british sugar beet review - home - bbro · winter 2014 volume 82 no. 4 british sugar beet review 1...

Plant health policyin perspective

Cultivationsfor sugar beet

Beet Europereport

BRITISHsugar beet review

WINTER 2014 ■ volume 82 no. 4

www.beetreview.co.uk

51085-Beet Review Vol82 No4 3rdPrf_- 15/12/2014 09:51 Page A

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

Our varieties; Hornet, Stingray, Springbok, Cayman, Lipizzan and Mongoose delivered more exceptional yields in 2014.

Proven in UK trials and in your fi elds, more growers than ever benefi t from our trusted varieties.

Proven. Exceptional. Trusted.

14/4/IFC/01

51085-Beet Review Vol82 No4 3rdPrf_- 15/12/2014 09:51 Page B

WINTER 2014 ■ volume 82 no. 4 BRITISH sugar beet review 1

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

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

editorial office:

British Sugar plc,

Sugar Way, Peterborough,

Cambs, UK, PE2 9AY

t: 01733 422106 / 422278

f: 01733 422080

e: [email protected]

w: www.beetreview.co.uk

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

BRITISHsugar beet review

Editor:Robin Limb

Production Editor:Denise Woodward

Editorial Committee:

Ruth Digby,National Farmers Union

Mike May,Independent Consultant

Dr. Mark Stevens,British Beet Research

Organisation

Colin Walters,British Beet ResearchOrganisation

Dr. John King,Independent Consultant

contents

Cover picture courtesy of Agrifac UK

BASIS / FACTSCP/37773/1415/g

2 CPD points (1CP, 1AP)

Editorial 2

News 36A review of the latest news and products.

Factory news 38News and information from British Sugar’s factories.

The future of crop protection:how the NFU is tackling theproblem 3Emma Mundy of the NFU gives us a comprehensiverundown of the issues surrounding plant protectionproduct review and explains why growers shouldbe concerned about the threat of withdrawal ofcertain key active ingredients.

Latest research to understandBeet Cyst Nematode and itsmanagement 5Mark Stevens reports on the progress made towardsa better understanding of the extent and impact ofthis pest which is becoming more prevalent acrossthe beet growing regions.

regulars

features

To plough or not to plough? 15Philip Ecclestone and Philip Wright present thearguments for and against traditional seedbedpreparation, and review the range of alternativesnow available to the mouldboard plough.

Drill testing for the 2015 crop 20Andy Stocking provides us with a timely reminder ofthe importance of drill maintenance and testing, inadvance of the new season, together with the rangeof services available to growers.

Sugar in Spain – it’s moresimilar than you might think 24Gillian Colman reports on her experience of thecompany’s International Exchange Programme,spent with sister company Azucarera, and the keylearnings from her time in Spain.

A brief history ofStanden Engineering 28Robin Limb uncovers the background to one of theindustry’s most familiar machinery manufacturers,and charts the progress from blacksmiths forge tointernationally recognised brand.

Australia’s marketing debacle:the growers’ perspective 32Suzi Moore gives us an insight into the issues facingthe Australian cane sugar industry and the effortsbeing made by growers to protect their traditionalmarketing mechanism.

NRoSONO460390f

2 CPD points

Making Sense of Sugar 35Richard Pike explains the efforts being made bythe industry to counter the negative image beingportrayed of sugar in some sectors of the media andhighlights the work of the new campaign aimedat better public understanding of the issues.

CIBE technical and receptioncontrol committee 2014 10Colin Walters and Mark Fletcher report on theproceedings of the CIBE annual technicalconference, held in Bologna, Italy, which wasattended by 16 EU members, representing around150,000 grower members.

Beet Europe 2014: Beets inEurope – tradition and future 12Robyn Cooper reports on the recent European beetharvesting event held in Poland and charts thehistory and development of the industry, togetherwith the future opportunities presented by sugarreform.

51085-Beet Review Vol82 No4 3rdPrf_- 15/12/2014 09:52 Page 1

2 BRITISH sugar beet review WINTER 2014 ■ volume 82 no. 4

editorial

Robin LimbEditor

BBRO Winter Conference 2015 Tuesday 10th FebruaryThe BBRO are pleased to invite you to the forthcoming Winter Conference 2015 which will bring together the wholesugar beet industry for an exciting event. Growers and industry experts can benefit from the work of the BBRO and

embrace the latest technology and techniques to continuethe development of the UK sugar beet crop.

Trade exhibits will be available as well as an opportunity todiscuss all aspects of sugar beet production with a range ofexperts from throughout the industry

The conference will commence at 08.30 with breakfastrefreshments and lunch will be provided. The day will cometo a close at 16.00.

To register your attendance call the helpdesk on 0870 2402314.

Expectations remain high for another record crop…At the time of writing, there is every chance that the UK beet sugar industry will see yet another successiverecord-yielding crop. When I joined British Sugar in 1982, we broke the 50 t/ha barrier; it took until 2005 before the60 t/ha average was broken; 70 t/ha was achieved in 2009, despite huge scepticism this could ever be done. In 2011the record was nudged above 75 t/ha, and now just three years later we are staring at the prospect of a UK averageadjusted yield of 80 t/ha. If ever there was a better example of R&D investment and communication of bestpractice….look no further.

This latest edition of the British Sugar Beet Review reports on the recent CIBE technical and reception conference,examines how the NFU is working hard to defend our diminishing and vulnerable plant protection products, andwe reflect on yet another successful Beet Europe event. Elsewhere, Mark Stevens reports on the latest researchinto Beet Cyst Nematode, Philip Ecclestone reminds us of the importance placed on good soil cultivation, andGillian Colman reflects on her time spent working in the Spanish beetsugar industry.

This will be my last issue of the British Sugar Beet Review aseditor; after four years in the role, and 33 years in BritishSugar, I am handing over the baton to the next generation.Despite the challenges the sugar industry, and agriculturein general, faces, I am confident that the future forsugar beet is bright. The legacy of over 100 years ofevolution in the beet crop is unparalleled in the arablesector. If wheat yields had kept up with sugar beetover the past 30 years, the UK would now enjoy anaverage wheat yield of 15 t/ha. I rest my case…

I hope you enjoy this Winter issue of the Reviewand on behalf of editorial committee, may Iwish you a successful outcome to the 2014/15campaign, and a peaceful and joyousChristmas.



The Future ofCrop Protection:How the NFU istackling this issue

ByEmma Mundy,

NFU

IntroductionThe future of crop protection products is looking bleak dueto changes in the legislative approach to authorisation; thisthreatens the ability of UK growers to continue to producecrops of the same quality and volume as today. As this is oneof the most serious challenges affecting arable farming todaythe NFU, on behalf of farmers and for the future of the UK’sfood security, are doing a number of things to draw attentionto the issue in an effort to combat further changes.

There are numerous pieces of legislation which restrict afarmer’s ability to obtain and use crop protection products.The main areas of concern include:

■ Directive 1107/2009, which controls the placing of PlantProtection Products (PPP) onto the market and aims toharmonise authorisation of PPP in the EU.

■ The initiative concerning Endocrine Disruptors as set out inboth the PPP and Biocidal Products legislation. A proposalon definitions is currently under consultation to defineEndocrine Disruptors.

■ Neonicotinoids are under threat. There is already anexisting moratorium on neonicotinoids under Regulation485/2013, restricting their use on certain flowering crops,including oilseed rape. While sugar beet is not included inthis moratorium, there is concern that they may be broughtin if the moratorium is expanded to cover more crops.

The NFU is working with the Crop Protection Association (CPA)and the Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC), the foodchain and levy and research bodies such as the BBRO in the UKand across Europe to help identify where product removalshave impacted production elsewhere.

Background to the campaignAt Cereals, in June 2014, the NFU launched a campaign called‘Healthy Harvest’. The campaign is in response to concernsthat already declining UK crop production will be weakened

further if British farmers cannot access the crop protectionproducts that they need.

The NFU is calling for all legislation to be based on soundscience. We would like to see a risk-based approach, asopposed to the hazard-based approach, adopted under1107/2009. With a hazard-based approach, any possibleexposure to a hazardous substance is seen as unacceptable,whereas a risk-based approach considers the probability ofexposure, which depends on steps taken by uses to minimiserisk to the operators or non-target organisms. We believethere is a lack of sound evidence behind the regulation and alack of awareness amongst regulators as to the impact oftheir actions on our ability to produce crops and competein global markets. The legislation could also be morefar-reaching than merely crop production, having broaderimpacts such as job losses and increased food prices, whichwill, in turn, take their toll on the UK economy.

Environmental StewardshipEnvironmental Stewardship is something which the farmingindustry cares very strongly about. The approval of productsand their use on farm already requires compliance withstringent environmental standards. The correct use ofproducts is fundamental, which is why the NFU also continuesto support the important principle that growers are correctlytrained and certified to use crop-protection products inenvironmentally benign and effective ways.

Unlike other member states, which have introduced restrictiveregulations to chemical usage, in the UK we have theVoluntary Initiative (VI). The VI is an industry-led programme,which was launched in 2001 to help farmers meet therequirements of the Sustainable Use Directive. The NFUsponsors the VI, along with other organisations in the farmingand crop protection industries.

Key elements of the VI are: the National Register of SprayerOperators (NRoSO), the National Sprayer Testing Scheme



and Endocrine Disruptor active substances. Thisapproach would run the risk of creating grey lists andstigmatising substances around which there is little orno risk, creating political pressure to take action wherenone is needed.

4. Hazard identification and characterisation based onpotency would focus on potency of effect and wouldbe a more risk-based approach looking at effects andcontext of use.

The EU consultation on Endocrine Disruptors has recentlybeen released and an impact assessment will follow.Depending on the final approach chosen, the policy couldlead to the loss of key crop protection products, such as allthe azole fungicides. The NFU has been actively engagedon this issue for some time, and it was partly as a result ofNFU lobbying that a European impact assessment hasbeen initiated rather than the original approach, whichwould not have considered possible outcomes of differentapproaches.

The NFU plans a series of actions in order to highlight thesepolicy issues and they will be communicated through a varietyof channels.

(NSTS) and the Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP)which replaces the earlier Crop Protection Management Plan(CPMP).

The UK’s voluntary approach to IPM is a way for farmersto show that they are adopting an integrated andenvironmentally sensitive approach to weed, pest and diseasemanagement.

What we are trying to achieve and whyFollowing the introduction of Regulation 1107/2009, thechange from a risk-based to a hazard-based approach hasseen a number of key active ingredients removed or restrictedfrom use in Europe. Public campaigns focussing on the use ofcrop protection products have encouraged and re-inforcedthese political decisions in the last few years.

For example the group of chemicals called neonicotinoids,which are contained in some crop protection products (i.e.Cruiser Force, Poncho Beta and Nuprid) used on sugar beet,are currently restricted from use on flowering crops attractiveto bees. This decision to introduce a restriction is a majorconcern for sugar beet growers, because if neonicotinoidscontinue to be under political scrutiny and became restrictedfrom all uses, pest pressures in beet crops, causing serious yieldloss, will be inevitable, or because less efficient products wouldhave to be used, if available.

Another important area of policy, which the NFU and otherindustry bodies are currently facing, is the definition ofEndocrine Disruptors. The endocrine system ensures thatanimal organs controlled by hormones, such as reproductivesystems, are working properly. Substances that have the abilityto interact with hormones are known either as endocrineactive substances or endocrine disrupting substances. Thedifference between endocrine active substances andendocrine disruptors is that endocrine active substances havea positive or benign effect – i.e. no negative effect. Examplesof endocrine active substances are coffee, vitamin C and soyamilk. The effect they have on our endocrine system istemporary and reversible. A substance should be consideredendocrine disruptive if it can cause irreversible, adverse effectson animal endocrine systems in real life.

All chemical regulations, including the PPP regulations and theBiocidal Product regulations, already have provisions (requiredcriteria) for Endocrine Disruptors. In the PPP regulationsthere is an absolute cut off for all Endocrine Disruptors; theEU is seeking a single harmonised definition, which may havesignificant impacts on the number of actives at risk from thisnew hazard criteria.

In June the European Commission published a ‘roadmap’,which set out the criteria for EU legislation to be used toidentify Endocrine Disruptors as part of the risk assessment forproducts on the market. The roadmap describes the possiblepolicy options as follows:

1. No change (this options seems unlikely).

2. Hazard identification alone: this would be the mostrestrictive and will have greater impact in terms of thenumber of substances eliminated, as no assessment of therisk is taken into account.

3. Hazard identification within categories based on strengthof evidence. This would create a set of categories:Endocrine Disruptors, Suspected Endocrine Disruptors

Action

Strand 1 European lobbying activity

Strand 2 Action with the UK government

Strand 3 Action with the public/food chain

Strand 4 Data generation

Strand 5 Focus on enhanced stewardship

The NFU, along with the AIC and the CPA, commissioned areport from farm business consultants Andersons. The reportlooked at the economic impacts on UK agriculture and thewider economy of the loss of certain plant protectionproducts, and concluded that 40 active substances are likelyto be lost or restricted for future use. The report was launchedon 21st October in London.

