Next Article in Journal
Impact of Key Agronomic Traits on Economic Yield Traits in Anhui Rice (Oryza sativa L. spp. japonica)
Previous Article in Journal
Light Intensity Affects Growth and Nutrient Value of Hydroponic Barley Fodder
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Influence of Organic Humic Fertilizer “Tumat” on the Productivity of Sugar Beet

by
Beibut Suleimenov
1,*,
Gulmira Kaisanova
2,
Mariya Suleimenova
3,* and
Samat Tanirbergenov
1
1
U.U. Uspanov Kazakh Research Institute of Soil Science and Agrochemistry, Al-Farabi Ave., 75 B, Almaty 050060, Kazakhstan
2
Thalamus Iesg Group Ithalat Ihracat Limited Şirketi, Cevizlik Mah, İstanbul Cad, 21, İstanbul 34142, Türkiye
3
Department of Chemistry, Chemical Technology and Ecology, Almaty Technological University, Tole bi Street, 100, Almaty 050012, Kazakhstan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2024, 14(6), 1100; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14061100
Submission received: 20 March 2024 / Revised: 27 April 2024 / Accepted: 13 May 2024 / Published: 22 May 2024

Abstract

:
The production of sugar beet in the Republic of Kazakhstan is insufficient to meet the domestic sugar needs of the population. This shortfall is attributed to the natural and climatic conditions, the high cost of production, and the low use of mineral fertilizers. The objective of the study is to investigate the impact of the organic humic fertilizer “Tumat” on the growth, development, yield, and sugar content of sugar beet in the conditions of irrigated light chestnut soils in Southeast Kazakhstan. Scientific research confirms the effectiveness of using the organic humic fertilizer Tumat for cultivating sugar beets. This fertilizer is highly bioavailable and contains a balanced mix of essential macronutrients and micronutrients, polyunsaturated fatty acids, and other biologically active substances. Foliar feeding of sugar beets enriches the soil with exchangeable potassium, mobile phosphorus, and easily hydrolyzable nitrogen during the plant’s vegetative period. Using the Tumat fertilizer enhances plant germination rates by 6.0–16.0%, stimulates growth and development, accelerates the ripening of sugar beets, and increases the yield of tubers by 10.5–15.2%, sugar content by 0.4–0.7%, and sugar output by 13.6–20.8%. An organic humic fertilizer, is recommended as an environmentally safe and effective agricultural product that boosts the productivity and quality of sugar beets, as well as soil fertility.

1. Introduction

The eradication of hunger, food insecurity, and all forms of malnutrition is one of humanity’s greatest challenges. This situation is exacerbated by the increase in the world’s population up to eight billion people in 2022 [1]. Thus, it is essential to adopt modern agricultural practices capable of meeting this demand for food, using more sustainable approaches that reduce soil degradation and water contamination [2,3]. Plant biostimulants such as amino acids and humic acids are among the most effective approaches in this regard [4,5,6].
Humic substances (HSs) are materials derived from the decomposition of plant, animal, and microbial residues and from the metabolic activity of soil microorganisms, corresponding to approximately 80% of soil organic matter (SOM), and they are also found in aquatic environments and the atmosphere [7]. These compounds are known to have biostimulant properties and are used by farmers to reduce the use of agrochemicals and more efficiently use nutrients to achieve more sustainable food production [8].
The total global sugar production exceeds 131 million tons, with 98 million tons from sugarcane (74.8%) and 33 million tons from sugar beet (25.2%). The leading producers of sugarcane are Brazil (27.7 million tons), India (19.9 million tons), China (9.7 million tons), and the USA (2.2 million tons). For sugar beet, the top producers include the USA (4.6 million tons), Germany (4.3 million tons), France (4.2 million tons), Russia (2.3 million tons), Poland (2.0 million tons), Turkey, and Ukraine (1.9 million tons). The average yield of tubers worldwide is 34.3 t/ha, while in highly developed agricultural countries like France, the USA, Germany, and Italy, yields range from 50 to 60 t/ha. The average yield of sugar beets in Russia is 17.8 t/ha, reaching up to 30 t/ha in the Krasnodar Krai, Kursk, and Belgorod regions, and some farms achieve yields of 40–50 t/ha [9]. Sugar beet is one of the primary industrial crops that yields carbohydrate-rich tubers. The tubers of sugar beet contain 16–20% sucrose. With a high yield of beet roots (40–50 t/ha), the sugar harvest can reach 7–8 t/ha or more.
A crucial component of the food security of any country is ensuring the population’s access to sugar through domestic production.
In 2004, Kazakhstan had 22.3 thousand hectares dedicated to sugar beet farming. By 2022, this area had decreased by more than half due to the unstable nature of sugar beet-cultivation areas, which can be attributed to climatic conditions and the high cost of production. Despite this reduction in farming area, sugar beet yield in Kazakhstan significantly increased, from 19.74 to 34.14 tons per hectare between 2004 and 2022, marking a 2.5-fold increase. The highest sugar beet yield was recorded in the Zhetysu region, reaching 40.97 tons per hectare, followed by the Almaty region with 27.89 tons per hectare, and the Zhambyl region with 27.63 tons per hectare. However, the current production levels of sugar beet are not sufficient to meet the domestic sugar needs of the country. Presently, 52% of sugar in Kazakhstan is produced from imported raw sugar, 42% of white sugar is directly imported, and only 5% is produced from local sugar beet [10,11].
Addressing the challenges of efficient development in the sugar industry can be achieved by improving the quality of sugar beet seeds and root crops, diversifying production to expand the range of products, and increasing the resource potential [12]. This includes achieving financial stability for agricultural producers and sugar factories, enhancing the profitability of sugar beet production, expanding the cultivation areas for sugar beets, increasing sugar beet yields through the adoption of modern cultivation technologies, and boosting the gross harvests of factory sugar beets [13].
Sugar beet is considered one of the most demanding crops in terms of soil fertility and is highly responsive to mineral nutrition. Optimal results in sugar beet cultivation can only be achieved with high agricultural standards in all fields of crop rotation [14]. One widely used element in modern sugar beet cultivation worldwide is the application of foliar fertilization with complex fertilizers containing macro- and micronutrients in a biologically active form. Foliar fertilization enhances crop productivity, improves water management, enhances the physicochemical properties of the soil, and activates microbial activity, contributing to overall soil fertility improvement.
To realize the potential of sugar beets in the zonal adaptive-landscape farming system, the introduction of new innovative chemical agents, including humic fertilizers with a broad spectrum of action, is necessary [15,16,17]. These fertilizers contain humic acids, fulvic acids, salts of these acids (humates and fulvates), as well as humins-stable compounds of humic and fulvic acids with soil minerals. The application of humic preparations contributes to quality improvement, ensures the ecological cleanliness of products, and enhances the efficiency of mineral and organic fertilizers, leading to reduced production costs [18].
The salts of humic and fulvic acids enhance the absorption of oxygen in plant cells, stimulate the formation of the root system, increase the permeability of the cell membrane, activate enzymes, improve plant respiration, and enhance the uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, iron, and plant resistance to a wide range of adverse factors (pesticides, frost, drought, increased soil salinity) [19,20].
Humic preparations contribute to the increase in soil biological activity, which is influenced by the hydrothermal regime of the soil, pH value, organic matter and nutrient availability, microbial population, and enzyme pool [20]. Soil biological activity can be assessed by the intensity of carbon dioxide (CO2) emission, enzyme activity, microbial population, their various groups, and other indicators [19].
The application of humic fertilizers to the soil leads to increased microbiological activity both during the year of application and in subsequent periods. There is an overall increase in the microbial population and specific groups. Humic fertilizers have the most significant impact on nitrogen-fixing, ammonifying, and nitrifying bacteria, cellulose-degrading and oil-acid bacteria, as well as soil microfungi [21].
Research has shown that humic preparations influence the microbial population in the soil not only when directly applied to the soil but also when used in the treatment of growing plants. In a field experiment on chernozem soil, treating maize seeds with lignohumate before sowing and treating the growing plants stimulated the growth and development of microscopic fungi by 54.8% and bacteria by 39.0%, and for soybeans, the growth was 146.0% for microscopic fungi and 25.4% for bacteria [22].
The combined impact of the humic preparation “Bio-Don” on the soil and wheat plants during the tillering and shooting stages provides maximum stimulation of the soil microflora, fungi, and cellulose-degrading actinomycetes by 150% [23]. The stress-protective role of humic preparations for the microbial community in the rhizosphere has also been observed. When wheat is exposed to humic preparations, the activity of invertase increases during the shooting phase. Humic preparations enhance the mobilization of phosphorus and increase grain yield, attributed to the enhancement of soil biological activity.
In crop production, humic fertilizers are employed as growth stimulators, leading to increased grain yields by 20–30%, vegetables and potatoes by 25–50%, and fruit-berry crops by 30–40%. The application of humic fertilizers also reduces the growth, development, and ripening periods of crops by 3–12 days, enhances resistance to diseases, weeds, pests, frost, drought, and other adverse factors. Studies have shown that the use of “Biogumat” fertilizer increases wheat seed germination energy and viability by an average of 2.5%. It also boosts plant vegetative mass by 21%, plant height by 23%, and chlorophyll content in wheat seedling tissues by 14%. The anti-stress effect of humic fertilizers has been identified, indicating an increase in the proliferative activity of cells in the primary cortex of wheat embryo roots and stems [24].
Collaborative efforts between scientists from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have led to field trials of the organic humic fertilizer “Tumat” in of the Republic of Uzbekistan, covering an area of 80,681 hectares. The results of these scientific studies have been published in both international and national publications, as well as in materials from international conferences. The impact of the organic humic fertilizer Tumat on the productivity of cereals, legumes, vegetables, industrial crops, and fruit-berry crops has been thoroughly investigated [25,26,27,28,29,30].
In the Republic of Kazakhstan, production trials of the organic humic fertilizer Tumat have been conducted for the cultivation of cereals, legumes, and other crops. Studies on the microflora of light chestnut soil during the cultivation of soybeans and safflower have shown the positive influence of the organic fertilizer Tumat on the content of ammonifiers and actinomycetes, which are activators of soil processes. It was found that actinomycetes of the genus Streptomyces (20 to 30%) predominate, and their presence can serve as an indicator of the influx of slowly decomposable organic matter into the soil [31].
The research indicates that the organic fertilizer Tumat has a positive impact on the properties of ordinary chestnut soil, as well as on the growth, development, and productivity of soybeans. There is a tendency to increase the content of total humus and nitrate nitrogen (N—NO3), the mobility of phosphorus (P2O5), and exchangeable potassium (K2O). Foliar feeding of soybean plants with the Tumat fertilizer increases the number of large nodules on the main root (17.1 pieces/plant) and the mass of nodules (1.20 g/plant) compared to the control. The organic humic fertilizer, by influencing the diversity of soil microorganisms, contributes to the increase in symbiotic nitrogen fixation (11.9 ± 1.7) × 106 CFU/g of soil (CFU—colony-forming units). Double foliar feeding ensures the production of 35.2 quintals/hectare of soybeans, an increase of 11.0 quintals/hectare compared to the control (45.4%), and also increases the protein content (34.81%) and fat content (30.14%) [32]. The effectiveness of foliar feeding with the organic fertilizer Tumat is also confirmed in the cultivation of soybeans and winter wheat in the conditions of light chestnut soils of the Semirechye region [33,34].
The application of the organic humic fertilizer Tumat in rice-swamp soil increases the content of total humus and nitrogen, the mobility of phosphorus and potassium; influences the length of the panicle and grain filling, providing an increase in rice grain yield by 1.3 tons/hectare (36.1%) compared to the control, which yielded 3.6 tons/hectare [35,36].
The combined application of mineral fertilizers (N100P100K100) and the organic humic fertilizer Tumat ensures the highest potato yield at 39.3 tons/hectare, with an increase of 71.2%. In the variant using the organic humic fertilizer Tumat without mineral fertilizers, the potato yield is 26 tons/hectare, showing a yield increase of 13.4% compared to the control [37].
The application of humic substances (HSs) promotes bioactive effects in plants, stimulating growth and development, promoting against biotic and abiotic stresses and increasing agricultural productivity [38].
This article presents the findings of scientific research conducted between 2021 and 2023 under the scientific and technical program “Scientific and Technological Support for the Conservation and Reproduction of the Fertility of Agricultural Lands”, with the program code O.0946, No. 0112PK01718.
The purpose of the study is to examine the impact of the organic humic fertilizer Tumat on the fertility of irrigated light serozem soils and the productivity of sugar beet in the Semirechye region of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The research objectives include:
-
Study the impact of organic humic fertilizer Tumat on the soil content of humus, mobile forms of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, and on the biological activity of the soil.
-
Study the impact of organic humic fertilizer Tumat on the growth and development of sugar beets.
-
Study the impact of organic humic fertilizer Tumat on sugar content and sugar yield.

