british sugar beet review - home - bbro · summer 2014 volume 82 no. 2 british sugar beet review 1

BRITISHsugar beet review

SUMMER 2014 ■ volume 82 no. 2

www.beetreview.co.uk

Varietiesfor 2015

BBROopen days

Latestfungicideadvice

49387-Beet Review Vol82 No2 4thPrf_- 11/06/2014 13:08 Page A

HORNET

WWW. S E S V A N D E R H A V E . C O M

CREATING A BUZZ THE HIGHEST YIELDING VARIETY TO DATE

New for the 2015 BBRO Recommended List with consistent, exceptional yields. For top yield and a satisfying buzz at harvest, drill some Hornet next spring.

SESVANDERHAVE UK LIMITED Grantham Road, Wellingore, Lincoln, LN5 0HH, UK

14/2/IFC/01

49387-Beet Review Vol82 No2 4thPrf_- 11/06/2014 13:08 Page B

SUMMER 2014 ■ volume 82 no. 2 BRITISH sugar beet review 1

The British Sugar Beet Review is publishedquarterly in March (spring), June (summer),September (autumn) and December (winter).It is sent to all sugar beet growers in the UKand is funded jointly by growers and BritishSugar plc as part of the British Beet ResearchOrganisation education programme. The editor,British Sugar plc, and the BBRO are notnecessarily in agreement with opinionsexpressed in this journal. No responsibility isaccepted for statements contained inadvertisements. © Copyright is only bypermission of the editor and charges may beapplicable. Published images are copyright ofthis journal unless stated otherwise.

Designed and printed in England byFisherprint Ltd., Peterborough, Cambs.,PE1 5UL, Tel: 01733 341444 Fax: 01733 349416Website: www.fisherprint.co.uk

editorial office:

British Sugar plc,

Sugar Way, Peterborough,

Cambs, UK, PE2 9AY

t: 01733 422106 / 422278

f: 01733 422080

e: [email protected]

w: www.beetreview.co.uk

Published jointly by British Sugar plc &The British Beet Research Organisation

BRITISHsugar beet review

Editor:Robin Limb

Production Editor:Denise Chandler

Editorial Committee:

Ruth Digby,National Farmers Union

Mike May,Independent Consultant

Dr. Mark Stevens,British Beet Research

Organisation

Colin Walters,British Beet ResearchOrganisation

Dr. John King,Independent Consultant

Developing genetic markers tobreed disease resistant sugarbeet for the future 28Lucy James gives an insight into the pioneeringwork being done on resistance breeding via acollaborative research consortium, using genemarkers to transfer useful traits to future varieties.

Irrigation for sugar beet 32Colin Walters provides a timely review of the valueof irrigation, based on research work from aroundthe world, and reminds us of the fundamental rolethat water plays in crop growth.

A brief history of CTM 36Robin Limb takes us back through the archivesof one of the best-known and well-establishedmanufacturers of sugar beet machinery in theUK, and charts the progress of the companyfrom its modest blacksmith’s forge to that ofan internationally-respected business.

contents

Editorial 2

News 51A review of the latest news and products.

Factory news 54News and information from British Sugar’s factories.

BBRO Open Days 2014 4A record number of visitors attended the annualseries of BBRO summer open days to hear the latestadvice on crop husbandry and view technical andtrade displays.

regulars

features

A summary of the BBROcommissioned researchreview of crop protection 6Debbie Sparkes follows up her earlier article on cropproduction research with a further review of sugarbeet crop protection work initiated by the BBRO.

Foliar diseases; preventingthe old and the new 12Mark Stevens, Gillian Champion and Bram Hanseremind us of the ever-present threat from leafpathogens and the importance of using acomprehensive fungicide programme to protectyield potential.

Sugar beet varieties for 2015 16Simon Kerr and Mark Stevens provide a run-down ofthe latest varieties to make the BBRO RecommendedList for 2015 sowings, including for the first time aspecific category for special uses, such as BCN andAYPR-tolerant types.

Growers hit 100 t/ha againin 2013 22Robin Limb highlights the achievements of sugarbeet’s elite, who last year managed to exceed100 t/ha, despite the vagaries of the season, andasks what is the key to achieving such world-classperformance.

The 2013/14 Advanced SugarBeet Technolgy Course 25Eric Ober reviews the first Advanced Course in SugarBeet Technology, designed for sugar beet specialistsand others wishing to raise their qualifications inthis key subject area.

Wissington soil managementworkshops 2013/14 38Philip Ecclestone reports on the Wissington factoryteam’s initiative with growers on soil management,following the experiences gained at Cantley, asreported in the spring issue.

Drilling survey 40Andy Stocking summarises the results from therecent survey of sugar beet drilling and the age ofthe drilling fleet, to understand how growers mightgain from upgrading or replacing their machines.

Developing and using theAB Sugar BeetGro Model 45Patrick Jarvis and Aiming Qi explain their workwith modelling sugar beet growth in an attemptto quantify lost yield potential and how best tomaximise growth in practical farming situations.

Key policy issues 49Ruth Digby reviews recent agricultural andenvironmental policy issues and highlights the workof the NFU in representing UK sugar beet growers ata high level in London and Brussels.

Cover picture courtesy of Gary Naylor Photography

49387-Beet Review Vol82 No2 4thPrf_- 11/06/2014 13:08 Page 1

2 BRITISH sugar beet review SUMMER 2014 ■ volume 82 no. 2

editorial

A promising start for the new crop…It may be tempting fate, but at the time of writing I can hardly recall a more propitious start to the growing season.All arable crops are looking good, due to a winning combination of abundant rainfall and above average springtemperatures. Sugar beet mainly went into good seedbeds and emerged strongly, to the extent that by the end ofMay, many crops were already meeting over the rows. The significance of this is that the majority of June incidentsolar radiation will be intercepted by the leaf canopy, translating directly into sugar yield.

Once again the 2014 series of BBRO open days were very well attended, with over 1,300 visitors from all sectors ofthe industry. A brief report appears later in this issue. As is customary in the summer edition of the British Sugar BeetReview, the latest BBRO Recommended List of varieties is published for growers to select from for the forthcomingcrop. It is no surprise to note once again the consistent year-on-year improvement in performance, together withenhanced attributes such as Beet Cyst Nematode tolerance in an increasing number of varieties.

Elsewhere in this issue Debbie Sparkes presents her summary of the BBRO research into crop protection, MarkStevens summarises the latest findings on fungicides, and we gain an insight from Lucy James into the contributionthat genetic markers make to breeding disease-resistant sugar beet. Other articles include a review of the value ofirrigation, good soil management and the importance of good drilling. Finally we reflect on the success of the39 growers who averaged over 100 t/ha in 2013 and take a trip down memory lane in the footsteps of one of theindustry’s most influential founders, Charles Thomas Mountain.

I hope you enjoy this issue of the Review and may I wish you a truly successful sugar beet crop in 2014.

Robin LimbEditor


Focus on outstanding crop establishment. See maximum yields.

www.bayercropscience.co.uk

Look no further than Poncho Beta.• Consistently provides the best start

for your beet crop

• Delivers better yield and more sugar*

• Protects against aphid-transmitted viruses

• Protects against all major soil and early season foliar pests

• Crop safe with no herbicide restrictions

* Mean of six trials comparing Poncho Beta to imidacloprid, Brooms Barn, 2004-2006. Poncho is a registered trademark of Bayer. Poncho Beta contains clothianidin and beta-cyfluthrin. Use plant protection products safely. Always read the label and product information before use. Pay attention to the risk indications and follow the safety precautions on the label. For further information, please visit www.bayercropscience.co.uk or call Bayer Assist on 0845 6092266 / 01223 226644. © Bayer CropScience Limited 2014.

14/2/3/02



BBRO Open Days 2014

ByRobin Limb,

British Sugar plc

The first event, in the Wissington factoryarea, was held at West Dereham nearDownham Market on 13th May, and inaddition to the usual technical exhibits,the day featured the launch of the 2015BBRO Recommended List of varieties(featured on page 16 in this issue of theReview). Two days later it was the turnof Cantley to host its event, held at HallFarm, Colby, near Aylsham. Glorioussunshine set the scene for a very wellattended and engaging afternoon’sdiscussions. The Newark open day washeld at East Mere House, Bracebridge,Lincoln the following Tuesday, and theevent series concluded with Bury St.Edmunds on Thursday 22nd May atMowness Hall, Stonham Aspal, nearStowmarket.

The events benefited from strongsupport from the agricultural supply

The 2014 series of BBRO Open Days, held in mid-May, once more attracted over 1,300 visitors to view the fieldtechnical presentations, static machinery and trade stands. Attendance was encouraged by generally fineweather, although earlier rains had made it slightly wet underfoot in some cases. All the demonstration cropslooked well-developed and uniform, helped tremendously by the favourable establishment period, with hightemperatures and ample rainfall.

Mark Stevens, Lead Scientist at the BBRO, explains the latest thinking on fungicide use andBeet Cyst Nematode control.


Keen interest wasalso shown in thelatest fungicide andherbicide strategies,including the rolesugar beet can playin controlling black-grass in the rotation.A better understand-ing of soil manage-ment and the role ofstrip-tillage is seen asan area for greaterfocus, especially giventhe need to reducecosts and the carbonfootprint of the crop.


trade, with representation from all the major seedcompanies, agrochemical and fertiliser manufacturers,together with sugar beet related machinery dealerships.Amongst the main topics for discussion from growers werethe attributes of the latest varieties, especially consideringthe new split BBRO Recommended List and Descriptive Listcategories, the latter for specialist varieties to deal with BCNand AYPR tolerance.

Visitors listen to the latest advice on varieties from Richard Nicholls,British Sugar’s Head of Commercial Agriculture.

Visitors to the Wissington open day enjoying some refreshmentswhile discussing sugar beet matters.

The full list of topic areas covered was as follows:

■ Aphids, insecticide resistance and virus yellows

■ Understanding soil-plant interactions to improve sugarbeet productivity

■ Plant populations

■ BCN report and catch-cropping

■ BBRO fungicide strategy

■ Diseases to watch

■ Broad-leaved weed control

■ Black-grass control in sugar beet

■ Strip-tillage

■ Varieties for 2015

■ Weed beet

■ Plant clinicRichard Harrington demonstrates the use of suction traps to monitoraphid migration and inform BBRO advice to growers.

AcknowledgementsThe organisers of the four events, on behalf of the BBRO,would like to thank the host growers, Peter Shropshire(Wissington), Bill Poortvliet (Cantley), Patrick Dean Ltd(Newark) and R H Forrest & Co (Bury St. Edmunds) for kindlyagreeing to provide the open day venues, and for assistingwith the preparations.



A summary of the BBROcommissioned researchreview of crop protectionThe spring edition of the British Sugar Beet Review included a summary of the BBRO research review on cropproduction and the first projects funded as a result of that report. This article will summarise the findings of asecond research review: this time on crop protection.

ByDr. Debbie Sparkes,

Associate Professor in Agronomy,University of Nottingham

Yield losses due to weeds, pests anddiseasesGood crop protection in sugar beet is essential to maintainyield. Poor weed control can lead to complete crop loss, whilevirus yellows can reduce yield by up to 50% and rhizomania byup to 80%. Fungal diseases, such as cercospora and ramulariaseem to be more prevalent in recent years, raising concernsthat these diseases may become more problematic in thefuture. The sugar beet crop also suffers from a number ofpests, including both free-living and cyst nematodes, whichcan cause substantial yield losses.

Many of the more potentially damaging diseases are currentlywell controlled, but the UK sugar beet industry cannot affordto be complacent. For example, virus yellows is currentlyprevented through seed treatments which kill aphids (thevirus yellows vector), but the group of chemicals used(neonicotinoids) are under threat, both from their allegedassociation with damage to honey bees and development of

resistance in the peach potato aphid (Myzus persicae), themost important vector of virus yellows. In fact, peach potatoaphids in the UK have already developed resistance to anumber of insecticides and resistance to neonicotinoids in thisspecies is well established in southern Europe. If resistance toneonicotinoids spreads to the UK, as seems likely, the threat tosugar beet (and other crops) would be substantial. Anotherimportant issue is that a number of crop protection chemicals,currently used in the sugar beet crop, have been identified asendocrine disruptors and may therefore be banned underforthcoming EU legislation.

Weed managementCompared to other crops in arable rotations, sugar beet isrelatively susceptible to weed competition, particularly fromweeds that emerge before the 6-8 leaf stage of the crop; if leftuncontrolled (Ref. 1) sugar beet yields can be reduced by50-95%. Weed beet is of particular concern and, according tothe 2012 British Sugar survey, now affects 57% of beet fields.

Recent research in Italy has found large-scale variation in theability of sugar beet genotypes to suppress weeds (Ref. 2).Improved weed suppression was attributed to superiorrooting traits that improved water and nutrient uptake andhence increased competitive ability. This suggests that thecompetitive ability of the beet crop against weeds could beimproved by identifying the most important rooting traitsand selecting for those within breeding programmes.Evaluation of the relationship between rooting traits andcompetitive ability against weeds in UK sugar beetgermplasm is recommended. This could be linked with theexisting work that is evaluating rooting traits for nutrientuptake (Ref. 3).

Although blackgrass mainly germinates in the autumn, andswitching to a spring sown crop such as beet can reduce plantnumbers by up to 88% (Ref. 4), even a small number ofblackgrass plants germinating in spring could lead tosignificant seed return. Blackgrass control (especially herbicideresistant blackgrass) is an increasing problem in sugar beet,and BBRO-funded work is currently evaluating options forcontrol of herbicide resistant black-grass.Peach potato aphid.



and it is recommended that BBROmonitor the situation closely with theaim of evaluating ALS tolerant beet inthe UK at the earliest opportunity. If ALStolerant beet are introduced, resistancemanagement across the rotation will beimportant as ALS tolerance is already inuse in other crops, such as Clearfield rape.

Disease managementThe UK sugar beet crop is affected by arange of diseases which will not all bediscussed separately here. Instead, I willhighlight the key issues arising from thereview:

Virus yellows control ifneonicotinoids are lost

Virus yellows are caused by a complex ofviral agents, including Beet mildyellowing virus (BMYV), Beet yellowsvirus (BYV) and Beet chlorosis virus

(BChV) (Ref. 7). Between 1980-1995, losses to virus yellows,predominantly BMYV, were estimated to cost the industry£5.5 million per year when treatments were applied, rising toover £10 million in the absence of control measures (Ref. 8).Currently, the widespread use of neonicotinoid seedtreatments provides excellent control of aphids during theearly phases of crop growth, thereby protecting the cropagainst virus yellows and the associated yield loss. If aphidsdevelop resistance to neonicotinoids, or if legislation leads totheir loss as a seed treatment, there are currently no effectivecontrol measures for the most important vector of virusyellows, the peach-potato aphid. Research on alternativecontrol methods for aphids is therefore recommended.

Genetically modified herbicide tolerant (GMHT) sugar beetprovides an excellent opportunity for efficient weed control,using fewer herbicide applications and less active ingredientthan conventional herbicide programmes. One of the mainadvantages of GMHT beet would be the opportunity to controlherbicide resistant blackgrass and weed beet populations.However, careful control of bolters would be essential toprevent the build-up of herbicide tolerant weed beet,which would be even more difficult to control. Rotationalconsiderations would also be paramount, e.g. avoiding theuse of more than one crop in the rotation with the sameherbicide tolerance mechanism. In the USA, Amaranthus spp.have developed tolerance to glyphosate and some growersare instead switching to using otherherbicides in maize in the rotation, butare still growing GMHT maize and GMHTbeet (although sometimes adding extraconventional herbicide in beet). (Ref. 5)

So, while GMHT sugar beet would be auseful tool for weed control, it is not apanacea and careful management wouldbe needed to prevent the build-up ofherbicide tolerant weeds and weedbeet. It seems unlikely that GMHT beetwill be available in the UK in the nearfuture and hence there is a requirementfor alternative weed beet controlstrategies. In addition, potential loss ofactive ingredients will increase theimportance of mechanical weeding andintegrated approaches to weed control.There has been a substantial amount ofwork on integrated weed control in Europe, combiningchemical and mechanical options and using the latest vision-guided systems. A comprehensive evaluation of the currentwork in Europe is recommended to direct any future work inthis area, which could be in collaboration with Europeancolleagues.

Tolerance to acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibiting herbicideshas been developed in sugar beet using a non-GM approach(Ref. 6). Registration trials are currently taking place in Europe

Virus yellows.

Weed beet infestation.

Changes in the disease profile with climate change

Under climate change, it is possible that our summers will bewarmer and drier and our winters wetter. What impact willthese changes have on disease pressure for the beet crop? Anumber of potentially important diseases, such as cercosporaleaf spot and ramularia, are more prevalent in warmerclimates. Will these become more important in the UK? Anumber of models have been developed to predict theincidence of sugar beet diseases in Europe and it is


of such diseases to the UK crop needs to be evaluated and,where necessary, control measures put in place.

recommended that these are evaluated for use in the UK. Theaim would be to use the models to understand the likelyimpact of climate change on disease incidence and severity.

Rhizoctonia can cause a number of conditions in sugar beet:damping off in seedlings, foliar blight and crown and root rot.While rhizoctonia is a problem in the USA and European sugarbeet growing areas it has, to date, not been problematic in theUK. However, with an increasing prevalence of maize withinsugar beet rotations, alongside a warming climate, the diseasecould increase in importance in the future. A survey of beetfields is recommended to provide baseline data on theprevalence of rhizoctonia within sugar beet rotations.

Evolving pathogens

Pathogens have the ability to evolve and hence overcomeboth genetic resistance and chemical control. Examples of thiscan be seen with the various AYPR strains of rhizomania thatexist, and resistance to fungicides across a range of crops. It isrecommended that the BBRO monitor resistance to fungicidesin the UK and Europe and continue to support researchtowards the development of resistant varieties.

Emerging diseases

Careful monitoring, both in the UK and further afield, isrequired to identify any emerging diseases that could affectthe UK beet crop. For example, Stemphylium was firstreported in the Netherlands in 2007 and has since spreadthroughout the country and into parts of Germany, Denmarkand Belgium. Stemphylium has the potential to reduce yield byup to 50% and is not controlled well by the fungicidescurrently used to control rust and powdery mildew. The threat

Stemphylium.

Firmly established as the UK’s number one choice

Cruiser® Force® sugar beet seed

More and more farmers are benefiting from

the higher yields delivered by CRUISER

FORCE sugar beet seed.

