Download - BRITISH sugar beet review - Home - BBRO · BRITISH sugar beet review ... Advanced Sugar Beet Technology 53 Eric Ober of Rothamsted Reseaannounces arch new course aimed at providing

US conference report

New varietiesfor 2014

BBRO programmeand open days

BRITISHsugar beet review

SUMMER 2013 ■ volume 81 no. 2

www.beetreview.co.uk

45606-Beet Review Vol81 No2 3rdPrf_- 06/06/2013 16:34 Page A

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

TO THE POINT DELIVERING HIGHER YIELDS

Not to put too fi ne a point on it, Stingray is the highest yielding variety available on the 2014 BBRO Recommended List.* An excellent pedigree with lower bolting, it is the variety others look up to.*Source – BBRO 2014 recommended list - Full data set at www.bbro.co.uk

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

STINGRAY

13/2/IFC/01

45606-Beet Review Vol81 No2 3rdPrf_- 06/06/2013 16:34 Page B

SUMMER 2013 ■ volume 81 no. 2 BRITISH sugar beet review 1

contents

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. Neitherthe editor, nor British Sugar plc, is necessarilyin agreement with opinions expressed in thisjournal. No responsibility is accepted forstatements contained in advertisements.© Copyright is only by permission of theeditor and charges may be applicable.Published images are copyright of this journalunless 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 Sugar

Dr. John King,Independent Consultant

Latest sugar beet newsfrom USA – ASSBTconference report 36Philip Draycott reports back from the AmericanSociety of Sugar Beet Technologists conference inLos Angeles, and visits the Imperial Valley where onegrower holds the world beet sugar record yield.

From ‘Zero’ to 28,000 tonnes 40Brian Hammond and Philip Ecclestone recount howsugar beet has grown from nothing to become amainstay of the arable rotation on one Lincolnshirefarm.

The bolting model in practice 43George Milford explains how the theoretical modelpredicting bolting patterns in modern varieties canbe used in practice to help with planning andcontrol measures.

The sugar beet genomesequence – new traits andelite varieties 46Belinda Townsend of Rothamsted Research gives usan insight into the progress being made inunderstanding the genetics of sugar beet, and thebenefits this may bring in the future.

The sustainability of thesugar beet crop – thepotential to add value 49Wayne Martindale provides a roadmap for thefuture sustainability of the sugar beet crop,highlighting the success story so far and whatmore needs to be done in the future.

A new training course inAdvanced Sugar BeetTechnology 53Eric Ober of Rothamsted Research announces anew course aimed at providing industry experts andadvisers with the latest information on cropmanagement and agronomy.

BEET-A 54Adrian Boor and Wayne Tonge report on theirexperience of the BASIS course on environmentalmanagement which seeks to integrate best practicein the treatment of habitat and wildlife on our farms.

Cover picture: Courtesy of Tim Scrivener, Agriphoto

BBRO Open Days 2013 14Andy Stocking provides a roundup of the BBROSummer Open Days, which were attended by arecord number of growers and advisers.

Wissington BBRO ‘4x4’ yieldinitiative – driving up sugarbeet yields 16Philip Ecclestone and colleagues from Wissingtonshowcase the work going on with individualgrowers to meet the challenge of the ‘4x4’ Initiative.

Sugar beet varieties for 2014 20Simon Kerr and Mark Stevens give an insight intothe latest varieties to be included on the 2014 BBRORecommended List, with top tips about what to lookfor when selecting next year’s seed.

New format variety trials 28Mike May, RL Board Chairman explains the newapproach to variety trialing, aimed at deliveringmore consistent and uniform results from the annualtesting programme.

Fungicides for 2013 30Mark Stevens presents a review of 2012 fungicidework and gives advice on how best to maximise thevalue of fungicides in 2013.

Editorial 2

News 58A review of the latest news and products.

Factory news 62News and information from British Sugar’s factories.

BBRO programme ofwork 2013/14 3Colin MacEwan, Head of BBRO, outlines the currentand future research projects which will feature inthe ongoing programme of work.

Focus on Sugar IndustryProgramme – BBRO 9Chris Wheatley, NFU Sugar Adviser, gives us aninsight into the SIP project and how the BBRO iscontributing to the training of future industryleaders.

regulars

features

45606-Beet Review Vol81 No2 3rdPrf_- 06/06/2013 16:35 Page 1

2 BRITISH sugar beet review SUMMER 2013 ■ volume 81 no. 2

editorialMore than one swallow to make a summer...The long cold winter has extended its grip into what has become a very late spring, with ambient temperatures

still hovering a degree or two below the long term mean. A protracted drilling season, with continued night frosts,

high winds and variable moisture levels have all compounded to give less than ideal plant populations in many cases.

A warm, wet summer would help recover some of the lost potential no doubt, but that is an aspiration at the

present time.

The summer issue of the British Sugar Beet Review is traditionally the springboard from which to launch the new

BBRO Recommended List of varieties, and this year is no exception. Coinciding with the recent series of BBRO Open

Days, which again attracted record attendances despite the changeable weather, we publish also the 2013 BBRO

programme of work, which continues to deliver tremendous value-for-money to the UK beet industry.

Further afield, we gain an insight into the US beet industry with a report on the recent ASSBT conference, glimpse

what benefits sugar beet genome research may bring, and revisit the topic of sustainability and the part we can all

play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Sugar Industry Programme, Advanced Sugar Beet Technology and

BASIS BETA are also featured as great examples of how the industry is investing in training current and future

generations of growers and advisers.

I hope you enjoy this second issue of the Review in 2013 and on behalf of the editorial committee may I wish you

every success in the coming year.

Robin Limb – Editor



BBRO programmeof work 2013/14The BBRO programme of research contains a balance of on-going projects in core areas of work as well as newstudies, which we have identified and feel will support our continued drive to maximise yield. We have alsointroduced a new system where we examine proposals for research suggested by progressive growers. I haveoutlined below three of these ‘look-see projects’ (non replicated trials), which we have set up to generatepreliminary data this year with a view to building a full research proposal for next year if the results are promising.As part of our new structure the BBRO is carrying out a number of these research projects with its own dedicatedteam. Currently work is aligned to 20 different programmes on 26 sites throughout the beet-growing region. Thefollowing is a summary of this work for 2013/14.

ByColin MacEwan,

Head of BBRO

experiments proceeding under controlled temperatures willbe conducted, if facilities are available, so that preciseinformation can be obtained, minimising the guessworkinvolved in deciding if beet are irreversibly damaged, howmuch sugar might be lost and the speed that any losses mightoccur. The results from this project should provide afoundation of quantitative data on which to basemanagement decisions on the farm and in the factory whenhard frosts occur.

11/09 Weed control – systems efficacy and cost-effectiveness for broad-leaved weeds, black-grasscontrol and information provision for herbicides –Gillian Champion and Ed Burks (BBRO)

This project seeks to provide growers with comparativeinformation on the cost-effectiveness of the various herbicidesystems available and to determine the levels of weed controlrequired in modern high-yielding beet crops. The project alsoseeks to evaluate the weed control activity of a range oftreatments with the results used to update herbicideknowledge. This has become necessary as the formulations(and hence effectiveness) of common herbicides for beet havechanged as a result of EU legislation. Finally, part of theproject will also investigate levels of black-grass control thatcan be achieved in beet with herbicide programmescombining ACCase and non-ACCase herbicides that areapproved for beet. The aim is to optimise control of ACCaseresistant black-grass which will, in turn, prevent build-upthroughout the rotation. This project will provide informationfor growers on:

1. the economic and management implications presented bydifferent weed control systems.

2. a comparison of the main herbicide products (mainly bygroups but where necessary as individual products) toupdate herbicide knowledge.

Existing ongoing trials work for 2013

10/02 Ecology and control of beet cyst nematodes –Ed Burks and Mark Stevens (BBRO) andJane Thomas (NIAB)

Damage caused by the beet cyst nematode (BCN) can causeyield losses of up to 75% on heavily infested soils (> 40 eggs orlarvae/g soil). The last surveys of BCN damage were made25 years ago and there are indications that infestations ofBCN are increasing, prompting the need for more up-to-dateinformation. Three pieces of data are needed to advisegrowers on how best to control or minimise the effects ofthis pest. These will be obtained by completing the followingobjectives:

1. Survey the current status of BCN in sugar beet fields witha view to mapping the extent and intensity of BCNinfestation in the UK.

2. Conduct BCN population studies in soil boxes on thepopulation dynamics of the pest and establish a thresholdlevel. This will then be used to study the efficacy of usingresistant varieties at populations above this threshold.

3. Analyse the economic thresholds and value of using thecurrent BCN-tolerant varieties through replicated-stripfield trials on fields known to have large infestations ofBCN.

11/04 Minimisation of sugar yield losses due tofrost – Eric Ober (Rothamsted)

Freezing temperatures can damage sugar beet roots, oftenleading to losses in sugar and causing problems duringprocessing. Better understanding of the environmental andbiological factors that contribute to this sugar loss will enablebetter prediction of potential losses during a campaign andhelp devise methods to minimise them. A series of



4. develop and test new and more accessible bioassaysfor novel aphicides that could be done in regionallaboratories.

5. ensure on-going dissemination of results and recommen -dations.

12/06 Optimising fungicide use for improving thecanopy in relation to harvest date – Eric Ober(Rothamsted)

A significant proportion of yield is determined late in thegrowing season, and maintenance of a green, healthy canopyis needed for this. A robust fungicide programme is anessential element of crop management to achieve maximumyields. However, in work to determine the best fungicideprogrammes, there is no quantitative information on theeffect on the canopy itself, nor is there information on howthese programmes interact with different harvest dates.Furthermore, there is anecdotal evidence that suggests thatcanopy size can help buffer plants against frost damage, butthere are no quantitative data from replicated trials tosupport this notion. Understanding the value of canopy size isalso important to minimise frost damage in the field, whichhas been a problem in recent winters. The work adds value totrials already established to examine fungicide programmes,and will supply much needed quantitative information on theinteractions between harvest date, fungicides, canopy size andpotential frost damage.

12/15 Beet storage trials 2012/2016 – Ed Burks (BBRO)

BBRO work in the past has estimated that beet lose an averageof 0.18% of their sugar per day during storage. The losses aregreater from short-term autumn storage than long-termwinter storage and are estimated to be 0.22% and 0.12%sugar per day, respectively. The rates assume that sugar lossesremain constant over time, whereas recent American andEuropean work clearly shows they do not. More definitivework is needed on the profiles of sugar loss under UKconditions. This project aims to update the rates of sugar lossand deterioration in processing quality of beet lifted usingmodern ‘whole-beet’ recovery practices when stored inconventional rectangular clamps or A-shaped ones.

New trials for 2013 season

13/01 Mitigating new threats from virus yellows:monitoring aphid populations and insecticideresistance to maintain control – Richard Harringtonand Lin Field (Rothamsted)

The sugar beet crop currently faces its biggest threat from aphidborne viruses since the 1970s when severe outbreaks causedsugar yields to halve. There are two main reasons for this threat,namely the possibility of resistance to neonicotinoids andsecondly a run of milder winters which have favoured thesurvival of the aphid virus vector. This project aims to:

1. regularly monitor (regionally) winged aphid vectors ofsugar beet viruses throughout the UK.

2. forecast the likely abundance of aphids and the potentiallevels of virus +/- control measures.

3. assess the status of four currently relevant insecticideresistance mechanisms in individual M. persicae fromsuction trap and yellow water pan trap samples.

3. Options for control of herbicide-resistant black-grass insugar beet crops as part of resistance management/prevention in sugar beet rotations.

11/12 Innovative strategies to control and monitorsugar beet pests and diseases – Mark Stevens (BBRO)

The Crop Protection programme integrates closely withexisting BBRO and BBSRC LINK-supported projects on diseaseresistance, foliar disease control and nematode dynamics. Itaims to achieve long-lasting control of major beet diseases inthe UK by monitoring pathogen populations, predictingresistance breakdown and advising on the need for chemicalcontrol. It also seeks to develop new sources of geneticresistance where there is none, where it is inadequate orwhere it is vulnerable to erosion. The objectives are to:

1. determine the amount and variability of the yellowingviruses carried by aphids (Broom’s Barn).

2. identify new strategies to control Myzus persicae byscreening existing and novel (non-sugar beet) insecticides(BBRO).

3. transfer information each year to the industry through thenormal BBRO channels (BBRO).

4. evaluate rhizomania resistance genes in the glasshouse,from existing varieties and experimental lines, againstresistance-breaking strains of rhizomania in the UK(Broom’s Barn).

5. field test the best genetics from the glasshouse studiesagainst the (a) standard and (b) more aggressive strains ofrhizomania, including a yield assessment (BBRO).

6. monitor the incidence, distribution and strain variation ofrhizomania found in suspect plant and root samplessubmitted to BBRO by growers (Broom’s Barn).

7. keep a watching brief for any other foliar or root pests anddiseases that emerge and threaten the yield or quality ofthe sugar beet crop over the course of the project (BBRO).

12/01 Combating resistance to aphicides in UKaphid pests – Steve Foster (Rothamsted)

This new project is supported by the Chemical RegulationDirectorate (CRD), agrochemical companies and the levyboards and continues research on aphicide resistancemanagement and informs agronomic and regulatoryprocedures. The need for this was largely prompted by therecent occurrence of control failures with neonicotinoids insouthern Europe (in glasshouses). If this resistance were tospread, like the MACE resistance (to pirimicarb) in the 1990s, itcould result in control failures in the UK within a few years.The over-riding objective would be to preserve the efficacy ofeffective pesticides by developing Aphid ManagementStrategies, and specifically by addressing the followingobjectives:

1. collect a wide range of live samples of M. persicae fromfields across the UK and mainland Europe and monitortheir response to a range of pesticides. Further investigateany populations that show reduced sensitivity.

2. anticipate and/or characterise resistance risks in a range ofother aphid pests important to the project consortium.

3. characterise the response of M. persicae carrying differenttypes of resistance on plants that have been seed-treatedwith neonicotinoids and foliar-treated with pymetrozine.



13/20 Beet plant spatial layout – equidistant plantspacing – Ed Burks (BBRO)

Work done in the 1990s (SBREC) demonstrated that drillingbeet on a 30 x 30 cm grid delivered increased sugar yields of4-5%. Difficulties of precision drilling beet in an equidistantpattern and harvesting the crop effectively prevented thiswork from progressing. With the advent of modern genetics,innovative agricultural electronics, the latest drillingequipment and the changes to lifting in front of the harvesterwheels, the time is right to revisit this work, and this projectaims to:

1. re-evaluate the yield benefits (and root uniformitybenefits) particularly in the light of the industry’s newwhole beet delivery standards.

2. open up a dialogue with drill and harvester manufacturersto assess the viability of drilling and harvesting the cropunder these conditions.

4. assess M. persicae from suction traps for Beet mildyellowing virus.

5. disseminate information to growers and conduct a growersurvey on usage of the information.

13/05 Beet cyst nematode: control and rotationalissues with brassica species – Mark Stevens andColin Walters (BBRO)

As previously mentioned, BCN is seen as an increasingproblem. Populations are currently being affected by a) anincrease in the growing of alternative hosts in the rotations(brassicas), b) a decrease in the use of granular carbamatepesticides and change in the main active ingredient andc) longer growing seasons which allow a bigger build-up ofthe BCN populations. This project examines issues related toBCN control not covered in project 10/02. It aims to:

1. evaluate the importance andsignificance of oilseed rape onBCN populations in the rotation.

2. investigate the role of greenmanure crops on BCN build-up.

3. review European data.

4. examine the use of nematoderesistant radish and mustardspecies on the impact of BCN andon the yield performance of thefollowing sugar beet crop.

5. review the use of differentresistant mustard species on BCNv PCN (potato cyst nematode)dynamics.

13/06 Maximising sugar yieldvia fungicides – Mark Stevensand Colin Walters (BBRO)

Fungicide trials conducted between2009 and 2012 show that theapplication of a single fungicide cangive yield benefits of up to 8 adjustedt/ha and, from a two-spray strategy, apotential further 10 adjusted t/ha.The fungicide trials have enabled theindustry to optimise disease control,green-leaf cover and, ultimately,yield depending on harvest date.There were also no yield penaltiesfor early application of fungicides, incontrast to findings in 2005. CurrentBBRO advice recommends a two-spray approach. Positive benefitsof a three-spray approach weredemonstrated in 2011, althoughthis was not evident in 2012.These studies will fine-tune adviceregarding application timing andlifting date as well as providing amore robust advisory system forcommunicating when to apply theseproducts to maximise profitabilityof the crop.

PAMINAOrder PAMINA – the beet cyst nematode tolerant variety.

13/2/5/02



100,000 plant/ha. Plant counts will be taken at establishmentand harvest, and uniformity in root size determined.

Plant establishment and impact on yield

This trial examines the relationship, across a wide range ofseed rates, between plant establishment and resulting yield.Supplementary data on disease background and insectpressures (BCN/FLN, rhizomania etc.) will also be collected.

Late lifted variety trial (depending on season)

A full variety trial will be left in the ground and harvested laterthan normal to see if there are differences between the resultswhen the varieties are lifted later.

Crop production programmeWe have also just completed a review of our total cropproduction programme by Dr. Debbie Sparkes (SuttonBonnington University) and we will publish the highlights ofthis review in the next edition of the British Sugar Beet Review.

13/21 Sequential root dig – Pip Horsnail (BBRO)

Varieties with high sugar (Isabella) and high yield (SY Muse)are being grown at four sites and growth monitored frommid-July onwards. This will provide yield and growth datathroughout the harvest period to inform yield modellingwork. It also provides information to assess the differencesbetween varieties with high yield versus high sugar, and theeffect of population on growth in fertile soils.

13/22 Nitrogen response – Ed Burks (BBRO)

Each year, a range of nitrogen doses are applied to a typicalmedium texture sandy loam sugar beet field. The data arecollated annually in order to identify any changing trends inresponse to nitrogen due to factors such as climate change orvariety development. This project has the following objectives:

1. to assess the optimum N input for sugar beet on a typicalsoil.

2. to compare the optimum N input with DEFRA recom -mendations.

3. to compare recommendations from the ‘book’ and ‘soil’methods.

4. to provide data for long-term monitoring of N requirements.

Progressive grower’s trials

Variable seed rate trial – precision farming

Examine the effect of different seed rates on a range ofsoil types within a single field to see if varying the seedrate automatically can produce a target population of

A COMPLETELY NEW PRODUCT RANGE - THE PERFECT SOLUTION FOR EVERY CONDITION

www.agrifac.co.ukAgrifac UK Ltd.Martin Avenue, March.Cambridgeshire, PE15 0AY

T 01354 660552E [email protected]

ContactAndy CarseT 07768 641122

Ben PainterT 07738 418314

AutoTraxx LightTraxx OptiTraxx FlexxTraxx SixxTraxx

mbaC

traMrgA

A

.oc.acfirga@ofniE

2505 6641350TY0AAY51E P,erihsegdirmb

.hcra M,eunve Anit.dtK Lc Uafir

gxxxxaaxTrraottouA

07T

neB22114 686770T

esra CyAndtcatnoC

ku.2

41381 483707retina P

cafirga.www

TxxxTiixSSixxaaxrraTTrxxxTeexlleFFl

k.uoc.c

xxaaxrraTTr

13/2/6/03

Our aim is to ensure our programme of work is focused onobtaining the best value for our stakeholders. All projectsare closely monitored to ensure they meet the milestonesagreed. A key part of the research programme is to ensureall outputs are communicated. This knowledge transfer isdelivered through our own team, via factory meetings(co-ordinated with the support of the area managers),open days, winter conferences and in the farming press.

SUMMARY



Crop Protection

Project title Start date End date

Ecology and control of beet cyst nematodes April 2010 March 2014

Innovative strategies to control and monitor sugar beet pests and dis-eases April 2011 March 2015

Optimising fungicide use for improving the canopy in relation to harvestdate Nov 2011 March 2015

Weed control - systems efficacy and cost-effectiveness, black-grasscontrol and information provision for herbicide DSS April 2012 March 2015

Combating resistance to aphicides in UK aphid pests April 2012 March 2015

Mitigating new threats from virus yellows: monitoring aphid populationsand insecticide resistance to maintain control April 2013 March 2017

Beet cyst nematode: control and rotational issues with brassica species April 2013 March 2017

Maximising sugar yield potential via fungicides April 2013 March 2017

Crop Production


M

Harvest storage project

inimisation of sugar yield losses due to frost A

Nov 2012

pril 2012 M

March 2016

arch 2016

PhD Studentship Sept 2013 Sept 2017

Crop production review (Nottingham University) Jan 2013 April 2013

Beet plant spatial layout – Equidistant Plant spacing April 2013 April 2014

Sequential harvest Ongoing

Nitrogen response Ongoing

Nitrogen prediction - soil sampling Ongoing

Trials programme

Continued...



Trials programme

2013 Grower responsive projects


Variable seed rate (Salle Farms/SOYL) Mar/Apr 2013 Ma/Apr 2014

Late harvest variety trial (Variety Programme) Mar/Apr 2013 Mar/ Apr 2013

Plant establishment and impact on yield (Frontier) Mar/Apr 2013 Mar/Apr 2013

Knowledge Transfer


Communications and Marketing budget April 2010 March 2014

Modular training for industry - BBSRC - BBRO contribution from 2014-15 Sept 2012 August 2016

Variety Trials Programme


Harvester/tarehouse - capital cost over 8 years April 2012 March 2020

Variety trials programme - 50% funded by BSPB April 2012 March 2016

Breakdown of expenditure (£) on sugar beet research

Variety trials programme 17%

Communication activities 18%

Research projects 47%

Administration 18%

18%

47%

18%

17%



Sugar IndustryProgrammeBBRO day Tuesday 26th March2013 marks the third year of the Sugar Industry Programme (SIP) run by the National Farmers Union and BritishSugar and this year has welcomed a new group of participants. The SIP continues to go from strength to strengthwith this year’s programme continuing to receive high levels of positive feedback from the participants, speakersand the hosts of different elements of the programme.

ByChris Wheatley,

National Farmers Union

What is the SIP?The average age of farmers has been increasing over theyears, coinciding with a lack of engagement with the youngergeneration involved in agriculture. Whilst this is not a specificbeet sugar sector issue, it is one that both the NFU and BritishSugar recognised and were keen toaddress for the sector. As a consequence,SIP as a concept, was developed bythe NFU back in 2010 to provide amechanism to engage with youngersugar beet growers. The programme’soperation came to fruition as part of thenew 2011 industry deal and was formallylaunched at the NFU AGM that year.

