british sugar beet review - bbrobbro.co.uk/media/1085/54075-beet-review-vol83-no3.pdf · british...

BRITISHsugar beet review

AUTUMN 2015 ■ volume 83 no. 3

www.beetreview.co.uk

54075-Beet Review Vol83 No3 4thPrf_- 16/09/2015 12:13 Page A

15/2/IFC/01

SEEDING THE FUTURE

SINCE 1856

LEESHA KWS Rhizo resistant and BCN tolerant

Very high yields outside of infestation – 101.9 %*

Very high sugar content – 18.59 %*

* 2016 BBRO Recommended & Descriptive List

www.kws-uk.com

Sweet and strong against nematodes: it’s all in the seed.

15/3/IFC/01

54075-Beet Review Vol83 No3 4thPrf_- 16/09/2015 12:13 Page B

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

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

editorial office:British Sugar plc,Sugar Way, Peterborough,Cambs, UK, PE2 9AYt: 01733 422278f: 01733 422080e: [email protected]: www.beetreview.co.uk

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

BRITISHsugar beet review

Editor:Paul Simmonds

Production Editor:Denise Woodward

Editorial Committee:

Mike May,Independent Consultant

Dr. Mark Stevens,British Beet ResearchOrganisation

Colin Walters,British Beet Research

Organisation

Stuart Harder,British Beet Research

Organisation

Jonathan Pilbrow,British Sugar plc

Dr. John King,Independent Consultant

contents

BASIS / FACTSCP/43853/1516/g

2 CPD points (1CP, 1E)

NRoSONO461497f

2 CPD points

Industry update from British Sugar, BBRO and NFU 2

BBRO update 30

News 31

Factory news 32

NFU/British Sugar Logistics Working Group update 4By Andrew Dear, Jim Ovey and Tim Young

Isoglucose 7By Dr. Andrew Francis

Remember ‘Safe stop’ – your life may depend on it 10By Alastair Mitchell

USA Sugar Beet Conference Report –Latest sugar beet news from USA 12By Dr. Philip Draycott

Sugar Industry Programme 15By Robyn Cooper

The Halfmanns 20By Laura Rutherford

Sugar beet harvester survey 2015 22By Nick Wigdahl

Weed control developments on the Continent 23By Mike May

2015 is looking good for Cornerways 29By Andrew MacKay

regulars

features

AUTUMN 2015 ■ volume 83 no. 3 BRITISH sugar beet review 1

Cover picture courtesy of Farming Photography

Winter Technical Updates 2016The BBRO can confirm a new programme of Winter Technical Updateswith a meeting scheduled for each of the four factory areas. Pleaseadd these dates to your diary and more information about the format,content and venues will be announced later.

■ 2nd February 2016 – Bury St Edmunds Factory area

■ 3rd February 2016 – Cantley Factory area

■ 4th February 2016 – Wissington Factory area

■ 5th February 2016 – Newark Factory area

54075-Beet Review Vol83 No3 4thPrf_- 16/09/2015 12:14 Page 1

2 BRITISH sugar beet review AUTUMN 2015 ■ volume 83 no. 3

Industry update from British Sugar,

As we start the 2015/16 campaign I have been reflectingon last season and the fantastic yields and factoryperformances we jointly archived as an industry.

As we know, regime reform is creating an increasinglycompetitive environment where we all have our part to playin facing up to those challenges. We, at British Sugar, needto ensure we have high performing, reliable factories withexcellent throughputs as that is key to cost-effective beetprocessing, The best way our growers can improve ourindustry’s competitiveness is to continue to drive for evenhigher sugar beet yields. It has to be said that the trackrecord of increasing yields, that growers have achieved, overthe years is really impressive. Sugar beet yields haveincreased by more than 60% over the last 30 years and morerecently it has been particularly impressive with five recordcrops in the last seven years! Clearly there are numerouscontributions to this excellent performance, includinggenetics, seed treatments, autumn fungicides and innovativecontract arrangements such as the whole beet samplingagreement but without the evident attention to detail fromour growers and the focused R&D from the BBRO, thisperformance would not have occurred. In fact It is a credit tothe whole industry, as similar yield advancement cannot beseen in any other broadacre UK crop, and is an excellentexample of how we can work together to improve ourcompetitiveness. The challenge now is how can we driveyield increases even higher and faster?

The work the BBRO does, with regard to field trials andtechnical knowledge exchange, is critical to our ongoingjoint objective of yield advancement. When consideringthe R&D expenditure that growers and British Sugar jointlyfund via the BBRO, the key questions are, where shouldwe prioritise our efforts and which R&D areas will deliverthe biggest return for our joint investment? I know ColinMacEwan and the BBRO team are very much focused onanswering those questions to ensure we continue thecurrent increasing yield trend and ‘raise the bar’ evenfurther.

With the start of the 2015/16 campaign, as always, efficientharvesting, storage and delivery are critical to ensuring wecapture as much yield from the field as we can and minimiseany loses. Please don’t hesitate to contact your British Sugararea manager or a member of the BBRO team if you requireany help or advice during this campaign.

As I mentioned at the start of this update, collectively as anindustry we are facing increasing competitive challengesbut I am confident we can build on our excellent trackrecord by continuing to work closely together to ensurethere is a successful and sustainable future for both growersand British Sugar.

Best wishes for a successful 2015/16 campaign.

Colm McKayBritish SugarAgriculture Director

During these challenging financial times, it is vital that theBBRO continue to evaluate and deliver new tools andtechnologies to maximise the yield of the crop for bothgrowers and the processor. We have a proven track recordof making a difference and it is imperative that we continueto push the boundaries of productivity to ensure the cropremains competitive.

As part of this process BBRO has appointed a StakeholderBoard to ensure that we keep all work relevant andfocused for the future needs of our industry. This boardrepresents the growers and processor and will hold theBBRO accountable for its programme of work, ensuringimpartiality and independence of its findings and ultimatedelivery. In addition, this Board will help shape the researchand knowledge exchange programme. For example, weare looking at ways of increasing grower engagementand have an exciting plan of events that will be launchednext spring.

Further demonstration sites will be developed providing amore targeted approach to ensure our portfolio of workand latest research outputs can be shared directly with the

grower base. Over the coming months we will be outliningour programme of knowledge exchange and will bestrengthening our team by appointing a KnowledgeExchange (KE) lead who will focus on agronomy; soils, waterand nutrition. This will be the second new addition to theBBRO team following the recent appointment of ChesBroom who is helping to develop the KE structure. Ches willbe known to some of you from her time with Norfolk YFCand Easton & Otley College – we welcome her to the worldof beet!

Alongside the Stakeholder Board a new Technical Board isbeing established. This will oversee all research projects,validating objectives and outcomes via the use of highquality and appropriate science. We are also aware of manyother research projects happening in the agriculturalresearch sector that could have value to the beet crop suchas work on soil, nutrition or water retention. Supporting theBBRO, the Technical Board will help to ensure that we areaware of these studies and potentially utilise the findingsand activities, either from the UK or Europe, that couldfurther enhance the sugar beet crop. This will ensure we areaware of ongoing developments, in addition to the BBRO’score activities, to bring the latest findings directly to the UKindustry to deliver our three core areas of work: cropstability, crop production and harvest and storage.



These days the word ‘Innovation’ seems to crop upeverywhere. For us at the BBRO it is not about doingsomething different, it is about making a difference, addingvalue with purpose. Often without realising, British farmersare already at the forefront of innovation by constantlyevaluating different approaches and systems on their ownland ‘to make that difference’. With this in mind BBRO willbe actively looking for innovation and will assist growers incarrying out their own field-scale research. We are keen toencourage this and would like any farmers undertakingtheir own trials to make contact. Our aim is to add some

scientific rigour providing confidence to the growers inadopting new technology or practices, ensuring that the UKis well positioned within the competitive global marketplace.

Succession planning is vital for all businesses and currentlythe BBRO has four PhD students who are also workingdirectly with the Industry at a practical level to help ensurethe future competitiveness of the UK crop.

Colin MacEwan Head of BBRO

Why do I grow beet? This is a question which I am sure youponder from time to time. The reasons are no doubt veryvaried across the beet grower population ranging from “itfits with my rotation” or “it provides the best margin” to “itis just what we do on this farm”. Whatever the justification,it has to work for your business. Most of you will only haveproduced beet in a highly regulated world with a minimumbeet price and quotas in place, but after the 2016 crop thatall changes and we will all be more exposed to the vagariesof the world market. With threats come opportunities andour role at NFU Sugar going forward will be to strive for acommercial environment where both producer andprocessor can thrive and make a long-term commitment tothe crop. With the current, rather testing market place forsugar that means we have a tricky job on our hands whichwill demand a bit of rolling up of everyone’s sleeves.

So how different can and will things look for the 2017 crop?What are the likely contracting options going forward?The time is now right for that discussion and we want tohear your views and concerns. Many of you will favourmaintaining the tried and tested system where you knowwhat price you will receive before the drill goes in. Others

may prefer a more market-linked option with potentiallygreater gains but carrying higher risk, or even somecombination of the two?

To help you clarify your thinking and to give you theopportunity to suggest new mechanisms for the future weand British Sugar are hosting an Industry event (detailsbelow) for all growers and those who have a contribution tomake to the future of the sector in the UK.

We will kick off the event with a range of shortpresentations from growers, market analysts and ourEuropean colleagues. This will be followed by the mostsignificant part of the morning, which is a panel andaudience interactive session, designed to give you theopportunity to voice your ideas for the future.

Because we want to get this right, we will run a series offollow-up events of a more targeted nature for those whowant to contribute further.

So, take this opportunity to ensure you have a beet sectorfit for your purpose going forward. See you on Friday 13thNovember!

Pamela J. ForbesNFU Chief Sugar Adviser

GROWING BEET AFTER QUOTAS –THE OPTIONSAn Industry Event

Friday 13th November, 2015 – 10:00-12:30East of England Showground, Peterborough, PE2 6XE

To register your attendance please email [email protected] orcall the NFU Sugar Helpline on 0370 066 1974

BBRO and NFU



NFU/British SugarLogistics WorkingGroup updateIn 2009, the NFU and British Sugar commissioned a report with funding from EEDA (East of England DevelopmentAgency) and EMDA (East Midlands Development Agency) to review sugar beet transport efficiency. The objectivesof the study were: to carry out an efficiency assessment of the current arrangements for sugar beet transport fromgrowers to the four British Sugar processing sites (Wissington, Cantley, Bury St Edmunds and Newark), determinecosts associated with the current operation, identify areas for potential efficiency improvements, and thenrecommend a strategy to improve operational efficiency and reduce associated costs.

By Andrew Dear,Jim Ovey, British Sugar and

Tim Young,NFU Sugar Board Member,

Brown & Co

Many of these recommendations have now been adopted bythe industry and have become an integral way of delivering asteady supply of beet to the factories. As a result of the study,transportation into the four factories looks very different:beet intake opening hours have been extended to includeopening seven days a week at three sites, there is an increaseduse of Maus loaders, and an Industry Haulage Scheme wasconceived which negotiates rates centrally for growers,enabling them to sign up to an ex-farm contract with BritishSugar on an annual basis, and so delivering significantfinancial benefit to growers either directly or indirectly

Whilst the industry has taken big steps forward to adopt theserecommendations, the NFU and British Sugar believed there isstill more to be done to drive efficiencies still further. To thisend, the Logistics Working Group was set-up. The group wasformed in 2014 and comprises threeBritish Sugar staff and three NFUrepresentatives. The group was taskedwith identifying opportunities to improvebeet haulage efficiency by capturing theviews of growers, hauliers and interestedindustry stake holders. The group meetson a regular basis to ensure that weprogress the improvement ideas andsuggestions that have been raised overthe previous six months.

The first objective of the group was toidentify the potential inefficiencies in thecurrent process, which were then sortedand ranked into improvement areas.

Priority was given to those areas where itwas felt most impact could be achieved inthe 2015-16 campaign.

