ppioionneereer - michigan sugarget topsin ®. benlate® fungicide may be gone, but there’s no need...

P I O N E E RP I O N E E RSpring 2002

2 P I O N E E R N E W S B E E T

PION EER N EWSBEETSPR ING 2002 • VOLUME 16, NO. 1

NEWSBEET TECHNICAL ADVISORS:Vice-President—Agriculture: Robert BraemAgronomist: Teresa M. Crook (Editor)

PIONEER NEWSBEET PUBLISHED BY MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANYAgricultural Office, P.O. Box 107, Caro, MI 48723

COMMUNICATIONS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO:Editor, Pioneer Newsbeet, P.O. Box 107, Caro, MI 48723

PIONEER NEWSBEET is published by Michigan Sugar Company in Saginaw,Michigan. It is prepared for grower members of Michigan Sugar Company,from information obtained from sources which the Company believes to bereliable. However, the Company cannot guarantee or assume any responsi-bility for the accuracy of the information or be responsible for the resultsobtained. Mention or illustrations of a special technique, specific equipmentor products does not constitute endorsement by the Company. Reprinting orquoting articles appearing in Pioneer Newsbeet is granted with the excep-tion of those items credited to outside sources.

ABOUT THE COVER

The Signing…Attorney Randy Wilson carefully

watched over Richard Maurer, Chairman of the

Interim Board of Directors as he signs one of the

numerous documents in the acquisition of

Michigan Sugar Company.

BUSINESSroot of the

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Root of the Business...............................................2-3

2001 Crop Review ....................................................3-4

Seed Treatment Terminology ....................................5

Sugarbeet Advancement—

High Yields with Stand..................................6-7

Sugarbeet Weed Management...........................8-11

New Fungicides on the Horizon ......................12-13

Proper Pesticide Applications ................................14

Sugar Queen ...............................................................14

Factory Notes—Why Quality Matters ....................15

Cover Story—The Long Haul..............................16-25

4H Awards.............................................................26-27

Meet Your Board of Directors ..........................28-29

Community Window/Pioneer Sugar Ladies........30

by Mark Flegenheimer, President and CEO

As we begin this new chapterin the history Michigan SugarCompany, we are pleased to beable to reintroduce the Newsbeet

Magazine to our growers/owners. This magazinewill be issued twice a year (Spring/Fall) and willupdate you on the latest beet sugar research andagronomic practices, which will help you delivera higher quality beet crop to your factories. It willalso keep you apprised of company, communityand industry happenings.

As we transform Michigan Sugar from a “stock”company to a cooperative, our mindset mustshift from “us” and “them” to “we.” We, the com-pany and growers, must work together to maxi-mize the return per acre to our shareholders.Increasing the quality of beets will drive downfactory costs, leaving more money available for abeet payment.

You showed your commitment to the sugarbeet industry by your investment. We, theemployees and management, would like toexpress our commitment to working togetherwith you, our new owners, to make MichiganSugar Company a solid, envied competitor in themarket.

I hope you enjoy receiving the Newsbeet again. I also want to take this opportunity, on behalf

of the grower owners and the employees ofMichigan Sugar Company, to say thank you tothose elected, government appointed and agri-cultural industry officials who contributed greatlyto the Cooperative buyout of Michigan SugarCompany. Governor John Engler, SenatorsDeGrow and Goschka and all of the other mem-bers of the Michigan Senate as well as Speakerof the Michigan House of Representatives, RickJohnson and the other members of the MichiganHouse for having faith in Michigan’s sugar indus-try by directing the State Treasury to loan at nointerest $5 million for five years to theCooperative. Dan Wyatt, Director of the Michigan

continues on page 3

S P R I N G 2 0 0 2 3

Department of Agriculture and Bob Craig, Director ofAgriculture Development were also key supporters ofthis effort. We would also like to recognize theefforts of the Michigan Farm Bureau, it’s PresidentWayne Wood and Legislative Counsel Ron Nelson fortheir work on our behalf. Without the State ofMichigan loan the Michigan Sugar Company pur-chase would not have been completed and 350 fulltime and over 1100 seasonal jobs would be losttoday.

We are also grateful for the work done by CarlOsentoski, Dale Benish, and Jim McLoskey of the

Huron, Sanilac, and Tuscola Counties’ EconomicDevelopment Corporations, and JoAnn Crary,President of Saginaw Futures Inc. in securing a$260,000 grant for the feasibility study. We must alsothank Jason Church and Bobby Morrison,Commercial Loan Specialists from USDA RuralDevelopment for their assistance in getting a$500,000 grant to help with startup operating costs.

Each one of these people, as well as many others,played an important roll in the success of this buy-out and to all we say THANK YOU.

BUSINESSroot of the

continued

by Robert Braem,Vice President ofAgriculture

While the sugar-beet industry inMichigan reached

a critical stage in 2001, the sugar-beet crop showed again it’simportance and stability for theagricultural economy in ourarea. While other crops suf-fered under hot and drysummer conditions, beetsheld on until rains came inAugust. An excellent sugar-beet crop in 2001 was oneof the many important fac-tors aiding the successfulpurchase of Michigan SugarCompany by its growers.

Potential for a good cropstarts with early planting.Spring conditions last yearallowed this early start witha small percentage of thecrop being sown in March.Planting continued as soil condi-tions improved throughout Aprilwith 54% planted by the 20th and

95% by month’s end. This plant-ing schedule seems normal forthe last several years, but was 20-30% ahead of our 10-year averagefor the dates referenced above.

A second factor insuring goodcrop potential is good emergenceand stand retention during theearly growing season. Growershave focused in recent years to

increase plant population as themeans to increase tonnage andimprove quality. Through

improved seed technology, closerseed spacing, less spring tillageand a timely rain or two, higherplant populations were achievedin 2001.

Weed control, although hinderedby spring rains was very goodacross the entire growing area.More and more growers arechanging their weed control pro-

gram to micro-rate spray-ing. Broadcasting very lowrates on a timed intervalcontrolled weeds andreduced sugarbeet injury.Micro-rates allowed grow-ers to cover significantacreage more timely andefficiently when weed sizeand soil conditions wereright. As more experienceand understanding of thenew weed control tech-niques are gained, moregrowers will use this sys-tem to successfully controlweeds.

Each year the growing season ismade up of good and not so goodgrowing conditions; 2001 was no

continues on page 4

CROP REVIEW2001

Good stands are important for a successful crop.


different. Spring and early summerweather was right in most areasfor the growing crop. Only ourwestern growing region was hurtby heavy rain, crusting andseedling diseases. Their croprecovered better than expectedand along with other areas lookedgood at canopy closure. Then itforgot to rain; between June 17th

and August 15th no significant rain-fall was received over any largearea. Other crops were seriouslyimpacted while the beets “hungon” waiting for moisture to come.Dry conditions reduced anddelayed Cercospora leafspot infec-tions. Most growers sprayed lessoften, but continued controllingleafspot into the late summer.

Tonnage was made in lateAugust on through harvest whenrainfall amounts averaged wellabove normal. During the 10-week period beginning August15th, 13.8” of rain was recordedacross the growing area.

A good start, a dry summer anda great finish sums up this grow-ing season. Sugarbeets were theone crop that sustained in anunusual growing season and pro-duced average or better results.

Yields for Michigan SugarCompany were 20.1 tons per acrewith a 16.9% sugar and 93.2%clear juice purity. An excellentcrop to get the new Co-op off to agood start in 2002.

GROWING SUGARBEETS FOR THE CO-OP

What will be different now,growing sugarbeets for theCooperative? As owners of thecompany, growers will receive notjust a beet check, but all of theprofits from their crop. Attentionto both yield and quality, withequal weight will be important.Profit is largely driven by factoryefficiency, which is greatly impact-ed by beet quality. This re-focus ofattention should not be difficultgiven the participating contractoffered by Michigan SugarCompany for many years. Themain keys to raising good sugar-beets remain the same. Earlyplanting, achieving good emer-gence and retaining high plantpopulations are important to agood start. Good weed controland persistence in controllingCercospora leafspot allow thecrop to grow and mature into a

high quality raw product for pro-cessing into sugar.

Harvest and storage of the cropare only an extension of factoryprocessing. Care needs to betaken to deliver a quality product.This includes loads of properlydefoliated beets free from trashand dirt. We must continue to bepatient during harvest for propertemperatures to pile and then har-vest quickly during the right timesto finish before fall weather condi-tions turn wet and cold. All thiseffort allows for good pile storagewhich increases factory slice andextraction.