Each year a group of young growers,and those closely linked to the industry,participate in a range of ‘away days’between February and May to learnfirst-hand how the sector operatesand to obtain some transferable skillsin the process.

The 2013 SIPFollowing the successful structure usedin the two previous years, 2013’sprogramme has built on the strengthsof these and introduced new elementsbased on previous participants’ feed -back. In particular, the addition of ahalf day at the beginning of theprogramme put all involved ‘in at thedeep end’ with media training, which, as

well as adding valuable skills development for theparticipants, was an ice-breaker, helping the group to gel. Thishalf day provided an introduction to the programme, andhelped the participants get to know one another to ensurethey felt confident before an early start at the Wissingtonsugar factory the following day.

2013 Sugar Industry Programme

Date Activity Plan/Agenda

Tuesday12th February

Launch day Introduction to the programmeMedia training sessionWelcome/launch dinner

Wednesday13th February

Wissingtonfactory

British Sugar briefingsFactory and Cornerways visit

Wednesday27th February

NFU AGM NFU AGM and dinner

Thursday28th February

NFU AGM including CAP reform briefing breakfast session

Tuesday12th March

Westminster Guest speakers presentations and Q&A sessionAfternoon tour and MP meetings at House of Commons

Tuesday26th March

Research &Development

BBRO presentations and discussionR&D facilities tour

Tuesday23rd April

Brussels NFU in Brussels introductionPresentation from CIBE, CEFS and CIUSAfternoon tour and MEP session at the EuropeanParliament

Wednesday24th April

Tour of Belgian beet factory and Belgium beet researchorganisation presentations (IRBAB)SESVanderHave tour of facilities and introduction toplant breeding

Monday29th April

NFU NFU HQ briefingsPresentation skills trainingClose event dinner and participant presentations



Moving the training to the beginning of the programme alsoenabled more time to be dedicated to one of the key aspectsof the programme, UK sugar beet research and development,with the British Beet Research Organisation (BBRO).

SIP BBRO dayIt was felt the BBRO day needed more time and focus in theprogramme than there had been in previous years. The BBROhas gone through significant change over the past 18 months,with the establishment of new operating structures and adedicated team to manage and carry out levy-funded researchwork on behalf of grower and the industry. It is important forthe future generation of farming to engage with the researchbody operating in their interest. The Head of BBRO, ColinMacEwan, kindly hosted his first-ever group at the new BBROhead office located on the Norwich Research Park, and put ona brilliant day showcasing the work that is on-going within theBBRO and outlining for the future of UK levy-based research.

After welcoming the group to the BBRO,Colin outlined the main changes to thestructure and the basis for these changes,which had come about as a result of theNFU and British Sugar tendering anindependent strategic review of theBBRO operations and delivery. Keyaspects were agreed and have since beenimplemented following that review.The recommendations for improvementto the structure had been previouslypresented as objectives for change byColin at the BBRO Conference in 2012and have now been implemented. Theyinclude:

■ Separation of the corporategovernance of the BBRO and researchfunctions through establishment oftwo separate boards: an executiveboard and a dedicated R&D board.

■ Employment of a BBRO dedicatedteam to carry out research in a timely

and efficient manner for the beetindustry, develop and implementresearch strategy for consideration bythe R&D board, develop a sugar beetinnovation trials/demonstration platform.

Under this new structure the BBRO, aswell as having improved transparency forthe use of levy funds, will be able tolever new external funding to supportBBRO activities, deliver first classcommunications and provide a beetcentre of excellence to help retain,support and develop researchers for thefuture of the sector.

Colin was keen for the group to input asmuch as possible to get the most fromthe day and also outlined that therewould be a later session to hear whatthe group felt the BBRO should beprioritising in future projects.

Agricultural Development Manager,Colin Walters, was up next to give a whistle-stop tour of thetrials work currently underway. Colin manages a skilled teamof six people, who are based at Holmewood Hall, nearPeterborough but in practice operate from a collection oftrials sites.

As well as covering the different work areas that his team arecurrently involved in, Colin also described the approach histeam takes to the trials work being conducted to ensure it isof the most value to levy payers.

There are three areas of focus which apply to the way in whichtrials are carried out:

Standardise – remove variation in trailing practice whereverpossible to ensure that trial results are consistent. Colinexplained how investment in the new trials harvesting andtarehousing system had standardised trials analysis.

Simplify – linked to the above, the team are always looking forways to simplify the trialing process to make it more efficient.



An example of this is the investment in electronic data capturewhich will allow field data to be automatically recordedagainst bar codes in the field, thereby removing the chance oferror associated with the use of GPS technology.

Dr. Mark Stevens, BBRO’s Lead Scientist, was third on theagenda and predominantly covered pests and diseases and thework that the BBRO conducts and then disseminates togrowers. Mark discussed the following areas in detail:

■ Yellows viruses and how there is a need for greaterunderstanding of genetics of varieties to combat these.

■ Rhizomania and its various strains.

■ Foliar diseases.

■ Greater interaction across Europe via the IIRB. ColinMacEwan will become IIRB President in 2015, and MarkStevens is part of an IIRB study group and will become thestudy group chairman.

The newly appointed Statistics and Weed specialist, Dr. GillianChampion, took the group through the BBRO’s Herbicideproject, which she leads. Gillian explained that the trial serieswill last for three years and is in three parts:

■ Comparing different systems of weed control

■ Comparing commonly used actives formulated in differentproducts

■ Examining control of black-grass.

The University of East Anglia Course Director, Colwyn Thomaswas the last speaker of the day and discussed the closecollaboration the university has previously had with the BBRO,in conjunction with the BBRO projects that were operatedat Rothamsted’s Broom’s Barn facility. Colwyn highlightedthe advantages of the relocation of the BBRO offices fromPeterborough to the Norwich Research Park, that strengthensthis hub of world-leading research activity.

Key facts about the John Innes Centre:

■ 800 people working on site

■ £35 million per year expenditure

■ Government and BBSRC main funders

■ John Innes Centre founded in 1909/10

■ The term ‘genetics’ was coined by the first chairman ofthe centre

■ The centre was originally based in Hertfordshire

■ Moved to its current location in 1966 to create betterassociations with a university

■ UEA was built in 1966

■ All PhD students from the John Innes Centre graduatewith a degree from the UEA

■ 100 students per year qualify

■ Two thirds of academic staff are studying

■ £2 million per year energy bill

The penultimate part of the day was the part that all farmerslove; going out and seeing stuff! The group was givena guided tour of the John Innes glasshouses which, whilecovering a wide range of crops research beyond sugar beet,emphasised all of the discussions from earlier in the day;concentrating on the work being carried out and the closelinkages the BBRO now has to provide greater opportunity forcollaborative working and joint research projects.

MONGOOSE

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

MORE BITE AGAINST BCN

Mongoose has one of the lowest Pf/Pi scores available in a Beet Cyst Nematode tolerant variety. Mongoose restricts the build up of BCN. Exceptionally high yields, with or without BCN, gives Mongoose more bite than any rival.


13/2/11/04



IRBAB is financed both by growers and the two Belgian beetcompanies, Raffinerie Tirlemontoise and Sucrerie de Fontenoy.IRBAB also receives funding from federal, regional andprovincial authorities. Some research is done collaborativelywith COBRI, which includes France, Germany, Denmark andthe Netherlands and the BBRO are also looking to join this inthe future.

Jean-Pierre highlighted that variety trials are a very importantactivity for IRBAB and the farmers who grow around 65,000 haeach year. Currently there are over 160 trials underway, with6,000 - 7,000 plots drilled per year.

How can you get involved?The 2013 programme was another great SIP, with a reallygood, enthusiastic group of growers who learnt a lot aboutthe industry. Whilst it’s a serious programme, it is also one thatis good fun and productive to be involved in. As you will havegathered, there is a social element to the programme, which isjust as important as learning about what goes on. It’s aboutmeeting other like-minded growers, sharing best practice andgetting the most out of the programme on offer.

The programme is planned to run annually, so if you’d liketo put your name forward for 2014 or find out moreinformation then please get in touch with me via email [email protected] or phone on 024 7685 8616.Alternatively, keep abreast of what the group is up to duringthe programme by following us on Twitter; @NFUSugar.

During the tour of the glasshouses the groupsaw first-hand examples of the science carriedout by the John Innes Centre and heard fromthe experts why the research is being carriedout. This included epigenetics (the study ofchanges in gene expression or cellularphenotype, caused by mechanisms other thanchanges in the underlying DNA sequence) ofthe wheat crop (the number one growing cropin the world), temperature and light trials.They also got to see the new chambers underconstruction for day length trials.

The final part of the tour around was a visitto the germplasm resources unit, a separatelyfunded ex-situ medium term storage facilityfor the active conservation of seeds. Thisfacility represents a highly important resourceboth in the UK and internationally. The seeds,which have a working shelf life of 25-30 years(if they arrive in good condition) are storedat a constant temperature of 1.5°C, are alllogged in a database and are part of a rolling programme ofregeneration that anyone can access. The unit houses sugarbeet seed dating back to the 1970s.

Colin MacEwan was keen for the group to have their say onwhat research they feel ought to be commissioned by theBBRO. This facility for farmers to influence and direct theBBRO research is something which the BBRO is keen topromote now they have in place a structure for more directliaison with growers. Therefore, the final session of the daywas an open session for the participants of the SIP to expresstheir views and ideas for research to support their industry inthe future. The key points from the discussion are listed below:

■ Research on sugar storages/sugar losses/clamping, includingtemperature probes

■ Research on cultivations (strip tillage) universal systems

■ Research on Beet Cyst Nematode rotational issues

■ Research on seed rates/populations/whole beet crowning

■ Research on shallow bed (carrot style)

■ Better marketing of BBRO

■ Make better use of communications, particularly Twitter

■ Create online tutorials to aid the use of the Beet Portal

■ Provide drilling demos in the Autumn

■ Supportive of the use of demo sites

Research and Development in BrusselsIt would have been remiss of us to showcase only research anddevelopment work in the UK alone. We therefore scheduled avisit to the Royal Belgian Institute for Improvement of theSugar Beet (IRBAB) during the group’s two day visit toBelgium.

Jean-Pierre Vandergeten hosted the group at the IRBABfacilities in Tienen. Jean-Pierre explained to the group thatIRBAB was founded in 1932 and aims to coordinate andinitialise fundamental research and applied research on theinputs of sugar beet cropping, but also to present the resultsto all growers. The institute also manages the study of cropimprovements for chicory cropping and the extension ofresults to growers.

IRBAB Research Priorities

■ Crop protection including:

■ Pests

■ Foliar diseases

■ Weed control

■ Soil-borne diseases

■ Seeds and varieties

■ Fertilisation

■ Beet storage

■ By-products

■ Machinery


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 and 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 2013.

www.bayercropscience.co.uk

13/2/13/05



ByAndy Stocking,

British Sugar plc

The BBRO Open Days proved onceagain to be very popular with over1,300 growers and other industrystakeholders attending the fourevents, one in each factory area.The open days featured displaysshowcasing the latest findings inagricultural research and develop -ment in the beet crop, offeringadvice to growers and advisersalike and promoting establishedbest practice techniques. Inaddition to the topic speakerswithin the crop area, trade standsnow account for an increasingpresence at these grower-focusedevents, with all sectors of the beetsupply chain being represented.

The first event in the Wissingtonfactory area was held at Thorney nearPeterborough, courtesy of MHS FarmsLtd on 14th May. At this event the2014 Recommended List of sugar beetvarieties was released by the BBRO;further information can be found aboutthe new list elsewhere in this issue.Although the rain held off until theend of the day, a keen wind served toremind visitors of the unusually coldspring which had delayed drilling andaffected beet emergence in somecases: despite this there was a recordattendance at the event. The nextvenue was Kellington near Goole inYorkshire, on Thursday 16th May. Theweather was much improved withglorious warm sunshine all day. Thanksto Guy Poskitt (Farmers Weekly Arable Growers discussing soil management.

Wissington Open Day.

BBRO OpenDays 2013



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


*

13/2/15/06Colin Walters discussing the 2014 variety list.

Farmer and Overall Farmer of the Year 2012) for hostingthe event.

On Tuesday 21st May the attention turned to CarletonSt. Peter near Norwich for the Cantley factory area openday hosted by RD Hutton and Partners. It was a greatevent even though the weather had returned to being cooland cloudy. The final open day, for the Bury St. Edmundsfactory area, was held on Thursday 23rd May at Inghamand hosted by Oliver Stennett. This was an excellentlocation with the display area contained in a relativelysmall area, and providing welcome shelter from thefrequent heavy showers. Spirits were not dampeneddespite the rain, hail and plummeting temperatures.

For the first time at the open days the BBRO Plant Clinic wasin attendance, complete with microscope allowing samplesto be initially analysed by Dr. Gillian Champion, weedscientist at the BBRO. Dr. Mark Stevens, lead scientist at theBBRO was also on hand to discuss the BBRO’s fungicidestrategy for 2013, the benefits of a two spray programmeand explain the continued research into a three-sprayapproach. Colin Walters, British Sugar talked growersthrough the BBRO recommended variety list for 2014.Other topics covered in the field included weed beetcontrol, crop nutrition, soil management, plant populationsand weed control.

The BBRO would like to thank all the host farms, speakers,growers, advisers and all those that helped organise theevents to make them such a great success. We look forwardto welcoming you to these events again next year.

Technical field presentations.


At the beginning of 2012, the British Beet Research Organisation (BBRO) launched the 4x4 Yield Initiative as anindustry scheme to raise national yields by 4% per year over a four year period until 2015. With the backdrop of arecord-breaking sugar beet campaign in 2011,when the average adjusted yield achieved of75.6 t/ha broke the 75 t barrier for the first time,the aim now is to attain consistently an averageyield of 80 t/ha by 2015. This focus of a 4% yieldincrease per year is a realistic target for allgrowers, regardless of their starting point.

This article looks at activities of the agriculturalarea managers at Wissington Factory on the4x4 Yield Initiative. A number of growers havealready taken part in the initiative’s first yearand made improvements to the way they growtheir sugar beet crops which will ultimately helpthem to raise their yields.

To spearhead the initiative last year, the staff carriedout a varied programme of activities, which can besplit into two components:

1. Target all growers and look at particular aspectsof sugar beet growing and promote goodpractice through meetings and workshops. Forexample harvesting and storage was addressed ina working demonstration at the factory duringthe autumn followed by drilling and cropestablishment work at Germains during thewinter, and agronomy matters at Cornerwaysnurseries in the spring.

2. Area managers have been working very closelywith a small number of growers throughoutthe growing season. These programmes beginwith an on-farm audit covering all aspectsof growing a good crop of sugar beet. Theresults are then discussed and a numberof aspects may be identified where animprovement or change of practice could help

ByPhilip Ecclestone,

with Daniel Godsmark,Edward Hagues and

Steve Mackinder,British Sugar plc

Wissington 4x4 Yield Initiative:a Wissington experience

Driving up sugarbeet yields

��

�� !��!��!��"!��!��!��#�$!��!�!��&��!��'��$!��*��!��"��!��!+��!��!��!��!�$��!��"��+��*��9;��<�*

�� !��+<��!��"��<+��!��<��=��$��;��+��+��!��;<��+�$"!+��>��$��$<$��<$;��=�"!��*��=��+!""��!��?>�!��"��!�"��!��!""��!+�*��@��!��!��!��"��;��=��$�G�� !�+��!��!��+��!��<��!;��*�'�$"��!��Q<�+?��!��"��;��!��!��*��

��$�=��TX>XXX��!;��"�!��&�!�Z$��$<$��=[X>XXX�!��<"��GXX>XXX�"�!��"��+�!��\�� "��<��;��!$"��=��<��!��"]*��!��=��!��$��<��;��!""��;�=��"��<��*��+��+�!$�<��=��=��"��<��;��!""��!��$��*

��!""��"��!��+��+��$!��+��!��!�<��<��;��!""��!��* ��=��"��!+��!��!��$��<��!;��!""��!+��"��+��*�� $��+��$��+�$"��<��!�+��==�+��"��!$$�*�'��+��=�"��<+��!��$��!��+��+!�*

��$��!��;��;�=��;�+�$��!;��*�'��!��$��;��=��!��<��$��!""��"��!��+��$��<��<��!��*��<�!��;��<��+��!��!��=<��+��!""��+!��+��!��!��!#��;��<��*��!��!��!�^_��!��*�'��"��!��=��$��+��;��!��<��+��!��+��=<��+��!""��+!��Z��<��!��!��!��!��\*

��@�=��!��!�`z^_��+��+��!��+��!��+!�"��=��<�!�;��*��"��!�{|<��$�}�!""��!+��$!~�$��*��<��!��!��!��<�!��$!��!��!��"��!��!��$!~�$��+��*�]!��;��$��$��!$!��;<��$��!��$<+��!�"��;��*

!��"��!��!�$��$<$*��$��!""��"��!��!��$��>��"��$��=��!��!��!$;��$"��!�<��*��<��+�!$"��!��!��!��!��=��$��!��*��+��=��$�=��!��!��*'��z=��!��+��!��<��!;��*�

�� !"��+��<+��!��!$��!��+��!��==�+��+�>��;��!��=��"<��!��!��+��!��#

��$��$��"��&'�*��+,+��

+-&��'��+&��./5../56




very busy all year round. Although the silty soils are very highyielding, crop establishment can be a real problem,particularly as conditions can suddenly change from being wetto warm and dry; in addition soils are prone to capping. Asa consequence in some years crop establishment has beendisappointing. The crop protection audit of the farmidentified that closing seed spacing from 18.75 cm to 15 cm intheir 45 cm row widths could improve establishment. Thischange also ties in with recent research studies that showedthat drilling more seed and achieving a higher plantpopulation will produce a higher more cost-effective yield,even allowing for the extra cost of the seed and losses in plantnumbers during less than ideal emergence conditions. IanKing, one of the partners selected a suitable field, with halfdrilled at their usual spacing and the other half using thecloser spacing (Pic. 2). Conditions at drilling in spring 2012were excellent, but once the weather turned wet during April(and remained wet for the rest of the year) emergence andcapping were a big issue. However, Ian noticed that thecloser spacing not only gave a denser plant stand, but theplants were more uniform; he is convinced that more yieldwas recovered. Following his observations in 2012, Ian hasnow drilled all the 2013 crop using the closer spacing, andhopes that this year’s weather will be more favourable tocrop growth.

to improve crop potential. Even small improvementsduring the growing season, when added together, can allmake a significant difference in delivered yield. There is nodoubt that attention to detail at all stages, takingadvantage of favourable weather whenever possible, willcontribute to increasing yields.

The following are profiles of some growers with whomWissington area managers have been working in the lasttwelve months. They all illustrate the close co-operationthat exists, and show what improvements have alreadybeen made following involvement in the 4x4 Yield Initiativeprogramme.

Proctor Bros are a large farming company based in SouthLincolnshire. Martin Barwell, farm manager at Gosberton,near Spalding, is always keen to make improvements andsound investments to increase yield and reduce costs. Farmingwell over 800 ha, they grow a large and varied range of cropsincluding potatoes, wheat, field vegetables such ascauliflowers, calabrese and lettuce, as well as sugar beet. Withwell over 130 ha of sugar beet to establish on mainly silt-typesoils, getting crops planted at the right times and quickly,when the conditions are suitable, can be quite a challenge.With this in mind, the on-farm audit identified that the sugarbeet drill needed to be updated. Proctor Bros Gosberton wereoperating a 12-row Monocentra precision drill, which was over25 years old. Although it had been well maintained, it wasbecoming outclassed in terms of work rates and there was afear that spare parts were becoming limited. Therefore,Martin Barwell decided to look for a new drill for the 2013crop, and a new 12 row Monosem Mecca V4 (Pic. 1) precisionsugar beet drill with a tramlining kit was purchased fromToucan Farm machinery. The drill arrived during late Februaryand the whole of the 2013 crop was drilled with it. Martin isextremely pleased because, even with the challenging spring,they were able to drill quicker: the new drill coped well withthe less than ideal seedbeds; a consequence of the very wetyear of 2012, after which many fields were ploughed quitelate. One feature which has made travelling between fields alot easier is the hydraulic folding mechanism which is quick touse, and folds the drill so it is safe for transport on the road.The old Monocentra had an end tow system and had to bedetached and re-attached for road travel.

Pic. 1 – Martin Barwell and operator Mark Taylor with their newMonosem Mecca V4 drill sowing the 2013 sugar beet crop.

Pic. 2 – Ian King in one of this year’s fields drilled using a closer seedspacing.

F King and Sons, who farm near Boston in Lincolnshire havealso been involved with the 4x4 Yield Initiative. They alsogrow a wide range of crops including cabbages, cauliflowers,potatoes, wheat and sugar beet on silt soils, which keeps them

E. H. Morris (Stonea) Limited farm on either side of the 16 FootDrain which runs alongside the B1098 between Chatteris andUpwell in Cambridgeshire. They have been growing sugarbeet since the opening of Peterborough factory, althoughthey have been farming this block of fen land for well over 100years. Alison Langley and her sisters are the fifth generation ofthe family to manage the traditional rotation of cereals,potatoes, sugar beet and peas. The soil types vary considerablyfrom silts to ‘heavy black’ and recent investment in anadditional irrigation reservoir has allowed them to fine-tuneall their crop inputs. Sugar beet yields have been increasingsteadily over the years but it was decided that their systemneeded reviewing. After conducting an on-farm audit theyhad discussions with their local machinery dealer, ThurlowNunn and their farm manager, Neil Cook, and decided that amore accurate and more precise sugar beet drill wouldimprove population figures, enhance emergence and speed updrilling their 128 ha of sugar beet. Their 17-year-old StanhayRallye 592 was replaced with a new 12-row KvernelandMonopill and, at the same time, the seed rate was increasedfrom the standard 1.0 unit/ha to the recommended 1.2 unitsusing varieties selected from the top six on the recommended



The farm lies in an area where Beet Cyst Nematode (BCN) hashistorically been a large problem. In previous years, the pesthas led to stunted growth, increased the cost of weed controland ultimately reduced sugar beet yields. Warm, dryconditions particularly favour the lifecycle of BCN and have anextremely severe effect on the sugar beet crop. Theconsequences can be drastic on the worst affected fields, asDavid recalls, “12 ha was a disaster in one season due to thehigh level of incidence of the pest, it left only half a crop”.