2. Materials and Methods

Objects of research. Field scientific studies were conducted from 2021 to 2023 at the experimental fields of the “Kaynar Koks” Peasant Farm, located in the Koksu district of the Zhetysu region, Republic of Kazakhstan (44°52′13.5″ N 78°11′11.3″ E).
The Zhetysu region is characterized by different vertical climate zones, vegetation, and consequently, soil cover. Depending on the altitude, various vertical natural zones create different conditions for soil-forming processes. The phenomenon of vertical zoning is associated with the diversity of the region’s soil cover. In the dry, hot, sharply continental Balkhash-Alakol depression and the PriBalkhash desert plain, northern light grey soils are formed, which are the subjects of our scientific research.
The climate of the Koksu district is continental. With average temperatures in January ranging from −9 to −7 °C and in July from 22–24 °C. In some areas, winter temperatures can drop to −35 °C. The annual amount of atmospheric precipitation in the plains is 150–250 mm, and in mountainous areas, it ranges from 400–550 mm.
Culture. Sugar beet was cultivated during field research, hybrid “Viorica KWS”. Originator: KWS SAAT SE, Germany.
The hybrid was tested at the Jambyl Complex State Variety Testing Management in Kazakhstan. The average yield of root crops was 81.6 t/ha, and the sugar yield was 12.91 t/ha.
Organic humic fertilizer Tumat is produced from leonardite brown coal with the addition of sapropel, fish meal and cottonseed cake. The patent RK No. 35883 for the invention “Method of producing organic humic fertilizer” was obtained by authors and right holders G. Kaisanova and B. Suleimenov. An international application No. PCT/2021/000025 was filed on 29 November 2021, titled “Method of obtaining humic fertilizers”. The international publication number is WO 2023/033636 A1, 9 March 2023.
Each component of the Tumat fertilizer is unique in its chemical composition, containing a rich spectrum of biologically active substances necessary for plants in proportions balanced by nature.
The main component of the Tumat fertilizer is leonardite, a natural mineraloid, with a content of humic acids ranging from 65–85%, which is significantly higher compared to other natural sources: black peat—10–40%; sapropel—10–20%; brown coal—10–30%; manure—5–15%; compost—2–5%; soils—1–5%; silt—1–5%; coal—0–1% [39,40].
The fertilizer Tumat also contains sapropel. Sapropel contains water-soluble, easily and difficultly hydrolyzable substances, humic acids (HA), humatomelanic acids (HMA), and fulvic acids (FA) an expanded composition of macro- and microelements in the form of metal-organic complexes [41].
When obtaining the Tumat fertilizer, fish meal was used. Fish meal includes a variety of macro- and microelements: nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, iron, zinc, sodium, as well as animal fats and biologically active substances [42].
Another key component of the Tumat fertilizer is cottonseed cake (kunzhara). Containing 36–38% crude protein and about 5–7% fats, with fiber content ranging from 12–25%. The protein in cottonseed meal includes a significant amount of essential amino acids, with the total amino acids making up 30% of its composition, including 11.4% of essential ones, among which methionine is 0.23% and lysine is 1.31% [43].
Research methods. In the course of scientific research, the generally accepted methods of field experience and laboratory research.
Field research. The study on the impact of the organic humic fertilizer Tumat on the growth, development, and productivity of sugar beet was conducted through field trials following the methodology of F.A. Yudin [44].
The field experiment was conducted between 2021 and 2023 on a mineral basis (N100P135), utilizing ammonium nitrate (N 34%, NH4NO3) and monoammonium phosphate (N 11%, P2O5 46%, NH4H2PO4). Mineral fertilizers were applied to the soil using a cultivator three times before the vegetative irrigation sessions.
A comparative study was conducted on the impact of single and double foliar feeding of sugar beet with the organic humic fertilizer Tumat against a mineral background (N100P135). The foliar feeding was carried out using a trailed sprayer during the 2–3 and 5–6 true leaf stages. To prepare the working solution, 1 L of Tumat liquid organic humic fertilizer was mixed with 200 L of water. The application rate of the working solution was 200 L per hectare.
The field experiment layout is presented in Table 1, detailing the experiment variants and the timing of the sugar beet foliar feeding according to the developmental stages.
The accounting plot area is 120 square meters (10 m wide and 12 m long). The experiment was repeated three times. Sugar beet is a moderately thermophilic crop. Therefore, sugar beet planting was carried out in the first ten days of May. The sowing rate was 15 kg/ha.
For conducting field experiments, the methods of B.A. Dospekhov [45] were used. MS Excel 2019 was utilized for the statistical analysis of the obtained results.
The soil sample chemical analysis was conducted at the accredited laboratory of the U.U. Uspanov Kazakh Research Institute of Soil Science and Agrochemistry. Analytical methods described in the manual for general soil analysis were used to analyze the soil composition [46].
Determination of organic matter (humus) was carried out according to State Standard (StSt) 26213-91 [47]. The method is based on the oxidation of organic matter using a potassium dichromate solution in sulfuric acid, followed by the determination of trivalent chromium equivalent to the content of organic matter, using a photoelectrocolorimeter. Determination of Readily hydrolysable nitrogen the Tyurin-Kononova method. The method is based on treating the soil with a 0.5 N solution of sulfuric acid and determining the total amount of nitrogen that has transferred to the extract. Under these conditions, both mineral nitrogen (NH3, NO3) and nitrogen from easily hydrolysable organic compounds are considered, the latter being a direct source of mineral nitrogen formation. Determination of mobile forms of phosphorus and potassium the Machigin method State Standard 26205-91 [48]. The method is based on extracting mobile phosphorus and potassium compounds from the soil using a 10 g/dm3 ammonium bicarbonate solution with a soil to solution ratio of 1:20. Subsequently, phosphorus is determined as a blue phosphorus-molybdenum complex using a photoelectrocolorimeter, and potassium is measured using a flame photometer. Determination of pH in water to State Standard 26423-85 [49]. The acidity of a solution is determined by hydrogen ions. The pH value of an aqueous solution indicates the actual acidity of the soil. To determine the pH of soil using the potentiometric method, a glass measuring electrode and a silver chloride reference electrode are used. The pH is determined by the difference in potential between the glass electrode and the reference electrode. Determination of Total forms of nitrogen the Kjeldahl method. The essence of the method involves converting organic nitrogen into an ammonium form through the thermal decomposition of a sample with acid. This is followed by the distillation of the resulting mixture with alkali to convert the ammonium nitrogen into ammonia. The ammonia is then absorbed by an aqueous solution and the resulting solution is titrated. Determination of Total forms of phosphorus the Ginzburg-Scheglova method. This method is based on the formation of yellow phosphorus when the sample interacts with sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide. Determination of Total forms of potassium the Smith method. A sample of soil is mixed with chemically pure calcium carbonate and then fused in a platinum crucible. The fused mass is heated on a boiling water bath. Next, 25 mL of 10% ammonium carbonate ((NH4)2CO3) solution is added. The flasks are left on the warm bath for 30 min. The amount of potassium is measured using a flame photometer. Determination of granulometric composition of soil using the Kachinsky method. The pipette method is used in laboratory settings and is based on the principle of sedimentation of soil particles in a solution. A sample is placed in a container with water, followed by stirring and allowing a certain amount of time for the particles to settle. Afterwards, the proportion of each fraction is determined based on the deposited layers.
Soil sampling to State Standard 17.4.3.01-83 [50]. Soil samples are collected at the test site, which consists of two layers, 0–20 cm and 20–40 cm, using the envelope method. A composite sample is created by mixing point samples collected from five different points within the same test site variant. Preparation of soil samples for chemical analysis. A soil sample weighing 600–750 g is mixed on a sheet of clean paper, and any roots, inclusions, and formations are removed. The turf is carefully shaken to remove soil clumps. To determine humus and total nitrogen, the cleaned soil is sifted through a 0.25 mm sieve, and for the determination of mobile forms of macroelements, it is sifted through a 1 mm sieve.
The total microbial count was determined by planting soil suspensions on Petri dishes containing nutrient agar produced by HiMedia Laboratories Pvt. Limited (Chester, PA, USA) according to the experimental variants. The prepared dilutions of the soil suspension were seeded onto Petri dishes. After planting, the dishes were incubated at 27 °C for two days, after which the grown colonies were counted using the EasySpiral Pro® automatic plater from Interscience Int. (Paris, France). The hydrolysis assessment of fluorescein diacetate [3′,6′-diacetylfluorescein (FDA)] was conducted according to the protocol [51].
Chemical Analysis of Organic Humic Fertilizer Tumat: The chemical analysis of the organic humic fertilizer Tumat was conducted in an accredited laboratory Almaty Technological University using standard methods.
The method for determining nitrogen (N) according to State Standard 28743-93 [52] involves heating a fertilizer sample with sulfuric acid in the presence of a mixed catalyst to convert nitrogen into ammonium sulfate. Ammonia is then distilled from the solution with steam after alkalization, absorbed by boric acid, and quantified by titration with sulfuric acid. The total phosphorus (P) content is determined photometrically according to State Standard 26717-85 [53]. The mass fractions of copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), and chromium (Cr) are measured using the atomic absorption method per State Standard 53218-2008 [54]. The mass fraction of calcium (Ca) is determined by the complexometric method according to State Standard 26570-95 [55]. The mass fraction of magnesium is measured by the complexometric method State Standard EN 16198-2016 [56]. Silicon dioxide (SiO2) content is determined by the atomic emission method State Standard 25542.1-2019 [57]. The fatty acid composition was analyzed using the “Kristallux-4000M” (LLC “NPF META-CHROM”, Yoshkar-Ola, Russia) chromatograph. This method involves converting triglycerides of fatty acids into methyl (ethyl) esters of fatty acids and is analyzed by gas chromatography according to State Standard 30418-96 [58].

