Talk:Sugar beet

Who was the biggest producer?
"... By 1837, France was the largest sugar beet producer in the world, a position it continued to hold in the world in 2010. By 1837, there were 542 factories in France, producing 35,000 tonnes of sugar. By 1880, Germany became the largest sugar beet to sugar producer in the world.[7]..."

Do you mean France was the biggest producer of the sugar beet as a crop while Germany had the largest processed sugar output from its factories? Rewriting of this sentence may do good to make it clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.143.204 (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me?
Alright, guys, decent article but what is with this line:

Too much chemistry
Shimmin, you've rewritten it a lot and it is now probably too specialised. We are not here to write a text bok on the chemistry of sugar beet processing. You have also removed the sense of Milk of lime and Carbon Dioxide being added simultaneously to the raw juice which is the case in most UK and USA processing. GraemeLeggett 08:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * My handbook indicates a residence time of 5-15 minutes in two liming stages before the first carbonation. As for the chemistry, I don't feel that it is any more specialized than other technical info that was here before I got here (residence time in the diffuser, names and geometries of specific versions of the diffusion stage ...), and I do feel the mention of what compounds the carbonatation process knocks out adds value to the interested, and is brief enough that the disinterested can gloss onward.  But as always, if you disagree, be bold. Shimmin 12:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds like either the DDS or RT liming schemes, see Carbonatation where the chemistry would be better served. GraemeLeggett 12:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Europe and Ukraine"???
Ukraine is a country in Europe, the sentence makes no sense. Like saying "USA and California". /Grillo 10:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree, that does not make sense at all. I guess Europe meant to be EU. Solarapex 17:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you cook and eat them?
Can you cook and eat sugar beets? Or do they not taste good? Are they sweeter then regular beets? 71.199.123.24 06:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * They cook into a brownish green/black mush that you can cook with fresh water into Molasses and then into syrup and brown sugar that will crystallize on the rim. It will stink like hell!!  And molasses and the homemade syrup contain bitter substances that are not everyone's cup of tea.  --76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My grandmother was born in what's now Ukraine, near Kyiv, and was brought to the US as a baby. When I was young, she told me that she'd learned from her Grandmother that the family had lived in Sugar Beet country, and that during the harvest, they'd bake the beets and eat them as a desert as they came out with a pudding-like texture.  JDZeff (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Must be a different variety from the ones we get in the UK. I chop them up, boil them for 15 minutes and eat them as a vegetable. Although they look rather like parsnips they aren't floury but have a firm flesh like beetroot. They taste like beetroot too but are much sweeter. They don't turn into a mush and don't smell at all. Maybe they would if I cooked them a lot longer. However, while the current crop around here is very tasty, they can be tough and fibrous. That may depend on the variety or whether they have completed their growing season. See also http://www.pfaf.org/user/Plant.aspx?LatinName=Beta+vulgaris+altissima Brumel (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Subsidies in the EU
There should be something about the subsidies of sugar beet production in the EU. They were either severely curtailed, or ended, such that a decision was taken in Ireland to end the entire sugar beet production in the country in 2006.

So sad, Siucra (Irish sugar brand omnipresent in Ireland, and "sugar" in the Irish language) will just be imported now. More pollution from shipping goods from abroad. Woohoo!