No major changes will be neces-sary to raise sugarbeets for thecooperative. More emphasis willbe devoted to sugarbeet qualitythrough research and grower prac-tices. Most of the attention will beon the little things as growersstrive to tweak their growing prac-tices to insure a better crop. Acooperative is working together;with all of us working to improvethe crop, storage and harvest,along with factory performance,Michigan Sugar Company will be asuccessful cooperative for manyyears to come!

Sorry to hear about your loss, but...

Get over it.Get Topsin®.Benlate® Fungicide may be gone, but there’s no need to mourn. With Topsin MFungicide, combined with Penncozeb® 75DF or Super Tin® 80WP in yourSugarbeet Fungicide Program, you can still get the same proven broad-spec-trum disease control for your sugarbeets. Keep infection out of the field byapplying fungicides when disease first threatens or when it is in the area.

Topsin® M is a registered trademark of Nippon Soda Company, Ltd. Benlate® is a registered trademark of E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company.Penncozeb® 75DF is a registered trademark of Cerexagri, Inc. Super Tin® is a registered trademark of Griffin L.L.C. Corporation.Cerexagri, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc. Always read and follow label directions. Consult your local Extension office for Fungicide Use Guidelines for each product. ©2002 Cerexagri, Inc. ADV # 010491

CROP REVIEW2001

continued

S P R I N G 2 0 0 2 5

S E E D T R E AT M E N T T E R M I N O LO G Y

In the last five years pelleted seed has increased in popularity among our growers. More than 50% of our acreage is planted with pelleted seed. As youmake decisions on which varieties to plant, you alsohave to determine the seed treatment. Numerousoptions for the type of seed treatment and/or coat-

ing are available. Seed Treatment Terminology (Table1.) lists the seed processor; seed size (dimensions);approximate amount of build-up; if the seed issteeped before the final seed coating is applied; ifthe Priming Advanced Technology (PAT) is available;and original seed size.

TABLE 1: SEED TREATM ENT TERM I NOLOGY - 2002

seed number seed size build-up Steeped PAT* original seed size Comments

Michigan Sugar Company (Neon Red Color)+Accramerge 2 6.5-7.5/64 3-4% No No 2 small (S)

3 7.5-8.5/64 3-4% No No 3 medium (M)4 8.5-9.5/64 3-4% No No 4 large (L)5 9.5-10.5/64 3-4% No No 5 X-large (XL)

ProPrime 4 33% Yes No 3QuickPrime 3 30% Yes No 2mini pellets 2M 250% Yes No* 2 or 3+ Michigan Sugar Company packages ACH Seeds, Hilleshog and Seedex varieties.

ACH Seeds (Green Color)GemCoat + PAT L 8.5-9.5/64 27-28% Yes Yes 3 seed size # 4GemCoat + PAT XL 9.5-10.5/64 27-28% Yes Yes 4 seed size # 5

BetaSeed (Blue Color)Prohanced M,L,XL 27% Yes No* one size smallerPro 200 XL 200% Yes No* 5mini pellets 2M 250% Yes No* 2 or 3regular pellets 4M 320% Yes No* 3 or 4jumbo pellets Jumbo 350-400% Yes No* 5

Hilleshog (Green Color)F-15 Fasconated S,M,L,XL 12-15% No No S,M,L,XLVisicoat M,L,XL 30-35% Yes No 3,4,5UniPel PAT M,L,XL 30-35% Yes Yes 3,4,5mini pellets 2M 250% Yes Yes 2 or 3regular pellets 4M 320% Yes Yes 3 or 4

* Also available with PAT


By Steve Poindexter, MSU ExtensionSugarbeet Agent

Company records indicate produc-ers achieve approximately 50%emergence when averaged betweenall field conditions and varieties.

Sugarbeet Advancement research in 2001 showsextremes of emergence from 17% to a high of 86%.(Table 1). Results indicate even under ideal conditionsas much as 13% difference can occur between excel-lent and poor emerging varieties. Field emergenceconditions can further greatly affect plant emergence.

Growers will need to adjust their seeding ratesbased on variety selection. Our research indicatesunder ideal planting conditions, we can achieveapproximately 73% emergence for a poor emergingvariety versus 86% emergence for an excellentemerging variety. Under crusting conditions, plantestablishment for a poor emerging variety may be aslow as 17%. Under poor field conditions, i.e. crusting,poor emerging varieties will less often establish anadequate population when compared to excellentemerging varieties. With ideal conditions, all approvedvarieties can achieve excellent stands.

For an average emerging variety under fair emergingconditions, it is suggested producers seed at a 4-inch

spacing. Producers will need to adjust their seedspacing not only based on variety, but also seedbedconditions. An optimum harvest stand is approximate-ly 150 to 175 beets per 100 feet row for both 22- and30-inch rates. Growers will need to adjust seed spac-ing as much as 25% above or below our 4-inch seedspacing to achieve the desired stand. Use Table 2 tohelp determine approximate seed spacing based onfield conditions and variety. Remember, on averageyou lose 10% of the stand from 30 days after emer-gence to harvest. Under conditions where we getexcellent emergence, we have seen no detrimentaleffects on yield up to 200 beets per 100 feet row.

Conditions favoring an ideal seedbed and faster germinations are keys to successful stand establish-ment. Early planting, April 1st on, generally has moreoptimum moisture conditions and less crusting due to cooler temperatures. A firm seedbed, with veryshallow secondary tillage, allows for uniform depthplacement and movement of moisture to the seed.Strong emerging varieties and pre-germed PAT seedcan speed up emergence from 3 to 5 days. Excellentstands improve weed control, produce higher recoverable white sugar per acre, and are more easily topped.

Always remember, the financial penalty for thinstands far outweigh too thick of a stand.

T A B L E 1Field Emergence (Poor Emerger) (Average Emerger) (Excellent Emerger) Average

Conditions B-5736 C-648 E-38 Emergence

Ideal – Bean & Beet Farm (Warm) 73% 79% 86% 79%

Fair – Ewald Trial (Cool) 44% 43% 53% 47%

Poor – Sherwood Trial (Crusting) 17% 27% 23% 22%

Average Emergence 45% 50% 54% 49%

T A B L E 2Field Emergence Poor Emerging Average Emerging Excellent Emerging

Conditions Variety Variety Variety

Ideal - Average 70 to 80% Emergence 4.5-Inches 4.75-Inches 5.0-Inches

Fair - Average 40 to 60% Emergence 3.5-Inches 4.0-Inches 4.2-Inches

Poor – Average 20 to 30% Emergence 3.0-Inches 3.0-Inches 3.0- Inches

H I G H Y I E L D S T H R O U G H G O O D P L A N T E S TA B L I S H M E N TADVANCEMENT

sugarbeet

S P R I N G 2 0 0 2 7

(Dealer Imprint)

Assure® II herbicide from DuPont.Consistent control of tough grasses likequackgrass, wild oat and foxtails. Greatannual grass control in a micro-rate program, even better on its own.

Always read and follow the label. The DuPont Oval Logo, Assure® II, Crop Protection PlusSM and the Crop Protection Plus logo are trademarks, registered trademarks or service marks of DuPont. Copyright © 2002 E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. All Rights Reserved. 1/02.

aAssure® IIherbicide

Crop Protection PlusSM is a DuPont service mark. Crop Protection P lus logo is atrademark of DuPont.

(Dealer Imprint)

C

UpBeet® herbicide from DuPont.Get consistent weed control withoutadded crop stress. Use UpBeet® inyour first postemergence treatmentand in following treatments. It’s thebest way to reduce hand labor.

Always read and follow the label. The DuPont Oval Logo, UpBeet®, Crop Protection PlusSM and Crop Protection Plus logo are trademarks, registered trademarks or service marks of DuPont. Copyright © 2001–2002 E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. All Rights Reserved. 3/02

aUpBeet®

herbicide

See yourDupont Crop

ProtectionRetailer

See yourDupont Crop

ProtectionRetailer

Sugarbeet Advancement’s improved planter efficiencies this Spring by using a Honda 300-wattgenerator with three Sears two-gallon vacuumcleaners. The vacuum’s hoses have been modifiedto reach next to the planter hopper’s seed plates to remove all the seed. This is faster and easier onthe producer’s equipment, and improves the qualitycontrol due to less seed mixing because the hoppers are cleaner. Also, no planter malfunctionshave occurred this year because of removing seedhoppers from the planters.


S U G A R B E E T W E E D M A N A G E M E N T U P DAT E - 2 0 0 2

by Karen Renner,Crop and SoilSciences

In January 2002I presented aweed manage-

ment update to sugarbeet growersat six regional meetings. The threemain issues discussed were: 1)adoption of micro-rateherbicide applications inMichigan, 2) the need forpreemergence (PRE) her-bicides in sugarbeet, and3) the timing of micro-rate herbicide applica-tions in sugarbeets.