3. Results

The chemical composition of the organic humic fertilizer Tumat. The chemical analysis of the organic humic fertilizer Tumat revealed the following element contents per 100 g of the product: nitrogen (N)—1.309 g; phosphorus (P)—1.416 g; potassium (K)—3.619 g; calcium (Ca)—1.48 g; magnesium (Mg)—0.47 g; zinc (Zn)—3.018 g; iron (Fe)—0.793 g; copper (Cu)—0.746 g; manganese (Mn)—0.161 g; nickel (Ni)—0.123 g; silicon dioxide (SiO2)—1.039 g (Table 2).
Tumat fertilizer, unlike many humic fertilizers, contains amorphous silicon dioxide in the amount of 1.039 g/100 g (Table 2). The role of silicon (Si) compounds is significant for both soil (contributing to structure formation through organomineral complexes) and plants (strengthening the epidermis walls).
Fatty acid composition of the organic humic fertilizer Tumat. The fatty acids of cottonseed cake also serve another crucial function for the production of the Tumat fertilizer—a stabilizing function, ensuring the stability of dispersed systems. This stability is expressed in maintaining the initial degree of dispersion and the uniform distribution of particles of the dispersed phase in the dispersion medium over time. Therefore, it was important to study the fatty acid composition of the organic humic fertilizer Tumat.
The total fat content in the fertilizer is approximately 1%. Chemically, these are fatty acids of various structures and degrees of saturation (Table 3). The content of unsaturated fatty acids with a hydrocarbon radical length of more than 10 is 13.25% (positions 5, 7, 9, 11–15), which is sufficient to ensure suspension stability.
The stabilizers derived from cottonseed cake do not contain synthetic components, are biodegradable, and environmentally friendly, making them promising for companies aiming for sustainable and environmentally responsible multi-fertilizer production.
Thus, the Tumat humic fertilizer, thanks to its rich composition of organic, mineral, stimulating, and biologically active substances, creates various independent mechanisms of influence on plants and soil, resulting in a synergistic effect. This statement is supported by the results of phenological observations and yield accounting for sugar beets in the conditions of irrigated light chestnut soils.
Influence of organic humic fertilizer Tumat on the growth, development, and productivity of sugar beets in light chestnut soils. The soil is one of the essential resources for agriculture, as the fertility of the soil affects the yield and quality of agricultural crops. The foothill soils of Kazakhstan are marked by a low organic matter content, which diminishes their productivity and resilience against biotic and abiotic factors.
Morphological description of soils is the initial stage of studying soils in a specific area. Researchers use it to analyze and classify different soil types by comparing them. The appearance of the soil reflects the chemical and biological processes occurring within it.
Below is a description of the soil profile of virgin light serozem. Soil Profile 16 is located on a submontane flat plain with a slight southern slope. The vegetation cover consists of ephemerals and wormwood, occupying 60–70% of the territory, with an above-ground biomass of 2–2.2 tons per hectare.
Horizon A1 (0–6 cm): light gray, loamy, flaky-layered, densely speckled with fine grass roots.
Horizon A2 (6–18 cm): grayish-light-brown, loamy, with numerous roots, slightly compacted, cloddy-dusty; the transition to the next horizon is gradual.
Horizon B (18–33 cm): light brown, with fewer roots, compacted, cloddy structure; clear transition to the next horizon.
Horizon C1 (33–61 cm): pale-light-brown loamy, with carbonate inclusions in the form of pseudomycelium, presence of beetle chambers fixed by carbonates, few roots, more compact than the previous, cloddy-nutty structure.
Horizon C2 (61–101 cm): pale-light-brown loamy, dense, structureless.
The analysis of the initial agrochemical condition of irrigated light chestnut soil in the upper 0–20 cm layer (Table 4) indicates that the soil is characterized by low content of organic humus (0.81%), readily hydrolyzable nitrogen (34.8 mg/kg), and exchangeable potassium (K2O 188.4 mg/kg), but high content of available phosphorus (P2O5 49.4 mg/kg). Therefore, to increase organic matter and available forms of macroelements in the soil, it is necessary to use new, more effective fertilizers.
To reduce costs for mineral fertilizers and mitigate their negative impact on soil properties, we conducted a field experiment to study the influence of the organic humic fertilizer Tumat enriched with a complex of mineral elements, on the growth and development, yield, and sugar content of sugar beets.
The composition of absorbed bases is dominated by calcium (Ca 74–75%, 9.0–8.8 mg-ekv/100 g), followed by magnesium (Mg 20.1–20.4%, 2.4 mg-ekv/100 g). A small amount of absorbed bases includes sodium (Na 3.69–3.93%, 0.44–0.45 mg-ekv/100 g) and potassium (K 0.77–0.84%, 0.09–0.10 mg-ekv/100 g), respectively.
The examined experimental soil plots are characterized by a loamy and medium loamy granulometric composition (Table 5). The fraction of fine sand (0.25–0.05 mm) predominates at 53.65%. The physical clay (<0.01) in the upper 0–20 cm layer is 32.2%, and in the lower layer, it is 23.4%.
The agrochemical characteristics of irrigated light gray soil at the end of the growing season are presented in Table 6. By the end of the growing season, the mobility of phosphorus decreases, and exchangeable potassium is actively used to improve the key indicator of sugar beet—its sugar content. It is important to note that the control group without Tumat fertilizer corresponds to the mineral background (N100P135) with three top dressings N50, N50P65, and P70 for cultivation. Ammonium nitrate, added to the top dressing, contributed to crop formation and partially leached into the lower soil layers during irrigation. The use of ammonium phosphate did not lead to an increase in soil phosphorus content, as it was partially retained by the soil.
Based on our research, it has been found that using the organic humic fertilizer Tumat at the end of sugar beet growth increases the soil levels of total humus (0.13–0.21%), easily hydrolyzable nitrogen (2.8–4.2 mg/kg of soil), available phosphorus (6.7–9.0 mg/kg), and exchangeable potassium (25–35 mg/kg) in the top 0–20 cm soil layer compared to the control level (Table 6).
The humic and fulvic acids present in Tumat interact with soil minerals, promoting the formation of humic acids. This fertilizer enriches the soil with essential macromicroelements, particularly potassium, phosphorus, and nitrogen, which are crucial nutrients for sugar beets during their vegetative growth phase.
The density of serozem is a physical characteristic of soil that determines the mass of soil material per unit volume. Serozem is a type of soil characterized by a high content of carbonates and minerals. Its density can vary depending on the composition and structure of the soil from 1.1 to 1.4 g/cm3. The reserves of humus in individual genetic horizons or the overall soil profile provide insight into potential fertility and energy reserves driven by organic matter. The humus reserve in the soil is calculated using the following formula:
Q = m × h × dv
where m—is the humus content in %, h—is the thickness of the soil layer in cm, and dv—is the soil bulk density in g/cm3. Table 7 shows that the humus reserves in the arable soil layer in the control variant amounted to 12.98 tons per hectare.
To assess the biological activity of soil (BAS), tests were conducted to determine the number of microorganisms on diagnostic nutrient media and the FDA test. The evaluation of fluorescein diacetate hydrolysis [3′,6′-diacetylfluorescein (FDA)] is used as a method to determine overall microbial activity, as it involves the activity of several classes of enzymes, including lipases, esterases, and proteases [59].
The number of microorganisms in the soil before planting was 112.0 × 106 CFU/g of soil. At the end of the sugar beet vegetation period, a slight increase in the number of microorganisms was observed in the control variant, reaching 121.6 × 106 CFU/g of soil (Table 8).
Using the humic organic fertilizer Tumat increases the number of microorganisms compared to the control. A single fertilizer treatment raises the count to about 130.3 × 106 CFU/g of soil, and a double treatment increases it to approximately 142.1 × 106 CFU/g, showing an increase from 7.0 to 17 percent. Figure 1 presents photographs of Petri dishes with bacterial colonies.
An important indicator of soil biological activity (SBA) is the activity of soil enzymes. The analysis used the total SBA indicator based on the fluorescein diacetate hydrolysis test (FDA test). This test is employed to assess the overall biological activity of soils, as it collectively reflects the activity of hydrolytic series enzymes. At the end of the sugar beet vegetation period, there is also an observed increase in the activity of soil enzymes by 4.8% compared to the soil’s initial condition before seed sowing (Table 9).
Based on the experimental data, it is evident that the activity of soil enzymes in the samples treated with fertilizer was higher by 9.1–18.4% compared to the control. The enzyme activity ranged from 13.7 to 27.6 mg of fluorescein per 1 g of soil over 3 h. Consequently, the use of the organic humic fertilizer Tumat enhanced the population of microorganisms, measured by microbial biomass carbon, and the activity of soil enzymes according to the FDA assay in the topsoil layer (0–10 cm) compared to the control.
Sugar beet is a moderately heat-loving crop. Therefore, sugar beet sowing was carried out in the first decade of May. Shoots emerged on the 8–10th day at a temperature of 10–11 °C. According to the conducted counts, it was established that the average number of sugar beet shoots ranged from 10.0 to 11.6 units/m2, depending on the studied variants (Table 10). The formation of the highest plant density was noted in variants where the organic fertilizer Tumat was applied with one-and two-time treatments, with the indicator being 3.7–12.5% higher compared to the control (9.51 thousand units/ha).
The growth of sugar beet throughout all development stages was similar across the studied variants, and by the time of technical maturity, it reached 39.5 cm in variant 3 with double fertilization treatment using Tumat, which is 17.2% higher compared to the control indicator.
The productivity of sugar beet is closely linked to the root vegetable’s weight. The maximum weight of the root vegetable before harvesting sugar beets, achieved with the use of the Tumat fertilizer, ranged from 8.5 to 9.2 kg/m2. Meanwhile, the minimum weight of the root vegetable was recorded in the control variant, amounting to 7.0 kg/m2.
It has been established that the yield of sugar beets when using the organic fertilizer Tumat with one and two-time treatment shows a maximum increase of 10.5–15.2% compared to the control, in quantitative terms ranging from 4.9 to 7.1 t/ha (Table 11). The sugar content in the roots is 0.4–0.7% higher, and the sugar yield is 0.92–1.41 t/ha (13.6–20.8%) more compared to the control variant without treatment.
Therefore, the organic humic fertilizer Tumat stimulates soil activity, enhances germination, promotes growth and development of plants, and also accelerates their maturation. The use of single or double foliar feeding for sugar beets increases the yield of tubers and their sugar content.
Statistical analysis of the collected data is crucial as it allows for the analysis, interpretation, and making informed conclusions based on the gathered information. This key process in research helps identify patterns, trends, and relationships among various variables. Thanks to statistical processing, informed decisions can be made in science and many other fields, improving the efficiency and accuracy of predictions.
Smallest significant difference is a statistical term that is used to define the smallest difference between two values at which the differences between them are considered statistically significant. According to our scientific research, the smallest significant difference in the yield data of sugar beet is 2.39 t/ha. The error of the experiment (P) is 1.63% (Table 11).
Statistical data processing was carried out using the MS Excel analysis package. The descriptive statistics of the obtained data are presented in the Table 12. Invoice n = 9 indicates the processing of experimental data from 2021 to 2023, with each year’s data being repeated three times.
The data shows that the average yield of sugar beet is 50.63 tons per hectare with an average sugar content of 14.86% and an average sugar production of 7.52 tons per hectare. The standard deviation of 7.69 indicates that the yield data are primarily concentrated around the mean. The small difference between the mean and median values suggests that the data are symmetrically distributed. The most frequently occurring value in the sample (Mode) is 44.6. A sample variance of 59.24 points to a significant spread of values around the mean.
The average content of easily hydrolysable nitrogen, mobile phosphorus, and exchangeable potassium is 39.73, 37.63, and 187.5 mg/kg of soil, respectively. The standard error for these indicators is minimal. The data are concentrated around the mean value, with a negligible range from 9.6 to 32.0.
To determine the relationship between two or more variables, the statistical tool MS Excel was used. Correlation measures the degree to which two variables change together. The correlation value can be between −1 and 1, where −1 indicates complete inverse correlation, 0 indicates no correlation, and 1 indicates complete direct correlation.
As indicated in Table 13, the strongest direct correlation between the yield of sugar beet and macronutrients is observed with easily hydrolysable nitrogen at 0.50, indicating a moderate relationship. There is a weak direct correlation between the yield and both available phosphorus and exchangeable potassium, with values of 0.37 and 0.40, respectively.
The sugar output is primarily influenced by the soil content of exchangeable potassium (0.54), followed by available phosphorus (0.47) and easily hydrolysable nitrogen (0.44).
In the development of sugar beet yields, nitrogen plays a leading role, followed by potassium and phosphorus. The sugar output primarily depends on the soil’s supply of exchangeable potassium, with a lesser direct dependence on the soil content of available phosphorus and easily hydrolysable nitrogen.