In 2011, a unit of BCN tolerant seed was drilled across somefields and a clear difference between varieties could be seen.After a discussion on the issue, helped by information fromthe BBRO, Paul and David decided to test the fields cominginto sugar beet to gauge the distribution and levels of BCN.Egg count numbers varied between fields, but most showedsome incidence of the pest. The results gave valuableinformation on the affected fields and enabled the selectionof the most suitable varieties on a field-by-field basis. (Pic. 3)

list, all of which were treated with Cruiser Force. Neil wasparticularly impressed with the new drill’s ability to tramlinetheir fields and at the same time boost the seed rate by 10%on either side of the trams whilst cutting out a costly andwasteful application of seed into the sprayer wheelings. In afurther effort to update the efficiency of the operation, theyhave involved their harvesting contractor, Nigel Harrison, intheir plans and, at his suggestion, the drilling programme nowpays particular attention to ensuring that the 6-row beetharvester will ‘marry up’ with the drill bouts to improveharvesting recovery and reduce losses in the field.

The final piece in this jigsaw was the decision, three years ago,to sign up to the Industry Haulage Scheme managed by BritishSugar as their preferred delivery method. This has proven tobe very cost-effective and has simplified the workload ‘onfarm’ as the harvesting and collection dates are pre-planned,allowing farm staff to concentrate on other, more pressingduties, and ensuring that beet are lifted and delivered in atimely fashion to minimise ‘in clamp’ losses.

After a late start (on 29th March) drilling hasprogressed quickly without a hitch and the last acrewas drilled on 9th April into excellent seedbeds thateveryone on the farm is anticipating will turn intosome first-rate yields.

Following the 2011/ 2012 campaign, Dan West, FarmManager of J C & M A Martin and J C Martin FarmsLtd, was one of the first growers to have a BBRO YieldInitiative meeting and an audit was conducted usinga crop blueprint to cover all aspects of his sugarbeet growing.

Dan is a forward-thinking grower who grows around13,000 tonnes at March, Cambridgeshire on a mixtureof soils ranging from light to heavy, some of which isvery heavy and always requires early lifting.

The meeting highlighted that the crop was still beingdrilled with an old 12-row Stanhay Webb belt drill.Even in good condition and well serviced such a drill isnow out-classed in terms of accuracy and speed ofdrilling. It was agreed that a new drill would be a goodinvestment and would help to increase the yield potential ofthe sugar beet crop, by having more accurately spaced seed ata consistent drilling depth.

Dan approached local dealers to investigate what wasavailable and was very fortunate to come across a 12-rowMonosem Mecca V4 that had only one season’s use, which wassubsequently purchased.

2012 was an early drilling season and Dan soon saw thebenefits of the drill and that has continued into the moredifficult 2013 season. Dan said “At first I didn’t think a newdrill would make such a difference, but modern coulterdesigns cut into the seed bed so well. With the old drill, seedwould have been left uncovered in the coulter groove due tothe difficult soil conditions in some areas of the field,headlands etc., but the new drill cuts an excellent slot, coversand presses well in all conditions”. Plant populations havebeen increased as a result.

David and Paul Rice farm 180ha of Norfolk Breckland, southof Swaffam, primarily growing sugar beet and wheat. Whilstsome fields are heavy, the soil type is predominantly a lighterloamy sand.

Pic. 3 – Field drilled with the BCN tolerant Pitbull, selected as a result of soiltesting.

Last year, both BCN tolerant seed and conventional varietieswere drilled and the tolerant varieties performed very well onwhat have historically been the more difficult fields. Acombination of Mongoose, Pitbull and SY Muse has now beendrilled in 2013, with the use of these varieties directed byfurther soil testing. BCN tolerant varieties are now central tothe performance of the crop, and David and Paul will continueto use the highest performing tolerant varieties across themajority of their beet land.

To make advancements in any crop, producing more outputand reducing costs of production are the overall long-termaims. Raising crop yield is an important part of thisadvancement. Genetically, there is still a lot of yield potentialto exploit within the sugar beet crop, despite the great stridesthat have been made in recent years. Having an industryfocus such as the 4x4 Yield Initiative will encourage everyoneto work more closely together with the common aim ofincreasing yields, which will be of benefit to the whole UKsugar beet industry.

References1. Limb, R. E. (2012). 4x4 Yield Initiative – making it happen… British

Sugar Beet Review, 80 (3), 12-13.


CAYMAN


THE UK’S FAVOURITE

Cayman’s excellent combination of consistent, high yields plus lower bolting made it the top seller in 2012 and 2013. It is the ideal foundation for 2014 cropping.


13/2/19/07



Sugar beetvarieties for 2014

BySimon Kerr,

NIAB andDr. Mark Stevens,

BBRO

All recommended varieties are now partially resistant torhizomania and there are varieties listed with additionalcharacters that provide growers with choice where thereare issues with beet cyst nematode and the more aggressiveAYPR strain of rhizomania.

Five new varieties are added to the 2014 list for general use:Frazze marketed by Maribo, Haydn by Strube, Master byLimagrain, Springbok and Stingray by SESVanderHave.

Two new varieties are added to the special use category withtolerance to beet cyst nematode (BCN): Mongoose marketedby SESVanderHave and Pamina by Limagrain.

For the first time we have two new varieties added to thespecial use category with partial resistance to the AYPR strainof rhizomania: Magistral marketed by SESVanderHave andSandra KWS by KWS. Their suitability for use in areas wherethe AYPR strain of rhizomania is present is described later inthe article.

Yield potential The difference in yield between recommended varietieswill be the main criterion when selecting a variety. However,differences of less than 3% may not be statistically significantand should be treated with caution. The Recommended List(RL) data is now presented as a four-year mean based on atotal of 23 trials; 3 in 2009, 7 each in 2010 and 2011 and

6 in 2012. Poor establishment and drought effects resultedin fewer trials being successful in 2009. Figure 1 leftshows the annual and mean yield recorded for the

individual varieties recommended forgeneral use.

Variation in relative annual yield islowest for Pasteur, Cayman and Stingrayand highest for Master, Columbus andSY Muse.

BoltersAs part of the BBRO RL programme,early-sown trials are carried out eachyear to screen varieties for bolting fromearly sowing dates. The RL boltingratings are expressed as bolters/hacalculated assuming a final plantpopulation of 85,000 plants/ha. Risk ofbolting will increase with all varieties incolder areas and fields that are northfacing and/or are slow to warm up.Table 1 shows the levels of bolters

Fig. 1 – Annual sugar yield (2009 to 2012) as % of control varieties (varieties ranked in orderof mean sugar yield).

Mean # 2009 2010 2011 2012

HAYDN 106 – 0 85 56

CAYMAN 115 99 28 85 253

LIPIZZAN 117 188 76 28 201

BADGER 126 128 108 28 253

STINGRAY 158 – 67 28 232

SPRINGBOK 167 – 47 28 298

COLUMBUS 228 359 76 113 402

FRAZZE 276 – 76 85 561

ISABELLA KWS 305 491 449 368 164

PASTEUR 307 2030 28 57 210

AIMANTA 348 939 0 0 1111

SY MUSE 362 1082 308 0 464

MASTER 686 – 826 113 1226

Table 1 – Bolting levels per ha recorded from early-sown trials 2009-2012 (varieties ranked in order of mean bolter levels).

# the mean levels are calculated using transformed data and are adjusted totake missing data into account. Note that newly listed varieties were notincluded in the 2009 trials.

90

92

94

96

98

100

102

104

106

108

110

2012

2011

2010

2009

Note that newly listed varieties were not included in the 2009 trials.


Strube UK Ltd, 9 Constitution Hill, Fakenham, Norfolk NR21 9EF

[email protected]. strube-sugarbeet.co.ukContact Richard Powell

Haydn offers:

Lowest bolting

Very high Adjusted Tonnes

Very high sugar content

Excellent establishment

Haydn - tuned for high value

Very high Adjusted Tonnes, the highest sugar content and the lowest bolting of all the leading varieties make Haydn the first choice for your 2014 sugar beet crop.

Haydn’s outstanding agronomic profile is perfectly in tune with growers’ and industry needs for a dependable, high value sugar beet crop.

haydnSugar Beet

yah

ndy

BeetSugar

Beet

ut-ndyaH

hgihrofdenu

eulavh

ffondyaH

tsewoL

gihyreV

:srrse

gnitlobt

sennoTdetsujdAhg

utndyaH

edtAdjushigheryVltheandentontc

Haydnemakarietiesvbeetsugar2014

andingtoutssHaydn’tuneinyectlperf

hgihrofdenu

highestheonnes,Tedtheallofboltingteswol

fechoictsfirtheHaydnop.cr

eofilpronomicagrandingindusand’serwogrwith

eulavh

sugarteadinglthe

ouryorf

isetryindus

gihyreV

ellecxE

tnetnocragushg

t nemhsilbatsetne

tuneinyectlperfdependablaorfneeds

op.crbeet

indusandserwogrwithsugaraluevhighe,dependabl

tryindussugar

ahciRtcatnoC

LKUeburtS

[email protected]

nekaF,lliHnoitutitsnoC9,dt

c.teebragus-eburts.ten.ebur

FE912RNklofroN,mahn

ku.oc

13/2/21/08



recorded from recommended varieties from early-sown trials2009 to 2012.

Bolters are also recorded from the yield trials and expressedas bolters from normal sowings in the RL table.

Relatively low bolter levels were recorded from Haydn andCayman from all sowings, from Lippizan and Stingray fromearly sowings, and from Isabella KWS and Badger fromnormal sowings.

PopulationPopulation data in the Recommended List are presented as %of controls. The trials were all sown to a stand and plantscounted after establishment. Whilst this is not a true record ofestablishment it indicates the small differences that existbetween recommended varieties. For early sowings, and onfields with a record of low populations, varieties with highlevels should be chosen, after other factors such as boltersand yield potential are taken into account.

Disease and pest resistanceVarieties were included in special inoculated trials at Broom’sBarn to assess their reaction to rust and powdery mildew butare not taken to yield. The powdery mildew trial is untreatedwhilst the rust trial is sprayed with quinoxifen to limit thebuild-up of natural infection of mildew. Ratings for resistancecalculated from these trials are given in the RL table.

Note: All yield trials are treated with fungicide to control foliardiseases. A fungicide spray programme is recommended byBBRO and rust is more critical for later lifted crops.

Beet cyst nematode toleranceThere are five beet cyst nematode (BCN) tolerant varietieswhich have special recommendations for use under BCN-infested conditions only. In non-infected situations they arelower yielding than non-tolerant material and should not beconsidered unless BCN is confirmed in the field. BCN tolerancedoes not apply to free-living nematodes and those causingDocking Disorder. The BCN tolerance breeding technology hasbeen demonstrated, in independent testing in the UK andmainland Europe, to give yield benefits under BCN infestedconditions. The Recommended List is not indicative of theperformance of BCN varieties under nematode infestation.Growers should talk to BBRO, their British Sugar areamanager and also refer to individual breeders’ trial databefore making a choice. With tighter rotations, BCN could bean increasing problem in some beet growing areas butgenerally this problem remains patchy within fields. It shouldbe remembered that oilseed rape and many brassica catchcrops are also a good host.

Figure 2 shows the relative sugar yield of the BCN tolerantvarieties in relation to Aimanta in the absence of infection.

In addition to yield parameters, BBRO box studies have beenused in an attempt to determine the build-up of the nematodethroughout the season. Measurements of BCN are taken fromthe soil at sowing (Pi) and again at harvest (Pf). It is thenpossible to determine the influence of the different varietieson the nematode population through the season. The aim ofthese studies is to ensure that all varieties are challengedequally with the pest, which is often difficult to achieve in afield situation where BCN is usually patchy in nature.

In 2011, the box data, which uses high infestation levels(typically 50 eggs and larvae per gramme of soil), showedsignificant lowering of Pf/Pi by Thor and Pitbull compared toSentinel which increased the population. Mongoose andPamina were not part of these studies but company data (fromwork undertaken by Broom’s Barn) that was submitted to theRL Crop Committee to consider showed that both reducedPf/Pi values. In 2012 all five varieties were included in the boxtrials but the heavy rain during 2012 resulted in some of theboxes becoming water logged for periods. As a consequence,the results were variable such that it was not possible todetermine if there was any significant difference betweenvarieties. Pf/Pi is useful for growers planning rotational controlof BCN – the lower the Pf/Pi the greater the reduction. Effortsare in place to provide more robust data in future years.

Rhizomania All recommended varieties are partially resistant to standardstrains of rhizomania and will slow down the developmentof the disease and reduce its impact. Since 2007, someoutbreaks have been identified in such material at a fewlimited sites and these continue to be investigated. However,breeders have now developed varieties, with additionalresistance genes, against the AYPR strains of rhizomaniafound in the UK.

Glasshouse studies have been used, using soil collected fromAYPR-infected sites, to determine how effective these newvarieties are at decreasing the build-up of this strain ofrhizomania. Roots of these varieties are tested for the

Fig. 2 – Annual sugar yield (2009 to 2012) of Aimanta and BCNtolerant varieties as % of control varieties in the absence ofthe pest (varieties ranked in order of mean sugar yield).

85

87

89

91

93

95

97

99

101

103

2012

2011

2010

2009

Note that Mongoose and Pamina were not included in the 2009 trials.

Fig. 4 – 2012 AYPR glasshouse trials.

LSD (5%) = 0.09

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Saracen Valeska Magistral Sandra KWS

suscep�ble std resistance enhanced resistance

ELIS

A v

alu

es


19.0

18.8

18.6

18.4

18.2

99 100 101 102

% Sugar Content

Relative Sugar Yeild

Strube UK Ltd, 9 Constitution Hill, Fakenham, Norfolk NR21 9EF

[email protected]. strube-sugarbeet.co.ukContact Richard Powell

High Sugar Yield and

Adjusted Tonnes

High sugar content

Good establishment

Low bolting from early

and normal sowings

Pasteur hits the sweet spot

Whatever the season, a high-sugar variety brings you a benefit. A high sugar content reflects directly in income – a 1% increase in sugar content equates to 10% increase in Adjusted Tonnes and means greater transport efficiency.

Pasteur is a commercially proven, high yielding, high sugar content variety capable of early drilling and profitable lifting at any time in the campaign.

pasteurSugar Beet

ap

BeetSugarruets

dooG

shgiH

sujdA

ShgiH

tnemhsilbatse

t netnocragus

sennoTdets

dnadleiYraguS

ansporttrereatgreaseincr10%ot

1%a–omeincinAbenefit.aouyseason,theerveWhat

ruetsaP

.efficiencyansportandonnesTedtAdjusineasecsugarineaseincr1%eflectsrentontcsugarhighAvhigh-sugaraseason,

ewsehtstih

meansandesequatentontyectldireflects

bringsarietyv

topstee

ndna

bwoL

sgniwoslamro

ylraemorfgnitlob

liftingeablofitprandontcsugarhigh

ommercaiseurtasP

theintimeanyatliftingofeapablcarietyventonthighen,vopryciallommer

ampaign.cthedrillingyearlof

yielding,high

hciRtcatnoC

llewoPdrah [email protected].

KUeburtS

eebragus-eburts.ten.eburts

ekaF,lliHnoitutitsnoC9,dtLK

ku.oc.te

FE912RNklofroN,mahne

13/2/23/09



presence of the virus using diagnostic methods previouslydeveloped. The lower the value, the slower the build-up ofthe disease by the specific variety (Fig. 4).

Figure 5 shows the relative sugar yield of the AYPR tolerantvarieties in relation to Aimanta in the absence of infection.

Unless the AYPR strain of virus is confirmed then thesevarieties are likely to produce lower yields than standardrhizomania partially-resistant varieties.

Sugar content High sugar content varieties provide growers with anopportunity to reduce transport costs. They should also beconsidered for growing on sites with a record of low sugarlevels (e.g. black fen soils). Varieties with the highest levelsare: Pamina, Sandra KWS and Haydn.

Other charactersThere is no evidence from trials to indicate that anyrecommended varieties show greater frost tolerance. Norecords are currently taken on crown size or top size asdifferences 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 and so these are not presentedin the Recommended List tables but are available to see onwww.bbro.co.uk/varieties and are used to determine if avariety is suitable for recommendation.

Recommended categories Provisionally Recommended varieties (PR) are tested for aminimum of three years before being added to the list inPR1. They are tested over a minimum of three further yearsbefore potential promotion to the fully Recommended (R)group. PR varieties remain on the list regardless of theirperformance during this period unless they are withdrawnby the breeder/agent. Varieties may be recommended forSpecial use (S) if they have special attributes which justifylimited use, but are inferior to recommended varieties inother important characters.

Growers should be aware that the performance of PR1varieties may have been assessed using only breeders’ seedlots. This may provide a less robust prediction of performance

than for R, PR2 and PR3 varieties which have been trialed fora longer period and largely 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 betaken into consideration.

AcknowledgementsThe BBRO Recommended List (RL) is derived from trials datafrom a programme of RL and National List (NL) trials werecarried out by British Sugar, NIAB, KWS, SESVanderHave,Armstrong Fisher and Broom’s Barn with funding from BBROand the British Society of Plant Breeders.

List of UK agents (The agents are not necessarily the breeder of the variety)

Fig. 5 – Annual sugar yield (2009 to 2012) of Aimanta and AYPRtolerant varieties as % of control varieties.

90

92

94

96

98

100

102

104

AIMANTA

Rela�ve Sugar Yield (t/ha)

SANDRA KWS MAGISTRAL

2012

2011

2010

2009

Note that Magistral was not included in the 2009 trials.

Agent Abbrev. UK Contact

KWS UK KWS Simon Witheford KWS UK 56 Church StThriplowHerts SG8 [email protected]

Limagrain LIM Bram van der HaveLimagrain (UK) LtdRothwellMarket RasenLincsLN7 [email protected]/sugarbeetwww.betaseed.co.uk

Maribo Seed MAR Hilary SnowMaribo Seed International ApS8 The RowLittle FaringdonLechladeGloucestershireGL7 3QW

SESVanderHaveUK Ltd

SVH Ian MunnerySESVanderHave UK LTDGrantham RoadWellingoreLincolnLN5 0HHTel 01522 [email protected]

Strube UK STR Richard Powell Strube UK Ltd9 Constitution Hill Fakenham Norfolk NR21 9EF [email protected]

Syngenta UK Ltd SYN Chris Charnock Syngenta UK Ltd CPC4 Capital Park Fulbourn CambridgeCB21 5XE


MASTERDecide on MASTER – the new top yielding variety.

13/2

/25/

10


Variety(ranked in sugaryield order)

Status

Agen

tSu

gar yield%

of (c)

Ad

justed

to

nn

es%

of (c)

Root yield

% o

f (c)Sugar co

n-

tent %

Popu

lation

% of (c)

Early-so

wn

bo

lters/ha

Norm

al-sown

bo

lters/ha

Rust

(1-9

, 9=

hig

hre

sistan

ce)

Powdery m

ildew

(1-9

, 9=

hig

h re

sist-a

nce

)

Mean

of co

ntro

ls16.6 t/h

a109 t/h

a90 t/h

a18.5

109,000/ha

2039

34

Stin

gray

PR

1S

ES

10

2.2

102.2

10

2.4

18

.49

4.6

15

86

(6)

(4)

Hayd

nP

R1

ST

R1

01

.7102.0

10

0.5

18

.71

00

.61

06

2(4

)(5

)Master

PR

1L

IM1

01

.5101.8

10

0.6

18

.61

01

.06

86

11(7

)(5

)S

Y M

use

PR

2S

YN

10

1.4

101.4

10

1.9

18

.41

00

.43

62

14

34

Sprin

gbok

PR

1S

ES

10

1.4

101.5

101.2

18.5

10

0.2

16

76

(3)

(5)

Caym

anP

R3

(c)S

ES

10

1.2

101.3

100.9

18.5

98

.811

53

24

Pasteu

rP

R3

(c)S

TR

10

0.4

100.5

99.6

18.6

10

0.4

30

714

34

Lipizzan

PR

3 (c)

SE

S9

9.9

99.9

100.1

18.4

10

1.1

117

94

5Frazze

PR

1M

AR

99

.799.5

101.1

18.2

98

.62

76

7(3

)(4

)Aim

anta

R (c)

SY

N9

9.6

99.4

100.7

18.3

98

.23

48

13

33

Bad

ger

PR

3 (c)

SE

S9

8.9

99.0

98.7

18.5

10

1.5

12

64

44

Co

lumbus

PR

3S

TR

98

.898.9

98.3

18.5

98

.92

28

21

44

Isabella K

WS

PR

3K

WS

97

.397.6

95.4

18.8

99

.53

05

36

7A

YPR

San

dra K

WS

PS

1K

WS

99

.099.2

97.7

18.7

99

.85

74

22

55

Mag

istralP

S1

SE

S9

4.6

94.5

95.6

18.2

10

0.4

30

54

(3)

(4)

BC

NSen

tinel

SS

YN

96

.996.8

97.5

18.4

99

.92

35

02

5Mongoose

PS

1S

ES

96

.796.0

100.7

17.7

10

1.2

58

019

(3)

(3)

Pam

ina

PS

1L

IM9

4.7

95.0

93.2

18.8

10

0.5

18

43

(4)

(2)

Thor

PS

2S

TR

92

.591.8

96.7

17.7

10

1.9

28

19

31

Pitb

ull

PS

2S

ES

91

.991.8

93.4

18.2

10

0.0

45

12

33

BB

RO

Recom

mended Lists (R

L) provide information on yield and quality perform

ance, agronomic features for recom

mended sugar beet varieties to assist grow

ers with variety selection.

The BB

RO

Recom

mended List trials and list preparation is undertaken as a collaborative project betw

een the BB

RO

and the British S

ociety of Plant B

reeders (BS

PB

) to allow the tw

o organi-sations jointly to publish lists of varieties of sugar beet that are recom

mended for grow

ing in the geographical conditions found in the United K

ingdom as the B

BR

O R

ecomm

ended Lists.

N.B

. Differences of less than 3%

between the adjusted yield of varieties are not statistically significant.