Outstanding control of virus-carrying

aphids and the most effective defence

against soil pests – whatever the weather.

Fulfil your beet crop’s true yield potential by

ordering CRUISER FORCE sugar beet seed.

Syngenta UK Ltd. Registered in England No. 849037, CPC4, Capital Park, Fulbourn, Cambridge CB21 5XE Tel: 01223 883400 Fax: 01223 882195 Email: [email protected] Website: www.syngenta.co.ukCRUISER SB® and FORCE ST® are Registered Trademarks of a Syngenta Group Company. CRUISER SB (MAPP 15012) contains thiamethoxam. FORCE ST (MAPP 11752) contains tefluthrin. CRUISER FORCE sugar beet seed is seed treated with CRUISER SB and FORCE ST. Use plant protection products safely. Always read the label and product information before use. For further product information including warning phrases and symbols refer to www.syngenta.co.uk ©Syngenta AG May 2014. SEED 1658. GQ 05305

Breeding for resistance/tolerance

Varietal resistance/tolerance to diseases provides a long-term,sustainable option for disease control. Breeders have been verysuccessful in introducing resistance to important diseases, suchas rhizomania, and further development of resistant varieties isa top priority. For example, following the identification ofgenetic markers for resistance to BMYV, powdery mildew andrust on the same chromosome (see Lucy James’ article on page28 of this issue), collaboration with breeders to pursue thedevelopment of broad-spectrum resistance, is recommended.


Clearly, this has implications for long term nematode pressureand, once the project is complete, will provide valuableinformation for growers, alongside yield and impurity data.Tolerant varieties may need to be alternated within a rotationwith fully resistant varieties, even if they are lower yielding, inorder to limit the build-up of nematode populations (Ref. 10).

Pest managementKey issues arising from the review in relation to pestmanagement were:

Possible loss of neonicotinoids

If future legislation prevents the use of neonicotinoid seeddressings, this would impact on control of a number of sugarbeet pests (in addition to aphids). Soil-dwelling pests such asmillipedes, springtails, symphylids, leather jackets, wirewormsand pygmy beetles can all cause significant damage to the sugarbeet crop, particularly during early seedling growth, but arecurrently well controlled by neonicotinoid seed treatments.Pyrethroids alone would not provide such effective control andhence robust thresholds and/or prediction schemes would berequired to determine the need for pesticide application.Neonicotinoids also provide control of foliar pests such as fleabeetles, thrips, capsid bugs and leaf miners. Due to theuncertainty regarding the future of neonicotinoids, research intoalternatives for the control of soil and foliar pests is required.

Nematodes

Beet cyst nematode (Heterodera schachtii) is the mostimportant nematode pest of sugar beet, with yield losses of upto 75% on heavily infested soils (Ref. 9). Now that nematicidesto control beet cyst nematodes (BCN) are no longer available inthe UK, control of BCN is based on widening the rotation anduse of tolerant varieties. There are five varieties on the 2015BBRO recommended list (see article on page 16) with specialrecommendation for use in BCN infested soils. Initial resultsfrom BBRO work have shown that, while some tolerant varietiesreduce nematode populations, others increase the population.

BCN infectedcrop.

Oilseed rape and some other brassica crops can host BCN andbe adversely affected and hence, if grown in rotation withbeet, can lead to increased BCN populations. This is ofparticular concern at present due to increased prevalence ofoilseed rape within sugar beet rotations. However, somebrassica species (e.g. some varieties of oil radish and whitemustard) are effective ‘trap crops’ which stimulate nematodehatch but are resistant to colonisation. Other brassica speciesare effective as biofumigants, releasing isothiocyanates when

14/2/8-9/03



References1. Scott, R. K.; Wilcockson, S. J. and Moisey, F. R. (1979). The effects

of time of weed removal on growth and yield of sugar beet.Journal of Agricultural Science, 93, 693-709.

2. Stevanato, P.; Trebbi, D.; Bertaggia, M.; Colombo, M.; Broccanello,C.; Concheri, G. and Saccomani, M. (2011). Root traits andcompetitiveness against weeds in sugar beet. International SugarJournal, 113, 497-501.

3. Sparkes, D. L. (2014). A summary of the BBRO research review ofcrop production. British Sugar Beet Review, 82 (1), 11-14.

4. Chambers, P.; Champion, G.; Turnbull, P. and Burks, E. (2012).BBRO herbicide trials programme. British Sugar Beet Review,80 (4), 3-6.

5. Stevens, M. and Khan, M. F. R. (2013). Pests and diseases stateside:IIRB Group share experiences across the pond. British Sugar BeetReview, 81 (4), 6-9.

6. Wright, T. R.; Bascomb, N. F.; Sturner, S. F. and Penner, D. (1998).Biochemical mechanism and molecular basis for ALS-inhibitingherbicide resistance in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) somatic cellselections. Weed Science, 46, 13-23.

7. Stevens, M.; Liu, H.-Y. and Lemaire, O. (2006). Virus Diseases. In:Draycott, AP, ed. Sugar beet. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd,256-285.

8. Jaggard, K. W.; Dewar, A. and Pidgeon, J. D. (1998). The relativeeffects of drought stress and virus yellows on the yield of sugarbeet in the UK, 1980-1995. Journal of Agricultural Science, 130,337-343.

9. Cotten, J.; Cooke, D. A. and Darlington, P. (1992). Surveys of BeetCyst Nematode (Heterodea schachtii-Schmidt) in England. Annalsof Applied Biology, 120, 95-103.

10. Wauters, A.; Champeil, A.; Muchembled, C. and Daub, M. (2010).Performance of nematode tolerant sugar beets in Europe – onfield situation and nematode management strategies. Proceedingsof the 72nd IIRB Congress, 40-50.

11. Olsson, A.; Ayala Garcia, J.; Beltrami, G.; Dewar, A.; Eronen, L.;Hansen, A. L.; Holtschulte, B.; Muchembled, C.; Nilgard, M.;Olsson, R.; Ossenkop, A.; Scheider, H. and Wauters, A. (2007).Control of beet cyst nematodes in Europe – problems andpossibilities. Proceedings of the 70th IIRB Congress, 117-183.

incorporated into the soil which suppress nematodes in theirjuvenile stages of development. There has been much interestin the use of biofumigants to control potato cyst nematodebut little work on BCN in the UK. In Europe, the use of trapcrops has been shown to result in increased crop yield but it isessential that the correct brassica species/varieties are used togive effective control. In rotations where both potatoes andsugar beet are used, a trap crop/biofumigant that is effectiveagainst both PCN and BCN would be extremely valuable.Brassicas grown as trap crops/biofumigants may haveadditional effects on the cropping system such as the uptakeof nutrients and release to subsequent crops. This isparticularly relevant for nitrogen, which is prone to leachingbetween crops. Another consideration with trap crops is thatthey may be susceptible to diseases common to other crops inthe rotation, potentially increasing levels of inoculum andhence disease incidence (Ref. 11). Evaluation of the effect oftrap crops/biofumigants on BCN populations alongsidenutrient availability, disease incidence, soil structure and sugarbeet yield is recommended, and some BBRO work has started.

BCN infectedroot.

Conclusion

Many of the weeds, pests, and diseases reviewed here areinfluenced by crop rotation. Integrated work on rotations,in association with other research funding bodies, such asthe Potato Council and HGCA, is required to understandlong-term implications of crop rotation on soil structureand crop protection. However, this work is expensive andnecessarily long-term. The Centres to be established inresponse to the Agritech strategy provide an idealopportunity for long-term collaborative research onrotations and their impact on soil and crop health. Inaddition, Horizon 20:20, an EU initiative, provides afunding mechanism for collaborative work with colleaguesin Europe. The BBRO is well placed to increase coordinationof crop protection research to avoid duplication andensure the greatest benefit to the industry.

Free-living nematodes are particularly important on light,sandy soils. Several species can feed on sugar beet includingstubby root nematodes (Trichodorus spp. and Paratrichodorusspp.) and needle nematodes (Longidorus spp.). Earlyinfestation of stubby root nematodes can kill the growingpoint of the taproot leading to fangy beet and reduced yield.Needle nematodes feed on root tips leading to stunted rootsand poor yield. Crop damage is restricted to sandy soils and isworse if conditions are wet during the few weeks aftergermination when yield losses can be up to 30%. Thesymptoms are known as Docking Disorder in the UK and canbe controlled by nematicides. Vydate (oxamyl) is the onlyproduct currently available to control free-living nematodes.

Impact of climate change on pest incidence andseverity

As discussed in relation to disease control, climate change islikely to impact on pest incidence and severity. Pests such asspider mites, which prefer hot climates, may become moreproblematic in warmer summers. It is recommended that workis commissioned to evaluate the use of models to predictincidence and thresholds for existing and emerging insectpests with the aim of understanding the impact of climatechange on pest incidence and development of thresholds forpesticide application.


14/2/11/04



Foliar diseases:preventing the oldand the newAfter one of the coldest February and March periods recorded in the last 50 years, the powdery mildew forecast for 2013was low, with only 8.9% of the area predicted to be affected with this disease. Although the following summer wasconducive for its development, the earlier cold weather had decreased disease pressure and, as predicted, very little wasseen. Rust, was the only disease of note, although significant levels of infection were not observed until October.

ByDr. Mark Stevens,

Dr. Gillian Champion, BBRO andDr. Bram Hanse, IRS, Netherlands

applications of full rate Escolta against a three-sprayprogramme that included a final application of Spyrale.Products were applied on either 7th August (disease onset),3rd September or 7th October. As predicted, there was norecorded powdery mildew in either treated or untreated plotsat any point in the season and only late rust infection wasobserved (35% infection within the untreated plots) by theend of October.

Interestingly, and in contrast to previous years, there was nosignificant difference between the adjusted yield or sugarcontent when comparing untreated plots and plots receiving asingle application of fungicide when lifted in early November.Also, across the lift dates, as long as at least one fungicidespray was applied there was no benefit from furtherapplications. Yield of all treated plots continued to increasewith time (Figs. 1 and 2). For example, there was no differencein sugar content between treated and untreated plots at the

17.4

17.6

17.8

18.0

18.2

18.4

18.6

18.8

19.0

Nov Dec Jan Nov Dec Jan Nov Dec Jan Nov Dec Jan

Suga

r %

F Pr = 0.007, LSD (5%) = 0.33

Month of harvest

No. of applica�ons of fungicide0 1 2 3

Fig. 2 – The impact of the number of applications of fungicides andlift date on sugar content of sugar beet.

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

Nov Dec Jan Nov Dec Jan Nov Dec Jan Nov Dec Jan

Month of harvest

No. of applica�ons of fungicide0 1 2 3

Adj

yie

ld t/

ha

F Pr = 0.006, LSD (5%) = 8.76

Fig. 1 – The impact of the number of applications of fungicides andlift date on adjusted yield of sugar beet.

2014 powdery mildew forecastIn stark contrast to 2013, only 18 ground frosts were recordedin the forecast period for 2014; consequently the powderymildew forecast predicts that 52% of the national crop will beaffected by this disease by the end of August. Therefore,fungicides will be an important component of the sugar beetcrop protection strategy to ensure maximum yields for 2014.

Fungicides in 2013The annual industry survey reported that only 4% of growersdid not apply a fungicide for foliar diseases in 2013, clearlyshowing that growers are adopting advice and utilising theseproducts for disease control, physiological benefits and earlyfrost protection as seen in BBRO trials from 2010, 2011 and2012 (Refs. 1, 2, and 3).

The 2013 BBRO fungicide trial conducted in Suffolk, in whichroots were sequentially lifted, compared one or two


Syngenta UK Ltd. Registered in England No. 849037, CPC4, Capital Park, Fulbourn, Cambridge CB21 5XETel: 01223 883400 Fax: 01223 882195 Web: www.syngenta.co.uk E-mail: [email protected] Technical Enquiries Tel: 0800 169 6058For further product information refer to the website www.syngenta.co.uk

©Syngenta AG April 2014. GQ 05158.

SY MUSE giveshigh performance in the field.

Continue to convert yield potential into profit.

AIM HIGH,CHOOSE MUSE.

14/2

/13/

05



November lift date, but up to 0.9% greater from treated plotswhen compared to untreated in January.

So why were there differences in yield responses compared toprevious years? There was little or no disease, nor was anyprotracted disease management required, but the autumn andwinter period were extremely mild which ensured that allcanopies, in general, remained intact and more healthy thannormal (Pic. 1) such that sugar content and adjusted yieldsbenefited. However, for 2014, disease pressure is expected tobe high, and control will be important to maximise yield forlater lifting.

One to watch: StemphyliumStemphylium is a new disease affecting sugar beet in theNetherlands. It was first identified in 2007 and it spreadrapidly across the Netherlands with some regions reporting upto 70% of fields infected by 2012 (Pic. 2). In field trials thedisease has caused between 22-42% loss of sugar yield. Sincethis disease can be easily mistaken for nutrient deficiency, andis hard to control with the current fungicides in the UK, it isone to watch.

SymptomsInitially, the disease appears as irregular yellow spots(0.5-2.0 mm across) on beet leaves between July and August(Pics. 3a and 3b). Necrosis follows, from the middle of thespots outwards, forming brown spots 1-3 cm across (Pic. 3c).Heavily infected leaves die and yellow spots appear on new

Pic. 2 – Sites confirmed with Stemphylium in the Netherlands 2007-2013. (Courtesy of IRS)

Pic. 1 – Crop cover 28 January 2014.



little or no control of Stemphylium. Good controlwas possible with fungicides not registered foruse in beet in the UK, particularly those thatare registered for potatoes. Work on diseaseidentification, the host range and the most effectivefungicides for control continues in the Netherlandsand the BBRO will monitor developments closely.

2014 fungicide recommendations■ High disease pressure anticipated for 2014,

particularly from powdery mildew.

■ Apply first product at full rate, at disease onset,for optimal disease control.

■ If powdery mildew is main problem, apply aproduct with good control of this disease (seeBBRO Reference Book).

■ If one application is planned, choose a broad-spectrum product.

■ Apply two fungicides for beet lifted from Octoberonwards.

■ BBRO bulletins will warn of annual cercospora leaf spotthreat or any other developing disease situations, shouldthey arise.

References1. Burks, E. and Stevens, M. (2011). Fungicides for 2011: one spray or

two? British Sugar Beet Review, 79 (2), 12-17.

2. Stevens, M. and Burks, E. (2012). Fungicide strategies formaximising yield potential: lessons from 2011. British Sugar BeetReview, 80 (2), 10-13.

3. Stevens, M. (2013). Maximising yield performance throughfungicide application. British Sugar Beet Review, 81 (2), 30-34.

4. Hanse, B. (2012). Research on Stemphylium spp. the causal agentof the yellow leaf spot disease in sugar beet in 2012.http://www.irs.nl/userfiles/publicaties/algemeen/13P01_Research_on_Stemphylium_spp_-_2012.pdf

leaves. The infection often starts as a patch which spreadsacross the field. Consequently, the canopy opens up givingbare patches of soil due to the loss of leaves (Ref. 4 and Pic. 4).

BiologyThe group of diseases called ‘Stemphylium’ has a number ofmembers each of which infests different species. Some infestAlliums such as garlic, onions and leeks and yet others infectspinach, fat hen, mustard or asparagus. The exact speciesaffecting sugar beet in the Netherlands has yet to be clearlydetermined. Establishing the identity of the pathogen isimportant to determine the other hosts (both crops andweeds) that it is likely to infect. The complete host range willhave important implications for its control and likely spread,should it become established in the UK. Growth room studiesin the Netherlands suggest that alternative hosts includepotato, fat hen, white mustard and spinach.

Trials in the Netherlands, which included some of thefungicides currently available in the UK, show that they offer

Pic. 4 – Bare soil appears as the worst affected leaves die.(photograph courtesy of IRS).

Pic. 3 – a. and b. Yellow spots first symptom of Stemphylium (photographs courtesy of IRS).c. Spots become necrotised and brown in the later stages (photograph courtesy of IRS).

a b c



Sugar beetvarieties for 2015

BySimon Kerr,

NIAB andDr. Mark Stevens,

BBRO

The sugar beet variety lists for 2015 take on a new look witha Recommended List of varieties for normal use and aDescriptive List of varieties for specific use to be grown inthe presence of the AYPR strain of rhizomania or Beet CystNematode (BCN) (see page 20). All recommended and BCNlisted varieties have rhizomania partial resistance to standardstrains of rhizomania, and are diploids1. The change in thepresentation of the list is to make it easier to select thosevarieties appropriate to their situation. It is expected that theDescriptive List will become larger in future as breeders bringnew traits to the market.

There are ten varieties on the Recommended List withHornet from SESVanderHave the new addition for 2015. Thedescriptive list has six varieties with Maddox from Syngenta, avariety with light tolerance to BCN, added for 2015.

Recommended list – yield potential The difference in yield between recommended varieties willbe the main criterion when selecting a variety. However,differences of less than 3% may not be statistically significantand should be treated with caution. The RL yield data arepresented as a three-year mean based on a total of 22 trials(seven in 2011, six in 2012 and nine in 2013). Yield figures arederived from plots with an average established populationof 107,000 plants per hectare. Figure 1 below shows theannual and mean yields recorded for the individual varieties

recommended for general use. Variation in annual yield ishighest in Master and SY Muse; all other varieties show a highdegree of consistency across years.

BoltersAs part of the BBRO RL programme, early-sown trials arecarried out each year to screen varieties for bolting from earlysowing dates. The RL bolting ratings are expressed as boltersper hectare calculated assuming a final plant populationof 100,000 plants/ha. Risk of bolting will increase with allvarieties in colder areas and fields that are north facing and/orare slow to warm up. Table 1 (below) shows the levels ofbolters recorded from recommended varieties from early sowntrials 2011 to 2013. Since 2012 these trials have three drillingdates, mid-February, end of February and early-March anddata from the drilling date with best discrimination betweenvarieties is included in the table. These drilling dates areearlier than used previously (2011 and before) and so numbersare much higher; the data indicate the bolting potential ifsowing earlier than BBRO recommend and/or extremevernalisation takes place.

Variety Mean # 2011 2012 2013

Pasteur 202 67 409 265

Haydn 230 96 125 589

Stingray 288 33 445 652

Cayman 318 96 268 766

Lipizzan 413 33 455 1,153

Springbok 585 33 549 2,006

Hornet 820 0 1,673 1,992

SY Muse 1,188 0 1,080 6,345

Aimanta 1,239 0 2,090 4,420

Master 2,631 127 2,404 20,528

# the large variation in the annual figures is due to different weather conditionsaffecting the levels of vernalisation and hence premature flowering (bolting).In order to allow for this, the mean levels are calculated using transformeddata and are adjusted to take missing data into account.

