Mechanizing sugarbeet cultivation: Performance assessment of two- and four-row planters

Introduction

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) is the major sugar-producing crop in India; however, in water-scarce and salt-affected regions, sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.), a short-duration crop with comparatively lower water requirements and greater tolerance to salinity, offers considerable potential for diversifying sugar production under tropical and subtropical agro-climatic conditions. It can be cultivated under a range of soil conditions, including salt-affected soils, and provides additional benefits through the utilization of its tops and processing residues as livestock feed and industrial raw materials (Mall et al., 2021; Tayyab et al., 2023) [1,2] . Recent studies have further highlighted the physiological and molecular mechanisms underlying its adaptation to salinity stress (Wang et al., 2024) [3] . Successful sugarbeet cultivation largely depends on uniform crop establishment, optimum plant population and precise seed placement. Since the storage root is the principal economic component, variations in sowing depth, intra-row spacing and inter-row spacing can influence seedling emergence, root development and final yield. Recent research has emphasized the importance of maintaining an appropriate plant population and uniform crop establishment for optimizing sugar yield (Koch et al., 2026) [4] . Consequently, precision sowing is an important prerequisite for achieving higher productivity and efficient resource utilization. Mechanization of sugarbeet planting is particularly important in view of increasing labour shortages, rising operational costs and the need for timely sowing. A suitable planter should ensure uniform seed distribution, accurate sowing depth, appropriate fertilizer placement and consistent row spacing while minimizing seed damage and operational losses. Although precision planters have been developed and evaluated under different agro-climatic conditions, their suitability for Indian farming systems, particularly for sole cropping and intercropping, requires further evaluation (Liu et al., 2022; Panning et al., 2000) [5,6] . Therefore, the present study was undertaken to develop and evaluate tractor-operated sugarbeet planters, namely, (i) a four-row planter for sole-crop cultivation and (ii) a two-row planter for intercropping systems. The developed planters were evaluated under field conditions to assess seed and fertilizer placement accuracy, seed spacing, effective field capacity and field efficiency, with the objective of identifying suitable mechanized planting options for promoting sugarbeet cultivation under Indian agro-climatic conditions.

Materials and Method

Development and description of sugarbeet planters

To address the need for precise sowing and mechanization of sugarbeet cultivation, two tractor-operated sugarbeet planters were developed by Vasantdada Sugar Institute (VSI), Pune, in collaboration with M/s Rohitkrishi Industries, Pune. The first was a four-row planter designed for sole-crop cultivation, while the second was a two-row planter intended for sugarbeet intercropping systems. Both planters were designed to ensure uniform seed distribution, accurate seed placement, appropriate fertilizer application and timely sowing under field conditions. The developed planters were fabricated using mild steel (MS) flats, square sections, pipes, channels and sheets. Both machines were provided with rectangular frames and designed for operation with tractors having a power output of more than 35 HP. The planters were at-tached to the tractor through a three-point linkage system. A centrally positioned ground wheel of 0.27 m diameter, located at the rear of the machine, was provided to drive the seed and fertilizer metering mechanisms. The four-row planter had overall dimensions of 2150 × 1350 × 1200 mm (L × W × H), whereas the two-row planter measured 1800 × 1350 × 1200 mm. The four-row planter was equipped with four adjustable ridger-cum-leveler type tynes, while the two-row planter had two adjustable tynes of similar design. Both planters were provided with two adjustable ridgers to facilitate proper ridge formation and field preparation during sowing operations.

Seed and fertilizer metering mechanisms

Both planters were equipped with individual seed boxes corresponding to the number of planting rows, comprising four seed boxes in the four-row planter and two in the two-row planter. A cell-feed type seed metering mechanism was incorporated to ensure controlled and uniform seed distribution along the rows. Similarly, individual fertilizer boxes (four and two, respectively) were provided with a fluted-wheel type fertilizer metering mechanism to facilitate uniform fertilizer application during sowing. The metering mechanisms were groundwheel driven to synchronize seed and fertilizer delivery with the forward movement of the planter.

Result and Discussion

The field performance of the developed four-row and two-row sugarbeet planters was evaluated using variety SZ-35 under medium black soil conditions at operational area of Baramati Agro, Ltd., Unit No. 1, Taluka Baramati, District Pune, Maharashtra. The four-row planter was evaluated for sole-crop cultivation, whereas the two-row planter was evaluated for intercropping. The major field observations recorded during the evaluation are presented in Table 2. The four-row planter operated at an average speed of 1.91 km h -1 and recorded an effective field capacity of 0. 30 ha h -1 , compared with 2.17 km h -1 and 0.30 ha h -1 , respectively, for the two-row planter. The corresponding theoretical field capacities were 0.43 and 0.40 ha h -1 , resulting in field efficiencies of 69.82% and 74.63%, respectively. The higher field efficiency of the two-row planter may be attributed to its comparatively higher operating speed and lower theoretical capacity relative to the four-row configuration. The effective field capacity was similar for both planters despite differences in operating speed and row spacing, indicating satisfactory field utilization under the tested conditions. Seed placement depth was 2.42 cm with the four-row planter and 2.57 cm with the two-row planter, while fertilizer was placed at depths of 2.77 and 2.71 cm, respectively. The relatively small differences in seed placement depth indicate consistent performance of the seed placement units in both planter configurations. Appropriate sowing depth is essential for uniform emergence and establishment of sugarbeet, particularly because variations in seed placement can influence emergence uniformity and subsequent plant development. Paltik et al. (2005) reported that seed-placement quality is an important criterion for evaluating sugarbeet precision planters.

