Every batch of Syngenta’s Hilleshög® brand sugarbeet seed is extensively tested for plantability in a wide variety of planters. Ensuring accurate plantability gives your crop the best start by properly placing the seed at the optimum spacing to suit your growing practices.
Allow your crop to reach its full potential. Call your Sales Rep today or visit www.hilleshog-us.com to learn more.
Hilleshög Hilleshög is is aa business business unit unit of of Syngenta Syngenta Seeds, Seeds, Inc. Inc. HILLESHÖG®, HILLESHÖG®, the the ALLIANCE ALLIANCE FRAME™, FRAME™, the the HILLESHÖG HILLESHÖG logo, logo, the the PURPOSE PURPOSE ICON™ ICON™ and and the the Syngenta Syngenta logo logo are are trademarks trademarks of of aa Syngenta Syngenta Group Group Company. Company. ©2011 ©2011 Syngenta Syngenta Seeds, Seeds, Inc. Inc. Longmont, Longmont, CO CO 80501. 80501. All All rights rights reserved. reserved.
‘Serving The Nation’s Sugarbeet Community Since 1963’ Volume 50 Number 4 April/May 2011
Page 4
Sugar Publications 4601 16th Ave. N. Fargo, ND 58102 Phone: (701) 476-2111 Fax: (701) 476-2182 E-Mail: sugar@forumprinting.com Web Site: www.sugarpub.com Publisher: Sugar Publications General Manager & Editor: Don Lilleboe Advertising Manager: Heidi Wieland (701) 476-2003 Graphics: Forum Communications Printing
Page 8
Page 16
— Feature Articles — Strong Start, Strong Finish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Hagen brothers’ stale seedbeds and huge beet carts
Season-Long Deficit Irrigation of Sugarbeets . . . . . 8 Report on a three-year Nebraska study
49th ISBI Draws Big Crowd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3,200 attend March trade show in Fargo
The Sugarbeet Grower is published six times annually (January, February, March, April/May, July/August, November/December) by Sugar Publications, a division of Forum Communications Printing. North American sugarbeet producers receive the magazine on a complimentary basis. Annual subscription rates are $12.00 domestic and $18.00 for foreign subscribers. Advertising in The Sugarbeet Grower does not necessarily imply endorsement of a particular product or service by the publisher.
Rhizoctonia Control with Quadris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Michigan research examines treatment options, shows benefits
— Regular Pages — Dateline: Washington . . . . . . . . . . 10 Roundup Ready, farm bill — and more
30 Years Ago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Excerpts from our April/May 1981 issue
Visit Our Website! Now Updated & Expanded!
Write Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
www.sugarpub.com
Around the Industry . . . . . . . . . . . 18
THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2011
— Front Cover — Following an excellent 2010 crop year, the 2011 growing season is now underway, sure to bring its own set of challenges and opportunities. Photo: Don Lilleboe
Spring Challenge . . . Who, what & where it’s happening 3
Strong Start, Strong Finish
Photo: Don Lilleboe
Michigan’s Hagen Brothers Bank on Stale Seedbeds & Huge Beet Carts
n a successful sugarbeet operation, every phase of the production season is important — but none more so than a strong start and a strong finish. Brothers Clint and Brad Hagen know that as well as anyone else. For the past decade-plus, the Hagens, who operate Atwater Farms near Ubly, Mich., have bolstered their season’s “start” by implementing a stale seedbed system. More recently, they’ve bulked up the season’s “finish” by building huge beet carts used not only on their own farm, but also at nearby Michigan Sugar Company piling sites.
I
Stale Seedbed Benefits Their first year of planting sugarbeets into a stale seedbed was 1999, a time when the practice was still quite uncommon around Michigan’s beet growing areas. Weather the prior fall was very conducive, so the Hagens had plenty of time to prepare all of their upcoming 800 acres of beet ground. Their stale seedbeds took a step backward the next few years, however.
4
Above: Clint Hagen (left) of Atwater Farms and his Michigan Sugar Company agriculturist, Matt Booms. Fall weather wasn’t as cooperative as in 1998, and the Hagens weren’t able to get all the necessary fieldwork done prior to winter. Then they refocused. Having experienced the benefits provided by a stale seedbed system (earlier planting, reduced compaction, better yields), they made some management changes — the most dramatic being a transition toward fewer corn acres and more wheat. When planting beets behind corn, they had difficulty getting all the corn ground worked properly prior to winter’s onset; and they didn’t get the desired beet emergence levels the next spring. High volumes of corn stalks and other residue translated into slower-warming soils, inconsistent seed depth placement and unsatisfactory beet stands. “So we’ve been trying to stay with wheat stubble,” Clint relates. “That gives us a lot more time to work the
ground and get it smoothed and leveled.” In 2010, for instance, their wheat harvest began on July 5. That allowed plenty of time to pull soil samples, do some land leveling, spread lime and perform a couple field cultivations to get the ground ready for planting beets this spring. At 100-plus bushels per acre in 2010, the Hagens’ wheat yields have increased dramatically from a decade ago. The wheat crop “provides revenue at a time of year when we are scraping to buy the next fungicide application for our beet crop,” Clint adds. The Hagens apply a lot of liquid manure. Large dairies in their vicinity of the Michigan “Thumb” annually produce millions of gallons of manure. “We buy some of that manure and put it on every acre that’s going into sugarbeets the following year,” Clint explains. Last year, they spread the manure in late July and early August. “We know we lose some nitrogen (by applying it that early); but at that time, there’s plenty available, the custom applicators are ready to go, and the [dairy manure] pits are full,” he notes. The manure is applied at rates of 10,-12,000 gallons per acre. “So if we do get close to fall [before application occurs], we’ll maybe add 50 pounds of N credit from that.” The Hagens test all their beet ground each spring for N levels. “After the crop is planted, we’ll go with a 2x2 sidedress and then nitrate test after that,” Clint says. “The manure provides microbial activity in the soil, as well as many other nutrients besides the nitrogen,” he points out. As of 2011, the Hagens are zone sampling by soil type. On one 160-acre field, the widest range found was from 12 to 91 pounds of available N per acre. “Since we switched over to wheat stubble, both our stands and our yields have gone up,” Clint reports. “Seed placement is better (compared to when following corn), and the stand count is better.” For their 2011 sugarbeet crop, all but 40 acres will be on wheat stubble — “and those 40 will be on fallow stubble.” Atwater Farms had just 75 acres of corn in 2010. Compared to the ample residue remaining after corn, does worked wheat ground provide sufficient overwinter cover to protect against wind erosion prior to the beets’ emergence and early growth? For the most part, yes. “But if it’s a field we’re sure is going to blow, we’ll spread a quarter or half bushel of rye per acre in October, ahead of the field cultivator, and let that green up in the spring.” Once the beets are emerged
THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2011
The fungicide you’ve always wanted is finally within reach. There’s no better partner for your sugarbeet disease management program than Inspire® XT fungicide. Trusted the world over, Inspire XT is proven to deliver long-lasting control of Cercospora leaf spot, powdery mildew and other damaging diseases. And as part of your overall spray program, Inspire XT can help sustain fungicide effectiveness and manage resistance. Top of the class.