4. Discussion

Foliar application is a fertilization method widely used as an alternative to soil application of fertilizer, thus contributing to more environmentally sustainable agriculture. This practice has been used to apply macro- and micronutrients, as well as bio stimulants and humic fertilizers, favoring the assimilation and use of nutrients by plants and increasing crop yield and quality [60].
The use of HS-enriched compost extracts is an economically important tool for foliar spraying, especially when soil nutrient absorption is impaired, such as under calcareous conditions due to nutrient precipitation. However, this type of fertilization is limited to certain climatic conditions since high temperatures, rainfall, and wind reduce its efficiency. Similarly, high application rates can damage plants, such as through leaf burns due to the concentration of salts after water evaporates [61].
HSs have the ability to protect plants against abiotic and biotic stresses, as well as stimulate their growth and development, promoting increases in yields and agricultural production. HS use in fertilizers and plant bio stimulants has grown in recent years and is part of the phytotechnics and current management of various crops in various parts of the world [62,63].
The foliar fertilization technique consists of supplying nutrients directly to the leaves by spraying a solution containing one or more nutritive elements essential for plant development that must be distributed to the other parts of the plant [64,65]. This method is considered fast and efficient in overcoming plant malnutrition, as it supplies plants with nutrients more readily compared to soil application (uptake via the root) [66]. However, foliar fertilization should not completely replace soil fertilization but should be a complementary technique to be performed in critical periods of high plant demand or when soil nutrients are not available [67].
One of the factors that influences the performance of foliar fertilization is the characteristics of the plant itself, especially the leaves. Leaf surfaces are usually covered by cuticles, which are covering tissues composed of hydrophobic biopolymers that block moisture loss [68]. The cuticles may have embedded waxes (intracuticular) or deposits on their surfaces (epicuticular), and their main polymers are cutin and cutaneous, which are found in varying proportions depending on the plant species [64]. Due to these components, the cuticle has a complex network of interesterified fatty acids (C16 and/or C18), in addition to n-alcohols (C20-C40), n-aldehydes, and n-alkanes (constituents of waxes) [69].
There are different structures on plant surfaces (stomata, trichomes, and lenticels) that can also absorb nutrient solutions and other chemicals. Stomata are small, specialized pores consisting of two guard cells, whose opening and closing dynamics control gas exchange between the leaf and the atmosphere [70,71]. Trichomes are unicellular or multicellular appendages that protrude from the epidermis and may facilitate the absorption of nutrients due to their low cutinization [64,72]. Lenticels are macroscopic epidermal structures that can be found on stems, pedicels, or fruits and can also absorb solutions applied to the aerial parts of plants [73].
Another way of performing foliar fertilization of crops is using HSs, which are structurally irregular organic materials widely present in soils, rivers, oceans, and sediments, in addition to natural resources related to coal (peat, leonardite, and lignite) [74]. Such substances are compounds formed by the chemical and biological transformation of animal and plant residues through the action of soil microorganisms and have the ability to promote plant growth and the assimilation of the main nutrients required by plants, such as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) [75].
All essential plant nutrients, except nitrogen, are naturally present in soils from parent materials. The accumulation of nitrogen in soils occurs in organic form as a result of the activity of symbiotic, free-living, and associative nitrogen-fixing microorganisms that convert atmospheric molecular nitrogen (N2) into organic nitrogen compounds. Phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and other macro- and micronutrients initially exist in mineral forms, but during soil formation, some of these elements can also be present in organic forms [76,77].
The organic humic fertilizer Tumat contains accessible and essential macro-, meso-, and microelements for plants. Unlike many other fertilizers, Tumat also includes amorphous silicon dioxide.
Silicon (Si) is widely recognized by the International Plant Nutrition Institute as a beneficial element for plants. The American Association of Plant Food Control considers silicon the best means for nourishing agricultural crops. Consequently, the production volumes of silicon are increasing annually in countries such as China, Brazil, the United States, and India. There are studies that have explored the protective properties of amorphous silicon dioxide for plants against various types of stress, both biotic (pests, fungi, bacterial infections) and abiotic (high and low temperatures, radiation, chemical pollution, light deficiency, or excess, salinity, water scarcity) [78,79].
It has been established that silicon fertilizers can increase the yield of agricultural crops (up to 40%), improve the quality of produce (sugar content, vitamins, shelf life), enhance the efficiency of phosphorus fertilizers by 30–50%, and reduce irrigation rates by practically half. Silicon fertilizers are considered an ecological alternative to pesticides [80].
The environmental protection properties of silicon compounds are increasingly relevant due to escalating ecological issues related to soil contamination. The development of functional silicon-organic compounds enhances the sorption properties of the organic humic fertilizer Tumat and increases its bioavailability to plants. The high content of essential macro- and micro-nutrients in the Tumat fertilizer scientifically supports the rationale and effectiveness of its use in cultivating sugar beets in the conditions of irrigated light Sierozems in the Republic of Kazakhstan.
An increase in the length of the hydrocarbon radical of fatty acids leads to an increased tendency of solution components to micelle formation, consequently enhancing the stability of the surfactant suspension (surface-active agents). It is worth noting that polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in the cake possess the properties of surfactants (surface-active agents), capable of evenly distributing the oil phase (organic components) in the aqueous phase and creating stable suspensions. The latter is one of the key indicators for the practical use of liquid fertilizers when applied by spraying [81].
Fatty acids from cottonseed meal not only play a crucial role in the production of the organic humic fertilizer Tumat, but also ensure its stability. This is achieved by maintaining the original level of dispersion and the uniform distribution of particles in the medium.
The use of humic substances in spraying vegetating plants directly influences them through the foliage. Low-molecular-weight humic compounds penetrate through the leaf blades. The intake of high-molecular-weight substances through cell membranes is problematic due to the large size of these molecules. However, experiments have shown that the presence of humic substances increases the permeability of cell membranes [82].
The permeability of cell membranes facilitates the increased intake of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, iron, and enhances plant resistance to a wide range of adverse factors such as pesticides, frosts, droughts, and high soil salinity. Additionally, it has been proven that humic substances boost photosynthesis and respiration rates and strengthen protein and phosphorus metabolism in plants [83].
The second way humic substances affect plants is by enhancing soil biological activity [84]. Adding humic fertilizers and substances to the soil boosts microbial activity, leading to increased consumption of organic and mineral substrates. This process enhances the mineralization of organic matter and the breakdown of soil minerals. As a result, there is a release of mineral nutrients that plants actively absorb. It is important to note that plants, through their root exudates, contribute organic acids to the soil. These acids help activate microflora, decompose mineral substrates, and release nutrients, creating a “rhizosphere effect” [85,86].