zoney ♣ talk 22:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it's a trade-off - less pollution form the more energy intensive processing of sugar beet cf sugar cane; more money to third world producers, less agricultural subsidies paid out by EU taxpayers etc... Lisiate 01:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sugar beet processing is extremely fuel efficient; energy costs dictate this. Beet is important as a root crop in a arable rotation cycle and the byproducts can be used as animal feed. Lime waste is used to improve soils. Farm subsidies are a complex issue but have their use. GraemeLeggett 08:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A similar thing happened in Canada. Many beet piling stations are now converted to lots to build manufactured homes, and most of the plants dismantaled for scrapmetal.-JWGreen 04:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sugarbeet, use as cattle feed
Use of sugarbeet pulp as cattle feed is mentioned. I would like to know if whole beet is used as cattle feed. What is the experience in using whole beet as cattle feed. Pros and cones of using whole beet as cattle feed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.8.137.178 (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Sugar Beets Vs Suger Cane
Which is a better crop in terms of work needed to cultivate to suger output? I hope thats sensical.--Doom Child 01:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't grow cane in the same locations as beets so the question doesn't make all that much sense. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Last paragraph - names
I recommend against including the names of heads of USDA research stations, as they may be temporary and reassigned. There are not links to the stations themselves.--Parkwells (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Use in fertilisers
I have seen two types of liquid plant foods that contain sugar beet as an ingredient. Anybody got any info on this that can go in the article? Campestre (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find any definitive source, but I am guessing that the fertilizer uses byproducts of the sugar processing as a base for the fertilizer. -JWGreen (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See Vinasse 76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement too localized
This statement should be reworded or removed. ''In the Netherlands this period is known as "de bietencampagne", a time to be careful when driving local roads in the area the beets are grown. The reason for this is the naturally high clay content of the soil, causing slippery roads when soil falls from the trailers during transport.'' In Germany this period is known as Zuckerrübenkampagne requires just as careful driving as in the Netherlands because the roads don't get any less slippery than there. I bet other European nations have terms for the period in their own languages and dirty roads are not that uncommon with this type of crop. We could rephrase it more generally and leave out the Dutch name or add a list of local names in various languages at the bottom.
 * Comments or suggestions, please 76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture of the Shropshire Sugar Beet Factory
I would recommned this be removed as it stopped production some years ago and has now been demolished —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.184.49 (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Road De-Icing?
Should a section be added on the use of Sugar Beet syrup to de-ice roads? Aristotle28 (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Beet sugar vs cane sugar: taste and cooking properties
I have heard that cane sugar tastes different to some people and has different properties when caramelizing or baking. A quick google turns up , although that's not a primary source. Will someone who knows the facts add them to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.167.150.33 (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How is http://www.sfgate.com/recipes/article/SUGAR-SUGAR-Cane-and-beet-share-the-same-2939081.php for a source? 207.237.218.17 (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Monsanto Roundup
There's a whole section in the article called "Glyphosate". In practice, this means Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.
 * False statement. Glyphosate is now off patent and is made by hundreds of companies.Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Monsanto also commercializes genetically modified sugar beets, resistant to their Roundup herbicide. The section gives the impression genetically modified sugar beets requires less herbicide (Glyphosate). Articles dispute this:


 * The most striking finding is that GM crops have been responsible for an increase of 383 million pounds of herbicide use in the U.S. over the first 13 years of commercial use of GM crops (1996-2008).report gm pesticide use

I'm wondering whether one could take a close look at the "Glyphosate" section, and find out whether this is a mere description of the facts, or a company PR exercise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.225.212.147 (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Soil
The article states that sugar beets need a lot of "plant food". I suppose that means fertilizer (but which kind? e.g. more or less rich in potassium?), but the wording is strange... it doesn't seem like such a good idea to copy the text verbatim from Rolph's book. And the text is somewhat self-contradictory, listing the property of retaining a great deal of moisture along the "most important requirement" (shouldn't that be "requirements", looking at the structure of the sentence?), and then stating that "the physical character is of secondary importance". Don't you think that a property of retaining a great deal of moisture is part of the physical character of a soil? Icek (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Monsanto as a source?!
According to the rules of Wikipedia, I don't see how monsanto.com can be used as a reliable source of information? (or any other company for that manner)

"most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources


 * A company's website is often the best source of information about a given product especially if it is simple factual information. There is no bar to using it for that sort of thing.  For more elaborate, evaluative statements, still OK but is best balanced by other sources.  The main point is that a normal sane person who said "really?" or "i would like to know more about that" can go to the source to verify or learn more.. and that should be a source that a normal, sane person would find a useful source of information.  Again, marketing material saying how great a product would not be credible, but simple factual information would be, to most people.Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