Initially, the group identified five key areas to focus itsattentions:

■ communication

■ vehicle capacity

■ back-loading

■ harvest and haulage co-ordination

■ factory turnaround/beet supply

CommunicationIt soon became apparent that any breakdown or mis-communication along the beet supply chain quickly resulted ininefficiency. This chain includes growers, harvesters, hauliers,cleaner loaders and the factory. To ensure that all the areas

Logistics Working Group.


The Holmer exxact product range offers a beet harvester to suit all conditions.

Tank sizes from 12 ton to 30 ton6, 9 or 12 row lifting!

Demo machines now available, call for more detailsT4 -40

Terra Felis 2 LightTraxx

T4 -30

For more information contact: Matt Carse T 01354 660552 E: [email protected]

Agrifac UK, 4 Thorby Avenue, March, Cambridgeshire, PE15 0AZ

Experience the new ‘EasyLift’ fully automatic depth control system, independantly adjusting to each row

EasyLiftThe new ease of lifting operation.

15/3/5/02



Back loading and factory turnaroundThe objective is to reduce the level of empty running as far aspracticably possible, because this will increase fleet efficiency,provided excessive waiting times for loading are avoided.

■ improved turnaround times for all bulk loaded vehicles atall sites

■ each site has reviewed current practice when turninground vehicles on any co-products, and areas ofinefficiency have been identified and removed wherepractically possible. These improvements should impacton both campaign and out-of-campaign vehicleturnaround times

■ increased proportion of beet vehicles back hauling co-product

■ a review of the current process of moving co-productsaway from British Sugar sites is underway with a viewto generating a system to increase the volume of backloading on beet vehicles

Vehicle capacityThe initial observations of the Logistic Working Group werethat there is some opportunity in looking at the capacity ofvehicles delivering to the sites. In order to understand fully thelost potential, we will analyse the current fleet to ascertainthe size of the opportunity. We will then be able to makerecommendations as to how we start to remove thisinefficiency.

The joint working group has identified a range of practicalsolutions for implementation in the 2015-16 campaign to:

■ increase fleet efficiencies

■ increase understanding of the challenges in harvesting,loading and transport fleets

■ test the offering of more flexibility to our hauliers

Longer-term projects are being developed and we willcontinue to seek and provide feedback from all of ourindustry stakeholders.

SUMMARY

of potential failure were identified, the group consultedgrowers and hauliers throughout this process. Theconsultation took the form of factory forum meetings whichwere held in March 2015, individual grower and hauliermeetings, and feedback from the Industry Haulage SchemeSurvey, which is conducted on an annual basis after thecampaign has finished. From these sessions, we have beenable to identify several areas of improvement that we willbe able to implement in the 2015/16 campaign.

The outputs from these sessions have been divided into factory-based communication issues and central communication-basedissues. British Sugar are managing the resolution of these.Where we have identified ‘quick wins’ in the process, they willbe implemented this year. The more capital- and resource-hungry projects will be implemented at a later date, havingbeen prioritised appropriately by the Logistics Working Group.By the very nature and complexity of these suggestions theywill take longer to resolve.

The list below is a snapshot of some of the communicationchanges that will be adopted for the 2015/16 campaign.

■ texting letter call, in addition to answer phone

■ earlier letter call (10.00 am)

■ predicted letter call for the week made available

■ improved factory newsletters, both daily and weekly

■ improved communication of rejections, over-weights etc.

■ combined haulier/grower handbooks

In addition to the communication work there are several otherprojects and trials (outlined below) that will start in the2015/16 campaign, all aimed at increasing efficiency within thesupply chain.

Harvest and haulage co-ordinationincluding beet supplyThe group identified that an underlying cause of many issueswas a lack of visibility of the hauliers and harvesters. Thecomplexity of co-ordination is great as there are many partiesinvolved and a range of communication techniques used. Thisis by no means a quick fix but the team has committed totrialling technology and systems to increase the visibility andawareness of the fleet in order to avoid delays. This shouldalso deliver a degree of flexibility to hauliers. The workincludes:

■ a pilot study on increased visibility of harvesting, loadingand transportation using GPS tracking

■ a series of harvesters, lorries and cleaner loaders will befitted with GPS trackers to generate data that can beanalysed to determine the current levels of ‘waste’ inthe system

■ a trial of a Flexible Delivery Permit System for beet intakeat Bury and Cantley sites

■ initially, this will be trialled only with hauliers workingon the Industry Haulage Scheme. The system enableshauliers to trade permits with one another on a dailybasis. This gives them more flexibility to take on otherwork, and gives the factory confidence that permits willbe delivered on a daily basis. The system does not giveany favouritism to Industry Haulage Scheme hauliersand will run in tandem with the current letter callsystem

Beet Intake at Newark.



Corn (glucose)syrup

(nearly 100%glucose)

GlucoseFructose

Starch chain

Enzyme (glucoseisomerase) convertsglucose into a fructose +glucose mixture

Enzymes (amylase and glucoamylase) convert starchinto corn syrup (which is nearly100% glucose)

This is isoglucoseor High FructoseCorn Syrup (HFCS)

Also contains somewater

Corn syrup is not as sweetas sugar (sucrose) so mostof the glucose isconverted to fructose

90% 10%

Fig. 1 – Manufacture of isoglucose.

IsoglucoseIsoglucose is an alternative sweetener made from starch (principally from maize). Production in the USA (where itis known as High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)) expanded rapidly in the early 1980s, with its principal use as acheaper sweetener to sugar in soft drinks. This article provides an introduction to how isoglucose is made and theextent of its current use in the EU. It then considers how we can expect the isoglucose market to develop once thecurrent quota is removed in 2017.

ByDr. Andrew Francis,

National Farmers’ Union

fructose content, the sweeter the resulting mixture. The mostwidely used is known as HFCS 55 (55% fructose; 42% glucose;3% other sugars), which is sweeter than sugar and is

The first step in the production of isoglucose is the breakingdown, by hydrolysis, of starch chains by the addition of theenzymes amylase and glucoamylase to produce corn orglucose syrup (Fig. 1). This is not as sweetas typical sugar and some of the glucoseis converted, using an enzyme (glucoseisomerase) into a syrup which is 90%fructose and 10% glucose (HFCS 90).

Isoglucose has separate glucose andfructose molecules that form the syrup.By contrast, sugar (sucrose) consists of aglucose and fructose molecule bondedtogether (Fig. 2).

Isoglucose (HFCS) is a broad term todescribe several common mixes offructose and glucose. The higher the

Glucose Fructose

Isoglucose is a mixture of glucose and fructose

Sugar is sucrose (glucose + fructose molecule)

Sucrose

ISOGLUCOSE SUGAR

Fig. 2 – Difference between isoglucose and sugar (sucrose).



in soft drinks. Since a peak in 2000, consumption (as with allmajor sweeteners) has begun to fall (Fig. 3). This probablyrelates to consumers switching to diet-type drinks and healthconcerns over sugar and similar sweeteners. There have beenclaims that isoglucose has different metabolic effects thansugar, causing increased levels of obesity and diabetes,although others simply blame the growing inactivity of thepopulation.

Isoglucose: The EUCurrently the EU places a production quota on isoglucose(0.67 Mt p.a.), which roughly equates to around 5% of the EUsugar quota of 13.3 Mt. It is used in about 14% of soft drinks.Production is from existing starch factories; no factories inEurope have been constructed solely to produce thesweetener. Only 10% of starch produced becomes isoglucose,with manufacture predominantly from the central and south-eastern countries of Europe (Hungary, Bulgaria and Slovakia;Fig. 4). Belgium is another producer.

The opportunity for growth in isoglucose production isdependent on three major factors: (i) the price of maize as araw material (ii) the EU sugar price (iii) the availability and costof investment capital for building isoglucose factories.

Table 3 shows how attractive isoglucose as an alternativesweetener becomes given changes in the maize price. If maizeis €150/t, cost of production is around €38.00/t more than thecurrent sugar price (EU data for April 2015). However, thisignores the investment capital required to produce moreisoglucose and, overall, points to the product being lesscompetitive than sugar in the current market environment.

On 1st October 2017 production quotas, which include boththose for sugar and isoglucose, will end. It is difficult topredict how the isoglucose market will develop in the yearspost-2017, but the current environment of low EU (and world)sugar prices indicates that isoglucose is more expensive toproduce than sugar. Moreover, any major increase inisoglucose production will require significant investmentcapital, and this is likely to be restrained in a marketwhere sugar is cheaper to purchase. New production willneed to be located in areas of demand (western Europe) as

principally used in soft drinks. It has similar characteristics tohoney (and has been added illegally to ‘stretch’ or to pass offas honey). A lower fructose, and less sweet preparation (HFCS42) doesn’t mask the flavours in food and as a result has manyapplications including processed foods, ice cream and dairyproducts (Table 1). HFCS 90 is sometimes used in baking, but isusually mixed with glucose syrup to make HFCS 55 or HFCS 42.

Name Fructose(%)

Glucose(%)

Othersugars

Principal uses

HFCS 55% 42% 3% Carbonated soft drinks

HFCS 42% 53% 5% Isotonic drinks, sauces,soups, processed foods,ice cream, yogurt

HFCS 90% 9% 1% Bakery preparations (andto blend into HFCS 55)

Table 1 – Principal types and uses of isoglucose.

Table 2 – Advantages and disadvantages of isoglucose.

Advantages Disadvantages

Better solubility and stabilitythan sugar when used in acidic(carbonated) soft drinks

It is a liquid – storage andtransport difficulties

Does not crystallise in food Does not add structure to food

Improves texture (e.g. chewycereal bars); helps food brownbetter when cooked

Taste differences (e.g. coladrinks in the USA)

Maintains constant moisture Health concerns and obesity

Is acidic and reduces the needfor added preservatives

Most consumers do notunderstand what it is

The advantages and disadvantages of isoglucose are shown inthe Table 2. Isoglucose is a very versatile ingredient and hasproven particularly popular in the USA (a business worth$2.6bn per year) where it is predominantly used as asweetener in carbonated drinks. It is also used in productsacross the world, including Europe (where it is labelled asglucose-fructose syrup). Disadvantages relate to tastedifferences (e.g. branded soft drinks made from isoglucose inone country and from sugar in a neighbouring country) andconcerns over health (i.e. weight gain and obesity).

Currently the majority of worldisoglucose production is in the USAwhere it is cheaper to produce thansugar. This is because sugar productionquotas and import tariffs have keptinternal sugar prices high whereas maizeprices (the source of isoglucose) are lowdue to internal subsidies.

Isoglucose is used in 93% of soft drinks inthe USA. The major cola manufacturersbegan substituting sugar for isoglucosein the late 1970s, with full switchovercompleted by 1985 (although in someinstances this is starting to reverse).Sixteen percent of bakery itemscontain isoglucose and a quarter ofsweetened dairy products contain theingredient.

Isoglucose consumption rose rapidly inthe 1980s as a result of its ubiquitous use

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

lbs

pa

US sweetener consump�on, lbs per person, per year

Sugar

Isoglucose

Other

Fig. 3 – Per capita consumption of sweeteners in the US since 1966.


opposed to increasing production atexisting factories (eastern Europe) due tothe transport costs involved. EU sugarproduction is predicted to rise followingthe removal of quotas, which in itselfcould keep prices low and causeisoglucose demand to be modest.However, a long-term fall in the volatilemaize price would increase theattractiveness of isoglucose.

In conclusion, the expected continuationof low world and EU sugar prices is likelyto halt any significant increase inisoglucose production. Production at1.75 Mt p.a. is expected in the yearsfollowing the end of quotas. Althoughthis is almost double the volume atpresent, it is not seen as significantenough to pose a threat to the EU beetindustry.

Isoglucose cost card – 1t Isoglucose Maize Price/T

Maize price €90 €120 €150 €180

Maize cost * €149 €199 €249 €299

Less: revenue from by-products (€71) (€90) (€108) (€126)

Raw material cost (net of by-product income) €78 €110 €141 €173

Manufacturing cost €260 €260 €260 €260

Total production cost €355 €388 €421 €454

Price (incl 8% mark-up) €383 €419 €455 €491

EU sugar price April 2015 €417 €417 €417 €417

Table 3 – Isoglucose costs of manufacture and comparison with sugar (April 2015).