The impacts of the decisions made on these topics will affectNFU members. The NFU is reaching out to all members tohelp support our lobbying efforts on this topic. We will becontacting members with information to pass on to local MPs.Members must respond to the campaign and detail theimpacts the decisions will have on their businesses. We willalso be encouraging all members to respond to theconsultation on Endocrine Disruption, because we believethat we will benefit from individual members writing letterson this issue in support of the NFU lobbying collectively onbehalf of its members.

To keep up to date with the progress of the campaign pleasesee www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-news/ and follow us onTwitter @NFUtweets.



Latest research tounderstand Beet CystNematode and itsmanagementPrevious studies have shown that Beet Cyst Nematode (BCN, Heterodera schachtii) can cause yield losses of upto 75% on heavily-infested soils (with populations of more than 40 eggs/g soil (Ref. 1). The last UK surveys ofBCN were completed in 1988, but since then there have been indications that infestations may have becomemore frequent in recent years, suggesting the need for an up-to-date re-assessment of their extent and severity.Traditionally, BCN has been controlled by increasing crop rotations of host species and/or using nematicides. Thelatter are no longer available and it is difficult for some growers to extend their rotations. However, promisingBCN tolerant sugar beet varieties offering new approaches are now available to growers to combat the pest, butit has not yet been fully demonstrated how these can be effectively deployed. Consequently, the BBROcommissioned a project involving a survey and experiments to quantify the problem, and provide informationfor growers on how best to control or minimise the effects of the pest. This paper gives a summary of the keyfindings and recommendations for the future deployment of BCN tolerant varieties.

Pic. 1 – Field symptoms of BCN.

By Mark Stevens,Stuart Harder and

George Milford,BBRO R&D Team and

Jane Thomas,NIAB-TAG



The challenges of studying BCNThe patchy distribution of nematodes within the soil can makeit particularly difficult to quantify the population dynamics ofBCN accurately under field conditions. This makes it difficult toestablish control thresholds and to understand the efficacy oftolerant varieties at populations above threshold levels, onboth yields and the build-up of the pest.

Updated BCN survey A new BCN survey was implemented to determine whetherthe distribution of BCN over the beet growing area hadchanged over the last 25 years. Initially, it started with a verybroad sampling approach that covered as wide an area aspossible (500 fields), in order to establish the locations withinthe beet growing area where BCN is now found.

Once this had been established, subsequent samplinglocations (290 sites) were progressively targeted towardsknown BCN-infested areas. This allowed a betterunderstanding of BCN and detailed mapping of potentialhotspots within the beet growing area (Fig. 1). The broad

distribution of the pest was similar to that found in 1988: withthe most severe incidents occurring on the fens betweenKing’s Lynn and Ely. From the new survey, there are alsoisolated spots throughout central Norfolk, on the west coastsof Norfolk and Suffolk as well as new sites of the pest insouth Lincolnshire which have probably been influencedby vegetable brassica production in this area.

Consequently, BCN remains a threat to UK sugar beetproduction for the following reasons:

■ Soil-borne pest, often patchy in nature, so difficult totarget accurately.

■ No agrochemical control options.

■ Encouraged by other hosts (e.g. oilseed rape, weed beet andcommon arable weed species such as common chickweed).

■ Favoured by close host rotations.

■ The impact of warm springs and/or autumns on the lifecycle of BCN (i.e. potentially increasing the risk ofadditional generations per year).

■ Risk of movement with soil to other fields or farms.

Fig. 1 – Extent of BCN found during the survey (2010-2013). The size of the red circle relates to severity of BCN found in the field: the largerthe circle, the more eggs and larvae/g of soil.


BCN soil samples were taken before drilling from each pair ofsub-plots and then again at harvest from each individualsub-plot. These samples were analysed by the NIAB PlantPathology Laboratory for the number of BCN eggs and free-living larvae.

How effective are current BCN varieties atmaintaining yields under BCN pressure?The nematode populations varied between plots, sites andyears, but at sites where there was very little BCN pressure,Bullfinch and the BCN tolerant test varieties all producedsimilar yields. However, under higher BCN populations, theBCN tolerant varieties out-performed Bullfinch in these trials,as would be expected, with Annoushka KWS, Pamina,Mongoose, Pitbull and Thor all yielding similarly, and the laterfour varieties outperforming Sentinel (Fig. 2 shows the meanadjusted clean beet (ACB) yield of each variety or impact onnematode population relative to Bullfinch which isrepresented by the dotted line).

Within the trials series, differences in yield response to BCNappeared to be influenced by weather and were greater indry years compared to wetter years. This was highlighted by

BCN field trialsA series of BCN trials was conducted over four years (2010-2013) testing five BCN tolerant varieties that werecommercially available from the BBRO/BSPB RecommendedList at the time (Annoushka KWS, Mongoose, Pitbull, Sentineland Thor), plus Pamina which became recommended later.The trials were on fields known to be infested with BCN andaimed to answer three questions:

1. How effective are current BCN varieties at maintainingyields under BCN pressure?

2. Do they control the build-up of BCN?

3. What level of BCN pressure justifies their use?

Unlike conventional experimental layouts for sugar beet,within these trials a dual sub-plot system was adopted. Thismeant that each plot contained a pair of sub-plots; onefor a BCN tolerant variety and the other for a control(susceptible) variety (Bullfinch). This paired method attemptedto minimise the effects of possible patchy BCN numberswithin the trials by allowing the responses of the BCN tolerantvarieties to be directly compared with the juxtaposedsusceptible Bullfinch.

Fig. 2 – The mean adjusted clean beet (ACB) of the BCN tolerant varieties and their effects on final numbers of eggs and larvae expressed as apercentage of the adjoining BCN susceptible Bullfinch control.

14/4/7/02



extensive soil sampling and analysis of these samples in thelaboratory.

In early April, the boxes were sown with a BCN susceptiblevariety and BCN tolerant varieties. Visual symptoms of BCNinfection were recorded during the growing season and theplants harvested in autumn when nematode infestation, plantweight, beet yield and sugar content were measured.Nematode populations in the soil of each box were measuredbefore sowing (Pi) and at harvest (Pf) in order to monitor thebuild-up of pest populations.

Tolerance v resistanceOver time, the development of BCN can be evaluated bydetermining the Pf/Pi value from a soil. This ratio showswhether there has been an increase or decrease of the BCNpopulation. During a growing season, a Pf/Pi value equal toone indicates no change in the population, values greaterthan one show an increase and values smaller than one showa decline in numbers.

In practical terms, a BCN tolerant variety may increase thePf/Pi value during the growing season but root yields areless affected than susceptible varieties; i.e. the crop cantolerate nematode infestation but does not control or reduceit. Truly resistant varieties would have Pf/Pi values of lessthan one with yields equivalent to plants of the samevariety with no nematodes. Currently there are no trulyresistant sugar beet varieties for use in the UK.

Using the boxes to evaluate populationchange of BCNThe boxes were used to study the population dynamics ofBCN over time by comparing a susceptible, a tolerant, a light-tolerant variety and a non-host species (spring barley). In 2011

two of the trials where the yield performance was littledifferent from the susceptible variety Bullfinch and isrepresented by the blue sections within the bar charts (Fig. 2)and described as ‘non-responsive trials’. This could possiblybe due to the impact on water uptake and nutrient availabilityin those seasons so that the pest had little or no influenceon the crop.

Do they control the build-up of BCN?There was also evidence to suggest that as well as providinga yield benefit under BCN pressure, the BCN tolerantvarieties also helped decrease the number of eggs andlarvae in the soil: populations declined by 25% (Sentinel)to 55% (Pamina) when BCN tolerant varieties werecompared to Bullfinch (Fig. 2).

What level of BCN pressure justifies their use?The data generated from the Bullfinch control sub-plotswas used to explore the possibility of determining a BCNthreshold, over which growing BCN tolerant varietiesbecomes justified. However, these data do not conclusivelysupport a definitive threshold, reflecting the challengesfaced when having to undertake trials where populationsvary and their biology is influenced by soil conditions andprevailing weather each year.

BCN box studiesTo examine further the ecology and control of BCN, anadditional method was examined as part of this project, thistime using one tonne boxes of soil (Pic. 2). The boxes werealmost filled with BCN-free soil (1m3) that was then overlainwith a 5 cm layer of BCN-infested soil. The infested soil,collected after harvest in 2010, originated from a Suffolksugar beet field; its concentration of BCN was assessed by

Pic. 2 – Box trial showing the impact of BCN on wilting of different varieties.



■ Consider the risks of BCN multiplication across theentire rotation.

■ In-crop field assessments and soil sampling importantto identify initial presence of BCN on farm.

■ Consider impact of alternative hosts (e.g. rape, weedbeet etc.).

■ Consider balance between yield and BCN populationmanagement.

■ Improving BCN genetics by breeders will help to tacklethe problem further in the future.

SUMMARY

Finally, an assessment of all trials within the BBRO programmeso far suggests there is no evidence to indicate departurefrom the control threshold of 5 to 10 eggs and larvae/g soilwhich is similar to other work undertaken elsewhere inEurope (Ref. 2).

(year 1), four boxes (replicates) of each ofthe sugar beet varieties and barley weregrown; soil samples were taken at thebeginning and end of the growingperiod. In the subsequent two years, allof these boxes were then sown withspring barley only.

In boxes growing barley continuously forthree years, there was a marked decreasein the BCN population, with numbersdeclining (90%) during the three seasons:more steeply in the first six months ofyear 1 (Fig. 3). This confirms previousstudies and highlights the value of non-host crops within the rotation for BCNmanagement.

Using a susceptible sugar beet variety inyear 1, there was a six-fold increase inthe BCN population and, by the start ofyear 2, there were over 300 eggs/g ofsoil. In the second year, when springbarley was introduced, there was a declinewith populations nearly halving duringthe course of the season, but the reduction in year 3 wasrelatively small (Fig. 3). More importantly, the population atthe end of year 3 was still greater than the original startingpopulation. The results, when using the light tolerant variety,almost duplicated the susceptible variety. However, when aBCN tolerant variety was grown, initial increases were muchsmaller compared to the susceptible control (Fig. 3). Therefore,when selecting BCN varieties, it is important to considernot just yield, but also the impact of the varietal selectionon future BCN populations.

Project outcomesUnder infested conditions, the BCN tolerant varietiesconsistently out-yielded the susceptible variety Bullfinch. Theyield responses seemed much greater in a dry growing season,suggesting a greater damaging effect of nematodes on thegrowth and functioning of the roots of susceptible varieties.

The BCN tolerant varieties also decreased the numbers ofBCN eggs and larvae present in the soil at harvest when thesewere compared to the Bullfinch control. In these trials, theuse of Pitbull, Mongoose, Pamina and Thor lead to a 40-55%reduction whilst Annoushka KWS and Sentinel gave a 25-30%reduction relative to the susceptible variety.

The box trials also provided valuable information on BCNdynamics and confirmed the benefits and importance of anon-host crop in the rotation for decreasing BCN burden withtime. However, the boxes required high levels of maintenanceand watering during dry periods and had the potential tobecome water logged during heavy rain events, even with alarge number of drainage holes incorporated into the boxesbefore sowing. The other disadvantage of the boxes was thatonly 16 roots per box could be grown. Also, in some years,there were large variations in yield responses between boxesgrowing the same variety, but their value was demonstratedfor studying BCN development over time. New methods thatrequire less soil to evaluate Pf/Pi are currently being evaluatedby the BBRO in conjunction with the BSPB to ensure a morereliable index of nematode build up or decline to evaluateand classify future tolerant varieties.

References1. Cooke, D., A. (1987). Beet Cyst Nematode (Heterodera schachtii

Schmidt) and its Control on Sugar Beet. Agricultural ZoologyReviews, 2, 135-183.

2. Ayala Garcia, J.; Beltrami, G.; Dewar, A.; Eronen, L.; Hansen, A.;Guttierez Sosa, M.; Holtschulte, B.; Muchembled, C.; Nihlgard, M.;Olsson, R.; Olsson, A.; Ossenkop, A.; Schneider, H.; Wauters, A.(2007). Control of Beet cyst nematodes in Europe – problemsand possibilities. In: Proceedings of the 70th IIRB Congress,Marrakech, Morocco. 20-21.

AcknowledgementsWe thank all field and laboratory staff for their assistanceand analysis of these trials.

Fig. 3 – The Impact of host crop on epidemiology of BCN. The crop in year 1 (2011) waseither spring barley or one of three different sugar beet varieties. In years 2 and 3all boxes were cropped with barley.



CIBE technical andreception controlcommittee 2014CIBE (the International Confederation of European Beet Growers) has been in existence since 1927; itsmission is to represent the interests of national and regional growers’ associations including 150,000 growersfrom 16 EU countries (Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Sweden, the United Kingdom) androughly 150,000 growers from 2 non-EU countries (Switzerland and Turkey).

ByMark Fletcher,

NFU andColin Walters,

British Sugar plc

The organisation aims to strengthen the position of beetsugar production within the agriculture sector bypromoting the sustainability of sugar beet growing(technical progress, environmental issues, best agriculturepractices, inter-professional relations), as well as providingexpert information such as statistics, annual reports andindustry surveys related to the sugar beet economy.