Table 1 – Bolting levels per hectare recorded from early-sown trials2011-2013 (varieties ranked in order of mean bolter levels).

Fig. 1 – Annual sugar yield (2011 to 2013) as % of control varieties(varieties ranked in order of mean sugar yield).

1 Diploid sugar beet varieties have two sets of chromosomes compared to triploid varieties which have three. Triploid varieties have been included in previous lists.Diploids tend to have smaller, more erect leaves than triploids and have been higher yielding in trials.

Varieties that are most suited to early sowing due to lowerbolting risk are Pasteur, Haydn, Stingray and Cayman.


14/2/17/06



a longer period and mostly with seed from commerciallyavailable seed lots. However, many PR1 varieties arepotentially high yielding and should be considered forselection. Variety selection is not necessarily all about yield:additional characters e.g. bolting, establishment, diseaseresistance and sugar content are factors that should be takeninto consideration.

If selecting a range of varieties it may be beneficial to makeselections of material from different genetic backgrounds(breeders).

Varieties for specific use There are six varieties in this category: one for use where theAYPR strain of rhizomania is present, and five for use in BeetCyst Nematode (BCN) infected fields. All of the BCN tolerantvarieties have standard partial resistance to rhizomania.

Annual variation in sugar yield under non-infected conditionsfor both characters is shown in Fig. 2 with the control value of100% of controls shown for comparison.

Bolters are also recorded from the yield trials and expressedas bolters from normal sowings in the tables. All varietiesshow low levels of bolters from normal sowings with Haydn,Springbok, Pasteur, Cayman and SY Muse being the lowest.

Establishment Establishment figures in the tables are presented as % ofcontrols. The trials in 2011 and 2012 were sown to a stand andplants counted after establishment. The 2013 trials were sownat 9 cm and thinned to produce an average population, foryield estimation, of 103,000 plants per hectare. Pre-thinningplant counts were combined with the 2011 and 2012 data toprepare the establishment ratings.

Whilst this is not a true record of establishment (as number ofseeds sown is not counted but is calculated from known drillsettings) it does indicate the small differences that existbetween recommended varieties. For early sowings, and onfields with a record of low populations, varieties with higherlevels should be chosen, after other factors such as bolters andyield potential are taken into account.

Disease resistanceVarieties are included in special inoculated trials carried out byBBRO to assess their reaction to rust and powdery mildew butare not taken to yield. The powdery mildew trial receives nofungicide spray whilst the rust trial is sprayed with quinoxifen,if needed, to retard the build-up of natural infection ofmildew. Ratings for resistance calculated from these trials aregiven in the tables.

Note: All yield trials are treated with fungicide to control foliardiseases. A fungicide spray programme is recommendedby BBRO to control diseases with rust being more critical forlater-lifted crops.

Other charactersThere is no evidence from these trials to indicate that anyrecommended varieties show greater frost tolerance. Norecords are currently taken on crown size or top size becausedifferences between modern diploid varieties are small.

Impurities (Na, K and amino N) are measured as part of juicequality assessments. At present there are no importantdifferences between varieties so these characters are notpresented in the tables but are available to view onwww.bbro.co.uk/varieties.

Recommended categories Provisionally Recommended varieties (PR) are tested for aminimum of three years before being added to the list in PR1.They are tested for a minimum of three further years beforepotential promotion to the fully Recommended (R) group. Allvarieties are issued with an automatic 1-year warning ofremoval from the list if their sugar yield values are below100% of the controls. Varieties may be recommended forSpecific Use (S) if they have specific attributes, which justifylimited use but are inferior to recommended varieties in otherimportant characters.

Growers should be aware that the performance of PR1varieties may have been assessed using breeders’ seed lotsonly. This may provide a less robust prediction of performancethan for R, PR2 and PR3 varieties which have been trialed for

Fig. 2 – Annual sugar yield (2011 to 2013) as % of control varieties(varieties ranked in order of mean sugar yield).

# the large variation in the annual figures is due to different weather conditionsaffecting the levels of vernalisation and hence premature flowering (bolting).In order to allow for this, the mean levels are calculated using transformeddata and are adjusted to take missing data into account.

Table 2 – Bolting levels per hectare recorded from early-sown trials2011-2013 (varieties ranked in order of mean bolter levelsby type).

Variety Specificuse

Mean # 2011 2012 2013

Sandra KWS AYPR 2,548 419 2,221 14,776

Thor BCN 479 300 324 1,042

Mongoose BCN 698 130 2,170 734

Sentinel BCN 1,042 99 426 6,328

Maddox BCN 1,138 132 135 9,715

Pamina BCN 1,291 130 107 12,397

All varieties are included in early-sown trials to assess boltingrisk (see text above). Table 2 below shows the annual levels ofbolting recorded from these trials.

AYPR strain of rhizomania All recommended varieties are partially resistant to standardstrains of rhizomania and will retard the development of thedisease and reduce its impact. Since 2007, some rhizomaniaoutbreaks have been identified in resistant varieties at a few



higher yield potential in uninfected conditions will be thebetter option. The multiplication rate of nematodes is also afactor to consider, and breeders have their own informationon this, as does BBRO.

The RL Board hopes to include this information in future listsusing new tests that it is currently evaluating. Recent researchwork has highlighted trends and benefits when usingtolerant and light tolerance varieties in the presence of BCN.However, the interaction of these varieties with the pest,and multiplication of BCN is a complex issue influenced by anumber of interrelated factors including starting population,soil type and weather; these factors have increased thevariability within current results. If you require furtherguidance or advice please discuss with the specific breeder,BBRO or British Sugar area manager.

AcknowledgementsThe BBRO Recommended List (RL) is derived from trialsdata from a programme of RL and National List (NL) trialsthat were carried out by BBRO, British Sugar, NIAB, KWS,SESVanderHave, Armstrong Fisher and Broom’s Barn withfunding from BBRO and the British Society of Plant Breeders.

List of Breeders and UK agents

sites and these continue to be investigated. However, breedershave now developed varieties with enhanced resistance genesconferring resistance to the AYPR strains of rhizomania foundat these sites in the UK. Sandra KWS is listed for use underthese conditions only.

Glasshouse studies have been used, using soil collected fromAYPR-infected sites, to determine how effective these newvarieties are at reducing the build-up of this strain ofrhizomania. Roots of these varieties have been tested for thepresence of the virus using established diagnostic methods.Lower values indicate a slower build-up of the disease by thespecific variety (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3 – 2013 AYPR glasshouse trials.

Breeder UK agent UK contact

KWSKWS SAAT AG

LimagrainFor Master &Pamina

Bram van der HaveLimagrain (UK) LtdRothwell Market RasenLincs LN7 [email protected]/sugarbeetwww.betaseed.co.uk

KWSKWS SAAT AG

KWS UKFor Sandra KWS

Simon WithefordKWS UK56 Church StThriplowHerts SG8 [email protected]

SVHSESVanderHaveNV

SESVanderHaveUK Ltd

Ian MunnerySESVanderHave UK LtdGrantham RoadWellingoreLincoln LN5 [email protected]

STRStrube Research& Co KG

Strube UK Ltd Richard PowellStrube UK Ltd9 Constitution HillFakenhamNorfolk NR21 [email protected]

SYN

Syngenta SeedsAB

Syngenta UKLtd

James EvansSyngenta UK LtdCPC4 Capital Park FulbournCambridge CB21 [email protected]

2 Tolerance = A variety that is infected by a pathogen to the same extent as a susceptible variety, but expresses little or no symptoms and, in comparison with asusceptible variety, has increased yield performance in the presence of the pathogen.

Unless the AYPR strain of virus is confirmed in fields to besown with sugar beet then enhanced-resistance varieties arelikely to produce lower yields than standard rhizomaniapartially-resistant varieties.

Beet cyst nematode toleranceThere are five beet cyst nematode (BCN) tolerant varietieswhich have specific recommendation for use under BCNinfested conditions only. In non-infected situations they arecurrently lower yielding than non-tolerant material andshould not be considered unless BCN is confirmed in the field.BCN tolerance does not apply to free-living nematodes such asthose causing Docking Disorder. The BCN tolerance breedingtechnology has been demonstrated, in independent testing inthe UK and mainland Europe, to give yield benefits under BCNinfested conditions. The Recommended List is not indicativeof the performance of BCN varieties under nematodeinfestation. Growers should talk to BBRO, their British Sugararea manager and also refer to individual breeders’ trial databefore making a choice. With tighter rotations, BCN could bean increasing problem in some beet rotations but generallythis problem remains patchy within fields. It should beremembered that oilseed rape and many other brassica cropsact as good hosts for BCN too.

Based upon breeders’ submissions the BCN varieties are listedas tolerant or light tolerance2 to BCN infection. In the case ofa more widespread heavy initial infestation, then toleranttypes should be chosen. These types are able to producehigher yields under these conditions and may also cause lowermultiplication of the nematode population compared to othervarieties. With lower and patchier infestation levels, then BCNlight tolerance varieties or BCN tolerant varieties having a


Disclaimer: The data provided on these pages are the intellectual property of the BBRO

. BBRO seeks to

ensure that the data provided are accurate. However, subject to the opera�on of law

no liability is ac-cepted for loss, dam

age or injury howsoever caused or suffered directly or indirectly in rela�on to inform

a-�on and op�ons contained in or om

i�ed from these pages. These data are provided for the purpose of

determina�ng the choice of sugar beet varie�es for plan�ng and for no other purpose w

ithout the wri�en

agreement of BBRO

. The informa�on m

ust not be published without the express w

ri�en agreement of

BBRO except for prin�ng copies for personal use. ©

2015 BBRO

BBRO recom

mended list 2015

BBRO Recom

mended Lists (RL) provide inform

a�on on yield and quality performance, agronom

ic featuresfor recom

mended sugar beet varie�es to assist grow

ers with variety selec�on. The BBRO

Recomm

endedList trials and list prepara�ons undertaken as a collabora�ve project betw

een the BBRO and the Bri�sh So-

ciety of Plant Breeders (BSPB) to allow the tw

o organisa�ons jointly to publish lists of varie�es of sugarbeet that are recom

mended for grow

ing in the geographical condi�ons found in the United Kingdom

asthe BBRO

Recomm

ended Lists.

Variety(ranked in sugaryield order)

Status

Yield dataSugar

content%

Plant establish-m

ent %

Bolters per habased on 100,000/ha

RustPow

derym

ildewYear first

listed

Breeder

Agent

Sugaryield

AdjustedTonnes

Rootyield

Earlysow

ingN

ormal sow

-ing

1=low9=high

1=low9=high

Mean of (C) varie�es

100100

100100

5106

34

Tonnes or thousands per ha16.52

10990

18.4Recom

mended varie�es

HornetPR1

101.9102.0

101.518.5

101820

12(6)

(1)2014

SVHSVH

Haydn

PR2101.6

101.7100.8

18.5101

2300

5(5)

2013STR

STRS�ngray

PR2101.2

101.1101.6

18.396

2887

5(4)

2013SVH

SVHSpringbok

PR2100.9

100.9101.0

18.4100

5851

3(5)

2013SVH

SVHCaym

anR (C)

100.9101.0

100.218.5

100318

22

42011

SVHSVH

LipizzanR (C)

100.6100.6

100.618.4

99413

74

52011

SVHSVH

PasteurR (C)

100.4100.4

99.718.5

101202

14

42011

STRSTR

SY Muse

PR3100.0

99.9100.6

18.3101

11883

34

2012SYN

SYNM

asterPR2

99.799.8

99.218.5

1022631

98

(5)2013

KWS

LIMAim

antaR (C)

98.998.7

100.218.1

981239

123

32009

SYNSYN

Special traitSpecific use

Sandra KWS

PS2AYPR

98.698.8

97.618.6

1012548

104

52013

KWS

KWS

Maddox

PS1BCN

light tolerance

98.698.3

100.418.1

1001138

24

(4)2014

SYNSYN

Mongoose

PS2BCN

tolerant

96.495.8

100.417.7

102698

74

(3)2013

SVHSVH

Sen�nelS

BCN

light tolerance95.8

95.796.2

18.399

10424

25

2010SYN

SYN

ThorPS3

BCN

tolerant93.5

93.296.1

17.9103

4790

31

2012STR

STR

Pamina

PS2BCN

tolerant

92.692.7

91.718.6

1001291

04

(3)2013

KWS

LIM

Differences in yields of less than 3% should be treated w

ith reserve. The control set includes Badger which

is not listed. AYPR and BCN varie�es are not recom

mended for general use but only for w

here the relevantproblem

exists. # - BCN varie�es are listed as tolerant or light tolerance. Tolerance = a variety that is in-

fected by a pathogen to the same extent as a suscep�ble variety, but expresses li�

le or no symptom

s and,in com

parison with a suscep�ble variety, has increased yield perform

ance in the presence of thepathogen. See text for m

ore explana�on. ( ) denotes limited data.


STINGRAY


POINT MADE HIGH YIELD REALLY MATTERS

Growers, advisers and processors got the point about Stingray. Highest yielding on the 2014 BBRO Recommended List plus consistent performance and good bolting resistance makes Stingray the mainstay for top returns in 2015.


14/2/21/07


The 2013 crop did not have the mostauspicious of starts, with a long,cold and dry spring, which impactedemergence – in some cases severely.Despite this, as the summer rolledon growth was maintained, and theearly root sample digs in Augustrevealed an improving prospect.Autumn continued this improvingtrend, as the months of October,November and even Decemberproved to be milder than normal,albeit very wet at times, deliveringunprecedented late-season growth.For beet which remained in theground into the New Year, sugarcontents continued to rise muchto the delight of the growersconcerned, such that final adjustedyields far exceeded earlier expec -tations. By the time the final reckoning had been done, 39 growers had verifiably delivered average contract yieldsin excess of 100 t/ha.


The average yield for the 2013/14 crop was 69.73 adjustedt/ha, which is the third highest national yield on record (Fig. 1).

Once more this average yield disguised a huge range of yieldperformance, driven by the extremes of fortune for manygrowers; the cold spring and below average establishmentcontrasting sharply with those crops which avoided the worstconditions and benefitted hugely from late-season growth(Fig. 2).

The components which add up to produce 100 t/ha are severaland may vary considerably depending upon the season, soiltype and agronomy. In simple terms, if two adjacent rows ofbeet, each one metre long, contain a total of ten roots (20 cmspacing) which each weigh 880 gms with a sugar contentof 17.5%, then that is equivalent to 100 adjusted t/ha.

In reality however it is difficult to replicate across every squaremetre – or hectare – of crop this level of consistency. Headlandeffects, pest damage, poor establishment and a whole host ofother factors may conspire to ensure that variable and lessthan optimum yield is recorded. The key to yield consistencyhas been the object of sugar beet research over many years,Fig. 1 – UK 10-year adjusted yield progress.

ByRobin Limb,

British Sugar plc

Growers hit100 t/ha againin 2013



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100105110

Nu

mb

er

of

Gro

we

rs

Adj t/ha

Fig. 2 – 2013 adjusted yield distribution:- average 69.73 t/ha.

www.betaseed.co.ukBETASEED. SIMPLY DIFFERENT.

GUARD AGAINST THE THREAT OF BCN.

PAMINAOrder PAMINA – the beet cyst nematode tolerant variety.

14/2/23/08

Cultivations prior to drilling aim to avoid the use of a power-harrowif possible.

Jack Buck FarmsJack Buck Farms produce a range of arable, horticultural andbulb crops on around 600 ha at Moulton, near Spalding inLincolnshire. The business specialises in celeriac production,with its established brand ‘The Ugly One’ being a marketleader. The crop goes for processing into mash or puree, or forwashing and pre-packing for the supermarket Lidl.

Robin Buck, together with his brother David, has been thedriving force in growing and developing the business sincethey took over from their father Jack. Farm Manager, JulianPerowne has been with the business for 20 years and now runsevery aspect of the farm in a professional, hands-on manner.

Cropping is as follows: 160 ha wheat; 120 ha potatoes; 80 haceleriac; 105 ha daffodils; 16 ha fennel; 40 ha sugar beet; 45 havining peas; 25 ha brassicas and 20 ha in ELS.

and will continue to be so. The factor which probablycontributes most to this consistency is a uniform and evenlydistributed plant population, which establishes rapidly underfavourable seedbed and soil conditions. These factors areunder the control of the grower to a very great extent andshould remain the focus of early-season crop management. Ithas been estimated by researchers that by the time the drillhas left the field, 70% of the factors which the grower caninfluence have been determined, according to research workdone in Sweden.

Soil preparation for sugar beet begins with autumnploughing. A six-metre cultivator is used to prepare theseedbed, with tractor wheelings controlled by GPS guidance.The drill is routinely tested prior to the season to ensure peakperformance. Seed spacing is 17 cm within 50 cm wide rows,aiming for a target seed rate of 1.1 units/ha.

“The silts can take a long time to warm up, so we are neverin a rush to drill,” says Julian. Rolling, following drilling, is



Conclusions

The factors which have come together to create a nearrecord crop are several and sometimes elusive. Thecommon threads running through this example of veryhigh yields are soil and nutrient management, theapplication of up-to-date technology and attention todetail throughout; all these go to make up such world-class productivity. It should be stated for the record that,in addition to the grower mentioned here, 38 othergrowers achieved in excess of 100 t/ha adjusted yields in2013/14, and their achievement is equally worthy ofrecognition here.

Julian Perowne.

AcknowledgementsThe author gratefully acknowledges the participation and co-operation of the grower mentioned in this article.

Further reading 1. Limb, R. (2006). The UK sugar beet crop: a blueprint for success?

British Sugar Beet Review, 74 (4), 9-11.

2. Limb, R. (2007). 70 tonnes per hectare and beyond. British SugarBeet Review, 75 (3), 4-6.

Drilling sugar beet in 2013 with Spalding power station in the background.

Pest and disease pressure is only moderate, but a seedinsecticide provides good insurance against poorestablishment and virus yellows. Weed beet has been wellcontrolled over the years, with all fields being walkedroutinely at least once to remove bolters.

Harvesting is generally done in three tranches by localcontractor John Ulyatt. In 2013 the lifts were mid-October,late-November and mid-January.