©2011 Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 410 Swing Road, Greensboro, NC 27409. Important: Always read and follow label instructions before buying or using Syngenta products. The instructions contain important conditions of sale, including limitations of warranty and remedy. Inspire XT is not currently registered for sale or use in all states. Please check with your state or local extension service before buying or using this product. Inspire® and the Syngenta logo are registered trademarks of a Syngenta Group Company. Syngenta Customer Center: 1-866-SYNGENT(A) (796-4368). www.FarmAssist.com MW 1SUG1005-P1 2/11
Photo: Clint Hagen
Left: A Hagen brothers ‘mega’ cart while screening and loading out sugarbeets at a Michigan Sugar piling site.
and growing, they’ll apply their initial Roundup treatment a bit earlier than they otherwise would to kill off the cover crop. The Hagens also seed rye behind their beets (one bushel per acre) to protect against erosion over winter. They’ll typically follow beets with dry beans, after having killed the rye cover crop. Like other Michigan growers who plant into a stale seedbed, the Hagens view being able to plant earlier as the primary benefit of the system. In 2010, for instance, their beets were going in by March 22-23, with the final field seeded on April 1-2. Frost has not been a problem thus far. “The biggest issue we had [last spring] was that it got very dry after the beets were germinated and emerged, and some of them died off,” Clint says. Another important benefit of their stale seedbed system, Clint affirms, is reduced field compaction. Along with avoiding spring tillage, they don’t make
any preplant fertilization passes. “A lot of guys will ‘float’ on their fertilizer in the spring,” he notes. “We went away from that years ago simply because of the compaction. Now, we don’t see a track out there, other than where the sprayer travels.” Matt Booms, the Hagens’ Michigan Sugar agriculturist, says that as of 2010, at least half of the beet acreage in his territory was planted into a stale seedbed. He expects the percentage to be slightly higher this year.
Big Carts Do Double Duty If you think your beet cart is big, compare it to one that can hold upwards of 65-70 tons. That’s the size of three beet carts operated by Atwater Farms in 2010 — with a fourth smaller one (45-ton capacity) being built for the 2011 Michigan sugarbeet harvest. The carts’ first job is to haul beets out of the Hagen fields, which in 2010
! & Rental Other Trailer Locations in: IN, IA, NE, MT, ID, TX
6
encompassed 1,150 acres. Then they do double duty, traveling to Michigan Sugar Company (MSC) piling sites near Ruth, Verona and Kinde. There they’re loaded with transfer beets heading off to one of the four MSC factories. The Hagen carts screened 570,000 tons of beets during the 2010/11 campaign before loading them into truck trailers for their trip to the factory. In the past two years, the carts have cleaned 1.2 million tons of beets “with very minimal downtime,” Clint reports. The Hagens’ first contract with Michigan Sugar to clean and load out beets at the above-mentioned piling sites came about in 2009. Learning that the sugar company was exploring various ways of reducing tare levels in transfer beets, the brothers approached MSC with a proposal to bring a beet cart to one of the piling sites, load a couple trucks full of beets, and then measure the volume of dirt they were able to screen out. The company agreed, liked what it saw, and things progressed from there. Frames and tanks for the three “mega carts” were fabricated at Richmond Steel in Pigeon. The Richmonds — Ken and Mike — also supplied the ferris wheels, conveyors, hydraulics, sprockets, bearings and other components. Hydraulics were installed at Atwater Farms’ shop, as were the first conveyor and ferris wheel cage. The second and third conveyors and ferris wheel cages were assembled at Minuteman Metal Works in Bad Axe. The carts put on some road time during the 2010 early harvest. “During the early digs, we’d go dig our own beets; they (MSC) would shut us down; we’d drive the carts to the piling grounds; clean beets there; bring them home; and dig some more beets,” Clint recounts. Once all their acres were harvested, the Hagens placed the carts permanently at the three piling sites, where they screened and loaded beets bound for processing. They’ve been averaging between 5-6% weighed tare removal in their screening. “We’re also responsible for removing all of the screen-out from the carts,” Clint relates. During the 2009/10 campaign, “we hauled the dirt to the fields and pushed it around with a blade.” That didn’t work so well, so for 2010/11 the Hagens purchased a Kuhn vertical beater manure spreader and spread the screened dirt across about 250 acres. — Don Lilleboe ❖
THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2011
My Land of Pride
T
(877) (877) 373-8115 373-8115 w w w. svdhbeets.com
deal with water shortages throughout the growing season. One of them must be sugarbeets so that beet production can be maintained. That was the motivation for a three-year (2008-10) study at the University of Nebraska’s Panhandle Research and Extension Center at Scottsbluff. he Scottsbluff study compared nine different irrigation treatments under a small-plot sprinkler irrigation system. The treatments — each of which was replicated six times — were as follows: 1. 100% of full irrigation 2. 75% of full irrigation 3. 50% of full irrigation 4. 25% of full irrigation 5. 0% (no irrigation) 6. 100% of full irrigation until August 15; then 50% of full 7. 75% of full irrigation until August 15; then 25% of full 8. 50% of full irrigation until August 15; then 100% of full 9. 25% of full irrigation until August 15; then 75% of full
Photo: Don Lilleboe
T
Season-Long Deficit Irrigation of Sugarbeets Results of Three-Year Western Nebraska Study By C. Dean Yonts* ithin the Western Sugar Cooperative growing region**, surface water supplies for irrigation are limited whenever drought occurs. As a result, delivery of surface water may (1) be delayed at the beginning of the season, (2) restricted during the season, and/or (3) shut off before the irrigation season is over. Since adequate water may not be available to meet the crop’s total needs, surface water users thus have a difficult decision to make in selecting which crop(s) to irrigate.
W
* C. Dean Yonts is associate professor of biological systems engineering at the University of Nebraska Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Scottsbluff. ** The Western Sugar Cooperative growing region includes western Nebraska/ northeastern Colorado/southeastern Wyoming and south central Montana/ north central Wyoming. This study was funded by the Western Sugar-Grower Joint Research Committee.