In support of this aim, CIBE holds an annual technicalconference providing an opportunity for members toexchange information on agronomic and environmentalissues related to the crop, and technical matters suchas harvest, transport and beet reception, as well asthe monitoring of regulatory frameworks for plantprotection and non-food and energy uses for beet andits co-products. This year’s technical conference was heldin Bologna, Italy and consisted of a one-day programmeof technical papers from member organisations followedby a half-day visit to a sugar factory.

Technical session

With more than twenty papers presented throughoutthe day it is impractical to relay all of the detail hereso, instead, this article aims to give an overview of thesubject matters covered.

Following a welcome from Mr. Jean-Pierre Dubray, theChairman of the Technical and Reception Committee, theaudience received a very interesting overview of theItalian sugar sector from both a grower and a processors’perspective. Ten Italian sugar factories have closed sincethe 2010 reform of the sector (19 have closed since 2006)and there are now four sugar beet factories in total,

operated by three processing companies. Annualproduction is around 500,000 tonnes of sugar. The Italiancrop area is quite volatile and has varied from less than41,000 ha to more than 52,000 ha over the past threeyears. As with the rest of European beet production, theemphasis in Italy is very much on driving up efficiency ofsugar beet growing and processing, aiming to keep theindustry competitive.

To that end, the Italian sector is looking to make furtherinvestments and cut costs in all parts of the supply chain tofurther increase competitiveness. It is hoping to strengthenits market position by moving into renewable energyproduction and the use of commercial partnerships.However, there was concern that without the high levelof investment required to improve or maintain profitmargins, further factories together with their value tolocal economies could be lost permanently.

Next up was a session updating sugar beet storage andbeet intake across Europe. With the drive for industryefficiency leading to longer campaigns, Robert Olsson ofNordic Beet Research gave an overview of the range ofstorage practices in different countries. Further paperspresented differences in approaches to beet topping,and an update on the various loading and transportarrangements under different Inter-ProfessionalAgreements.

The adoption of flat-rate top tares, as in the UK, was anarea that appeared to be gaining favour in many partswith, for example, 23 of the 25 factories in France nowadopting the system. Aiming to avoid penalising theprocessor by growers sending too much top, or penalising


The use of sugar beet and its co-products for bioethanolwas also covered in this session, before the discussionmoved on to crop assurance and how this could bestbe handled in the future. NFU Sugar were able topresent the UK’s approach to farm assurance, explaininghow harmonisation of assurance standards had madedemonstration of excellent growing practices moremanageable than ever before.

The final part of the day covered approaches toKnowledge Transfer in different countries, with severaldifferent decision support tools demonstrated. Theobjective for many of these sessions was not necessarilyto compare and contrast different approaches, butrather to bring them to the attention of the audiencefor later perusal: something the UK industry will bedoing through the BBRO.

In summary, the meeting provided an interesting forumin which to compare technical aspects of sugar beetcontracting and growing; we extend our grateful thanksto the organisers and hosts of the event.

the growers by not sending the whole of the beet due toover crowning, the system adopts a flat rate of 7% toptare, but with penalties for growers who send too muchgreen material. This has been managed by reducing thetare house sample size from 150 kg to 50 kg, examiningevery beet for green material and applying penalties ifmore than 18 beets within the sample have green tops.The Lage factory in the Lippe-Weser area of Germany hastaken a different approach with a flat rate tare of 2%. Thissystem has caused problems at the factory with too muchgreen material being delivered from the field and causingissues with juice quality and impurities. A modified systemhas now been adopted: correctly defoliated beets stillgetting the fixed rate of 2% but insufficiently defoliatedsamples being penalised incrementally up to 4% tare. Thisaims to encourage growers and harvester drivers to takemore care in defoliation of the crop. The system seems tobe working: 63% of samples in the last campaign being ofthe lowest tare.

The third session of the day considered the use of covercrops, a legal obligation in many beet growing areas ofEurope, and particularly the management of themfollowing a mild winter. The cold continental climate isusually severe enough to ensure cover crops are killedby frost. However, the very mild winter last year meantthat many needed to be either mechanically or chemicallydestroyed.

Turbo Effect? Turbo Effect!

K+S UK & Eire Ltd. · [email protected] · www.ks-ukeire.co.uk A K+S Group Company

ESTA® Kieserit 25 % MgO · 50 % SO3 – for soil application

EPSO Top® 16 % MgO · 32 % SO3 – for foliar application

Did you know…

Magnesium has a major role in promoting early root development essential for good crop establishment. 100 % water-soluble, 100 % crop-available. For the full story: www.turbo-magnesium.co.uk

+Mg-Mg

Pho

to: I

. Cak

mak

, Sab

anci

Uni

vers

ity

14/4/11/03



The history of Beet Europe and sugarproduction in PolandBeet Europe was established as an initiative of the IIRB andthe German Agricultural Cooperative, with the aim of creatingan event to present the latest advances in agriculturalmachinery, demonstrated by the results of robust fieldtesting for all to see. The guidelines for this were developed

through collaborative efforts from institutions andsupporting organisations including the IIRB, CIBE(International Confederation of European Sugar Beet Growers)and CEFS (Comité Européen de Fabricants de Sucre). The eventis also designed as a platform for sugar producers, researchorganisations and growers to share advances in agronomicbest practice. The previous two events were hosted inLelystad, Holland (2010) and Seligenstadt, Germany (2012)

and it has successfully grownin scale from its inception.

‘Tradition and future’ was thestrap line for this year’s BeetEurope. Poland, as the hostingcountry, has a strong historyof sugar beet production andlays claim to the first factoryto be built in the world, whichwas constructed on Polish soilin Konary in 1801. Followingexpansion of the industryprior to WWI, there were101 sugar factories processingsugar beet. In the 100 yearsthat have followed, theindustry has developed andadapted and underwentrestructuring between 2005-2010. Consequently, there arenow 18 factories across 4sugar producers and Poland isthe 3rd largest sugar producerof sugar in the EU, just aheadof the UK.

event feature

Beet Europe 2014 –‘Beets in Europe –Tradition and Future’ October 2014The 3rd Beet Europe event was held on 2nd October, on the farm of Konrad Pohl in Dobieszów, Poland andhosted by Südzucker Polska S.A. Beet Europe is an international biennial event dedicated to companies and farmersin the sugar industry. In addition, the International Sugar Beet Research Institute (IIRB) also held a seminar on‘Strip tillage and drilling advances’ the previous day. Both events were attended by a large variety of peoplewithin the industry, with the demonstration day seeing an impressive turnout from across Europe.

ByRobyn Cooper,

AB Sugar

Beet Europe sign.



An interesting spin on strip tillage was highlighted in acouple of cases when accompanying the use of cover crops.When used in conjunction specifically with a catch crop,Georg Sander (Nordzucker AG) reported that strip tillagewas effective in preventing water and wind erosion and,crucially, led to reduced nitrogen leeching relative totraditional tillage. Veit Nübel (Sudzucker AG) reportedfurther environmental benefit with both an increase inworm populations and a decrease in weed density. Thesepose particularly attractive benefits with regards to the CAPgreening requirements and when looking towards thelonger-term sustainability of the industry.

Potential drawbacks and future opportunities

Despite many potential benefits, yield reduction is a key areaof concern when considering the implementation of reducedtillage mechanisms. However, in the short-term trials that havebeen conducted, the speakers reported only small changes inyield under ideal conditions. On the other hand, and perhapsunsurprisingly, Georg Sander (Nordzucker AG) highlighted thevariability in yield success depending upon the soil type andsurrounding conditions. For example, high clay content soils,very loose sandy soils or sloping land were poorly suited to thetechnique, while a more favourable outcome was seen insandy soils with clay content below 7%. Colin Walters (BBRO)also reported similar variability dependent upon soil type,with most difficulty on medium soils.

Interestingly, however, Otto Nielsen (NBR) reported success onclay soils, as a consequence of using a different approach tocultivation, in which several passes with lighter strip tillagemachines ensured good conditions for plant establishmentand similar yields to normal tillage. This suggests thatstrip tillage may yet be a possibility on even the toughestsoil types, but crucially with the help of more novelapproaches and improvements in cultivation machinery.The need for better machinery was also touched upon by

Colin Walters (BBRO), with a heavy focuson machinery improvement from VeitNübel (Sudzucker AG). An example ofsuccessful machinery innovation is theimprovements made to the Horsch Focusstrip tillage machine: through changes tothe coulter shape there has been markedreduction in blockage due to a declinein soil transport to the surface.

Drilling advances

The theme of machinery carried throughinto the presentations that followedon drilling distance and weed control.Firstly, Peter Schulze Lammers (Universityof Bonn) reported on the use ofcoordinate-controlled seeding as amethod to improve drilling precision.Promising findings included animprovement in trafficability, accuracyof spacing and creation of individualplants. After this, an initial look athigh speed drilling was touched on, withpreliminary work from NBR, ITB andIRBAB, though more work is neededto obtain conclusive data.

IIRB seminar: ‘Strip tillage and drillingadvances’ Speakers came to the seminar from as far as the United Statesand it provided an excellent opportunity to share globaladvances on strip tillage with the audience of approximately90 individuals from across the industry. The seminar beganwith an introduction from Herbert Eigner (Agrana Researchand Innovation Centre) who explained the reasoning behinda renewed focus on minimum tillage.

It has long been identified that traditional tillage poses a highcost to the grower, with a high level of investment required,high fuel consumption and high CO2 production as a result.Further to this, increasing pressure to reduce the use ofnitrogen fertilisers and to improve water use efficiency in theEU has driven research in alternative agricultural practices.Strip tillage is one such alternative technique in which only20-50% of the growing area is tilled, in narrow bands of15-20 cm that are to contain the seed. It has been used in theUSA successfully for many years.

Benefits of strip tillage

The seminar highlighted huge potential for use in futuresugar beet farming, with field trials on a range of differentsoil types that were not dissimilar to those seen in theUK. The speakers presented on many common themesindicating a variety of benefits resulting from strip tillageas summarised in Fig. 1. The main benefits includedsignificant improvement in water use efficiency andavailability of water to the plant. The technique wasalso shown to be particularly beneficial in arid conditionsand soils prone to erosion, as explained by Eric Wenninger(University of Idaho). In addition to this, strip tillage led toa reduction in compaction and, consequently, a decline inproduction of fangy roots compared to the use of traditionaltillage, as reported by Remy Duval (ITB).

Fig. 1 – Summary of the pros and cons of traditional ploughing v. strip tillage.(Source: Sudzucker Group)



Finally, the use of machinery inthe reduction of herbicide usewas focused on by Cédric Royer(ITB), with encouraging resultsfrom the use of chemical andmechanical approaches to weedcontrol. In addition, combinedweeding approaches were shownto be equally as effective asthe traditional use of high levelsof herbicides. The combinedapproach incorporates the use ofeither a rotary hoe, star cultivatoror Treffler make machine inconjunction with a reducedamount of fertiliser. It was alsoidentified that as part of futurework, a greater understandingof the appropriateness of thedifferent techniques underdifferent conditions is needed.

The take home messages from the event included theneed for future investment in machinery, and the needto explore the benefits of strip tillage on the full croprotation spanning longer trial periods.

Tradition and future – The machinerydemonstration dayThroughout the one-day event, there were ongoingexhibitions of agricultural machinery and equipment, inaddition to displays from over 150 exhibitors. Themorning saw the modelling of beet harvesting, loadingand cleaning machinery, while the latter part of theevent saw machinery designed for soil cultivation.

As part of the main show, models were initially paradedfrom the likes of Holmer, Ropa and Grimme beforebeing put to the test on the host farmer’s beet crop.Machines of note and new to the European market thisyear were the Terra Dos T4-40 and T4-30 from HolmerExxact (Pic. 1), with both taking the coveted prize of‘Machine of the Year 2014’. The harvester design isbased largely on the popular Terra Dos T3, withupdated technology featuring the Komfortkabine IIproduced by Holmer and with a 626HP Mercedes Benzengine. Also of note was the Ropa Tiger 5, the self-propelled three-axle tanker harvester, which waspremiered at the event. The harvester contains a newa hydraulic wheel load compensation system withautomatic slope levelling up to 10%. True to the eventtagline, the ‘future focus’ on the new machinery andagronomic best practice was well balanced with theplentiful supply of ‘tradition’ in the form of craftsand trivia proudly showcasing Polish heritage.Accompanying this were smaller educational exhibits.For example, a soil pit positioned near to the foodvenue clearly showed the effect of poor soil cultivationon the growth of sugar beet, with shallow, fangy rootsin the worst cases (see Pic. 2a); a stark contrast to thedesired deeper rooting example (Pic. 2b). This wasamong many of the finer details of the event,highlighting the huge input of work by the hosts,Südzucker Polska S.A and Konrad Pohl, to make thisedition of Beet Europe as successful as possible.

Pic. 2a – Poor sugar beet growth.2b – Optimal shaped sugar beet in well cultivated soil.

b

Pic. 1 – Holmer Terra dos T4-30.

a



To plough, ornot to plough?