Structure and chemical composition of humic acids are not identical and never repeat, especially if they come from different sources. This explains their differences in properties and their effects on living organisms (plants, animals, and humans). The unique properties of leonardite are precisely related to the structure and mass of humic acids. The molecular weight of humic acid molecules extracted from leonardite is over 2500 atomic units, for comparison, the molecular mass of humic acids from sapropel is up to 1000 atomic units, and from peat, it ranges from 500 to 2500 atomic units [20].
From a chemical perspective, leonardite is a complex mixture of high-molecular-weight natural organic compounds formed during the decomposition of dead plants and their subsequent humification (the biochemical transformation of the products of organic residue decomposition into humus with the participation of microorganisms, water, and oxygen). Humic substances are biologically active compounds. They activate biochemical processes in the organisms of animals and in the cells of plants. This circumstance determines the high demand for humates in domestic and international markets. Humic preparations enriched with potassium and phosphorus, i.e., the basic elements determining soil fertility, are particularly valuable for plants [38,39].
It has been scientifically proven that soil fertility largely depends on the content of humic acids and their ability to influence plant growth by enriching the product with various macro- and microelements. The humic acids in fertilizer intensify the synthesis of nucleic acids. This is important for strengthening plants, as all forms of nucleic acids participate in protein synthesis [18].
The application of leonardite-based fertilizers affects the water-physical properties of the soil: capillary and field moisture capacity of light soils increases, and water permeability of heavy soils improves. Soil structure and density also improve. At the same time, there is an increase in soil microbiological activity, leading to higher crop yields for agricultural crops [28,32].
Based on the nature of the impact of humic acids on soil and plants, three types of effects are distinguished. Physical impact includes improving soil structure, reducing moisture and nutrient loss in sandy soils, enhancing aeration and moisture retention in heavy soils, preventing soil erosion by forming a colloidal structure, and increasing soil aeration and workability. Chemical impact involves neutralizing both acidic and alkaline soils, optimizing nutrient absorption and water consumption by plants, enhancing soil’s buffering action, enriching soil with organic and mineral substances necessary for plant growth, and retaining water-soluble inorganic fertilizers in the root zone and reducing leaching. Biological impact promotes and increases enzyme production by plants; accelerates biological processes; stimulates the growth of beneficial microorganisms; enhances plants’ natural resistance to diseases and pests; stimulates root system growth and improves its nutrient uptake; increases respiration and photosynthesis rates; boosts the content of vitamins and minerals in plants; enhances seed germination and viability; stimulates plant growth; and improves crop quality and nutritional value [20,40].
Humic fertilizers influence the growth, development, and productivity of agricultural crops and enhance soil fertility. In the Russian Federation, the use of humic fertilizers, particularly the treatment of corn and soy seeds and plants with the humic substance “Lingohumat”, stimulates the growth and development of microscopic fungi and bacteria [22]. The application of the humic substance “Bio-Don” to soil and wheat plants during the tillering and stem elongation stages significantly enhances the stimulation of soil microflora, fungi, and cellulose-decomposing actinomycetes. This boost in soil biological activity intensifies the processes of phosphorus mobilization and increases grain yield [23]. Using the “BioHumate” humic fertilizer enhances the germination energy and seed germination rates of wheat, as well as the vegetative mass, plant height, and yield [24].
The application of the organic humic fertilizer Tumat in the Republic of Uzbekistan, specifically for pre-sowing seed treatment and foliar feeding of rice, cotton, tomatoes, winter wheat, and soybeans in the Andijan region, enhances germination, promotes growth and development of plants, and increases their yield [25,26,27,29,30].
Field research conducted in the Republic of Kazakhstan has confirmed the positive effects on soil, growth, development, and crop yield. Research on the microflora of light chestnut soil used for cultivating soy and safflower has shown a positive impact of the organic fertilizer Tumat on the levels of ammonifiers and actinomycetes, which are activators of soil processes [31]. Treating ordinary sierozem soil with organic humic fertilizer enhances the organic matter and nitrate nitrogen content, phosphorus mobility, and exchangeable potassium, leading to increased symbiotic nitrogen fixation. Applying the Tumat fertilizer as a foliar feed twice to soy plants increases the number of nodules on the main root, boosts grain yield, and raises the protein and fat content [32].
During the scientific and technical program, we conducted from 2021 to 2023, we also carried out field studies involving the cultivation of soybeans, winter wheat, rice, and potatoes. Pre-sowing treatment of soybean seeds with Tumat organic fertilizer solution on light sierozem soils increased their germination by 10–20%. Both single and double foliar feeding of soy plants enhanced their growth and development, increased yields by up to 21–25%, and contributed to a higher count of nodular bacteria [33]. Treating seeds and performing one or two foliar feedings of winter wheat with the Tumat fertilizer solution on light sierozem soils increased plant survival, ear grain number, the weight of 1000 seeds, and the yield of winter wheat by 11–15%. The use of Tumat fertilizer also affects the quality of winter wheat grain, increasing the protein and gluten content in the grain while reducing the starch content and lowering the gluten index [34]. Preparing rice paddy soil before sowing rice stimulates an increase in the content of organic matter and nitrogen, the mobility of phosphorus and exchangeable potassium, affects the length of the panicle and grain filling, and ensures a grain yield increase of 1.3 tons per hectare (36.1%) compared to the control without treatment [35,36]. Using the organic humic fertilizer Tumat on light chestnut soils without mineral fertilizers increases the weight of tubers and potato yield up to 26 tons per hectare, ensuring a yield increase of 13.4% compared to the control group [37].

5. Conclusions

In the Semirechye region of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the impact of the organic humic fertilizer Tumat on the fertility of irrigated light serozems and the productivity of sugar beet has been studied.
The use of this organic humic fertilizer leads to an increase in the soil content of total humus (0.13–0.21%), easily hydrolysable nitrogen (2.8–4.2 mg/kg of soil), available phosphorus (6.7–9.0 mg/kg), and exchangeable potassium (25–35 mg/kg) in the top 0–20 cm layer of soil. This increase in readily available macronutrients is also observed in the lower 20–40 cm soil layer.
Applying the organic humic fertilizer Tumat to the non-root bark of sugar beet once or twice increases the soil humus content by 20.0–35.5%.
The application of organic humic fertilizer enhances the biological activity of the soil, increases the number of microorganisms by 7.0–17%, and the activity of soil enzymes by 9.1–18.4%.
Foliar feeding of sugar beet plants improves seed germination (6.0–16.0%), stimulates growth and development, and leads to an increase in yield (10.5–15.2%), sugar content (0.4–0.7%), and sugar output (13.6–20.8%).
Using Tumat organic humic fertilizer in sugar beet cultivation has a beneficial effect on growth and development, increases tuber yield, sugar content, and sugar output, promotes the formation of organic matter, and enhances the mobility of macronutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium.
Future scientific research will focus on improving the organo-mineral fertilization system to enhance soil fertility, biological activity, sugar beet yield, and sugar production per unit area to meet the growing needs of Kazakhstan’s population.