8
For those growers who depend on groundwater for irrigation, drought increases the amount of water they need to pump — resulting in increased pumping costs. In many locales, however, irrigation pumping has resulted in a decline in the groundwater table. In response, government agencies have imposed pumping restrictions in an attempt to extend the useful life of affected aquifers. During the early 2000s, a time when restrictions on groundwater pumping were put in place and there was a drought-induced lack of surface water, many producers felt that sugarbeet’s viability as a crop could be in jeopardy. Without an abundant supply of water, beet production levels likely could not be sustained, necessitating a switch to other crops. But society is demanding that irrigated water for the production of all agricultural crops be delivered both effectively and efficiently throughout the season. Deficit irrigation strategies are being developed for many crops to
Two varieties (Betaseed 66RR70 and Hilleshog/Syngenta 9027RR) were planted, with the sprinkler system installed each spring immediately after planting. (A severe storm and standreducing frost necessitated replanting of the 2010 plots on May 18.) Overall sprinkler irrigation treatments spanned the periods of June 30-Sept. 29, 2008; July 9-Sept. 25, 2009; and July 2-Sept. 24, 2010. Approximately 7.7, 8.5 and 7.4 inches of rainfall were received during the 2008, 2009 and 2010 growing seasons, respectively. Rainfall events occurred at relatively even intervals throughout the 2008 season. During 2009 and 2010, though, rains fell primarily during the early part of the season, prior to the initiation of irrigation. In those two years, only about 1.0 inch of rain fell during the heavy-water-use months of July, August and September. The soil type in the Scottsbluff plots is a Tripp very fine sandy loam, with a water-holding capacity of 1.8 inches/foot. The sugarbeets were planted in 22-inch rows. All plots were irrigated simultaneously, with the water treatments based on nozzle size. Plots were irrigated no more than once every three days, with a maximum of 0.8 inch of water being applied during any single application. The sprinkler system simulated a 125-acre center pivot with a 600-gallon/minute well. Leaf area and plant height were measured during each season to deter-
THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2011
mine the influence of deficit irrigation on canopy development and architecture. Also, a neutron probe was used periodically throughout each growing season to measure volumetric water content at one-foot increments. hat were the findings of this study? The accompanying table shows three-year averages for the nine irrigation treatments for leaf area index, plant height, tare, sucrose content, root yield, per-acre sugar and sugar loss to molasses. Only minor visual differences in plant canopy mass and water-stressed leaves were observed during the growing season among the nine treatments. In particular, only the 25% and 0% treatments routinely showed visual signs of water stress. Leaf area index was statistically less (by about 17%) for the 0% (no irrigation) treatment, compared to all other treatments. Plant height for that 0% treatment was 5 inches less than the 25% water treatment and nearly 9 inches less than the 100% irrigation treatment. Tare tended to decrease as the irrigation amount decreased. That’s likely due to fewer fine root hairs on beets in the drier treatments, thereby reducing the amount of soil that could cling to the roots. Also, drier soil would tend to separate from the roots easier at harvest than would soils containing greater water content. Average sucrose content across the three years ranged from a low of 14.9% for the 0% irrigation treatment up to 16.0% for the 75%-25% treatment. Sucrose levels were similar across all treatments — with the exception of the 50%-100% and 0% treatments. Those two were statistically lower than the others, but similar to each other. The sucrose content results would indicate that as soil water conditions become drier during the growing season, sugar levels likewise are reduced. Average sugarbeet root yield decreased from a high of 31.1 tons/acre for the 100% irrigation treatment down to a low of 20.4 tons for the 0% irrigation treatment. Per-acre sugar yield was similar for the 100%, 75% and 50% treatments; but compared to the 100% treatment, sugar per acre declined by 14% and 38%, respectively, for the 25% and 0% irrigation treatments. The split treatments that applied more water early in the season (100%-50% and 75%25%) had a statistically higher peracre sugar yield than the split treatments in which more water was
W
THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2011
Leaf Area Index, Plant Height & Harvest Yield Results* Average - 2008, 2009 & 2010 UN-Scottsbluff Deficit Irrigation Treatments Treatment 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 100%-50% 75%-25% 50%-100% 25%-75%
Leaf Area Plant Ht. Index (Inches) 5.58 ab 5.65 a 5.23 b 5.41 ab 4.61 c 5.8 a 5.59 ab 5.63 ab 5.61 ab
18.6 ab 18.4 abc 17.6 bc 15.3 e 10.2 f 17.0 cd 15.9 de 19.3 a 17.9 abc
Tare Sucrose Root Yield Sugar Yield SLM (%)
(%)
3.7 ab 3.7 a 3.1 cd 2.8 d 2.3 e 3.6 ab 3.3 bc 3.6 ab 3.1 cd
15.9 a 15.6 a 15.7 a 15.6 a 14.9 b 15.7 a 16.0 a 15.1 b 15.7 a
(Tons/Ac)
31.1 a 30.6 ab 30.5 ab 27.2 d 20.4 e 31.0 ab 30.3 ab 29.8 bc 29.0 c
(Lbs/Ac)
9,880 a 9,580 a 9,570 a 8,540 c 6,170 d 9,730 a 9,720 a 8,970 b 9,120 b
1.2 d 1.2 d 1.3 cd 1.4 b 1.7 a 1.2 d 1.3 cd 1.3 bc 1.3 cd
* Values followed by the same letter indicate no signiďŹ cant difference at the 5% probability level.
applied later in the season (50-100 and 25-75). Sugar loss to molasses averaged 1.3, varying from a low of 1.2 for the 100% irrigation treatment up to 1.7 for the 0% treatment. hat bottom-line conclusions can be drawn from this three-year irrigation study? There are two:
W
First, sugarbeets can perform satisfactorily under deficit irrigation. Second, sugarbeets respond better to mid-season irrigation treatments than to late-season irrigation. (This assumes there is adequate water that limits moisture stress during early season growth when plants are being established and developing a strong root system.) â?–
-Tiger
-Maus
BIG-BEAR
9
Dateline: Washington Roundup Ready Sugarbeets
2012 Elections
On Thursday, March 17, the Center for Food Safety’s newest lawsuit was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Northern California to the U. S. District Court in Washington, D.C. On March 28, the U.S. Department of Justice moved to consolidate the transferred case with the Grant vs. Vilsack case in which we are plaintiffs. On the same day, the Center for Food Safety withdrew their request for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the planting of the 2011 crop, while reserving the right to refile it at any time. As always, check with your local processor for the latest information on litigation activity.
Everyone is watching to see what happens in the Senate in the 2012 elections. Democrats have 23 seats (including the two Independents) to protect, while Republicans have 10 seats up for re-election. At this point, eight Democrats and three Republicans have announced that they will not run for re-election, which clearly tees up a potential shift in Senate leadership in 2013. House districts and delegations will shift due to redistricting that occurs every 10 years after a census. Republicans control 26 state legislatures (196 congressional districts), while Democrats control 24 (49 districts). Bipartisan or citizen commissions will draw 92 districts; control is divided in 91 districts; and seven districts are in at-large states that do not require redistricting.
2012 Farm Bill Anti-sugar policy political forces have already begun their efforts. Sen. Jean Shaheen (D-NH) and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) have co-sponsored one bill (S.25) to eliminate the policy, and Indiana Republican Sen. Richard Lugar has a separate bill with the same intended result. There was a recent announcement to relaunch the Sugar Reform Caucus to attract both House and Senate members. We expect a strong battle to be waged, and are awaiting an announcement from the Senate Agriculture Committee for the schedule of hearings and other activities this year surrounding the deliberation of the new farm bill.
10
By Luther Markwart
More Imports? There will be an important supply and demand estimate by USDA on April 8 to determine whether action may be taken to increase imports. Both raw and refined markets are strong, and the Administration is looking at this very closely. Beet and cane companies are keeping USDA apprised of their company’s view on the situation. Under the current farm bill, the Administration is authorized after April 1 to allow more imports if the market requires it. But USDA must always be vigilant in recognizing too many imports can threaten costs to the program, and that Mexico is al-
Executive Vice President American Sugarbeet Growers Assn. ways a major and uncertain supplier. To date, USDA has done a good job managing the sugar policy.