ADOPTION OF MICRO-RATE HERBICIDEAPPLICATIONS (SUM-MARY OF THE SUGAR-BEET AGRICULTURALISTSURVEY):

Sugarbeet acres treatedwith postemergencemicro-rate applicationsincreased from 41% in2000 to 52% in 2001(Figure 1). The firstmicro-rate application was made14 to 35 days after planting,depending on the sugarbeetplanting date. Timings betweenmicro-rate applications in growerfields ranged from 7 to 21 days.

Sugarbeet acres treated withpreemergence (PRE) herbicidesdecreased by 23%. Most of thedecline in the application of PREherbicides to Michigan’s sugarbeetacres occurred on micro-ratedacres. Seventy-two percent of themicro-rated acres were not treatedwith Assure II, Select, or Poast

(ACCase chemistry.) (Figure 2).This tells us annual grasses in sug-arbeet fields were usually con-trolled by micro-rate applicationsof Betamix or Progress, in tankmixtures with UpBeet + Stinger +MSO (methylated seed oil).

Seventeen percent of the micro-rated acres were not cultivated,and the number of cultivations on

all micro-rated acresdecreased. A similar trendwas observed in the RedRiver Valley where the aver-age number of cultivationson sugarbeet acres hasdeclined from 3.2 cultiva-tions in 1992 to 2.0 cultiva-tions in 2001.

NEED FOR PREEMERGENCEHERBICIDES INSUGARBEETS:

Research was conductedby Michigan State University,

Michigan Sugar Company, andMonitor Sugar Company to assessthe need for PRE herbicides. PREherbicides cost money, can beinjurious to sugarbeets, and donot control weeds when dryweather follows herbicide applica-tion. However PRE herbicides cancontrol many weed species whenadequate soil moisture is presentand PRE herbicides provide ‘insur-ance’ in the event wet weatherprecludes growers from makingtimely postemergence (POST) her-bicide applications.

Research was conducted atthree experimental sites and infour grower fields in 2001. Ro-Neet, Pyramin, Nortron, and DualII Magnum (Dual II Magnum isnot registered for use in sugar-beets) were applied PRE at theexperimental sites. Nortron andPyramin were applied PRE at the

48%

52%

Standard SplitsMicro-rates

72%

10%

One applicationno ACCase

18%

Two applications

Figure 1: Percent of sugarbeet acrestreated with micro-rates in 2001

Figure 2: Use of ACCase inhibitors for grass control in micro-rates in 2001

S P R I N G 2 0 0 2 9

four grower sites. Postemergenceapplications of Betamix + UpBeet+ Stinger OR Progress + UpBeet +Stinger were applied as eitherstandard split applications or asmicro-rate applications (whichincluded MSO (methylated seedoil) at the experimental sites. Onthe grower farms, micro-rateswere applied by the grower inaccordance with his spray schedule.

At the three experimental sites,PRE herbicides increased controlof common lambsquarters andredroot pigweed by 3 to 8% com-pared to where no PRE herbicideswere applied. Redroot pigweedcontrol was better with the micro-rate of Betamix compared to themicro-rate of Progress. Ro-Neetreduced sugarbeet populationscompared to other PRE herbicidesor no PRE herbicide. However,RWSA was not reduced by theapplication of any PRE herbicide.

At the four farmer locations,weed control was excellent at 3 of4 sites. PRE herbicides did notimprove weed control comparedto micro-rate applications alone.The number of micro-rate applica-tions at the grower sites rangedfrom 3 to 5, and the number ofcultivations at the grower sitesranged from 1 to 4 cultivations.RWSA was reduced at one sitewhere Pyramin was applied and at 3 of 4 sites where Pyramin +Nortron were applied. We plan torepeat this research in 2002 toevaluate PRE herbicides inMichigan sugarbeet production.

TIMING OF MICRO-RATEHERBICIDE APPLICATIONS:

The timing of micro-rate herbi-cide applications in sugarbeets

NOZZLE PLUGGING AND PRECIPITATEFORMATION WITH THE MICRO-RATE IN SUGARBEETS. by Trevor Dale and Karen Renner, Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences

What can growers do to alleviate nozzle plugging andprecipitate formation on nozzle screens when applying micro-rates

in sugarbeets?Formation of precipitate and the resulting nozzle plugging occurring

with some micro-rate applications is caused by the active ingredient inBetamix (or Progress) forming crystals. Formation of these crystals andthe resulting precipitate is affected by many factors. These factorsinclude: water temperature, size of spray tank (amount of solution),duration of spraying, spray volume per acre, amount of agitation, herbicides included in the micro-rate, and mixing order.

Research conducted at North Dakota State University determined the most important factor contributing to nozzleplugging from precipitate formation was spray water temperature. In general, precipitate formation increasesas water temperature decreases. Often well water maybe less than 50oF, which is very conducive to precipitationof the micro-rate. Warming the water to 80oF reduces theprecipitate to nearly zero.

Another major factor is water volume. Reducingwater volume reduces precipitate formation. If possible growers may want to be at spray volumes of 8 to 10 gallons/acre. The assumedreason why aerial applicators do not have precipitate problems in the Red River Valley isbecause they spray their load in a short amount oftime, and they are applying 3- to- 5 gallons peracre which is a higher concentration of herbi-cides than normal ground sprayers.

Another factor to consider is reducing theagitation in the spray tank to the minimal amount needed to keep thespray in suspension. Growers often think you should agitate more, thisactually makes the problem worse.

Some additives may reduce the precipitation problem. Quad 7,Transactive, and Renegade reduce precipitate formation by increasingthe pH of the spray solution. Quest, Request, Bronc Max, and Choiceare water conditioning agents that may help reduce precipitation problems, but have not been researched at North Dakota StateUniversity. Ammonium sulfate at 2% v/v (or less) may reduce precipitate formation because the sulfate would complex with cationsin hard water. AMS would have little influence on the pH of the spraysolution. However, AMS would increase the activity of UpBeet andwould not be recommended with the micro-rates at this time.

If an additive (i.e. water conditioner) is included in the micro-rateapplication it should be the first product added to the tank, and thenthe herbicides Upbeet (pre-slurried), Betamix (or Progress), Stinger,and finely MSO (methylated or ethylated seed oil).

continues on page 10

should be every 7 days accordingto the herbicide labels. Howeverwe know temperature and soilmoisture play an important role inweed and sugarbeet growth. Toofrequent micro-rate applicationsinjure sugarbeets and cost thegrower money! Too few micro-rateapplications result in poor weedcontrol and cost the growermoney (additional cultivation,hand labor and yield loss)!

In 2001 we planted ‘Hilleshog E-17’ and ‘Beta 5400’ sugarbeetson April 2, April 17, and May 1. We then applied micro-rates usingfive different strategies. Thesestrategies were: 1) every 7 days,2) every sugarbeet leaf pair, 3)every 175 growing degree days(GDD) 4) every 275 growingdegree days (GDD), and 5) scoutand apply micro-rates when need-ed. We calculated growing degreedays based on air temperature(see box on page 11).

The number of micro-rate applications ranged from 4 to 7, depending on the planting dateand micro-rate strategy. Sprayingevery 7 days OR every 175 GDDresulted in excellent weed control.There were few differencesbetween these two strategies (i.e.number of applications and weedcontrol did not differ). Sprayingevery 275 GDD reduced sugarbeetinjury but giant foxtail control wasonly 75% in sugarbeets plantedApril 17th. This would not be a problem in grower’s fieldsbecause they could add Assure II, Select, or Poast to the third orfourth micro-rate application andcontrol the foxtail.

Redroot pigweed was not con-trolled in the 275 GDD strategywhen sugarbeets were planted on May 1. Therefore, in 2002 we will include a strategy ofmicro-rate applications every 225GDD to try to reduce the number

of micro-rate applications, reducesugarbeet injury, but still controlredroot pigweed.

Another interesting observationwas that ‘Beta 5400’ was injuredmore by the micro-rate applica-tions than ‘E-17’ (reduction in leaf area and stand loss in themid-April planting date). This pastwinter we planted four sugarbeetvarieties (E-17, Crystal 555, Beta 5400, and Beta 5736) in the greenhouse and appliedmicro-rates every 175, 225, or 275GDD. The leaf area and leafweight of Beta 5400 and Beta5736 were reduced more bymicro-rate applications thanCrystal 555 or E-17, regardless oftemperature. Therefore, we knowsome varieties will be injuredmore than others by micro-rateapplications in April, May andJune but this does not meanRWSA will be reduced.