ByPhilip Ecclestone,

British Sugar plc andPhilip Wright,

Wright Resolutions

The BBRO 4x4 yield initiative recommends that the primarycultivation method and timing must suit the soil andprevailing weather conditions. Conditions during theautumn and winter will differ each year and approachesmay need to be changed accordingly.

This article reviews the importance of good primarycultivation for sugar beet and considers how to get themost out of the options currently available with thetechnology that exists today.

The aims of primary cultivation

Primary cultivation is required to loosen the topsoil,incorporate any applied manures, fertilisers and residuesfrom previous crops, disperse residual effects of previouslyapplied herbicides, and control weeds, pests and diseasesby disturbance and burial. Some implements are able toperform all these requirements while others are morelimited and may need to be used as part of a sequence.

The well-known hymn goes, “We plough the fields and scatter…”; for many growers the plough has been, and still,is the backbone of primary cultivations. The temperate climate and mild weather conditions of Western Europe areideal for ploughing. In most years there is a window of opportunity to plough in ideal or near ideal conditions, thatstill allows sufficient time for weathering to take place before sowing the next crop. In other, notably colder butdrier parts of the world, ploughing is not a realistic option as there is not enough time between harvesting of theprevious crop and the winter setting in. In these situations, minimum tillage is really the only option because it isquicker, allowing more area to be tilled in the time available, than could ever be done with the plough.



minimise the total cost of seedbed preparation by reducingthe number of operations required to produce an optimumtilth. Ploughing with the use of spring cropping may also beuseful as part of a weed control programme, for example ofgrass weeds, or providing a break between minimum tilledor direct drilled crops.

Key aspects of ploughing to consider include:

1. Setting of skimmers for effective burial of surface residuesand weed seeds.

2. Choice of mouldboard type and furrow width for goodinversion and burial – not too wide on heavier soils andlonger, less intensive curvature plus mouldboard slats(where scouring or soil slip is poor).

3. Speed of operation – avoid high speeds where soils can bethrown and fragment into coarse aggregates which willreduce the inversion and burial effects.

4. Choose a share width which is less than the furrowwidth for an effective ‘hinge’ to invert correctly –‘vari-width’ ploughs set for narrow furrows on heavy soilscan have too wide a share, especially where furrow widthis chosen to accommodate wide in-furrow tyres.

5. Ideally, plough out of furrow to minimise the risk ofdeeper damage caused by tractor axle loading and slipin the furrow when soils are vulnerable to damage.

6. Where there is the need to remove deeper than ploughdepth compaction consider fitting some furrows with adeeper subsoiler attachment to make best use of theplough loosening effect above.

7. Note: the use of low ground pressure tyres and minimisingaxle loadings when soils are damp usually results inthe situation where ploughing can remove all or mostcompaction damage incurred during normal arableoperations.

8. If compaction is deeper than can be removed by theplough, use of a subsoiler will be required to ensure thatsugar beet can root optimally. Such actions need to be

done when soil moisture levelsat depth and on top are lowenough for effective shatterand minimal damage bytrafficking. As such, often thisrequires the operation to becarried out relatively early,and on heavy land subsoilingthrough ploughing could beconsidered to minimise draftof the subsoiler and also itsrequired lifting effect – as soilis already loose to ploughdepth. When appropriate,the pressing action of thesubsoiler rear press roller canleave a good weatherprooffinish for winter weatheringwhich reduces spring culti -vation requirements. Onlighter soils with deep com -paction, subsoiling throughploughing could also be aconsideration, particularly ina dry Spring.

Primary cultivation options currently used for growing sugarbeet include: ploughing, minimum tillage, strip tillage anddirect drilling.

The choice of primary cultivation depends on a number offactors including: soil type, crop rotation, area to be cultivated,cropping system being used, implements available on thefarm, time available and the cost that has been budgeted. Thelabour and skills requirement must also be considered. Thesubsequent soil structure needs to be free of compaction andfree draining so that a seedbed can be achieved using theminimum number of passes. Whichever primary cultivationmethod is used, the operation needs to be carried out in goodconditions, leaving enough time for weathering over thewinter period, otherwise damage to soil structure will occur,reducing yield potential even before the seed is sown.Therefore, going out when conditions are not ideal is not anoption, unless forced by prolonged poor weather.

Being a spring-sown root crop, sugar beet must be drilledinto soil that has the best possible structure and condition,worked to produce a tilth that enables the seed to be sowneasily at the desired spacing and depth, with good seed tosoil contact. If this initial imperative is not achieved, yieldpotential will already be compromised and fangy roots mayresult.

PloughingToday, ploughing is still the main primary cultivationundertaken for growing sugar beet, as it is fairly forgiving ifthe weather has been poor and all soils can be ploughed. Theextent of its use varies from year to year, depending primarilyon the weather. Although designs have evolved and ploughshave dramatically increased in size over many centuries,the fundamental function of the plough is to invert the soil.At the same time as ploughing, it is possible to carry outother operations such as levelling and consolidation using afurrow press, or splitting the furrow slice using afurrow cracker or similar device. Good management of thecomplementary operations at, or following, ploughing can

Ploughing



Minimum tillageMinimum tillage techniquesinvolve some degree ofcultivation but falling shortof complete soil inversion. Itusually involves a combinationof discs, tines and presses.They are used in many partsof the world where a moreextensive approach needsto be adopted for varyingreasons. Although used beforethe 1970s, reducing cultivationbecame more popular in thelate 1990s when a lot ofresearch and developmentwork was undertaken withinthe machinery sector. Theequipment now availableenables a lot of soil tobe broken down in one pass,but at a lower cost andusing a more environmentally acceptable approach thanbefore. Many farms have adopted the minimum tillageconcept in some form, particularly for heavy land and use itfor all their crops if conditions allow. Due to the oftenextensive nature of the soil movement this is possibly betterreferred to as minimum pass tillage.

Key aspects of minimum tillage equipment include:

1. Choice and arrangement of working elements –

(a) Discs – individually mounted units with tilt and sweepangles. These allow adjustment to suit conditions,residue levels and wear.

(b) Tines – choice of spacing, geometry and depth relativeto the other components is important. Ideally theseshould follow discs so any risk of shallow smear isremoved and because the capability to disc into firmconditions is preferred to the loose conditions

following tines. Tine point and wing geometry shouldbe of adequate lift height at low rake angles foreffective structuring without undue surface heaveand clod formation.

(c) Rollers – a press-type action allows consolidation andweather-proofing through to depth. This results ina surface stale seedbed finish for improved weedcontrol and good herbicide efficacy.

2. Flexibility – the capability to adjust for differentconditions and finishes. Preparation ahead of sugar beetimplies leaving a weather-proof, level surface capableof easy access after winter and with good structure todepth. Working soils at appropriate moisture levels isreally important to get the desired soil breakdown.Being able to produce good stale seedbed will helpin the control of key weeds, especially grasses andweedbeet.

3. Sequence of cultiva-tions – one way ofachieving more flexi-bility can be touse two pieces of kitas appropriate (forexample, a subsoilerand a disc/tine/rollcombination), and con-sider treating fieldsaccording to theirspecific requirementsand maybe treatingthe headlands differ-ently, using anotherapproach.

Strip tillageAs a concept, strip tillagewas first conceived inthe USA and, in the lastfew years, equipment hasbeen developed for use

Minimum tillage

Strip tillage



in Europe where soil types are more variable and greater soilbreakdown is often required (Ref. 1). Several manufacturershave recently launched units into the market place withother machines in the pipeline. A number of growers arelooking at the technique and have already compared it totheir current practice.

Key aspects to consider for strip tillage include:

1. Prepare the land when it is at the right moisture level inautumn, setting up the field at this point for the comingcrop. The use of accurate GPS guidance systems, such asRTK, is essential to ensure correct alignment of the drillingpass and any spring operations.

2. Some strip tillage equipment is flexible and can be usedfor deeper autumn preparation and then set up for finerseedbed production in the spring ahead of the drill. Thiscan work alongside weed control measures and wheremore weathering is needed on the heavier soils.

3. Costs of preparation can be reduced as not all the soilprofile is moved. Controlled trafficking is possible withthe uncultivated strips providing a wide window ofopportunity for operations. Different weed controloptions are possible, and a different approach may berequired for the cultivated and uncultivated strips.

4. The capability for deeper cultivation in the autumn topromote good soil structure and, in the spring earlyaccess, is possible via the uncultivated zones makingthis technique suitable for heavier soils.

5. Management of such techniques can be more involvedthan plough-based establishment, especially on lightersoils where spring ploughing, pressing, cultivation anddrilling is relatively straightforward.

6. Strip tillage can be a viable alternative, or an aid, to directdrilling as an alternative to ploughing, but it does requirespecialist equipment and direction control. An advantageis that soil movement in the drilled zone encouragesmicrobial breakdown of chemical residuals. Additionally,strip tillage employs the technologies needed forControlled Traffic Farming, so there are benefits-in-common to be had where both approaches are used onthe same farm. Also it is possible to integrate strip tillagewith cover crops used for protection from soil erosion

or for other reasons such as building up organic matter inthe soil.

Direct drillingCarrying out no cultivation, or very little, has been practisedfor a number of decades, but really only where soil erosionfrom either wind or water run-off is a real threat. In thesesituations, it is an advantage not to move the soil, and to placethe sugar beet seed directly into the unprepared soil or drilledinto a prepared cover crop, usually a cereal such as barley orrye. Certainly, over the last forty years, this technique hasevolved due to rapid changes in drilling technology. Inparticular the design of the disc coulters, coupled with moreaccurate precision metering units for placing the seed at thedesired depth and spacing to give good seed to soil contactin the absence of any seedbed preparation. Cover cropsbecame really popular during the 1980s with the introductionof effective graminicides to check and kill crops at theappropriate time when its protection was no longer needed.However, overall, this technique is quite expensive.

Another option is to risk moving some soil and mix the cropresidues from the cover crop. This is mulch seeding, wherethe mulch helps to stabilise the soil surface and preventsoil erosion. On the continent this approach has become morepopular since the early 1990s when drills fitted with disccoulters became widely available.

Key aspects to consider when direct drilling include:

1. Soils must be in excellent structural condition; this is anessential prerequisite.

2. Dealing with residual herbicide effects can be challenging,especially where they are present in high concentrationsand when using those with a long residual life. In somesituations the product label may stipulate that full soilinversion is practised.

3. A drill fitted with disc coulters, row cleaner and clodbreaking equipment is usually needed when drilling.

4. Direct Drilling systems can work as part of a completecontrolled traffic regime employed on the farm tominimise compaction and similar problems. Good residuemanagement of previously harvested crops, even surfacesand level fields are required.

Direct drilling



Philip Wright (with spade) discussing the soil features and cultivationoptions at a recent training session at A & R Ivatt near Spalding,Lincolnshire.

Conclusion

Before deciding which primary cultivation system to use,it’s always a good idea to dig a few holes and have alook at the condition of the soil structure. This mayindicate exactly which approach might be needed, orthe required depth and timing of operations. Also, takeinto account your own knowledge of the field, itssoil types and topography. Consider any effects fromrecent good or adverse weather conditions or fromprevious operations that may have damaged the soilstructure when carried out in less than ideal conditions.From this careful examination you can then planyour operations with the weather in mind. Remember,you might need to be flexible and change yourapproach if conditions change, as usually no two yearsare alike.

Carrying out the appropriate primary cultivation at theright time and under good conditions is the perfectstart for creating an ideal seedbed in the spring. Thisin turn lays the perfect foundation for good cropestablishment which is essential for producing high-yielding sugar beet crops. Today, advances in technologyoffer more choices of primary cultivation than everbefore, and there are many aids to help the operatordo as good a job as possible when the conditions andtiming are suitable.

Forultimateperformance

Helpdesk 0870 240 2314

fax 0870 240 2729 [email protected]

UK’s

No.1 Liming

product

for correction

of soil

acidity

Optimises soil pH

Fast acting and long lasting

Provides valuable nutrients

Improves soil structure

Flexible service and payment options

Approved for use in Organic Systems*

LimeX is a business of British Sugar plc

*

14/4/19/04

Reference1. Ecclestone, P. (2014). Strip-tillage for sugar beet: an initial look.

British Sugar Beet Review, 82 (1), 26-28.



ByAndy Stocking,

British Sugar plc

In the summer 2014 issue of the British Sugar Beet Review wepublished the results of an online survey sent to sugar beetgrowers and contractors (Ref. 1). The survey examined threemain areas of the drilling operation but this article focuses onjust one of them, drill testing. The purpose of this part of thesurvey was to provide a better understanding of the methodsand frequency of testing, and the barriers that there might bestopping growers and contractors from having their drillstested.

While it was encouraging that 32% of respondents said that theyhad their drill tested every year, many drills were tested lessfrequently, and some not at all. Since the survey we have beenworking with the main drill manufacturers and dealers, to confirmwhere drill testing is available and what the tests entail.

By the time you read this article, information on drill testing willhave been posted to all growers and drilling contractors, a copy ofwhich is also available online via the British Sugar Beet Portal(www.bsonline.co.uk).