2011 Planting Intentions USDA-NASS announced 2011 sugarbeet planting intentions on March 31. The report forecast about 15,700 more U.S. beet acres this year than in 2010. Unlike last year, weather has pushed growers back from earlier plantings this year. A close eye is being kept on the flooding in the Red River Valley as heavy snows melt.
‘Sugar Man of the Year’ This year’s prestigious “Sugar Man of the Year” award will be presented to John Richmond, recently retired CEO of Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative. This award is given to a distinguished leader in the beet and cane sugar industries each year. Mr. Richmond will be honored in New York City on May 19.
Japan Tragedy The unfathomable tragedy in Japan has captured our hearts and attention for the past weeks, and our prayers continue for the victims. What, if anything, does this mean for sugar in that country — and what impact does/might it have on the world market? Japan produces just under one million metric tons of sugar and imports approximately 1.4 million metric tons — mainly from Thailand, Australia and South Africa. So this should have little, if any, impact on the world market. ❖
THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2011
30 Years Ago Coke Bottlers Suing Parent Company — “The Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Elizabethtown, Ky., said that it and 95 other Coke bottlers were suing the parent Coca-Cola Company over its use of a cheaper sugar substitute in its syrup and for alleged overpricing. “A Coca-Cola Company spokesman said the company was aware of the suits, viewed them as without merit and would oppose them vigorously. “The independent bottlers have refused to sign an amended contract with Atlanta Coke that gives the parent greater freedom to raise syrup prices as well as greater control over advertising and marketing. More than 80 percent of Coke’s 550 bottlers are said to have signed the contract. “William Schmidt, president of Elizabethtown Coke, said the bottlers contend that Atlanta Coke has violated a 1921 agreement under which the parent company agreed to use only ‘sugar’ in its syrup, but early last year decided to use instead a high-fructose corn sweetener normally 10 percent cheaper. He said the company had refused to pass on the savings.” What Is in the Future for the Sugar Industry? — “Inclusion of a sugar program in general agriculture legislation, now being considered by Congress, is ‘vitally important to consumer interests and essential for the economic survival of domestic sugar producers,’ according to David C. Carter, president, U.S. Beet Sugar Association. “Testifying before [a] U.S. Senate Agriculture subcommittee on March 6, Carter noted sugar is one of the nation’s basic commodities and a dependable source of sugar is ‘paramount’ to the food processing industry. “ ‘U.S. producers provide almost one-half of the country’s annual sugar requirements and, year upon year, have proven to be the most dependable source of this strategically important product,’ he said. “Currently, the USDA reports beet sugar processors provide 30 percent of total U.S. sugar demand, now estimated at more than 85 lbs. per capita annually. . . . “Since the expiration of the Sugar Act in 1974, the U.S. has experienced a short term of relatively high prices, followed by a long period of extremely depressed prices, then succeeded by a rapidly escalating market. ‘These conditions not only meant price instability for consumers,’ [Carter] said, ‘but also contributed to the permanent closing of 13 out of the nation’s 56 beet processing plants since 1974.’ ” Editor’s Note: Congress voted to support the domestic sugar industry by providing a nonrecourse loan program for sugar under the Food and Agriculture Act of 1981. In part due to assumptions about inflation prospects, Congress mandated increases in the loan rate over four years,
THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2011
Excerpts from the April/May 1981 Issue of The Sugarbeet Grower
to 18 cents by the 1985 crop. Loan rates differed by location so that loans would not distort the routine marketing of sugar. A sugar import quota system was implemented in May of 1982. USDA’s Estimate for 1981-82 Sugarbeet Planting Intentions — “The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s estimate of 1981-82 sugarbeet planting intentions of 1,256,100 acres, up from last year’s 1,231,600 acres, fell fully in line with expectations of industry sources. “Dave Carter, president of the U.S. Beet Sugar Association, said the 2 percent increase held no surprises. The decision by Colorado-based Great Western Sugar Co. to reduce plantings in five states was announced last month and has been absorbed in the market, he said. “Carter said the increase acreage mostly represents the additional acreage planned for California, which was expected since it is the only major area which still has available capacity for processing. “Ben Goodwin, Executive Director of the California Beet Growers Association, said the USDA estimate of 270,000 acres for California, up from last year’s plantings of 234,000 acres, seemed a bit high and could present difficulties around planting time. “ ‘It could mean growers won’t be able to harvest in a reasonable amount of time. Beets left too long in the ground could be hit by a virus. Also, if they can’t get the beets harvested by spring, growers won’t be able to get the next crop in the ground,’ Goodwin said.” Advertisers as of April/May 1981 — A listing of those companies advertising in the April/May 1981 issue of The Sugarbeet Grower is illuminating. Some are no longer in business; some are no longer marketing the product or service advertised in 1981; and some of the products are still around — but are now sold by a different company. Here’s the list: • FBC Chemicals, Inc. (Nortron Flowable herbicide) • Lindsay Bros. Co. (J&J Cultiguide steer systems) • Cyanamid Ag Division (Counter 15-G insecticide) • Loftness Manufacturing (beet defoliators) • Stauffer Chemical Co. (Eptam herbicide) • NOR-AM Ag Products (Betanex/Betanal herbicides) • Lockwood Corp. (beet defoliator and harvester) • Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.D. (health ed info) • Union Carbide Ag Products (Temik pesticide) • Minto (N.D.) Machine Shop (Harriston Spreeder) • Production Credit Assn. of Minn. and N.D. • Ag Chem Pennwalt (Herbicide 273) • John Deere (JD 4310A beet harvester) • Lasco, Inc. (electric Lightning Weeder) ❖
11
49th ISBI Draws Big Crowd he 49th International Sugarbeet Institute, held March 16 and 17 at the Fargodome in Fargo, N.D., attracted an estimated crowd of more than 3,200 during its two-day run. That was up by about 500 from the 2010 attendance. A total of 126 companies exhibited at the 2011 ISBI. Eighty-five were booth exhibitors and 41 were floor exhibitors. As always, a broad spectrum of sugarbeet-related products and services were on display — everything from seed and chemical to tractors and harvesters, from site-specific system providers to field drainage companies. Luther Markwart, executive vice president of the American Sugarbeet Growers Association, was this year’s featured speaker. He drew large crowds both days for his presentation, which covered the current status of Roundup Ready sugarbeet litigation, crop insurance developments, trade policy and the next farm bill. The 22-person committee that plans and hosts the annual ISBI is comprised of individuals from several segments of the Minnesota/North Dakota beet industry. There are grower and staff personnel from each of the region’s three sugar co-ops, university sugarbeet specialists, grower association staff, and representatives from the booth and floor exhibitor communities. Mohamed Khan, sugarbeet specialist with North Dakota State University and the University of Minnesota, is committee chairman. Crookston, Minn., grower Bob Cournia is exhibits coordinator The 50th International Sugarbeet Institute will be held on March 14 and 15, 2012, at the Alerus Center in Grand Forks, N.D. ❖
12
Photos: Don Lilleboe
T
Above: Part of this year’s ISBI exhibit area. Right: ASGA’s Luther Markwart speaks to a capacity audience on March 16. Below, Left: Albert Sims (right), director of operations at the University of Minnesota’s Northwest Research and Outreach Center. Crookston, presents the UM President’s Award to American Crystal Sugar Company in recognition of American Crystal’s longstanding support of the university. Curt Haugen, Crystal board vice chairman, accepted the award. Below, Right: Tom Knudsen, vice president-agriculture with Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative and ISBI committee member, is shown with his collection of Sugarbeet Institute caps from the past 25 years.
THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2011
Increased efficiency and reduced labor saves time and improves profit potential. More flexibility, simplicity and dependability. Proven crop safety of the Roundup Ready® system. Broad spectrum weed control.
VISIT YOUR SEED REP OR GENUITY.COM
EVERY BEET MATTERS TO US, BECAUSE EVERY POUND OF SUGAR MATTERS TO YOU. For Genuity® Roundup Ready® Sugarbeets in the U.S.: On February 8, 2011, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published its decision to implement interim measures of deregulation with conditions for the planting of Genuity® Roundup Ready® Sugarbeets root crops, and of planting under USDA permit for Genuity® Roundup Ready® Sugarbeets seed crops. Genuity® Roundup Ready® Sugarbeets can only be sold, transported and planted in compliance with the conditions imposed by USDA and as set forth in mandatory compliance agreements with USDA, which must be in place prior to transport or planting. Growers must comply with the Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement (MTSA) Amendment and the Genuity® Roundup Ready® Sugarbeets Technology Use Guide (TUG) Addendum on www.Genuity.com. ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. Genuity Icons, Genuity and Design®, Genuity®, Roundup Ready® and Roundup® are trademarks of Monsanto Technology LLC. ALWAYS FOLLOW GRAIN MARKETING AND STEWARDSHIP REQUIREMENTS. Details of these requirements can be found in the Trait Stewardship Responsibilities Notice to Farmers printed in this publication. ©2011 Monsanto Company.
Trait Stewardship Responsibilities Notice to Farmers For Genuity® Roundup Ready® Sugarbeets in the U.S.: On February 8, 2011, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published its decision to implement interim measures of deregulation with conditions for the planting of Genuity® Roundup Ready® Sugarbeets root crops, and of planting under USDA permit for Genuity® Roundup Ready® Sugarbeets seed crops. Genuity® Roundup Ready® Sugarbeets can only be sold, transported and planted in compliance with the conditions imposed by USDA and as set forth in mandatory compliance agreements with USDA, which must be in place prior to transport or planting. Growers must comply with the Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement (MTSA) Amendment and the Genuity® Roundup Ready® Sugarbeets Technology Use Guide (TUG) Addendum on www.Genuity.com. For Genuity® Roundup Ready® Sugarbeets in the U.S.: The Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement is amended as follows: Grower agrees to transport and plant Genuity® Roundup Ready® Sugarbeets only for the production of a root crop, and not for seed production, and in compliance with the conditions imposed by the USDA under the deregulation with conditions and as set forth in mandatory compliance agreements with USDA, which grower agrees will be in place prior to transport or planting. Based on the decision of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on January 27, 2011, Genuity® Roundup Ready® Alfalfa seed is available for sale and distribution by authorized Seed Companies or their dealers for use in the United States only. This seed may not be planted outside of the United States, or for the production of seed, or sprouts. Monsanto Company is a member of Excellence Through Stewardship® (ETS). Monsanto products are commercialized in accordance with ETS Product Launch Stewardship Guidance, and in compliance with Monsanto’s Policy for Commercialization of Biotechnology-Derived Plant Products in Commodity Crops. This product has been approved for import into key export markets with functioning regulatory systems. Any crop or material produced from this product can only be exported to, or used, processed or sold in countries where all necessary regulatory approvals have been granted. Do not export Genuity® Roundup Ready® Alfalfa seed or crop, including hay or hay products, to China pending import approval. It is a violation of national and international law to move material containing biotech traits across boundaries into nations where import is not permitted. Growers should talk to their grain handler or product purchaser to confirm their buying position for this product. Excellence Through Stewardship® is a registered trademark of Biotechnology Industry Organization. B.t. products may not yet be registered in all states. Check with your Monsanto representative for the registration status in your state. Cottonseed containing Monsanto traits may not be exported for the purpose of planting without a license from Monsanto. Individual results may vary, and performance may vary from location to location and from year to year. This result may not be an indicator of results you may obtain as local growing, soil and weather conditions may vary. Growers should evaluate data from multiple locations and years whenever possible. ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. Roundup Ready® crops contain genes that confer tolerance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup® brand agricultural herbicides. Roundup® brand agricultural herbicides will kill crops that are not tolerant to glyphosate. Acceleron and Design®, Acceleron®, Biotech Yield AssuranceSM, Bollgard II®, Genuity and Design®, Genuity Icons, Genuity®, Respect the Refuge and Cotton Design®, Roundup Ready 2 Technology and Design®, Roundup Ready 2 Yield®, Roundup Ready®, Roundup®, SmartStax and Design®, SmartStax®, VT Double PRO™, VT Triple PRO™, YieldGard VT Triple® and YieldGard VT® are trademarks of Monsanto Technology LLC. Ignite® and LibertyLink® and the Water Droplet Design® are registered trademarks of Bayer. Herculex® is a registered trademark of Dow AgroSciences LLC. Respect the Refuge® and Respect the Refuge and Corn Design® are registered trademarks of National Corn Growers Association. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. ©2011 Monsanto Company.
Write Field
By David Kragnes
Spring Challenge It’s a very spring-like day, I’m standing in the field. The winter scars of frostbite Have nearly all been healed.
I knew I had to make it sound As simple as I could, Yet tell her all about the job So she’d know what she should.
On days like this to be outside And drink in springtime air, To have this job and still get paid Almost seems unfair.
“It’s almost just like topping beets Without the rows to guide you. Just keep the worked-up line you see Over there beside you.”
There are things about this job That have to do with luck. Like over there where you see My tractor very stuck.
I sent her off without much more In the way of training. Thoroughly convinced that now On progress we were gaining.
It’s all my fault, of that I’m sure; There’s no one else to blame. If anyone should question that, My wife would say the same.
This story could go on and on, There are things I shouldn’t tell. Let’s leave it all alone and say, Things didn’t go so well.
There’s a man who works for me, His judgment’s a safe bet. He knows from on that tractor seat Just which spots are too wet.
Never underestimate The challenges in store. When you ask your wife to do a job She has never done before.
The problem is he wasn’t there In my time of need, Because I sent him off to town To get a load of seed.
David Kragnes farms near Felton, Minn. He is a former chairman of American Crystal Sugar Co., and currently serves on the board of directors of CoBank.
The line was long, he had to wait. He wasn’t coming back. Here comes my wife bringing lunch In a paper sack. “Dear,” I said, “I’m glad you’re here. We’re falling some behind. “If you would help us to catch up, It really would be kind.” You know the look I got from her If you have been wed. It means you must have fallen down, And firmly struck your head.
14
THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2011
Changing Conditions Demand Active Depth Control
Wands mounted on the harvester send readings to the hydraulic system attached to the rear struts.