A new company, AgValue isselling a generic version ofNortron for weed control insugarbeets. Etho SC is thetrade name for this genericNortron. Some retailers areselling this product inMichigan in 2002. MichiganState University (MSU) has notapplied Etho SC. You need tobe aware of three issues witha new generic product or anew formulation of a product.These are: 1) Will this formula-tion mix well and will it stay insolution? Will it plug nozzlescreens? 2) If this product is

applied postemergencewill it differ fromNortron in sugarbeetresponse and weed control?3) If I have any questions orconcerns with this productwho do I call? In 2002,MSU, along with MichiganSugar Company, will comparethis herbicide to Nortron in ourpostemergence studies.AgValue also plans to have ageneric version of Betamixavailable in 2003 and we willcompare it to Aventis’ Betamixthis year in field trials.

NEW COMPANY SELLING GENERIC ‘NORTRON’

S U G A R B E E T W E E D M A N A G E M E N T U P DAT E continued

1 0 P I O N E E R N E W S B E E T

S P R I N G 2 0 0 2 1 1

G R O W I N G D E G R E E DAY F O R M U L A M I C R O - R AT E T I M I N G S T U DY

(Maximum air temp + minimum air temp)/2 – 34 F = growing degree days (GDD)

accumulated that day

• Example High of 80 and low of 60 F(80+60)/2 –34 F = 36 GDD for today

• If there are 5 days of 80 high and 60 low the total GDD would be 36 x 5 = 180 GDD

Current Ratio Return on Equity Debt/Acre Net Worth/AcreIs your accountant helping you give the

BEST information to your team?Financial Institutions SuppliersOwners Insurance AgentsEmployees Estate Planners

Nietzke & Faupel, P.C. specializes in helpingagri-business teams compile and understand thereal numbers.Our farm accrual financial statements are highlyrespected by our clients and their “teams”including their bankers. It’s the information youneed to manage your agri-business.Let us help you with affordable and user-friendlycomputerized bookkeeping setups, monthly/annual accrual financial statements, expansionfeasibility studies, cash flow analysis, successionplanning, estate planning, and tax work.We’re ready to be a part of your team.

989.453.3122 989.883.3122P I G E O N S E B E W A I N G

E-mail: [email protected] • Website: www.nfcpa.com


N E W F U N G I C I D E S O N T H E H O R I Z O N

by Jim Stewart, Manager ofResearch

Cercospora leaf spot, caused by the fungus Cercospora beticola, is the most important disease ofsugarbeets in the Michigan Sugar

Company growing region. Data from three years ofSugarbeet Advancement trials suggest yield losses ofone to two tons per acre and one half point of sugarcan be expected with moderate disease infestations.Michigan Sugar Company data shows yield losses offive to six tons per acre and over one point of sugarcan be experienced with heavy disease pressure.

For the past two years we have been evaluatingseveral new fungicides for control of Cercospora leafspot. The first of these is Eminent (tetraconazole)which has been registered in 2000 and 2001under a Section 18 label. A Section 18 label will berequested in 2002. The full Section 3 label forEminent in sugarbeets is pending.

Eminent is a triazole fungicide which stops the production of ergosterol, a cholesterol like substancewhich is essential for the fungus to grow and develop. Eminent penetrates the plant leaf and issystemic, meaning the chemical moves within theplant. Eminent has curative properties and can stopCercospora infections after the fungus has penetrat-ed the leaf. Eminent has shown excellent activityagainst Cercospora leaf spot in our trials.

We have also been testing a new class of fungicides called strobilurins which have shown activity against Cercospora leaf spot. These fungi-cides, Quadris (azoxystrobin), Gem (trifloxystrobin)and Headline (pyraclostrobin) act by preventing theproduction of ATP which is the main energy sourcethe fungus needs to develop. Quadris is the only oneof these compounds which is currently labeled foruse in Michigan. Registrations for Gem and Headlineare expected sometime this year.

Strobilurins penetrate the plant leaf and are locallysystemic, meaning they move small distances withinthe leaf but do not translocate throughout the entireplant. Strobilurins have preventative and curativeproperties. Our data shows Headline is the mosteffective of this group for controlling Cercospora leaf

spot. Gem has also provided good leafspot controlwhile Quadris has given fair to good control. Table 1summarizes two years of research with Eminent,Headline, Gem, Quadris and Super Tin.

As with most things, there is a downside to hese new fungicides. They all have a single sitemode of action and are at a relatively high risk for the Cercospora fungus to develop resistance.Headline, Gem and Quadris are from the same class of chemistry and have the same mode ofaction. If the Cercospora fungus becomes resistant to one of them, it will be resistant to all of them. As a result, only one of these products should beapplied each year.

Eminent applications should also be limited to only one application per year. It appears we willhave several effective fungicide alternatives to chosefrom including the strobilurins, Eminent, Super Tin,Topsin and the EBDC’s. It is critical to rotate chemicalclasses when spraying for Cercospora leaf spot to

S P R I N G 2 0 0 2 1 3

help prevent resistance fromdeveloping. You should never usea product back to back and youshould avoid using the productmore than one time per season.

We have also been evaluatingQuadris, Gem and Headline forcontrol of Rhizoctonia root andcrown rot (Rhizoctonia solani).After two years of testing, itappears Quadris is more effectivethan Gem in controllingRhizoctonia root and crown rotand Headline is the least effectiveof this group. Data from small and large plot trials indicateQuadris will provide good controlof Rhizoctonia root and crown rot when applied at the 6-8 leaf stage.

Midseason applications ofQuadris appear to stop the spread of the disease, however,plants already showing symptomswill probably not be saved. As aresult, the overall control at thislater timing will be significantlyless compared to the early seasonapplication. However, some growers may want to choose this midseason application timingbecause, depending upon the sit-uation, it may also serve as theirfirst Cercospora leaf spot spray.

Additional Rhizoctonia researchwill be conducted in 2002 lookingat fungicide rates and applicationtimings, tank mix combinationswith herbicides and surfactantsand the effect of using tolerant

and susceptible sugarbeet vari-eties. Together with Ron Pitblado,Ridgetown, Ontario; SugarbeetAdvancement; and Monitor Sugar Company, we will also betesting a Cercospora leaf spotmodel (BEETCAST) in 2002. Thewebsite for Michigan growers iswww.michiganbeets.com; thewebsite for Ontario growers iswww.ownweb.ca.

Longer term research is needed to address a whole hostof concerns including resistancemanagement issues, crop rotationand tillage effects, when and howplants are infected, how to predictproblem fields and many moreunanswered questions.

Treatment Rate/Acre CLS rating* RWSA Ton/A RWST %Suc

Untreated 4.96 3726 17.1 219.5 15.8

Super Tin 80 WP 5 oz 2.14 4781 20.4 237.6 16.9

Quadris 2.08 FL 9 fl oz 1.97 5234 22.1 238.1 16.9

Gem 25 DF 6.25 oz 1.91 5252 22.3 237.3 17.1

Eminent 1.04 SL 13 fl oz 1.76 5220 22.1 239.5 17.0

Headline 2.09 EC 9.2 fl ozX-77 0.25% 1.49 5545 23.1 241.9 17.0

AVERAGE 2.37 4960 21.2 235.6 16.8LSD (5%) 0.48 400 1.5 9.2 0.5C.V. (%) 22.2 8.9 7.6 4.3 3.2

TABLE 1: CONTROL OF CERCOSPORA LEAF SPOT IN SUGARBEETS WITH SUPER TIN, GEM, QUADRIS, EMINENT AND HEADLINE - AVG. OF 2000 AND 2001 MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPNAY TRIALS


P R O P E R P E S T I C I D E A P P L I C AT I O N S

Pesticides for sugarbeets mustbe applied properly and accordingto their labels to protect not onlyour shareholders and the Co-op;but also, the customers of ourproducts and the environment.Section 11 of your GrowerAgreement states the following:

”Grower also agrees not toapply to the crop or land onwhich the crop is grown any pesticide, chemical, or other substance, as defined in theFederal Food, Drug and CosmeticAct, as amended, unless a regulation shall then be in effectunder Section 408 of said Act,exempting such chemical from the necessity of a tolerance orestablishing a tolerance for suchchemical, in which event suchchemical shall be applied to thecrop or land only at such timeand in such manner and quanti-ties as shall be specified in thelabeling of such chemical and so

that any residue of such chemical on beets accepted hereunder shall be within tolerance specified in such regulation. The Cooperativereserves the right to reject thedelivery of any beets not complying with this provision.“

Use only approved, registered,authorized and labeled pesticidesand other chemicals on your sugarbeet crop. No grower isallowed to vary from labeled pes-ticide application practices; do notjeopardize your livelihood or yourfellow shareholders. Deliberateillegal pesticide applications couldresult in the following:

Loss of your ability to deliversugarbeets (condemnation ofthe field)Confiscation of Co-op shares Fines from MichiganDepartment of Agriculture(MDA)

• Fines from the United StatesEnvironmental ProtectionAgency (USEPA); in Ontariofines from PesticideManagement RegulatoryAgency (PMRA)

• Custom applicator penalties• Revoking grower, commercial

or Certified Crop Advisor(CCA) certification and licensing.