*1.66 tonnes of maize makes 1 tonne of isoglucose

ISOGLUCOSE QUOTA PRODUCTION - EU

Tonnes p.a. (k)

> 200

> 100

50 - 100

0 - 50

Top producers

Hungary - Agrana (225k t)Belgium - Tereos (120k t)Bulgaria + Slovakia - Tate & Lyle (150k t)

Fig. 4 – European isoglucose production.

Sylvinite is a naturally occuring ore which provides a high quality potassium and sodium product for both straight and blended application. Sylvinite meets all the requirements of today’s farmer for a product that is agronomically balanced to increase yield.Sylvinite – the high value, low cost profit boost for sugar beet

The Product of Choice NATURAL, SUSTAINABLE, DEPENDABLE

Cleveland Potash Limited, Boulby MineWebsite: www.clevelandpotash.co.uk

15/3/9/03



ByAlastair Mitchell,

Agriculture Safety Team,HSE Birmingham

Remember ‘Safestop’ – your lifemay depend on itThe HSE’s latest (provisional) fatal accident statistics for 2014-15 show that farming remains the most dangerousindustry in Great Britain; a total of 37 people were killed in the agricultural industry. These included 33 workers (a22% increase compared to last year) of which 14 were employees and 19 self-employed. In addition, four membersof the public also died in accidents on farms in 2014-15.

Overall, agriculture accounted for 23% of all workplacedeaths in Great Britain, and the rate of fatal injuries remainshigher than in any other major industry, includingconstruction. This article is a timely reminder to growers andcontractors ahead of the 2015/16 campaign.

In the last decade, nearly 40 farm machinery operators havebeen killed when they were run over by their own vehicleafter leaving the cab without applying a working handbrake.Around 30 people were killed by becoming entangled inmachinery and many more suffered serious life-changinginjuries. Around 80% of these deaths occurred whencarrying out adjustments while the machinery was leftrunning. These tragedies could have been prevented if those

concerned had performed the ‘safe stop’ procedure beforedismounting or intervening for any reason: for example, todeal with a blockage or other problem.

Failing to follow safety precautions can also lead toprosecution. A fertiliser company in East Anglia has recentlybeen fined £80,000 after one of its employees died when hebecame trapped in a self-propelled agricultural spreaderwhilst carrying out maintenance. The HSE’s investigationfound that although the operator had failed to perform ‘safestop’, the company had failed to assess fully the risks ofcarrying out maintenance, had not provided safe systems ofwork or sufficient training or supervision. The company wasalso ordered to pay almost £20,000 in costs.

Adam Quinney (former NFU Vice-President, left) and Alan Plom (Chair – Farm Safety Partnership Machinery Group) launch the ‘Safe Stop’initiative outside NFU headquarters.



The ‘safe stop’ procedure is simple to follow. It’s not a newconcept and is already included widely in HSE guidance,machine operator manuals, and is taught on training courses.But it is clear from the many deaths and injuries which havebeen investigated by HSE that these simple precautions areoften being ignored. Always remember to follow ‘safe stop’before dismounting from a machine, or before interveningfor any reason e.g. to deal with a blockage, or make anadjustment.

Stickers can be displayed in the cab to serve as a reminder to performsafe stop before leaving the cab.

Forultimateperformance

UK’s

No.1 Liming

product

for correction

of soil

acidity

Helpdesk 0870 240 2314

fax 0870 240 2729 [email protected]

LimeX is a business of British Sugar plc

*

Optimises soil pH

Increases available calcium

Fast acting and long lasting

Provides valuable nutrients

Improves soil structure

Flexible service options

Remember:

1. handbrake on 3. engine off

2. controls in neutral 4. remove the key

The Farm Safety Partnership Machinery Working Groupdevised the ‘Safe Stop’ Campaign. This initiative, backed bythe HSE and the NFU, aims to draw attention to the safe stopprocedure, and hopes to encourage operators to follow thesesimple precautions as ‘second nature’. British Sugar are fullysupportive of this initiative and have provided a set of ‘safestop’ stickers free inside this issue of the British Sugar BeetReview. Beet growers and contractors are encouraged to placethe stickers in prominent locations which will remind themhow to stay safe. This could be in tractor cabs, harvester cabsor anywhere they might make operators stop and think beforeleaving the cab or intervening on a machine. Don’t forget theycan also be used on tool boxes, mobile phones or even in theoffice, on a diary, calendar, or laptop.

Information about the Farm Safety Partnership and theMachinery Working Group can be found at www.nfuonline.com/business/farm-safety/farm-safety-partnership/

15/3/11/04



USA Sugar Beet Conference Report

Latest sugar beetnews from USA

ByDr. Philip Draycott,Sugar Beet Adviser

IntroductionEvery other year, the great and the good of USA sugar beetgather for about a week to discuss developments in scienceand industry. Venue and timing are carefully selected to giveeveryone a break from the big freeze-up of the northernstates where much of the crop is grown. This year, theAmerican Society of Sugar Beet Technologists (ASSBT) met inFebruary in Clearwater on the Mexican Gulf coast of Florida. Asmall group from Europe attend regularly to keep up-to-datewith developments: all returned enlightened and no limbsmissing.

USA sugar beet – past, present and futureSugar beet became established 140 years ago as part of thecropping pattern of many states with suitable weather. In theUK we have been growing the crop on a commercial scale for100 years. In the southern states, both now and in the past,cane is a more suitable crop because hotter, wetter conditionsproduce higher yields of sugar.

Currently some 11 states produce sugar from beet, and a smallamount is produced in southern Canada. All factories are now

owned by co-operatives, so growing,processing and marketing of sugar areclosely interlinked. Most beet isproduced in Minnesota (9.98 mt)followed by North Dakota (4.5 mt),Idaho (4.5 mt), Michigan (3.6 mt)with smaller amounts in California,Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon,Washington and Wyoming. The cropcovers nearly half a million hectaresproducing 4.5 mt sugar annually (half theUSA’s requirement) from 22 factories.This compares with 1 mt annually in theUK from four factories, also half thecountry’s requirement.

In common with the UK, nearly all sugarbeet is produced without irrigation,utilising the water stored in the soil fromthe previous winter, plus spring andsummer rainfall. Only some westernstates apply extra water (see Ref. 1 for an

account of Californian sugar beet). In most states spring comeslate after severe winters, and the growing season is short.Average yields (60 t/ha) are therefore somewhat lower than inEurope. My impression was that the crop of late has been veryprofitable but fears of world surpluses of sugar are depressingprices of beet everywhere. Cuts in the area grown are, nodoubt, in the pipe-line as here, but were not discussed.

Every five years, USA farm legislation is re-visited, and reformsintroduced in the Farm Bill. In some ways this is similar to ourEU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) review with its re-shaping at about five-year intervals. Everybody on both sidesof the pond are fearful of just what the policy-makers willhave in mind next time round, also how low the price will fall,and the inevitable effect on the area of sugar beet grown inthe world.

Plenary sessionsEvery ASSBT conference is marked by far-reaching generaltalks on topical agricultural subjects by invited speakers. The350 delegates from 10 countries were not disappointed by thetwo women chosen this year: both were clearly at the top of

Florida alligator. (photo: Alan Dewar)



their professions and moving at the highest levels of USAgovernment.

First was Dr. Cathleen Enright, Executive Vice-President of theBiotechnology Organisation, a federal body with 1,100members, looking after this relatively new science that affectsmuch of USA’s cropping. This was followed by a parallel paperby Dr. Jennifer Shaw, Vice-Chair of Field to Market: TheAlliance For Sustainable Agriculture. She works with some 60organisations, all of whom are keen to produce unbiased datato confirm that supermarket shelves are full of products withwhich every customer is comfortable: not an easy task nowthat consumers are so well informed about food quality andcontent, and increasingly picky about what they eat.

This was a revelation to those of us from the EU, where thegeneral feeling is still very much against genetically modifiedcrops. We had fondly imagined, with much USA food comingfrom GM sources, that there the public were at ease withbiotechnology and not fazed by eating crop and animalproducts from that origin. At the end of the presentationsdescribing the extent and complexity of keeping consumers‘on side’, and overcoming continualchallenges to innovation, it was clearthat full public acceptance is yet farfrom secure. For more information seewww.fieldmarket.org

Technical sessionsAfter the general session attended byeveryone, members chose betweenAgronomy, Plant Pathology and FactoryProcessing, these sessions runningconcurrently for the rest of theconference. I chose Agronomy and,below, is a summary of papers withinformation relevant to UK sugar beetgrowing.

Nitrogen fertiliser

In common with our crop, nitrogen isby far the most important plant nutrientin USA sugar beet fields, and manypapers dealt with aspects of ‘getting itright’. Also in common with the UK, atthe heart of several USA investigationswas the question of whether or notever-increasing yields (in the USA and the UK) meant thatincreasing amounts of N will be needed?

Their approach is to quantify the weight of nitrogen fertiliserneeded to produce a given yield. Figures quoted were: 4 lbsN/ton is slightly too low, 5 lbs N/ton is about optimal and at6 lbs N/ton most fields were over-supplied (in metric unitsthis is about 2, 2.5 and 3 kg/t roots). In the UK, we have lookedinto this question many times, as in other parts of Europe.Maybe we need to look again because yields have certainlyincreased greatly, more rapidly than in the USA.

BBRO has a long-running nitrogen response trial tomonitor exactly this situation. To date, we have seen noevidence for higher yielding sugar beet crops requiringadditional nitrogen but will keep the subject underreview. Editor, British Sugar Beet Review

Pic. 1 – Trial in Alberta, Canada, testing banded nitrogen fertiliser applied using GPS ahead ofsugar beet drilling. (Photo: Peter Regitnig)

Another avenue towards increased nitrogen fertiliserefficiency has been to explore the increased use of split doses,also banding of fertiliser, and products that slow downrelease of nitrate nitrogen. The overall conclusion fromseveral papers presented was that the best approach is toapply all the fertiliser during the early growth stages, toproduce maximum leaf area as soon as possible. Their aim is tosee canopy closure before 1st July; pretty good going forApril/May drilling on their 30 inch (75 cm) rows! None of theproducts to inhibit nitrification helped yield, which comes aslittle surprise.

In Canada, they are making good use of GPS guidancesystems to band fertiliser in conventionally tilled fields.Picture 1 shows a trial in Alberta. Due to the intensefreeze-up from autumn to spring, it is possible to bandnitrogen as urea in the fall with extreme accuracy underfuture sugar beet rows. This was demonstrated in trials byyields from six amounts of nitrogen, from 0 to 120 kg N/ha,where early growth was better from banding than frombroadcast nitrogen.

Strip-tillage

Several papers brought us up-to-date on this subject, which isbecoming of great interest in the UK too. Most enlighteningwas that, in some states over half the sugar beet area isestablished in this way. Overall, yields differed little betweenconventional tillage (usually chisel plough, the mould-boardplough having virtually disappeared in the USA) and strip-tillage, provided that strips were cultivated well. There is afuture for the technique in the UK, particularly as an aid tothe control of soil blowing, but we need better machinery andimproved methodology than have been achieved so far thisside of the pond.

Here and in the USA strip-tillage needs a cover crop in theautumn, to be killed off with herbicide in spring, so thatthe technique can be used to establish a sugar beet cropwhich will withstand blowing. In Idaho they have beeninvestigating this for some seven years, and Pic. 2 shows



partly thanks to machines from Europe.Visits during past autumns alwayssuggested that the emphasis was onallowing beet to grow during the vitalAugust/September period. Then the beetwas harvested as rapidly as possible in afew weeks during September/Octoberusing mostly USA 12-row harvesters justbefore the big freeze-up. The producewas mostly put into huge piles whichfroze all the way through and stayed sountil processed.