Disclaim

erThe data provided on these pages are the intellectual property of the B

BR

O. B

BR

O seeks to ensure that the data provided are accurate. H

owever, subject to the operation of law

no liability isaccepted for loss, dam

age or injury howsoever caused or suffered directly or indirectly in relation to inform

ation and opinions contained in or omitted from

these pages. These data are pro-vided for the purpose of determ

ining the choice of sugar beet varieties for planting and for no other purpose without the w

ritten agreement of B

BR

O. The inform

ation must not be published

without the express w

ritten agreement of B

BR

O except for printing copies for personal use. ©

2013 BB

RO

BBR

O recom

mended list 2014


Syngenta UK Ltd. Registered in England No. 345486, 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

SY MUSE hasbeen commercially proven to givehigh performance in the field.

To convert yield potential into profit,AIM HIGHCHOOSE MUSE

13/2

/27/

11



Move to gapping inRecommended Listvariety trialsSowing beet twice as thick as current practice, and then gapping (thinning) them to a normal population is notsomething that growers would contemplate, so why is it being introduced for Recommended List (RL) variety trials?Here we explain the RL Board’s reasons for adopting this approach and what we hope to achieve.

ByMike May,

Recommended List Board Chairman

Eight harvested trials is the minimum number needed toprepare the RL each year. However, unpredictable weatherand other factors mean that attrition rates can be high, andso each year fourteen trials are now sown to try andachieve eight suitable for harvest. In recent years it has oftenbeen difficult to achieve the eight necessary for properstatistical comparison. A major cause of such losses hasbeen uneven establishment across the trial areas. If theuneven establishment was a result of poor germination orestablishment of individual varieties, this would not be anissue. However, despite the best efforts of the trials operators,the causes are usually other factors that result in poor growthor establishment across all or part of the trial site.

Commercial growers would be more than happy with theoverall establishment on a discarded RL trial, but the accuracyrequired in order to get goodcomparisons between each ofthe varieties is extremely highand therefore the demands foran even crop are essential.

RL trial sites are chosen for theirgood record for growingexcellent beet crops evenlyacross the whole area. Trialoperators start their selectionprocess when previous crops arein situ. This allows them to lookfor anomalies across the area. Inaddition, they will take soilsamples and examine fieldrecords to look for pests orpossible effects from themanagement of preceding crops.

The costs of the RL trials areconsiderable, so the Board islooking at various ways of

reducing these whilst improving even further themanagement and accuracy of the work. In a study of sitelosses it was found that over a quarter of the sites sown in thelast four years had failed owing to poor establishment, and itwas considered that closing up seed spacing and then thinningcould overcome this in many instances. It was not a decisiontaken lightly as the normal aim is to manage sites as similarlyas possible to commercial practice. However, if the systemworks and we can reduce the number of sites sown, the savingis around £15,000/annum for each site we have avoideddrilling. The extra cost of sowing a few more beet and thengapping is approximately £800/site (a total cost of £11,200 for14 sites). The 22 sites lost in the past four years had cost anaverage of £80,000/annum to establish at today’s prices. Sothe potential gain should be well worth the change.



population of approximately 111,000evenly-distributed plants/ha. Whilst thiswill usually involve taking out everyother plant, if there is a gap, they willthen assess whether to leave a plantbased on beet in the current andneighbouring rows in order to achieve aneven distribution. So that we achieveconsistency across replicates, each onewill be assigned to and gapped by oneworker. If any doubles are found, thesewill be singled during the gappingprocess. The gang will ensure all hoed-out plants are moved clear of therows and are not trodden on, to avoidany ‘re-set’ plants being included insubsequent counts.

Once the plants are established (at the6 to 8 leaves stage) they will becounted again to determine theharvested population per plot. Thesepopulations will also be used for

determining percentage bolters (from normal sowings:separate trials assess bolting from early sowing).

Will gapping in variety trials bring other benefits? Obviouslycost saving and trial accuracy are the main reasons for thechange, but there just may be other benefits. At present, trialsare not done on light soils because of their inherent variabilityand drought potential. Gapping might allow variability acrossthe site to be overcome to an extent, but not the droughtingissues. However, whilst growers on light soils would like to seetrials on their soil types, over-the-years analyses have notshown any consistent difference in variety ranking betweensoil types or sites.

If it is successful, it might be something that could proceed tocommercial practice as automatic gappers could be developedusing modern technology. However, the benefits would needto be large for this to be cost-effective but might be of greaterinterest if seed treatments became unavailable.

Supplementary trials such as those for early sown bolters, beetcyst nematode tolerant varieties, disease resistance or AYPRresistance will not be close-sown or gapped.

Loss of sites is not the only issue that causes the RL list trialsto be expensive. The size of them is a major reason andthe Board is looking to see if there are possible ways ofoperating differently so that trials are a little smaller andeasier to manage.

Three main options were considered. The first was to test thesystem in a separate series of trials in 2013, with a view toimplementation in 2014, but budgets would not allow this.Also the techniques used were already well known. Thesecond option would have been to gap only some of the sitesin 2013, but this would have meant that the 2013 trials wouldhave required complicated statistical analyses that could havereduced the overall accuracy of the comparisons across theyear’s trials. It was decided to go for the final option ofbringing in the technique for all the 2013 RL trials, as this wasthe most cost-effective and likely to bring savings faster thanother options. It was also noted that a difference already existsbetween the trials and commercial practice: in the first yearsof testing in the RL trials, the seed is produced fromexperimental or small areas and it is not until the variety iscommercialised that seed used in RL trials comes from thesame commercially-grown seed bulks that are used forgrowers’ orders. In addition, unlike commercial seed, the RLtrials use non-primed (Xbeet) seed. This is because ofrestrictions imposed by the number of seed lots, their smallsize and the limited time to process them.

There is a total of 13 sites in 2013 as one was withdrawn overthe winter. All of these were sown at 9 cm spacing. Once thebeet reach the two to four leaves stage, the established beetwill be counted. This allows us to calculate the establishmentof each variety against the control set. This is the approachthat has been used over the years for the publishedestablishment figures. Whilst we would like to know the exactestablishment figure of each variety, this is too costly to do atpresent, as it requires the exact number of seeds sown per rowlength to be known. Whilst counts on commercial cropestablishment assessments are usually sufficient for grower’sown purposes, the potential errors on small plots are too largeto differentiate in trials. The only way of assessing this is toplace a known number of seed into the units, sow out until thedrill is empty and then assess emergence and establishmentfrom that known number of seeds. However, it is a figure thatgrowers have requested and it is an option that we areconsidering for the future, if funding becomes available.

After this first count, the beet will then singled by aspecialist, highly trained gang to achieve a uniform plant



Maximising yieldperformance throughfungicide applicationThe application of the first fungicides to sugar beet from late July/early August has now become an importantfeature of the crop protection calendar. This, and subsequent applications, provide foliar disease control to ensurea healthy canopy that prolongs and maximises autumn growth, and provides useful early frost protection. Thecurrent BBRO fungicide trials programme was completed in March 2013; those studies had evolved and built onprevious findings to optimise fungicide timings and usage, so maximising economic return for growers. This articlehighlights the 2012 data and looks forward to the 2013 season.

ByDr. Mark Stevens,

Lead Scientist BBRO

Disease forecastsTwelve months ago, the powdery mildew forecast predicted29% of the 2012 crop area would be affected. In reality, afterthe cold wet spring and the less than ideal summer, verylittle, if any, powdery mildew was seen. The “predominant”disease was rust, with some ramularia as a result of thecooler, wetter conditions. In addition, reports of cercosporaleaf spot, particularly in September, were received andconfirmed.

The 2013 powdery mildew forecast is the lowest for the last20 years, with only 8.9% of the area predicted to be affected.This is because the 48 ground frostsexperienced at Broom’s Barn in Februaryand March this year, combined with theon-going cool conditions, will haverestricted the development of powderymildew populations. Rust is likely to bethe most prevalent disease again, andfungicides will be important to protectthe crop from such diseases and tomaximise yield return.

Fungicide usage trendsThe annual British Sugar specific cropsurvey collects data from 500 locationseach year, and provides an invaluableinformation set to demonstrate real-timechanges to crop protection practices onfarm. It also highlights the adoption ofBBRO advice for fungicide usage on UKsugar beet (Fig. 1). It is clear that theuse of a two-spray approach continuesto rise and several growers have used a

three-spray programme (and even four in 2012) for late-liftedbeet. However, 13% of surveyed growers still did not use afungicide in 2012 in spite of the fact that even early lifted beetbenefit from a fungicide application.

BBRO 2012 fungicide trials

The 2012 BBRO fungicide trial programme continued theobjectives of 2011, to study the timing and benefits of one-,two- and three-spray strategies (Ref. 1). Again, the three-sprayapproach was divided into two strategies, with the firststarting on the 20th June, whilst the second was triggered

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 1 2 3 4

% o

f Sur

vey

Gro

wer

s

Number of Applica�ons

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fig. 1 – Fungicide usage 2008 - 2012.


Focus on outstanding crop establishment. See maximum yields.

www.bayercropscience.co.uk

Look no further than Poncho Beta.

13/2/31/12


by disease onset on the 2nd August. All one-and two-spray programmes began at diseaseonset, first applications being applied at fullcommercial rates, and subsequent sprays athalf rate. In light of the findings in 2011, afour-spray approach was also evaluated, withsprays applied from June until September.

Three primary fungicide programmes weretested using Escolta (cyproconazole +trifloxystrobin), Spyrale (difenoconazole +fenpropidin), and Punch C (carbendazim +flusilazole). All these fungicides were appliedas the first product choice in specificprogrammes, but with appropriate follow-upsprays changing depending on proscribedlimits on the number of applications or totaldose of each product.

Two identical trials were sown, both on the29th March (same date of drilling as 2011),using the variety Bobcat; a total of 21different treatment programmes wereincluded. The first trial was machine harvestedon the 4th December whilst the second wastaken to yield, again by machine, on the 9thJanuary 2013. However, very little disease wasobserved within the trials, even thoughpowdery mildew inoculator plants (previouslyproduced in the glasshouse) were includedwithin the trial in July. The main diseaserecorded was rust, but even by the 23rdOctober less than 6% of the leaf cover in theuntreated plots was affected by this disease(Figs. 2, 3 and 4). All other diseases wererecorded at trace levels. There was also nosignificant difference in disease developmentin plots between the two trials.

Yield data

The adjusted yield of the untreated controlplots, at the end of November, wasapproximately 90 adjusted t/ha. A one-sprayapproach increased yield by up to 7 adjustedtonnes whilst the two-spray strategy increasedyields by between 5 and 13 adjusted t/ha overthe untreated control (Figs. 5, 6 and 7).Differences were not all statistically significantbut trends are consistent Not all thedifferences were statistically significant butthese results with previous years and are verysimilar to the data produced in 2011 (Ref. 1).

However, unlike 2011, the early three-sprayprogrammes did not produce the highestoverall yields at the November lift date,although these yields were not significantlydifferent from the two-spray approach.Interestingly, when the first fungicides wereapplied for the early three-spray programmeon the 20th June 2012, the canopy was only at80% ground cover and was not at fullexpansion (Pic. 1); in 2011 the canopy hadalready reached full cover by the end of June.Previous work has shown that if fungicides are


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

% le

af c

over

by

Rust

December harvest

LSD

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

% le

af c

over

by

Rust

January harvest

LSD

One-spray = Escolta 0.35 l/ha Two-spray = Escolta 0.35 l/ha, Escolta 0.175 l/ha Three-spray = Escolta 0.35 l/ha, Escolta 0.175 l/ha, Spyrale 0.5 l/ha Four-spray = Escolta 0.35 l/ha, Spyrale 0.5 l/ha, Escolta 0.175 l/ha, Spyrale 0.5 l/ha

Fig. 2 – Escolta programme: rust 23rd October 2012.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

% le

af c

over

by

Rust

December harvest LSD

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

% le

af c

over

by

Rust

January harvest

LSD

One-spray = Punch C 0.6 l/ha Two-spray = Punch C 0.6 l/ha , cyproconazole 0.3 l/ha Three-spray = Punch C 0.6 l/ha, Escolta 0.175 l/ha, Spryale 0.5 l/ha

Fig. 3 – Rust scores 23rd October 2012.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

% le

af c

over

by

Rust

December harvest

LSD

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

% le

af c

over

by

Rust

January harvest

LSD

One-spray = Spyrale 1 l/ha Two-spray = Spyrale 1 l/ha, Escolta 0.175 l/ha Three-spray = Spyrale 1 l/ha, Escolta 0.175 l/ha, Spryale 0.5 l/ha

Fig. 4 – Spyrale programme: rust 23rd October 2012.


applied too early (i.e. to the wrong growthstage) then there can be a yield penalty, and itis probable that this occurred in 2012. Whenfungicides were applied at disease onset thebeet had reached full canopy expansion(Pic. 2).

Yields from the Escolta- and Spyrale-basedprogrammes were broadly similar, whilst theprogrammes starting with Punch C producedsome of the lowest yield gains, presumably asthis product is primarily used against powderymildew, of which little was observed in 2012.

All lift data from the January harvest showeda positive response to fungicide application,although there were few statisticallysignificant differences between programmes(Figs. 5, 6, and 7). However, what was most


Pic. 1 – 2012 crop development – start dates ofthe two three-spray programme – 20thJune 2012.

Pic. 2 – 2012 crop development – start dates ofthe two three-spray programme – 2ndAugust 2012.

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

Adj

yie

ld t/

ha

December harvest

LSD

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

Adj

yie

ld t/

ha

January harvest

LSD


Fig. 5 – Escolta programme: adjusted yield t/ha.

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Adj

yie

ld t/

ha

December harvest

LSD

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Adj

yie

ld t/

ha

January harvest

LSD


Fig. 6 – Adjusted yield t/ha.

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Adj

yie

ld t/

ha

December harvest

LSD

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Adj

yie

ld t/

ha

January harvest

LSD


Fig. 7 – Spyrale programme: adjusted yield t/ha.


noticeable was the tendency for sugarcontent to increase with increasing fungicideapplication (Figs. 8, 9 and 10). This warrantsfurther investigation but is an importantconsideration for all growers with late-liftedbeet.

BBRO fungicide trials for 2013

In light of these finding from 2011 and 2012,a new series of fungicide trials are beingundertaken to examine the effect of canopydevelopment and growth stage on fungicidetiming and its interactions with the crop. Inaddition, the yield performance and thepotential benefits of one, two, three, and foursprays will be re-evaluated.

Summary of 2012 season

■ Little powdery mildew observed (as in 2011).

■ Disease control and yield benefits fromtwo-spray approach.

■ Different yield responses following T0(June) and three applications in 2011 and2012.

■ Maintaining canopy an importantconsideration.

2013 Recommendations

■ Apply first product at full rate for optimaldisease control.

■ If powdery mildew is main problem, applya product with good control of thisdisease.

■ Benefit from physiological effects on cropgrowth.

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

■ BBRO bulletins will warn of annualcercospora leaf spot threat.

■ Use two sprays for:

■ Beet lifted October onwards.

■ Risk of rust (as evident from 2010/11/12).

■ Three+ sprays?

■ Benefits for canopy development/longevity.

■ Higher sugar content.

■ Re-evaluated in sequentially drilledtrials in 2013.

Reference1. Burks, E.; and Stevens, M. (2012). Fungicide

strategies for maximising yield potential: lessonsfrom 2011. British Sugar Beet Review, 80 (2),10-13.


15.0

15.5

16.0

16.5

17.0

17.5

18.0

Suga

r co

nten

t %

December harvest

LSD

15.0

15.5

16.0

16.5

17.0

17.5

18.0

Suga

r co

nten

t %

January harvest

LSD


Fig. 8 – Escolta programme: sugar content %.

15.0

15.5

16.0

16.5

17.0

Suga

r co

nten

t %

December harvest

LSD

15.0

15.5

16.0

16.5

17.0

17.5

18.0

Suga

r co

nten

t %

January harvest

LSD


Fig. 9 – Sugar content %.

15.0

15.5

16.0

16.5

17.0

17.5

18.0

Suga

r co

nten

t %

December harvest

LSD

15.0

15.5

16.0

16.5

17.0

17.5

18.0

Suga

r co

nten

t %

January harvest

LSD


Fig. 10 – Spyrale programme: sugar content %.


SPRINGBOK


SPRING FORWARD WITH HIGHER YIELDS

Springbok is a leap forward in sugar yield, and with lower bolting*, it raises the bar for others to follow.*Source – BBRO 2014 recommended list - Full data set at www.bbro.co.uk


13/2/35/13



industry feature

USA Sugar Beet Conference and Research Tour Report

Latest sugar beetnews from USA

ByDr. Philip Draycott,Sugar Beet Adviser

I believe that there is no better place to find out whatis happening in international sugar beet research anddevelopment than the biennial ASSBT conference. Thisyear, 400 delegates met in Los Angeles, where a coupleof weeks of warm sunshine added to the experience.After four days at the conference (and half a day atDisney!), about 30 of us headed just north of theMexican border where one factory processes record-breaking crops of sugar beet. The local R&D team andfactory staff shed some light (and there is an unlimitedsupply down there) on how to grow the crop in a desertenvironment.

The conference papers described work in the USA andelsewhere over the last few years. We share many of theirproblems, but some are specific to USA and even to certainStates (currently 11 grow sugar beet): these ‘US specific’ issuesare not dealt with in this article. For example, virtually all theircrop (except in California) is GM. Interestingly, several papersdescribed a new problem of GM crop ‘weeds’ such as rape, and

the difficulties of controlling them inGM sugar beet fields. This reportconcentrates on problems common toboth countries, concluding with a briefaccount of the Californian crops seenon the tour.

Sugar beet yields and pricesin USAA full article on sugar beet growingin the USA appeared in British SugarBeet Review in 2011 (Ref. 1). Theirindustry started in the 1870s, well beforeours, and now produces 5 Mt of sugarannually, half the US requirement. Allthe factories are owned by growers’cooperatives, and sugar beet is a highlyregarded crop by those near to one ofthe 22 factories. This contrasts with ourindustry which produces just over 1 Mtsugar annually from the four factories.This too is about half of the UK’s need.

Much of their crop is grown in the northern States, and a verysmall amount in southern Canada. Such crops suffer from ashort growing season compared to ours. Average yields aresomewhat lower than in the UK but price per tonne isconsiderably higher, some growers receiving nearly doubleour 2013 price. There are many reasons for this other thanyield (particularly cooperative ownership), and all growers towhom I spoke recently were clearly delighted with the profitfrom the 2012 crop. In part, they have to thank USgovernment sugar policy which gives price support, via atariff-rate quota import system, and a marketing allotmentprogramme for domestically-produced sugar. Thus, any crudecomparisons between our price per tonne and theirs are notparticularly meaningful.

75th Anniversary of ASSBTPresident, Dr. Allan Cattanach, gave a fascinating insight intochanges in the US industry since the first meeting in 1938.Then, there were 80 factories processing 985,000 acres of beetfrom 5,600 farms compared to now where 22 factories are

The Brawley factory,Southern California, ownedby Southern MinnesotaBeet Sugar Cooperative.



but unexplained differences. Their crops in particular neverseem to suffer from drought stress, maybe because roots findthe water table. As to the future, Keith thought yields willcontinue to rise through 2020 to 2050, according to currentclimate change predictions (more CO2, increasing globaltemperatures) and better genetics.

Weed controlThere were many interesting papers resulting from researchfollowing the rapid uptake of Round-up Ready varieties (zeroto 95% in four years). Whereas formerly, I always felt USgrowers were generally not as good at controlling weeds asUK growers, possibly due to different weed burdens, nowfields over there are cleaner than ours! Two or three sprays ofglyphosate generally does the trick.

Of course there are some downsides: a few weeds are knownto be resistant, or partly so, to glyphosate and conventionalchemicals are needed. Perhaps more worrying were pictures ofRoundup Ready oilseed rape weeds in Roundup Ready sugar

processing 1.2 M acres of beet from 6,500 farms. In 1938 theyield was 8.8 short tons/acre (19.6 t/ha), that is now 27 shorttons/acre (60 t/ha)!

As in the UK, the late 1930s and 1940s saw a major shift tomechanised crop production. In the 1950s, the greatestbreakthrough was the discovery of monogerm seed in theUSA, and then during the 1960s saw commercial acceptance.In the 1970s, new herbicides and new drills completed thetransition to a labour-free crop.

The major development in the 1980s was the discovery ofthe rhizomania partial-resistance gene at the Holly sugarcompany which has helped protect sugar beet in the USA,UK and worldwide. The President thought that themajor developments in 1990s were seed technology:processing, priming and coatings, and in micro-rateherbicides. Finally, in the USA, the recent adoption of GMseed has re-established weed control. We await the daywhen the UK and EU can catch up on this latest piece ofimportant technology.

Increasing yields inUK and USAProf. Keith Jaggard from theUK was invited to present apaper on some of the reasonsbehind an increasing yieldtrend of sugar in the UK, USAand elsewhere. In the UKduring the 29 year periodbetween 1975-2004, ouryields increased by 0.2 t/haper year. The data suggestthat half this increase wasdue to rising annualtemperature, quite a surpriseto everyone. Earlier drillingaccounted for about 12%,with many other factors suchas agronomy, genetics andseed improvements etc.totalling about a third of therise. I have a feeling thebreeders were a bitdisappointed over thisbecause, at many talks I haveheard, they tend to claimmost of the kudos!

Keith went on to say that,since 2005, yield hasincreased more than themodel suggests and this wasbeing investigated. He feltthe main reasons were:improving autumn leafcanopy, seed priming leadingto increased and moreuniform plant populations,along with other factors.

His yield studies, in NorthDakota, lead to many similarconclusions to those in theUK, but with a few clear

��

R

��

�� !�� !��"� ��#$�%�&��$��'(�� )��*�� +��, �� -�'.�/&,0��1'(23�4(1�3330�� 0�"�� 5�� !� �� !��0�$�� 0�"�� 0��

��

13/2/37/14



sea level, with warm winters and intensely hot, dry summers.Temperature when we were there, in early March, was over30ºC, rising to 45ºC in August. Consequently, beet is drilled inSeptember and harvested from 1st April to 1st August, withimmediate processing to prevent loss of sugar due to heat.