In 2013 the 38.61 ha crop produced 4,066 adjusted tonnes,equating to 105.31 t/ha, not quite beating the farm’s previousrecord yield of 106.87 in 2009/10, but nonetheless anexceptional yield given the vagaries of the season.

done if the seedbed has been cloddy. “Capping can be aproblem, so we never drill if rainfall is forecast within 48hours,” he adds.

“The seed breeders are to be congratulated on supplyingcontinuously improved varieties, year after year” notes Julian,who also lists fungicides and longer growing seasons as majorcontributors to higher yields.

The farm policy is that all fields are nutrient and pH testedbefore drilling and base fertiliser applied accordingly, to givethe crop the best possible start. Typical base fertiliser rateswould be 50 P; 90 K; 125-140 Na; 25 Mg and boron if necessary.

“The key is to look at soil conditions before you drill; we don’thave any major pest or disease problems and a good rotationavoids weed beet building up,” maintains Julian. The mainweeds are knotgrass and polygonums, which are generallywell controlled using standard herbicide programmes.

Two applications of fungicide is the standard treatment tocombat leaf diseases and maintain a healthy leaf canopy tomaximise late-season growth.



The 2013/14Advanced Sugar BeetTechnology CourseSomeone once said: “I am glad that I paid so little attention to good advice; had I abided by it I might have beensaved from some of my most valuable mistakes.”

ByDr. Eric Ober,

NIAB

A healthy, productive and profitable sugar industry dependson individuals capable of providing valuable, informedadvice that is based on practical experience and knowledgeof the crop. One way to add to that knowledge base is toget a small group of enthusiastic people who are involvedin sugar beet production together in a room along withexperts in the beet industry. This was the fundamental ideabehind the course on Advanced Sugar Beet Technology,which finished its first run this February. It is set to run againthis November. The goal of the course is to help advancethe knowledge base of individuals who can positivelyinfluence the future of the UK sugar industry, whether it ison a single farm, or on a larger scale.

The course is recognised byBASIS as an Advanced Module(worth 30 CPD points), andcan be applied towards theBASIS Diploma in Agronomy.Successful candidates alsoreceive 15 academic creditsthat can be used towardsachievement of a GraduateDiploma in Agronomy throughHarper Adams University.

The current course was estab-lished with funding from theBBSRC through the ModularTraining Partnerships, whichhelp address a demand forhigher-level training withinindustry. There is also addi-tional funding from the BBROand British Sugar. This fundinghelps reduce the tuition cost(£500 per delegate) for thesix-day course, with sessionsbeginning in November and

finishing in February. The sessions, including two, two-dayresidential sessions, are spread across different venues inEast Anglia.

A cohort of 13 delegates comprised independentagronomists, agronomists and crop specialists withcompanies, farmers and British Sugar managers (Pic. 1). Nineof these elected to take the BASIS exam (with a 100% passrate, of course). The syllabus consisted of six sessionscovering a range of topics (see Fig. 1). There were 23trainers/lecturers engaged with the course, and theirexpertise covered diverse areas and disciplines. A noveluse of communication video-link technology allowedthe delegates to hear and view a presentation from

Pic. 1 – The 13 delegates who helped make the first course on Advanced Sugar Beet Technology sucha success. From left to right: Alistair Mackenzie, Jane Cambidge, Paul Tonge, Albert Pineda,Jonathan Brooks, Simon Pretty, Rob Hindle, Philip Reeve, Anthony Hagen, Adrian Boor, WilliamShakeshaft, Nick Bowden and David Mann.



Pic. 2 – Colin Walters explains the operational features of a trial plot sugar beetharvester to delegates at Holmewood Hall, Peterborough.

Pic. 3 – Dr. Mark Stevens and delegates examine sugar beet samples for diseasesymptoms in the BBRO labs, Norwich.

Pic. 5 – Glyn Argent speaks to the delegates about innovations in harvestmachinery at Holmewood Hall, Peterborough.

Pic. 4 – Dr. Pat Turnbull helps Will Shakeshaft withdisease identification at the BBRO lab, Norwich.

Dr. Mohamed Khan direct from Fargo, NorthDakota, USA, and to ask questions in real time.This provided a perspective on sugar beetproduction in the U.S., and a look into the use ofherbicide-resistant GM beet.

There were tours of the Germains seedtreatment facility and the Wissington factory,and two days of intensive learning on pests anddiseases, with opportunity for hands-onidentification work at the BBRO laboratory inNorwich (Pics. 2-5). On one of the residentialdays, each of which included a dinner followedby a talk, the delegates heard tales of sugar beetresearch around the world, based on the travelsand experiences of Prof. Keith Jaggard. At theother after-dinner occasion, NFU sugar boardleader William Martin provided some views onthe continental perspective of the sugar beetindustry, highlighting their pro-active andpositive outlook on the future.

The Advanced Sugar Beet course is a smallmeasure, one of a number of industry-wideefforts to ‘up the game’ of individuals who arepositioned to make a difference, and to possiblyinfluence others for positive change. When yousee them, you may even ask them for advice ona particular issue. Whether or not you choose totake their advice, naturally, is up to you.

The course starts again in November, 2014, withfurther sessions in January and February, 2015.Details of the syllabus will be published thissummer, along with venues and costs. Spacesare limited, so to secure a place indicate yourinterest early.

To apply for a place on the course, or torequest more information, please email:[email protected] or [email protected]



Fig. 1 – The syllabus of the 2013/14 course.

Day 1: Crop Physiology and Scientific Principles

■ Statistics in sugar beet trials

■ Establishment, canopy growth, root development &bolting

■ Water use and irrigation

■ Nutrition

■ Minimisation of sugar yield losses due to frost

Day 2: Biotechnology, Plant Breeding & Seeds

■ The history of plant breeding and seed production

■ Genomic tools for crop improvement

■ Introduction to Germains and seed technology

■ Tour of Germains factory

■ UK sugar beet varieties, National and Recommended Lists

■ Seed selection and ordering

Day 3: Sugar Economics & Processing

■ Structure of the global sugar market and UK sugar beetindustry

■ The processor’s requirements for the future

■ Economics of the UK sugar beet crop, transport &delivery

■ Harvesting commercial and trial sugar beet crops

■ Tour of Wissington sugar factory and trials tare house

Day 4: Crop Protection and Weed Science, I

■ Rhizomania

■ Virus Yellows and current issues

■ Aphid monitoring, control and resistance

■ Laboratory practicals, soil pest and aphid identification

■ General principles of weed control in sugar beet

■ Current sugar beet herbicide trials work

■ Herbicide trial design

Day 5: Crop Protection and Weed Science, II

■ Foliar diseases and their control

■ Analysis of Plant Clinic samples for foliar diseases, BCNand root rots

■ Laboratory practical – identification of Polymyxa betaeand rhizomania via microscopy and lateral flow devices

■ Minor sugar beet pests and diseases

■ Sugar beet nematodes (cyst and free living)

■ Principles of trap cropping, genetic tolerance androtations

■ Current nematode work: field, rhizotron and laboratorystudies

■ Roundup-ready sugar beet: USA experience

Day 6: Harvesting, Soil Management & Innovations inMachinery

■ Precision farming concepts

■ Soils and soil management

■ Plant establishment and seed bed preparation

■ Quality storage

■ Harvest management & topping

■ Innovations in machinery

■ Inspection of trials machinery

■ Crop sustainability

SPRINGBOK


Springbok continues to put a spring in your step. While other varieties come and go, Springbok’s breeding and production keep it in the top fi ve on the BBRO Recommended List.


STAYING AHEAD ON YIELD AND LOWER BOLTING

14/2/27/09



(see Pic. 1). Beet species grow naturally in a wide range ofenvironments, and have evolved over time to be resistant to avariety of diseases and environmental pressures. For morethan a decade, scientists at Broom’s Barn research centre hadstudied 600 different beet accessions collected from Southernand Northern Europe, the Middle East and Russia. Thecollection was tested for resistance to a variety of diseases,including powdery mildew, BYV and BMYV. Promisingaccessions were crossed, where possible, with sugar beetbreeding lines to test for inheritance (Ref. 1). Those with thebest resistance were selected for genetic analyses, to identifywhich of the nine beet chromosome pairs control resistance tothese diseases. During this extensive research a number ofchromosomes were found to harbour genes that controlpowdery mildew, BYV and BMYV (Refs. 2, 3 and 4).

Our LINK project was a collaborative project betweenRothamsted Research, Broom’s Barn,ADAS and the breeding companiesSyngenta and SESVanderHave and wasfunded jointly by BBSRC and BBRO. Itsought to continue previous research andultimately to develop plant materialresistant to powdery mildew, BYV andBMYV, and to develop genetic markersfor future breeding programmes in theUK (Ref. 5). To aid genetic markerdevelopment, we aimed to answer thefollowing questions:

■ Which chromosome(s) in the beetgenome are controlling the diseaseresistance identified?

■ How many genes/Quantitative traitloci (QTL – see next paragraph forexplanation) are responsible for theresistance observed in a given beettype?

■ Where on a chromosome are theresistance genes/QTL located?

Developing genetic markers tobreed disease resistant sugarbeet for the futureSugar beet are susceptible to many fungal and viral diseases and, in order to maintain yield, we are reliant onfungicides, insecticides and the continued development of disease resistant varieties. It is vital that new forms ofdisease resistance are identified and bred into commercial varieties through development of genetic markersassociated with the trait. A consortium of researchers have exploited genetic diversity found in wild and cultivatedbeet species to identify new genetic resistance to powdery mildew, rust, Beet yellows virus (BYV) and Beet mildyellowing virus (BMYV), and have started to develop genetic markers for future breeding in the UK.

ByDr. Lucy James,

Research Scientist, ADAS

Introduction

Sugar beet suffers from a wide range of diseases which canseriously impact on productivity; growers are therefore relianton plant protection products and varietal resistance to limitthe impact of disease on sugar yield. In recent yearsdevelopment of disease resistant varieties has thereforebecome a critical component of disease management andmodern breeding strategies. However, it is a challenge toidentify new forms of resistance because the gene-pool fromwhich most modern varieties are bred is small. To expand thedisease resistance gene-pool, researchers have paid specialattention to related species of the genus Beta.

The genus Beta is a rich source of natural genetic resistance,composed of a diverse collection of highly variable wild andcultivated types, such as fodder, garden, sea and leaf beet

Pic. 1 – Collection of wild and cultivated beet types with genetic resistance to powderymildew, BYV and BMYV.



photosynthetic pigments such as chlorophyll to assesscanopy health in crops. The readings taken from the meterrelate to the quantification of light intensity (650 nm)absorbed by the leaf tissue.

Our consortium identified beet relatives exhibiting goodtolerance and partial resistance to BYV and BMYV respectively,successfully crossing them with a sugar beet breeding line andconfirming inheritance. Mapping analysis identified QTLcontrolling tolerance and partial resistance to BYV and BMYVrespectively. Work is ongoing to validate the QTL and developgenetic markers to select for tolerant/resistant plants in futurebreeding programmes.

Marker development for dual rust andmildew resistanceThe highlight of our research was the discovery that a wildbeet variety, originally selected for its resistance to powderymildew, was also highly resistant to rust.

In 2010, we sowed two different populations of plants(derived from a cross between a powdery mildew resistantwild beet parent and a sugar beet breeding line) in the fieldand assessed the plants for resistance to mildew. 2010 was alsoa high pressure year for rust, which gave us the opportunity toassess for rust resistance alongside mildew resistance in adultplants. We discovered that all plants in the population thatwere resistant to mildew were also highly resistant to rust.When we carried out our genetic analysis on these plantpopulations, we discovered that both the mildew and rustresistance was controlled by a QTL located on Chromosome IV(Ch IV) (Fig. 1).

We repeated this work during 2011 in glasshouse conditions,and confirmed that the Ch IV QTL was responsible forcontrolling the resistance in both young and adult plants in

Disease resistance andgenetic analysis of resistantpopulationsTo establish which chromosomes controlresistance to our diseases of interest, weused a QTL molecular genetic analysismethod to map the sugar beetchromosomes. We selected four beetaccessions which were previously shownto have excellent resistance to eitherBYV, BMYV or powdery mildew, and hadbeen sucessfully crossed into a sugar beetbreeding line. We set up several largefield and glasshouse trials between 2010and 2012 (Pic. 2a), using populations ofplants descended from crosses betweensugar beet breeding lines and theresistant beets. QTL mapping ofresistance genes requires that every plantin the population is assessed for diseaseresistance and has a unique geneticfingerprint produced from its DNA.This information can be combined toformulate a genetic map, using well-established statistical methods. Geneticmaps can guide geneticists to the genescontrolling disease resistance, and helpplant breeders to identify geneticmarkers or ‘road signs’ to help select for resistant plants intheir breeding programmes. When these genes contributeindividual small effects, which, when combined with theeffects of other genes, convey a greater effect, they aretermed QTL.

We analysed a DNA sample from every plant in the populationand infected every plant with the appropriate disease, so thatsymptoms could be assessed regularly throughout the season.A major obstacle when developing suitable genetic markersis the ability to assess levels of disease on individual plantsaccurately. To establish which chromosome controls theresistance and identify molecular markers useful for breeders,it is extremely important to be able to distinguish all plantswhich have inherited the resistance gene (Pic. 2b) from thosewhich have not. To overcome this challenge we used a numberof different methods to accurately assess disease in our trials.Leaf symptoms of all diseases were assessed visually, using awell-established infection scale which evaluates thepercentage of the plant covered with the disease. Plantsresistant to virus yellows were also identified using thefollowing methods:

■ Virus levels in each plant were detected using specificantibodies, and quantified using Enzyme-LinkedImmunosorbant Assay (ELISA) throughout the season(Pic. 2d). ELISA is a fast and sensitive immunoassay thatcan detect virus particles using antibodies specific to theantigen and has proven to be an excellent diagnostic toolin medicine and plant pathology to identify viral diseases.

■ Characteristic yellowing symptoms caused by BYV andBMYV were quantified using a SPAD meter, which canindirectly quantify yellowing symptoms by measuring thechlorophyll content of the infected leaves (Pic. 2c). SPADmeters are hand-held devices that are widely used for therapid, accurate and non-destructive measurement of

Pic. 2 – a. Example of field trial carried out in 2010 to assess inheritance of BYV resistance(cross between a resistant leaf beet and a sugar beet breeding line).

b. Example of a BYV resistant leaf beet three months after inoculation.c. BYV disease symptom assessment using a SPAD meter to measure chlorophyll content.d. BYV titre measurements using ELISA assay.

a c

b d



staff at Broom’s Barn, who contributed to the work carriedout during this project.

References1. Francis, S. A. and Luterbacher, M. C. (2003). Identification and

exploitation of novel disease resistance genes in sugar beet. PestManag Sci, 59: 225–230.

glasshouse and field environments. Everyplant which inherited the Ch IVresistance genes was almost 100%resistant to both powdery mildew andrust in both the field and glass house(Pics. 2a-2e). To complete our geneticanalysis of Ch IV mildew and rustresistance, we set up large field andglasshouse experiments in 2012, wherewe assessed the inheritance of Ch IVresistance in the next generation of plants, as describedpreviously. This work allowed us to define more precisely theregion where the QTL was located on the chromosome anddevelop genetic markers which could be used to select for theresistance in future breeding programmes.

In summary, we have identified plant material that is resistantto both mildew and rust. This resistance was confirmed inyoung and adult plants when grown in glasshouse and fieldconditions. The genetic resistance to both mildew and rustwas shown to be controlled by a QTL located on Ch IV, andplants which inherited the resistance genes showed onaverage almost 100% resistance to both diseases. This workhas produced detailed genetic information about both themildew and rust resistance QTLs, facilitating the developmentof suitable genetic markers which can be used to select theresistance during sugar beet breeding programmes. Work isongoing to validate QTL that are thought to limit the effectsof virus yellows and develop genetic markers to select fortolerant/resistant plants in future breeding programmes.

AcknowledgementsThe author would like to thank BBSRC and BBRO forsupporting this project and to say a special thanks to all

Fig. 1 – Schematic representation of mildewand rust QTLs located on Ch IV.

Pic. 2 – Field and glasshouse trials in 2012.a. Example of rust symptoms on a susceptible sugar beet variety.b. Example of rust symptoms on a plant carrying Ch IV resistance.c. Example of rust symptoms on a plant not carrying Ch IV resistance.d. Example of mildew symptoms on plants carrying Ch IV resistance.e. Example of mildew symptoms on plants not carrying Ch IV resistance.

a b c

d e

Conclusions

■ Wild and cultivated beet are good sources of geneticresistance to powdery mildew, rust, BYV and BMYV.

■ Sugar beet varieties can inherit resistance to bothpowdery mildew and rust from resistant wild beetspecies when crossed.

■ A wild beet was identified with almost 100% resistanceto mildew and rust.

■ A QTL on Ch IV controls these particular resistances toboth powdery mildew and rust in beet.

■ Genetic markers were successfully developed whichcan be used by breeders to select for Ch IV mildew/rustresistance in commercial sugar beet varieties.



2. Grimmer, M. K.; Bean, K. M. R.; and Asher, M. J. C. (2007). Mappingof five resistance genes to sugar-beet powdery mildew using AFLPand anchored SNP markers. Theor Appl Genet, 11: 67-75.

3. Grimmer, M. K.; Bean, K. M. R.; Qi, A.; Stevens, M. and Asher,M. J. C. (2008a). The action of three Beet yellows virus resistanceQTLs depends on alleles at a novel genetic locus that controlssymptom development. Plant Breeding, 127: 391-397.

4. Grimmer, M. K.; Bean, K. M. R.; Luterbacher, M. C.; Stevens, M. andAsher, M. J. C. (2008b). Beet mild yellowing virus resistance derivedfrom wild and cultivated Beta germplasm. Plant Breeding, 127:315-318.

5. James, L. C.; Bean, K. M. R.; Grimmer, M. K.; Barnes, S.; Kraft, T. andStevens, M. (2012). Varieties of the future: Identification of ‘broadspectrum’ genetic resistance in sugar beet. Int Sugar Journal, 114:164-168.

Collaborators

Lucy James ADAS, formerly of Rothamsted Research – Broom’s Barn

Neil Paveley ADAS

Mark Stevens BBRO

Angela Karp Rothamsted Research

Steve Barnes SESVanderHave

Thomas Kraft Syngenta

Mike Grimmer Syngenta

Full name Abbr. Definition

Antigen A substance that induces an immuneor resistance response in plants andanimals e.g. virus particles.

Chlorophyll A molecule critical for photosynthesisand absorption of energy from lightin plants.