Why have your drill tested?Sugar beet is a precision-drilled crop and, by definition, machinesneed to be set-up precisely so that the seed is placed in the groundat the correct depth and spacing. It has long been acknowledgedthat a well maintained drill is essential to ensure that an even plantstand is achieved and yields maximised.

Drill testing forthe 2015 crop

Drill testing booklet.


Say hello to Adama...

Adama Agricultural Solutions UK Ltd

Unit 15, Thatcham Business Village, Colthrop Way, Thatcham, Berkshire RG19 4LW. Tel: 01635 860 555 Technical helpline 01635 876 622

Makhteshim Agan is now Adama.

A new name and a new approach to crop protection, making farmers’ lives simpler.Our extensive range of active ingredients is being developed further to provide modern solutions to fight pests and diseases, improving yields.All supported by our innovative approach to agronomy, protecting vital actives to use in your crop protection programmes.

Find out more at www.adama.com and follow us on Twitter @AdamaUK_

Simply.Grow.

Together.

14/4/21/05



Whether you have your drill tested at your local dealer oron-farm, you will receive a test report highlighting anyissues or replacement parts that may be required.

Preparing your drill for the 2015 season

In addition to having your drill tested, it is worth checking thefollowing areas of the machine before drilling commences.

Seed spacingIdeal spacing is 15-18 cm for 50 cm row widths, or 17-20 cm for45 cm rows. Aim for a minimum of 1.2 units/ha; use a higherrate in poor seedbed conditions.

Seed spacing should be checked regularly whilst drilling,adjusted if necessary. On electric-drive drills, use a variableseed rate if soil conditions vary across the field.

It is essential to match row widths with those of the harvesterand ensure the spacing between each rowis the same.

Drill markersIf using mechanical markers, it is goodpractice to carry out a few dry runs beforedrilling commences to ensure accuracy ofthe bout joins. If using GPS marking thesame procedure is necessary.

Check all electronics are working correctly,including tramlining markers.

Drilling depthBefore drilling starts, set all units to thesame depth. Seed should be placed intomoist soil, ideally between 2.0 and 3.0 cmdeep. Check drilling depth regularly as itwill vary within fields as well as betweeneach field.

Drilling depth should be increased to amaximum of 3.5 cm where conditions are

Having your drill tested before the drillingseason will help to minimise in-fieldbreakdowns when the window ofopportunity to correct any problems isvery small.

The drill testDrills may be tested on-farm or at thedealer’s premises depending on the makeand model of your machine.

Dealer testing (Pic. 1)

Mechanical drills are usually tested usingan engineering ‘sticky belt’ rig. Units shouldbe separated from the drill and ideallycleaned before taking them to the dealerfor testing. A visual check of the units willbe carried out before they are fitted tothe ‘sticky belt’ rig. The rig is used to drillseed over an endless belt which can beadjusted to simulate the speed of field-operation. The test will also check:

■ Cell fill to ensure that there are no misses or doubles

■ Pellet damage

■ Seed spacing and distribution (Ref. 2).

On-farm testing (Pic. 2)

While on-farm drill testing isn’t new, Kverneland are offeringthis service for the first time this year through their dealersfor the electric drive Monopill SE. This service by fully trainedtechnicians provides the following:

■ Complete mechanical check of the seeding system

■ Electrical tests of motors and sensors

■ Seed output tests

■ Terminal compatibility checks and software updates ifapplicable.

Pic. 1 – ‘Sticky belt’ testing rig.

Pic. 2 – On farm drill testing.



tend to be softer than the abrasive particles in the soil.Continued use can lead to poor harrow formation,inconsistency of depth and seed placement, ultimatelyleading to poor yields.

dry. Use clod pushers to remove some of the dry soil ifnecessary.

Ensure that all seed is well covered to help avoid mousedamage.

Clod pushersIn dry soil conditions increase penetration depth and soilmovement by adding extra weights or adjusting the depthcontrol.

If conditions are damp, reduce soil movement by decreasingsoil depth or totally remove clod pushers from soil.

Drill hoppersCheck that each hopper is filled with an equal amount of seed.

Spin the wheels or use the electric drive on headlands to checkall units are working correctly. Collect or bury all seed, do notleave on the soil surface.

Soil coverersSoil coverers may need to be adjusted to throw more or lesssoil depending on conditions.

Regularly check that none have become damaged: theintermediate wheels also aid seed cover, but can pick up anddislodge seed in wet conditions.

Drilling speed Optimum drilling speed is between 5 and 8 kph (3-5 mph).Check the manufacturer’s handbook for the drill’s optimumspeed in relation to the cell wheel or seed disc fitted.

Intermediate press wheelsUse intermediate press wheels only in dry conditions wherethey will aid consolidation of soil around seed.

If they are used in damp conditions they can pick up seeds andflick them out of the furrow.

Common drill problems

Coulters (Pics. 3 and 4)

Sugar beet drill coulters, in common with other soil-engaging components, can suffer severe wear because they

Pic. 3 – The coulter on the left shows wear compared to the new parton the right and should be replaced.

Pic. 5 – The photo above shows excessive wear to the disc. Theshoulder of the pin should not go straight through as shown.This type of wear can cause damage to seed being placedin the ground.

Pic. 4 – The profile of a worn coulter against the template of a newpart can be clearly seen.

Discs (Pic. 5)

Disc wear can cause more than one seed to be pickedup at a time, resulting in seed damage and poor plantpopulation.

On a final note, it is worth remembering that, once theseed is in the ground, 70% of the factors that affect yieldand were under the growers control, are gone.

References 1. Stocking, A. (2014). Drilling Survey, British Sugar Beet Review,

82 (2), 40-44.

2. Goddard, C. and Bastow, J. (1984). British Sugar’s Drill TestingService, British Sugar Beet Review, 54 (4), 16-17.



Sugar in Spain – it’smore similar thanyou might thinkAs part of an AB Sugar exchange programme, the agriculture department has had three employees go to Azucarera:British Sugar’s sister company in Spain with two Spanish colleagues welcomed to the UK team, gaining valuableknowledge transfer from a country whose sugar beet production cycle is remarkably similar to our own.

ByGillian Colman,

British Sugar plc

Sugar in SpainBeet has been processed in Spain since 1903 and, like in theUK, there have been numerous changes. The number offactories has decreased from 12 in 1998/9 to four due toimproved efficiencies in technology and management andCommon Market Organisation (CMO) regulations. In bothcountries grower numbers have declined and yields havebeen rising. The number of farmers and average contractsizes for the UK and northern Spain are shown in Table 1.

There are three Azucarera factories in the northern region(Toro, La Bañeza and Miranda), plus a seperate logisticsand packaging plant (Benavente). There is also onefurther Azucarera factory (Jerez) in the south in Andalucia,which also comprises a raw cane sugar refinery. The Spanishquota is currently 498,480 tonnes of white sugar (UK is1,052,000t), which is split between the four Azucarerafactories (75%), and their competitor sugar producerACOR (25%).

Agriculture in SpainWhen we think of Spain, we tend to think of holidaysand sunshine. The hot, sunny days in the summer, andthe mild winters mean that, in addition to the traditionalcereals and sugar beet, crops such as tomatoes and cottonare also common-place. The actual crops grown variesgreatly between the regions due to large temperaturedifferences.

Table 1 – Spain and UK contract comparisons.

Spain (north) UK

Farmers 4,500 3,000

Total area grown 24,000 ha 120,000 ha

Average contract area 5.3 ha 40 ha

Average distance from factory 29 miles 28 miles



For this reason, the sugar beet growingseasons in the north and south of Spainare very different. Table 2 gives acomparison between the two regions.Like the UK, the northern beet crop isspring sown, typically beginning on15th February, and harvested whenthe campaign starts in October. Thecampaigns typically run for around85 days. The main difference to the UKis that irrigation is used on 100% ofthe northern beet crops to ensurethere is no moisture deficit during thehot summer months. Because of theimportance of water to these farmers,there has been extensive research intoirrigation quantities and timings, withnew technologies constantly beinginvestigated and trialled, such as ferti-irrigation and solar-powered irrigatorswhich could potentially give huge costsavings to the growers.

The southern region, however, has acompletely opposite growing season.Due to the extremely hot summermonths, their beet is autumn drilled,starting in November, and harvested inMay/June. It is so hot at this time thatthe beet must be lifted and delivered

Sugar beet factories in Spain.

Table 2 – Comparison between Spanish sugar beet grown in northern and southern regions.

North South

Number of factories 3 1

Growing cycle Drilling: SpringHarvest: Autumn/Winter

Drilling: AutumnHarvest: Summer

Area 24,000 ha 7,500 ha

Record company average yield 108 t/ha adjusted 83 t/ha adjusted

Southern area, taken Feb 2014. Left crop drilled October, right crop drilled December. Couldautumn drilled beet help us achieve higher yields in the UK and northern Spain?



machines that roll over the top of a windrow of beet(Pics. 3 and 4). The spikes penetrate and pick up the beet,while the stones are left on the ground. While the soiltypes and structures between Spain and the UK have theirdifferences, this is not enough to explain a huge variationin yield between the two countries.

Varieties and inputs

Due to the weather conditions, the UK and Spain look fordifferent characteristics in their seed varieties. The UK needsones with low bolting tendencies (due to the coldersprings), whereas Spanish varieties are being bred to berhizoctonia resistant and low susceptibility to cercospora.Although the varieties for each market have been bred tohave specific characteristics, the same seed companies areoperating in both, meaning seed used is often of thesame provenance, producing sister varieties with similaryield potential.

immediately to ensure it stays in good condition. Much of thework is carried out in the cooler night conditions, so thefactory is open for beet deliveries 24/7.

YieldsAs shown in Table 2, there are some impressive yields recordedin Spain, especially in the north. The highest company averageyield of 108 t/ha adjusted was achieved in the 2011/12 seasonbecause of favourable weather conditions during the growingseason, and a prolonged campaign meaning the beet hadlonger to keep growing. So what are the differences betweentheir growing conditions and ours? Some possible answers tothis question are outlined below.

Soil structure

The topsoil is a mineral soil, which often overlays a layer ofimpermeable rock. This could be seen as a good thing in thesummer when water retention is vital, but after the sudden,very heavy downpours that commonly occur in the latewinter and early autumn months (when it is cooler and thereis significantly less evaporation), most land is impassable formany days, and some even for weeks. This makes drillingand harvesting challenging. Some regions have soil that isextremely stony (see Pic. 2), which also provides its ownchallenges to crop management operations. Farmers in thesestony areas have developed special ‘spiked’ harvesting

Pic. 2 – Stony land common in La Bañeza factory area.

Pics. 3 and 4 – The spiked harvesting machine, picking up sugar beet but not the stones.

Pic. 5 – Common thorn-apple in a sugar beet crop in the Toro area.

Typical important weeds found in Spain are common thorn-apple (Pic. 5), Prickly saltwort and knotgrass. Although theweed spectra are different between each country, similarproducts and total numbers of sprays are used to controlthem. In Spain for disease control they again use similarproducts to the UK, but due to the hot conditions, sugar beetdiseases are very prevalent and crops often need spraying fouror even five times to achieve sufficient control.



continuous improvement and knowledge transfer will meanthat new techniques and ideas can be investigated soonerand passed more effectively to the growers in both countries.Watch this space!

With thanks to the Spanish Agriculture team who shared withme their knowledge of Spanish wines, Real Madrid FootballClub and, of course, sugar beet during the 2013/14 campaign.

Storage

Unlike the UK, beet crops in Spain are notstored for long. Historically, there hasbeen no investment in concrete pads, asbeet has always been lifted for just-in-time delivery. This will no doubt becontributing to the high yields, as manyBritish farmers saw last campaign whenthey left their beet in the ground until theend of campaign. However, this doesprovide problems for beet supply to thefactories when there is heavy rainfallas soil conditions take time to recoveras previously discussed. Self-propelledcleaner loaders are now much morecommon, so the Spanish agriculture teamis working on ways to encourage farmersto strike a balance between just-in-timedelivery and longer term storage tominimise risk to both the grower andfactory without compromising their highyields (Pic. 6).

OpportunitiesAs a direct result of the AB Sugar exchange programme, theBritish and Spanish agriculture teams have been able to makedirect comparisons of best practice, and make improvementsto the way they work and conduct business with growers.Behind the scenes, the agriculture and research teams havebuilt strong relationships between the two countries. This

The All New T4 - 30 Has Landed ...

For more information or demo booking on any of the HOLMER exxact product range please contact: Matt Carse M: 07860 288973 T: 01354 660552 E: [email protected] Agrifac UK Ltd, 4 Thorby Avenue, March, Cambridgeshire, PE15 0AZ

SEEING IS BELIEVING !

Pic. 6 – Storage trials in the Toro factory area.

14/4/27/06



took himself off to Pig Lane in St. Ives and started hisown business. By 1906 he was filing for a patent on a fixed-tine cultivator, so clearly he was showing signs of theinventiveness that he passed down in full measure to hisson Peter.