So, should more or all of the monsanto references be removed or replaced with reliable sources? I think the one from Michigan Sugar Company cannot be reliable either?
 * You have already removed them. Bad form to remove them and then ask if it is OK.  By the way in general if you can find better (for example, more believable, more objective, more detailed) sources than ones that are already on the page you are always free to add them and even to replace poorer sources with better ones.Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I removed some but not all. I removed the ones that were blatantly (potentially) biased. Perhaps more should go, but I understand your point above, although apart from facts like we sell xyz for xx$, company websites very quickly start praising their product or service (as one would naturally expect). Plmoknqwerty (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Interested to know what others think? Plmoknqwerty (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What specific issue do you have with these sources?--Asher196 (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Companies and even government linked agencies tend to be propagandist and therefore not a reliable source. Plmoknqwerty (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I went through the article and reviewed sourcing.  Some of it was indeed bad IMO.  Fixed some.  Needs more work.Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is that it does not follow the rules of Wikipedia. I think the rules are there to stop companies promoting themselves and providing biased information. Unfortunately, that is what this article does to quite a large extent. Even government agencies nowadays are highly influenced by multinational companies and therefore them as a reliable source is also questionable. Plmoknqwerty (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Plant origins
Where did sugar beets originate from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.225.169 (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Misleading Map
The map image "Sugar beet output in 2009" is misleading. It appears to indicate that the US sugar beet production is centered around the East Coast, although it is in fact predominately Northern. The map should be corrected or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpareShoes (talk • contribs) 03:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is only one map this one. It shows no sugar beet production on the East coast -- it is all on the upper great plains.  Not sure what your objection is.... Jytdog (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Unique climate ?
The fact that this plant is successfully grown in Wisconsin, California, England, Poland and Turkey surely makes the statement that it requires a "unique climate" to be completely nonsense. It has some specific climatic requirements, but those criteria can be met with a wide range of climate types  and not some specific "unique" climate. Tallewang (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

what is this?
In the History|United States section, there is this phrase "...the foul tasting free sugar from Asia". What does this refer to? What does "free" mean? 101.117.12.165 (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * that is a great question - thanks for asking! The source provided explains that "Free sugar" was made from sugar cane grown without slavery (kind of like we talk about "Fair trade coffee" and the like today).  The source also says that it tasted "awful".  The source doesn't say why.  I found this ref (http://www.cambridge.org/us/books/kiple/sugar.htm) that says that at that time, sugar was often contaminated by sea water during long ocean voyages;  could also be because it was not fully refined and still had molasses in it.  Not clear why. Jytdog (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Material removed
The following discussion of Glyphosate was removed with the edit summary "sources are neither scientific nor reliable. pls discuss on Talk page if you feel strongly per WP:BRD."
 * The substance has been marketed as harmless, but scientists have described the long term toxicity of Glyphosate to be "worse than that of DDT" and several non-industry studies indicate this severity . The industrial claim that glyphosate is non-bioaccumulative is contradicted but the fact that glyphosate is found in Mother's milk Studies showing glyphosate as relatively safe have all been short term studies, but this short term study indicate altered reproductivity in mammals . Still other publications appear as advertising disguised as science.

The blanket dismissal of all the sources as unscientific is not justified, and I've just used one of them as an addition to the Glyphosate page. It is both reliable and scientific, and gets to the heart of a serious issue here in wikipedia and elsewhere, that any criticism of Glyphosate is routinely suppressed. Unfortunately, because of the vigorous suppression at Glyphosate, it is not possible to point to that page for further information. I agree that some of the sources are secondary, and that in an ideal world a lengthy discussion of Glyphosate would not belong on the Sugar beet page, but a total revert is not justified.

Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, you seem to be very interested in glyphosate! Please know that any information you add added to wikipedia about health, needs to be supported by sources that comply with our guideline for health-related sources: WP:MEDRS. I encourage you to read that guideline, since you are defending these edits that do not comply with it.
 * Your source 1 is a radio segment (audio) from Food Integrity Now which is anti-GMO activist site. the segment is an interview with Don Huber, whose research is not accepted in the mainstream scientific community.  This is not a reliable source under WP:RS and MEDRS.
 * source 2 is a) WP:PRIMARY which is the key problem under both WP:RS and more so under WP:MEDRS and b) it was rejected by the scientific community
 * Source 3 has been reviewed and is also not a reliable source, see discussion here
 * Source 4 is http://sustainablepulse.com/ which is not a reliable source per WP:MEDRS
 * source 5 is WP:PRIMARY which is the key problem under WP:RS and more so under WP:MEDRS
 * Source 6 is a valid source. Your The content, " Still other publications appear as advertising disguised as science." is reverted because it violates the policy, WP:OR Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC) (correct attributions per my comment below Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC))
 * note, correcting text above. i assumed that  was the one who added the content he/she is defending, but it was added by someone else in this dif.  i corrected my comment above. my apologies! Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, being anti GMO is accepted beyond fringe. Also, though it is not easy to find realiably sourced information about Don Huber, there are suggestions that he has some notability.  GMO is not essential.  It is a further expansion of industrial farming, and being against that is sensible.  Mainstream is usually the primary topic, but opposing that alone does not equate fringe theory or reflect notability.  It's not even scientific.  GMO practice is the leading excuse for suicide in the world.  I don't see any GMO trees in the barren desert, but I've seen non GMO ones, only that humans destroy them again.  GMO crop areas are producing mega bugs.  Anyone using the three sisters?  Nah.  They are combine harvesting and asking where the jobs are at.  Being anti GMO is sensible.  ~ R.T.G 22:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Mainstream science says that currently marketed food from GMOs is as safe as food from conventional or organic sources. A stance that says they are not is by definition WP:FRINGE (as that is defined in Wikipedia)  Nobody is saying GMOs are essential.   Huber was an accomplished scientist before he retired and went off the deepend with these "electon microscope organisms".  tinfoil hat stuff as of today.  Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and such statements are why we do not rely on the primary source. They could have said, "We've done nothing with this GMO but create misery and profits, though we swore we'd fix the whole world."  And totally left it with that.  Nobody is ringing in their joy at GMO who isn't getting money from it, or just rings in their joy at science anyway, religiously.  In the countries it is most prolific, outside the US granted, they are making it illegal it is so good.  But now that's way off topic.  I just wanted to see a little bit more than labelling, to support why the source was fringe or whatever.  I just want to point out that being anti-GMO has nothing to do with the reliability of a source.  Only the misled want to eat plastic.  Let's see anti-GMO as political, and establish the fringe nature with something else.  I could fill this page with reasonable arguments about GMOs, so let's see something more concrete, or, like it or not, the guys say actually has merit, even if it is only a small little merit that some don't understand.  Antithesis is part of thesis when it's done properly.  Maybe I should try and get involved in the content debate, but I just want to see better than, "They don't like GMOs, therefore are not scientific".  The guy is an emeritus at one of the better known unis.  If he was an idiot, they'd sack him.  I can't find a lot in support of Huber, but I can't find much saying that he's totally off base either.  And I expect it to be established that he is fringe, but not simply by pointing out he is against GMOs.  ~ R.T.G 07:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Overcoverage
What area or areas do you think are overcovered? AIR corn (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The section "Culture" seems to only reference US examples. → Aza Toth 16:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Article neglects its import in Asian Far East...
Both Japan and Korean are large producers. Apparently up to 75% of Japanese Sugar is produced from Sugar Beets. 82.30.84.177 (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sugar beet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6Fu9TOBWl?url=http://www.plantnames.unimelb.edu.au/Sorting/Beta.html to http://www.plantnames.unimelb.edu.au/Sorting/Beta.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090120002450/https://sugarbeet.ucdavis.edu/sbchap.html to http://sugarbeet.ucdavis.edu/sbchap.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713020710/http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx to http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130114151638/http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567 to http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/43/executivesummary/default.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Creation
Creation was tagged in 2014, with a note that there is a discussion here. I see no discussion? Is there one here? What is the problem? If none, can tag be removed? Telecine Guy (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Removed. — Spike  Toronto  02:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Beta Vulgaris v.vulgaris?
Both the Manglewurzel and Sugar Beet claim this as their full name, but the intro to manglewurzel indicates they are distinct. Can someone please clarify this?
 * The full name of Sugar beet is "Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris Altissima Group". The full name of Mangelwurzel is "Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris Crassa Group". Both are different cultivars of the subsp. vulgaris.. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Ukraine?
By the 1850s, sugar beet production had reached Russia and Ukraine. This was made possible by the protection of the sugar beet industry by bounties, or subsidies, paid to beet sugar producers upon the export of their sugar by their respective governments

Totally misleading PC crap. Effective 1850s, Ukraine IS Russia. More, it does not have any separate "government". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Антон васильков (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Move section about producing sugar from sugar beets
I plan to create a page called Beet sugar factory. It would be the logical place for the whole section about producing sugar from sugar beets. This also goes for the by-products that are made in such a sugar factory. However, I'll first update the section as it is on this page.Grieg2 (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)