Chromosome Ch Coiled DNA which contains thegenetic information for developmentand function of all living organisms.

Deoxyribonucleicacid

DNA A molecule that provides the geneticinstructions for development andfunction of all known livingorganisms and many viruses.

Enzyme-LinkedImmunosorbantAssay

ELISA Immunoassay that can detect virusparticles using antibodies specific tothe antigen.

Genes The molecular unit of heredity of aliving organism.

Genetic markers A gene or DNA sequence with aknown location on a chromosomethat can be used to identifyindividuals or species.

Genus A taxonomic rank used to classifyliving and fossil organisms.

Quantitative traitloci

QTL Stretches of DNA containing orlinked to genes that control a trait ofinterest e.g. disease resistance.

Glossary of terms

Forultimateperformance

Helpdesk 0870 240 2314

fax 0870 240 2729 [email protected]

Optimises soil pH

Fast acting and long lasting

Provides valuable nutrients

Improves soil structure

Flexible service and payment options

Approved for use in Organic Systems*

LimeX is a business of British Sugar plc

acidof soof

dfor correcorr

of soproducprodu

orreNo.1 Lim.1 L

oducUK’s sUK

dityoildity

ection

oil

ctect

mingct


soil pHOptimises


soil pHOptimises


and payment optionsFlexible service




and payment optionsFlexible service







Helpdesk

0870 240 2729 fax

in Organic Systems*Approved for use

0870 240 2314

0870 240 2729

Helpdesk

in Organic Systems*Approved for use

0870 240 2314

limex.co.uklimex@britishsugar

0870 240 2729 fax


.comlimex@britishsugar 0870 240 2729


*

14/2/31/10



Irrigation for sugar beet

ByColin Walters,

British Beet Research Organisation

BackgroundShortage of water decreases yield in sugar beet. This isparticularly acute on light soils in dry summers. On average,about 10% of beet yield is lost each year due to water stress.Generally, yield is proportional to the amount of water usedby the crop: the more water it transpires, the bigger its yield.When irrigation is available, the crop’s performance can bepredicted more accurately. Figure 1 shows the amount ofwater needed during each month of the growing season forthe crop to perform fully in average weather conditions. Inparticularly warm, sunny and windy conditions, the need willbe greater.

Effect of water stress The first sign of stress is that the leaves grow more slowly.Photosynthesis is reduced because the leaf stomata (pores)contract to conserve moisture, thus restricting entry of carbondioxide into the leaves. As moisture stress increases, someleaves wilt, roots grow more slowly, old leaves die and yieldpotential is lost. An early drought, which delays attainment offull leaf cover, can reduce yield more than a late drought.

Irrigation given to ensure full leaf cover as early as possible isparticularly valuable.

Sugar beet is a crop which responds well to irrigation. However, it tends to be lower down the priority list of cropsto be irrigated because returns are not as high as for, say, pre-packing potatoes and other vegetable crops.Nevertheless, for some growers, irrigation does provide a very valuable way of improving yields, and theconsistency of those yields, particularly in dry times. This article sets out the information concerning irrigation ofsugar beet which is published on the Sugar Beet Portal (www.uksugarbeet.co.uk).

Fig. 1 – Monthly water requirement for optimal yield in averageweather conditions.



needed to ensure that leaf growth ismaintained. However, the main periodwhen large amounts of irrigation may beneeded is from mid-June until lateAugust. Irrigation should start as soon asthe limiting deficit looks likely to beexceeded, as described below.

Effect of leaf cover Wet, bare soil loses water by evaporationfrom the surface at a similar rateto potential transpiration from landcompletely covered by leaves, such asshort grass. Table 2 shows the averagedaily figures for Eastern England. Therate of water loss from bare soil slows assoon as the surface becomes dry, andstops when the deficit is about 20 mm.

Consistent production of contract tonnage Yield loss due to drought can be avoided with irrigation, sothe area of crop needed to fulfil contract tonnage can becalculated more precisely. Irrigation acts almost entirely byincreasing the yield of roots: water given to avoid stress hardlyaffects sugar percentage at all. However, a noticeabledecrease in sugar concentration may be caused by Septemberirrigation on beet harvested early or when irrigation starts inSeptember after a long dry spell. In the latter case, sugarpercentage may fall by 0.5%. Irrigation applied in therecommended way will increase root yield by about 2.5 t/haper 25 mm of water applied.

Irrigation to maintain soil moisture reserves allows the crop tomaximise the photosynthetic response to sunlight, hencemaximising yield. This is seen at its most dramatic in California’sImperial Valley where the highest beet sugar yields in theworld are recorded. A combination of California sunshine anda plentiful supply of flood irrigation from the Colorado riverproduces sugar yields as high as 30 t/ha (circa. 188 adj t/ha).

Soil type Soils have widely differing abilities to provide water for cropgrowth. They are categorised according to the quantity ofplant-available water held in a metre depth of soil. Sugar beetuses significant quantities of water from 1 to 2 metre depth,which is one of the reasons for its reputation of ‘drought-resistance’ on the better soils.

Flood irrigation in California’s Imperial Valley.

Coarse sand 65

Loamy sand 80

Sandy loam 100

Loam 125

Silty clay loam 165

Peat 165

Table 1 – Available water (mm) to 1 m depth.

Table 2 – Average daily potential evaporation for grass in EasternEngland.

Table 3 – Effect of leaf cover on evapotranspiration by beet crops asa percentage of the potential transpiration by short grass.

June July Aug Sept

(mm/day)

Dull days(little or no sunshine)

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0

Average drying days 3.0 3.0 2.5 1.5

Bright days(sunny virtually all day)

4.5 4.5 3.5 2.0

Sugar beet with a complete canopy of leaves uses water morerapidly than short grass

Leaf cover % Evapotranspiration %

20-40 50

40-75 100

75-100 120

Badly droughted sugar beet in July 2005.

When to start irrigation Normally, all soils contain sufficient water for growth duringMarch, April and May. Occasionally, 8-10 mm of irrigation maybe useful to aid germination and emergence when seedbedsdry out or cap. Early in June, the first irrigation proper may be

On a field sown with sugar beet in March/April, losses initially areby bare-soil evaporation. When the leaves start to expand, wateris drawn from depth and the percentage of soil covered by leafhas a direct effect on the quantity of water evaporated andtranspired. Table 3 shows, in average conditions and when thesoil surface is dry, the effect of leaf cover on evapotranspiration.



amounts. This will limit the overall yield loss and maximisethe response to irrigation.

Fertiliser rates Good irrigation practice also increases the availability ofnutrients, especially nitrogen from the soil, and from appliedfertiliser. It does this by increasing rooting in the top soil andby making it easier for nutrients to flow to the roots. Thus,irrigation increases nutrient use without changing the amountof fertiliser needed for maximum yield.

Yield response to irrigation Yield response depends on soil type and summer rainfall. Atthe extreme, on drought-prone sands in dry years, yield maybe doubled by irrigation but 200 mm of water might beneeded to achieve this. In a year of average rainfall incentral East Anglia, evapotranspiration exceeds rainfall duringthe period 1st June to 31st August by about 150 mm, andbeet on a sandy loam will respond to 75 mm of irrigation.For planning purposes, crops irrigated to maintain the SMDat about the limiting deficit will produce on average an extra2.5 t/ha of beet for every 25 mm of irrigation applied. Insevere drought years, e.g. 1976, the response may be doublethis value.

Estimating soil moisture deficit To make best use of irrigation it is essential that the timingand amounts of water are right. Timing is often based onwilting and the feel of the soil, but these approaches are notaccurate. A good method is to keep soil water balance sheetsfor each field; this is something in which growers who are usedto irrigating other crops will be well versed. This enables thecurrent soil moisture deficit (SMD) to be calculated fromprevious gains and losses (i.e. rain and irrigation versusevaporation and drainage). The SMD is the amount of waterwhich the soil can accept before drainage starts again. Mostcomputer-based services incorporate this balance sheetapproach.

A water balance sheet requires the following information:

■ Rainfall, which should always be measured on the farm.

■ Published, or measured, values of evaporation.

■ Amount of irrigation applied, preferably measured in catchcans.

A balance sheet should be started at the beginning of April,when soil is usually near field capacity.

Between emergence and about 20% leaf cover, there is rarelyany need to irrigate because the plants are still small andtheir root systems are reaching fresh, moist soil both sidewaysand downwards. From early June, the situation can changesuddenly as leaf cover increases rapidly while the roots havealready met between the rows and can find untapped soilonly by growing downwards. Irrigation should be appliedwhenever the current SMD is likely to exceed a value at whichwater stress adversely affects growth. This value, the limitingdeficit (Table 4), is larger in moisture-retentive soils andincreases in successive months as rooting becomes deeperand potential evaporation decreases. If soil type or date fallbetween the entries in Table 4, intermediate values of thelimiting deficit can be used. These data apply to soils whererooting is unrestricted. If rooting is known to be restricted, forexample by soil compaction, it is advisable to work to smallerlimiting deficits than those specified.

Table 4 – Limiting soil moisture deficits (mm) for sugar beet.

Coarsesand

Loamysand

Sandyloam

Clayloam

Mid-June 25 30 35 50

Mid-July 35 40 50 100

Mid-Aug 50 60 75 125

Mid-Sept 65 75 125 150

There are clear benefits to be derived from the irrigationof sugar beet under conditions of moisture stress, wherethe facility exists. It used to be the case that it wasnot economic to irrigate simply to produce surplus, or‘C’ beet when the price paid for this beet was low. Whensurplus beet prices are higher, irrigation becomes a moreeconomic proposition, depending on individual costs ofirrigation, which will vary between farms according to theinfrastructure in place, abstraction fees and capital costs.When used as a management tool to reduce variability incrop yields, and consequently to better manage the arearequired to meet contract, irrigating sugar beet becomesa more compelling proposition.

SUMMARY

Irrigation amount A typical application of irrigation water is usually about25 mm but in some cases this may be too much because:

■ the soil may be unable to accept 25 mm, especially whendelivered rapidly; in this case run-off may cause erosion.

■ applying 25 mm when the SMD is only 25-30 mm will bringthe soil virtually back to field capacity. If rain comes soonafter, it will almost certainly cause drainage, thus wastingwater and possibly nutrients; aim to leave a SMD of at least10 mm after irrigation.

■ in dry weather it may be impossible to keep the SMD onall the area below the limiting deficit. At such times,continue irrigating the whole area but with smaller

Further reading1. Ober, E. (2004). Irrigation: old stories and new. British Sugar Beet

Review, 72 (2), 52-54.

2. Groves, S. (1995). Sugar beet irrigation – maximising returns froma restricted supply. British Sugar Beet Review, 63 (2), 22-25.

3. Dunham, R. (1988). Irrigation of sugar beet: the main effects.British Sugar Beet Review, 56 (3), 34-37.


Two sprays are better than one.Try Escolta’s two-spray strategy.Escolta’s hard to beat for protecting your sugar beet:

• Cost effective – more yield for little more effort

• Spray once as disease enters, spray again 3-4 weeks later

• Excellent disease control and frost protection

• Unbeatable return on your investment – proven over 6 years of independent trials

Escolta is a registered trademark of Bayer. Escolta contains cyproconazole and trifloxystrobin. Use plant protection products safely. Always read the label and product information before use. Pay attention to the risk indications and follow the safety precautions on the label. For further information, please visit www.bayercropscience.co.uk or call Bayer Assist on 0845 6092266 / 01223 226644. © Bayer CropScience Limited 2014.

www.bayercropscience.co.uk

14/2/35/11



industry feature

A brief history of CTM…The dust from the battle of Waterloo had scarcely settled when the Mountain family moved into Harpley, Norfolk,around 200 years ago and, in due course, set up in business as blacksmiths. Today, generations later, the samefamily of Mountains are still forging their business and innovating in the field of agriculture.

ByRobin Limb,

British Sugar plc

Charles Thomas Mountain was the grandson of the originalfounder of the business, born in 1846. Two generations later,C T Mountain, born in 1910, decided to expand the businessand start producing agricultural machinery. Charlie’s two sons,David and Michael, are still deeply involved in the business,even though the next generation of the family is taking overresponsibility.

forge remains untouched in a small corner of the originalbuilding, behind locked doors, as testimony to the heritage ofthe business.

The name CTM is now synonymous with the UK beet industry,with its distinctive red cleaner loaders forming the backboneof the business. When asked why Charlie chose the colourred, David Mountain says, “That was the only colour he hadin stock.”

Charles Mountain (pictured below, top left) was just four atthe outbreak of the First World War. One hundred yearsago this year, there were a number of Irish labourersemployed by the company, before they left for the Front –most never to return.

Nigel Mountain, Sales Director, David and Michael Mountain, AndrewMountain, Engineering Director and Adrian Mountain, ServiceDirector. James Mountain is Production Director (not pictured).

The original blacksmith’s forge at Harpley Engineering.

CTM workers, circa 1915.

An early sugar beet cleaner-loader operated by the Vertigan family,contractors from Great Massingham.

CTM, Harpley Engineering now employs 22 people, has amulti-million pound turnover and has exported to Europe,Russia and China in recent years. The original blacksmith’s


CTM Harpley Engineering’s base in North-West Norfolk.


By the early 1970s, CTM was the establishedmarket leader in sugar beet cleaner-loaders,and with the arrival of the ‘Super 120’ model,designed specifically for the large-scale contractor,it was now possible to load at a rate of twotonnes per minute; at the time one haulier washeard to complain that this was “Too fast to copewith…”.

All machines are made to order from modularelements, assembled in advance, which facilitatesa fast turn-around from order to delivery. Overthe years, CTM have been involved in many typesof machinery, including Armer-Salmon belt-lifters,weed cutters and, latterly, as UK agent for ROPAbeet harvesters, self-propelled loaders and the‘Rockstar’ de-stoning machine. The relationshipthat CTM has with the ROPA company is now afundamental part of its business, with 35 ROPAmachines now operating in the UK.

The author is grateful to the Mountain familyfor being allowed access to the archive materialincluded in this article.

The CTM Super 120 cleaner-loader.

Nigel Mountain, CTM sales director.

Over the years the Mountain family have been blacksmiths,wheelwrights, farriers, carpenters and undertakers.



Wissington soil managementworkshops 2013/14

ByPhilip Ecclestone,British Sugar plc

Soil is, arguably, the most valuable resource available for cropproduction and how we treat and look after it has tremendouseffects, some being positive and some negative, on the successof the crop grown. Unlike many parts of the world, where thesame soil type can stretch for mile after mile, and the weatheris predictable and constant for long periods, soil types inthe UK can vary greatly, even within a field. In addition theunpredictable weather can help or hinder soil management,almost from one hour to the next or over prolonged periods,such as in 2012 when operations had to be carried out whensoils were too wet, and some long lasting damage occurred.

The soils training workshops aim to help growers cope withthese common but difficult conditions by sharing knowledgeand experience of the best time to carry out operations, or toemploy new techniques or equipment. The area managers at

Wissington set themselves a target to carry out at least twelvehours of appropriate soils training for groups of ten to fifteeninterested growers in each of the factory’s seven areas. Aseach area is different, seven separate area plans were devised.In most cases, two or three area managers worked togetherusing different formats including daytime meetings, breakfastgroups, smaller half day or evening meetings. These used avariety of venues such as pubs, hotels and farm yards as wellas field visits. All training took place from the autumn throughto the spring and covered many different subjects connectedwith soil science and management. The following areexamples of some of these meetings, showing the differentformats used.

Evening meetings were held at Surfleet Seas End, nearSpalding, a format which suited the growers in those localities.

During the last twelve months there has been an increased focus on soil management practices. This followed thevery wet year of 2012 and the subsequent extreme, but changeable, weather conditions since. The BBRO andSmiths Gore have worked together on a joint initiative to run a series of soil management workshops across thesugar beet factory growing areas (Ref. 1). This article reports on the activities of the Wissington team of areamanagers who organised and facilitated a number of meetings and workshops during last autumn, winter andspring, attended by around 100 growers. The funding for these workshops was provided by the Rural DevelopmentProgramme for England.



Other subjects covered at meetings were: good drainagepractice, machinery options, liming, correct tyre choice andprecision farming, whilst cultivation systems were discussed ata visit to Vaderstad UK.

Another format that worked well was a breakfast group, heldat the Mepal Outdoor Centre. A number of different subjectscovered on three occasions included: analysis of soil structure,liming, composts, tyres and controlled traffic operations.

As a follow-up to a session at Hillington near King’s Lynn,where soil structure and soil management were discussed indetail, three area groups came together to run a full daymeeting at Swaffham. A number of talks took place in themorning. Frontier led on green manuring, Sly Agri on theconcept of strip-tillage, and Vaderstad on cultivationprinciples. The afternoon was a practical session on a nearbyfield: a soil pit was dug and used as a talking point to explainsoil structure in the stubble field, and to talk about cultivationoptions for what was largely a light sandy soil type. Aspects ofgood ploughing were discussed with a working plough fromGregoire Besson. Sly Agri demonstrated a strip-till cultivator,and an active debate took place about the techniques beingused to help prevent wind erosion, which is common on theselight sandy soils. Continuing this theme, Vaderstad gave aworking demonstration of their pneumatic precision drill, andlastly Cousins had one of their combination harrows workingto show how a seedbed tilth could be produced followingtraditional ploughing.

Many speakers from the agricultural machinery and alliedindustries contributed by providing speakers or hostingtraining workshops. This helped to make these sessions reallyinteractive, whilst presenting a lot of useful information orgiving practical demonstrations in the field. These includedthe following organisations:

Agrovista, Amazone, Betterland Products, British Sugar plc,Burdens, Caliente, CASE NH, CTF Europe, Cousins, Frontier, G&JPeck, Gregoire Besson, John Deere, Lincs Drainage, Michelin,Wright Resolutions, Sly Agri, SOYL, Vaderstad and Yara.

We are grateful to all the contributors who helped withworkshops or made farms available for outdoor training.

References1. Limb, R. E. (2014). Beet growers attend soil management

workshop. British Sugar Beet Review, 82 (1), 21-25.

Pic. 1 – Roy Houlden of Yara outlining the importance of maintainingmacro and micro plant nutrients for good soil health.

Pic. 2 – Peter Croot of SOYL showing the different techniques whichare available to analyse soil and to tailor inputs.

Good ploughing practice being outlined.

The technique of strip-tillage being discussed.

Direct drilling being demonstrated.