Old Samuel died in 1911, but Frank was by then into his strideand had already registered his company F.A. Standen Ltd.During the twenties he took on various franchises, includingAustin cars and lorries and, in 1934, was appointed the localdealer for John Deere and Case. Of course in those daysfarming was in terrible financial troubles, with manyfarmers walking away from their farms, as it was impossibleto make a living. Fortunately East Anglia has always beena favoured agricultural area and, however bad things were,Frank was able to make ends meet and to continue to payhis staff of five.

industry feature

A brief history ofStanden Engineering

Amongst the many machinery brands associated with the sugar beet industry, Standen Engineering occupies aspecial place in the development and mechanisation of the crop in the second half of the last century. Peter Standenwas the man who picked up the reins of his father’s development workshop to create Standen Engineering, andwhose name adorned the sides of successive models of sugar beet harvesters which entered service during thefifties and sixties.

ByRobin Limb,

British Sugar plc

Early beginnings

We know there was a Samuel Frank Standen working as ablacksmith in West Street, St. Ives, in Cambridgeshire in 1846.There had been a smithy on the site for several generationsbefore Samuel picked up his first hammer as a boy, or pumpedhis first bellow because, by the nature of things, the localblacksmith was a permanent feature of the farmingcommunity with son following father, and expecting his sonto follow him. Samuel’s own father Henry had taken overthe business from his father Elias, who himself had movedup to Cambridgeshire from Sussex in the 1820s. No doubtSamuel expected his eldest son Frank to take over the businesswhen it was time for him to forge his last horse-shoe.

History is somewhat hazy on the subject, but what is known isthat Frank had a falling-out with his father and, as a result,



By 1936 his son Peter and brother Eric had joined theirfather and the name of the company was expanded toF.A. Standen & Sons Ltd. Whilst Eric became more involvedin the retail side of the business, Peter began experimentingwith new designs of machine. He proved so adept thathis father funded a new company, F.A. Standen & Sons(Engineering) Ltd, with Peter as the effective boss.

Post-war austerityOn the back of the post-war drive to re-build and developindustry, Peter Standen opened new premises in the city ofEly, right in the heartland of sugar beet growing. By nowthe dealer side of the business had switched from John Deereto Massey-Harris and, in due course, took over the Fergusonfranchise. These two brands in fact became one, throughthe merging of the Massy-Harris company and Ferguson,to create Massey-Ferguson. The one remaining relic ofthe John Deere days is the green colour in which thecompany’s products are today painted, this being as a resultof the early prototypes being painted in the colour foundin the workshop where John Deere products were stillbeing serviced.

serrated discs that held the top of each sugar beet plant toallow it to be topped. The discs were turned by the mainland wheel. A knife set underneath the discs then sliced offthe tops: even today this is still the most efficient method oftopping sugar beet. Behind the discs ran a pair of lifter-wheelsthat squeezed the beet out of the ground and onto anelevator, with all the remaining working parts powereddirectly from the tractor PTO.

The beet dropped into a small holding tank at the rear of theharvester; when this was full a lever was pulled which allowedthe moving floor of the tank to eject the beet into a pile onthe ground. The beet would still then subsequently have to beloaded into trailers by hand. Later machines incorporated adischarge elevator so that the beet could be loaded directlyinto trailers.

These were the days before drawing aids, and engineersworked more often than not from sketches. Peter Standenwould sketch out what he wanted and this was interpreted byhis development people. Extensive testing took place withone end in mind: to harvest with one machine more thanone acre of beet in a day. Finally this milestone was achieved,and Peter’s son Edward remembers his father coming home

one day in the fifties and announcing,“We’ve done it!” And so they had. Thefirst stage of the growth of StandenEngineering was over.

Dawning of a new ageThe first commercially produced single-row Standen harvesters were the ‘Junior’and its later brother the ‘Universal’.These progressed to become the‘Beetmaster’, a very successful harvesterwhich met all of the grower’sexpectations in the 50s and early 60s.It was the model that followed theBeetmaster which set Standen on itsway to being the largest sugar beetharvester manufacturer in Europe duringthe late sixties.

The launch of the Standen ‘Rapide’ wasprompted by the boast of a competitorthat Standen had no long-term future.That competitor is no more; whereasStanden has since gone from strength tostrength. Over 10,000 Rapides weremanufactured in total, a number that has

never been equalled by any other model of harvester. Themachine was one of Peter Standen’s triumphs, and showed itwas dangerous to tweak the nose of a Fenman!

There were several major improvements in the design of theRapide, including a holding tank, removing the necessity for atrailer to be in constant attendance. This saved on man-powerand meant less soil compaction. A tops-saver was developed,so that the beet tops could be gathered up and left in pilesor rows in the field for livestock to feed on in-situ, or to beremoved and ensiled. An in-line model was later introducedto overcome the problem of topped but unharvested beetbeing left in the ground at the end of the day.

There was a leap of innovation when the first self-propelledbeet harvesters were conceived. To overcome farmers’reluctance to pay for the addition of a power unit, this was

Peter Standen (left) and designer Vic Gray in 1966.

Industry modernisationThe story of Standen really starts in Ely in the 1950s, asPeter’s fertile mind addressed the problem of mechanisingthe harvesting of sugar beet. There had been beet ploughsaround for a very long time, often horse-drawn, they simplyturned the beet out of the ground where it would be leftto dry out. From thereon it was a manual task to ‘knockand top’ the roots and fork them both on and off carts toget them to the railhead or barge.

In the post-war industrial depression, labour rates remainedpitiful for most farmworkers, and hence for any machineharvester to compete it had to offer a financial benefit not justa more comfortable existence. This was the challenge facingthe designers of farm machinery, and one that Peter Standenhad to meet. The first prototype machine featured a set of



Standen solved its problem of the lackof a two-row harvester by linking withthe Danish company Thyregod. Thiscompany manufactured both two- andthree-row trailed harvesters which, inconjunction with Standen’s dealership,rapidly became the market leader inthis sector.)

Standen leapt ahead of the competitionwhen it decided to develop a three-rowharvesting system in the early seventies.As has already been noted, efforts toproduce an economically viable two-rowharvester had failed, but the pressurefor a machine capable of out-performingthe single-row tankers was still verymuch on the agenda.

Bearing in mind that most tractorswere around 60 hp, there seemed nopoint in designing a three-row tankermachine. It would quite simply havebeen too heavy to pull. Equally, a

three-row design which filled a trailer running alongside,topping, lifting, cleaning and loading the beet, would alsohave been too much for the tractor’s power output.Nonetheless, the company pressed ahead, with what was

overcome by using a de-mountable conventional tractor,which could then be used for other duties for the rest ofthe year. The ‘Solobeet’, as it was known, was arguably themost successful harvester produced by Standens, due to itsability to harvest and produce anacceptable standard for the factoryin the most challenging conditions. Thiswas later superseded by the Cyclone, socalled because it now included a cleaningcyclone, as found on many continentalmachines. This gave superior cleaning ofthe beet, combined with less damage: itremained in the production until 1985.

The Cyclone incorporated offset, in-linetopping and lifting, and an offset drivingposition, which made the operator’sjob even easier than with the Solobeet.Soon after this Peter Standen enteredinto negotiations to sell Standen,which duly occurred. The price was£1million, and although Peter stayedon for a year or so after the sale hisheart was not in the job, and in 1971 heretired to Jersey.

The Cyclone became an outstandingexport success, with over 600 unitsexported to Greece, and smaller numberssold into many European markets. Irantook the best part of 100 machines.Exports gradually fell to very lownumbers as the Cyclone now, in turn,became superseded by newer models,such as the self-propelled, two-rowTornado.

The Tornado continued in productionfor several years, but its cost and itsrelatively small tank meant thatproduction volumes sank to singlefigures and it became uneconomicto continue with this model. (In 1990 The Standen ‘Solobeet’ was a huge innovation in self-propelled harvesting.

The ‘Rapide’ tanker harvester.



foothold in the rapidly growing six-row market, alreadydominated by the continental competition.

After two more years the model was discontinued, and thecompany chose instead in 1994 to service the six-row marketsector by becoming a dealership for the Holmer harvesterthrough its daughter company Standen-Reflex.

Timeline1993 – Standen Engineering Limited purchased the potato

machinery business of Key Agricultural Ltd andthe manufacturing rights to all Keyag machines.

1994 – Reflex Engineering Ltd of Pymoor was purchasedby Standen Engineering Limited. A new importedmachinery division was created to marketJuko, Herriau, Baselier, ASA-LIFT and othermanufacturer’s products under Standen-Reflex,which became the imported machinery divisionselling direct. Alex Mathias joins Standen.

1994 – Standen-Reflex becomes UK Holmer importer.

1997 – The last year that Standen sugar beet harvesterswere manufactured at Ely. The final machine wasthe Spectrum which was available as a three-rowor four-row harvester.

2001 – Standen Engineering Limited purchased theintellectual property rights, equipment and partsinventory for Dowdeswell soil cultivation andbed-forming machinery. Powavator rotary tiller,power harrow and Bedformer manufacturing wastransferred to Hereward Works, Ely.

2003 – Standen Engineering Limited acquired the potatomachinery business of Richard Pearson Ltd, alongwith their patents and intellectual propertyrights. Manufacturing of Megastar, Maxistar, QM,Enterprise and Galaxy machines was transferredto Ely.

The Pearson acquisition prompted a completemarketing realignment; the launch of the Standen-Pearson Potato Systems brand, and a change ofcolour from green to blue for all Ely manufacturedmachines.

2010 – Standen Engineering Limited purchased the assetsof Deptford Marketing Ltd, and added theirimported salad and vegetable machinery range tothe Standen-Reflex portfolio, including Steketeeinter-row hoes.

2013 – Holmer is sold to French Exel Group of whichAgrifac is already part, Holmer franchisetransferred from Standen-Reflex, to Agrifac UK.

2014 – All Standen manufactured machines are re-branded Standen, for all markets, Standenreplacing the Standen-Pearson brand 10 yearsafter its introduction.

to be known as the ‘Multibeet’, a trailed, three-row, two-stage harvester. The system rapidly gained popularity withthe larger grower and contractor due to its high work rate(up to ten acres a day) and low horsepower requirement,meaning that you could pick the best harvesting days andavoid lifting in adverse conditions.

In due course the average tractor horsepower increased toaround 75 hp, and, at this point, it was practicable to considermerging the two separate operations of topping and liftinginto one unit. In 1979 Standen introduced the ‘Turbobeet’,which comprised a topper mounted on the front of thetractor, and the lifter/loader on the rear. Later thisconfiguration evolved into the Standen Turbo-4, to meetthe growing popularity of bed-systems, based on 16 inch,four-row beds and controlled wheelings.

The first six-row harvesters appeared in the UK in the early1970s. They were primarily of French origin, and were basedon a two- or three-stage trailed concept, or self-propelledsingle stage machines. These high-output machines had theability to harvest up to 10 ha per day and suited the Frenchcontractors, who wanted the biggest tackle available to clearas much crop as possible in the working day.

In the UK, the uptake of six-row machines was limited initiallydue to their high cost, putting them out of reach for theaverage grower. As time passed, however, they graduallybecame more accepted, in particular the self-propelledversions. During this period an uncertain start had been madeat developing Standen’s own six-row harvester. It was decidedto build a test lifting rig which would break down thedevelopment process into two distinct phases.

The digging unit featured the well-proven lifter-wheel fittedto all Standen harvesters, and centering rollers to bring thecrop to the middle of the machine, from where it would beingested by the harvester. In fact the prototype rig simply leftthe beet on the ground, where it was picked up by a loadingunit. A Turbo-topper was fitted to the front of the tractorwhich powered the lifting unit.

The Standen ‘Spectrum’ was the last beet harvester to be manu -factured by the company.

The testing was successful, and a decision was taken toproceed with phase two, that of developing the main self-propelled element. The specification had already been laidout after meetings with large beet growers, and this includeda two-tonne holding tank, four-wheel drive with a hydrostatictransmission and, for good manoeuvring, a four-wheel steersystem. The name given to this harvester was ‘Challenger’.Despite its early promise the Challenger never really gained a

AcknowledgementsThe author is grateful to Alex Mathias, formerly sales managerand now publicity manager for Standen Engineering, for hishelp in the production of this article and for consenting to thereproduction of archive photographs.



industry feature

Australia’s marketingdebacle: the growers’perspective

The marketing debacle in Australia is one of the largest issues to face the country’s sugarcane industry since thegovernment first introduced legislation in 1915 to prevent skewing of negotiation strength in favour of themilling sector.

BySuzi Moore,

Communications Manager,Canegrowers

Recent moves by Australia’s three largest sugar millers hadthe consequence of enabling mills to effectively wrest fromgrowers control of the right to determine how sugarcaneis priced and sold. Growers found the imminent lossof control over their future as an absolutely untenableposition and have responded in kind, mounting a fight on ascale not seen before in the Australian industry’s 100 yearexistence.

The reason Australia’s sugarcane growers are so fired up isthat they will no longer have any control over the verymechanism which determines how they get paid. Australia’sgrowers face a loss of rights to choose how sugar is marketedand the loss of transparency into the operation of thecompany which markets the sugar – both issues have thepotential to impact growers’ revenues, transferring that cashfrom growers’ pockets directly to the ‘mills’ coffers.