As mentioned in a report of theprevious meeting (Ref. 1), there is ever-increasing interest in the use ofEuropean harvesting and handlingmachinery, particularly the MAUS(and the verb ‘to mause’ has beenintroduced). In Michigan, where thereare already 55 self-propelled harvestersand 15 huge cleaner-loaders, they arelooking at ways to allow more sugarbeet to be maused e.g. by leavingbeet in piles in grower’s fields andmausing them to factory locations in

November/December. Experiments are in progress to workout the best methods of covering the piles. Picture 3shows the latest techniques using special fabric whichallows moisture to escape, but keeps rain and snow outwhilst allowing beet to freeze solid until processed. Some24,000 tons were so covered in 2014, and this will beextended in 2015.

Reference

1. Draycott, P. (2013). Latest sugar beet news from USA. British SugarBeet Review, 81 (2), 36-39.

AcknowledgementsI am grateful to T. Cane, R. List, P. Regitnig and A. Dewar forpermission to reproduce their photographs.

lucerne sprayed with Roundup (glyphosate) and then strip-tilled in readiness for sugar beet. Root yield was significantlyincreased compared with conventional establishment. Notsurprisingly, in some districts 60% of the sugar beet is grownin this way.

Herbicides

Several papers described the latest techniques for weedcontrol in the USA crop which is virtually all glyphosatetolerant, so not relevant to our situation. Some scientists aretaking more than a passing interest in a few weeds which arenot controlled well in GM crops, but there seems to be little toworry about at present.

Harvesting and storage

An outsider’s impression was, that there are rapid changes inharvesting and storage, based partly on their own R&D and

Pic. 2 – Strip-tillage through sprayed-off lucerne in Idaho in preparation for drilling sugarbeet. (Photo: Terrance Cane)

Pic. 3 – Covered field pile in Michigan where beet freeze solid in winter and keep in good condition until processed. (Photo: Richard List)



The evening’s hospitality was a chance to get to know moreof the SIP entrants as well as to talk with NFU Sugar BoardVice-Chairman, David Papworth and Head of Agriculture atBritish Sugar, Mark Culloden. Both are great advocates forthe SIP platform and encourage dialogue between all basesthroughout the sugar industry.

The opening day was a great start to the programme,although I’d like to see the presentation training, from the lastevent, combined with the media training. Tessa Morton’senergy and expertise would have raised the bar for whatGraham had in store for us and would also have given us anopportunity to use these new skills throughout theprogramme.

Germains 10th December 2014

Robyn Cooper – AB Sugar International Graduate

Germains plays an important role in agriculture as a globalorganisation, ranging as far as California, and specialises inmaximising the value of a variety of different crops. Of course,we are all more familiar with Germains for the worksurrounding UK sugar beet and it was for this purpose that wewere whisked off to their head office in King’s Lynn themorning after our first meeting. We were met with a warmwelcome from Emmanuelle and Aga, two of the keyindividuals who work on the UK beet account. It began withan introduction to the role Germains plays within the industry.As the sole organisation responsible for priming and pelletingthe sugar beet seed produced by the four main European seedbreeders, Germains stands as a vital link in the supply chainbetween British Sugar, the breeders and the UK growers. Atour of one of the laboratories and pelleting factoriesfollowed, complete with the deafening sound of themachinery hard at work. Despite much of the process beinghidden in carefully controlled machines, it was interesting tosee the transformation of the raw seed into the perfectlyspherical, brightly coloured pellets we are more accustomedto. It also proved somewhat cooler and less pungent than thefactories in British Sugar!

To finish the morning, Jordan Long, the lead scientist,unlocked some of the mysteries of the industry leading R&Dthat goes on behind the scenes, which ensures that the bestpossible quality seed is produced at the most competitive price

The Sugar Industry Programme (SIP) is a gem of anopportunity for newer members of the UK sugar industry. It isjointly funded by the NFU and British Sugar, and has recentlyseen its 5th budding cohort through to completion. To date,the programme has been successful as a platform to motivateand inform individuals about the broader sugar beet industryin the UK and abroad, as well as to build lasting relationshipsbetween individuals across the supply chain.

Each year, ten growers and five industry representativestake part in the three month programme, which consists often cumulative days of events ranging from a visit toWissington factory, to the equally glamorous Westminsterparliament buildings and Brussels. As 1/15th of the eclecticgroup, I speak for us all in saying it was an experience worthshouting about to a wider audience, and so in the true spiritof the SIP, we have pulled together to share this with you.In doing so, we hope to fire up interest for readers to takepart in future years.

Opening event – media training andwelcome dinner 9th December 2014

Bruce Paterson – sugar beet grower

Launch day for the SIP 2015 was designedto break the ice between our newly-formed group of growers and industryprofessionals and get our teeth stuck intoall things sugar. After some briefrefreshment and introductions, DonaldHume gave us a run-down of his, and theNFU’s role, at the factories and explained NFU Sugar’saccountability for the factory processes, as per theiragreement with British Sugar, from the beet intake andreception to grower’s payments.

Graham Percy’s engaging and often humorous mediaworkshop gave the group a very entertaining afternoon. Hisexpertise in media and PR enthused all candidates incontributing to the session, although when it came to liverecorded radio and television interviews there seemed an airof disinclination. I have to admit I was relieved not to beselected for the audio interviews, but did have to stare intothe darkness of the lens for my leaks in knowledge to bevisible!

Sugar IndustryProgramme

ByRobyn Cooper,

AB Sugar

Bruce Paterson.



the SIP delegates, had the support of her local ConservativeMP, Keith Simpson, who was joined by Roger Williams, aLiberal Democrat MP from Wales. The MPs were keen to listento our farming-related issues and concerns. We were alsojoined briefly by Jim Paice, the then Minister of State atDEFRA; he explained how MPs are lobbied by pressure groupson issues such as neonicotinoid insecticides.

Following this, we were lucky enough to have George Eustice,Minister of State at DEFRA, join us over lunch back in the NFUOffice; he explained his role at the time, which was theParliamentary Under Secretary of State for DEFRA. He told usabout some of the projects and campaigns he was involved inand gave his predictions for the future. Matt Ware, Head ofGovernment and Parliamentary Affairs at the NFU, alsocovered the role of the NFU in Parliament. This provided aninsight into the remarkable lobbying work the NFU do. Duringthis time leading up to the general election, the NFU teamwere busy compiling the 2015 GE Manifesto with the keyfigures and projections; their work showed which politicalparties were the most supportive on their 46 ‘asks’, with theConservatives in a clear lead!

Another interesting visitor was Guilherne Kfouri from theInternational Sugar Organisation; he gave us a good overviewof the market predictions for the EU sugar markets post-2017when quotas will end, as well as discussing the growingisoglucose market and the opportunities and challengesthis brings.

for both the growers and British Sugar. The day ended with anopen Q&A session to allow for discussion of Germains’ roleboth in the past and present; with emphasis on how they haveadapted to challenges faced by the industry.

Wissington 17th December 2014

Stuart Harder – BBRO trials analyst

Having been through British Sugar’sgraduate scheme, I have a broadunderstanding of many of British Sugar’soperations. However none have impressedme more than the approach tosustainability and efficiency that isexemplified by Wissington factory. Thethird day of the SIP programme gave the delegates an insightinto the extent of this culture, often overlooked by thoseoutside the business. The talks opened with an explanation ofthe factory process by Rob Moane, development manager,showing us the scale of the operation, and the huge variety ofproducts born from just three inputs, with water being theonly thing to leave Wissington factory as it entered – cleanedup and returned to the river. A number of these co-productswere then expanded upon by Richard Cogman, NationalLimeX Manager, who went further into the industrystandards, benefits and award-winning qualities of productssuch as TOPSOIL and LimeX.

Following on from this, Simon Leeds, Grower EngagementManager, and Colm McKay, Director of Agriculture, expandedon the wider organisation of the agriculture department andthe support network that helps the area managers out onfarm. Simon Leeds discussed changes in the near future thatwould lead to an increase in the level of engagement betweenBritish Sugar and the growers. The day ended with a guidedtour around the factory to view the process up close.

British Sugar’s view of creating revenue streams from thecommercialisation of co-products has helped reduce theassociated costs of the handling and disposal of these productsduring and after the campaign. This is something that sets ourindustry apart from others in Europe. I am left with a feelingof confidence that the factories are doing all they can toincrease productivity going into 2017.

Westminster & NFU London 27th January 2015

Matt Booth – British Sugar areamanager, Newark

Looking at the itinerary for the day, it wasalways set to be a busy and interestingone. We made our way to the NFU Office,which is surrounded by an impressive arrayof related organisations and businessesincluding the BBC studio, DEFRA and theHouses of Parliament. All of these are only a short walk away,which gives the small, yet effective, team at the NFU officesthe ideal location for lobbying Members of the English andEuropean Parliaments.

Airport-style security (and a thorough search of the suspicious-looking members of the group) awaited us upon arrival at theHouses of Parliament. We waited for a short time in thebeautiful Westminster Hall before our tour, something I wouldhighly recommend to all! This was followed by a visit to theHouses of Parliament, Portcullis House. Emily Jensen, one of

Westminster.

Stuart Harder.

Matt Booth.



know by this stage talked us through his daily activities and hisimportant role in project management and analysis. Hisenthusiasm, energy and knowledge were enough to keepeveryone listening attentively.

For the first time since arriving that morning I looked at mywatch – it was 1.15pm! Where had the time gone? It wasagreed to have lunch ‘on the hoof’ due to the interestgenerated in discussions during the morning. Dr. DebbieSparkes then talked us through her involvement at the BBROand also some of her nitrogen application work and anintroduction to cover crops. Her knowledge and dedicationagain demonstrated the extent and quality of the work that iscarried out. The afternoon took us on a tour of the greenhouses – giving us a thorough understanding of the trials workbeing carried out in these conditions.

To summarise... of all the days included in the Sugar IndustryProgramme, this one for me highlighted the importance ofthe BBRO. The work that is provided by all the dedicated BBROteam together with their wealth of knowledge and dedicatedenthusiasm is invaluable.

At the time of writing this, I am very proud to have been askedto be part of the Stakeholder Board for the BBRO.

NFU AGM 24th/25th February 2015

Emily Jensen – sugar beet grower

Hopefully there aren’t many places inBirmingham where you are heckled bybadger cull protesters on entry but theNFU Conference 2015 was one of them!With subjects such as bovine TB, milkquotas and the (then) looming general

election takingprecedence there were plenty ofcompelling discussions over the twodays, not least during the party politicalsession expertly chaired by JohnHumphrys.

It was worth the trip up the M6 just tohear Justin Urquhart Stewart’s take onthe current economic climate – hilariousand honest. Other subjects were a littlemore sobering, such as the dwindlingworld price of sugar reported on at thesugar breakout session on day two.However it was hugely valuable hearingexperts discuss a whole range of issuesthat the agricultural industry is facingon a daily basis.

Brussels Trip3rd/4th March 2015

NFU Brussels and EuropeanParliamentStuart Harder – BBRO trials analyst

Our trip to Brussels began with a dayat the British Agriculture Bureau (BAB).BAB represents the interests of farmersand growers from all of the UK farmingunions at the European level. Its role is

To end the day we had the interesting experiences andopinions from Peter Hough of Napier Brown. Although NapierBrown has now been bought by Tereos from The Real GoodFood Company, Peter gave us an open and honest view,looking at the EU sugar market from the perspective of asugar trader buying sugar from a range of sources. We alsodiscussed some interesting market research that their businesshad undertaken, and some of the innovative new productsthey are now marketing.

BBRO 18th February 2015

Alison Lawson – sugar beet growerand Agricycle manager

On a dull day in February, driving toNorwich, little did I know what lay ahead!We all met at the Centrum building on theResearch Park in Norwich. Here we werewelcomed by Colin McEwan, Head ofBBRO. Colin took us through the agendafor the day and he urged us all to make our questions andqueries known. Dr. Mark Stevens, lead Scientist, shared someof his previous experiences from working both overseas and inthe UK and we then went on to talk about current researchtopics, the process to decide which research is carried out,duration of projects and final results. This generated manyquestions and our timetable of events was already slipping.Next speaker was Colin Walters. Colin, who joined the BBROfrom British Sugar, talked through current projects, harvestand storage, the development of demonstration sites and thetarehouse. His expert knowledge and experience of theindustry was clear to all. Following Colin was Stuart Harder,already our fellow SIP member. Stuart whom we had all got to

BBRO day.