With increasing sugar beet harvester width, leveling across the harvester is an essential component in delivering a quality product. )" & $ %) () % & ! %& ! # & " " (& '! # " (" # & " )'( & %! )$ & & (! %& & (! %& " ( & & & & " ( & & ! # " & $ % (! %( & $ '! %) %& # (%! (" & )(& " $ '% & '! & ! ! & $ " & %& ! ) %& & adjustments that are simple and effective. Active Depth Control (ADC) from Amity Technology delivers more than a best guess when it comes to digging depth. & $ (% )% & %) (# & ('" & ) ) %& " ( '& & ('" & '! # " (" # & )" & other systems, ADC controls the hitch cylinders to change digging depth, but only Active Depth Control from Amity Technology also controls the rear cylinders to match digging depth across the machine! This on-the-go adjustment prevents hundreds of tons of extra dirt from being introduced to the harvester. & " ( # ! & ) # (& " separate it!
Field harvested with Active Depth Control
Field harvested without Active Depth Control
% (& &
)%& ('" & '! # "
(" # & ('" &
! $ ') %" & "
% (& '! " & (&
Technology harvesters with Active Depth Control.
WWW AMITYTECH COM s 0HONE TH !VENUE .ORTH s &ARGO .$
Rhizoctonia Control With Quadris — Update on Michigan Research — By Steve Poindexter & Tom Wenzel* hizoctonia root rot is a serious disease problem in several sugarbeetgrowing regions, with the result sometimes being dramatic — and expensive — reductions in tonnage and quality. Low levels of infection can easily cause yield losses in excess of a ton per acre, while high infection levels can cut yields by more than 10 tons per acre. The quality of surviving beets can also be impacted, sometimes resulting in significant losses in recoverable sugar. Management steps typically revolve around the planting of Rhizoctonia-resistant (tolerant) varieties, certain agronomic practices (e.g., rotation and keeping contaminated soil off beet crowns) — and the employment of seed treatment products and/or applied fungicides. While tolerant varieties also will benefit from the use of
R
* Steve Poindexter is senior extension sugarbeet educator with Michigan State University and director of Michigan Sugarbeet Advancement. Tom Wenzel is research technician with Michigan Sugarbeet Advancement.
Monopill SE
fungicides, they are most helpful on varieties that are more susceptible to infections by the Rhizoctonia solani fungus. During 2009 and 2010, the Michigan Sugarbeet Advancement initiative established a study to determine the efficacy and economic impact of various application strategies for the use of Quadris® flowable fungicide to control Rhizoctonia root rot. The different treatments encompassed: • In-furrow T-band • In-furrow T-band + a low-rate application at the six- to eightleaf stage • Normal rate at the two- to four-leaf stage • Normal rate at the six- to eight-leaf stage • A low-rate application twice (two- to four-leaf stage and again at the six- to eight-leaf stage) We also evaluated in-furrow Quadris for its impact on sugarbeet plant emergence. In addition, the effectiveness of Quadris at the six- to eight-leaf foliar application stage was compared with that of Proline®480 SC. Finally, we looked at the effectiveness
sugar beet planters
Plant your seed more effectively -precise seed spacing and placement -optimal spacing for higher yields -reduce seed use and technology user fees -robust yet light weight, low horsepower for early planting -population adjustment as you plant -individual row control
Ropa North America 1- 519-786-3025 www. ropanorthamerica.com or e-mail: info@ropanorthamerica.com
16
of “rescue” treatments of Quadris, both banded and broadcast. Three trials were conducted in 2009 and two in 2010 (plus two other “rescue” ones), with multiple replications at all sites. All consisted of strip trials in commercial fields with histories of moderate to heavy infections of Rhizoctonia. Also, all were naturally infected sites; none of the trials were inoculated. Rhizoctonia-susceptible varieties were planted at all locations. Control evaluation was conducted by taking counts of dead or dying beets (per 1,200 feet of row) in mid-August. Infection levels at these trial locations were considered low to moderate, with the check having 150-250 dead beets. The emergence data were taken from the five trials plus 10 additional sites. The in-furrow T-band applications were performed with the grower’s equipment, spraying a 2.75- to 5.5-inch band between the planter’s disk openers and press wheels. Rates ranged from 4.0 to 7.5 oz/acre, depending upon the band width. The foliar treatments were applied in a 7.0-inch band. Low and normal rates of these applications were 0.4 and 0.6 oz/1,000 feet of row, respectively. Proline + NIS was applied in a 7.0-inch band at 5.7 oz/acre. our of the five trials had similar emergence data, so results from those trials were combined. Since one trial incurred a significant reduction of its plant stand for the in-furrow treatments, its data were compiled separately. For the four combined trials, the average percent controls (2009 and 2010 together) over the check ended up as follows: • Six- to eight-leaf, normal rate: 82% better than check • In-furrow, six- to eight-leaf, low rate: 82% better • Two- to four-leaf and six- to eight-leaf: 78% better • In-furrow T-band alone: 72% better • Two- to four-leaf, normal rate: 48% better These levels of control were based on the check having 202 dead or dying beets per 1,200 feet of row. When it came to tonnage and recoverable sugar per acre, results for the four combined trials averaged out as follows (tons/acre and pounds/acre recoverable sugar, respectively): • In-furrow, six- to eight-leaf, low rate: 29.2 tons and 8,799 lbs. • In-furrow T-band alone: 28.7 tons and 8,544 lbs. (Con’t)
F
THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2011
• Six- to eight-leaf, normal rate: 28.3 tons and 8,414 lbs. • Two- to four-leaf and six- to eightleaf: 27.6 tons and 8,184 lbs. • Two- to four-leaf, normal rate: 26.9 tons and 7,991 lbs. • Check: 24.7 tons and 7,139 lbs. So the best treatment beat the check in terms of recoverable sugar per acre, by 1,660 pounds, while the “worst” beat the check by 850 pounds. The trial that was not combined due to emergence issues showed generally similar results as the combined trials in terms of dead beet counts. Due to the reduced emergence, tons per acre for the in-furrow treatments were about one ton lower compared to the foliar treatments with similar levels of control. On average (four trials in each of two years), even with low to moderate levels of Rhizoctonia infection, the peracre net return of Quadris over the check trials ranged from $94 to $209, depending upon the rate, timing and method used. The best treatment in these trials improved recoverable sugar per ton by 14 pounds and percent sugar by 0.7. Even the “worst” treatment increased RST by 8 pounds and sugar content by 0.3%. Three trials compared Quadris and Proline where foliar applications were made at the six- to eight-leaf stage. Quadris provided significantly better control and tonnage than did Proline; but Proline likewise provided a significant improvement over the check. In the “rescue” treatment trials, Quadris was applied basically as soon as any dead or dying beets were noticed (typically between the 10- to 14-
THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2011
Photo: Steve Poindexter / In-furrow Quadris (left) vs. ‘check’ (right).