6. Patents

Patent for utility model KZ No. 8251, Date: 14 July 2023, Title: Method of producing organic humic fertilizer, Inventors: G. Kaisanova, B. Suleimenov, S. Tanirbergenov, M. Ibrayeva, was obtained.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.S. and M.S.; methodology, B.S., G.K. and M.S.; validation, B.S., G.K. and M.S.; formal analysis, S.T. and M.S.; investigation, B.S., G.K., S.T. and M.S.; resources, B.S., G.K., S.T. and M.S.; data curation, B.S.; writing—original draft preparation, B.S. and M.S.; writing—review and editing, B.S. and M.S.; visualization, B.S. and M.S.; supervision, B.S.; project administration, B.S.; funding acquisition, B.S. and G.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was financed by the State Institution Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan under budget program No. 267 Improving the Accessibility of Knowledge and Scientific Research. Program code O.0946, No. 0112RK01718.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study is openly accessible.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022. Repurposing Food and Agricultural Policies to Make Healthy Diets More Affordable. FAO, Rome. Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/858eda63-5817-4a27-b948-9949824e6040 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  2. Cristofano, F.; El-Nakhel, C.; Rouphael, Y. Biostimulant substances for sustainable agriculture: Origin, operating mechanisms and effects on cucurbits, leafy greens, and nightshade vegetables species. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Lipper, L.; Thornton, P.; Campbell, B.M.; Baedeker, T.; Braimoh, A.; Bwalya, M.; Caron, P.; Cattaneo, A.; Garrity, D.; Henry, K.; et al. Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 1068–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Souri, M.K.; Hatamian, M. Aminochelates in plant nutrition: A review. J. Plant Nutr. 2019, 42, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Amiri Forotaghe, Z.; Souri, M.K.; Ghanbari Jahromi, M.; Mohammadi Torkashvand, A. Influence of humic acid application on onion growth characteristics on the water deficit conditions. J. Plant Nutr. 2022, 45, 1030–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Najarian, A.; Souri, M.K.; Nabigol, A. Influence of humic substance on vegetative growth, flowering and leaf mineral elements of Pelargonium × hortorum. J. Plant Nutr. 2022, 45, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Amador, H.V.; Izquierdo, F.G.; Padrón, V.V. Revisión bibliográfica las sustancias húmicas como bioestimulantes de plantas bajo condiciones de estrés Ambiental. Cultiv. Trop. 2018, 39, 102–109. [Google Scholar]
  8. Monda, H.; McKenna, A.M.; Fountain, R.; Lamar, R.T. Bioactivity of Humic Acids Extracted from Shale Ore: Molecular Characterization and Structure-Activity Relationship with Tomato Plant Yield Under Nutritional Stress Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 660224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Posypanov, G.S.; Dolgodvorov, V.E.; ZHerukov, B.H. Rastenievodstvo–Moskva: Kolos, 03.03.2006. 612 s. Available online: https://znanium.com/catalog/document?id=427263 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  10. Bajkarimov, O.A. Perspektivy Proizvodstva Saharnoj Svekly v Pavlodarskoj Oblasti Materialy Mezhdunarodnoj Nauchno-Prakticheskoj Konferencii «Sejfullinskie Chteniya 18: «Molodezh’ i Nauka Vzglyad v Budushchee». Astana, Kazakstan. 18.03.2022. T. I, CH. II. 163–165. Available online: https://kazatu.edu.kz/pages/nauka/novosti-nauki20220121052309/sborniki-naucnyh-konferencij (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  11. Zholdoyakova, G.E. Tendentsii proizvodstva sakharnoi svekly v Kazakhstane. Ufa Humanit. Sci. Forum 2023, 3, 81–90. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kalinicheva, E.Y. Formirovanie Konkurentosposobnogo Sveklosakharnogo Podkompleksa: Avtorefat Diss. Ph.D. Thesis, Orel State Agricultural University, Oryol, Russia, 2011; pp. 34–36. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kalinicheva, E.Y.; Romanov, A.D. Ehkonomicheskaya otsenka realizatsii resursnogo potentsiala sveklosakharnoi ot-rasli v Orlovskoi oblasti. Vestn. Orlov. Gos. Agrar. Univ. 2012, 5, 36–39. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kenenbaev, S.B.; Al’dekov, N.A.; Kulkeev, E.E. Primenenie Biostimulyatorov Rosta Rastenij na Posevah Saharnoj Svekly (Rekomendacii). Almaty. Kazakstan. 21.09.2017. 17 s. Available online: www.kazniizr.kz (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  15. Kotikov, M.V.; Mel’nikova, O.V.; Mazhugo, T.M. Dejstvie gumistima na urozhajnost’ zernovyh kul’tur i kartofelya. Agrohim. Vestn. 2009, 3, 36–38. [Google Scholar]
  16. Suleimenov, B.; Saparov, A.; Kan, V.; Kolesnikova, L.; Seitmenbetova, A.; Karabayev, K. The Effect of Bioorganic Liquid Fertilizer «BioEcoGum» on the Productivity of Grain Maize in the Conditions of Southeast Kazakhstan. Eurasian J. Biosci. 2019, 13, 1639–1644. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kajsanova, G.B.; Sulejmenov, B.U.; Uraimov, T. Primeneniya Guminovogo Udobreniya Tumat na Posevah Ozimoj Pshenicy v Usloviyah Andizhanskoj Oblasti Uzbekistana Novye Nauchnye Issledovaniya Sbornik Statej III Mezhdunarodnoj Nauchno-Prakticheskoj Konferencii. 17 Iyunya 2021. Penza. RF. S. 76–78. Available online: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=46189433 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  18. Garmash, N.Y.; Garmash, G.A. Metodicheskie podhody k ocenke kachestva guminovyh preparatov. Agrohim. Vestn. 2012, 4, 17–19. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kurmanbaev, A.A.; Sүndet, T.R. Koncepciya pochvennogo zdorov’ya i sovremennye indikatory zdorov’ya pochv. Pochvovedenie Agrohim. 2023, 2, 91–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Orlov, D.S. Guminovye Veshchestva v Biosfere. Moskva: Nauka. 26.10.1997. s. 237. Available online: https://www.studmed.ru/orlov-ds-otv-red-guminovye-veschestva-v-biosfere_9bdd72760ea.html (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  21. Tihonov, V.V.; YAkushev, A.V.; Zavgorodnyaya, Y.A.; Byzov, B.A.; Demin, V.V. Dejstvie guminovyh kislot na rost bakterij. Pochvovedenie 2010, 3, 333–341. [Google Scholar]
  22. Haziev, F.H. Ekologicheskie svyazi fermentativnoj aktivnosti pochv. Ekobiotekh 2018, 1, 80–92. [Google Scholar]
  23. Polienko, E.A. Ekologicheskaya Ocenka Guminovyh Preparatov na Sostoyanie Pochv i Rastenij Avtoreferat Kandidata Biologicheskih Nauk. Rostov-na-Donu, RF. 30.11.2016. 24 s. Available online: https://www.dissercat.com/content/ekologicheskaya-otsenka-vliyaniya-guminovykh-preparatov-na-sostoyanie-pochv-i-rastenii (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  24. Firsov, S.S.; ZHigareva, Y.V.; Suhova, N.V. Effektivnost’ guminovyh udobrenij v intensifikacii produkcionnyh processov ozimoj pshenicy. ZHurnal XXI Itogi Proshlogo Probl. Nastoyashchego Plyus 2017, 5, 42–49. [Google Scholar]
  25. Tursunov, H.O.; Kajsanova, G.B.; Uraimov, T.; Ruziev, I.; Komilov, K.S.; Sulejmenov, B.U.; ZHoraeva, K.R. Vliyaniya biopreparata TUMAT (TUMAT) na soderzhanie pitatel’nyh elementov v pochve i urozhajnost’ risa na oroshaemyh massivah Andizhanskoj oblasti. Pochvovedenie Agrohim. 2020, 3, 83–93. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kajsanova, G.B. Effektivnost’ organicheskogo guminovogo udobreniya Tumat pri vozdelyvanii hlopchatnika na oroshaemyh serozemno-lugovyh pochvah andizhanskoj oblasti. Vopr. Sovrem. Nauk. Monogr. 2021, 64, 22–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kajsanova, G.B.; Sulejmenov, B.U.; Komilov, K.S. Vliyanie guminovyh preparatov na produktivnost’ tomat v usloviyah lugovyh pochv Andizhanskoj oblasti. Internauka 2021, 26, 27–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kajsanova, G.B.; Sulejmenov, B.U. Effektivnost’ guminovyh preparatov na plodovo-yagodnyh kul’turah v Uzbekistane. In Proceedings of the 11th International Scientific and Practical Conference «Science and Education: Problems, Prospects and Innovations», Kyoto, Japan, 21–23 July 2021; CPN Publishing Group: Kyoto, Japan, 2021; pp. 148–157. Available online: https://sci-conf.com.ua/xi-mezhdunarodnaya-nauchno-prakticheskaya-konferentsiya-science-and-education-problems-prospects-and-innovations-21-23-iyulya-2021-goda-kioto-yaponiya-arhiv/ (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  29. Kajsanova, G.B.; Uraimov, T.; Kamilov, S.K.; Sulejmenov, B.U. Vliyanie guminovogo udobreniya Tumat na urozhajnost’ ozimoj pshenicy. Pochvovedenie Agrohim. 2021, 3, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kaisanova, G.B.; Suleimenov, B.U. Soybean growing using organic humic fertilizer Tumat on irrigated meadow soils in Andijan region. Pochvovedenie Agrohim. 2022, 2, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sejtmenbetova, A.T.; Sulejmenov, B.U.; Nysanbaeva, A.Ә. Vliyanie udobrenii «BioEkoGum» i «Tumat» na mikrofloru svetlo-kashtanovoj pochvy pri vozdelyvanii soi i saflora. Pochvovedenie Agrohim. 2022, 1, 40–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kenenbaev, S.B.; Esenbaeva, G.L.; ZHanbyrbaev, E.A.; Bekturganov, A.N. Vliyanie bioudobrenij i biopreparatov na pokazateli plodorodiya i produktivnosti serozemnyh pochv yugo-vostoka Kazahstana. Pochvovedenie Agrohim. 2023, 2, 44–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tanirbergenov, S.I.; Sulejmenov, B.U.; Zәrіp, Z.A. Primenenie organicheskogo guminovogo udobreniya «Tumat» pri vozdelyvanii soi. Pochvovedenie Agrohim. 2023, 1, 74–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sulejmenov, B.U.; Tanirbergenov, S.I.; Kajsanova, G.B.; Abil’daeva, U.U. Produktivnost’ ozimoj pshenicy v usloviyah Semirech’ya. Nauka Obraz. 2022, 4, 138–147. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ibraeva, M.A.; Abaj, A.K.; Toksejtov, N.M.; Sulejmenova, A.I.; Poshanov, M.N. Sravnitel’noe izuchenie vliyaniya primeneniya biopreparatov «Tumat» i «Bioekogum» na gumusnoe sostoyanie risovo-bolotnyh pochv. Pochvovedenie Agrohim. 