Alison Lawson.

Emily Jensen.



see some of the molecular genetictechniques at the forefront of science inuse in the industry in which we work. Theintense morning was perfectly finishedoff with what we would all havedescribed as a midday feast, which set usup nicely for the journey back to the UK.In summary, the trip to Brussels providedan excellent opportunity for us to allappreciate the continental and globalcomplexities of the industry and thesheer amount of work which goes onbeyond the field or factory!

Closing event –NFU headquarters andfarewell dinnerRobyn Cooper – AB SugarInternational Graduate

As the final SIP event, it was with bothexcitement and a little sadness that wedescended upon the NFU headquarters

in the middle of the beautiful Warwickshire countryside. Afterthree months, it was perhaps no surprise that upon arrival thegroup was rowdy and jovial. The day started with a bang inthe form of a high impact, whirlwind presentation coursedelivered by Tessa Morton, who has previously coached manyfamiliar NFU faces. Not only did she inspire a great deal ofconfidence among even the most stage-shy, we also learnt justhow challenging counting to 20 with long pauses can be, atleast in front of a sea of beady eyes!

A well deserved lunch and tour of the NFU offices followed.The afternoon was of a more informative nature, with talks onthe evolution of the NFU and an update of ‘healthy harvest’from Andrew Clark, Director of Policy and Don Pendergrast,Plant Health Adviser respectively. A presentation oncommunication between the NFU and wider industry byDanny O’Shea particularly caught my attention. With a firmbelief that for an industry such as ours to thrive we need tocommunicate and collaborate more effectively over new andinnovative ideas, it was encouraging to hear just how willingand open the NFU is to ideas from growers on both themethod and content of communication. It also highlighted theneed for far more attention to be placed on this in future. TimYoung, one of the first cohort of SIP participants and currentNFU sugar board member finished the afternoon off. Heshared some of his own experiences on the programme as wellas how these led to his later involvement on the board. Hispitch finished with a rather poignant message and one withwhich I whole heartedly agree; to go forwards successfully, wemust all be united by a common goal.

The event closed with a celebratory dinner, apt consideringthe recurring food theme throughout the programme. Theparticipants were joined by Colm McKay, Director ofAgriculture at British Sugar plc and officers of NFU Sugar:Chairman – William Martin, Vice-Chairman – Michael Sly,Board Member – Tim Young and NFU Senior Sugar Adviser –Andrew Francis. This provided (yet another) excellentopportunity, allowing for the mixing of new ideas with yearsof experience all in one room. Each delegate gave a twominute reflection on their experience on the SIP. It wasencouraging to see so much energy and enthusiasm for the

to help defend the interests of British farmers in all aspectsof European politics. For political lobbying specific to thesugar industry, BAB works with two other pan-Europeanorganisations, the European Committee of SugarManufacturers (CEFS) and the International Confederation ofEuropean Beet Growers (CIBE). Talks from both of theseorganisations’ general secretaries, Marie-Christine Ribera ofCEFS and Elisabeth Lacoste from CIBE opened the day. Thesetalks focused on the differences between European sugarindustries in terms of logistics and efficiency, as well as ourcompetitiveness against those strong industries outside ofEurope, such as Brazil, Thailand and India.

In the afternoon, a brief talk and tour of the EuropeanParliament was organised. Led by Geoffrey Van Orden, MEP,this gave us real insight and understanding of the processesbehind the making of European legislation and the concertedefforts by lobbyists to defend our interest at key timesthroughout this process.

It is not often that people get to observe the bigger picture ofagriculture at an international level but I am sure both pastand present SIP delegates would agree, it has left us with amuch greater appreciation of the efforts and collaborationsthat often work behind the scenes to protect our industry.

SesVanderHaveRobyn Cooper – AB Sugar International Graduate

After an evening of excellent hospitality from SesVanderHave,the SIP cohort were rushed off to the SesVanderHave site atTienen. SesVanderHave has a long and successful history insupplying sugar beet seed to British growers, among manyother European countries. As a company, they focus solely onsugar beet and as we saw on the visit, they invest a hugeamount on research and development to support the future ofthe industry. Ian Munnery, the UK General Manager, providedus with a comprehensive introduction to the organisation andthe future challenges facing the sugar industry in Europe. Wewere then treated to a factory visit and tour of theirengineering facilities, followed by an insight into theirresearch facilities and various labs on site. It was fascinating to

European parliament.



growers don’t feel they are being listened to and the supplychain struggles to convince them they are. SIP, as a whole, wasindeed a fantastic opportunity to see the mechanics of theindustry. Networking with your fellow growers, connectingwith the supply chain and conversing with ministers andindustry leaders is on only a local scale for many of us; SIPchanges all that. It is great to see popularity grow for thisplatform as well as the NFU creating other opportunities suchas The Cereal Development Programme.

Matt Booth: I would highly recommend the SIP to our nextgeneration of farmers. As well as gaining a vast amount ofknowledge, you will get to know various industry contactsand of course your fellow SIP delegates!

Ali Lawson: Thank you to everyone involved in the sugarindustry for making this opportunity and I highly recommendit!

industry among the other participants, but more so to see howopen to challenging the norms and status quo each of us hadbecome. Perhaps the best thing of all was the openness withwhich this was accepted by those in positions of seniority.Without a doubt, the experience was of benefit to all whotook part, but the question now is how we ensure themomentum and enthusiasm created from such experiences ismaintained and scaled up to benefit not only the select fewinvolved, but all the individuals who make a valuablecontribution to the industry.

SIP reflection:Bruce Paterson: What have I learnt from SIP 2015?

Sustainability, quotas, volatility, efficiency, research anddevelopment; All ‘buzz words’ used throughout theprogramme, but there is more to communication than justwords, they have to be received and understood. Up-front andhonest communication in both directions of the supply chainmust be kept clear and be comprehended. All too often the

Sugar Industry Programme 2016 is now open for ApplicationsDiane Armitage, NFU Sugar Adviser

I am really pleased to be organising this year’s SugarIndustry Programme which is entering its sixth year. Theprogramme will run from November 2015 to March 2016and will see a new group learn about the sugar beet sectorin its entirety, including how a British Sugar factoryoperates, how lobbying is done in Westminster andBrussels, seed production, industry research and how NFUinfluences, adopts and communicates policy to growers. Wereceive a high level of positive feedback from pastparticipants and would strongly encourage youngergrowers to sign up and get involved in the future of thesugar industry.

How to Apply:

We are now recruiting participants for the 2016 programme.If you would like to participate send your CV and a coveringletter telling us about yourself and why you would like to take part in the Sugar Industry Programme to Diane Armitage [email protected]. Participants must be available to attend all dates on the programme. The closing date forapplications is noon on the 12th October 2015.

The dates for this year’s programme are as follows (subject to change):

26th November Open event and media training (overnight stay)

27th November British Sugar factory tour and presentations

3rd December Germains

8th December Westminster

13th January British Beet Research Organisation

25th/26th/27th January Brussels (visits to BAB, European Parliament and SESVanderHave)

23rd/24th February NFU AGM (overnight stay)

1st March Close event and presentation training (overnight stay)

For further information and an informal chat please call Diane Armitage on 024 7685 8616.


Craig and his wife Marlys continued the family business afterPaul passed away in 1984. Over the past 40 years, H&SManufacturing has expanded its productlines and is now one of the UnitedStates’ premier manufacturers of beetcarts, row crop cultivators, de-ridgersand ridgers, row crop ditchers, broadcastsprayers and planter attachments. Thebusiness also specialises in grab rollrepair in beet growing regions of theUnited States. Craig and Marlys, alongwith their sons Brent and Brian, workwith dealers in nine American states andin Canada, and have sent equipment tothe Ukraine. They have ten to twelvefull-time employees and about eightpart-timers. Brent and Brian are alsopartners in the 3,500 acre (1400 ha)family farming operation that includessugar beet, dry beans, soybeans, cornand wheat.


“We test all of the equipment we buildon our own farm,” said Brian. “Becauseof that, we know where our strong andweak points are, and we communicatewith our customers so that we can makechanges.”

According to Craig, what sets H&SManufacturing apart from largemanufacturers is their ability tocustomise equipment and givecustomers what they want. “Becausewe’re a small manufacturer, we cancustomise equipment to a grower’swishes more easily” he said. “We’reconstantly improving and alwayslooking for new ways to make sugarbeet equipment better”.

It typically takes the Halfmanns aboutten days to build a beet cart, which isavailable in two sizes of 30 and 35 U.S.tons. The elevators on the beet cartare either 42 or 52 inches wide withan unloading time of three minutes

or less. The standard tyre sizes for the beet carts are 900or 1,050 metric.

ByLaura Rutherford,

Red River Valley Sugar Beet Growers Association

The HalfmannsWhen Craig Halfmann’s father Paul first started producing sugar beet equipment in Stephen, Minnesota, in the1970s, he called the business H&S Manufacturing. He spent a lot of time thinking about the perfect advertisingslogan, and chose ‘Farm Equipment by Farmers, for Farmers’, because he felt the phrase accurately described hisproducts and goals.

Beet carts made at H&S Manufacturing are available in two sizes of 30 and 35 U.S. tons andtypically take about ten days to make. The Halfmanns work with dealers in nine U.S. statesand can ship equipment overseas.

Craig, Marlys, Brent and Brian Halfmann are sugar beet growers who also own and operateH&S Manufacturing, one of the United States’ premier manufacturers of beet carts, row cropcultivators, deridgers and ridgers, row crop ditchers, broadcast sprayers and planterattachments.



“We fabricate the steel ourselves in our factory,” said Craig.“We order in supplies we can’t make ourselves, like hydraulichoses and tyres. We try to buy standard parts that can beobtained and repaired all over the United States, so thatpeople can go to a local dealer and get help.”

H&S Manufacturing can also provide special features forgrowers in various regions. “We offer higher elevators forMichigan growers for increased discharge height. In the RedRiver Valley region of Minnesota and North Dakota, mud is abig issue,” commented Craig. “So we put plastic inside theelevator and main tank. We also offer a water kit for truckboxes so that the beets will slide out. It’s an efficient way tokeep trucks operating in the fall and a gallon or two of wateris all it takes. Otherwise, there is mud build-up.”

H&S Manufacturing makes beet cart elevators that are set toscrub beet to get rid of excess dirt. “There are two reasons forthat,” said Craig. “It is to reduce tare and because theAmerican Crystal Sugar Company stores beet long term.”

Customers at H&S Manufacturing also have several optionsfor sprayers. “When it comes to axle widths, there are allkinds of variations,” said Craig. “We can do practicallyanything a customer wants, including making hydraulicadjustable axles. Potato growers want 76 or 78 inch (1.93 or1.98 m) axles and sugar beet growers want standard 88 inch(2.23 m) axles. We make axles that can hydraulicallygo between widths without too much work.”

H&S also offers 3, 5, or 7 section boom widths, as well as rinsekits for sprayer tanks and cones for chemical induction. “We’renow looking at bigger sprayer booms again,” said Craig.“We’re at 132 feet (39.6 m) and looking at 154 feet (46.2 m).That is the direction we’re moving in as a business.”

Quality and providing the best possible product are the toppriorities at H&S. “We want to avoid failure at all costs,” he said.“Our reputation is built on the quality of the products we sell.A reputation takes 20 years to build and 15 minutes to ruin.”

Craig predicted that future challenges for H&S Manufacturingwill include keeping up with the equipment demands of largefarms and incorporating new technology. “For the next five toten years, we want to sustain what we have and staycompetitive,” he said. “We are also working on getting moreinto social media in order to connect with our customers.”

For Craig, satisfied customers are the most rewarding part ofhis job. “My favourite thing is when we put a product out andsomeone tells us that it’s a great piece of equipment thatworked for them”, he said. “It’s great to hear someone say Employee Donovan Hendrickson welding at H&S Manufacturing.

H&S Manufacturing offers customers several options for broadcast sprayers including various widths and hydraulic adjustable axles.

that a beet cart saved a crop during wet conditions. Ourgreatest challenge is developing new products that ourcustomers need.”