One series of evening meetings was devoted entirely to soilnutrition with two speakers who covered two differentaspects as outlined in Pics. 1 and 2



Drilling survey

ByAndy Stocking,

British Sugar plc

It has long been recognised that attention to detail whengrowing sugar beet is key to a high yielding crop. A wellprepared and maintained drill is fundamental to good,uniform establishment and optimum plant population. Whilethe weather will always play a role, by the time the drill leavesthe fields, 70% of the yield-determining factors that thegrower can influence have been established, according toresearch done in Sweden. With this in mind, British Sugarwanted to gain a better understanding of current drillingpractices and how, through potential new initiatives, we couldhelp growers achieve the best plant populations and maximiseyields. Via an online grower and drilling contractor survey, welooked at three key areas.

■ How the crop is drilled

■ Drill testing

■ Adoption of new technologies

This article examines the results of the survey and what wehave learnt from it and provides suggestions on how we may

be able to introduce new initiatives for growers, to help withtheir drilling practices and ultimately identify possible yieldopportunities.

The surveyThe survey was emailed to growers and drilling contractors inFebruary 2014. The survey was sent to all growers for whomwe have an email address (2316) and 366 completed surveyswere submitted. This was an excellent response rate, providinga good insight into what factors growers felt were importantwith regards to drilling practices. Questions were split into thefollowing three categories.

The questions

How the crop is drilled

The first question asked growers how their sugar beet wasdrilled. 76% of the growers who responded to the survey drillthe crop with their own drill, 5% share a machine with others


MONGOOSE


BIGGER BITE AGAINST BCN KEEPING POPULATIONS IN CHECK

The top selling nematode variety in 2014 and still offering the highest yields in its class with excellent performance in the presence and absence of the pest. Proven to deliver high, consistent yields. If you need to tackle Beet Cyst Nematode you need to keep populations in check. Accept no alternatives: Mongoose – beet with bite.


14/2/41/12



and 19% of the respondents use acontractor service. We then asked whatrow width the crop was drilled on. 50 cm(20”) rows are generally recognised asthe most popular row width and thesurvey results confirmed this; 66% ofthe respondents answered that theydrill on 50 cm rows with 34% saying thatthey drill on 45 cm (18”) rows. Growingsugar beet on either row width makeslittle difference in terms of resultingplant populations; both widths arecapable of sowing an adequate numberof seeds.

Drill replacement

We wanted to understand the age of thedrilling fleet. Those respondents whoown their drills were asked the age ofthe drill used (Fig. 1). It was encouragingto see that over 20% of respondentshave drills that are between zero and sixyears old. However, the survey revealed ahigh number of drills being used that areover 11 years old and some more than 20years old. While these older machinescould still be drilling a good crop, theyare unlikely to be making use of thelatest technologies and it could beargued that yield opportunities arebeing missed.

We then asked a series of questions togain an understanding of replacementpolicies; the factors likely to influencechange and, when drills were updated,what were the influencing factors. Theresults from these questions are shownin Figs. 2, 3 and 4. Again, It was veryencouraging to see that over 35% of therespondents would consider drillreplacement if performance became anissue or parts were obsolete. As withany crop, using up-to-date and well-maintained equipment gives manyadvantages. For sugar beet, drills need toplace the seed accurately and at thecorrect depth and spacing. Researchand development studies have shownthat poor drill performance causesreduced plant populations, poor cropuniformity and increased losses atharvest resulting in substantial yieldreductions. It has been suggested that,for an average 2000 t contract, the lossof revenue from poor drilling practicescan be as much £6000. (Source: BBROBulletin)

Whilst it is encouraging to learn thatpoor performance or obsolete partswould mean that some growers wouldconsider replacing their drills, we wantedto understand if there were factors thatwere barriers to replacement (Fig. 5).

13.04%

7.25%

17.39%

25.36%

15.94%

21.01%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

0-3 years 4-6 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 20+ years

Fig. 1 – Age of Drilling Fleet – How old is the drill used?(Percentage of respondents)

14.29%

21.57%

17.93%

3.36%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

Obsolete parts Poor performance (e.g. misses, doubles etc)

Technological advances Capacity/Output

Fig. 3 – What factors are most likely to influence you to change your drill?(Percentage of respondents)

10.69%

36.64%

33.97%

18.70%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11+ years

Fig. 2 – Replacement policy – When do you intend to replace your drill?(Percentage of respondents)



Forty-nine answered that they werehappy with their current drill perform -ance, while 42 indicated that purchaseprice was a barrier.

We then wanted to understand whatwould be most important to growers ifthey were to update their drill or theircontractor service, including whatfeatures or technologies would be mostimportant. High technology in farming isthe norm and sugar beet drills are noexception to this. The top requirementfor growers was tramlining with 253respondents indicating this as their toppreference when it comes to changinga drill. Modern drills now featurerow cut-off technology allowing fulltramlining with seed compensationeither side of a missing row (Ref. 1).The second highest response was forauto-unit shut off on short work andheadlands, again something that isavailable on modern drills using GPSand GEO control to provide accurate shutoff at the end of rows as headlandsare reached. GPS facilitation was alsohigh on growers’ shopping lists whenconsidering a new drill. Full results fromthis question are shown in Fig. 6.

Drill testing

Testing of sugar beet drills isrecommended due to the complicatedmechanisms required to place the seed inthe ground with the precision requiredto maximise plant establishment andtherefore increase yield. The aim ofdrill testing is to check how drill unitsperform, check that seeds are notdamaged when they run through themachine and are placed evenly withoutmisses or doubles (Ref. 2).

We asked growers how frequently theirdrills were tested (e.g. measurementof cell wheel wear, coulter wear,seed spacing accuracy). It was veryencouraging to see that 32% ofrespondents have their drills testedevery year and an additional 24% havetheirs tested every two years (Fig. 7).However, the response to this questionneeded quantifying and we wantedto understand what barriers, if any,growers faced to having their drilltested every year.

The next question we asked aimed tounderstand what these barriers might be(Fig. 8). Thirty-six per cent of respondentsanswered that they did not consider theirdrilling area sufficiently large to warrantdrill testing every year. This is of someconcern as, regardless of area, the need

38.41%

49.28%

2.90%

0%

9.42%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Buy new Buy second-hand Group purchase Hire Use a contractor

Fig. 4 – If you were to update your drill, what would be the chosen solution?(Percentage of respondents)

42

49

17

8

27

7

Purchase cost

Sa�sfied with current drillperformance

Short term view of crop

Lack of quality second-hand drillsavailable

No perceived yield gains

Other priori�es

Fig. 5 – What are the barriers to updating your drill?(Number of respondents)

14

36

36

59

59

61

63

74

78

105

118

160

160

173

190

213

253

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

24 rows

Vydate applica�on

6 rows

Dual row crops

18 rows

Flota�on tyres

Mulch drilling (disc coulters)

45 cm rows

Variable seed rate

50 cm rows

Tramline seed compensa�on

12 rows

Pre-emergence marking

GPS Guidance

Auto unit shut-off on short work and headlands

Tramlining

Mul�-crop use (e.g. maize, OSR)

Fig. 6 – If you were to update your drill/contractor service, which of the following would beof interest? (Number of respondents)



to establish a good plant population isessential to maximise yield. It is possiblethat yield could be compromised if anuntested drill is used where parts areworn without the grower’s knowledge.Some of you will no doubt rememberBritish Sugar providing a drill testingservice at the factories back in the late1980s and early 1990s. This was apopular service at the time but theapproach changed in 1993 when BritishSugar launched a drill testing serviceworking with manufacturers anddealers.

Next stepsThe results of the survey have providedus with an in-depth understanding ofcurrent drilling practices and some of theissues growers are facing. British Sugarare now working on a number ofprojects looking at drilling and plantpopulations. In particular, we arelooking at the current information ondrill testing that we provide togrowers, and how we can makeimprovements to this. We are alsoinvestigating the feasibility of anindustry drill-replacement scheme. Wewill report our findings in a later issueof the British Sugar Beet Review.

Survey winnersEach completed survey was enteredinto a prize draw to win an iPad Miniwith a runner-up prize of two ticketsfor the Cereals Event in 2014. The pictureon the right shows Newark grower TimPalmer receiving his prize from NickMorris, Agricultural Business Manager atBritish Sugar. The Cereals tickets werewon by Graham and James Wilkinsonfrom Everingham, York.

We would like to thank all growers anddrilling contractors who completedthe survey, the feedback is greatlyappreciated.

References 1. Ecclestone, P. (2013). Sugar beet drills – is

your sugar beet drill performing well orshould you update? British Sugar BeetReview, 81 (4), 19-22.

2. Goddard, C. (1984). Drill Test Survey.British Sugar Beet Review, 52 (3), 50-52.

32%

24%

16%

28%

Every year

Every other year

Every third year

Less frequently than every third year

Fig. 7 – How frequently is your drill tested?(Number of respondents)

7%

12%

6%

5%

36%

Distance from dealer

Cost

Time

Do not consider important

Do not consider drilling area to besufficient to require drill tes�ngevery year

Fig. 8 – What are the barriers to having your drill tested every year?(Number of respondents)

Newark grower Tim Palmer receiving his prize from Nick Morris, Agricultural BusinessManager at British Sugar’s Newark Factory.



Developing and using theAB Sugar BeetGro Model

ByPatrick Jarvis, AB Sugar and

Dr. Aiming Qi, Qi Datainsight

IntroductionAs agronomists, growers and processors, we all want toproduce as high yield as possibly when we grow a crop, butwhat is actually achievable and what is the real potential ofthe crop? Is it what we achieved last year, what the BBROattains in variety trials, what our neighbour grows orsomething completely different? The two most importantagro-meteorological inputs to the crop are sunshine and water(rain, irrigation or in soil reserves). Weather varies withlocation and differs from season to season. So what is theresult of good practice and what is due simply to favourableweather?

Our management actions and agronomic practices also shapecrop yield by how well they can maintain and protect theweather-governed potential of the crop. What are the limitingfactors to crop growth and what are agronomic inputs worthin terms of yield? Answers to the above questions cannot beobtained without time-consuming and expensive experiments,but meaningful answers can be readily sought with a well-conceived and validated crop growth model integrated withyield response to management skill levels.

When Broom’s Barn was in its heyday development ofmathematical models and their use as decision-making toolswas an integral part of research on crop protection and cropproduction. In the 1990s, significant amounts of financialsupport from BBRO’s predecessor were provided to developa first phase sugar beet growth model fit for the Britishmaritime climatic conditions. Subsequently, BBRO hadcontinued to support crop modelling research. In the 2000s,research activities were supported to further develop thismodel’s suitability for a wide range of soil types and climaticconditions both within and outside the UK, and to incorporatethe model into a Geographic Information System (GIS) forimproved sugar beet yield forecast at different factory areas,in parallel with helicopter flights and field samplings fromBritish Sugar field staff. In the meantime, a new virus yellowsdisease forecasting tool was also developed and is still usedtoday. By 2010 development of a simple management toolwas initiated to evaluate cost effectiveness of inputs (Ref. 1).During this phase, another development was that the firstphase sugar beet growth model was outgrown by the recentstep increase in sugar beet yield from the improvements invariety over time and use of improved agronomic practices,such as further enhanced seed treatment and exploitation ofphysiological benefits of modern fungicides from favourableautumn weather. As a result, in 2011 BBRO supported a largeresearch project for Broom’s Barn to conduct multi-site fieldtrials to collect more growth data so that the original sugar

beet growth model was updated to suit today’s varieties andagronomic practices (Ref. 2).

AB Sugar saw all of the good work that had led to the creationand recalibration of the BBRO sugar beet growth model andrecognised the potential to develop a tool that could addressthe wide issues outlined above. When research at Broom’sBarn began to be diverted from sugar beet, the BBRO felt thatthese achievements must not be lost; the authors got togetherand, with significant funding from AB Sugar, started todevelop this core model into a useful multi-purpose tool forthe whole beet sugar industry in the UK, growers andprocessors alike.

The possibilitiesMaximising crop growth through optimising light interceptionand its use efficiency throughout the entire season is an opensecret to success in sugar beet cultivation. The AB SugarBeetGro model has the sugar beet growth simulator as itscore. This allows the model to ‘grow’ a virtual weather-governed potential crop with additional layers comprisingeffects of various key crop management elements todetermine the level of actual achievable yield. The core beetgrowth model has been used as an indispensable tool in thepast to study complex effects of climate and soils on sugarbeet growth and yield. However, the AB Sugar BeetGro modelis being developed and used as a management tool.Therefore, we are able to plan management operations andimprove decision making both at a crop level and at theprocessing business level.

The AB Sugar BeetGro model is also intended to generatebenchmark yields to evaluate the gaps between beet croppotential, best practice and actual operational attainment. Byso doing, we can identify, help prioritise and value theresearch and development (R&D) activities needed to rectifythe situations that cause the greatest yield depressions. Inreturn, the model can then be used to test the outputs of suchR&D needs before valuable resource is expended.

It would be extremely beneficial to know where best to growa crop, particularly for growers looking to move to new land.Also, what is the potential in a new locality and how shouldgrowing be optimised there. These are questions that theAB Sugar BeetGro model can also be immediately employedto answer.

We set out to produce this simple AB Sugar BeetGro cropmodel on a spreadsheet platform as a tool for individual users,which would be easy to use by a competent tractor driver,and could be upgraded, developed and maintained by any



These core weather and soil inputs are required for theAB Sugar BeetGro model to operate, along with a date ofsowing and proposed date of harvest to give the growingperiod (Fig. 2).

This core model assumes: adequate and even plant stands;adequate nutrition; optimised controls of weeds, pestsand diseases; a standard variety and seed treatment (orrate of emergence) and no storage, harvest or loadinglosses.

So we have built modules based upon published andverifiable data to allow and evaluate management decisionsfor variety selection with relative performance to the

proficient software engineer. To reallyfulfil our goals and address the initialquestions, we have developed thenecessary management modules to fitaround the core model and allow theuser to address the yield gaps, too. Ourhope is that eventually all sugar beetgrowers should have access to thisspreadsheet platform model to helpthem increase yield and reduceproduction cost.

The goalA road map to achieving a high andstable sugar beet yield in the UK can bebriefly outlined as below:

■ Well-prepared seed beds;

■ Drilling crops as soon as the soil andtemperature allow machinery intothe fields;

■ Good seedling emergence and well-and uniformly-established cropstands;

■ Full crop canopy reached around thesummer solstice (i.e. mid- to late-June);

■ Plenty of sunshine combined with adequate and evenlydistributed rainfall during the summer months;

■ Well-maintained healthy crop canopy throughout andmaking the best use of autumn weather to allow beets tobe harvested with a ‘just-in-time’ method.

Our goal is to produce a tool that can reliably and accuratelyestimate this potential yield of a sugar beet crop given long-term climate data, or can predict the potential yield givenweather input of any growing season; then to overlay thiswith a set of crop management options plus forecast weather.This allows the crop potential to be assessed, identifies theeffect of management actions and allows improved decisionmaking. Of course it will be difficult toprecisely predict the yield that any givencrop will produce, because the weather issuch a key influence in our climate.Therefore, the prediction will only be asgood as the availability and quality ofthe necessary input data and theaccuracy of the weather forecasts for thelocation.

The modelThe core beet crop growth simulator inthe model is process-based, weather-driven and simulates crop growth anddevelopment on a daily basis. Thus keymeteorological inputs of daily temper -ature, rainfall, global solar radiation andpotential evapotranspiration (PET) arekey and are combined with edaphiccharacteristics such as soil texture typeand its associated soil water-holdingcapacity. From these the model simulatestotal dry matter and its partitioning intocrop sugar yield from a sowing date toany given harvesting date (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 – The schematic diagram of the AB Sugar BeetGro core sugar beet growth model. Theinputs consist of components in black boxes on the left with the processingcomponents in blue boxes are on the right.

Date Site Tmax Tmin Rain Radiation ET Site - crop/weather location code

01-Jan-13 BB 5.5 3.3 1.2 1.1 0.09 Tmax - Maximum temperature (°C)

02-Jan-13 BB 2.5 -0.4 0.0 3.2 0.30 Tmin - Minimum temperature (°C)

03-Jan-13 BB 1.6 -0.1 0.0 1.3 0.10 Rain - daily rainfall amount (mm)

04-Jan-13 BB 5.2 -0.4 0.0 1.8 0.16 Radition - daily global radiation (MJ/day/m2)

05-Jan-13 BB 6.1 1.2 1.8 3.1 0.33 ET - daily grass potential evapotranspiration (mm)

06-Jan-13 BB 3.6 2.3 0.4 0.8 0.04

07-Jan-13 BB 9.3 -0.1 8.0 1.3 0.11

08-Jan-13 BB 9.2 2.2 0.2 1.6 0.16

09-Jan-13 BB 5.2 1.4 0.0 4.6 0.51

BeetGro Inputs and Op�ons

Total

Simulations

Site

SimulationSowingDate HarvestDate Soil Parameter (b) Latitude(degrees) SAWC(%)

3 BB_Sim01 10-Mar-13 01-Oct-13 2.1 52.3 17.0

BB_Sim02 10-Mar-13 01-Nov-13 2.1 52.3 17.0

BB_Sim03 10-Mar-13 30-Nov-13 2.1 52.3 17.0

Seed Treatment 90.0

Relative Variety Yield

Performance(%) 100.0

Atmospheric CO2

concentration (ppm) 390.0

Fig. 2 – The screen shots showing soil and weather inputs and variety and seed treatmentmanagement options in the AB Sugar BeetGro model.


controlled varieties in the BBROrecommended list and seed treatmentoptions; nitrogen fertiliser applicationrate; final plant population achieved;delaying herbicide application; using afoliar fungicide; level of Virus Yellowsincidence and the time beet is in storepost-harvest (Figs. 2 and 3).

We would like to include soilmanagement but, as yet, can find noobjective and quantitative measures ofhow this affects yield or indeed anyaspect of crop growth. This is an area wewould like to pursue and we are lookinghard at how to develop this (Ref. 3).

We are constantly thinking very carefullyabout how to incorporate phenomenathat we have experienced in recent years:water-logging immediately springs tomind and we think the way to addressthis at present is just to stop growthwhen trigger volumes of rain fall. Thenext is the change in harvesting practicefrom crown-topped beet to whole beetdelivery. This has now been added to thecrop options to account for additionallyverified yield increases. We will in thefuture incorporate other agronomic andvarietal improvements as they aredeveloped but believe we now have acore tool which we will be able to adapt.Other probable examples are furtheradvances in seed treatment, growingvarieties with enhanced drought-tolerance and sowing both bolting-resistant and cold-tolerant varieties inautumn.