Soils were formed in river-derived, silty clay, deposited whenthe Colorado River flowed through the area. The waterevaporated at a later stage and the bed has filled with severalmetres of sediment which early settlers realised formed a veryfertile loamy soil. To raise its potential, irrigation wasessential, and this is delivered by the All-American Canal fromthe Colorado River. To grow good crops in this environmentsugar beet, for example, needs 1,800 mm irrigation (c.f. UK’ssugar beet total water requirement of 450 mm).

About 10,000 ha of sugar beet is grown in rotation with avariety of vegetable, salad, hay and seed crops on an areawhich covers nearly 100,000 ha of irrigated land. The averageyield of beet is 100 t/ha over the season but, usually by the endof July, yield averages about 135 t/ha. Last year produced arecord yield on one field of just over 200 t/ha! However, sugarpercentage was only 14% on this field though it moregenerally averages 17% over the whole harvesting period.

Mark Bredehoeft and Ron Tharp of Southern Minnesota BeetSugar Cooperative showed us field experiments on a widerange of subjects. I have picked out just two of relevanceto the UK.

beet! This has resulted in some hand work and their need tore-think future rotations.

Factory LimeSeveral authors described experimental work to determine thevalue of lime in crop production. Their name for what we callLimex is Precipitated Calcium Carbonate (PCC), both productsbeing a big improvement on ‘factory waste lime’. Some oftheir factories see all their by-product usefully applied in cropproduction due to its effect on pH, the supply of nutrientsand the reduction in some soil-borne pathogens such asAphanomyces cochloides and Rhizoctonia solani, e.g. inSouthern Minnesota. A few factories in areas of high pH soilshave mountains of lime looking for a home!

Nutrition and agronomyCompared with the UK, more nitrogen fertiliser is generallyrecommended and used than here. Also, from first principles,their rows are too wide (usually 60 cm and even up to 75 cm)and spacing too close in the row (seeds at about 12.5 cmapart). Ours are a more optimal spacing at 50 cm rows andseeds 20 cm apart. There are many practical ‘excuses’ for thewide rows as shown below.

Their recent nitrogen fertiliser work has looked into aquestion often raised here: with rapidly increasing yields, ismore nitrogen justified? Kurt Steinke from Michigan lookedat this question and began by reminding usof Christenson’s earlier finding that ‘under-application costs less than over-application’which I have often quoted myself. Looking atnitrogen requirement of sugar beet followingwheat, maize or soya beans, on farms producinghigh yields of sugar beet, optimum applicationswere 180 kg N/ha after wheat or maize and135 kg N/ha after soya beans. As the French say“Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.”

Harvesting, deliveries and storageSeveral research papers and a whole morning ofdiscussions gave those of us from Europe aninsight into how different these facets of thecrop will always be, due to climate. This meanslittle is relevant to our circumstances. Most oftheir crop is harvested during late August toOctober before the big freeze-up. At the start,roots go straight to factories for processing but,as the cold approaches, they go into largestorage piles to freeze and await processing inturn through to March. Twelve-row machinesworking 24 hours per day see much of the cropharvested in two weeks, just before the freeze.As winter ends, outdoor piles need insulation tokeep roots frozen, the exact opposite of overhere. Much interest is being generated inmachines from Europe for harvesting (six-rowtankers) and loading (Ropa Maus and HolmerReloader).

Research Tour to Imperial ValleyOne beet sugar factory remains in California: inthe extreme south of the state by the borderwith Mexico. This is an arrid area, 20 m below Pic. 1 – Weed beet in Imperial Valley.



two varieties on the 2014recommended list for the firsttime which provide partialresistance through RZ1 and RZ2genes to the AYPR strain. Thereare more in the pipeline whichis very good news.

References1. Lilleboe, D. (2011). Letter from

America. British Sugar BeetReview, 79 (3), 34-38.

2. Stevens, M.; Harrington, R. andChambers, P. (2012). Pests,diseases and weed review 2011.British Sugar Beet Review,80 (1), 8-11.

AcknowledgementsI am grateful to Dr. Lee Panellaand Ron Tharp for photographsand to Mark Bredehoeft fororganising the Research Tour.

Weed beetDuring many visits to sugar beet growing areas of the USA, Ihave never seen a weed beet and have therefore assumedthe problem did not exist over there. I was in for a rudeawakening as Pic. 1 shows. It is thought the seed arrived in theImperial Valley either in goods brought by early settlers, or inships’ ballast. Their weed beet is low-growing, without theupright habit we see in UK beet fields. Parentage of UK andUSA weed beet is a complex subject but our weed beet ismainly Beta maritima whereas theirs is Beta macrocarpa.

Just as in the UK, once a sugar beet seedbed is made, weedbeet seed seem to know this is the time to wake up! The fieldin Pic. 2 had been tractor-hoed but there was a huge numberof weed beet in the rows, competing fiercely with the crop.The problem was so bad that the field would be ruled out forsugar beet in future.

Fortunately for such farmers, GM sugar beet has just beenapproved for use in the Imperial Valley. We saw another fieldin Roundup Ready beet which was known to have a bad weedbeet problem. Two sprays of Roundup and there was not asingle weed beet to be found. I cannot wait for similar sightsin UK.

Rhizomania resistanceThroughout most sugar beet growing areas of the world,resistance to rhizomania is conferred by the Holly (RZ1) gene.We are aware that slightly different strains of rhizomaniaoccur in some areas and, in the UK, Mark Stevens’ recent workhighlights the problem (Ref. 2). In the Imperial Valley we sawhow severe the virus can hit current ‘resistant’ varieties. It waseasy to find roots with typical symptoms, shown in Pic. 3,although the leaf yellowing we often see here in the UK wasnot obvious. Work is in progress on the pathotypes that breakresistance and how they interact with another gene-source ofresistance (RZ2). It is interesting that in the UK we will have

Pic. 2 – Weed beet remaining in the row after tractor-hoeing.

Pic. 3 – Typical symptoms of rhizomania pathotypes which breakresistance to the RZ1 (Holly) gene.



From ‘Zero’ to28,000 tonnes

ByBrian Hammond,

Park Farm Partnershipand Philip Ecclestone,

British Sugar plc

In 2006, three Irish Farmers, Eugene Reilly and the Carpenterbrothers, Jack and Thomas, all large scale potato growers inCounty Meath, Ireland, decided to purchase a farm in the UKto grow a wide range of arable crops. The farm they boughtwas Park Farm, a 212 ha all-arable unit at Donington, nearBoston in Lincolnshire. At the time Brian Hammond wasworking for Eugene Reilly in Ireland, but moved to Park Farmin 2008 as the farm manager when they ceased growingpotatoes. Soon afterwards, Brian became a partner in whatwas to become an expanding farm business in the UK.

Park Farm, which is predominantly on silt soils, was soondoubled with the acquisition of adjoining parcels of land. The

partners also started to rent land for growing potatoes in thelocality. In 2010, the neighbouring Gosberton Fen Farmbecame available on a farm business tenancy and a further311 ha were added. Later a successful tender saw the farmgrow again to almost 800 ha. Today, the farm totals almost1,000 ha, growing potatoes, sugar beet, winter wheat, winterbarley, oil seed rape and combining peas.

For Brian, the past five years has been an exceptional period inhis farming career and there now seems to be an endless listof opportunities to grow various crops, including a range ofvarieties of potatoes, wheat and oilseed rape for seed etc. Atthe top of this list almost all the time has been sugar beet. The

Growing large areas of arable crops and specialising in a number of different crops is the aspiration of many growers. For threeIrish farmers, not only did they have large-scale operations in southern Ireland, they also set out to expand into the UK. Fromsmall beginnings, these operators now farm well over 1000 ha growing a wide range of crops. Originally they had no sugarbeet tonnage, but within five years they went from zero to 28,000 tonnes. This article charts Brian Hammond’s progress inLincolnshire from first arriving in England in 2008 and how he set out to grow high-yielding sugar beet crops.


original Park Farm at Donington hadno sugar beet quota, but one of thefarms purchased had a small quota of600 t. Brian had never grown sugarbeet before, even in Ireland, but hadalways been interested in the crop. Soin 2008, after having been given anadditional 200 t of quota by BritishSugar, he drilled 12 ha. The result wasa disappointing looking crop, whichlacked vigour and had more thana few unsightly weeds. He stillremembers the harvesting contractorcoming to lift this crop which, at thetime, he thought would struggle totop 50 t/ha. However, as the yardsteadily started to fill, disappointmentturned into optimism. The resultingcrop was delivered to Wissington factory and, afteradjustments, the resulting yield was 68.6 t/ha. It was at thispoint that the ‘seeds’ of beet growing at Park Farm were trulysown. If a miserable looking crop like this could producealmost 70 t/ha, what could a decent looking crop produce?During that winter, more quota was purchased as well as moreland to grow it on.

Since 2008, the tonnage of sugar beet grown by Park Farmhas steadily increased, with both permanent and industrialtonnage rising, such that 28,000 tonnes is being grown in2013. All of this year’s sugar beet has now been drilledon a mixture of owned and rented land, and one jointventure option.

The objective is for all the land coming into sugar beet to beploughed as early as possible the previous autumn, starting inmid-September. Wherever possible the land is lightly worked,either in the late autumn or during the winter, to help levelthe top. Brian aims to use the minimum number of passes toprepare seedbeds in order to save frost mould and retainmoisture. Some years this is done using a power harrow.

Brian aims to start drilling from the first of March, as soon asthe weather and soil conditions are suitable; there is a lot ofspring work to fit in, so an early start is always advantageous.The aim is to sow a range of varieties, usually the top six fromthe recommended list, with Cayman for example being drilledon 30% of the total area this year.

Getting seedbeds prepared for drilling sugar beet.

For the full details call our technical helpline on Freephone – 0800 0322480

Produced using the only natural magnesium sulphate source, the EPSO range of foliar fertilisers has been specifically tailored with a combination of nutrients to maintain leaf chlorophyll levels and boost photosynthesis. Use EPSO products to provide the fast-moving, active green growth you need for top crop performance.

16% MgO, 32% SO3 15% MgO, 31% SO3

0.9% B, 1% Mn13% MgO, 34% SO3

4% Mn, 1% Zn

d uecudorPs hresilitref

llyphoorlhceere gvitca

ngal marutay nlne ohg tnisd ud weroliay tllacfiicepn sees bas hhtnysoto phosto bdn aselve l

p cor tod feeu noh ytworn ge

e h, tecruoe stahlpum suisetruf nn ooitanibmoh a ctid w

es U.siseh OPSE o ps ttcudor p.ecnamrofrep porp c

OPSE r ailof fe ogna rf aen liatniao ms ttneitr

,gnivom-tsae fhe tdivoro p

K

u

+ K & ES UA K+ p CuorS G

e fhr toF

.

h

dte Lri k · wu.oc.erieku-sk@ofn· iynapmop C

cer tul olas cliatel dlu

k

p

u.oc.erieku-sk.wwk · w

eern Fe onilplel hacin

0842230 008e – 0nohp

13/2/41/15



All of the nitrogen (up to 120 kg/ha) is applied immediatelybefore drilling to give the crop as rapid a start as possible. Themost important aspect of sugar beet growing in Brian’sopinion is to have 100% ground cover as soon as possible.Weed control varies from year to year, but he relies totally onthe advice of his agronomist and his approach generallyinvolves ‘little and often’ applications. Some tractor hoeing isdone where necessary to remove weed beet, weeds missed bythe spray programme and any overlaps from the drill. One ofthe biggest advances in beet production has been theadoption of a full fungicide programme. Brian’s view is havingachieved full crop cover you must try to retain it. He now usesa three spray fungicide programme on all but the earliestlifted sugar beet.

Harvesting commences in early October and they lift as andwhen required throughout the winter to try and maximiseyield with a ‘just-in-time’ approach. Brian engaged the servicesof Sleaford-based contractors J H Baxter & Son, who havedone all the harvesting and haulage for the last three yearsand have given a very good and reliable service.

Yields at Park Farm have reached 91.4 t/ha and considerablymore than this on areas on some of the better silt land. Brianlists the key points to growing good crops of sugar beet as:early drilling, good quality drought resistant land, the rightlevel of nutrition inputs (a total of 120 kg of nitrogen/ha forthe silty land), get off to a good start and keep it growing aslate as possible, harvest in as good conditions as possible tominimise field losses with a just-in-time delivery reducingclamp losses. Park Farm’s own land that isgenerally lifted before Christmas will bedrilled with winter wheat whilst afterChristmas, beet will be followed by peasor potatoes.

Brian has various rental agreements,which vary for each situation, but heaims to keep everybody happy. Lookingto the future, availability of land isbecoming a real issue. Although ParkFarm had not grown sugar beet for atleast thirty years, they have quickly usedup all of the available land first timeround in the rotation and Brian needsto find 300 hectares per year extra torent just for sugar beet. Nowadays hehas to compete with vegetable growersand maize growers (for AD plants) forrented land. Harvesting sugar beet last season.

Drilling in full progress.

Sugar beet has become a very large part of Park Farm’sbusiness second only to potatoes, which Brian regards as themain enterprise. As things stand at the moment, irrespective ofany change in pricing policy, Brian sees little prospect of beingable to increase his sugar beet tonnage further as getting holdof further land is getting more difficult. There has been somecriticism of sugar beet for a reduced yield of the followingwinter wheat crop, but in 2012 all of the best crops of winterwheat grown at Park Farm were after sugar beet.

The weather last winter was atrocious but all of the sugar beetat Park Farm was delivered. Brian made a conscious decisionnot to drill any wheat after the 18th October 2012. By the endof April 2013, all of the land following sugar beet was drilledwith peas or planted with potatoes, and all but the very worstpatches were turned around into very good seedbeds. Brianpoints out that although yields from combinable crops weresignificantly down last year, due to the very wet summer,sugar beet yields were reduced less than any other crop grownby Park Farm. Potato yields were reduced by 35%, winterwheat yields by 40%, whereas sugar beet was only reducedby 12%. Brian’s opinion is that sugar beet is one of themost resilient crops that he has known. Only temperatures ofminus 18°C in December 2010 saw sugar beet succumb toextreme weather conditions.

As you will have noted at the start of this article, Brian and therest of his partners are from Ireland, which used to have athriving sugar beet industry. Sugar beet restructuring in 2007saw the demise of the Irish sugar industry. Brian notes thatfarmers were swayed to give up this industry for a few piecesof silver, but no-one realised what they had lost until it wastoo late. Brian repeats the adage “You never miss the wateruntil the well runs dry” fitted the Irish sugar industry to a tee.Back in Ireland there is a very strong campaign to reintroducesugar beet. Brian believes that, if it succeeds, it will be on afarmer-owned basis, but nothing can be done until theoutcome of the EU sugar reform is known.

With the right foresight, ambition and taking advantage ofopportunities when they arrive, it is possible to make themove to a different country and create a farming businessgrowing large areas of arable crops. Brian Hammond seizedthe opportunity to grow sugar beet for the first time in 2008,found it fitted in well to the cropping rotation and, withinfive years, Park Farm Partnership has become a large supplierto British Sugar at Wissington factory.



Predicting bolting –the bolting modelin practice

ByGeorge Milford,

Independent Consultant andColin Walters,

British Sugar plc

IntroductionGiven the right conditions, many growers want to sow theirsugar beet as early as possible in order to gain extra yield.They are, however, aware that this entails the risk of greaternumbers of bolters that could cost up to £50/ha to remove toprevent the build-up of future infestations of weed beet. TheBBRO vernalisation-intensity bolting model was developed tohelp assess the risk of bolting when given varieties are sownon specified dates in particular seasons. The salient featuresof the model were given in an earlier article (Ref. 1) and arebriefly reiterated here.

The flowering processTwo things need to occur before sugar beet plants will bolt.First, they need to be vernalised to induce the apical meristemto switch from the vegetative state to the floral state and tomake them responsive to long days. Vernalisation is broughtabout by exposure to cool temperatures during the earlyweeks of plant growth, and the intensities of vernalisationexperienced by commercial crops depend very much onlocation, seasonal weather and drilling date. The tissues ofthe crowns of vernalised plants then respond to thephotoperiodically longer day lengths of late spring and earlysummer by extending the flowering stem above the leafcanopy where it branches and flowers in July and August. Thetime at which day length starts to increase does not varygreatly between years or between the different sugar beetgrowing regions of the UK. The major genes involved inthe vernalisation and photoperiodic responses and theirinteractions have recently been identified.

The vernalisation-intensity bolting modelSugar beet plants are vernalised by temperatures between 0and 14°C, with those between 6 and 9°C being most effective,and temperatures above and below this range becomingincreasingly less effective. The model accounts for thisdifferential vernalising effect by using an algorithm derivedfrom the vast body of past BBRO variety-trial data to

weight each hourly temperature for its vernalising effect. Theweighted temperatures are referred to as vernalising hoursand are summed daily, weekly and monthly to give seasonalintensities of vernalisation to which the patterns of boltingcan be related. Figure 1 illustrates the typical bolting/vernalisation relationships for bolting-susceptible and bolting-resistant varieties. It shows that plants need to experience agiven number of hours of vernalisation before they start toproduce significant numbers of bolters. Varieties do not differgreatly in this threshold vernalisation requirement for bolting.They do, however, differ in the number of bolters theyproduce for each additional hour of above-thresholdvernalisation that they experience. The rate of this increase(measured as the slope of the upward part of bi-linearregression) is a measure of a variety’s bolting sensitivity. Thebolting sensitivities of current varieties range from 0.2%additional bolters per hour of above-threshold vernalisation inbolting-resistant varieties to more than 1.5% in bolting-sensitive ones (Fig. 2). This means that varieties can be broadlycharacterised as: bolting resistant producing less than 0.5%extra bolters per hour of above-threshold vernalisation (white

% b

olte

rs

Accumulated vernalising hours

Bolting sensitivity

Vernalisation

threshold for bolting

1.5% bolters per hour

0.2% bolters per hour

Fig. 1 – Relationships between the intensity of vernalisation and thebolting patterns of bolting-sensitive and bolting-resistantvarieties that form the basis of the vernalisation-intensitybolting model.



and late March were likely to haveexperienced (Fig. 4). Prior to 1995, theseasonal intensities of vernalisation weresufficient to have caused most crops sownin early March – and many sown in lateMarch – to bolt extensively. Since the mid-1990s, however, intensities of vernalisationsufficient to induce bolting were onlyexperienced in 2001, 2008 and 2012, withonly the crops sown in early March likely tohave been affected. The BBRO started aprogramme of annual Early-Sown Boltertrials in 2001 to provide bolting data for theRecommended List. The indications fromFig. 4 are that few of these trials wouldhave experienced sufficient vernalisation toallow the differences in varietal bolting tobe properly characterised. This is one reasonwhy growers saw more bolters thanthey might have expected in the varietiesthey had chosen, especially in theparticularly cold spring of 2008.

Why was bolting less of aproblem than feared in 2012?Until last year, the vernalisation-intensitybolting model performed well andproduced reasonably accurate predictionsof varietal bolting in both Early-SownBolter trials and commercial crops. Butit over-estimated the number of bolters

likely to be produced by crops sown during the first week ofMarch in 2012, given the periods of cold they subsequentlyexperienced. Finding out why this happened has widenedour understanding of the bolting of sugar beet under fieldconditions and led to adjustments to the model.

After a short period of exceptionally warm weather duringthe last week of February and the first week of March,temperatures during the spring of 2012 remained atypicallycool until well into June. This caused seasonal intensitiesof vernalisation to continue to increase more than they wouldnormally do in May and June, resulting in seasonal intensitiesclose to 170 vernalising hours and far greater than the130-140 hours experienced in an average year. In that year,

bars), of average sensitivity producing 0.5-1.0% bolters perhour (blue bars), and bolting susceptible producing more than1.0% bolters per hour (red bars).

Seasonal intensities of vernalisationIn the UK, vernalisation increases most rapidly in March andApril and peters out when temperatures begin to rise inMay and June (Fig. 3). Crops sown in early March thereforerun the greatest risk of becoming vernalised, especially in coolsprings; those sown after mid-March are less likely toexperience sufficient intensities of vernalisation to inducebolting, even in a particularly cold year. During the past40 years, there has been a slow but progressive decline in theseasonal intensities of vernalisation that crops sown in early

Fig. 3 – Within-season progression in the intensities of vernalisationexperienced by crops sown in early- and mid-March in yearsof average (blue) and cool (red) spring temperature.

Fig. 4 – Trends in the seasonal intensities of vernalisation experiencedby early and late March-sown crops since the early 1970s(based on Broom’s Barn temperature data).

60

80

100

120V

erna

lisat

ion

thre

shol

d (a)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Bol

ting

sens

itivi

ty

(b)

Fig. 2 – (a) Vernalisation thresholds (hours) and (b) bolting sensitivities (% bolters per hourof above-threshold vernalisation) of some current varieties.



around 10% of the national crop was sown during the firstweek of March and the model predicted that these crops – butnot those sown after mid-March – would produce a significantnumbers of bolters. But this did not always occur in thenational crop. There were also unexplained differences in thebolting behaviour of varieties in the two BBRO Early-SownBolter trials. A trial near Bury in Suffolk produced an averageof 17% bolters compared to only 5% bolters in one near Selbyin Yorkshire, even though the same varieties were tested andthe two trials experienced similar intensities of vernalisation(ca. 170 hours). Given such high intensities of vernalisation, thenumbers of bolters were relatively small.

The two most likely explanations for the differences are,either the intensities of vernalisation were more intensive atdifferent stages of growth at the two sites, or that plants weresubsequently devernalised to a different extent. Vernalisationmay be partially reversed (i.e devernalised) if plants experiencea short period of high temperature during or immediatelyafter the vernalisation process. Experiments under controlledconditions show that many hours of exposure to temperaturesabove 25°C are needed for devernalisation to occur. Therewere only 21 such hours at Bury in early April, and 76 hours atSelby in early June.