The Halfmanns have a strong desire to see sugar beet growerssucceed. Craig is a past president of the Red River ValleySugarbeet Growers Association (RRVSGA) and past vice-president of the World Association of Beet and Cane Growers(WABCG). His son, Brent, is currently serving his second yearon the American Crystal Sugar Company’s Drayton FactoryDistrict Board.

“Being involved provides good insight to what’s going on andthe various challenges sugar beet growers are currentlyfacing”, said Brent. “I want to see this industry thrive for manyyears to come and hope to be a part of its success.” Craig saidhe is very proud of his sons’ involvement with the family farmand the sugar industry. “If your sons want to farm, it has tocome from them, not you. It’s their passion, not mine. I wantto give them the opportunity and try to keep opportunitiesavailable. The rest is up to them. I told them that a family farmis one of the most difficult things you can ever do. However, ifyou’re passionate about it, you’ll find a way.”


Therefore, during the 2015 campaign, Agriinsight is proposingto gather operating data to establish the realistic output ofmachines, and we are seeking volunteers prepared to send intheir data.

Why take part?The overall aim is to provide data and analyses that will helpowners and operators to compare their machines with othersand, hopefully, improve their performance. These include:

■ comparison: operators and owners will be able to comparedifferent brands of machine

■ benchmarking: operators will be able to benchmark theperformance of their machine against similar machines

■ budgeting: owners will be able to make better budgetingand buying decisions

■ progress: manufacturers will be able to pick up insights onhow to improve their harvesters

How will the survey work?Operators are invited to send in data to Agriinsight. The keyparameters will be:

■ hectares harvested per working hours

■ tonnes harvested per day

■ fuel used per day

■ machine size and specification

■ age of machine

■ method of unloading (discharging on headland or intotrailers)

■ loss data (if this is measured by the operator)

We are well aware that many factors influence theperformance of machines. The following factors will beconsidered in analyses:

■ soil type (light sandy, medium, silt, clay)

■ terrain (fenland flat, gently rolling, steep)

■ soil conditions (dry, moist, muddy, very muddy)

■ size of field

■ experience of the driver

We would welcome your suggestions for any other aspectsthat should be covered.

How to send in the data?Agriinsight has already hadexperience of running sucha survey during the2015 cereals harvest (inprogress as this edition ofthe Beet Review goes topress). It is important tooffer a range of methodsthat will suit differentparticipants:

■ paper record sheetsprovided by Agriinsight,filled in by the driver.Stamped addressedenvelopes willbe provided

■ print-out or electroniccopy from the harvestermonitor

■ use of App on a mobilephone. Currently we areusing Harvest Yield andEpiCollect but are opento any other method

■ sending by text messageor email

Agriinsight will work witheach operator to set up themost convenient method.

How to registerThe more operators whotake part, the more usefulthe survey will be as itwill allow more precisecomparisons to be made.

Call or email Nick Wigdahlon 07801 482 435 oragriinsight@ gmail.com

Nick Wigdahl is an independent agricultural journalist. Heregularly con tributes to Profi and Farmers Weekly and runsthe website www.agriinsight.co.uk

Sugar beet harvester survey 2015What is the true output of a modern-day sugar beet harvester? Manufacturers, not unnaturally, are happy to providemaximum output figures and field days are a good opportunity to understand different technical aspects ofmachines, but they do not provide real-time operating data. Talk to operators, and they tend to have firm ideasabout the pluses and minuses of different brands. What is missing, however, is an independent view of theperformance of different machines, and we are interested in establishing their output over the course of a season.


ByNick Wigdahl,

Agriinsight



Field tests and machinery demonstration

Field tests

The ITB has been investigating and comparing differentcombinations of mechanical and chemical weeding for overeight years. The current work is part of the country’s Ecophyto2 programme, which aims to reduce the amount ofagrochemicals used in French agriculture: a 25% reduction by2020, and 50% by 2025. The work in sugar beet, led by CédricRoyer the ITB’s senior agro-equipment engineer, has two mainobjectives: to reduce the use of herbicides, and to keep thefield clean of weeds. Three main strategies are being tested.

The first strategy is the use of a traditional hoe between therows, in combination with normal herbicides. This can providea reduction of around 20% in agrochemical inputs.

The second goes one step further: herbicides are used forthe first weed treatments (at the cotyledon stage) but afterthat, mechanical weeding is used both over and between therows. This part of the study compares rotary hoes, tine

weeders, and traditional hoes between the rows, combinedwith Kress star wheels (Pic. 1) working in the rows. Thisstrategy is expected to reduce herbicide use by 40 to 50%. Therotary hoes (Pics. 2a and 2b) kill weeds by two methods; thewheel spins at speed to stir the soil and uproot the weedswhilst, at the same time, throwing soil particles to cover them;working speeds are up to 15 kph, and these machines cost

On 20th and 21st May 2015, the Institut Technique de la Betterave (ITB) held its fourth demonstration of reducedchemical weed control techniques, Désherb’Avenir IV, at Tourny in the Eure region of France. The InternationalInstitute for Sugar Beet Research (IIRB) Weed Control Study Group visited the demonstration as part of their annualreview of weed control issues and developments in beet. This article reviews the demonstration and field testingat Tourny, and summarises the main points arising from the study group meeting.

Pic. 1 – Stars mounted with traditional hoe (as used in ITB study).

ByMike May,

Independent Adviser

Weed control developmentson the Continent



Pic. 4 – Sopema band sprayer.

The third strategy is band spraying overthe row followed by combined chemicaland mechanical control between therows. Again, this can provide herbicidereductions of 40 to 50%, or more if theherbicide is localised to weedy areas (66to 88% reduction). The band sprayer(Pic. 4) treats widths between 15 and22.5 cm with mechanical control on theunsprayed area between the rows.Guidance systems (see later) are fitted tothe sprayer and hoes. The machines are36 rows wide, operate at 10 kph and cost£21,400. Another option is to use a band

around £10,700* for a 5.4 m version. Other machines haverubber stars mounted alongside traditional hoes; the starswork each side of the row to kill weeds in the row; themachines work at 6 to 12 kph, depending on the guidancesystem used, and cost around £5,000 for a 12-row version. Thetine weeder under test is a Treffler machine (Pics. 3a and 3b)on which each tine is adjusted and controlled by a spring(something that the company claims is different to other tineweeders); working speeds are between 4 and 10 kph, and the12 m version costs £13,600. Table 1 provides a comparison ofthe practicalities of the systems.

Pic. 2a – Annaburger rotary hoe. Pic. 2b – Annaburger rotary hoe working over the row.

Traditional Hoe Hoe with stars Rotary hoe(Roto-étrilleuse)

Tine weeder(Treffler)

Earliest growthstage for use

2 leaves 4 leaves 4 leaves 4 leaves

Final growthstage for use

80% of canopycover

10 leaves 10 leaves 10 leaves

Optimum stageof weeds

Before 4 leavesfor dicotyledonplants.Before 2 leavesfor grass weeds

Cotyledons Cotyledons Cotyledons

Efficacy ondicotyledons

Good betweenrows

Good Good Good

Efficacy ongrass weeds

Good betweenrows

Good betweenrows, poor inthe row

Poor Poor

Soil type All All All except chalk All

Table 1 – ITB’s comparison of the effectiveness of a traditional hoe, with and without stars,the rotary hoe and the tine weeder systems.

Pic. 3a – Treffler tine weeder showing mechanism (right) to adjustpressure on each tine. Pic. 3b – Crop post treatment with Treffler tine weeder.

* Original costs were in euros, these have beenconverted to £ using £1 = €1.40.



Pic. 7 – Untreated area.

Pic. 5 – Ribbed guidance wheel on Monosem hoe; also showing starwheel and tine weeder module options.

Pic. 6 – Garford with camera.

The guidance systems that the ITB are testing range fromsimple metal discs and ribbed rollers (Pic. 5), to camerasmonitoring the rows or GPS RTK. The simpler systems arevulnerable to erosion of the tracks they use and they workbest on flat fields. The simplest hoes cost from £7,100 to£10,700 for a 12-row disc guidance system, to £12,900 to£17,900 for a 12-row ribbed wheel setup. Hoes using camerasystems ranged in price from £17,900 to £25,000. RTK systemsare expensive but do have uses across the farm in other crops.The camera, as on the Garford Robocrop (Pic. 6) and RTKsystems allowed the machines to work accurately atimpressively high speeds (see Table 2 for forward speeds).

sprayer/tractor hoe combination. Whilst these can save man-hours, weather can restrict their use when conditions are notappropriate for both the herbicides and hoes to work well.The cost is £21,400 for a 12-row machine working between4 and 10 kph, depending on the guidance system used.

Mechanical weeding requires dry soil conditions with no rainduring or after the work; hence the availability of work days isaffected both by soil type and rainfall which, in turn, dependson the time of year. In northern France, the number of daysavailable is usually only two or three of a possible ten towardsthe end of April when the crop growth stage becomes suitablefor mechanical weeding; in May and June five, six or moredays might be suitable.

The resultant costs of the different weed control systems undertest ranged from around £100 to £129 per hectare. Thetraditional four-spray overall herbicide system was just under£114/ha. The cheapest system was two chemical treatments andeither two passes of the Treffler harrow or one of a traditionalhoe plus two with the rotary hoe. The more expensive optionswere those with four passes of the band sprayer plus four passes

of inter-row weeding, or two overall herbicide applications andtwo passes of the hoe with star wheels. These costs includedherbicides, labour (including sprayer preparation and cleaning),

Pic. 8 – Untreated beet in area to right showing better vigour thantreated beet to left.

Pic. 9 – There were vigour differences between a number oftreatments (compare left and right in this image).



Listening to each of the companies describe the benefits oftheir machines, it became obvious that there was no consensusas to how machines should be set up, especially as to the besttype of tines or blades or depths for normal use. For instance,the Bednar Rowmaster (which was designed and built for usein large Czechoslovakian fields where high field work rates areessential) (Pics. 12 and 13) was being operated around 15 cmdeep (Pic. 14) in order to ‘aerate the soil and give good weedcontrol’, whereas most of the tine weeders were set very fleet.

tractor hours used and depreciation of equipment. The sprayerin these tests was 27 m wide and the hoes were 12-rowmachines except for the Treffler, which was 12 m.

Demonstration of equipment

The demonstration was a useful peek at the developments inmechanical weeding that are taking place; a list of themachines demonstrated is given in Table 2. The event wasattended by over 800 growers, all of whom were interested inlearning more about the options for mechanical weed controlon their farms. It is accepted that herbicides are necessary, atleast early in the beet season, as small beet are too vulnerableto mechanical damage.

Looking across the 18 ha site used for the demonstration,there were few weeds to be seen, as the area had been usedto test the machines earlier in the season. Whilst it was notpossible to compare the effects of individual machines on theweeds, there were untreated plots (Pic. 7) that showed themain weeds that had been present on the site.

There were some effects on the crop, as seen by thedifference in crop vigour between the untreated and treatedplots (Pic. 8) and between some of the treatments (Pic. 9).These reductions are to be expected both from herbicides andsome mechanical treatments and, whilst it was not possibleto differentiate between the ‘culprits’during our visit, crop vigour and yield arebeing recorded by ITB. Some cropdamage was caused by machines beingset incorrectly and running too close tothe beet (Pics. 10 and 11). However, apartfrom the obviously physically damagedplants, yield reductions were likely to below. In the UK, estimates of crop damagefrom mechanical/hand weeding werearound 5% in some of the GeneticallyModified Herbicide Tolerant (GMHT)trials carried out at the end of the lastcentury. Mechanical weed control hasobviously moved on since then, and thework ITB are carrying out will be useful inquantifying damage with the systemstested. Work in Denmark and Swedenhas suggested the yield penalty frommechanical operations can be around2%. However, much depends on themachines used and how they are set.

Pic. 10 – Machines can operate very close to beet (in this case tooclose) and can damage laterals.

Pic. 12 – The Row Master in operation.

Pic. 11 – Some machines are designed to smother weeds with soil butcare is required to prevent damage to the crop or risk ofencouraging diseases such as rhizoctonia.