Illegal pesticides would includeherbicides (such as Blazer, Cobra,Dual or Frontier) or insecticides(such as dimethoate). In 2001about 700 acres of sugarbeetswere condemned in Minnesotadue to an illegal application ofBlazer herbicide; no crop was harvested. Court dates have been set for the Minnesota sugarbeetproducers charged with illegallyapplying Blazer to their 2001 sugarbeet crop.

Amanda Trischler is the reigning Michigan Sugar Queen and has participated in twenty-five events as of April 30th.Her experience in the farming industry started when herfather ran a sugarbeet harvester for eight years. At everyopportunity she would ride with him in the tractor and fallasleep sitting behind his seat. From ages 13 to 16, sheworked on her cousin’s farm; she rode her bike to work one mile each way!

Amanda is currently employed by Michigan Sugar Companyat the Caro Factory as the Administrative Assistant, while sheis pursuing a Business Management Degree at Delta College.

Amanda says being the 2001 Michigan Sugar Queen hasbeen a tremendous experience which she will never forgetespecially, with this huge transition year. It has been a greatten months and she still has two months to go!!

The 2002 Michigan Sugar Festival is June 21-23rd. The application deadline for the Sugar Queen is May 24th, 2002.Please contact Barb Wallace at 989.799.7300.

2 0 01 S U G A R Q U E E N

2001 Michigan Sugar Queen, AmandaTrischler, sporting her crown & sash duringsugarbeet harvest in a Tuscola County fieldharvested by Fritz & Kovach Farms ofUnionville. Photo by: Burrows Studio ofSebewaing.

W H Y B E E T Q U A L I T Y M AT T E R S

by Herb Wilson, Vice–President of Operations

The quantity of sugar, in pounds,the factory produces per ton ofbeets delivered is referred to aspack. It is a good measurement of

the total efficiency of sugar production from field to the finished product. The sugar content in a sugar beet has both direct and indirect relationshipson the pack.

The direct relationship can be demonstrated by cal-culating the influence of 1% change in sugar contenton the pack, assuming no losses in pile storage anda constant factory extraction. For example, each 1%change in sugar content at 80.0% extraction willchange the pack by 16 pounds per ton.

To understand the indirect relationships we needto describe the basic steps of factory operations. Theprocess of making sugar is essentially a series of sep-arations. Some of these are physical separations andothers are chemical in nature. The overall objective isto leave the natural sucrose alone and separateaway the water and non-sugars. In the business,non-sugars arealso referred toas impurities andinclude every-thing that is notwater or sucrose.When we usethe word purityin the factory, weare referring tothe percentageof sucrose ascompared to allsubstances, otherthan water, thatare in a particu-lar solution.

Higher sugarcontent in thebeet is typically

associated with higher purity and so it is usually agood indicator of beet quality and non-sugar loadingon the process.

The type and concentration of impurities encoun-tered can significantly affect the difficulty and cost of operating the factories. All impurities will takesucrose with them to the molasses, thereforebecome part of the loss. It should be recognizedeven weeds, beet tops and other field materials not completely separated prior to entering the factory, will impart impurities into the process. As the relative quantities of impurities become higher(lower purity), the losses incurred during manufac-turing will increase and the pack will go down.

Costs will increase as a result of lowered operatingrates, diminished recovery, additional purificationmaterials usage and increased re-boiling. The tradi-tional sugar making process is efficient at dealingwith certain types of impurities and poor with others.The process is somewhat adjustable to changes in quality, but only within a fairly narrow range.Typically, the most difficult impurities to handle arriveas a result of the beet’s degradation and rot. Underthese conditions there is a high degree of color for-

mation, increasedsensitivity to heat and difficulties in filtration.

High qualitysugar beets resultin low cost processing andlarger returns peracre. The returnin investment is immediate.

The data charted adja-cent suggests a strong correlationbetween cossettesugar contentand factory performance.

NOTESfactory

S P R I N G 2 0 0 2 1 5

S P R I N G 2 0 0 2 1 7

Steering Committee and Interim Board of Directors forMichigan Sugar Company are left to right (front row)

Thomas Zimmer, Richard Maurer and Wayne Hecht (middle)Richard Leach, Lee Butts, Chris Grekowicz and Ken Wadsworth(back) Robert Lutz, Charles Bauer, Loren Humm, Jack Tagget,

William Herford, Carl Bednarski and Jeff Gulick.


By Richard E.Leach, pastExecutive Vice-President of the Great LakesSugar BeetGrowers

Association and ExecutiveSecretary of the Michigan SugarBeet Growers, Inc

The “Long Haul” is a synopsis ofthe events which transpired in theacquisition of Michigan SugarCompany by their growers.

QUAIL HUNT AND PROPOSALWe had just finished supper

at Imperial’s hunting lodge about ten miles outside the small Southwest Texas town ofHebbronville. Imperial had invitedthe Executive Board of the Great Lakes Sugar Beet GrowersAssociation and myself on a quailhunting trip. The date was Friday,January 22, 2000. Richard Maurer,Tom Zimmer, Wayne Hecht, andLoren Humm were present alongwith Roger Hill from Imperial, andMark Flegenheimer, Jim Ruhlman,and Bob Braem from MichiganSugar Company.

Roger and Mark stood at theend of the long table and statedthey had a proposal for the growers to consider. Roger askedif the Great Lakes would considerforming a cooperative to explorethe feasibility of buying MichiganSugar Company. Roger statedMichigan Sugar was not for saleon the market, but Imperial wouldconsider a sale to the growerswith the condition Imperial wouldmarket the Co-op’s sugar.

The rest of that night, Saturday,and Sunday were spent discussing

the offer. Many quail were missed because of a lack of concentration. From that weekendforward, the Great Lakes SugarBeet Growers Association wouldnever be the same.

The next week I called Jim Kempner,President andCEO of ImperialSugar and askedhim to put theproposal in writ-ing. He said hewould and hedid.

RANDONWILSONRETAINED

After talkingwith several people, the GreatLakes’ Executive Board set up ameeting with attorney RandonWilson from Salt Lake City, Utah.The executive board met withRandon on February 28th andhired him to manage the MichiganSugar buyout project. Randon had been involved in other cooperative buyout projects with sugar beet growers.

Randon went to work almostimmediately with a trip to SugarLand, Texas to establish himself as the buyout attorney for thegrowers and to gather informa-tion. Imperial told Randon theywould not set a price on MichiganSugar Company, the growerswould need to make an offer.

STEERING COMMITTEEAPPOINTED

The Great Lakes appointed a 13-member steering committeefrom its board of directors: three

each from Croswell, Sebewaing,and Caro, and two each from Saginaw and Alma. The association received a $50,000grant from Huron County’sEconomic DevelopmentCorporation (EDC) and $210,000

from the Michigan EDC to helppay for the feasibility study.

GENERATING A FINANCIALMODEL

Randon began working with a modeler and they began collecting relevant information touse to build a financial model ofMichigan Sugar. Financial informa-tion was difficult to acquire andeven more difficult to understand.Our modeler had experience inmodeling sugar companies andknew when the numbers did notwork. Imperial became more difficult to work with. We werelucky to have a dialogue withErnest Flegenheimer. With hisyears of experience he understoodthe cost of the operation. While allthis was going on Jim Kempnerwas telling us the buyout wasnever going to work because thegrowers could not get the money.

T H E LO N G H A U L

A few shots found their mark during the quail hunt in Texas.

MICHIGAN SUGAR BEETGROWERS, INCORPORATEDFORMED

In August 2000 the MichiganSugar Beet Growers, Incorporatedwas formed as a 521 cooperative.The 13-member steering commit-tee was appointed as the InterimBoard of Directors.

FIRST OFFER MADEA month later the Co-op made

its first offer to Imperial in a draftof a letter of intent. For more than six weeks, no response to the offer was made. WhenImperial’s General Counsel BillSchwer did reply, the responsewas belittling and hardly mentioned the offer.