There was, however, a difference between sites in the stage ofgrowth at which the period of most intense vernalisationoccurred. The accumulated number of vernalising hoursincreased faster at Bury than Selby in March and April, butfaster at Selby than Bury in May and June (Fig. 5), withrespective contributions of the two periods to the seasonaltotal (175 hours at both sites) effectively cancelling each otherout. The early vernalisation at Bury resulted in an average of17% bolters for the trial, whereas the comparable period oflate vernalisation at Selby resulted in only 5%.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Diff

eren

ce in

ver

nalis

atio

n (h

ours

)

Rate faster at Selby than Bury in May & June (5% bolters)

Rate faster at Bury than Selby in March & April

(17% bolters)

Fig. 5 – Differences in the early- and late-season intensities ofvernalisation at Bury and Selby in 2012.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Obs

erve

d %

bol

ters

Predicted % bolters

Bobcat Bullfinch Rosalinda Valeska Cheetah Annoushka Pasteur Sy Muse Pitbull Aimanta

y = 1.02x R2 = 0.937

Fig. 6 – Relationship between the number of bolters produced by2013 Recommended List varieties at above-thresholdintensities of vernalisation in the BBRO 2002-13 Early-SownBolter trials and those predicted by the vernalisation-intensitybolting model.

An analysis of the atypical seasonal temperatures andunexpected patterns of bolting in 2012 has improvedour understanding of the vernalisation response. It hasresulted in the vernalisation-intensity bolting modelbeing modified to include a new vernalisationtemperature weighting algorithm that extends thevernalising temperature range from 0 to 14°C, and toshorten the vernalisation interval to the eight weeksfollowing drilling rather than to the end of June, asbefore. The revised model provides a rational scientificbasis for characterising varietal bolting and allowsEarly-Sown Bolter trial data to be standardised to takeaccount of seasonal differences in temperature. It alsoprovides a practical commercial tool for estimating thenumber of bolters a particular variety will producewhen sown on given dates in the different factory areaswell in time to prepare for their removal.

At the time of writing, the very late and cold start to2013/14 growing season, with the coldest April for24 years, promises to provide the model with a severechallenge. Temperature data from weather stationslocated throughout the main sugar beet growing areasshow that the 2013 intensities of vernalisation weregreater than average, especially during March and earlyApril. However, preliminary figures suggest that thelate drilling of the national crop will mitigate much ofthe bolting risk (less than 4% of the national crop wassown before mid-March and only 12% by the end ofMarch).

SUMMARY

These results suggest that plants are more sensitive to thevernalisation stimulus during their early seedling growth,when the stimulus is experienced under a shorter daylength.The vernalisation-intensity bolting model findings have beenmodified to accommodate these findings by calculatingthe seasonal intensities of vernalisation over the eight weeksfollowing drilling (i.e to the end of April) rather than to theend of June as before. This small adjustment not only resolvesthe site-to-site differences in bolting in the 2012 Early-SownBolter trials, but also brings them more into line with theresults from previous years (Fig. 6).

Reference1. Milford, G. and Limb, R. (2008). Bolting in sugar beet – time to

re-evaluate our advice? British Sugar Beet Review, 76 (2), 3-5.



The sugar beet genomesequence – new traitsand elite varietiesThe 2013 sugar beet growing season will herald the publication of the sugar beet genome sequence. What willthis scientific breakthrough mean for sugar beet growers and when could it start influencing your choice ofvarieties?

ByDr. Belinda Townsend,

Rothamsted Research

What is a crop genome?

Improvement in sugar beet crop yields historically has beenboosted by advances in technology that make a real impacton production and varietal performance. Key examples ofthis would be: seed priming, monogerm seed, rhizomaniaresistance, agrochemical advances, as well as optimising plantpopulations and soil management. Genome sequencing is anew technology that is now being applied to cropimprovement and is revolutionising plant breeding.

The chromosomes in every cell of a sugar beet plant arecomposed of DNA molecules, constructed from basesconnected in long chains (Fig.1). These bases form a sequencethat encodes all the information required to build a sugarbeet. There are approximately 758 million bases comprisingthe genome of sugar beet; which is roughly equivalent tothe number of letters in a stack of 214 Bibles. Amazingly,the technology is now available to obtain the actual sequenceof these letters, in the correct order and assigned to thecorrect chromosome. This is doubly remarkable because theprocess involves, essentially, shredding the entire stack,reading the letter sequence of each fragment, and then usingpowerful computing to re-build the fragments into theoriginal order.

The first draft plant genome sequence was of the ‘model’plant, thale cress (Arabidopsis related to oilseed rape),completed in 2000. Although thale cress has a relatively smallgenome, the sequencing technology available at that timerequired almost 10 years and millions of pounds. Building onthat experience, the draft genome of rice was released in2002, and 37 other food and industrial crops’ sequenceshave been published since (Ref. 1), including barley, wheat,potato, maize and soybean. Recent improvements in thesequencing technology, and dramatic reductions in cost,have made the sequencing of many plant genomes apractical goal for scientists and plant breeders. However,the assembly and annotation of the sequences, which isneeded to make them useful, still requires significant timeand expense.

Why do we need to know a genomesequence?Within a single gene, a small change can sometimes have ahuge effect; resistance to the herbicide glyphosate, forinstance, is due to a single base pair change (Ref. 2). When aparticular genetic sequence (a marker) can be associated witha trait, the marker itself can be used to select plants with orwithout the trait, a process called marker-assisted selection(MAS) (Fig. 1). MAS is particularly useful when the trait isdifficult or expensive to identify visually (e.g. rhizomaniaresistance). The technology to do this on a small scale has beenused by seed companies for many years, often using privategenetic maps and markers that help distinguish plants with orwithout the trait. Publishing the entire genome sequence inthe public domain will increase the scale and density of thesemarkers by a staggering level. With new varieties currentlytaking 10-12 years to develop, the advanced marker discoveryis an important way to deliver varietal improvement as quicklyas possible in response to changing production needs. By usingthe genome sequence to help build an ideal sugar beet‘genotype’, traits that are desirable in a sugar beet commercialvariety could soon be rapidly identified.

The overall benefits of MAS are: increased efficiency, reducedcosts and greater speed of breeding programs for producingelite varieties. However, many of these advantages can begained only from existing knowledge of how the geneticsinfluences the variety performance, which also requires basicresearch. Some of the challenges are:

■ When a useful trait is transferred from related wildspecies into sugar beet, many undesirable or ‘weedy’characteristics are also transferred. It takes many generationsof breeding to ‘clean’ the genetics and be left with acommercially viable variety. The MAS helps ensure that thedesired trait is retained whilst excluding the undesirablegenetic material.

■ The expression of many traits is controlled not just by thegenetics but also by field conditions. This variability makes itslow and expensive for a breeding programme to reliably



select the best lines. The complex and risky process of fieldselections can be minimised if the genomic region responsiblefor the trait is known and can be specifically selected.

■ The power of selection based on the genetic sequence lies inits speed. Unwanted plants can be identified and rejected atearly growth stages, thus reducing wasted time andresources. The genotyping also enables good plants and linesto be advanced early in the breeding program withouthaving to test for every trait. This is particularly important fordiseases and quality traits that require a lot of skills andlaboratory investment to do the testing.

Sugar beet is a special cropAs sugar beet growers, processors, and researchers, we knowhow important sugar beet is as a source of sugar, animal feed,and as a break crop for the arable rotation. The exceptionallyhigh yield of sugar beet roots and high sugar content makes ita viable energy crop too, already supplying bioethanol fortransport fuel from the British Sugar Wissington refinery.Exactly how sugar beet is able to store so much energy isamazing and is still unexplained by science. Other qualities ofsugar beet are also very interesting, such as its relativetolerance to drought and salinity. Understanding how thegenetics controlling these qualities influence root and sugaryield will help improve sugar beet varieties.

Sugar beet is odd in its evolutionary relationship to otherplants. Whilst it is closest to potato and tomato, it could bealmost as related to oilseed rape, grapevine, or cotton, andeven has lots of similarities to cereals! It is actually more closelyrelated to cactus and rhubarb than any others mentioned. Soit is important for sugar beet that we gather informationabout its unique genetic makeup so that advances could bedirectly targeted to qualities unique to sugar beet.

A worldwide sequencing effortAlmost all crop genome sequencing projects have been doneas part of a large consortium. This is because of the diverseskills and technologies required to deliver the final result froma living plant to a genome sequence. The difficulty used to bethe cost of the sequencing chemistry, but now that is reducedby 10,000 times, then the limitation is the computing resourcesneeded to deal with the large amounts of data. This is wherespecialist ‘bioinformatics’ facilities are needed: to store,process, and analyse the data in a way that biologists can useto ‘read’ the genome. There are several proprietary sugar beetgenome sequencing efforts underway, but access to these isrestricted, but publicly-funded projects enable all scientistsand seed breeding companies to benefit from the knowledge.

The German Ministry of Education and Research has funded thedevelopment of sugar beet genetic resources for over 10 years,and the resulting first quality draft of the sugar beet genomesequence will be published imminently. A preliminary draft wasreleased to the public in January 2012 (Ref. 3). The publishingconsortium brought together partners from Germanuniversities, research institutes, and German seed companies.

The UK sugar beet research community is involved in thesequencing of a second sugar beet genome sequence, led byRothamsted Research at Broom’s Barn and now based at theHarpenden site. This takes advantage of public investmentand the plummeting costs of sequencing over the last twoyears to produce a preliminary draft sequence that we arenow able to study. When this project was started, theFig. 1



in commercial varieties. The USDA-ARS at Michigan hascleverly used a classic approach to generating populations ofplants that capture key traits of interest within their genetics(Ref. 6). Those populations were derived from the sugar beetbreeding line that we used for sequencing, and so the researchcommunity now has a powerful tool to identify exactly whichgenetic regions are responsible for several traits: somethingthat would have taken much longer without a genomesequence. The traits captured in these populations includeCercospora resistance, high sugar content, emergence, sugaryield, nematode resistance, rhizoctonia resistance, anddiffering crop types (fodder, garden, leaf, wild beets). Manymore traits are also likely to exist awaiting discovery in thosepopulations.

Ultimately, by maintaining a dialogue between growers,processors, researchers, and seed breeding companies aboutthe needs of the industry, the potential now exists to delivervariety improvements faster than ever before by exploitingthe sugar beet genome sequence.

AcknowledgementsThe author is grateful to the British Biotechnology andBiosciences Research Council (BBSRC) for supporting thiswork through funding the sugar beet sequencing andbioinformatics at TGAC (Capacity and Capability ChallengeCCC-41), and core funding of Rothamsted Research.

German consortium sequence was not publically available,and the sugar beet breeding line used by them does nothave the utility of the line that we have used. The sugarbeet breeding line we used was developed in the USAby collaborators at the United States Department ofAgriculture – Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) inMichigan (Ref. 4). The Belgian sugar beet seed company,SESVanderHave, carried out genetic testing in support ofthis work, to ensure the plant was ideal for the sequencing.The DNA was prepared at Broom’s Barn and then submittedto The Genome Analysis Centre (TGAC) to conduct thesequencing and bioinformatics (Ref. 5). After assembling theraw data, we have over 91,000 long pieces of genomeinformation, which will require further quality control, joiningup, and assigning to particular chromosomes to obtain ahigh quality draft. We are now in a position to apply ourknowledge of the genome to address biological questionsthat relate to sugar yield.

The USDA-ARS released a third sugar beet genome sequencein May 2013. The line used has genetic resistance to Beet curlytop. The sequence is deposited in a DNA database accessibleby anyone across the world (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/498903961).

Delivering the traits that matterThe priorities of breeding programs are mostly set by theneeds of the growers. However, there is inevitable delaybetween identification of possible traits which would havebeen desirable in a particular season (e.g. frost tolerance ormildew resistance) and when such traits can be made available

■ Three draft sugar beet genome sequences will bepublished within the year.

■ A genome sequence will help reveal many geneticdifferences between breeding lines that can be usedas markers.

■ Targeted marker-assisted selection will help streamlinebreeding programs to deliver rapid variety improve -ments probably within eight years.

■ Genome sequencing technology is developing at arapid pace; it is important that sugar beet keeps pacewith other crops in utilising the latest tools for varietyimprovement.

SUMMARY

Church Farm, Attlebridge, Norwich NR9 5ST J Riley Beet Harvesters (UK) Ltd

You can rely on Rileys for service

Tel: 01603 262526 (after hours 01603 262485) Mobile: 07836 366289 www.jrileyagri.co.uk

y on ellyou can rreYYo

viceor serRileys ffo

Attlebridge, Farm, Church J RiilleR eyRi ey il Beley eeetB t e Hae aJ Riley Beet HaHHa

el: 01603 262526TTe (after hours 01603 262485) Mobile: 07836 366289

5STNR9 Norwich Attlebridge, arrva esstv tee ers rt s e (r UKK)( K) (U LtUK) tddLs (UK) Ltdtrrrsvvveverar

(after hours 01603 262485) Mobile: 07836 366289 .jrileyagri.co.ukwww

dd

(after hours 01603 262485)

References1. http://genomevolution.org/wiki/index.php/Sequenced_plant_

genomes

2. Stalker, D. M.; Hiatt, W. R.; Comai, L. (1985). A single amino acidsubstitution in the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphatesynthase confers resistance to the herbicide glyphosate. Journal ofBiological Chemistry 260, 4724-4728.

3. The Beta vulgaris Resource http://bvseq.molgen.mpg.de/index.shtml

4. J. Mitchell McGrath. Sugar Beet & Bean Research Unit, EastLansing, Michigan, USA.

5. Nizar Drou, Darren Waite, David Swarbreck. The Genome AnalysisCentre (TGAC), Norwich.

6. J. Mitchell McGrath, Teresa K. Koppin, Tim M. Duckert (2005).Breeding for genetics: Development of Recombinant Inbred Lines(RILs) for gene discovery and deployment. In: Proceedings from theAmerican Society of Sugar Beet Technologists 33rd Biennialmeeting. p. 124-132.

13/2/48/16



industry feature

The sustainability ofthe sugar beet crop –the potential to add valueThe specific role of the sugar beet crop as a sustainable option in farm rotations has often been overlooked byenvironmental policy. This review develops guidance for growers that will address the requirements that Europeangovernments have, to reduce national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Sugar beet not only provides a major foodingredient but is also the industrial feedstock for a range of co-products that improve its environmental impactcompared with other crops. The sustainability criteria associated with the production of sugar beet has historicallyfocused on products such as Topsoil and Limex: product innovations that have helped develop a co-productindustry that many agricultural companies now emulate through the installation of anaerobic digestion, biofuelrecovery and waste material recycling facilities that reduce waste and recycle energy. These products are carbonlabelled and have achieved the PAS2050 Standard for carbon footprinting of products (Ref. 1). The GHG footprintof a gramme of white sugar is 0.6 g; that of a tonne of Topsoil 9 kg and that of a tonne of Limex 2.4 kg (as reportedin British Sugar UK and Ireland 2009/2010 Corporate Sustainability Report).

ByDr. Wayne Martindale,

Research Director at MPC Research and CSR GroupLeader at Sheffield Business School

Product carbon footprints are guiding current trends insustainability and are likely to lead to a further wave ofinnovations in the sugar beet supply chain where the growerwill have the most important influence on future GHGemission reduction goals. This review provides guidance togrowers who wish to implement measures that both reduceGHG emissions and improve profitability of sugar beetproduction.

Farm management strategies that deliver environmentallysustainable outcomes are well known to growers because ofthe impact of the set-aside and stewardship schemesestablished in the late 1980s. These schemes have convergedwith the goals of financial planning so that the mostprofitable 21st Century farming enterprises will consider someform of stewardship in their annual operations. Sugar beet hasa specific place in this arena, resulting in British Sugardeveloping the research that has measured GHG emissionsassociated with sugar beet production and sugar products.How GHG emissions can be further reduced will providegrowers with future challenges in maintaining productionefficiency and profitability.

Energy inputs in the beet sugar supplychain and the Lifecycle Analysis approachFarm practices that conserve GHG emissions are not as high-profile or visible as manufacturing operations because theycannot be metered directly, and are more complex in thatGHG emissions are extremely dependent on annual variationsin weather (Ref. 2). Even with these extreme variables, we canuse a methodology called Lifecycle Analysis (LCA) to determine

the sustainability of inputs such as nitrogen fertiliser (Ref. 3).Furthermore, established sugar beet annual yield reports, andweather trend. allow us to project and standardise ouranalyses (Ref. 4). With this in mind, we can begin to highlightfit-for-purpose actions that growers can take in the sugar beetproduction supply chain to reduce GHG emissions for eachgrowing season. The LCA is a method developed byengineering companies in the 1970s; it has been developed tobecome an international standard and is the basis forcalculating the carbon footprints of products. The LCAapproach takes a whole system view of the supply chain and itis grounded in the common sense that we do not getsomething for nothing. In converting biomass into white sugarand co-products, there are energy transfers, and when thatenergy is transferred it either becomes unusable or of lowerquality within the production system. LCA identifies whereenergy transfers occur and where energy might be recycledthrough the system to make the best use of it. This seemsstraightforward but soon becomes complex because supplychains have many suppliers, different processes and variabletraceability.

The carbon footprint is worthy of mention again herebecause it represents the embodied GHG emissions of aproduct across its lifecycle: from the production to thedisposal phase (‘cradle to grave’) and offers a convenientmethod for assessing GHG impacts across food supply chains.LCA methodology is used to calculate the product carbonfootprint of a functional unit of the system or supply chainbeing analysed (Ref. 5). The functional unit in the LCA offood products is typically a specified mass of product that isused by the consumer such as a gramme of white sugar. The



control of the farm through consumption of liquid fuel. Thismeans improved efficiency, design of machinery and fuelconsumption will have a significant impact on the farm’ssugar beet production energy balance. An important meansto reduce fuel consumption is to practice minimal soilcultivations and has been assessed by British Sugar (Ref. 7). Ofcourse, minimal cultivations may not be appropriate for allsoils and weed management regimes, but there are oftenoptions to reduce field traffic and soil cultivation intensityacross cereal/beet rotations, to reduce GHG emissions andincrease profit margins. The development of cultivationmachinery that combine discing, harrowing and pressinginto a single or reduced pass for seed-bed preparation hashad impacts on the GHG emission and energy balance ofsugar beet production. The message here is to reduceploughing and field traffic as much as possible, because thebenefits are both financial and environmental.

LCA determines the total amount of GHGs associated with agiven functional unit which is also known as the carbonfootprint.

A carbon label approach for sugar beetfarmingThe GHG emission reduction opportunities in the sugar beetsupply chain before the factory may not be fully consideredon farm, even though growers are expert in optimisingthe sugar beet production system. A convenient way ofinvestigating the GHG emissions associated with sugar beetproduction is to understand the energy consumed during atypical growing season. Fig. 1. shows the energy balance forsugar beet production obtained from 32 years of field trialdata for eight independent cereal, potato and sugar beetrotations on different farms in Germany (Ref. 6). The Germanlong-term study offers some important insights into sugarbeet energy management on farm: direct use of dieselby the grower makes up nearly 70% of the energy balanceand includes ploughing (22%), harrowing (7%) and harvesting(40%) (Ref. 3). Yields, however, were some 20-30% lowerthan today’s numbers, and this needs to be taken intoaccount.

Fig. 1 – The energy balance of sugar beet production using dataderived from the 32 year long-term field trials of eight potato-cereal-sugar beet trials in Germany 1967-1998. The figureshows the percentage of total energy input associated withdifferent production inputs.

The total energy input for sugar beet production was typically25 gigajoules/ha and typical energy outputs of the sugar beetcrop were 350 gigajoules/ha if co-products are included withsugar yields. The energy output for white sugar alone wastypically 250 gigajoules/ha. This represents a 10-14 fold energyoutput due to efficient agronomic management to ensurethat the sugar beet crop canopy captures as much solar energyas is possible during the growing season (Ref. 3).

Energy balance and soil management There are important opportunities worthy of highlightingin the energy balance study shown in Fig. 1; these result inlower GHG emissions and reduced production costs. It isnotable that ploughing and seed-bed preparation havechanged in recent years so that diesel consumption is reduced.Fig. 2. shows the direct and indirect use of energy for theoperations shown in Fig. 1: at least 50% of the energy usedfor ploughing, harrowing and harvesting is under the direct

Whereas minimal cultivation may reduce the energyconsumption of seed-bed preparation, it is unlikely that therewill be a minimal cultivation option for sugar beet harvesting.However, harvesting could be considered along with soilcultivation in the rotation as a measurable contributor toenergy consumption and the fact it is responsible for 40% ofthe energy consumed should be accounted for in the benefitto the following crop. There are opportunities to reduce GHGemissions of soil cultivations using biodiesel; biofuels recycleGHG emissions through the farm because the fuel is bothgrown and combusted on farm, making it close to carbonneutral (Ref. 8). A further benefit of minimal soil cultivationsis the fact that it stabilises the soil organic matter content,increasing the amount of carbon fixed in the soil. This hasbeen the thrust of soil carbon conservation programmes inUSA where minimal cultivations have transformed combinablecrop production, associated with the market entry of herbicideresistant crops, and machinery innovations. Research reportedby Rothamsted Research shows that up to 10.4 million tonnesof carbon per year could be fixed by UK agricultural soils usingminimal cultivations, which are equivalent to some 2% of thenational GHG emission inventory.

The energy balance of nitrogen fertilisersThe use of nitrogenous fertiliser accounts for 29% of theenergy balance for sugar beet production on farm because ofthe energy required to fix nitrogen either naturally or bythe industrial ‘Haber Bosch’ processes (Fig. 1). The energy

Plough to 25cm, 18%

Harrow and seed bed prepara�on, 6%

Spray for pest control, 2%

N fer�liser , organic and/or mineral, 25%

Harvest (50 t/ha), 34%

0

10

20

30

40

Plough to 25cm Harrow/seedbed Spray pest control N fer�liser Harvest (50 t/ha)

Direct energy input (%)

Indirect energy input (%)

% o

f to

tal e

ner

gy in

pu

t f

or

eac

h h

a o

f su

gar

Fig. 2 – The percentage of direct energy (used on farm) and indirectenergy (energy associated with the supply chain outside thefarm) used for each sugar beet production operation shownin Fig. 1.



carbon footprinting of nitrogen fertiliser products has beenreported, with GrowHow footprinting its nitrogen productsusing the same carbon label standard that British Sugarhave used (PAS 2050) and it is likely that other nitrogenmanufacturers will follow (Ref. 10). The trend to reducenitrogen applications for sugar beet suggests that qualityand cost will continue to drive down the GHG footprint ofnitrogen use associated with sugar beet production.

The major energy input for the use of organic manures isthe use of fuel to transport bulk manures; the sameconsiderations hold true as for soil cultivations. Hence,reducing field traffic and the transport of materials will resultin less diesel being consumed. We must also consider the useof biofuels for farm operations so that GHGs are recycledwithin the farm system.

Managing transportation to and from farmsTransportation has been identified by a British Sugar and NFUstudy as an area where growers have scope for efficiencyimprovements that can be integrated with improved storagestrategies (Ref. 11). A survey of growers’ expectations andexperiences was reported in the British Sugar Beet Review in2010 (Ref. 12). It is necessary to consider the delivery ofmanures to farms, and harvested sugar beet to factories, as acritical component of the eventual energy balance of thesugar beet supply chain. This is because the benefits onlong-term soil fertility must be balanced against the financialand GHG costs of spreading organic manures and thestrategies for getting harvested sugar beet to factories most

consumed for nitrogenous fertiliser, whether it is produced asmineral straights, mineral compounds or animal manure isapproximately equal, because we must consider the energyconsumed to produce, transport and spread the latter (Ref. 6).The energy, nutrient and GHG balances always show us thatwe can never get something for nothing, and in the case ofsugar beet nitrogen fertilisation, we have another factor: thecomplex relationship between effective nitrogen fertiliser useand the yield and quality of the sugar beet crop. Increasingnitrogen fertiliser will increase biomass yield but there will bea point where the quality of sugar beet is compromisedbecause of the impact of increased molassogenicity of thebeet. This is caused by nitrogenous impurities in the beetincreasing as nitrogen fertiliser is increased, with the resultingreduction in white sugar yield. This was described in 2000 bymyself and Dr. Philip Draycott (Ref. 9) when we examined thetrends in nitrogen applied to the beet crop since 1970. Ourresults were spectacular: showing that growers had respondedto the requirement to reduce nitrogenous fertilisers put ontobeet crops and, in doing so, had improved sugar beet quality.At that time, carbon footprinting was not standardised andGHG emissions had yet to be regulated, but growers werealready starting to optimise nitrogen applications, so reducingGHG emissions.

The energy required to manufacture mineral nitrogenfertilisers from industrially fixed ammonia is close to theminimum theoretically possible. This means that themanagement of factory emissions, the fertiliser supply chainand farm use of mineral fertilisers are the only realisticoperations where significant GHG savings can be made. The

East Norfolk 01603 905950West Norfolk & Cambs 01353 933223

Suffolk & Essex 01728 495051

Don’t letone bolterturn into anightmare

We specialise in eradicatingweed and seed beet

throughout East Anglia

[email protected] weedbeet.com @weedbeet

Whether just bolters or something worse call us for a free consultation

East Norfolk 01603 905950West Norfolk & Cambs 01353 933223

Suffolk & Essex 01728 495051

Don’t letone bolterturn into anightmare

We specialise in eradicatingweed and seed beet

throughout East Anglia

[email protected] weedbeet.com @weedbeet

Whether just bolters or something worse call us for a free consultation

13/2/51/17



References1. British Standards Institute. (2008). Guide to PAS 2050; how to assess the

carbon footprint of goods and services. Specification for the assessmentof the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. London.

2. Sellahewa, J. N. and Martindale, W. (2010). The impact of food processingon the sustainability of the food supply chain. In, Martindale W ed (2010)Delivering Food Security with Supply Chain Led Innovations –Understanding supply chains, providing food security, delivering choiceAspects of Applied Biology 102, (2010) Association of Applied Biologist,Warwick UK. Available at, http://www.shu.ac.uk/_assets/pdf/foodinnov-wm-impact-processing-sustainability-food-supply-chain.pdf

3. Hülsbergen, K.-J.; Feil, B.; Biermann, S.; Rathke, G.-W.; Kalk, W.-D. andDiepenbrock, W. (2001). A method of energy balancing in cropproduction and its application in a long-term fertilizer trial. Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment 86, 303-321. This paper was the basis forseveral EFMA reports including ‘Harvesting solar Energy using Fertilisers’available at http://www.kunstmest.com/files/energy08.pdf

4. Jaggard, K. and Qi, A. (2012). How the sugar beet crop grew in 2011.British Sugar Beet Review, 80 (1), Spring 2012.

5. Andersson, K.; Ohlsson, T.; and Olsson, P. (1994). Lifecycle assessment(LCA) of food products and production systems. Trends in Food Science &Technology 5 (5), 134–138. DOI:10.1016/0924-2244(94)90118-X.

6. Küsters, J. (1999). Lifecycle Approach to nutrient and energy efficiency inEuropean Agriculture. Proceedings of the International Fertiliser SocietyNo. 438, Cambridge.

7. Ecclestone, P. (2004). To plough or not to plough. British Sugar BeetReview, 72 (3), Autumn 2004.

8. Martindale, W., and Trewavas, A. (2008). Fuelling the 9 Billion (PDF252KB) Nature Biotechnology 26, 1068 - 1070 (2008) doi:10.1038/nbt1008-1068 Available at, http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n10/pdf/nbt1008-1068.pdf

9. Draycott P. and Martindale W. (2000). Effective use of nitrogen fertiliser.British Sugar Beet Review, 68 (2), Summer 2000.

10. Growhow UK Ltd (2013). CountingCarbon http://growhow.co.uk/content.output/444/444/CompanyInformation/CompanyInformation/CountingCarbon.mspx

11. Ashfield S. (2010). Maximising yield through efficient harvesting andstorage. British Sugar Beet Review, 78 (3), Autumn 2010.

12. Douglas C. (2010). Sugar beet transport efficiency review. British SugarBeet Review, 78 (2), Summer 2010.

Conclusion

The purpose behind an understanding of GHG emissionintensity in the sugar beet supply chain prior to the factorytare house is to stimulate improvements in productionstrategies and highlight practices that result in financialbenefits and GHG emission reduction. It is hoped that theGHG reduction developed will increasingly be recognisedby policy makers as a desirable objective beyond farmstewardship criteria. Indeed, further financial incentives couldbe used to reduce energy consumption and increase the useof renewables making GHG emission reduction an even moreimportant part of business strategy for the farm. Indeed,improved profitability of sugar beet production will beachieved by reducing liquid fuels consumed in soilcultivations, transportation of manures and harvesting thesugar beet crop. Forward-looking liquid fuel consumptionstrategies will be critical to future business successes. Furthersignificant environmental gains are available in the useof renewables such as biofuels on farms. If the marketand regulatory framework for biofuels imposed by ourgovernment and the European Commission clearly recognisethe role that sugar beet farming has in providing both asolution and market for biofuel supply, then the decisionsthat growers make annually will have a large impact on thesustainability of the beet crop.

efficiently. MPC Research use geographic tools that can helpus with the strategic planning of such operations. Figure 3,provides an example of the tools used in a digitally generatedmap using Defra’s Agricultural and Horticultural Survey ofthe distribution of the sugar beet crop in the East of England.The spatial relationship of the sugar beet crop to majorA-roads and the British Sugar Wissington factory is shown.Using methods developed by MPC Research we canextract agricultural data to find the amount of sugar beetand animal manure within, for example, 20 km of theWissington and Bury St. Edmunds factories (Table 1).

Fig. 3 – The amount of land used for sugar beet production, shown asha per 2 km2 (see colour grid key). The Wissington and Bury St.Edmunds factory sites are marked. Distances from Wissingtonup to 50 km are indicated by 5 km concentric circles.

©C

row

n C

op

yrigh

t/datab

aserig

ht 2009, an

Ord

nan

ce Survey/

EDIN

A su

pp

lied service

Table 1 – The sugar area and organic manure produced within 20 kmof the Wissington and Bury St. Edmunds British Sugarfactories. (Information derived from Defra Agricultural andHorticulture survey. Manure output delivered fromlivestock numbers using typical RB209 manure volumes peranimal per year.)

Agricultural production within 20 km offactory each year for;

British sugarfactory

Sugarbeet

(‘000 ha)

Dairymanure(‘000 t)

Beefmanure(‘000 t)

Pigmanure(‘000 t)

Poultrymanure(‘000 t)

Wissington 11.7 0.2 3.1 433.8 122.8

Bury St. Edmunds 6.8 2.5 2.0 670.9 321.2

The 20 km boundary has been used because it crosses thepoint equidistant from the two factories. Either side of thispoint, sources of manure and sugar beet begin to overlap foreach factory. When we assess the carbon footprint andenvironmental costs of transportation we often use a 50 kmboundary and the systems we utilise for analysis allow us to dothis quickly for efficient updates on transport trends. Table 1shows that the Wissington factory has nearly double the areaof sugar beet within 20 km but only about half the organicmanure resource of the 20 km area around the Bury St.Edmunds factory. Such datasets have important implicationsfor strategic planning of the transport of manure and otherinputs and the harvested crop and co-products, enabling theoptimisation of fuel use and financial planning throughoutthe season. Our geographic analyses also facilitate the carbonfootprinting to inform development of transport strategiesaccounting for other factors such as the impact of noise,congestion and safety.



industry feature

A New Training Coursein Advanced SugarBeet Technology The first Advanced Training in Sugar Beet Technology course will begin in November this year. This six-day coursewill offer individuals working within the sugar beet industry an opportunity to advance their knowledge of thecrop. Topics covered by scientific experts and other experienced tutors include: the physiology of crop growth anddevelopment, use and interpretation of statistics in research trials, biotechnology and plant breeding, theeconomics of world sugar trade, and the latest principles behind crop protection. The syllabus for two residentialportions of the course includes tours of the Wissington factory and the Germains seed treatment facility. Space islimited (to keep classes small and interactive), so sign up now if you wish to participate.

ByDr. Eric Ober,

Rothamsted Research

The UK is recognised as one of the most efficient sugarproducers in Europe. Part of the reason for this, it can beargued, is that there is excellent knowledge transfer withinthe industry; the publication you are reading now is a goodexample. The generation and flow of information alsodepends on highly trained individuals who see that thisinformation is put into practice, including growers, advisers,scientists, agronomists, manufacturer representatives, areamanagers and factory managers. There is now a new initiativecalled ‘Advanced Training in Sugar Beet Technology’, a coursedesigned to increase the knowledge and proficiency of thoseworking in the industry, and to help raise new front-runnerswho will work towards shaping the industry’s future.

The structure of the course is made up of six full days ofinstruction, including laboratory practicals as well as twoafternoon tours. Two of the modules are two-day sessions,which include meals and accommodation, all covered by thecourse sponsors (the Biotechnology and Biological SciencesResearch Council [BBSRC], the BBRO, British Sugar and theNFU). The number of attendees will be kept to a maximum of

12 so that the atmosphere will be interactive, encouragingquestions and fostering discussions.

Each module will be taught at a different venue: Broom’sBarn, Germains (King’s Lynn), BBRO Headquarters (NorwichScience Park), and British Sugar’s Holmewood Hall.

The candidates may sit an optional exam. The course isrecognised by BASIS as an Advanced Module, and countstowards the BASIS Diploma in Agronomy and is worth 30 CPDpoints. Successful candidates also receive 15 academic creditsthat can be used towards achievement of a Graduate Diplomain Agronomy through Harper Adams University.

The entire course costs £500 for each individual, with othercourse expenses borne by the sponsoring organisations. Anadditional £230 is required if the exam is taken.

For further information or to apply for a place on the course,contact Dr. Eric Ober ([email protected]).

Training in Advanced Sugar Beet Technology –General Syllabus

Module 1: Crop Physiology and Scientific Principles

Module 2, Day 1: Genetic Crop Improvement: ModernBreeding Tools & Seed Technology*

Module 2, Day 2: Sugar Economics, Harvesting andProcessing†

Module 3, Day 1: Crop Protection‡: Pests

Module 3, Day 2: Crop Protection‡: Diseases and Weeds

Module 4: Soil Management, Crop Storage andInnovations in Machinery

*Includes tour of the Germains laboratories and seed treatment facility

†Includes tour of the Wissington factory and tarehouse

‡Includes laboratory practicals on pest and disease identification and measurement

Learning how to use and interpret diagnostic tests for plantpathogens.



BASIS BETA is a course for Agronomists and other advisorsthat forms part of the VI (Voluntary Initiative) packagepresented to government as a practical alternative to theintroduction of a Pesticide Tax; it allows those whoachieve the qualification a greater understanding of theconsequences for the environment and biodiversity thattheir on-farm decisions have, and enable them, therefore, totailor their recommendations accordingly.

It’s easy to underestimate how much the sugar beet industryhas on UK agriculture. It is true that the sugar beet arearepresents less than 1% of the total agricultural acreage inthe UK, but of all the BAP (Biodiversity Action Plan) speciesthat exist in the UK, 28% are found in Breckland, on theNorfolk/Suffolk border and therefore are central to beetoperations.

The original UK Bio-diversity Action Plan was published in1994 as a response to the Convention on Biological Diversity,which the UK Government signed in 1994 at Rio De Janeiro.Since then, the scheme has gone through a series of changesbut, in its current guise, we have a UK-wide BAP, which issplit into country-specific and then region-specific plans forboth habitats and species. As mentioned, the Breckland areais an important bio-diversity habitat within the beet growingarea. A particularly important species on the UK BAP whichis very common in beet is the stone curlew, a migrant birdthat favours the crop for nesting:

The RSPB/English Nature stone-curlew Recovery Project hasbeen operating in Breckland and north Norfolk since themid-1980s. The project locates and monitors breeding birdsand, where necessary, liaises with farmers and landownersto protect nests from destruction by agricultural operations.Intervention on arable land has been the single mostimportant factor behind the increase of the stone-curlewpopulation. The Stone-curlew Recovery project is funded bythe EN/RSPB Action for Birds in England Programme.

Conservation efforts since the mid-1980s resulted in thepopulation doubling to approximately 300 pairs by 2005.

Although stone curlews like the sandy heath typelandscapes, lapwings which are also a BAP species favourbeet for nesting in and can be found anywhere in the beetgrowing area and can be protected using much the samemethods.

Using the stone curlew as an example of a species in danger,the next step for the environmentally responsible farmer orthe BETA adviser advising a farmer is to establish crops ina way that impacts least on the bird. Due to the highimportance of stone curlews; the Higher Level Scheme (HLS)has a specific list of management options that will earn thefarmer points and, ultimately, grant-aid for following them.These are as follows:

BEET-ABritish agriculture has over recent years, introduced a raft of changes to enhance bio-diversity and make modernfarming techniques as environmentally friendly as possible. This is not an easy task as farmers have differentattitudes to the environment. In an attempt to galvanise the whole of UK agriculture into aiming for a commongoal a number of initiatives have been introduced by government (EU and UK), along with the threat of a‘Pesticide Tax’ if uptake is not sufficient.

ByAdrian Boor and

Wayne Tonge,British Sugar plc

Stone curlew.



previously, ELS (Entry-Level Scheme) and other grant-available projects. As we approach the latest rounds ofCAP reform, it seems likely that these schemes will persistin some shape or form, either unchanged or as a ‘greening’element to the Single Payment Scheme, and will almostcertainly become compulsory at a basic level for farmers.

Three members of the British Sugar agriculturaldevelopment department from Holmewood Hall recentlysuccessfully completed this qualification in an attempt tolearn how we can grow sugar beet in as environmentallyfriendly a manner as possible.

RSPB/HLS

Membership of an environmental scheme such as HLS or ELSis not a pre-requisite for taking action though. Simplemeasures such as marking nests, if they can be found inthe sugar beet crop, and avoiding spraying those areasduring the important nesting period of late March to lateApril, will markedly increase their chances of survival.Similarly, avoiding nests when inter-row hoeing will help.Of course, simply by being beet growers, we are alreadydoing a lot to help these birds: sugar beet being a spring-sown crop for which large areas of fields are bare, providingan ideal nesting habitat.

Although this article has concentrated on just one BAPspecies, there are currently 1149 species in the UK alone thatrequire conservation measures, the most needy of thosebeing targeted by various schemes such as HLS mentioned

HEATHLAND OPTIONS (in East Anglia) HLS code

Maintenance of lowland heathland HO1

Restoration of lowland heathland onneglected sites

HO2

Restoration of forestry areas to lowlandheathland

HO3

Creation of lowland heathland from arable orimproved grassland

HO4

Creation of lowland heathland on workedmineral sites

HO5

Weed beet and bolter control

British Sugar offer a service to growers to find a contractor in your area toremove weed beet and bolters from sugar beet crops.

Call the helpdesk on 0870 2402314

W

remove weed beet and bolters from sugar beet crops.British Sugar of

eed beet andWWe

remove weed beet and bolters from sugar beet crops.fer a service to groofff

eed beet and bolter control

remove weed beet and bolters from sugar beet crops.fer a service to growers to find a contractor in your area to

eed beet and bolter control

remove weed beet and bolters from sugar beet crops.fer a service to growers to find a contractor in your area tofer a service to growers to find a contractor in your area to

Call the helpdesk on Call the helpdesk on 0870 2402314Call the helpdesk on 0870 2402314

13/2/55/18



fertilisation of sugar beet, Magnesia-Kainit® is a naturallyoccurring fertiliser which is commonly applied in autumn.Containing approximately 11% potash (K2O), 5% magnesium(MgO), 27% sodium (Na2O) and 10% sulphur (SO3). Magnesia-Kainit® also contains a range of trace elements. Unlikemagnesium from oxide sources, the magnesium is derivedfrom kieserite and is therefore totally soluble and availableat all pH levels, being readily taken up when the crop needs it.

“We have used Magnesia-Kainit® for as long as I canremember and my view is that if something works, thenwhy change it? It is a well-balanced and competitively-pricedfertiliser, so we buy about 100 tonnes every year for use on our130 ha of sugar beet,” said Rupert.

“Most farmers wouldn’t consider growing sugar beet on someof the land that we have here,” said Rupert Brown. “To obtainan acceptable return from sugar beet we have to maximiseyields because it’s valued at a limited price per tonne,” Rupertexplained. “The key is to ensure that the management of thecrop and the inputs we use are exactly right at every stagethroughout the season. That encompasses everything fromhow we deal with residues from the previous crop, tocultivations, seedbed fertilisation, drilling, crop protection andharvesting.

“Being a member of the Bury Beet Group is vital to achievingour objectives. It includes around 25 local farms operatingunder a single 160,000-tonne contract, which allows memberfarms to lift sugar beet when it is most appropriate to theirtype of land. Joining the group has enabled a five-foldincrease in the area of sugar beet we produce, because ourtonnage is generally out of the ground by the end of October.We are then able to establish a following crop of winter wheaton our heavy land. Were we not part of the group, then wewould have to spread our own deliveries throughout theseason, which would limit the area we could grow.

“Eight years ago, we had an 1800-tonne contract. Since then,we have gained a greater understanding of how the crop canfight against blackgrass, which has become a never-endingbattle – I can’t think of any other problem on the same scale.

“Crop rotation is one of the main ways we have been able tostay on top of the problem. Increasing our acreage of sugarbeet has been critical in terms of cultural control. Significantimprovements in breeding have led to much-improvedvarieties and increased our ability to grow larger tonnages, sothe crop has become much more important. Our contract hasnow increased to 10,500 tonnes.

“We like sugar beet, but it can be difficult to establish a goodfollowing crop of winter wheat. A key factor in being able toincrease our sugar beet area has been to move away fromploughing. Incorporating straw for the last 20 years has led toa major improvement in soil structure, to the point where thetop layer is an almost compost-like tilth which is particularlywell-suited for sugar beet and oilseed rape. Our cultivationscontinue to be geared toward this form of tillage and wedo not plough any of our land.”

The role of fertiliserIn preparation for sugar beet, wheat stubble receives750 kg/ha of Magnesia-Kainit®. Most often used in the

A D V E R T O R I A L

Sugar beet successdefies all oddsDespite the challenge of growing sugar beet on heavy clay loams, John Brown & Sons’ Church Farm recentlycollected yet another award for its achievement. The 850 ha farm, at Hawstead near Bury St. Edmunds, hasincreased its acreage of this valuable crop more than five-fold in just eight years, resulting in significantfinancial and agronomic benefits.

Rupert Brown grows 130 ha of sugar beet.



generally performs well on our land sowe aim to average 80 t/ha. We’re notquite there yet, because the last twoextreme seasons have been very difficult.The very dry 2011 season reduced theeffectiveness of agrochemicals andyields, while 2012 was cold and wet,which restricted the crop’s ability toperform to its full potential.”

“Adverse weather has also had majorimplications in terms of our ability to liftsugar beet and establish the followingcrop. In 2011 we had finished liftingby 16th October and were able to drillour full acreage of winter wheat,whereas at the end of 2012 about 25%of our sugar beet was still in the ground.The soil has remained waterlogged wellinto the New Year and our contractor’ssix-row self-propelled harvesters werenot able to finish lifting until the end of

January. That will mean an increased area of spring crops andalthough we will be growing the same acreage of sugar beetin 2013, hopefully it will be a much easier year.”

Because Magnesia-Kainit® is a largely unprocessed granularfertiliser, Bunn also supplies Kainitplus range, which is appliedat either 750 kg/ha or 600 kg/ha, topped up with 125 kg/haMuriate of Potash (MOP) and/or Triple Superphosphate (TSP).These two products combine economy with the ability tofortify the fertiliser with potash and phosphate in caseswhere soil test results demand it and organic manures arenot available, while Boron can be added to guard againstheart-rot in sugar beet.

A total of 120 kg/ha of liquid nitrogen is applied to sugar beet.Half is applied to cultivated land prior to drilling. Theremaining application takes place before the crop emerges,to avoid scorching the tender young leaves. Splitting thedose may not be strictly necessary but Rupert believes that itreduces the risk of nitrogen loss in the event of wet weatherfollowing a single application.

Every year, the Browns enter the South Suffolk CropsCompetition. In 2012, the family won the ‘Best field ofSugar Beet’ category. The crop was judged by Philip Reeveof British Sugar in July, which gives an idea of how good itlooked at that time.

High rainfall throughout most of 2012 meant that thecrop was never short of water, but reduced sunlightultimately prevented it from fulfilling its full potentialand was compounded by one of thewettest autumns on record, whichmade harvesting difficult, as Rupertexplains.

“First lift took place on our lightestland on 20th September and produced61 t/ha, which was disappointingcompared with what we wouldnormally hope to achieve but notsurprising in view of the terribleweather we had experienced rightfrom the time of drilling. Our second liftachieved 86 tonnes/ha, which was animprovement, while the third liftachieved 96 t/ha.”

“British Sugar’s Target 70’ campaignencourages growers to achieve yieldsof more than 70 t/ha, but sugar beet

Sugar beet being harvested on John Brown & Sons’ farm in Suffolk during January 2013 (and below).