J Riley Beet Harvesters (UK) Ltd

Tel: 01603 262526 After hours: 01603 262485 Mob: 07836 366289

Church Farm, Attlebridge, Norwich NR9 5ST

Rileys have the answer for ALL conditions

www.jrileyagri.co.uk [email protected]

Beet Eater 617

Beet Eater 625

Hydro Trike XL

E25 chaser

Refurbished machines

were preserved until a string of events, not the least of whichwas deregulation, set the stage for the situation in which theAustralian industry now finds itself.

VulnerabilityAt the farm level, there are a few factors in the setup of theAustralian sugarcane industry which have left cane farmersadditionally exposed to anti-competitive behaviour.

Being a perishable commodity, proximity to the mill is critical.The sugar content in sugarcane evaporates relatively quickly –growers have a 12-16 hour window from cut to crush. Thereare 16 main sugarcane hubs interspersed over a 2100 kmstretch of coastline on Australia’s north eastern coast – whichmeans long distances between mills. Some 80% of Australia’ssugarcane growers cannot strike up negotiations with analternative neighbouring miller to get better conditions. Theyare very much tied in.

Pro-competition solution, not return tosingle deskCANEGROWERS and Australian Cane Farmers Association(ACFA) have put forward a solution which would reinstateprotections for cane growers against monopolies. The growergroups are blisteringly clear that theirs is not a call to restorea mandatory single desk, but a call for regulation to addressmarket failure.

They describe the changes needed as pro-competition – away of putting in place for cane growers what other industriescurrently have access to through Australian legislation.

The milling sector has outlined that it is within its rights tomake the moves it has and is fighting back in equal measureagainst the legislative solutions being put forward by thegrowing sector.

Long-standing protection lostThe issue arose when large millers Wilmar, MSF Sugar andTully Sugar gave notice of their intention to withdraw fromAustralia’s industry-owned and supported sugar marketingarrangements as provided through Queensland Sugar Limited(QSL) at the conclusion of the 2016 season.

This had the unintended consequence of removing the long-standing protections for growers which have been in placesince 1915, that had prevented large corporate millers fromtaking advantage of their clear imbalance in economicstrength.

This imbalance was first recognised in Australia in the earlyyears of the 20th century when, in the absence of effectivecompetition laws, the then federal government appointed aRoyal Commission to review the sugar industry. In its report,the Royal Commission expressed concern about the imbalancein market power in the industry and the mill owner’s abilityto ‘squeeze the primary producer’. Shortly after, a singlechannel marketing system was introduced that ensured therisks and rewards flowing from the marketing of raw sugarwere shared. The regulations also enabled cane growers tocome together to bargain collectively with mills to negotiatethe terms and conditions for the supply of cane to the mill.

Many changes ensued in the coming years for Australia’ssugarcane industry, but growers’ basic rights and protections

14/4/33/07



Australia’s cane farmers are resilient and have operated foralmost 150 years. Success as an industry has been built ongrower confidence and the current threat to marketingarrangements erodes that confidence.

Growers accept that the industry is undergoing change,particularly in relation to new mill owners. However they areconfident that the issue can be resolved and the Queenslandindustry can continue to be a major force in the world sugarmarket well into the future.

A major plank of their solution is the formal recognition ofsomething they call ‘grower economic interest’. This is thelong-standing arrangement by which the risks and rewards ofproducing sugar in Australia are shared between growers andmillers (two-thirds growers, one-third millers). The two-thirdone-third split was developed to apportion the appropriateshare of risks and rewards of production of sugar fairlybetween the parties.

The recent changes have resulted in mills being able todisregard this long-standing practice. The mills are nowarguing that there is no such thing as grower economicinterest sugar, even though in 2010 when a difficult seasonresulted in production losses, it was the mills who called ongrowers to foot two-thirds of the losses, being their share ofthe sugar.

What has confused many in the complex debate is the redherring of legal title. CANEGROWERS and ACFA are quick topoint out that this is not a question of sugar ownership butthe regulation of regional mill monopolies which are exertingand misusing their market power.

In the absence of this protection for growers being enshrinedin legislation, the mills do not have to honour long-standingmarketing arrangements which ensure growers and millersshare market risk and rewards. This is at the heart of thematter. Growers have called on government to intervene toreinstate their basic rights to decide how that part of thesugar which flows directly to their cane returns is pricedand sold.

Even those growers who are interested in selling through theirmill’s new marketing arrangements want it to be a choice –not something forced upon them.

Where to from hereThe imbalance, characteristic of sugar industries around theworld and recognised by governments in all sugar-producingcounties, has resulted in a suite of regulations governing thecommercial relationship between millers and growers in eachof those countries.

Australia’s growers are fighting tooth and nail for theirgovernment to redress this as a matter of priority, just as it hasbeen in other countries around the world.

In the face of unprecedented angst by growers in relation tomills decision to quit QSL and their anger at unilateraldecisions being made by millers with no reference to growers;CANEGROWERS and ACFA mobilised, commencing robustlobbying of government and key decision makers. Queenslandcommunities were taken aback by the scale and grass-rootsinvolvement in the modern community awareness campaign,which integrated modern social platforms alongside moretraditional mechanisms of media, mailouts and meetings.

The sheer level of angst has caught the attention ofgovernment.

The Queensland Government has intervened via a raw sugarmarketing investigation and the Australian Government haslaunched a Senate inquiry into raw sugar marketing and anti-competitive behaviour by mills. CANEGROWERS and ACFA putstrong, joint submissions into both inquiries and are lookingforward to participating actively in formal Senate hearings,which will commence in the new year.

Growers are fully engaged. Their livelihood depends on it.

Australia’s domestic sugar market was deregulated in1989. In 1996, the Queensland Sugar Corporation (QSC)first introduced the mechanism to provide producers withthe opportunity to manage part of the price risk theyfaced, separately to QSC’s management of the physicalsales activity. The mechanism enabled producers to hedgetheir sugar price risk associated with the sugar theyproduced, using the New York futures market (now theInter-Continental Exchange (ICE)). This structure evolved.In 2000, the government-owned corporation QSC wasabolished and Queensland Sugar Limited (QSL), anindustry-owned company limited by guarantee withownership held 50% by growers (CANEGROWERS andACFA each holding a membership entitlement) and 50%by mills, was established. QSL took over the industrymarketing role formerly undertaken by QSC and all rawsugar produced in Queensland was vested in QSL.

In 2004 mills entered Voluntary Marketing Agreementswith QSL to enable it to continue as the single channelexporter of raw sugar from Queensland. Under theseagreements growers and their representatives werelegally removed from decisions about marketing rawsugar produced in Queensland despite the cane pricebeing directly linked to the price of raw sugar.

In 2013 all mill owners sought the ability to market theraw sugar produced in their mills on their own account,independently of QSL. Mills imposed significant pressureon QSL to change its marketing structures and thosechanges now leave them in a position to be able to exerttheir monopoly powers if left unchecked.

Australian growers say it’s not a question of ownership over sugar,but the loss of say and loss of transparency in the mechanism whichdetermines how they get paid.



Making Sense of Sugar

ByRichard Pike,

Managing Director,British Sugar plc

The obesity debate has in the last year captured the nation’sattention – with new research studies, suggested solutionsand conflicting opinions being regularly reported. As part ofthis, the role of sugar in our diets has come under increasingscrutiny and it is often suggested that it plays a leading rolein rising obesity levels.

We believe this is misleading and confusing for consumers. Butof course, this does not just affect consumers on the street.With sugar being singled out, pressure has also been placed onour industry and we want to play a role in helping findsolutions to obesity, protecting and enhancing the reputationof this important UK crop, as well as ensuring consumers havea greater understanding of what constitutes a healthybalanced diet.

We have spent the past year seeking to balance the debateand as part of this have launched a new consumer facingcampaign, Making Sense of Sugar.

Aimed to help inform and educate people about the role ofsugar and how it can form part of a healthy lifestyle, thecampaign sets out to:

■ Present the science and facts about sugar in a way which issimple, straightforward and informative.

■ Help address the myths around sugar and obesity and therole sugar can play as part of a well-balanced diet.

■ Help people better understand the link between theenergy (calories) they consume versus the energy (calories)they expend.

Kicking off with the launch of a new websitemakingsenseofsugar.com, people can find out more aboutthe role of sugar based on the latest scientific thinking,including how it can be consumed as part of a healthybalanced diet. Campaign news and information is alsoavailable on our Twitter feed @senseofsugar.

This is just the start, however. The campaign also recentlyprovided an unrestricted educational grant to 2020health, anindependent social enterprise ‘think tank’ to develop aresearch report – Careless Eating Costs Lives – exploring anumber of potential solutions to the current UK obesityepidemic which are thought-provoking.

We firmly believe that a holistic approach should be takento tackle the rise in obesity as there is no ‘silver bullet’ totackling a very complex issue

Working closely in partnership with everyone within theindustry is an important part of this campaign. If you wouldlike to find out how you can get involved, please don’t

hesitate to contact Claire Hargreaves at [email protected] or visit makingsenseofsugar.com.

In the meantime, as our campaign evolves, we look forwardto sharing updates with you in due course.



news

Advancing and simplifying arable farming to the benefitof growers, their suppliers and advisers is the prime aim ofthe UK arm of a global agrochemical company which stagedits UK launch in London on 6th November.

Adama Agricultural Solutions UK, one of 50 subsidiaries ofwhat was previously known as Makhteshim Agan Industries,established in 1945, supplies arable solutions to farmersacross the full value chain, including crop protection andnovel agricultural technologies. It manufactures fungicides,herbicides, insecticides, growth regulators, seed dressingsand non-crop products. The business has traded in the UKfor 25 years.

Ranked seventh biggest agrochemical manufacturer anddistributor in the world in 2013 and fifth in Europe, whichaccounts for 37% of group revenue, the US$3.07 billion / yearrevenue group has its UK offices at Thatcham, Berkshire.

Presently privately owned – 60% by ChemChina, 40% byKoor Industries – the company this week launched thenew UK business with what it described as a new brandarchitecture for its 120 active substances, now available tomajor distributors and their customers in two distinct ranges:Advanced and Essentials.

New, easy-to-identify, colour-coded packaging with QRcodes, clear labelling and measurement strips on cans isdesigned to provide farmers, contractors and spray operatorswith a major safety feature and environmental safeguard.

Additionally, the Thatcham-based company is developingapps for mobile devices which will further support theprovision of in-field product data for farm and spraycontractor staff.

Adama has invested in R&D hubs in China, Israel, India andBrazil to help deliver innovative, environmentally-sustainablesolutions for farmers and growers in over 120 countries.

The UK business is already seeking and developing long-termcrop solutions within tight European legislative, regulatoryand environmental surroundings. Its commitment toinnovative product development in a bid to protect yieldsand farm margins in the absence of new active ingredientsbeing developed by the industry is recognised byagronomists. It does this by developing solutions from itssubstantial portfolio of high volume off-patent activeingredients, high value complex active substances, uniquemixtures and formulations and its approach to innovativeand novel solutions.

The business operates five synthesis and 14 formulationcentres in Europe, China, the Middle East and in north andsouth America and in-country technical developmentfacilities.

In the UK, the company works with research organisationssuch as ADAS and NIAB TAG to ensure innovative andenvironmentally-acceptable crop protection solutions aremade available to arable farmers. It brings products tomarket through its established network of distributors andagronomy companies with branches throughout thecountry.

Future plant protection solutions from Adama, it is claimed,will bring new introductions which will provide growersand their advisers with benefits over existing programmesolutions.

Adama aims toadvance and simplifyarable farming

New name in crop protection has 70-year heritage asMakhteshim Agan.



news

Beet lifting with a new dimension:

The Terra Dos T4-30 offers a new level and range of functions inpower, durability, efficiency and comfort. The new model givesyou more power and efficiency than ever before; equipped with aMercedes Benz 626 hp 6 cylinder engine with AdBlue technology,complying with exhaust standard Tier 4 Final/EuroMot 4. A newdrive system offers load sensing hydraulics for an economicalhydraulic supply to all functions of beet lifting. A new automotiveadaptive control unit for the engine speed means the enginespeed will regulate itself between 1150 rpm and 1550 rpm,increasing efficiency to levels never seen before! For contractorsand farmers road travel is seen as ‘dead time’ to many andbecause of this Holmer have now increased the road speed to a40 km/h top speed as opposed to the previous 32 km/h.

Optimal harvesting with maximum soil protection:

The T4-30 also increases its pivoting degree to 60 degrees,30 degrees left or right, decreasing unproductive time in thefield spent turning at the end of the field. The T4-30 also offersmaximum soil protection due to the offset track when harvesting(TerraDos mode). The T4-30 is available with Michelin Ultra Flex IF800/70 R38 on the front axle, using just 1.4 bar of pressure –increasing the contact area of the tyre. The rear axle is equippedwith huge Michelin 1050/50 R32 tyres with both axles spreadingthe weight of the machine evenly while protecting the soil to amaximum. When harvesting the rear axle will run in between thetrack of the front axle, meaning the ground is only covered once,thus creating an even surface with minimal soil disruption.