IMPERIAL FILED BANKRUPTCYThe December grower payment

for the 2000 crop was made andin a news release about its finan-cial condition, Imperial mentionedthe word bankruptcy.

In mid-January 2001, nearly oneyear after their initial proposal,Imperial did file for protectionfrom its creditors under Chapter

11 bankruptcy. Imperial told thegrowers the bankruptcy court hadgiven permission to pay its criticalvenders. Growers were consideredcritical venders. Imperial did nottell the growers the court orderstated Imperial could pay at itsdiscretion.

BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEYSRETAINED

This was discovered when theGreat Lakes retained attorneys to represent the growers. Shortly after the bankruptcy wasannounced, the board was tomeet with Mr. Kempner and Mr.Schwer in Saginaw. The growers’bankruptcy attorneys were also inSaginaw. When Mr. Kempner

found out the attorneys would beat the meeting he was so angryhe would not meet.

LETTER OF INTENTNow the impact of bankruptcy

was understood, the Co-op continued to negotiate a letter ofintent including the framework of the Management Agreement,

Marketing Agreement, StockPurchase Agreement. A LeaseAgreement was also negotiated sogrowers could get the 2001 cropprocessed if the purchase was notcompleted before the harvest.Imperial had a hard time under-standing growers would not con-tract with a company in bankrupt-cy. The board decided if the Co-opcontracted with the growers thenthe Co-op would own the beetsand the sugar so the growerswould be assured of getting paidfor the 2001 crop.

AGREEMENT REACHEDIn late March Imperial got

serious with negotiations and inmid-April the following agreementwas reached: $55 million cash atclosing, $10 million sub-note toImperial with a scheduled payoffin 4.5 years, and assumption of$18.5 million of MichiganIndustrial Development Bonds.The total was $83.5 million with$500,000 earnest money gooduntil February 28, 2002, subject to bankruptcy court approval.

Imperial informed the Co-op itdid not have money to pay for theinter-campaign cost (the cost ofrunning Michigan Sugar fromMarch 1st to October 1st) so thegrower’s 2000 crop money wouldbe used. This meant no April payment.

INTER-CAMPAIGN COSTSNEGOTIATED

The board negotiated an agreement to pay two-thirds of the inter-campaign costs if the purchase was completed byFebruary 28th or all of the costs ifthe purchase was not completed.Imperial, concerned the Co-opwould not get enough acres to

S P R I N G 2 0 0 2 1 9

The quail hunt in Texas (l to r) Wayne Hecht; guide & dog; Mark Flegenheimer and Dick Leach.


T H E LO N G H A U L continued


run all four plants, stated it wouldnot pay a grower any more 2000crop money unless the growercontracted approximately thesame number of acres in 2001 ashe planted in 2000. Growers were

rightfully angryover this

but

theCo-op

did contract

114,000acres. Imperial

agreed to make a$2.50/ton payment

after the definitiveagreements of the letter of intent were

signed. The Co-opwould try to borrow $6

$6 million to make another $2.50payment. The first $2.50 paymentwas made in mid-May to all 2000-crop growers.

STOCK SALE BEGINSIn early June the Co-op began

the sale of Patron Preferred Stock(acre shares) for $200 per share.Each buyer of shares needed topurchase one share of Common

Stock for $100; this would bethe voting stock. Purchasers of stock were asked to send a deposit fee of $50 for each

share of preferred stock purchased. The board wantedto close the deal by the endof September. The Co-op was

working with Michigan NationalBank and Netexis Bank to obtain

the $6.5 million loan so the growers could get the next$2.50/ton payment. The holdupnow was Mr. Schwer’s unwilling-ness to finish the stock purchaseagreement and get it approved bythe bankruptcy court.

STATE $5 MILLION LOANAPPROVED

After much politicking, on the evening of June 13th I wasinformed the state House hadapproved a $5 million “no“ interest loan to the Co-op for fiveyears, to be used to help growersbuy Michigan Sugar Company. TheSenate would also pass it and thegovernor would sign it. This wouldbe only the second loan the statehas made and the first one was toChrysler Corporation.

STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENTAPPROVED

On the 3rd of July Randon Wilson reported Mr. Schwer hadapproved the Stock PurchaseAgreement, but on July 20th

Imperial had not signed theagreement because of two issues Mr. Schwer claims had notbeen resolved yet. The board andRandon agreed to submit a formalobjection to the bankruptcy courtto Imperial’s financial plan to exitbankruptcy. This action motivatedImperial’s management to signthe Stock Purchase Agreement.

IMPERIAL EMERGES FROMBANKRUPTCY

In mid-August the bankruptcycourt approved the four agreements and Imperial’s financial plan was approved andImperial came out of bankruptcy.

Natexis Bank informed us theyhad approval for one-half of the$6.5 million bridge loan needed to get growers the $2.50 payment,but Michigan National Bank wassold to Standard Federal whoknew nothing about agricultureand were not interested in theloan.

The Co-op received notice theUSDA had approved a $500,000grant which could be used foroperating expenses.

MIDWEST AGRI LOANCOMMITMENT

The Co-op obtained a $2.5 million loan commitment fromMidwest Agri-Commodities (a Co-op marketing our pulp andmolasses) to help growers buyshares in the Co-op. The summerwas hot and dry and growerswere slow to buy more shares.The goal of having 115,000 sharessold, as a minimum needed tomake the financial model workhad not happened and it wasapparent the closing could not becompleted before harvest. Two“loan hunters” were hired to find


T H E N

N O W

S P R I N G 2 0 0 2 2 1

QUAIL HUNT AND PROPOSAL

RANDON WILSONRETAINED

STEERING COMMITTEE APPOINTED

GENERATING AFINANCIAL MODEL

MICHIGAN SUGAR BEET GROWERS,INCORPORATED FORMED

FIRST OFFER MADE

IMPERIAL FILED BANKRUPTCY

BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEYSRETAINED

LETTER OF INTENT

AGREEMENT REACHED

INTER-CAMPAIGN COSTSNEGOTIATED

STOCK SALE BEGINS

STATE $5 MILLION LOAN APPROVED

STOCK PURCHASEAGREEMENT APPROVED

IMPERIAL EMERGES FROM BANKRUPTCY

MIDWEST AGRI LOANCOMMITMENT

FOCUS CHANGES

OPERATING LOAN PURSUED

MCLAUGHLIN NEW CEO;KEMPNER RETIRES

NEW DEAL FINALIZED

DECEMBER PAYMENT

ACRES PEAK AT 129,000

CO-FIRST ON STATE OF MICHIGAN LOAN

$25 MILLION RECEIVEDFROM GROWER-OWNERS

WORKING CAPITAL SHOW-STOPPER

GREAT BEGINNING

CLOSING ON FEBRUARY12TH, 2002

J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 0

J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 1

A U G U S T 2 0 0 1

O C T O B E R 2 0 0 1

F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 2


lenders who were interested inlending the Co-op the $30 millionneeded to close the deal. Theycontacted 83 lenders and onlyone lender, G.E. Capital gave us a letter indicating interest.

FOCUS CHANGESIn mid-September the focus

changed to the lease agreement,getting insurance policies in place and a sugar-marketing planapproved by the board. The $6.5million bridge loan was not inplace because Imperial would notgive up control of the sugar salesmoney. They would take leasepayments out of sales and givethe Co-op what was left. This wasa breach of the signed agreement.

Once the processing began theCo-op was able to borrow fromthe CCC and the long promised$2.50/ton payment was sent tothe growers in October.

OPERATING LOAN PURSUEDThe harvest was going well and

the factories were processing well.The next challenge was to get a $20,000,000 operating loan.Natexis Bank and SocieteGenerale (S.G.) Bank from New York, and Citizens Bank inSaginaw were working togetheron this loan, but the bank’s attorney would not approve theloan until the banks could havethe receivables for collateral.Imperial said no. What theDecember grower payment would be was now in question.

MCLAUGHLIN NEW CEO;KEMPNER RETIRES

On October 23rd an Imperialnews release stated Mr. Kempnerhad retired and the new CEO wasRobert McLaughlin. Randon sent a copy of the G.E. Capital prelimi-

nary loan letter to Mr. McLaughlinand within a week he called to set a meeting with the Co-opexecutive board and Randon. Iinformed him of the breach of themarketing agreement, he had notbeen told about this. We set ameeting on Wednesday October31st in Saginaw.

Imperial sent a letter to thegrowers stating the total value ofthe 2000 crop was $30.88/ton.Growers had already received$28.00, but the Co-op still owed

Imperial $2.44 for the inter-cam-paign expenses. Imperial’s finalgrower payment was $0.44/ton.The board informed growers theCo-op would pay the $2.44/tonwhen money becomes available.