Pic. 14 (insert) – Row Master is operated togreater depth than many other machines,

here it was set to approximately 10 cm.

Pic. 13 – The deep tines on the Row Master.



regrowth of weeds following treatment with herbicidescompared to mechanical systems. It was agreed that the riskwas not specific to any one method but was an interactionbetween the weather and the system.

New systems of detection were in the pipeline, includingultrasound. Some mechanical systems were being developedto make use of weed identification to change machinesettings as appropriate (e.g. to alter speed of machinesoperating in the row when weeds were detected).

On some machines, the discs and tine setups were obviouslyclose enough to the beet to be cutting or damaging thelateral roots (Pic. 15). This indicates that some fundamentalwork is required to help design machines for the future;the BBRO work demonstrated at the summer open dayssuggested that these lateral roots were important forwater and nutrient uptake during periods of normalrainfall.

We are grateful to Cédric Royer and Vincent Laudinat(Director General of ITB) for the invitation to thedemonstration and the openness of the discussions.

The IIRB weed control groupThis meeting was attended by delegates from nine countries(Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Spain,Sweden, Switzerland and the UK).

A major discussion point was the implications of possiblefurther restrictions on the use of herbicides in the future.Most delegates were concerned that herbicides would still berequired in the early stages of the crop and so any losses ofactives could cause problems, even with wide-scale adoptionof mechanical systems. It was also noted that mechanicalweed control could exacerbate disease spread in rhizoctoniainfected soil. Spot spraying was of interest for some as a wayof reducing costs without the expense of sugar beet-specificmechanical systems. There was some discussion as to the risk of

Pic. 15 – With modern guidance systems many machines can operatevery close to the crop.

Table 2 – Machines demonstrated at Désherb’Avenir IV (Information taken from event programme including French name of equipment andwebsites of French supplier).

Company Machine Working width Speeds (kph) Notes

Agronomicwww.agronomic.eu

Bineuse autoguidée 6, 12, 18 row 4 to 15 Camera guidance, range of attachments

Annaburgerwww.annaburger-france.com

Roto-étrilleuse (Pic. 2) 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 mor to order

8 to 15 Rotary tines are ground driven, does notaffect mulch (Pic. 16)

Atalier du Val de Saönewww.kress-landtechnik.de

Bineuses à doigts Kress Kult Various 5 to 8 Fitted with tines and Kress star wheels(Pic. 17)

Bednarwww.bednar-machinery.com

Bineuse portée Row Master(Pic. 12)

12 row 8 Camera guidance, adaptable deep tineswith finger tines to smother weeds

Carréwww.carre.fr

Bineuse Econet (Pic. 18) 3 to 13 m 8 to 10 Discs protect crop, 3 tines + a crow’s foottine per row

Garfordwww.novaxi.fr

Robocrop (Pic. 6) Up to 18 m 5 to 15 Camera guidance, tines

Hatzenbichlerwww.hatzenbichler.com

Bineuse à betteraves (Pic. 19) 6 to 24 row 6 to 12 Camera or GPS, various modules

Houe rotative 4.4, 6.4 & 9.2 m 7 to 14 2 rows of rotary hoes with reverserotation + weeding tines

Kongskildewww.kongskilde.com

Bineuse autoguidée VCOIntelli

6.7 & 9.9 m n/a Camera guidance, various modules

Monosemwww.monosem.com

Bineuse Multicrop 6, 12 or 18 rows 8 to 12 Ribbed wheel guidance, modules includeblades, planet wheels and comb weeder

Razolwww.razol.fr

Bineuse autoguidée 12 rows 8 to 15 Camera or GPS, various modules

SDM AcierWebsite n/a

Bineuse (Pic. 20) 6 or 12 rows n/a Camera & ‘whiteness’ guidance, variousmodules

Sopemawww.sopema.com

Rampe de traitement localise(band sprayer, Pic. 4)

12 to 54 rows 8 to 15 Rib wheel guidance

Stecomatwww.stecomat.com

Herse étrille Treffler 1.5 to 24 m 4 to 10 Controlled tines (Pic. 3)

Bineuse Steketee FRS 6000 1.5 to 12 m 5 to 8 Front mounted, various modules includingpolyurethane star wheels (Pic. 21)

Bineuse Steketee TRS 6000 1.5 to 12 m 6 to 15 Camera guidance, various modulesincluding polyurethane star wheels



Pic. 16 – Straw mulch unaffected by Annaburger rotary hoe.

Pic. 17 – Kress type star wheels. Pic. 20 – SDM Acier with dual guidance cameras.

Pic. 21 – Polyurethane star wheels on Steketee TRS 6000.Pic. 18 – Carré Econet with tines and protective discs.

Pic. 19 – Hatzenbichler fitted with discs to protect beet (here discs areraised out of work position).

All were agreed that, for modern sugar beet crops, weedcontrol had to be good, as just a few weeds could reduceyields (e.g. 1 fat-hen per 10 m2 was not acceptable in Spain).

The increasing use of cover crops meant that these neededto be planned carefully in advance of sowing, to ensureneither chemical nor mechanical weed control would becompromised.

There were increasing restrictions on chloridazon in Germany asits metabolites were being detected in ground water, despitereduced usage and treatment (dose) reductions in vulnerableareas. There was some concern over the World HealthOrganisation (WHO) classification of glyphosate as a possiblecarcinogen. The German authorities, who were the rapporteurmember state for the EU, had not found it to be carcinogenic.

Belgium had found a rogue batch of herbicide that hadturned beet white after treatment. The company involvedidentified the contaminant and was able to distinguish theaffected batches and recall them.

The meeting ended with a discussion on the importance ofcrop rotations for disease, pest and weed management.Herbicide management was changing in a range of crops,mostly as a result of EU rule changes and this, in turn, wasleading to issues in other parts of the rotation. The groupagreed to collect information of rotations in membercountries, to share thoughts on possible knock-on effects onsugar beet from changes in other crops and consider possibleresearch options.



2015 is looking goodfor Cornerways

ByAndrew MacKay,British Sugar plc

This year’s shaping up to be a great year here atCornerways Nursery. Based in the heart of Norfolkoutside Downham Market, we grow 140 million eco-friendly tomatoes every year. Using the surplus carbondioxide and heat from the next door Wissingtonfactory, our tomatoes are both environmentallyfriendly and delicious! Our 18 hectare greenhouse uses8,500 native british bumblebees over the course of thenine month season to pollinate the 140 million flowersthat eventually grow into our tasty tomatoes.

Ironically, one of the most important factors, aside from lightand our heat and carbon dioxide, is rain. We collect rain waterin two large lagoons and use this to water our crop. With norain, we wouldn’t have a business. Growing tomatoes is notfor the faint hearted, but can be very rewarding!

As well as supplying national supermarkets such asSainsbury’s, Morrisons and Asda, we have been fortunate togrow our fantastic customer base across East Anglia during2015, so you shouldn’t find it too hard to find our tomatoes.We are the reigning Supplier of the Year at the East ofEngland Co-op, and also the 2015 Supplier of the Year atBudgens Holt/Aylsham (Part of the CT Baker Group), whilst

we also supply a range of Norfolk’s best farm shops. If you areout for dinner in one of the county’s brilliant restaurants,such as The Hoste in Burnham Market, Morston Hall, TitchwellManor, The Orange Tree in Thornham or Market Bistro inKing’s Lynn, look out for our tomatoes in their dishes.

Sustainability is at the core of our business, and without yoursugar beet, we wouldn’t do what we do!



BBRO updateFollowing the end of the Open Days the focus has turned toharvest planning/preparation and continued trial maintenance.The up-keep of the many BBRO trials is an extensive task with alltrials following set criteria within their protocols and general sitemaintenance. Each site has a trial officer that ‘owns’ the site. Thetrials officer will visit the site regularly to ensure that all isgrowing well and to feed back information to the rest of theteam. This ownership is a very important task and, while everyoneensures all trials and sites hit all milestones for data recording andother tasks, there is a slight competitive edge to have the best site.

All the sites have had their pathways (spray wheelings) tractorhoed two or three times with two different tractor hoes, and insome cases hand hoed. This may seem excessive in a commercialsituation but in a trial field this will eliminate contamination ofplots with pathway sugar beet when harvesting.

on one of the hottest days of the year but all required operationswere completed in the short time available, and a successful trialwas achieved. Dr. Mark Stevens will report on the trial followingharvesting of the plots.

A range of fungicide trials have been set up and some plotsreceived their first treatments on the 21st July. There aresequentially drilled and sprayed trials, as well as contractedproduct comparisons some of which will lead to the BBRO teamharvesting at the end of February.

The BBRO has been working on contracted independent trials onweed beet; these have been very successful.

Being reactive to problem situations within growing crops, to tryand better understand problems, is an area that we must alwaysbe ready for. Downy mildew has affected certain areas to a levelthat will reduce yield. We have started trials to look into this andwe are currently planning trials for next year to furtherinvestigate this issue.

Harvest preparation

Like all the trials, machinery has to be prepared meticulously toensure as few problems as possible during this very hectic period.A harvest breakdown can adversely affect trial results or at worst,cause a trial to fail. Both the three row and six row toppers andharvesters have been fully serviced and are ready to go.

Harvest plans have been put into place to ensure that siteowners/operators know when their sites will be harvested, andthis is communicated to our hauliers and the Wissingtontarehouse. Good communication regarding harvest planning willensure deadlines are met.

Drone picture of a disease screen trial.

View from the cab during harvest.

Kevin Sawford assessing the aphicide trial.

Whilst many of the trials are being checked and inspected forproblems such as downy mildew, leaf miner, weed beet, nutrientdeficiencies, variations of plots, weed problems and so on, othertrials were being set up in preparation to start. How problems aredealt with can cause a trial to succeed or fail.

An aphicide trial was planned, and standard seed was drilled atfour sites. These sites were being monitored for aphid numbersand, when numbers were at a suitable level, an application of theplanned treatments was applied. Following application of theaphicide treatments, the plots were assessed by Dr. Mark Stevens,Kevin Sawford and Rob Blundell. The assessments were completed

Demo sites

Use of the Open Day sites as subsequent demo sites this year hasprovided a focus for area managers to discuss production issueswith growers. This innovation has proved a great success which wemust build on to ensure successful BBRO knowledge transfer.Planning for these sites and trial sites has been happening sinceJuly but these events will be developed again for 2016.

I am always looking for new trial sites/demo sites so please contactme if you would like to discuss this.

Daniel Godsmark, BBRO Trials Manager. [email protected]



news

AHDB to lead new crop nutrition manual (RB209)

BBRO to use its latest nutrient data to support thenew RB209 initiativeBBRO has agreed to be part of a consortium of partners in a new flagship industry project to bring the very latest nutrient research to UKFarmers. BBRO will have representation on the steering and technical working groups to ensure that the sugar beet crop is well representedalongside the other industry partners; the project will be co-ordinated by AHDB. These groups will help to review the current (RB209)Fertiliser Manual and BBRO will use its current and future trials database to assess present nutrient requirements for sugar beet andinvestigate areas that may need re-evaluation or revision for the future.

Crop nutrition is a vital part of maximising the potential yield of the crop and BBRO is regularly asked about current and futurenutrient requirements of higher yielding crops, emphasising the importance of independent trials data. BBRO will now contribute to this reviewof RB209 to ensure the recommendations are up-to-date, and that growers are able to manage their nutrient plans efficiently in the future.

George Lawrie, farmer and steering group chair.

The Agriculture and Horticulture DevelopmentBoard (AHDB) is leading a new consortium ofpartners in a flagship industry project to bring thevery latest in nutrient research to UK farmers.

AHDB has committed £95,000 to independentlyreview information in the current FertiliserManual (RB209) as well as nutrient managementresearch released since the eighth edition ofRB209 was last published by Defra in 2010.

The findings of this review will feed into the firstplanned edition of the new successor guide toRB209 – the AHDB Nutrient Management Guide,which will be released in 2017.

AHDB will be working with a steering group ofpartners in the project, known as the UKPartnership for Crop Nutrient Management, toform the strategy for the project.