Topping precision for exact results:

The HOLMER KOS topper is available with two models, KOS-I: anintegral topper spreading the chopped material between therows or the KOS KO topper which combines the integral functionwith the possibility of the proven leaf spreading side exit system,offering top quality topping with both functions, nocompromising. The DynaCut scalping system has been mastereddue to reduced weight of the scalper unit meaning the unit ismore agile and responsive to the beet heights and even whenharvesting at high speeds the performance is not hindered.

Award winning lifting quality:

The DLG recognised the HOLMER HR lifting unit which offersindependent height control automatically controlled on each row,optimal lifting quality with minimal wear and reduced unnecessaryworking depths thus increasing fuel efficiency. The HR lifter isavailable in three models, HR 45: fixed 45 cm lifting, HR 50: fixed50 cm row widths, VHR: variable row widths, 45 cm/50 cm. HOLMERhave increased strength with this lifter but minimised the weightof the lifter by using high strengthened fine grained steel.

The All New HOLMER exxact T4-30

For more information, please contact Matt Carse

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

T: 01354 660552 M: 07860 288973 E: [email protected]


BURY ST. EDMUNDS FACTORY

factory news


Campaign progress 2014/15

Campaign operations started on Monday 15th September. Themajor change to the factory this year was the new filter station,built in the off season with supporting associated tankage forvarious juices. This is a major improvement to the factory, asfiltration capacity has been significantly increased as a result ofthis investment. The new plant was successfully tested throughthe summer months and also at the start of campaign, proving tobe highly effective, as in the first 24 hours of slicing, the factoryachieved its best ever first day of 11,588 tonnes, and on thesecond day achieved over budget throughput. The old filterstation has been removed from the middle of the factory. Sincethen slice rates have been consistently around 15,000 tonnes perday, with a factory average also now around the same level.Contributing to this excellent start-up was the processing of someretained thick juice, allowing the refinery end of the factory to beup and running prior to the commencement of beet slicing.

The only way further improvements can be made is for everyoneon site to have the right safety behaviour and be constantlythinking of others around them and the consequences thattheir own actions may have on others. A recent incident involvinga tailgate being lifted onto a lorry caused severe bruising to alorry driver’s leg when it slipped and fell. The people involvedin this incident did not consider the consequences of whatmight go wrong and that it is forbidden on British Sugar sites torefit tailgates due to the risk of injury when not done in acontrolled way.

Crop yield

Growers completing deliveries have so far shown a range in yieldsof 37 t/ha adjusted yield up to 115 t/ha. This range is much largerthan normal for this time of year. Sugar content is holding firm ataround 17.6%. Sugar percentage dropped just after the week inOctober when significant rainfall occurred, and roadside stockswere in the region of around five days for the first few weeksof the campaign.

When viewing the beet on the factory flat pad it is apparent thatthe root size is certainly larger than normal and good yields areexpected this year. At this stage of the campaign it is difficult tobe clear on what the final average yield will be as the onlyinformation available is the root samples information from thesummer and the low number of finished grower yields. I wouldencourage growers to feed back any yield information they haveto their British Sugar area manager, as this will assist in campaignplanning. If the yield is as expected Bury factory will be processinginto March this year.

Co-products

Washed stone is now available from site and can be orderedthrough Rob Richards, agricultural operations manager, orthrough your area manager. This material is not completely clodfree, but is suitable for basic roadway or hard-standingconstruction.

LimeX70 despatches are progressing well, as growers takeadvantage of cheap backloads while beet is being delivered.LimeX70 sold out again last year. Just over 100,000 tonnes ofTopsoil products were despatched from Bury factory, prior tocampaign start – a record sales year – and 40,000 of stock is nowready for winter and early spring. Soil pond excavation hascontinued into the campaign to take advantage of the warmautumn weather, and to keep ahead of pond capacityrequirements for processing the current crop.

Best wishes for the remainder of the campaign and also forthe festive season from everyone in the Bury factory agricultureteam.

Dan DownsAgricultural Business Manager

Safety behaviour

Achieving a high safety standard on site is paramount in havinga successful factory operation. At the recent factory forummeeting, representatives from British Sugar, NFU and the RoadHaulage Association heard Mike Blowers, Bury factory managerpresent some safety statistics for the site over the last six years.In the last three years the site has remained static in termsof injuries and incidents. Considerable effort has gone intoimproving safety on site, and it is now a much safer place towork, with half the incidents that where being recorded in 2010.


CANTLEY FACTORY


Crop progress

It is mid-November as I write this, and yields from liftedfields support the late summer root dig samples; the crop iswell above average. Quite a few growers are alreadyyielding over 100 t/ha of adjusted beet, and crops remainingto be lifted are still growing. Harvesting is progressing wellwith a good standard of defoliation and general quality ofdeliveries. With the prospect of high yields throughout theCantley area, we expect to be processing beet through muchof March. With this in mind, and dependant on yourlocation and vulnerability to the impact of cold conditions,you may choose to store more beet in clamp than you wouldnormally do.

If you are contemplating long term beet storage, minimisestorage losses by choosing beet that have been harvestedunder good conditions and are disease free. Then continuewith just-in-time harvest and delivery for subsequent beet,rather than cycling the crops through your storage padswhere much sugar will be lost during the early days ofstorage. Of course it is very important to monitor clamps andprotect them with clamp sheets when frost is forecast iflosses are to be minimised; please do not be tempted topush beet up high as this causes damage and restrictsairflow through the clamp.

Factory

The capital investment at Cantley has been highly successful.Much work has also been undertaken to improve reliabilityand maximise our throughput; and we have already beatenour beet slice daily and weekly record achieving over10,450 tonnes for the best day and over 71,000 tonnes inthe week.

LimeX and Topsoil co-products

At Cantley we offer our Landscape 20 Topsoil, as well asLimeX45; please call your area manager for details or toplace an order. We have graded stone available (20-40 mmand 40 mm plus) and ash (often used to top off farmtracks, etc.); details are available from Paddy Barraclough on07769 936994. (www.limex.co.uk or www.bstopsoil.co.uk)

I have completed over 30 years with British Sugar anddecided it is a good time to move on to pastures new.I have thoroughly enjoyed my time, working to achievethe best possible solutions for British Sugar and growers,who together make a winning team. I will maintain akeen interest in the industry as it makes the major shiftto life post-regime: an exciting challenge for everyone towork together. Beet yields continue to improve due tothe work of breeders and growers’ attention to detailand the implementation of best practices guided by thework of the BBRO. Area managers will continue to workhard with you all to identify opportunities where youcan maximise yield and returns from your beet crop. Thisprovides the basis for the industry’s continued success.I wish you all well for the rest of the 2014/15 campaignand preparations for next year. I look forward tomeeting with some of you at the BBRO open days, andsimilar events in the future.

John EmersonAgricultural Business Manager


NEWARK FACTORY

factory news


Nick MorrisAgricultural Business Manager

2014 Crop

The crop has continued to grow very well through the autumnand into winter, as we experience unseasonably warm conditionsand relatively bright sunny days. Root growth in September wasslowed down in some areas due to very low levels of rainfall, asshown in Fig. 1. Much needed rain was then received in Octoberwhich resulted in rapid root growth and only marginally dilutedsugar content from 18.0% to 17.7%, which is now building back upto 17.8% at the time of writing on the 31st October.

Pic. 2 – Virus yellows infection – 22nd October 2014.

38

22

11

17

66

38 35

45

4

56

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Average @ 660mm/year

Recorded at Newark

Fig. 1 – Rainfall measured at Newark factory.

The focus for the remainder of campaign needs to be placed onmaximising crop recovery and being prepared for changeableweather conditions. Factors to consider are:

■ Minimising root breakage at harvest.

■ Harvester adjustment to optimise crowning and whole beetdelivery.

■ Ensuring beet is clean, free of soil, stone and trash enteringclamp.

■ ‘Just in Time’ harvesting before delivery while conditions aremild.

■ Longer term storage – properly constructed, levelled, andmanaged clamps with sheets available for when ambienttemperature drops below -3°C.

■ Never push beet up when filling clamp.

With the significant potential of the crop in the ground every effortshould be made to harvest and deliver as much yield as possible.Your area manager can assist you in assessing harvesting andstorage losses, and provide advice on how to mitigate these. Yield

Pic. 1 – Near canopy closure – 10th June 2014.

2014 Campaign

The new processing season got underway on the 11th September,and the factory very quickly achieved record throughput levelsand is currently averaging 10,200t/day – well in excess of our budgetslice of 9,050t/day. Due to the lack of rainfall in September liftingconditions were extremely hard, which increased harvester lossesand compromised beet supply on occasions. Following rain inOctober, we entered the busiest time for beet harvesting, as thebalance of sugar content and root weight optimises and roadsidestocks start to build up.

We have extended beet reception hours for this campaign, whichare now 5.00 am to 9.00 pm Monday to Friday, and 5.00 am to5.00 pm Saturday and Sunday. To date, we have received an averageof 28 loads per day after 5.00 pm Monday to Friday and feedbackto date has been very positive as the speed of turnaround in beetintake has improved, and hauliers have had the opportunity ofgreater utilisation of their vehicles, providing the industry withfurther cost efficiencies.

We have already despatched over 8,000t of LimeX70 since campaignstart, which has been back-loaded after delivering beet to thefactory, significantly reducing transport cost. Please don’t delay inspeaking with your area manager to discuss your soil sampling andLimeX requirements while product is available.

Best wishes for the remainder of campaign.

continues to increase at a significant rate, with the 65 Newarkgrowers who have finished to date averaging around 70 t/haand 120% of contract after just seven weeks of the campaign.The crop has looked promising all year, with early canopy closureas seen in Picture 1.

Attention should also be focussed on preparing land for next year’scrop and learning from the experiences of 2014 to improve yieldin 2015. Picture 2 is virus yellows patches in a crop drilledwithout insecticide treated seed; a timely reminder of the valueof neonicotinoid seed treatments in helping to maximise yield.


WISSINGTON FACTORY


Beet Intake opened on Wednesday 10th September this year forinvitation loads and then stock build the following first full day. Thefactory commenced slicing on Friday 12th September which was theearliest for several years. This decision was made as a result of somevery encouraging root samples taken from the survey fields across theWissington growing area. Although beet stocks were relatively goodsome hauliers did run short which meant we were pulling on beetreserves from other areas. Due to planned stock management thefactory was never starved of supply. The dry lifting conditions didgive some heavy land growers an early opportunity to clear some ofthe more challenging fields on the farm. We were receiving reportsearly in the campaign that harvesters on lighter fields were beginningto struggle and losses were becoming an issue. As the campaignhas progressed and the rain fell, the conditions have much improved.As I write this article all factory areas are up to full capacity andlifting conditions are good. Dirt tares have remained low from thecampaign start.

Factory performance to date has been encouraging. The start-upprofile was one of the best for many years, with budget throughputachieved by day five. Although there have been various engineeringissues throughout the campaign which may have affected anindividual weeks slice, the overall picture is looking good with acurrent average slice per day of over 18,000t. Within these numbers

were a record daily slice of 20,740t and the largest week’s slice of136,978t. The pictures shown illustrate some of the investment in theplant over the past six months all of which is now commissioned.

As I mentioned earlier the root dig results from the survey fields lookgood for this year’s crop and some of the finished field results arebacking this up. With this in mind you may need to plan to store beetfor a longer period of time than usual given the extended campaign.Please make sure you are prepared with clamp sheets and straw bales.There is clamp building guidance in the BBRO Reference Book and theGrower Handbook.

Please take this opportunity to start planning for next season’s crop.The Wissington team offer the following range of soil samplingservices; pH testing, nutrient analysis, BCN and now a free-livingnematode test. Now is the time to get your fields tested for BCN sothat we can alter your seed selection in time for next year, if required.There are a number of BCN tolerant varieties available and if yourresults demonstrate a need for these then we can still amend yourorder. If you require any of the services above then contact your areamanager, who will be able to arrange for your beet fields to be testedready for next season. You will also be able to order your LimeXrequirements through them; please take advantage of preferentialback-loading haulage rates whilst your beet is being delivered.

I delighted to announce that Edward Hagues has accepted asecondment position in the Agricultural Commercial team at Bury St.Edmunds factory for a six-month period. This gives Edward anopportunity to broaden his knowledge of the Industry HaulageScheme and take on more responsibility for crop management. Iwould like to wish him well in his new role. As a result of this moveAmy Davies will be managing Area 44 for Edward. Amy has recentlyjoined us as a graduate from MDS (Management DevelopmentServices) and will be supported in her role by the rest of theWissington team.

Diffuser drive path rings renewal. New main cooling tower.

The new SO2 absorber is giving higher juice flows.

Andrew Dear Agriculture Business Manager


SANDRA KWS

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

www.kws-uk.com

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

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

Data Source: BBRO Sugar Beet Recommended List 2015

Hate Rhizomania – Love Sandra!

14/4BC/08


british sugar beet review - home - bbro · winter 2014 volume 82 no. 4 british sugar beet review 1...

Documents