NEW DEAL FINALIZEDMcLaughlin’s meeting lasted

only three hours. McLaughlinbrought with him Attorney BillSchwer and Financial Officer

Karen Mercer. The Co-op had theExecutive Committee, AttorneyRandon Wilson and Chief FinancialOfficer Denis Boissonneault. MarkFlegenheimer from MichiganSugar was also present. The issueof who controls the Co-op’s sugarsales money was worked out firstand after Randon had explainedthe Co-op’s inability to attractterm loan money, Mr. McLaughlinstated what Imperial would do.The purchase price was reducedby $20 million and Imperial wouldfinance the term loan. The Co-opwould be responsible for thebonds. The Co-op agreed and the deal went forward.

DECEMBER PAYMENTAs the December grower

payment came closer, Imperial/Mr. Schwer and Ms. Mercer hadstill not released collateral so theoperating loan could be acquired.The factories ran well and the Co-op was able to borrow fromthe Commodities CreditCorporation (CCC). The boardapproved a $25.80 per ton payment on December 15th for thegrowers. The Natexis Bank andCitizens Bank operating loanswere completed in January butthe S.G. Bank loan was not closeduntil February.

ACRES PEAK AT 129,000Preferred stock sales (acres)

were going fast and the boardruled after December 21st theshare price would increase to$230.00 per acre. At the end ofthe day on December 21st the Co-op had just over 129,000acres, of which 7,500 acres were“warehouse” acres, (acres notgrown by the share owner). Theboard informed shareowners the


T H E H A R V E S T

W A S G O I N G

W E L L A N D

T H E F A C T O R I E S

W E R E

P R O C E S S I N G

W E L L . T H E

N E X T

C H A L L E N G E

W A S T O G E T

A $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

O P E R A T I N G

L O A N .


S P R I N G 2 0 0 2 2 3S P R I N G 2 0 0 2 2 3

Left: Lee Butts, Interim Director, shows support with the growers.

Below: Celebrations at the General Office for Michigan Sugar Company becoming a

grower-owned cooperative.

Above: Mountains of paperwork hadto be signed by numerous personnelto make the acquisition official.

Right: The $5 million loan from the State of Michigan

presented to Richard Maurer byMichigan Congressman Mike Goshka

and Robert Craig, MichiganDepartment of Agriculture.

other $150.00 per share neededto be in by January 4, 2002. Theclosing date was set for Tuesday,February 12, 2002, just after thefactories would finish processingthe 2001 crop.

CO-FIRST ON STATE OFMICHIGAN LOAN

The $5 million State ofMichigan loan had a realproblem. The Statewanted a co-first position onall of the collateral,but Imperial wouldonly give a second.Denis Boissonneaultand I made a trip toLansing to try toresolve the collat-eral issue withthe state trea-sury people.After some seri-ous discussionDenis calledKaren Mercer atImperial and asked ifImperial would give a co-first on all the collateral. If not, theState loan would not go through.Karen called back later and saidImperial’s banks would allowthe State to have a co-firston all collateral.

$25 MILLION RECEIVEDFROM GROWER-OWNERS

Grower loans by thefinance pool had all beencompleted by the first ofFebruary and just over $1.8million of the $2.5 millionavailable was used. The amaz-ing thing was out of $25 millionworth of shares that were sold, allbut $15.00 was received.

WORKING CAPITAL SHOW-STOPPER

On Monday, February 11th

Randon and Rick Knuth, an attorney working with Randon,came to the Michigan Sugar officeto begin preparing the paperworkfor the closing. Maury Rothschild,an outside attorney working for

Imperial also came. Bill Schwerand Karen Mercer arrived about10:00 p.m. at the office. Randonconfronted Schwer on the workingcapital issue (this issue meant$1.5 million to the Co-op) andSchwer stated this issue was adeal breaker and he would notbudge. At this point Randon gathered his papers, put them inhis briefcase and walked to thehotel. As Rick left the office he

noticed Mr. Schwer and Ms.Mercer were preparing new

documents for themorning meeting.

CLOSING ON FEBRUARY 12TH, 2002

On the morning ofTuesday, February12th Mr. Schwer andMs. Mercer gave on

the working capitalissue. The State’s attorney

was here to close on the loan and the $5 million was

transferred to the Co-op’s accountand $29 million was electronicallytransferred to Imperial’s account.After several hours of signing documents, the deal closed.

GREAT BEGINNINGGoing through the ups and

downs necessary to completethe deal certainly providedsome trying times for theboard and the folks atMichigan Sugar. On a roughcount there were 64 steeringcommittee and Co-op board

meetings combined, and 17conference calls. This does not

count all the executive committeemeetings and the hundreds ofphone calls we received. All this ina 24-month time period, but whata great ending to an evenGREATER BEGINNING.



S P R I N G 2 0 0 2 2 5

Left: Carrollton factorypersonnel showing support at the signingon February 12th, 2002.

Below: One of thedesserts depicting thegrower-owned co-op.

Above: Dick Leach signing theresolution.

Right: US Congressman JamesBarcia (D-5th District) in the

Carrollton warehouse on February 12th, 2002

congratulating the growers ontheir purchase of Michigan

Sugar Company.


2 0 01 4 - H A WA R D S2 19 PA R T I C I PA N T S

The 2001 Michigan SugarCompany 4-H/F.F.A. SugarbeetProject involved 190 youths and29 project leaders from the fiveMichigan Sugar growerdistricts. Participantswere judgedaccording toinvolvement inthe local clubor chapter,exhibiting sugarbeets attheir local fairs,keeping accu-rate records ofcultural andmanagementpractices usedin growing their sugarbeets, knowledge of beet

production with a written test, and a personal interview.

Each 2001 participant received ablack zippered portfolio folder. Of

those judged, 54 earnedPremier Grower

awards, plus 15earned topPrestigeGrower hon-ors. Each

Premier winnerreceived a 12-ounce Stanleymug and ablack vinyl

travel bag. EachPrestige winner

took home a touchscreen radio and 432-

page millennium World Atlas. All

the awards have the logo for identification.

Many thanks to the leaders,advisors, judges and especiallyparents for their time and support,for without their participation, thisproject would not be possible.Great Lakes Sugar Beet GrowersAssociation and Michigan SugarCompany jointly sponsor this program.

REMINDER: May 1st, each year is the deadline for submittingapplications for Michigan Sugar Company $2,500 AlbertFlegenheimer MemorialScholarship. If you need an application form, please contactyour agriculturalist.

S P R I N G 2 0 0 2 2 7

WINNERS (Prestige, left to right) ALMA: Luke Butcher;

CARO: C.J. Bednarski, AshleyBierlein and Nicholas Zwerk;CARROLLTON: Adam Bauer

and Chelsea Stolz; CROSWELL: Andrew Volmering,

Jackie Puvalowski, CraigHelewski, Erica Helewski

and Andrew Kirsch; SEBEWAING: Ben Haag, Kirk Yackle, Jason Smith

and Kurt Yackle.

C A R R O L LTO N

A L M A

C A R O

S E B E WA I N G

C R O S W E L L


Thomas V. Zimmer, Chairman of 6822 North Unionville Road, Unionville, Michigan,48767, phone 989.674.8715, email [email protected]. Mr. Zimmer represents

the Sebewaing District. Mr. Zimmer was vice chairman of the Interim Board and past president of the Sebewaing Beet Growers Association.

Mr. Zimmer is a member of the Board of Directors of the American SugarbeetGrowers. He serves in the community on the Board of Elders in his church.

Mr. Zimmer has been farming sugarbeets for 42 years.

Richard J. Maurer, Vice-Chairman of 2027 Parisville Road, Ruth, Michigan,48470, phone 989.479.6490. Mr. Maurer represents the Croswell District and

was chairman of the Interim Board. He was past president of the CroswellSugar Beet Growers Association. He also serves in the community as

Sigel Township’s Supervisor-Assessor, a position he has held since 1979; as chairman of the Central Ambulance Board and as the secretary of

the Parish Council for the Holy Trinity Church. Mr. Maurer has been farming for 44 years, during which 40 have been growing sugarbeets.

Wayne Hecht, Secretary of 8750 West Saginaw Road, Vassar, Michigan, 48768, phone 989.823.7734, email [email protected]. Mr. Hecht represents the

Caro District. He served as secretary/treasurer of the Interim Board and was past president of the Caro Sugar Beet Growers Association.

Mr. Hecht has been farming sugarbeets for a total of 33 years.