The original Broom’s Barn/BBRO modelwas used previously to indicate the lostpotential of the UK crop due to lack ofavailable water in the past (Ref. 4 andPic. 1). We can now use the AB SugarBeetGro model to identify the impactthat irrigation would have on any givencrop, not just the amount and number ofapplications but also the timing inrelation to the weather experienced.Figure 4 illustrates a fictitious example ofthe effect of irrigation given a set of


Enter es�mated plant popula�on per hectare a�er crop establishment. Highest sugar yield is associated with plant popula�ons between 85000 and 120000 per hectare.

For all mineral soils, applica�ons of N-fer�lizer will increase yield but only up to op�mal rates of between 119 and 128 kg/ha. Li�le N-fer�lizer is needed in Peaty soils, so for Peaty soils, please enter 120 to ensure that no nega�ve effects of N fer�lizer on sugar yield.

Enter number of days in delay of applying herbicides in reference to the date when plants reach five true leaf stage

Enter es�mated percentage (%) of crop areas infected with virus yellows

For control of foliar diseases such as powdery mildew, please choose one of the following op�ons: A - presence of foliar diseases and without spray of modern fungicides, B-absence of foliar diseases and without spray of modern fungicides, C- presence of foliar diseases and with spray of modern fungicides, D- Absence of foliar diseases and with spray of modern fungicides

BeetGro Management Op�on Modules Total

Simulations

Site

Simulation Plant Population

N Fertilizer

Rate (kg/ha) Weed Control

Virus Yellows

Control

Foliar Diseases

Control

Storage Durations

(Days)

6 BB_Sim01 78000 111 0 5 C 15

BB_Sim02 85000 70 10 6 D 30

BB_Sim03 90000 90 60 7 A 60

BB_Sim04 95000 110 4 8 B 80

BB_Sim05 100000 120 5 9 C 100

BB_Sim06 180000 200 6 10 D 120

Fig. 3 – The screen shot with defined inputs of nitrogen fertiliser, plant population, herbicide,foliar fungicide, Virus Yellows and beet storage management options in the AB SugarBeetGro model.

Irrigation times Date Irrigation_Amount

(mm)

4 01-Jul-13 25.0

15-Jul-13 25.0

05-Aug-13 25.0

20-Aug-13 25.0

BeetGro Impact of Water in the UK

Site_Simulation WL_PDMY WL_PSY PDMY PSY WL_PDMY - Water-limited potential dry matter

yield (t/ha)

no irrigation 25.92 15.34 33.41 21.45

WL_PSY - Water-limited potential sugar yield

(t/ha)

4x1" irrigation 27.76 16.82 33.41 21.45

Starting July PDMY - Potential total dry matter yield (t/ha)

6x1" irrigation 27.94 16.96 33.41 21.45

Starting July PSY - Potential sugar yield (t/ha)

6x2" irrigation 31.50 19.87 33.41 21.45

Starting May

__

15.34

16.82

16.96

19.87777777777 211111111111111111...........4444444444444444445555555555555555Starting May

Fig. 4 – The screen shot showing modelled effect of irrigation on the total crop growth andfinal sugar yield with the AB Sugar BeetGro model.

Pic. 1 – Fields of severely water-stressed sugar beet crop.

What would irrigation be worth?



References1. Qi, A.; Pettitt, I. and May, M. (2010).

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of inputs.British Sugar Beet Review, 78 (4), 17-21.

2. Qi, A.; Eric, E. S. and Jaggard, K. W. (2013).Updating the BBRO/Broom’s Barn sugarbeet growth model. British Sugar BeetReview, 81 (3), 29-32.

3. Sparkes, D. (2014). A summary of the BBRO research review of cropproduction. British Sugar Beet Review, 82 (1), 11-14.

4. Qi, A. and Jaggard, K. W. (2006). Partitioning climatic drought intoeffects of water stress and hot temperature in the UK. ZuckerIndustrie 131: 412-415.

Conclusion

We have developed the AB SugarBeetGro crop model to be flexibleand a useful multi-purpose toolthat has a core crop growth modeloverlaid with a series of cropmanagement options. The core beetgrowth model estimates weather-governed sugar yield potential ofthe crop. The management modulesallow us to estimate what factorsare limiting crop yield and facilitatemuch improved crop managementdecision making (Fig. 5), either on afarm or field-based level. It is alsodesigned for use to help plan andvalidate experimental developmentsin crop production.

rainfall to illustrate both the effect of time and amount ofirrigation applied, in this particular case showing the benefitof early season application.

To keep the model relevant it is important that researchersfeed the findings of their work into the model revisions andthe BBRO has agreed that this will be a key output from itsfunded R&D projects.

And nextWe will be conducting pilot studies this year with some UKgrowers who are involved in another crop monitoringexercise. This will allow us to better understand what iswanted in the field and by the grower, and to demonstratethe capabilities of what we already have before we make itavailable for general use.

AB Sugar has further invested in the model and we arecurrently tuning it to the crops in other countries, first Spainand then China.

In the UK, so many of our management decisions, and so muchof the crop potential, is dependent upon the weather; onefuture idea is to link the AB Sugar BeetGro model withweather forecasts.

We are also involved in a project that links the model withremote crop monitoring and using satellite and UnmannedAerial Vehicle (UAV) observations (Earth Observations or EO),and other environmental and crop data to improve the qualityof the output of the model to make decision making evenbetter. It will be particularly helpful when images from remotesensing instruments on board satellites or UAVs can be used totrack the true canopy cover development in the field oraccurately account for large patches infested with weeds or ofbare soils (Pic. 2).

Pic. 2 – Development of canopy coverings through time and bare soilsurfaces where normal crop plants should be present.

10th May 2011 25th May 2011 8th June 2011

22nd June 2011 8th July 2011 21st July 2011

Can we use EO to accurately track canopydevelopment during the growing season?

Crop Management Tool

Controllable factors

Uncontrollable factors

‘What-if’ scenario maker Decision Support Systems/tools Lost opportunity analysis Value the gaps in knowledge

For each of these ooFoo

inputs

outputs

Trials Current & commercial prac�ce

Fig. 5 – The schematic diagram of the AB Sugar BeetGro crop model with its diverse uses showinglayers of crop management and agronomic practices that act on the weather-governedpotential yield estimated and/or predicted by the core sugar beet growth model.

And account for gaps between plants?



Key policy issuesAs the largest representative organisation for farmers in the UK, the National Farmers Union works for itsmembers on a wide range of issues affecting them and their businesses. This includes both actively workingto counter and moderate legislation proposals which would directly and negatively impact farmers ifintroduced, and also pushing for changes in existing rules and regulations to keep UK farmers competitive inthe world markets in which they operate. In this issue and at regular times in the British Sugar Beet Reviewwe’ll aim to provide an update of some of the most important issues affecting growers and their businesses.

Three key issues on which NFU are currently fighting on behalf of growers are plant protection productsregulations, water abstraction and improving tractor and trailer weight rules.

ByRuth Digby,

Chief Sugar Adviser

As well as looking at the regulatory environment, theNFU are working with other organisations including theVoluntary Initiative, the Crop Protection Association andthe Agricultural Industries Confederation to look at waysthe whole of the food production chain can work togetherto identify opportunities for improving and enhancingcrop protection by using existing and novel means, whileensuring that a responsible and scientifically robustapproach is taken to all regulatory issues.

Water abstraction

The NFU are taking a central role in the abstraction reformprocess to ensure that farmers and growers will get a fairshare of available water, as we believe that it is importantto be fully involved in shaping a new and better systemthat is fair, simple, flexible and affordable and thatrecognises the need for a secure supply of water, especiallyin drought conditions. Without the NFU participation inthe process of rule changing there is a risk that prioritiesfor water resources are discussed without dueconsideration of the needs of farming, and the vital rolefarms play in producing food for the whole community.

A recent Government consultation, ‘Making the most ofevery drop’, saw proposals for the biggest shake up ofwater abstraction licensing in 50 years, and was seen as amixed bag for the farming industry. Proposals includedreplacement of the existing system of licences with newAbstraction Permissions (AP) and removal of currentseasonal conditions and separate licences for winter orsummer abstraction. Instead APs would contain conditionslinking access to water and water availability. This wouldallow higher flows to be abstracted all year, not just inwinter, but would restrict use on all abstractors during verylow river flows.

The NFU, while agreeing that the system would benefit fromreform, have expressed to the Government our real concernover some of the important details of the proposals.

Crop protection

The ever increasing regulatory pressure on effective cropprotection means that farmers are facing a growingchallenge to produce high quality British food. While thesafety of crop protection products is of paramountimportance and is fully supported by the NFU, we haveconcerns that the restrictions on the use of, or the loss of,crop protection products are often not driven by humanhealth or food safety concerns.

Instead the vast majority are driven by arbitraryenvironmental standards, such as the EU’s Drinking WaterDirective which has concentration threshold levels thatare inadequately supported by research data on theireffects to human or environmental health. A recentexample of this arbitrary basis for regulation changes wasseen with the reaction to the supposed link between thedecline in bee populations, which saw an over-simplisticattribution of the damage to certain pesticides, eventhough there is no field-based evidence to substantiatethis conclusion.

In response to the neonicotinoid insecticide restrictions andpart of the broader efforts to safeguard pesticideavailability, the NFU has launched two legal challengesagainst the European Commission’s temporary restrictionon the use of neonicotinoids in 2013.

The principle underpinning the work of the NFU in thisarea is that we see it as essential that any decisions madeabout the availability for use of these products must bebased on robust scientific evidence.

A clear message is conveyed by the NFU to UK andEuropean regulators that: over-precautionary regulationrelating to pesticides, resistance to technologicalinnovation by regulators, and short-sighted decisions onissues such as disease, pest and weed resistance, aremaking it increasingly difficult for farmers to producefood, fibre, energy and feed.



Unnecessary delays add to rural road congestion, causingfrustration for all rural road users. Safety is compromised asdelays can cause other road users to undertake riskyovertaking manoeuvres.

The inherent safety of agricultural vehicles has improvedover time, and the industry has taken measures toimprove the mechanical maintenance of tractors andtrailers on the road. Tractors are designed to brake at 50%efficiency and their ‘wet’ braking system is far less prone todeterioration than braking systems for other road vehicles.Tractors are also designed to compensate for an unbrakedagricultural trailed appliance of up to 14.23 t, meaningtheir braking systems are likely to be more efficient thanthose for other road vehicles.

Trailers used at speeds above 20 mph are required to havecommercial specification running gear and a brakingefficiency of 45%. It is important that trailers which meetthe current 25% braking efficiency ‘agricultural spec’running gear are able to continue to be used at speeds upto 20 mph to avoid a burdensome, disproportionate andexcessive cost to the industry.

Driving at speeds above 20 mph with a trailer withbraking efficiency of 45% will actually reduce stoppingdistances in comparison to tractors and trailers driving at20 mph with 25% braking efficiency.

Following extensive representations by the NFU to theDepartment for Transport on the justifications for changesin the regulations, the DFT have opened a consultation topropose changes in the current regulations to bring themin line with European countries and other regulatedsectors.

Within the consultation the NFU have proposed that:

■ The speed limit can be safely increased to 25 mph for allagricultural tractors.

■ For combinations where the brakes of the trailer havebeen tested within a period of one year and a brakingefficiency of at least 45% has been achieved, the speedlimit for that vehicle could be safely raised to thestated maximum design speed under type approvalrequirements e.g. 50 km/h (31 mph).

■ Consideration should also be given to raising the speedlimit to 30 mph for all agricultural tractors on dualcarriageways to improve safety for all road users byreducing congestion.

■ While the NFU recognise the impact assessment’ssummary of costs and benefits; the benefits could beincreased further by increasing the speed limit above25 mph for tractors that are designed for, and capableof, higher speeds.

With many regulatory challenges facing growers each year,the NFU, as the voice of British farming, providesprofessional representation on the issues that affectfarmers the most. Members can get more detail about thework of the NFU and current advice on issues affectingthem on NFU online. Details on how to become a memberin order to strengthen the voice and work of the NFU asthe representatives for farmers can also be found online.

Paul Hammett, NFU national water resources specialist,has said: “The way that water is managed and licensed inthis country can definitely be improved and sincefarmers hold some two-thirds of all abstraction licencesissued in England and Wales, while abstracting less thanone per cent of water in terms of total volume, we wantto be fully involved in shaping a new and improvedsystem.

“We like some of Defra’s ideas, particularly those thatwill allow farmers more easily to take surface water athigh flows coupled with an improved scheme for tradingwater. We also welcome the suggestion that water shouldbe increasingly managed on a catchment by catchmentbasis.”

While the NFU acknowledges there are advantages inmoving away from national ‘broad brush’ rules to agovernance system that tackles local problems, there areconcerns that there are also potential pitfalls in suchmajor changes. For example, the revocation of all irrigationlicences to be replaced by new APs could provide benefitsif the new regulations are ‘simple, low cost and fair toall users’, but the transition could also become anadministrative nightmare if not correctly managed.

The NFU will also be pressing Defra to recognise the specialcircumstances that apply to irrigated cropping as there isconcern, that while full volumes of water may only beneeded during one dry year in ten, the unused water in theother nine years should not be seen as ‘spare’. Areas alsobeing highlighted by the NFU are important omissions toproposals, including the lack of proposals for managingwater in scarce conditions which is not really addressedcurrently.

Tractor and trailer weights and speeds

Our lobbying for an increase in tractor and trailer weightsand speeds has been instrumental in ensuring that thelong-awaited consultations go ahead. The NFU collectedand submitted a strong evidence-based response to arecent government consultation to again demonstrate theneed for change.

The NFU has been leading the call for a review and updateof the current speed limits for agricultural tractor andtrailer combinations which have not been reviewed sinceThe Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986came into force. These regulations stipulate constructionalrequirements which limit most agricultural tractors andtrailers to a speed limit of 20 mph.

During the last 28 years, agricultural tractors haveincreased in horsepower and speed to meet the needsdemanded by the improved productivity and efficiency offarming in the UK and EU. This increase has also come withother technological improvements which make tractorsand trailers inherently safer. Tractor manufacturers designand build tractors that are permitted to be used at farhigher speed limits in other European member states. NFUstrongly believe that having a restrictive speed limithinders British farmer’s and grower’s capability toundertake efficient agricultural transport, and stiflesproductivity and competitiveness.



news

SESVanderHave, the global market leader in sugar beet seed, isinvesting over 8 million pounds (€10m) in a brand new20,000 m², high-tech research centre adjacentto its headquarters in Tienen, Belgium.

“This facility will increase and extend our R&Dcapacity. Employing up to fifty people thecutting edge centre will more than double ourexisting research capacity. Construction willstart in late 2014 and will be operational byautumn 2015,“ explains Rob van Tetering,CEO of SESVanderHave.

“This new infrastructure is essential to accommodate futureresearch projects which in turn will drive further improvements insugar beet performance for growers and industry alike.

The ‘research centre’ will be equipped with state of the arttechnology. Thousands of sugar beet plants will be grownunder controlled conditions, free from the influence of theweather. Separate enclosed compartments will producehomogeneous environments to facilitate precise control ofthe growing process to deliver even better, more reliableresearch and test results.

Research remains the cornerstone of our business. Growers expectSESVanderHave sugar beet seed to perform optimally under arange of conditions. By extensively testing new varieties beforethey are marketed, we are better equipped to anticipate fieldperformance. We are already doing this on a large scale, both inthe greenhouse and in our own field trials.

This new facility extends and improves our research capacity. Itwill also enhance the collaborative research we undertake withrenowned universities and institutes worldwide, including withinthe UK. This ensures our collaborative research remains at theforefront utilising the latest science, innovation and expertise forour products. This cutting edge research centre enables us toexpand such research, in turn accelerating delivery of new andimproved traits: such as higher yield, improved disease resistanceand reduced dependence on inputs.”

SESVanderHave invests over £8 millionin new high tech research centre toenhance sugar beet research

“This investment is striking in economically challenging times.” Robvan Tetering explains. “As a business we wanted to expand the sitein Tienen, because that allowed us to keep the business expertisecentralised. Tienen is the headquarters and knowledge hub of theinternational group and we emphasise this through this investment.We are currently one of the few companies that dares to take sucha major innovative investment. We only hope other seed businesseswill quickly follow suit because investment pays off.

This new investment underlines SESVanderHave’s commitment to,and confidence in, the future of sugar production.”

The ecological footprintThe ecological footprint of the centre was a condition of theinvestment on the Feed Food Health Site which is owned byProvinciale Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Vlaams Brabant (POM).

Erwin Lammens, General Manager of POM, explains:

“Feed Food Health was established with the aim of attractinginnovative businesses from the food sector to Tienen. TheSESVanderHave project fits perfectly with this aim: it is innovative,high tech and forms the basis of what Tienen is renowned for:sugar. We could not imagine a better partner at this time.”

“Part of the agreement with SESVanderHave was that the newresearch centre must be CO2 neutral. Sustainability is of theutmost importance to us.”

Rob van Tetering explains how SESVanderHave makes such alarge centre CO2 neutral:

“During design, we paid particular attention to our ecologicalfootprint. Thanks to several innovative features we met botheconomic and environmental criteria.

“For example, building our own thermal power plant will not onlyregulate the temperature of the research centre, but any surplusheat can be used elsewhere in the business or exported to nearbybusinesses.

“We will also recycle rainwater and are working with the latesttypes of environmentally-friendly lighting and computer-controlled screens to minimise light pollution. As a business weadopt the most stringent rules in the field of (bio) safety andcleanliness, and set our own standards still higher. This ensuresour employees benefit from an optimal working environment.”



news

What began more than 60 years ago with one acre of land isnow a thriving operation covering eight holdings and about1,800 ha (4,500 acres). Bill Legge joined his father, farming atSouthery near Downham Market in 1965, and has successfullyexpanded oper ations from the 100 ha farmed at that time to itspresent day 1,820 ha, partly through acquisition, but principallyby taking on more land under various contract farmingarrangements.

“In 1948 – the year I was born – my father was farming just oneacre of land rented from the church, while being employed as ahorseman on a local farm. In 1949 after buying a bean drill –widely used for sowing sugar beet and vegetable crops in theFen – he was on his way to establishing his own enterprise. Thebusiness we have today, run jointly with my son Pete, owes agreat deal to my father’s ambition and determination to farm inhis own right.”

