
- Yes, I did. DescriptionLeaf weight, kg (at harvest, avg. 5 beets)Leaf weight, kg (at harvest, avg. 5 beets)Leaf weight, kg (at harvest, avg. 5 beets)Leaf weight, kg (at harvest, avg. 5 beets)Vid.against K, %against K, kg
NPK 00.0970.0620.0750.0710.076
NPK0 C10.0920.0740.0760.0950.084110.50.008
NPK0 C20.1220.3190.0990.1240.166217.70.090
NPK0.0850.1060.0790.0810.088
NPK C10.1110.1070.1110.1190.112127.60.024
NPK C20.1070.1270.1460.1370.129147.30.042
RS0.05------0.065

Table 4.7

Average sample sheet length, Stand PC, 2025.

Table 9
- Yes, I did. DescriptionLeaf length, cm (at harvest, avg. 5 beets)Leaf length, cm (at harvest, avg. 5 beets)Leaf length, cm (at harvest, avg. 5 beets)Leaf length, cm (at harvest, avg. 5 beets)Vid.against K, %against K, cm
NPK 043.837.241.238.240.1
NPK0 C142.244.046.44744.9112.04.8
NPK0 C241.444.440.24242104.71.9
NPK4144.239.441.641.55
NPK C146.647.44347.246.05110.84.5
NPK C242.646.245.448.645.7110.04.2
RS0.053.40

Field trials manager

Solveiga Maļecka

08.01.2026.