About the farm

Rupert Brown’s grandfather purchased land atHardwick in 1969 and started farming there on arelatively small scale. Rupert’s father, Christopher,subsequently developed the family farming business,which has continued to increase in size to its current850 ha. Sugar beet accounts for 140 ha, a similar areais into oilseed rape, while winter wheat is producedon 500 ha, the remaining area being allocated topasture and diversification projects, including soilextraction.

John Brown & Sons have won numerous farming awards,notably the Suffolk Farm Business Competition’s KingGeorge the Sixth Memorial Challenge Cup, presented tothe Best Large Farm over 501 ha, for three consecutiveyears. In 2012 the business won the ‘Best Arable Crop’Award for its sugar beet.



news

J Riley Agri are delighted to announce thesale of the first five-wheel Vervaet HydroTrike XL in the UK equipped as a sugar beetchaser. The multifunctional machine ispart of an order from Lincolnshire-basedsugar beet specialists M&J Haulage Ltdwho have also purchased a brand newVervaet Beet Eater 625 harvester for thisyear’s campaign.

Vervaet produced the first Hydro Trike in1990 for slurry handling contractors. Theconcept was right from day one and thelatest generation is the result of theconstant improvement and developmenttypical of Vervaet products.

An extremely versatile machine, other usestypically include as a self-propelled slurryspreader, with a 19,000-litre capacity tankavailable for the Hydro Trike XL, and as aself-propelled muck spreader.

Also produced as the standard three-wheelHydro Trike, the five-wheel XL versionbenefits from increased load carrying capacity. An additionalextending-axle allows the machine’s weight to be evenly spreadover a wide area to minimise soil damage with only one wheelper track. For transport this is retracted, and top road speed isan impressive 40 kph.

Power comes from an economical DAF Paccar engine whichproduces 465 hp at just 1400 rpm. When maximum power is notrequired the machine operates at just 1250 rpm, reducing fuelusage.

M&J Haulage, who will lift around 10,000 acres of beet thisyear, are already well accustomed to Vervaet products, as MarkPopplewell explains.

“We’ve run Vervaets for as long as we’ve lifted beet and arecurrently running three Beet Eater 617s with the new 625 comingfor this season too. I’m over the moon with them, I wouldn’t haveanything else.”

“The service and back-up we’ve received from Rileys is second tonone, there’s nothing to touch it – it’s absolutely spot on. I’ve also

got a good relationship with the Vervaetbrothers, so the trike was a logical choice.”

M & J Haulage’s Hydro Trike XL will be fittedwith a purpose-built Panien chaser bodywith a capacity of 25-tonnes. Emptied by afloor trace, the rear of the body can beraised hydraulically allowing beet to beheaped to an impressive height.

“I like to be at the forefront of the latesttechnology. One of the main reasons forbuying the trike was the heap it will makefor our self-propelled cleaner-loader – veryhigh with more beet in a lesser length, andwith no ruts,” explains Mark.

“In a very wet season like last year althoughthe harvesters could travel the trailers werethe problem. With the 625 and trike we willhave a combination which should go at anytime without making a mess.”

Contact: J Riley Beet Harvesters (UK) Ltd –01603 262526

First Vervaet Hydro Trike XLbeet chaser sold in the UK

Equipped with a 25-tonne capacity Panien chaser body, the Vervaet Hydro Trike XL is well-matched to the industry-leading Vervaet Beet Eater 625 harvester.

With an additional extending-axle the five-wheel Hydro Trike XL spreads its weight over itsfull width, minimising soil damage and leaving the field level.



newsGrowHow UK launches new season pricesand announces new finance scheme

GrowHow UK, Britain’s only manufacturer of nitrate fertilisers,has launched its 2013/14 fertiliser market with initial pricessome 10 per cent below last season and has announcedsupport for a new finance scheme called GROWPLAN operatedby Hitachi Capital.

“The early launch of our new season reflects activities acrossthe rest of Europe,” says Ken Bowler, GrowHow’s MarketingManager.” A challenging past season with reduced cropplanting and a late spring has put pressure on the market toredress the shift in the supply:demand balance. Our new pricesreflect this.

“While fertiliser prices are reduced, grain markets remainpositive and so the potential return from crop nutrients isparticularly attractive. Thus early season purchases offer thechance to lock in margin and mitigate risk.”

GrowHow, recognising the cash flow challenges facing manygrowers, has appointed Hitachi Capital as a finance partnerto operate a new scheme called GROWPLAN that will providefinancial solutions for farmers looking to take advantage ofearly season prices.

Nemgenix Pty Ltd, an international agricultural biotechnology company developing new technologies for the control of plantparasitic nematodes and aphids, and SESVanderHave, a leading sugar beet breeding and marketing company, today announcedtheir collaboration to develop a novel nematode resistant trait for sugar beet to address the needs for a long-term resistancestrategy to beet cyst nematodes (BCN).

“Nematodes are devastating root pathogens which can cause considerablelosses to the sugar beet crop,” said Marc Lefebvre, Biotechnology Managerof SESVanderHave. “We are delighted to be working with Nemgenix,who are leaders in the field of plant nematology and have considerableexperience in the research and development of biotechnology-mediatedcrop traits. This collaboration is part of SESVanderHave’s strategy to developinnovative technologies to bring new, competitive beet varieties to thosemarkets that are facing increasing issues with BCN. A main goal forSESVanderHave in developing a biotechnology-mediated BCN resistancetrait with Nemgenix is to offer to sugar beet farmers a long term and lastingsolution to BCN infestation.”

Dr. Sean Hird, Chief Executive Officer of Nemgenix said: “This collaborationmarks another important step in the emergence of Nemgenix as thebiotechnology partner of choice for those looking to develop nematoderesistance traits in field crops. SESVanderHave’s commitment to innovationand their ability to rapidly introduce and develop new traits for the sugarbeet markets makes them an ideal partner for us.”

Professor Michael Jones, Chief Scientific Officer of Nemgenix said: “We havedeveloped nematode resistance in a range of crops. The collaboration withSESVanderHave nicely complements our in-house programmes and enablesus to work with the leading innovators in sugar beet R&D.”

© SESVanderHave



news

The new 2013 model Holmer Terra Dos T3 Eco self-propelledsugar beet harvester will be shown on the Standen-Reflexstand, number 3-M-300, at Cereals 2013.

Latest updates boost power, economy and output as thecompany’s newest technology elements are applied to thepopular Terra Dos T3 harvester:

■ New MAN D2676 LE SCR 520ps power unit with AdBluetechnology for increased power and improved economy

■ New Michelin Ultraflex technology with front IF 800/70R32tyres running at just 1.5 bar, together with ‘dog leg’ chassistechnology for even less soil compaction

■ KOS-KO Combi topper, high performance defoliation,switchable from the cab between integrated (mulch), andspreader topping, now available with special equipmentfor ‘full fat’ high fen tops

■ DynaCut high-speed scalpers for accurate ‘whole-beet’crowning; these achieved best performance at the BeetEurope 2012 sugar beet harvesting demonstration

■ Award winning HR walking shares featuring Holmer’sunique, Independent Row Depth control technology, withthe capacity for up to 20% greater output

■ New 900 mm wide intake web with as much as 40% morecapacity

No other harvester canmatch these technolog -ical advances which havemade the Holmer brandso popular around theworld. But technologyonly has value if itsbenefits are tangible.Harvesting efficiently iswhat all this technologyis about; the provenresults are the wayfieldsare left level post-harvest, the lower lossesthrough topping, liftingand handling efficienciesleading to greater cropretention, quality andincreased grower profits.

Best in class reliabilityand economy, coupledto superb driver layoutand ergonomics, makeHolmer the operator’s

choice as a place to sit for more than five months of the year.It’s the machine that contractors never regret choosing; aninvestment that brings pleasant surprises and satisfiedcustomers.

The brand new factory-fresh display Holmer at Cereals 2013,one of several new models in the UK for the 2013/2014campaign, has been sold to Wroxham Home Farms, HomeFarm, Wroxham, Norwich, Norfolk.

In the UK with more than 60 harvesters now sold, sales, serviceand parts for Holmer products is provided by Standen-Reflexof Ely, Cambridgeshire.

It’s not too late to order your new Holmer for 2013, butit’s getting close!

Call now to secure the very best machine for your business,and join the leaders in the industry.

Contact: Alex Mathias, UK Sales Manager –(07836) 541559/(01353) 666200

Holmer Terra Dos T3 Ecoat Cereals 2013



news

On 28th May, representatives of theEuropean sugar industry met in Wernigerode,(Harz) Germany, to hear the latest thoughtson the future of the EU beet sugar industry.Organised by the Strube seed breedingcompany, delegates were given a valuableinsight into the likely outcome of the currentdetermination of the EU Sugar Regime, dueto come into force in October 2015.

Jørn Dalby, (President of CIBE, theInternational Confederation of EuropeanBeet Growers), Dr. Thomas Kirchberg(Executive Board of Südzucker AG), GabySymonds (EU Sugar Purchasing Manager,Nestlé Deutschland AG) and Dr. AxelSchechert (sugar beet breeder, StrubeResearch) represented the various viewpointsheld by those involved in the sugar market.

“As breeders we are used to looking to the future, catering tomarket needs by providing new, future-oriented varieties”, saysManaging Director Sina Isabel Strube. “This international meeting

brings the European world of sugar together and throws light onthe opportunities and challenges facing sugar in Europe.”

This holistic approach to the sugar market reform affects severalareas: from breeding and from beet growers through to the sugar

processing industry and to consumers.Brussels is considering extending the quotasystem. Whether sugar beet continues to beincreasingly consumed in European house -holds as has been the case previously oftenremains a question of business and politics.

Following the presentations, the groupmembers were given a guided tour of theSchlanstedt research facility, in the former EastGerman Republic. The Strube family returnedto their ancestral home following reunificationin 1992 and have rebuilt the breeding andresearch facilities since then. Dr. HermannStrube, fourth generation family member andcurrent head of the organisation, welcomedthe visitors and Dr. Axel Schechert explainedthe complex process of sugar beet seedproduction. Dr. Elena Orsini explained theapplication of molecular markers in the genetransfer process and how this contributes to arapid uptake of new varietal traits.

Employing 350 people wordwide, and selling170 varieties in 35 countries, Strube is oneof the world’s leading seed breeders in maize,sunflowers, wheat and sugar beet.

Strube brings the European world of sugar together

The future of sugar in Europe

Strube research and seed processing at Schlanstedt.

UK agent for Strube, Richard Powell (centre left), examines the mobile tarehouse sugar beetharvester used to process around 500 trial plots per day.


BURY ST. EDMUNDS FACTORY

factory news


Factory maintenance

This off-season period for Bury factory is no different to any other, in that large parts ofthe factory are dismantled through the summer months, inspected, repaired and newequipment installed.

There are three major projects being completed this year. Such major projects are classedas capital investments and go through a robust process all the way to British Sugar’sparent company, ABF for approval. The first of these projects is to completely replacethe raw centrifuges. This area of the sugar end has been running on some of the oldestequipment in the factory, resulting in breakdowns and a restriction on throughput. The rawcentrifuges spin the second ‘boilings’ from the crystallisation process and are a critical partof the factory. (Pic. 1). A complete new station has been built on a very tight timescalebetween campaign end and juice run start at the beginning of April. All was completed ontime and, following full commissioning, will deliver an increase in plant utilisation andenergy efficiency.

The second major area of non-routine maintenance has been the ten year service on the gasturbine engine - the main component of the combined heat and power boiler house atBury. Three days after the campaign ended, this ‘jet engine’ was taken out and packed in aspecially built container for its journey to mainland Europe for the service, which takesseveral months to complete. The factory needs to operate in this time to process campaignjuice into sugar (juice run), so a replacement ‘loan jet engine’ from the manufacturersGeneral Electric is installed into the Boiler house. Once the juice run is complete, the wholeprocess is reversed and our own engine is reinstalled ready for campaign, fully tested andready to run for another ten years. (Pic. 2).

The third major project is a completely new beet hopper. This project has a longer time spancompared to the other two projects, as it is not needed until the start of next campaign.The original beet hopper, which takes the supply of beet from the flat pad and cleaninggantry to the slicing machines is again many years old and has been deteriorating. This isan essential replacement to ensure the integrity of this section of the factory. The old beethopper will be cut up inside the building, before the new steel hopper is rebuilt piece bypiece. This will be an improved design assisting in delivering whole beet to the slicermachines giving improved slice quality. (Pic. 3).

School Farm and Country Fair

On 25th April, Bury factory agriculture team supported this excellent event in the foodexperience area, organised and run by many Suffolk farmers. Several thousand schoolchildren attended the event. On this day a sugar factory returned to Ipswich in the form ofa model. This was a ‘real hit’ with the children as they could simulate various factoryoperations (Pic. 4). Many thanks to the organising committee for inviting British Sugar toattend, and especially to John Taylor for selling the idea to me and for all his support. Thisis an exceptionally inspired event which helps children understand where their food comesfrom.

2012 Crop progress

After an initial promising drilling period, albeit later than the last few years due to the verywet spring, the top layer of the seedbed dried out very quickly. The crop has had a difficultstart after drilling as some fields have poor establishment and two periods of a significantwind blow have caused some unfortunate cases of double re-drilling. At the time of writing,investigations by the BBRO continue into the poor establishment problems. I hope we getfavourable weather conditions from now on to help maximise crop growth.

LimeX70 has again sold out at Bury following a high demand from growers. More productwas left on site this year at campaign end, mainly due to the wet start to the year. All thisproduct had been delivered by mid-spring. Around 40,000 tonnes from Wissington will alsobe used by Bury growers. The Bury Agricultural Team are available to support all growersthroughout the season and will be present on both days at Cereals 2013; I look forward tomeeting many of our growers.

Pic. 1 – Raw centrigue.

Pic. 2 – Jet engine.

Pic. 4 – School Farm and Country Fair.Dan DownsAgricultural Business Manager

Pic. 3 – Beet Hopper building with Scaffold -ing erected to demolition and rebuild.


CANTLEY FACTORY


2012 Crop progress

Following two early drillingseasons, 2013 proved a realchallenge on timing. Seedbedpreparation was very difficultin many fields, as winter leftthe soil very wet. Primarycultivations had been delayedand patience was necessary tocreate decent seedbeds; inmost cases this was achieved.The majority of drilling tookplace in the second half ofMarch or early April, but theprotracted cold conditions,some capping and wind blowthat followed took their tollon plants and led to a gappiercrop than we have seen forseveral years.

Much has been discussedabout the reasons for the poorestablishment, but at this time it is difficult to identify anyspecific reasons beyond the poor spring weather whichcould have contributed. Overall the Cantley catchment areahas not suffered too badly, though that’s no comfortto those with a poor stand or who have had to re-drill.Although never able to yield as well as a prefect plant stand,reduced plant population and re-drilled beet crops do havea remarkable capacity to compensate and still yield well,so attention to detail with weed control and fungicideapplications are well worth the effort.

Weed control is always difficult when cold conditions prevailfor a long period, beet grow slowly whilst some weedsdevelop quicker and get ahead of the beet. Residuals eitherpre- or post-emergence have provided a wider window forpost emergence applications, but some crops do look veryweedy. Here’s hoping by the time you read this the weatherhas improved and the crop is looking much further forwardand less weedy.

BBRO 4x4 yield initiative

The initiative to continually drive for better yield is no lessvalid in a challenging year like this. Small differences in theseedbed preparation, depth of drilling, etc. can provesignificant to the outcome. Reflecting on what made thedifference can be the catalyst for improvement and thelonger term upward trend in each grower’s yield. YourBritish Sugar area manager will be pleased to help andensure you have access to the very latest thinking andexpert advice.

Cantley factory

We also have some significant capital work underway toreduce energy consumption and provide more flexibilityaround juice tank use to assist daily throughput. Thework is being managed by a dedicated team to ensure itis delivered on time, safely and to specification, withoutcompromising our normal maintenance programme whichis progressing to schedule.

Whole beet delivery

With two years under our belt, harvester operators are welltuned in to the new contract requirements. Improvementand, hopefully, innovation in flail and topping equipmentdesign will continue to deliver still more, as will attention todetail resetting the topper when moving fields.

Co-products

Landscape 20 topsoil, and LimeX45 are both available toorder, call your area manager for details. Visit our websitewww.britishsugar.co.uk/Products-and-services.aspx for moredetails.

Finally, I would like to wish you all a good growing seasonand successful campaign.

John EmersonAgricultural Business Manager


NEWARK FACTORY

factory news


pipework for our evaporator project was also finished. Highlevel vapour pipework is still being completed and newvapour isolation valves have been installed.

All condensate lines and raw-juice heaters have beencompleted on the project. The commissioning of the newevaporators has all been planned and will be taking placeduring the summer in readiness for a September campaignstart, whenever it may be in that month.

Co-products

Half of last year’ s Newark LimeX production has now beensold and despatched, with around 25,000t left to fulfilcustomers’ needs during the summer and post OSR/cerealharvest. With the benefits of the product for soil conditioning,together with its fertiliser value, we expect demand to, onceagain, be high, particularly after last year’s adverse weather’simpacts and reduced liming as a result.

We have just started emptying our soil settling pond of theexpected 70,000 t of soil, in readiness for next campaign. Therecent drier weather has assisted us in conditioning andscreening ‘Topsoil’ for sale, with some 17,000 t having alreadyleft site.

Newark Beet at 6TL –13/5/13.

With mid-May upon us, the 7 mm of rainfall over the last twodays has been most welcome for a number of very dry soils aswe have only received (or had) 5mm of rain at the factorythroughout April.

Crop

After a very cold March and snow during the last weekend ofthe month, a start to drilling at Newark was made over theEaster weekend. The bulk of our crop went in between3rd-12th April. The vast majority of crops that were drilledinto moisture have produced good plant stands. There aresome drier fields, where again the old chestnut of ‘somestronger beet rows’ can be seen. This is due to either somedrill coulters being less worn, or they were drilling a bitdeeper. It again highlights the true benefit of care andattention at drilling and in particular drilling depth. Thosegrowers who have followed BBRO recommendationsregarding sowing rate have seen better plant stands as aresult.

Around 10% of our Newark crop, often as patches in fieldsthen had to wait for these mid-May rains, whilst our mostforward crops are now at the 6-8 true leaf stage. To-date lessthan 1% of the Newark crop has been re-drilled, mainly as aresult of the strong winds and wind-blow damage of recentweeks.

With the dry weather since drilling, too many growers haveagain delayed their second nitrogen application too long,applied nitrogen is essential for rapid canopy expansion. Theyare now playing ‘catch-up’ after the rain of the last two days.Forward crops are now moving rapidly and hopefully thesteerage hoes will be out in those fields with problem weed-beet patches that can already be seen and need controlling.

The question as always will be, how much of the sugar beetcrop will be fully met across the rows by the Lincolnshire Show– around the longest day – as 60% of the potential solarradiation a beet crop can receive, will have gone by then?

Factory

Juice refining kicked off during the first week of May, aftersugar-end maintenance was completed. The remaining

High-level vapour pipework. Vapour-isolation valve installation.

David DunningAgricultural Business Manager


WISSINGTON FACTORY


Mark CullodenAgricultural Business Manager

Drilling of the 2013 Wissington cropcommenced during the first week ofMarch. However, the unseasonablycold and wet weather meant thatmuch of the drilling was delayed untilwell into April, to allow the soiltemperatures and seedbed conditionsto improve. After the very wetwinter, soil preparations have beenparticularly challenging. The heavyrainfall over the winter months hasresulted in some of the land going very‘tight’ and although on the surfaceseedbeds looked good, we have seensome signs of compaction under thesurface layer.

As I am sure you are aware, we haveseen varying levels of crop emergenceacross the factory area. Some crops are looking very goodwith plant populations exceeding 100,000 plants/ha and, atthe time of writing (mid-May), we still have plants emergingon the more challenging soil types. Beet seedlings havehad plenty to deal with: high winds, frost and some pestdamage, all of which have led to a proportion of re-drillingwithin the factory area. Having had a prolonged period ofdry weather from the end of March to the middle of May,half an inch of rain in the last few days has been verywelcome. This has helped to stimulate germination of theremaining seeds that were sat in dry soil. A warm spell isnow required to get the crop meeting across the rows asquickly as possible.

Weed control in some fields has been particularlychallenging given the variation in plant size, the windand the earlier frosts. It is important that growers andagronomists are receiving the latest agronomy newsfrom the BBRO. If you are not signedup to the BBRO advisory bulletinthen please contact your area managerwho will make the arrangementsfor you.

Our soil sampling team will shortly bestarting this season’s testing. We nowoffer the following range of services:pH testing, nutrient analysis, BCN andnow testing for free-living nematode.Ever-increasing fertiliser input costs, and also cross-compliance requirements, make the nutrient analysis servicea must for many growers. Our own LimeX 70 product is idealfor pH correction as it also has additional nutrient value.Please contact your area manager if you would like todiscuss your testing requirements and the fertiliser value

in our LimeX products. There is still a small amount ofavailability so please order soon.

The factory commenced this year’s juice refining operationon the 10th May and is currently processing over 3,000tonnes of thick juice per day. Factory maintenance isprogressing well in preparation for the 2013/14 campaign. Inaddition to normal factory maintenance, there are projectsrunning to improve evaporator/diffuser reliability and toincrease the capacity of the precipitated calcium carbonateplant (used to enhance juice filtering).

Once again we had excellent attendance at the WissingtonBBRO Open Day which was held at MHS Farms, Thorneyon the 14th of May. Over 360 growers attended the eventwhich is designed to transfer the most up-to-date technicalinformation in relation to growing the beet crop. I wouldlike to thank Mr. Michael Sly and his team, who hosted thisfor helping make the event such a success.


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

• Special recommendation for AYPR Rhizomania

• Double rhizo resistance – Rz1 + Rz2

• High yield outside of infestation – 99.2%

• Very high sugar content – 18.73%

• Overcome Rhizomania with Sandra KWSData Source: BBRO Sugar Beet Recommended List 2014

Hate Rhizomania - Love Sandra!

13/2/BC/19


Download - BRITISH sugar beet review - Home - BBRO · BRITISH sugar beet review ... Advanced Sugar Beet Technology 53 Eric Ober of Rothamsted Reseaannounces arch new course aimed at providing

Top Related