Today the farm grows around 330 ha of sugar beet to meet acontract tonnage entitlement of more than 20,000 tonnes.Other crops include winter wheat and oilseed rape, and about400 ha of potatoes, mainly on land rented as needed, across ageographical area spanning 40 miles and several soil types.

The business also runs three lorries which, during the beetprocessing campaign, run seven days a week and haul some60,000 tonnes for a beet group consisting mainly of beet grownby their own business and another near-by group of contractfarms. The rest of the year, the lorries are kept busy by moving

other crops grown on thefarm.

“The logistical challenges offarming across such a largearea makes managing thefarm a challenge at times,but we seek to keep thingsstraightforward throughblock-cropping and a simplerotation,” Mr. Legge says.

Sugar beet is a mainstay ofthe business and this yearhe will plant five varietieswith newly recommendedBCN-tolerant variety, Paminabeing his largest singlevariety at roughly one thirdof the cropped area. Othervarieties include Cayman,SY Muse, Haydn andSpringbok. Mr. Legge waspleased that his seeddelivery was as he orderedand without varietysubstitution.

Outlining his priorities whenselecting varieties, Mr. Leggehighlighted three factors

which determine his final choice. Most sugar beet is grown in aone-in-four rotation but there are cases where, for variousreasons, this becomes one-in-three. “Yield is the principle driverof variety choice. Our soils, at 20% plus organic matter, tend toproduce crops with low sugar levels so we also look for a varietywith above-average sugar content. Bolters are another crucialconsideration and are one of the reasons why we have steeredaway from earlier BCN varieties, just as we did with the earlierrhizomania resistant varieties,” he says.

On a pocket of land near Southery, just a short drive fromBritish Sugar’s Wissington factory, Mr. Legge reckons the crophas been grown since the factory opened in 1925. Fortunately,the effects of BCN are less dramatic on the rich black fen soils,which have a higher water table than on sandy soils farmedelsewhere.

“Breeding improvements in this area have been considerableand we pay more attention to bolter levels than we did thirtyyears ago. This has been crucial to maintaining performance ofthe crop. This is not to say we can’t tolerate a little bit of boltingat the early drilling time, but it has to be reasonable at thenormal drilling time,” he adds.

Although his sugar beet crop receives a fungicide, irrespectiveof variety, Mr. Legge believes it is important that theRecommended List continues to score each variety’s diseaseresistance, to encourage breeders to exploit genetic resistancewhere possible.

Bill Legge was the winner of a Limagrain competition to identify the BCN variety with the best combinationof sugar yield potential and bolting resistance.

Limagrain winner looks to Pamina to beat BCN



news“The industry has lost a significant number of herbicidesand insecticides and we may well see the withdrawal of more,so it is important that we maintain genetic resistance as abackstop.”

Soil sampling has revealed that BCN populations are not atextreme levels, but they cannot be ignored; where they are anissue, their impact on performance is noticeable.

“Our infestation levels vary, from minimal to 8 grams per ml ofsoil, depending on the soil type. Although tests indicate ourlevels are low, BCN is a constant source of frustration to effortsto improve crop performance. We have been waiting for aBCN resistant variety with respectable yield potential, aboveaverage sugar content and reasonable tolerance to bolting fora long time and in Pamina I believe we have found one,”Mr. Legge says.

Although BCN resistant varieties have been available for severalyears, Mr. Legge has been reluctant to drill them on all but theworst affected land because of the yield penalty compared withthe best-performing conventional varieties.

“Until the introduction of better performing resistant varietieswe had little choice but to extend the rotation and live with theimpact on enterprise performance. This is not always practicaland there is often an economic cost to the business. Hopefully,the introduction of better-performing resistant types willchange this,” he says.

2013-14 performance

Like many growers, Mr. Legge’s crop is lifted by a contractor, anarrangement that has served him well over the years. “We seekto lift over about five months during which time there can be alot happening on the farm. Using a contractor enables us tokeep up with other tasks and avoids having a large sum ofcapital unnecessarily tied up in a machine that would most likelybe under-used.”

Lifting of the 2013-14 crop was completed on 9th March, themild winter proving to be a welcome blessing with yieldsboosted and lifting made easier. His crop has averaged around70 t/ha which, given the start to the season, he regards as“quite remarkable”. “Even in late-lifted crops we were stillrecording sugar concentrations of around 18.5%. Even thebeet loaded out of clamp in early March, that was lifted inthe first week of December, still had a sugar content of17.5-18%. ”While the mild weather is likely to have played apart in helping to keep crops growing for longer, Mr. Leggebelieves also that the fact the beet going into clamp wascleaner than in 2012-13 may also have helped maintain sugarlevels.

The mild weather however, has not helped prepare seedbedsfor this season. “We haven’t recorded a single frost this winterwhich is why we have cloddy seedbeds, particularly on theheavier fen soils. We have had to drill a little deeper to findgood tilth, but at least there is little risk of a wind blow tocrops.” Most seasons his beet drilling team is a two-manoperation, with one man working down a seedbed ahead ofthe 12-row drill. This year however, on the typical fen soils, athird driver was needed to operate a power harrow “to atleast try to smash up the clods up bit. With the 2014-15 cropdrilled between 10th March and 2nd April, into dry andcloddy seedbeds, one or two good, well-timed rains areneeded if we are to achieve good plant populations”.

One note of disappointment stems from being unable touse GMO technology. In the fens, where blowing is oftensevere, the use of cover crops is essential in most seasons.Herbicide resistant beet would, Mr. Legge believes, be moreenvironmentally friendly and potentially cheaper than havingto remove a cover crop as well as volunteer potatoesand broadleaf and grass weeds individually. He looks forwardto the day when Europe finally decides to accept GMtechnology.

Grimme adds walkingshare option on sugarbeet harvestersGrimme has introduced a walking shareon its 6-row REXOR 620 and 630 self-propelled sugar beet harvesters as wellas its 6, 8 and 9-row maxi version as anoption to replace the existing hydraulicallydriven Oppel wheel.

The walking share has a single oscillatorper row and is infinitely speed adjustable,which ensures gentle beet lifting withreduced soil content. The single row depthcontrol in combination with hydraulicstone protection also helps to reduce soilcontamination, which in turn reduces thereliance on the following cleaning units.


BURY ST. EDMUNDS FACTORY

factory news


Dan DownsAgricultural Business Manager

Factory maintenance

Our major capital project is progressing well and on target forcompletion by campaign start. The new gassing tank and raw juicetank have been installed along with a large proportion of thesupporting steelwork (see picture above). Once complete this newinstallation will replace the current general purpose filters andimprove the process reliability of the factory. These improvementsincorporate new technology and sharing of best practice acrossthe AB Sugar group.

Juice run operations started on the 15th April and will run forapproximately 100 days. As a result the factory will operate thisfinancial year for a total of over 250 days. Juice is being drawnfrom the various tanks on site which will all be empty for nextcampaign start.

2014 Crop progress

Those members of the Bury agricultural team with a largeproportion of heavier soil types spent many hours advising growerson different techniques for seedbed preparation this year. Havinghad a mild winter with little or no frost mould created, along witha wet weather pattern before a rapidly drying time in the spring,the bodied land was very dry on the surface once cultivated,creating a very hostile seedbed. As a result some drillings weredelayed until May and those growers who did plant into heavierland with little soil tilth found that seed crop establishment wasvariable and seed did not germinate until rain arrived in May. Incontrast the crop on lighter land around Bury went into good warmseedbeds and established quickly.

The vigour and quality of the seed was demonstrated well thisyear, as some of the seed that sat in very dry soil for many weekssuddenly grew well once moisture became available.

The very dry early spring was compensated for a very wet late May.This has been very welcome to allow development of crop growthand by the end of May many crops were meeting across the rows,with the more backward crops growing on well.

Another impact of the very mild winter is a high potential risk ofpests and disease, so please be vigilant with your fungicideprogramme. Virtually 100% of the crop for Bury has a seedtreatment applied; these treatments are highly effective atcontrolling pests, especially aphids carrying virus yellows.

LimeX

LimeX from Bury is now virtually sold out despite the larger cropyield last season resulting in more LimeX70 being produced andmore being available to our local market. Bury growers havealready purchased and taken delivery of 20,000 tonnes of productfrom Wissington. Please contact your area manager for availabilityand supply options through the summer months.

Topsoil

A dry start to the spring has resulted in a large demand fromcustomers. Bury is on track for a record year and sales may hit80,000 tonnes by September. For plant operations on site this is thearea of biggest activity as this allows space to be made for handlingthe soil that was delivered with the beet last campaign.

BBRO Open Day

The Bury area event was held on the 22nd May, by kind permissionof our host grower James Forrest, R H Forrest & Co. Over 400 peopleattended the event. I would like to thank James and his farm stafffor their work prior to the event and also to Claus Voetmann forproviding parking. I would also like to apologise for the waiting timefor the buses at one point in the day. There was a problem with oneof our shuttle buses just at the busiest point in the day. Thank you tothe Bayer Old London Bus driver for coming to the rescue.

People changes

I would like to congratulate Gillian Colman (nee Fox) former areamanager with the Bury agricultural team on her appointment to therole of Area & Beet Supply Manager with the Wissingtonagricultural team. Gillian will have responsibility for an area atWissington and also support for on-site operations. A newappointment will be made to replace Gillian in her Bury area thatencompasses the A14 corridor west of Bury.

The Bury Agricultural Team are always available to support growersthroughout the season and I am personally always keen to meetBury growers; please contact me at Bury factory if I can be of anysupport. I would like to wish everyone a successful and high yielding2014/15 season.


CANTLEY FACTORY


John EmersonAgricultural Business Manager

2014 Crop progress

At the time of writing (late May) the Cantley crop hasestablished very well on the light and medium soils, with onlythe heavier soils struggling where moisture was a limitingfactor, as a result of cobbly seedbeds, following an almostfrost-free winter. Many growers have taken the advice toincrease seed rate to around 1.2 units per hectare in order totarget establishing 100,000 plants per hectare. This means evenon the heavier soils most fields have 80,000 or more plantsestablished. Bird and pest damage has been common-place, butthe warm conditions have allowed almost all crops to growaway from this. Assuming average weather from now on wecan expect a really good crop in the Cantley area. Of course theweather in the UK is never average, so as always we must waitand see what transpires.

BBRO 4x4 initiative

Each year it is important to reflect and challenge yourself asto what small improvements you can make to timeliness andquality of operation to maximise yield and minimise costs tomaintain a competitive margin from your beet enterprise. YourBritish Sugar area manager will be pleased to help and ensureyou have access to the very latest thinking and expert advice.

Cantley factory

The substantial capital investment at Cantley, plus the normalfactory maintenance programmes are on track. A testing plan isin place to ensure everything will operate to plan in readinessfor processing the 2014 crop.

BBRO Open Day

It was very pleasing to see such a high turnout for our event.Many interesting debates took place between growers, thesubject speakers, trade exhibitors, as well as BBRO and BritishSugar staff. Many thanks to Jeff Poortvlietfor hosting the event, providing an excellentvenue, layout, car parking facility as wellas tolerating over 300 people trampingthrough his beet crop! If you have anythoughts on what would make these eventseven better please let us know.

Co-products

Landscape 20 topsoil, and LimeX45 areboth available to order, call your areamanager for details. Visit our websiteswww.limex.co.uk and www.bstopsoil.co.ukfor more details.

Finally I would like to wish you all asuccessful outcome to the season.

Pipework installation to new heat exchangers.

BBRO Cantley Growers Day.

Walkway completion on the evaporator installation.


NEWARK FACTORY

factory news


Firstly, may I introduce myself; I am Nick Morris and joinedNewark factory team in March to replace David Dunning asAgricultural Business Manager following his retirement after37 years with British Sugar. We all wish David a long and happyretirement, and he has certainly earned it after such an importantcontribution to the sugar beet industry. I have worked for BritishSugar for nearly seven years, primarily in West Norfolk as Area &Beet Supply Manager at Wissington factory.

Following the end of a very successful campaign, drilling on thelighter land ensued almost immediately, and continueduninterrupted until 80% of the crop was sown by the end ofMarch. With some timely rain and warm seedbeds, the cropemerged quickly and 50% of the crop was established with sixtrue leaves by the middle of May. As I write on the 22nd May,many of these crops don’t look far away from meeting across therows, which should put us well on target for the LincolnshireShow on the 18th June, being the historic benchmark for asuccessful beet crop. This has left a fairly short window ofopportunity for inter-row hoeing, however soil conditions havebeen ideal for making progress where required.

Establishing this year’s crop on heavier soils has certainly provento be more challenging than normal, primarily because of the verymild winter, producing little if any frost mould. Having come outof a wet winter, particularly in January, it seemed only a matterof days between being dry enough to travel to being so drythat large clods would not break down and seedbeds werecompromised. As such, due to lack of moisture and seed-to-soilcontact to aid germination, as well as increased pressure fromslugs, crops on the heavier land are a few weeks behind. However,we frequently see these crops catch up, particularly in a drysummer. Very little re-drilling has taken place.

Aphid pressure is expected to be significant this year followingthe mild winter, where no seed insecticide is used there could be70% virus infection by the end of August depending on drillingdate. Thankfully over 96% of the crop is well protected by a seedtreatment and the importance of this is likely to be highlightedthis year. As a reminder, there are no approved foliar applicationsto control Myzus persicae due to overwhelming KDR and MACEresistance within the aphid population.

In the factory, we are currently in our busy maintenance period,as machines are stripped down for routine servicing. We are alsotaking the opportunity to carry out more major projects such asthe installation of new, state-of-the-art white sugar centrifuges.

The factory roof was removed to facilitate the use of a crane tolift out the old centrifuges and lift the new ones into place (seePics. 1, 2 and 3).

We are also replacing the animal feed dryer drum, as wellinstalling some new gas pumps; these three ‘reliability’ and‘increased throughput’ projects alone represent an investment ofaround £3.5m.

Agricultural operations are equally busy: we are flat outdespatching LimeX for application to vegetable and grassland, aswell as for soil conditioning to help re-flocculate coastal landwhich was flooded with salt water over winter. Our current pre-campaign LimeX order book leaves little volume available, soplease contact your Area Manager as soon as possible to secureyour post-harvest requirements. Recent weather has also beenfavourable for building and landscaping so we have experienceda high demand for our Topsoil product.

The Newark BBRO open day took place on 20th May atBracebridge Heath by kind permission of Alastair Priestley andPatrick Dean Limited. Many thanks to all those involved andwho supported the event; with 364 visitors it was a great success(see Pic. 4).

Nick MorrisAgricultural Business Manager

Pic. 4 – Newark BBRO Open Day – 20th May 2014.

Pic. 1 – The first new white centrifugebeing lowered into place.

Pic. 2 – White centrifuge being craned andlowered through factory roof.

Pic. 3 – Three new white centrifugesinstalled.

Best wishes for a successful season.


WISSINGTON FACTORY


Andrew Dear Agriculture Fieldstaff ManagerPic. 1 – The evaporator replacement project underway at Wissington.

Pic. 2 – Replacement of the cooling towers.

Pic. 3 – Growers at the BBRO Summer Open Day at Abbey Farm, WestDereham.

cooling towers; again this project is on track and the towers will becommissioned in August (Pic. 2).

Following Nick Morris’s move to Newark factory we are delighted towelcome Gillian Colman to the Wissington team in the role of Areaand Beet Supply Manager. Gillian moves to Wissington from theBury agricultural team where she was an Area Manager. She has justcompleted a six-month placement with Azucarera based in Spainwhere she has further developed her agronomic knowledge of thebeet crop and has been working on a beet logistics project. Gillian willbe working alongside Darren Thorpe managing the beet intake andco-product operational areas. She will also be managing an area tothe north-east of the factory and I am sure you will all join me inwishing her every success for the future.

This year’s Wissington BBRO Open Day took place on Tuesday13th May at Abbey Farm, West Dereham (Pic. 3). We would like toexpress our sincere gratitude to Mr. P. Shropshire and his team forhosting this event. Over 400 growers visited the site and listenedto industry experts on a number of beet related subjects.

Drilling the 2014 Wissington crop started during the last few days ofFebruary, however the majority of growers waited until the firsttwo weeks of March, where conditions on the lighter land werefavourable. By mid-March over 50% of the Wissington crop wasdrilled and by the end of the month this was approaching 95%. Theheavier soil types required more work than usual to get a seedbeddue to the lack of frost over the winter months and the heavy rainfallin January. As a result it was extremely difficult to retain moisture inthe seedbed and seed germination was delayed. Many of the earlydrilled crops have benefited from the above-average Maytemperatures and regular rainfall and now look excellent. With thelack of moisture in March and April some crops on the heavier soilsdid not emerge until after the rainfall in mid-May. Approximately140 hectares have been re-drilled to date due to a combination ofpest activity, frost and poor seedbeds.

Aphid pressure will be high this year due to high numbers survivingthe mild winter. All seed treatments should give approximately 10 to14 weeks of protection (depending on treatment). Where no seedtreatment was used, crops will be vulnerable to aphid attack (andtherefore virus yellows) as alternative crop protection options arelimited. Aphid numbers are recorded weekly from water trap sites,located within the beet growing area and results from these will bereported in the BBRO weekly bulletin.

The Wissington soil sampling team will shortly be starting this season’stesting. We offer the following range of services; pH testing, nutrientanalysis, BCN sampling, and now free-living nematode testing. Ourown LimeX 70 product is ideal for both pH correction and it also hasadditional nutrient value. Please contact your Area Manager if youwould like to discuss your soil testing requirements and the fertiliservalue in our LimeX products. There is limited availability so pleaseorder soon to secure your requirements.

The factory started this year’s thick juice refining run on the 12th May,following a short period of maintenance. We are currently processingover 3,000 tonnes of juice a day. Factory maintenance is progressingwell in preparation for the 2014/15 campaign. In addition to thenormal factory maintenance we are also carrying out some additionalprojects on site. The evaporator replacement project is well underway(Pic. 1) with the new bases now in place. We are also replacing our


SANDRA KWS

KWS UK LTD 56 Church Street, Thriplow, Nr Royston, Herts SG8 7RE, Tel.: 01763 207304, Fax: 01763 207310, E-Mail: [email protected]

www.kws-uk.com

Sugar beet yields plateauing?... Rhizomania can still restrict yields.

For the strongest protection insist on double rhizo resistance – Rz1 + Rz2.

Data Source: BBRO Sugar Beet Recommended List 2015

Hate Rhizomania – Love Sandra!

14/2/BC/13


british sugar beet review - home - bbro · summer 2014 volume 82 no. 2 british sugar beet review 1

Documents