The steering group is supported by technical working groups forthe arable, horticulture and livestock sectors. Farmers, growers,their representatives, manufacturers, agronomists and advisershave all contributed to the plan and are involved in the technicalworking groups.

Peter Kendall, AHDB Chairman, said the project represented along-term commitment by AHDB to add value to levy-fundedresearch and ensure UK farmers and growers have access to thelatest evidence-based guidance.

He said: “In taking the lead on crop nutrition, AHDB is showingits ambition to deliver a world-class set of tools to farmers and

Steering group.

growers. There are many challenges that UK producers faceand by providing current, relevant data on crop nutrition, theywill be better placed to make the decisions that will drive ourindustry forward.”

George Lawrie, farmer and steering group chair, said: “Cropnutrition is one of the key elements to optimising production inthe field.”

“As a farmer, I use all the tools available to ensure that I manageresources efficiently, in terms of soil, applications and planthealth.”

“And I’m not alone, over 68 per cent of farms have a nutrientmanagement plan, a high proportion of them re-visit theseresources year after year to continue to manage crop nutrition.Therefore, it is really important that we have the correctinformation to make these decisions.”

“There had been no planned update of RB209 so I am reallyexcited that AHDB is carrying out this review so we have moreaccurate data with which to make better management decisionsin the near future.”

RB209 offers best practice guidance in England, Wales andNorthern Ireland on application of mineral fertilisers, manuresand slurries to crops and grassland. The guidance aims tomaximise yields while keeping environmental impacts to aminimum. The data is also used to update Technical Notes inScotland and tools such as PLANET and MANNER.

The current edition of RB209 has been hosted on the AHDBwebsite since 5th June 2015.



factory newsCANTLEY FACTORYBURY ST. EDMUNDS FACTORY

2015 crop prospects

We have experienced another unusual growing season. Theaverage drilling date for the 2015 Bury crop was 23rd March, twodays earlier than the average for the national crop. The cropemerged well and plant populations are probably as high as theyhave ever been in the Bury area. A cold spring followed drillingwith a dry July and a very wet August. The crop has made goodprogress especially over the last six weeks, and the root samplesare indicating a crop above the ‘five-year’ average at Bury.

Campaign

Preparation for the campaign, starting week commencing 21stSeptember, needs serious consideration. It is essential that youplan with your haulage and harvesting contractors yourharvesting and delivery programme requirements now. Thisshould then minimise any beet storage time and maximise youryields. Also check your beet pads are in good condition and strawbales (if required) are available.

Co products

We are again offering our pH and soil nutrient analysis services,along with our service testing for beet cyst nematode. Please letyour area manager know if you are interested in any of theseservices.

LimeX70 is an excellent product for pH correction but is also avaluable source of key plant nutrients. Please ensure your LimeXrequirements are ordered early and collected during campaign.This will enable you to save on transport costs and also ensure wecan satisfy your full requirements.

Factory

As usual the factory has delivered a comprehensive programmeof routine maintenance between campaigns. This has all beencompleted between March and September. The factory started apre-campaign juice run early in September in preparation for thecampaign start.

Work is also now progressing on an anaerobic digestion (AD)plant on the Bury factory site; the feedstock for this plant will bearound 97,000 tonnes of pressed pulp. The plant is expected togenerate up to five megawatts of electricity per year which willbe exported directly into the National Grid system. We expect theplant to be fully operational by summer 2016.

I would like to wish everyone a safe and successful 2015/16campaign.

Mark CullodenHead of Agriculture

Factory maintenance

Off-season maintenance has been progressing well throughoutthe summer with all the capital projects well on track to bedelivered by the start of the campaign. These include phase oneof the installation and upgrade of the factory control system, thereconditioning of the animal feed driers and the finalcommissioning of the thick juice import/export system. We arealso making good progress with the installation of the new gasmain to the factory. Last year’s energy project reduced our fossilfuel usage by 25%. The gas line will give the factory security offuel supply coupled with several environmental benefits. The pipeinstallation company are working closely with Norfolk Highwaysto minimise the impact on the B1140. We plan to commission theequipment by July 2016.

We have also made several changes in beet intake on therecommendations of the NFU/British Sugar Logistics workinggroup. This is designed to improve turn around in the beet intakeyard and co-product collection. The main change hauliers will seewill be the reconfiguration of the spare weighbridge to reducethe amount of time taken to weigh in for co-product collection.Feedback on these improvements will be welcomed.

2015 crop progress

Despite a relatively dry summer spell, the beet in the Cantley arealook as though they are on track to produce another good yield.The average drilling date of the 26th March was slightly laterthan last year but plant populations from our field survey are up,averaging 96,269 plants/ha (91,943 plants/ha in 2014). The initialroot digs (first two weeks in August) would suggest that the rootweights are down on last year’s as are the sugars, but it is stillearly days. Aphid numbers started to rise in some parts of EastAnglia but the Cantley factory catchment area escaped relativelyunscathed. Please make sure that your crops are fully protectedfrom mildew and rust with the appropriate fungicides beingapplied as appropriate.

LimeX

It’s not too late to book soil sampling. We offer the followingrange of services; pH testing, nutrient analysis, beet cystnematode and now free-living nematode test. With everincreasing fertiliser input costs and cross compliance requirementsthis service is a must for all growers. Our own LimeX45 product isideal for both pH correction and it also has additional nutrientvalue. Please contact your area manager if you would like todiscuss your soil testing requirements and the fertiliser value inour LimeX products. Make sure you take full advantage of back-loading during the campaign to keep the haulage costs down.

TOPSOIL

With the relatively dry summer we have made significant progressin securing dry winter stock for despatch throughout the year.Cantley will have had one of its best years for soil despatches withover 27 kt sold to date. A new area of land behind the tarehousehas been cleared ready for conditioning next year.

Finally, I would like to wish everyone a very safe and successful2015/16 campaign.

Andrew DearAgricultural Business Manager



NEWARK FACTORY WISSINGTON FACTORY

Nick MorrisAgricultural Business Manager

Factory campaign readiness

Throughout the summer months the usual routine ofmaintenance has been completed to plan. The considerablework required on the three large diffusers has all been completedand ensured this equipment was repaired in a sustainable mannerfor future campaigns. The 4th fermenter in the Bioethanol Plantis also all complete and will allow flexibility for all futurecampaigns in terms of volume of sugar to be used, through tocrystal production or bioethanol production.

The operational staff structure has been significantly changedthrough the summer, this is all now complete and places thefactory in a leaner cost base, ready for the difficult marketconditions on sugar that are being faced now.

The campaign is due to start on 28th September with a numberof beet loads being delivered on the Saturday before this date. Aspart of the continuous improvement for site Health and Safety,and following a number of near misses between people andvehicles, the flat pad has been made more secure outside normalbeet delivery hours.

2015 crop progress

The first two weeks of root samples delivered results around thefive year average, which was in some way surprising, but the cropappeared to be very healthy and growing well. On reflection thecool spring months and dry weather through early summer hascaused some loss of potential, but from week three root samplesthe root weight and sugar content improved significantly,therefore raising the expectation of an above average crop forWissington. The rain at the start of August certainly made asignificant difference and increased crop yield and potentialgrower’s financial returns from the crop. If we are given a goodgrowing period in the autumn this crop has the potential to be agood yield, but not up to the record yield of last season. Itdemonstrates that the trended yield of sugar beet continues toincrease year on year significantly. Seed breeding, fungicide useand general attention to detail are all significant factors inproducing higher yield for growers.

TOPSOIL

TOPSOIL sales continue to grow; a major activity in the summeraround the soil ponds and TOPSOIL conditioning fields is toproduce around 60,000 tonnes of stock for winter supply tocustomers. This ensures we can supply all year round. More soilhas been excavated out of the ponds since last campaign finishedthan was delivered in with the record beet crop.

Mud on the road

Following the successful awareness campaign of the dangers ofstoring and loading beet on farm from near overhead powerlines, a new initiative will be started this campaign to raiseawareness on the dangers of ‘Mud on the Road’. Keep an eye outfor this in newsletters and publications through the autumn.

I would like to wish everyone a safe and successful 2015/16campaign.

The average drilling date for the Newark crop was the 26th March. It wasgenerally sown into good seedbeds, which got the crop got off to areasonable start. In a few cases the crop came under pressure from some coldnights and strong winds, however less than 1% of this year’s crop requiredre-drilling and the average plant population is over 94,000 plants/ha. Sofar root dig results look promising; the 2013 to 2015 root dig results to datefor the Newark factory area are detailed in Table 1 for comparison. Theseresults would suggest the crop has continued to grow very well over thesummer, owing to the good levels of warmth and sunshine complimentedby reasonably frequent showers.

Dan DownsHead of Agriculture

Thick juice tank 5 in numbers – civils underway August 2015■ Tank: 50 m diameter; 44,000 m3; 60,000 t thick juice storage■ Bunding: 50,000 m3

■ Piling: 1,022 piles, 350 mm in diameter, 12 m deep, 1.7 m3 concrete per pile■ Concrete: 1,200 m3 in base; 1,700 m3 in piling; 100 m3 for access ■ Steel: 850 t in tank construction; 160 t in concrete reinforcement■ Timeline: civil work July to December 2015; tank construction January to

October 2016■ Capital cost: £5.5m

Table 1 – Newark area sugar content from British Sugar root digs 2013-2015.

Week No.(from 1st week of August)

Sugar Content (%)

2013 2014 2015

1 12.95 15.87 14.86

2 15.20 15.36 16.40

3 15.44 14.97 16.17

4 16.13 15.83 15.48

5 15.88 16.62 15.58

As a result of the warm and wet weather, foliar disease is the main point tonote in terms of agronomy at the time of writing on the 25th August 2015.Recent weather has suited rust development and can be found readily;conversely powdery mildew doesn’t seem to be prevalent this season. There islittle doubt that growers lifting after October will benefit from a two-sprayfungicide programme this year, and work continues to evaluate whether athree- or even a four-spray programme would be cost-effective in some years.

The factory has undergone many improvements in preparation for thiscampaign, as well as scheduled maintenance. Some of the more majorprojects have been the installation of new vacuum pumps, which remove airfrom sugar pans. This is a £615k capital project which will increase the outputof crystal sugar production. We have also installed new ELFA (beet washer)water pumps which provide high pressure water to beet reception. This is a£420k project which will replace the existing equipment with higher outputpumps with greater reliability. Our largest capital project currently underwayis evident from the Newark bypass when driving past the factory. Civils workis progressing in preparation for our new thick juice tank which will enable usto process more Sugar Beet at Newark without having to slow down at theend of campaign due to storage limitations.

Harvest and delivery planning should now be well underway on farm, withthe campaign currently scheduled to commence on the 24th September.There will be a slight change to our opening hours for this campaign. To assisthauliers with their deliveries we will continue to operate extended beetreception hours, although two hours shorter than the 2014/15 campaign,which will now be 5.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Friday, and 5.00am – 5.00pmSaturday and Sunday. We have experienced that extended hours increases thespeed of turnaround in beet intake, as well as provide hauliers with theopportunity of greater utilisation of their vehicles and provide the industrywith further efficiencies.

We have despatched over 30,000t of LimeX since the campaign as growersprepare for next season’s cropping. Newark now offer a pH sampling service,please don’t delay in speaking with your area manager to discuss soilsampling and LimeX requirements before product supply is restricted throughthe autumn, when demand can be high.

With the significant potential of the crop in the ground, every effort shouldbe made to harvest and deliver as much yield as possible. Your area managercan assist you in assessing harvesting and storage losses, and provide adviceon how to mitigate these. Best wishes for a safe and successful campaign,


SEEDING THE FUTURE

SINCE 1856

SABATINA KWS No. 1 for sugar yield – 105 %*

Unbeatable adjusted yields – 105 %*

Low bolting in UK conditions

* 2016 BBRO Recommended & Descriptive List

The UK’s New No. 1: it’s all in the seed.

www.kws-uk.com

15/3/BC/05


british sugar beet review - bbrobbro.co.uk/media/1085/54075-beet-review-vol83-no3.pdf · british...

Documents