The row-to-row spacing was 45 cm in the four-row planter and 50 cm in the two-row planter. The difference reflects the respective configurations adopted for sole-crop and intercropping systems. The average seed-to-seed spacing was 11.94 cm for the four-row planter and 11.57 cm for the two-row planter. The close seed-to-seed spacing values indicate that both cell-feed metering systems provided relatively consistent seed delivery under field conditions. Uniform within-row seed spacing is an important consideration in sugarbeet production because plant population and spatial uniformity influence individual root development and final crop productivity. Panning et al. (2000) [6] emphasized the importance of assessing seed-spacing uniformity under actual field conditions when evaluating sugarbeet planters. The fertilizer placement depths of 2.77 cm for the four-row planter and 2.71 cm for the two-row planter were also comparable. This indicates that the fluted-wheel fertilizer metering and placement systems functioned consistently during field operation. Proper synchronization of seed and fertilizer placement is desirable for achieving uniform crop establishment while ensuring efficient utilization of applied nutrients. Overall, the developed planters demonstrated satisfactory field performance in terms of seed placement depth, seed-to-seed spacing, fertilizer placement, operating speed, field capacity and field efficiency. The four-row planter, with 45-cm row spacing, showed suitability for mechanized sole-crop sugarbeet sowing, whereas the two-row planter, with 50-cm row spacing, provided a suitable configuration for sugarbeet intercropping. The results demonstrate the feasibility of using the developed planters for timely and precision-oriented sugarbeet establishment under field conditions.

Conclusion

The developed sugarbeet planters demonstrated satisfactory performance in terms of seed and fertilizer placement, row spacing and field capacity, thereby reducing labour requirements and facilitating mechanized cultivation. The four-row planter is suitable for sole cropping, while the two-row planter is suitable for sugarbeet-based intercropping systems. Further evaluation under different soil types, field conditions and operating speeds is recommended to optimize performance and assess their wider applicability. necessary support and facilities for conducting the field trials. The authors also appreciate the cooperation of all those who contributed to the successful completion of this research.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe authors sincerely acknowledge the Hon. Director General, Vasantdada Sugar Institute (VSI), for providing institutional support and guidance. The authors gratefully acknowledge the FAO-NRAA, New Delhi, for financial assistance to carry out this research project. Special thanks are extended to Baramati Agro Ltd. for providing the

References

1. Mall AK, Misra V, Santeshwari, Pathak AD, Srivastava S. Sugar beet cultivation in India: Prospects for bio-ethanol production and value-added co-products. Sugar Tech. 2021;23:1218-1234.
2. Tayyab M, Wakeel A, Mubarak MU, Artyszak A, Ali S, Hakki EE, Mahmood K, Song B, Ishfaq M. Sugar beet cultivation in the tropics and subtropics: Challenges and opportunities. Agronomy. 2023;13(5):1213.
3. Wang Y, Liu H, Wang M, Liu J, Geng G, Wang Y. Salt tolerance in sugar beet: From impact analysis to adaptive mechanisms and future research. Plants. 2024;13(21):3018.
4. Koch HJ, Grunwald D, Hoffmann CM. Sugar beet response to varied plant populations-Current and historic trial results. Agronomy Journal. 2026;118(2):e70350.
5. Liu N, Zhang W, Lu B, Liu X. The operation efficiency and configuration of sugar beet production machines. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin. 2022;38(2):119-123.
6. Panning JW, Kocher MF, Smith JA, Kachman SD. Laboratory and field testing of seed spacing uniformity for sugarbeet planters. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 2000;16(1):7-13.
7. Brar N, et al. Agronomy of Sugarbeet Cultivation-A Review. Agricultural Reviews. 2015;36(3):184-197.
8. Elbanna EB, et al. Development of Planting and Harvesting Sugarbeet Crop Machine. J. Soil Sci. & Agric. Res. 2010;1(8):895-919.
9. Findura P, et al. Evaluation of the work quality of the sugarbeet planter in the relation to the sugarbeet seed parameters. RES.AGR. ENG. 2008;54(3):148-154.
10. James K, Miller S. Comparision of sugarbeet planters and planting depth with two sugarbeet varieties. J. of Sugarbeet Research. 1989;36(3&4):10-16.
11. Παλτικ J, Nozdrovicky L, Findura P, Maga J. Quality of the seed placing in seeding of sugar beet. Research in Agricultural Engineering. 2005;51(1):33-38.
12. Tugrul K, et al. Seed drilling distances application in sugarbeet cultivation. African J. of Agril. Research. 2012;7(28):4110-4117.
13. Verma A, et al. Modification and evaluation of tractor-operated broad bed seed drill for soybean. Journal of Progressive Agriculture. 2015;6:57-60.