On average, the per-acre net return of Quadris over the check trials ranged from $94 to $209.
leaf stage). Two methods were used: (1) banded (forced onto the beet crown) at the recommended rate, and (2) broadcast at a similar rate. Banding did provide moderate control, while the broadcast treatment gave about half the control of banding. A rescue application will not be as effective as a well-timed earlier treat-
ment; but it could be helpful if a person is monitoring the field often and sees problems developing early on. Applications as row closure approaches would be significantly less effective, for two reasons: (1) Significant infections already will have occurred, and (2) getting the fungicide onto the crown of the plants will be difficult. ❖
17
Around The Industry ASSBT Awards Go to Chertudi, Sims, Bredehoeft & Lamb
Syngenta Seedcare Launches CruiserMaxx Sugarbeets
Attendance was strong at the 35th general meeting of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists, held in Albuquerque, N. Mex., in early March. Nearly 375 participants, representing 12 countries, were in attendance. At the event’s concluding awards banquet, K. Pete Chertudi was presented with an ASSBT Honorary Membership award. Chertudi, who began his sugar industry career in 1969, retired in December 2007 as senior vice president and chief operating officer of Amalgamated Sugar Company. Meritorious Service awards were presented to Albert Sims, associate professor and director of operations at the University of Minnesota’s Northwest Research and Outreach Center; Mark Bredehoeft, research agronomist with Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative; and John Lamb, professor and extension soils specialist with the University of Minnesota.
Syngenta Seedcare announced in late March the launch of CruiserMaxxŽ Sugarbeets, the first insecticide/fungicide seed treatment combination for sugarbeets. The brand introduction comes after the registration of CruiserŽ 5FS seed treatment insecticide for use on sugarbeets by the Environmental Protection Agency. CruiserMaxx Sugarbeets, a combination of separately registered Cruiser 5FS seed treatment insecticide and Apron XLŽ and MaximŽ 4FS seed-delivered fungicides, provides defense against early season insects and diseases while increasing plant stand, vigor and yield potential. “We are excited to offer sugarbeet growers the combined protection of our best insecticide and fungicides in a convenient treatment combination,� said Chad Shelton, crop manager, Syngenta Seedcare. “With CruiserMaxx Sugarbeets, seedlings are protected from un-
wanted insect and disease pressure the moment they are planted. Throughout the growing season, sugarbeet growers will be pleased with the increased vigor, improved stand establishment and increased yield potential offered by CruiserMaxx Sugarbeets.�
Bayer CropScience Donates to ASGA Internship, Scholarships
For the eighth consecutive year, Bayer CropScience has honored six sugarbeet farmers with donations totaling $2,000 to industry internships and scholarship programs. The growers were selected from a drawing at the 2011 American Sugarbeet Growers Association (ASGA) annual meeting in Tucson, Ariz. The winners chose an industry scholarship program to receive the donations from Bayer CropScience on their behalf. Winning beet growers were Max Baker of Powell, Wyo.; William Herford of Elton, Mich.; David Reidle from Sidney, Mont.; Roger Stutzman of Buhl, Idaho; John Snyder from Worland, Wyo.; and Bryan Wiltz of Chokio, Minn. The winners requested that all $2,000 go to the ASGA Bill Cleavinger Summer Internship Program. This proth gram is named in honor of the late Texas grower who served the industry for more than 30 years, including a Sponsored by American Sugar Alliance term as ASGA president. Each winner also received an iPodÂŽ, courtesy PonchoÂŽ July 29 - August 3, 2011 Sponsored by Beta seed treatment. American“Honoring Sugar Alliance Stowe Mountain Lodge • Stowe, Vermont U.S. sugarbeet producers at the ASGA annual meeting is a prividiscussion on the farm bill’s renewal. Listen, Attendance at the 2011 Symposium is a legeAugust every year,â€? says Kerry Gross3, 2011 learn and add your views at lively and in- July 29 ‘must’ for everyone in the global sweetener weiler, Bayer CropScience product Stowe Mountain Lodge Stowe, Vermont,“We USA formative sessions on these industry. Program topics will include the and other topics, manager for seed treatments. have U.S. and world market supply-demand outand socialize with sugar industry colleagues. had the pleasure of meeting now-active look; the effect of multilateral, regional and Our venue is the spectacular Stowe members in the industry who benefitth The 28Lodge International Sweetener bilateral trade agreements on world sugar Mountain in Stowe, Vermont. ThisSymposium will be held July 29 August 3, 2011, at the new spectacu ted from these scholarship programs at Mountain Lodgeski in Stowe, For more information, visit www.sugaralliance.org/symposium supplies and U.S. commodity programs; and Stowe charming New England town is Vermont. just 40 annual meetings. We have seen minutes from Burlington International Air-is a mustASGA Attendance at the 2011 Symposium for everyone in the global sweetener industry. Program to how this Bayer CropScience doport or include a scenic the three-plus hourworld drivemarket from supply!demandannual ics will U.S. and outlook, and the effect of multilateral, regional a nation assists the next generation of Boston. trade For more than a century, the Stowe bilateral agreements on world sugar policies and U.S. commodity programs, as well as the anticipated leaders in the sugarbeet industry.â€? area has enjoyed international fame for its Farm Bill renewal discussions. All sugar market stakeholders will want to explore these issues with the Sym In addition to the drawing winners, covered bridges, sparkling lakes, rambling posium's panels of renowned industry experts and key policymakers. Listen, learn, and add your views at liv another sugarbeet grower and Poncho woodlands, majestic peaks, unique artisans and informative sessions on these and other vital topics. About 400 people traditionally attend the Symposi Beta user was honored by Bayer Cropand cool summer climate. Surrounded by to hear the most significant and timely issues affecting theKevin globalOlmstead, sweetener industry and to network with Science. of Grafton, stunning Mt. Mansfield and Spruce Peak, their industry colleagues. In addition to the compelling program content, the Symposium N.D., won the grand prize trip to the schedule allows Stowe Mountain Lodge is designed in the time every afternoon to enhance your industry relations in this comfortable setting. the luxurious ‘Vermont-Alpine’ style. ASGA annual meeting by entering Stowe Mountain Lodge in Stowe, will prove espe This year s location, the new and spectacularSweeter World Sweepstakes last Vermont, sum— For More Information — cially appealing. This charming New England ski town is conveniently located 40 minutes from Burlington mer. This trip was his first ASGA anwww.sugaralliance.org/symposium International Airport (BTV), a scenic three+ hours drive from Boston or a two+ hours drive nual meeting attendance. â?– from Montreal,
28th International Sweetener Symposium
18
28 International Sweetener Symposium
Quebec, Canada. For over a century, the Stowe area has enjoyed international fame for its covered bridges, sparkling lakes, rambling woodlands, majestic peaks, unique artisans and cool summer climate. With the ad THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2011 tion of the Stowe Mountain Lodge, this area has become a prized international destination. (cont d
C
M
Y
CM
MY
CY
CMY
K
Planted Acres Up Slightly, Says USDA USDA’s March 31-released planting intentions report for the 2011 sugarbeet crop came in at nearly 1.19 million acres. That’s slightly higher than the 2010 level of 1.17 million. On a percentage basis, the biggest projected rise is in Nebraska, where USDA is estimating 55,000 acres this year, compared to 50,000 in 2010 — a 10% hike. At a projected 45,900 planted acres, Montana comes in 8% above that