2022, 2, 56–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ibraeva, M.A.; Sulejmenova, A.I.; Abaj, A.K.; Toksejtov, N.M. Vliyanie primeneniya biopreparatov Tumat i BioEkoGum na plodorodie pochv i urozhajnost’ risa. Pochvovedenie Agrohim. 2023, 2, 29–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Amirov, B.M.; Saparov, Ғ.A.; Құlymbet, Қ.Қ.; Balgabaev, A.M. ZHetіsu zhotasynyң soltүstіk betkejіnің ashyқ-қara қoңyr topyraғynda mineraldyқ zhәne biotyңajtқyshtardy kartop өsіrude қoldanudyң tiіmdіlіgі. Vestn. Kyzylordinskogo Univ. Im. Korkyt Ata 2022, 3, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Akimbekov, N.; Qiao, X.; Digel, I.; Abdieva, G.; Ualieva, P.; Zhubanova, A. The Effect of Leonardite-Derived Amendments on Soil Microbiome Structure and Potato Yield. Agriculture 2020, 10, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Olivella, M.A.; del Río, J.C.; Palacios, J.; Vairavamurthy, M.A.; de las Heras, F.X.C. Characterization of humic acid from leonardite coal: An integrated study of PY-GC-MS, XPS and XANES techniques. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2002, 63, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Krivonos, O.I.; Plaksin, G.V.; Nosenko, V.N. O himicheskom sostave sapropelej Omskoj oblasti. Him. Rastit. Syr’ya 2014, 3, 271–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ayssiwede, S.B.; Mouanda, V.C.; Issa, Y.A.; Djettin, A.E.; Hane, M.B.; Missohou, A. Chemical Composition and Nutritional Categorization of Fish Meals Produced and Marketed in Senegal for Animal Feeding. Pak. J. Nutr. 2016, 15, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Musaev, F.A.; Zaharova, O.A.; Abirov, K.A. Kachestvennaya Harakteristika Zhmyha Hlopkovogo na Korm Zhivotnym Sbornik Dokladov XII Mezhdunarodnoj Nauchno-Prakticheskoj Konferencii Molodyh Uchyonyh. Nauchno-Tekhnicheskij Progress v Sel’skohozyajstvennom Proizvodstve Velikie Luki, 13–14 Aprelya 2017. Tom 1. 2017. pp. 28–33. Available online: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=36682531 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  43. YUdin, F.A. Metodika Agrohimicheskih Issledovanij. Moskva. RF, 1980. 251 s. Available online: https://www.studmed.ru/yudin-f-a-metodika-agrohimicheskih-issledovaniy_c7421f19deb.html (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  44. Dospekhov, B.A. Metodika Polevogo Opyta: (s Osnovami Statisticheskoj Obrabotki Rezul’tatov Issledovanij); Альянс: Moskva, Russia, 2011; 352p, Available online: https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01005422754 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  45. Arinushkina, E.V. Rukovodstvo po Himicheskomu Analizu Pochv; MGU: Moskva, Russia, 1970; 488p, Available online: https://www.studmed.ru/-arinushkina-ev-rukovodstvo-po-himicheskomu-analizu-pochv_73ec497f401.html (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  46. Green, V.S.; Stott, D.E.; Diak, M. Assay for fluorescein diacetate hydrolytic activity: Optimization for soil samples. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 693–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. State Standard No 26213-91; Soils. Methods for Determining Organic Matter. Standards Publishing: Moscow, Russia, 1991. Available online: https://allgosts.ru/13/080/gost_26213-91 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  48. State Standard No 26205-91; Soils. Determination of Mobile Phosphorus and Potassium Compounds Using the Machigin Method. Standards Publishing: Moscow, Russia, 1991. Available online: https://allgosts.ru/13/080/gost_26205-91 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  49. State Standard No 26423-85; Soils. Methods for Determining Specific Electrical Conductivity, pH, and Solid Residue of Water Extract. Standards Publishing: Moscow, Russia, 1986. Available online: https://allgosts.ru/13/080/gost_26423-85 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  50. State Standard No 17.4.3.01-83; Environmental Protection. Soil. General Requirements for Sampling. Standards Publishing: Moscow, Russia, 1983. Available online: https://allgosts.ru/13/080/gost_17.4.3.01-83 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  51. Schnurer, J.; Rosswall, T. Fluorescein Diacetate Hydrolysis as a Measure of Total Microbial Activity in Soil and Litter. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1982, 43, 1256–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. State Standard 28743-93; Methods for Determination of Nitrogen. Standards Publishing: Moscow, Russia, 1993. Available online: https://allgosts.ru/75/160/gost_28743-93 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  53. State Standard No 26717-85; Organic Fertilizers. Method for Determining Total Phosphorus. Standards Publishing: Moscow, Russia, 1986. Available online: https://allgosts.ru/65/080/gost_26717-85 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  54. State Standard No 53218-2008; Organic Fertilizers. Atomic Absorption Method for Determining Heavy Metal Content (Cu, Ni, Mn, Zn, Cr). Standardsinform: Moscow, Russia, 2009. Available online: https://allgosts.ru/65/080/gost_r_53218-2008 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  55. State Standard No 26570-95; Methods for Determining Calcium. Standards Publishing: Moscow, Russia, 1995. Available online: https://internet-law.ru/gosts/gost/18786/ (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  56. State Standard EN No 16198-2016; Fertilizers. Determination of Magnesium by Complexometric Method. Standardinform: Moscow, Russia, 2016. Available online: https://allgosts.ru/65/080/gost_en_16198-2016 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  57. State Standard No 25542.1-2019; Method for Determining Silicon Dioxide. Standardsinform: Moscow, Russia, 2019. Available online: https://allgosts.ru/17/060/gost_25542.1-2019 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  58. State Standard No 30418-96; Method for Determining Fatty Acid Composition. Standards Publishing: Moscow, Russia, 1996. Available online: https://allgosts.ru/67/200/gost_30418-96 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  59. Tejada, M.; Rodríguez-Morgado, B.; Paneque, P.; Parrado, J. Effects of foliar fertilization of a bio stimulant obtained from chicken feathers on maize yield. Eur. J. Agron. 2018, 96, 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jindo, K.; Olivares, F.L.; da Malcher, D.J.; Monedero, M.A.S.; Kempenaar, C.; Canellas, L.P. From lab to field: Role of humic substances under open-field and greenhouse conditions as biostimulant and biocontrol agent. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 530151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Perminova, I.; García-Mina, J.M.; Knicker, H.; Miano, T. Humic substances and nature-like technologies: Learning from nature: Understanding humic substances structures and interactions for the development of environmentally friendly, nature-like technologies. J. Soil. Sediment. 2019, 19, 2663–2664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Olk, D.C.; Dinnes, D.L.; Scoresby, J.R.; Callaway, C.R.; Darlington, J.W. Humic products in agriculture: Potential benefits and research challenges-a review. J. Soil. Sediment. 2018, 18, 2881–2891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mocellin, R.S.P.; Princípios das Adubação Foliar. Canoas. 2004. Available online: https://portalidea.com.br/cursos/bsico-em-adubao-foliar-apostila03.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  64. Fernández, V.; Sotiropoulos, T.; Brown, P.H. Foliar Fertilization: Scientific Principles and Field Practices, 1st ed.; International Fertilizer Industry Association: Paris, France, 2013; pp. 1–144. Available online: https://www.fertilizer.org/resource/foliar-fertilization-scientific-principles-and-field-practices/ (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  65. Fageria, N.K.; Filho, M.P.B.; Moreira, A.; Guimarães, C.M. Foliar fertilization of crop plants. J. Plant Nutr. 2009, 32, 1044–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nachtiqaü, G.R.; Nava, G. Adubação foliar: Fatos e mitos Agropecuária. Catarinense 2010, 23, 87–97. [Google Scholar]
  67. Kritzinger, I.; Lötze, E. Quantification of lenticels in Japanese plum cultivars and their effect on total fruit peel permeance. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 254, 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Jeffree, C.E. The Fine Structure of the Plant Cuticle. In Annual Plant Reviews; Wiley Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007; Volume 23, pp. 11–125. [Google Scholar]