Chris Grekowicz, Treasurer of 1453 North Minden Road, Harbor Beach,Michigan, 48441, phone 989.479.9658, email [email protected]. Mr.

Grekowicz represents the grower-at-large position. Mr. Grekowicz served asvice-president of the Croswell Sugar Beet Growers Association. He also serves

in the community as Sigel Township’s treasurer and is secretary of the Sigel #4School Board. Mr. Grekowicz has been farming sugarbeets for 20 years.

Carl Bednarski of 2740 West Elmwood Road, Caro, Michigan, 48723, phone 989.674.2357, email [email protected]. Mr. Bednarski represents the

Caro District. Mr. Bednarski was a member of the Caro Sugar Beet Growers Associationand serves on the Board of Directors for the Michigan Farm Bureau. Mr. Bednarski has

been farming for a total of 22 years, of which 14 has been farming sugarbeets.

M E E T YO U RB OA R D O F D I R E C TO R S

S P R I N G 2 0 0 2 2 9

Brian Fox of 26528 Baldoon Road, Dover Centre, Ontario, N0P 1L0, phone519.354.8345, email [email protected]. Mr. Fox represents the Croswell District.Mr. Fox served as chairman of the Ontario Sugarbeet Growers Association and was amember of the Croswell Sugar Beet Growers Association Board. He is an Engineerand until 1995 worked in industry for 28 years; for the last 15 years as president forthree different corporate divisions. Mr. Fox and his wife, Alana, cash crop 1600 acresincluding 400 acres of sugarbeets along with their son.

William Herford of 4771 Berne Road, Elkton, Michigan, 48731, phone989.375.2411, email [email protected]. Mr. Herford represents theSebewaing District. Mr. Herford was vice-president of the Sebewaing Beet Growers Association and was a board member of the Huron CountyFarm Bureau and past member of the Parish Council at church. He is cur-rently a member of the Michigan Cattleman’s Association; board memberof the Michigan Edible Bean Cooperative and a long-time member of theKnights of Columbus. Mr. Herford is a long-time sugarbeet grower.

Loren L. Humm of 5990 East Tyler Road, Ithaca, Michigan, 48847, phone989.875.2189. Mr. Humm represents the Carrollton District (Alma area.) He hasserved on the Alma Sugar Beet Growers Association as member, president and vice-president. He also serves the community as past board member of the GratiotCounty Farm Bureau and on the Emerson Township Board of Review. Mr. Humm has been farming for 33 years, of which 30 have been farming sugarbeets.

Marty Lewis of 5082 North Road, North Street, Michigan, 48049, phone810.385.4888, email [email protected]. Mr. Lewis representsthe Croswell District. Mr. Lewis was a past secretary of the Croswell SugarBeet Growers Association and served on the St. Clair County Farmer’sHome Administration Board; St. Clair’s Soil Conservation District Boardwith three years as chairman and was past chairman of the SugarbeetAdvancement Committee. Mr. Lewis and his wife, Carol Ann, farm 950acres, including 285 acres of sugarbeets along with their son, Charles.

Robert Lutz of 650 West Hickory Court, Sebewaing, Michigan, 48759, phone989.883.2564. Mr. Lutz represents the Sebewaing District. Mr. Lutz was a past secretary of the Sebewaing Beet Growers Association. He also serves in the community as a trustee for Sebewaing Township. Mr. Lutz has been farming sugarbeets for 36 years.

John A. Tagget of 6335 Cole Road, Saginaw, Michigan, 48601, phone989.777.2007, email [email protected]. Mr. Tagget represents theCarrollton District (Saginaw area). He served as a president of theSaginaw Sugar Beet Growers Association; and is National PAC chairmanof American Sugar Beet Growers Association. He also serves in the community as a supervisor for Spaulding Township in Saginaw County.Mr. Tagget has been farming sugarbeets for 44 years.

WINDOWcommunity

By Dick Leach, Director ofCommunity and GovernmentRelations

It has been several yearssince I have written in thePioneer Newsbeet, and I am

glad to have the opportunity to do so again.As Director of Community and GovernmentRelations, community relations will continueto be an important part of the MichiganSugar Company’s “Grower Owned” publicrelations program.

As we tell the Michigan Sugar Company ~Grower-Owned story, we must not forget thelocal communities where our factories arelocated, where our employees live, andwhere our grower owners do business.School and church events, county fairs andtown festivals will continue to be importantto this grower-owned company. We all knowthere are times in the year when our bigtrucks need to deliver beets to the receivingstations and factories, our machinery needsto move on the highways, and our factoriesproduce an odor. Supporting communityevents and working with community leadershelps promote a greater understanding of ourindustry needs.

When we first started to talk about buyingMichigan Sugar, I was asked to attend aCarrollton Township Board meeting. At thatmeeting I explained Imperial’s offer and thefuture of the company, if the growers werenot successful. The Township Board was veryinterested and offered to help any way theycould. After the news conference on the daywe completed the purchase, the CarrolltonTownship Supervisor came up to me and wasdelighted the Carrollton factory would contin-ue to run. Yes, we provide a tax base, but Ithink being a good neighbor is also importantto the Carrollton Township as well as otherlocal communities.

We are looking for a few good ladies whoare willing to volunteer their time! The PIO-NEER SUGAR LADIES will be promoting thegood neighbor spirit at local events. Theseladies will provide help with communityevents such as parades, local festivals andfairs. They will help in booths, sell logoproducts, meet people, answer questionsand have fun.

We would like to have four grower/ownerladies from each of the four factory districtswho are interested in taking part in promot-ing the Pioneer Sugar products made bytheir Co-op. Michigan Sugar Company willprovide hats and jackets along with trainingon topics important to the sugar industry.

These PIONEER SUGAR LADIES will beunder the direction of Dick Leach. Any interested party should contact MichiganSugar Company at 989.799.7300.

Mary McPhee of Bay City, Michigan is displaying her firstplace cake and awards at the 2000 Zehnder’s SnowfestCake Decorating Contest sponsored by Pioneer Sugarand WSGW.

PIONEER SUGAR LADIES NEEDED


Hilleshög sugarbeet seed is a unit of Syngenta Seeds, Inc. • www-hilleshog-us.com • 1-800-331-4305 • Longmont, Colorado

You need the newest seed treatments from Hilleshög.

We’ve pulled out all stops to bring you the bestplantability in the business.

We’ve pulled out all stops to bring you the bestplantability in the business.

ow do you improve the industry standard? Countless hours of research. Field after field of testing. And an unrelenting drive to offer

the best beet seed in the business.

It all starts with the new and improved Fasonated™seed, F-15. Specifically created for vacuum planters,

F-15 maintains it’s unsurpassed reputation for plate planters, too.

And if it’s pellets you prefer, we’ve got an alternativethat’ll boost your bottom line from day one. Unipel.It has the advantages of pellets without all of the cost.

Both F-15 and Unipel are green, easy to find in the soil, and available on most Hilleshög varieties. For more information contact your Hilleshög Sales Rep or visit www.hilleshog-us.com.


PIONEER NEWSBEETSpring 2002Michigan Sugar CompanyP.O. Box 107Caro, MI 48723

Address Service Requested

PRSRT STDUS POSTAGE

PAIDLANSING, MIPERMIT #75

THE PIONEER NEWSBEET IS BACK!How time flies… The last time you received a

Pioneer Newsbeet was the Spring of 1998 (see picture). With Imperial Sugar Company our magazineevolved into a national magazine, the SugarbeetUpdate which was brought to you four times eachyear; the Update is no longer printed. Now thePioneer Newsbeet is back! We will have our magazine issued two times annually in the Springand Fall.

We hope to challenge you with the latest agronomic research results from all aspects of the sugarbeet industry. In the Great Lakes growingregion much research is conducted on sugarbeets by Jim Stewart, Manager of Research for MichiganSugar Company; university researchers at MichiganState University and University of Guelph inRidgetown College in Ontario (and their graduatestudents); Sugarbeet Advancement coordinated bySteve Poindexter and Monitor Sugar Company’sresearch department. Other research is conductedthroughout our nation and internationally on sugarbeets which we also plan on bringing to you.

We are pleased to bring you agronomic challengesto encourage you to deliver a higher quality beetcrop to your factories. In addition, we will attempt to keep you apprised of local events in your community, sponsored by your company, along withindustry happenings at the state and national level.

Enjoy our Pioneer Newsbeet!The last issue of the Pioneer newsbeet was publishedin the Spring of 1998.

ppioionneereer - michigan sugarget topsin ®. benlate® fungicide may be gone, but there’s no need...

Documents