state’s 2010 level of 42,600. Wyoming is expected to plant 11% fewer beet acres: 27,000, compared to 30,500 last season. Oregon, Michigan and Minnesota are down slightly. Though California planted area is projected to dip by only 100 acres this year, it will be, if realized, the lowest beet acreage on record for that state. The next USDA planted acreage report will be released on June 30. ❖
Planted U.S. Sugarbeet Acreage: 2009, 2010 & 2011* California Colorado Idaho Michigan Minnesota Montana Nebraska North Dakota Oregon Wyoming United States
2009 25,300 35,100 164,000 138,000 464,000 38,400 53,000 225,000 10,600 32,400 1,185,800
2010 25,100 28,900 171,000 147,000 449,000 42,600 50,000 217,000 10,300 30,500 1,171,400
2011* 25,000 30,200 177,000 145,000 445,000 45,900 55,000 227,000 10,000 27,000 1,187,100
— Advertisers — We offer you comprehensive coverage among growers in every North American sugarbeet production area! For Details, Contact: Heidi Wieland (701) 476-2003 hwieland@forumprinting.com Upcoming 2011 Issues: July/August November/December
* Projected March 2011 Source: USDA-NASS
JIM SATTER 218-303-3100 MIKE LOCKWOOD 701-212-5611 Norton is a registered tradmark of Bayer Crop Science ®
THE SUGARBEET GROWER (Upper Midwest) April/May 2011
1v
Volunteer Glyphosate-Resistant Corn Study Looks at Effects & Control in Glyphosate-Resistant Sugarbeets western Nebraska/southeastern Wyoming study on the effect and control of volunteer glyphosate-resistant corn in glyphosate-resistant sugarbeets found that the equivalent of just 2.5 corn plants per 100 square feet lowered per-acre sucrose yield by 8%. Five resistant corn plants reduced sucrose yield by 14%, while 7.5 plants cut it by 21%, and 15 corn plants per 100 square
A
2v
feet decreased sugar yield by 42%. The two-year study, carried out at Scottsbluff, Neb., and Lingle, Wyo., during the 2009 and 2010 growing seasons, was conducted by Robert Wilson and Gustavo Sbatella of the University of Nebraska-Scottsbluff, and Andrew Kniss of the University of Wyoming. Research funding was provided by the Western Sugar Cooperative-Grower
Joint Research Committee. The study looked at three areas: (1) Effect of corn density on sucrose yield, i.e., how much is too much; (2) effect of duration of corn competition on sucrose yield, i.e., how long can it grow; and (3) options for corn control in sugarbeet, i.e., how to get rid of the volunteers. The indicated losses in sucrose corresponded with losses in light reaching the sugarbeet plant canopy — light intercepted by the volunteer corn. Using “no volunteer corn” where 100% of available light reached the beet canopy as a baseline, the researchers found that 92% of light did so when there were 2.5 volunteer corn plants per 100 square feet; 86% when there were five corn plants; 78% when there were 7.5 corn plants; and 58% when there were 15 corn volunteers per 100 square feet. As to timing and method of removal, the study found that at high volunteer corn density (15 plants/100 sq. ft.), removal with a herbicide three weeks after corn emergence resulted in a 5% loss in sucrose yield. That same loss percentage occurred when the corn was removed by hand six weeks after the corn’s emergence. “At typical volunteer corn densities, corn should be removed (or sprayed) by the four- to six-true-leaf sugarbeet stage to avoid yield loss,” the researchers recommend. They utilized three herbicides, at two different rates, to gauge effectiveness of glyphosate-resistant volunteer corn control: • Select at 6 oz and 8 oz/ac • Select Max at 8 oz and 12 oz/ac • Assure II at 6 oz and 8 oz/ac Applications were made at two sugarbeet crop stages: six-true-leaf and canopy closure. The six-leaf treatment provided significantly better control with all three herbicides, as compared to the canopy closure application. Control levels were as follows: • Select at six-leaf: 91% • Select at closure: 57% • Select Max at six-leaf: 96% • Select Max at closure: 67% • Assure II at six leaf: 86% • Assure II at closure: 63% The Nebraska/Wyoming researchers emphasized three points in summarizing their two-year project: 1. Volunteer corn densities of even one plant per 100 square feet of sugarbeet crop row can cause economic loss. 2. Controlling volunteer corn by the four- to six-true-leaf sugarbeet growth stage will prevent yield loss. 3. Herbicides labeled for volunteer corn control achieve optimum performance when applied at the six-true-leaf growth stage. ❖
THE SUGARBEET GROWER (Upper Midwest) April/May 2011
NAFTA in Year 17 USDA Report Discusses Sugar Market Integration The following commentary on the integration of the U.S. and Mexican sugar and sweetener markets is part of a Marchpublished USDA-Economic Research Service (ERS) report titled “NAFTA at 17: Full Implementation Leads to Increased Trade and Integration.” The entire report can be found at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/WRS1101/. ntegration of the U.S. and Mexican markets for sugar and other sweeteners has reached a high level, following the start of bilateral free trade in these products in fiscal 2008. The foundation for this development was laid in 2006, when the U.S. and Mexican governments settled a protracted dispute about how to implement NAFTA’s provisions for sugar and sweeteners. Since then, trade in sugar and fructose between the two countries has increased significantly. Imports from Mexico accounted for about 8% of the U.S. sugar supply during fiscal years 2008-10, compared with a negligible share prior to NAFTA. Meanwhile, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has gained greater acceptance among Mexican manufacturers of soft drinks and processed foods, although the United States still uses more HFCS on a per-capita basis than does Mexico. In FY 2010, Mexico’s per-capita domestic sweetener use included an estimated 13 kilograms (about 28.6 pounds) of HFCS, compared with 23 kilograms (about 50.6 pounds) for the United States. The high cost of sugar relative to HFCS is an important driver of increased Mexican use of HFCS.
I
4v
By contrast, integration of the U.S. and Canadian sugar markets remains at a low level because the Canadian-U.S. Trade Agreement (CUSTA) exempted U.S.-Canada sugar trade from the process of regional trade liberalization. Nevertheless, the U.S. and Canadian markets for processed foods are highly integrated, and many processed foods traded between the two countries contain sweeteners. Access to the integrated U.S.-Mexico sugar market by other countries has two control points — one in Washington, D.C., and one in Mexico City — as both the U.S. and Mexican governments have the option of announcing sugar import quotas beyond the minimum amounts required by their multilateral commitments at the WTO and their free-trade agreements other than NAFTA. Since FY 2008, USDA has twice increased the raw sugar TRQ beyond the United States’ international commitments (in April and July 2010). Meanwhile, the Mexican government’s recent practice has been to pursue a less-restrictive sugar import policy than required by its international obligations, with the expressed intention of assuring an affordable domestic supply. For calendar year 2010, Mexico announced duty-free import quotas for sugar totaling 350,000 metric tons. In contrast, Mexico’s minimum WTO quota for sugar and sugar-containing products is 183,800 metric tons, subject to a 50% tariff. Because of NAFTA’s rules of origin, sugar traded between the United States and Mexico must originate in one of the two countries to qualify for duty-free status. It would be possible for Mexico to export more of its domestic sugar production to the United States by consuming more sugar imported from non-NAFTA countries, but this would come at the risk of depressing the prices received by Mexican sugar producers and exporters. ❖
THE SUGARBEET GROWER (Upper Midwest) April/May 2011