  69. Gerardin, T.; Douthe, C.; Flexas, J.; Brendel, O. Shade and drought growth conditions strongly impact dynamic responses of stomata to variations in irradiance in Nicotiana tabacum Environ. Exp. Bot. 2018, 153, 188–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Huang, S.; Wang, P.; Yamaji, N.; Ma, J.F. Plant Nutrition for Human Nutrition: Hints from Rice Research and Future Perspectives. Mol. Plant 2020, 13, 825–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Eguiguren, S.B.; Nguyen, H.A.; Caldwell, A.; Nolin, K.A.; Wu, C.A. Convergence of glandular trichome morphology and chemistry in two montane monkeyflower (Mimulus, Phrymaceae) species. Flora Morphol. Distrib. Funct. Ecol. Plants 2020, 265, 151567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tagliavini, M.; Toselli, M. Foliar applications of nutrients. Food-Web Interact. 2005, pp. 53–59. Available online: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:132016868 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  73. Jung, H.; Kwon, S.; Kim, J.; Jeon, J. Which traits of humic substances are investigated to improvetheir agronomical value? Molecules 2021, 26, 760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Leite, J.M.; Arachchige, P.S.P.; Ciampitti, I.A.; Hettiarachchi, G.M.; Maurmann, L.; Trivelin, P.C.O.; Prasad, P.V.V.; Sunoj, S.V.J. Co-addition of humic substances and humic acids with urea enhances foliar nitrogen use efficiency in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). Heliyon 2020, 6, e05100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Hua, Q.-X.; Li, J.; Zhou, J.-M.; Wang, H.-Y.; Du, C.; Chen, X.-Q. Enhancement of Phosphorus Solubility by Humic Substances in Ferrosols1. Pedosphere 2008, 18, 533–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Mineev, V.G.; Sychev, V.G.; Gamzikov, G.P.; Eleshev, R.E.; Saparov, A.S. i dr. Agrohimiya—M.: VNIIA im. D.N. Pryanishnikova, 2017. 854 s. Available online: https://istina.msu.ru/publications/book/85812907/ (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  77. Yavas, I.; Unay, A. The Role of Silicon under Biotic and Abiotic Stress Conditions stresses. Turk. J. Agric. Res. 2017, 4, 204–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Coskun, D.; Deshmukh, R.; Sonah, H.; Menzies, J.G.; Reynolds, O.; Ma, J.F.; Kronzucker, H.J.; Bélanger, R.R. The controversies of silicon’s role in plant biology. New Phytol. 2019, 221, 67–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Zhu, Y.; Yan, G.; Fan, X.; Zhang, X.; Ye, M.; Liang, Y. Evaluation and prediction of silicon bioavailability in diverse silicon fertilizers. Silicon 2022, 15, 6243–6256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Watanabe, T.; Kawai, T.; Nonomura, Y. Effects of Fatty Acid Addition to Oil-in-water Emulsions Stabilized with Sucrose Fatty Acid Ester. Oleo Sci. 2018, 67, 307–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Bezuglova, O.S.; Polienko, E.A.; Gorovczov, A.V. Guminovyè preparatỳ kak stimulyatorỳ rosta rastenij i mikroorganizmov (obzor). Agron. Lesn. Xozyajstvo 2016, 4, 11–14. [Google Scholar]
  82. Gorovaya, A.I.; Orlov, D.S.; Shherbenko, O.V. Guminovyè Veshhestva. Kiev, 1995. 304 s. Available online: www.twirpx.com/file/2060927/ (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  83. Shherbakova, T.A. Fermentativnaya Aktivnost Pochv i Transformaciya Organicheskogo Veshhestva. Minsk: Nauka i Texnika. 1983. 222 s. Available online: https://nb.lib.tsu.ru/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=212438&shelfbrowseitemnumber=394126 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  84. Ivanov, V.P. Rastitelńyè Vỳdeleniya i ix Znachenie v Zhizni Fitocenozov. M.; 1973. 295 s. Available online: https://bik.sfu-kras.ru/elib/view?id=BOOK1-28.5/%D0%98%2020-617820&ysclid=ltwrd0g8mw126264981 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  85. Warembourg, F.R. The “rhizosphere effect”: A plant strategy for plants to exploit and colonize nutrient-limited habitats. Bocconea 1997, 7, 187–193. [Google Scholar]
  86. Xomyakov, Y.V. Rol Kornevỳx Vỳdelenij Rastenij v Formirovanii Bioximicheskix Svojstv Korneobitaemoj Sredỳ: Avtoref. Diss. Kand. Biol. Nauk. Sankt-Peterburg. 2009. 22 s. Available online: https://www.dissercat.com/content/rol-kornevykh-vydelenii-rastenii-v-formirovanii-biokhimicheskikh-svoistv-korneobitaemoi-sred?ysclid=ltwrgmm7r6331279908 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
Figure 1. Bacterial colonies in soil samples. (a) single treatment with Tumat, (b) double treatment with Tumat.
Figure 1. Bacterial colonies in soil samples. (a) single treatment with Tumat, (b) double treatment with Tumat.
Agronomy 14 01100 g001
Table 1. Field experiment scheme.
Table 1. Field experiment scheme.
#OptionDevelopment Phase
1Control without the use of Tumat-
2Single application of Tumat foliar fertilizer2–3 pairs of true leaves
3Double foliar feeding with Tumat2–3 and 5–6 pairs of true leaves
Table 2. Chemical composition of the organic humic fertilizer Tumat.
Table 2. Chemical composition of the organic humic fertilizer Tumat.
Macro- and MicronutrientsQuantity, g/100 g
Nitrogen (N)1.309 ± 0.008
Phosphorus (P)1.416 ± 0.005
Potassium (K)3.619 ± 0.003
Calcium (Ca)1.48 ± 0.030
Magnesium (Mg)0.47 ± 0.002
Zinc (Zn)3.018 ± 0.005
Silicon Dioxide (SiO2)1.039 ± 0.0002
Iron (Fe) 0.793 ± 0.008
Copper (Cu)0.746 ± 0.003
Manganese (Mn)0.161 ± 0.002
Nickel (Ni)0.123 ± 0.001
Table 3. Fatty acid composition of organic humic fertilizer Tumat.
Table 3. Fatty acid composition of organic humic fertilizer Tumat.
No.Fatty AcidFormulaConcentration, Mass %
1Butyric acidC4H8O24.462824
2Caprylic acidC9H18O20.008199
3Carboxylic acidC10H22O20.011995
4Myristic acidC14H28O20.118669
5Pentadecanoic acidC15H28O20.057663
6Pentadecanoic acidC15H30O20.002508
7Palmitoleic acidC16H30O20.009594
8Palmitic acidC16H32O20.027633
9Heptadecenoic acidC17H32O20.000703
10Heptadecanoic acidC17H34O20.012893
11Gamma-linolenic acidC18H30O20.034491
12Linoleic acidC18H32O20.008817
13Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA, Omega-3)C20H30O20.442533
14Arachidonic acidC20H32O20.145895
15Nervonic acidC24H46O20.009489
Table 4. Initial state of the chemical composition of the soil on the investigated experimental plots.
Table 4. Initial state of the chemical composition of the soil on the investigated experimental plots.
Depth, cmHumus,
%
Gross Forms, %Mobile Forms, mg/kg
NP2O5K2OReadily Hydrolysable NP2O5K2O
0–200.81 ± 0.030.15 ± 0.040.14 ± 0.011.9 ± 0.0234.8 ± 1.6349.3 ± 4.69188.4 ± 11.14
20–400.61 ± 0.040.09 ± 0.010.13 ± 0.011.85 ± 0.0232.8 ± 1.2837.3 ± 4.44163.2 ± 14.45
Table 5. Granulometric composition of the soil of the examined experimental plots.
Table 5. Granulometric composition of the soil of the examined experimental plots.
Depth, cmFraction Content in Percentage of Absolute Dry Soil
Fraction Sizes in Millimeters
SandDustSiltThe Sum of Fractions
1–0.250.25–0.050.05–0.010.01–0.0050.005–0.001<0.001<0.01
0–201.12953.65412.91910.49713.3238.47832.2
20–401.31168.0197.2647.2640.80715.33523.4
Table 6. Agrochemical properties of the soil in the experimental plot at the end of the growing season.
Table 6. Agrochemical properties of the soil in the experimental plot at the end of the growing season.
OptionDepth, cmHumus, %Mobile Forms, mg/kg
Light Hydrolyzable NP2O5K2O
Control0–200.59 ± 0.0539.2 ± 0.0134.6 ± 0.66175.0 ± 5.10
20–400.53 ± 0.0535.4 ± 0.9332.6 ± 2.40170.0 ± 10.00
One-time treatment with Tumat0–200.72 ± 0.0842.0 ± 0.0141.3 ± 6.35200.0 ± 10.00
20–400.69 ± 0.0336.4 ± 7.4035.6 ± 2.33185.0 ± 5.00
Two-time treatment with Tumat0–200.80 ± 0.1243.4 ± 4.2043.6 ± 3.17210.0 ± 10.00
20–400.65 ± 0.0342.0 ± 3.2338.0 ± 5.56185.0 ± 5.00
Table 7. Humus reserves in the plow layer of soil 0–20 cm by experiment variants.
Table 7. Humus reserves in the plow layer of soil 0–20 cm by experiment variants.
OptionHumus Content, %Plowing Layer Depth, cmSoil Compaction Density, g/cm3Humus Reserves
t/ha%
Control0.59201.112.98-
One-time treatment with Tumat0.72201.115.8422.0
Two-time treatment with Tumat0.80201.117.635.5
Table 8. Soil Microorganism Population (0–10 sm).
Table 8. Soil Microorganism Population (0–10 sm).
OptionnMicroorganism Population
×106 KOE/г %
Original condition
Experienced section5112.0 ± 6.82-
At the end of the growing season
Control5121.6 ± 8.21-
Single-use Tumat treatment5130.3 ± 3.657.0
Tumat double processing5142.1 ± 4.9117.0
Table 9. Soil enzyme activity (FDA test) in soil (0–10 cm).
Table 9. Soil enzyme activity (FDA test) in soil (0–10 cm).
Option nSoil Enzyme Activity
mg Fl/g %
Original condition
Experimental site5143.3 ± 8.13-
At the end of the growing season
Control5150.2 ± 9.71-
Single-use Tumat treatment5163.9 ± 5.649.1
Tumat double processing5177.8 ± 6.5918.4
Table 10. Phenological observations of sugar beet.
Table 10. Phenological observations of sugar beet.
VariantsSeedlings, Units per 1/m2Plant Density, Thousand Units/haPlant Height by Growth Stages, cm
6–8th Pair of LeavesLeaf ClosureTechnical Maturity
Control10.0 ± 1.529.51 ± 1.6316.8 ± 0.4629.9 ± 1.1933.7 ± 1.31
One-time treatment with Tumat10.6 ± 1.209.87 ± 1.9516.7 ± 0.5331.3 ± 1.3137.6 ± 1.07
Two-time treatment with Tumat11.6 ± 0.6610.7 ± 2.0119.4 ± 0.7532.2 ± 1.2439.5 ± 1.30
Table 11. Sugar beet yield and productivity.
Table 11. Sugar beet yield and productivity.
VariantsSugar Beet Yield, t/haCrop Yield ImprovementSugar Content, %Sugar Yield, t/ha
t/ha%
Control46.6--14.56.75
One-time treatment with Tumat51.54.910.514.97.67
Two-time treatment with Tumat53.77.115.215.28.16
SSD0.5 t/ha2.39
P, % Experiment error1.63
Table 12. Descriptive data statistics.
Table 12. Descriptive data statistics.
IndicatorsEasily Hydrolysable Nitrogen, mg/kgP2O5,
mg/kg
K2O,
mg/kg
Sugar Beet Yield, t/haSugar Content, %Sugar Yield, t/ha
Average39.7337.63187.550.6314.867.52
Standard error0.540.672.181.480.460.22
Median39.438.5192.550.914.97.67
Mode37.333.6172.544.614.56.75
Standard Deviation2.843.5211.377.692.401.16
Variance8.0912.42129.3459.245.781.35
Interval 9.613.532.029.510.04.88
Minimum 34.930.9168.134.19.54.55
Maximum 44.544.4200.163.619.59.43
Invoice (n)272727272727
Table 13. Correlation coefficient.
Table 13. Correlation coefficient.
IndicatorsSugar Beet HarvestSugar Yield
Easily hydrolysable nitrogen0.500.44
Mobile phosphorus0.370.47
Exchangeable potassium0.400.54
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Suleimenov, B.; Kaisanova, G.; Suleimenova, M.; Tanirbergenov, S. Influence of Organic Humic Fertilizer “Tumat” on the Productivity of Sugar Beet. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1100. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14061100

AMA Style

Suleimenov B, Kaisanova G, Suleimenova M, Tanirbergenov S. Influence of Organic Humic Fertilizer “Tumat” on the Productivity of Sugar Beet. Agronomy. 2024; 14(6):1100. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14061100

Chicago/Turabian Style

Suleimenov, Beibut, Gulmira Kaisanova, Mariya Suleimenova, and Samat Tanirbergenov. 2024. "Influence of Organic Humic Fertilizer “Tumat” on the Productivity of Sugar Beet" Agronomy 14, no. 6: 1100. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14061100

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop