My Land of Opportunity
L
o ook at your land and you see more than soil. You see opportunity.
We see it in our sugarbeet seed. Strong early season vigor, exceptional stand counts, consistently reliable yields and solid revenue per acre—they're all engineered right in. Your land has always done well by you. Do your best by your land with SESVanderHave.
(877) 373-8115 www.svdhbeets.com
Page 4
Page 11
‘Serving The Nation’s Sugarbeet Community Since 1963’ Volume 50 Number 2 February 2011
Sugar Publications 4601 16th Ave. N. Fargo, ND 58102 Phone: (701) 476-2111 Fax: (701) 476-2182 E-Mail: sugar@forumprinting.com Web Site: www.sugarpub.com Publisher: Sugar Publications General Manager & Editor: Don Lilleboe Advertising Manager: Heidi Wieland (701) 476-2003 Graphics: Forum Communications Printing
Page 12
— Feature Articles — Variable-Rate Seeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Report on three years of Red River Valley trials
A ‘Groovy’ Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Michigan growers use wide-track tractor in narrow-row beets
Shank Depth for Zone Tillage in Beets . . . . . . . . . . 12 Results from three-year Nebraska study
Sugar, HFCS & Ethanol in Canada: An Overview . . 16 The Sugarbeet Grower is published six A look at the nation’s sweetener industry dynamics times annually (January, February, March, April/May, July/August, November/December) by Sugar Publications, a division of Forum Communications Printing. North American sugarbeet producers receive the magazine on a complimentary basis. — Front Cover — — Regular Pages — Annual subscription rates are $12.00 domesCould varying seeding rates by tic and $18.00 for foreign subscribers. Dateline: Washington . . . . . . . . . . . 8 field productivity zones be in Advertising in The Sugarbeet Grower does not necessarily imply endorsement of a Tucson, Roundup Ready, Crop Insurance your future? See page 4 for a particular product or service by the publisher. summary of recent research.
Write Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Counting the minutes . . .
Visit Our Website! Now Updated & Expanded!
Photo: Don Lilleboe
30 Years Ago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Excerpts from our February 1981 issue
Around the Industry . . . . . . . . . . . 19
www.sugarpub.com THE SUGARBEET GROWER February 2011
Who, what & where it’s happening
3
Credit: American Crystal Sugar
Variable-Rate Seeding
Progress Report: Three Years of Trials in the Red River Valley
V
ariable-rate fertilizer application has become commonplace among sugarbeet growers, with the result generally being more-efficient use of fertilizer inputs, more-consistent beet yield and quality across fields — and better
per-acre revenue. How about variable-rate seeding? Could changing your in-row spacing and plant population from zone to zone within a given field translate into more-efficient use of a key input (seed)
— Harvest Plant Stands — In-Row Seed Spacing
‘High’ Productivity Zones
‘Intermediate’ Productivity Zones
‘Low’ Productivity Zones
5.5” 4.5” 3.5”
169 196 252
144 202 218
142 174 207
Moorhead / 2010
5.5” 4.5” 3.5”
147 177 238
147 197 230
145 167 228
Crookston / 2009
5.1” 4.9” 3.9”
178 200 245
137 177 234
164 182 238
Crookston / 2010
5.6” 4.5” 3.5”
198 241 293
192 228 283
192 233 282
Location & Year Moorhead / 2008
4
Left: This image from a 2008 Moorhead sugarbeet field shows variable-rate seeding plot yield data (horizontal strip) overlaid on productivity zones that were developed based on satellite imagery and previous crop yield data. and, at harvest, produce more tonnage and/or improved crop quality? That was the question addressed in a Red River Valley study conducted over the past three growing seasons. The project, led by Lynn Dusek, American Crystal Sugar Company Moorhead district agriculturist and member of the cooperative’s precision ag team, sought to determine optimum plant populations for different management zones within several commercial fields. Concurrently, it examined optimum seed spacing trends for high, intermediate and low productivity zones. Working with cooperating American Crystal growers, Dusek and his group* established studies at six locations within the Moorhead, Crookston and Hillsboro** factory districts. All fields were planted in 22-inch rows, and the growers used recommended agronomic and pest management practices. They likewise used their own harvesters (equipped with yield monitors), while quality samples were handdrawn for each treatment within each established productivity zone. Productivity zones were established for seed spacing treatments. The zones in the Moorhead and Crookston district fields were based on previous crop yield maps and satellite imagery. “High” productivity zones were denoted by green; “intermediate” zones by yellow and “low” by red.
W
hat were the results from the three study years? Harvest plant stands for the Moorhead and Crookston fields are summarized in the table at left. Three-year trends for recoverable sugar per ton (RST), recoverable sugar per acre (RSA) and revenue per * Other American Crystal personnel involved in this project were Curtis Funk, agriculturist in the Crookston district; Joe Hastings, agriculturist in the Hillsboro district; and Allan Cattanach, the cooperative’s general agronomist. ** Moorhead data are from 2008 and 2010; the 2009 Moorhead site was hailed out. Crookston data are from 2009 and 2010. The 2010 Hillsboro study used productivity zones based on topographical mapping. Since the Hillsboro data represent only one year, those results are not discussed here.
THE SUGARBEET GROWER February 2011
CRYSTAL SUGARBEET SEED distributed by: ACH Seeds Inc. 1.877.224.7333 Crystal Beet Seed 1.218.236.4788
Fig. 1. Rec. Sugar/Ton Trend, Three-Year Av., Moorhead & Crookston
Fig. 2. Rec. Sugar/Acre Trend, Three-Year Av., Moorhead & Crookston
Fig. 3. Revenue/Acre Trend, Three-Year Av., Moorhead & Crookston
acre are depicted on the three graphs at left. Here’s the three-year bottom line: • The optimum in-row seed spacing varied by up to two inches, depending on productivity zone. Specifically, the optimum spacing for the “low” (red) zones was 3.5 to 3.9 inches; for the “intermediate” zones (yellow), it was 4.34.6 inches; and for the “high” (green) productivity zones, 4.9-5.5 inches. • Plant populations, as would be expected, followed a similar track. The optimum population in the “low” zones was in the 47,-55,000 plants-per-acre range. For the “intermediate” zones, it was 42,-47,000; and for the “high” zones, optimum range was 35,-42,000. • Harvest losses were greatest with the higher plant populations that were needed in order to maximize yields in the “low” productivity zones. • The best recoverable sugar per ton (RST) in the “high” (green) productivity zones came with the wider in-row spacings, while RST was fairly stable across in-row spacings for the “intermediate” and “low” zones (Figure 1). • Recoverable sugar per acre (RSA) differences were quite dramatic when in-row seed spacing was modified. As Figure 2 shows, RSA improved significantly with the wider spacings for the “high” productivity zones, while it was best in the “low” (red) zones with the narrower spacing. • Per-acre revenue across the four sites for which data were compiled (2008 and 2010 for Moorhead and 2009 and 2010 for Crookston) also showed significant differences (Figure 3). The “high” productivity zones did significantly better with the wider in-row spacings, while the opposite was true for the “low” zones. Revenue from the “intermediate” zones also trended upward as seed spacing was widened.
D
usek says the results to date from the variable-rate seeding trials are definitely encouraging. “We’re finding consistent trends,” he notes. “The results seem to be tracking well with satellite imagery and yield mapping data.” While it’s still early in the process, the sugar company agriculturist believes variable-rate seeding could one day be a common practice that helps enhance both a field’s productivity and the grower’s bottom line. And it could take on added dimensions, such as split-planting of different seed varieties within the field, depending on the productivity zone. “There is promise,” Dusek affirms, “and we have plans to continue these types of studies.” — Don Lilleboe ■
6
THE SUGARBEET GROWER February 2011
The fungicide you’ve always wanted is finally within reach. There’s no better partner for your sugarbeet disease management program than Inspire® XT fungicide. Trusted the world over, Inspire XT is proven to deliver long-lasting control of Cercospora leaf spot, powdery mildew and other damaging diseases. And as part of your overall spray program, Inspire XT can help sustain fungicide effectiveness and manage resistance. Top of the class.
©2011 Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 410 Swing Road, Greensboro, NC 27409. Important: Always read and follow label instructions before buying or using Syngenta products. The instructions contain important conditions of sale, including limitations of warranty and remedy. Inspire XT is not currently registered for sale or use in all states. Please check with your state or local extension service before buying or using this product. Inspire® and the Syngenta logo are registered trademarks of a Syngenta Group Company. Syngenta Customer Center: 1-866-SYNGENT(A) (796-4368). www.FarmAssist.com MW 1SUG1005-P1 2/11
Dateline: Washington — Tucson, Arizona— The hearts and minds of our nation and the world have been focused on Tucson since that fateful and tragic morning of January 8. As grower-leaders from our beet growing regions arrive in Tucson for our annual meeting (February 6-8), our thoughts and prayers continue for the fallen victims of this senseless tragedy. Our board of directors was looking forward to a breakfast meeting with Congresswoman Giffords to express our thanks for her support of a strong domestic sugar industry in the last farm bill, and to give her the opportunity to meet those growers who help supply the sugar needs of her constituents and our nation. We salute her service to our country and the burdens of sacrifice that she and her family must now endure.
— Roundup Ready Beets — We hope that USDA will have announced by the end of January what action they will take regarding the planting of Roundup Ready® sugarbeets for 2011. Since the public commenting period ended on December 6, 2010, APHIS staff at USDA has worked very hard and thoughtfully to address issues that have been raised and to finalize the draft Environmental Assessment for planting Roundup Ready beets this spring. On December 21, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals extended its stay (pending appeal) of Judge Jeffrey White’s November 30 injunction requiring destruction of sugarbeet stecklings (seedlings) currently being grown under permits from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The stecklings are intended for research and breeding purposes, as well as for basic seed and hybrid seed production for 2012 and future years. The Appeals Court consolidated
8
We are hopeful that the expedited appellate process will bring more certainty to our industry early in 2011. the permit litigation with the appeal of Judge White’s August 13, 2010, decision vacating the deregulation of biotech sugarbeets, and expedited the briefing and hearing schedule so that the appeals can be heard on February 15, 2011. To allow for consideration of the appeals, the stay of Judge White’s injunction has been extended to February 28 or such other time as the Ninth Circuit orders. The beet sugar industry’s growers, processors, technology providers and seed producers are pleased that the Court of Appeals will now have sufficient opportunity to consider relevant legal precedents and unrebutted evidence that the planting of these permitted steckling fields is authorized by law and would cause no harm. We are hopeful that this expedited appellate process will bring more certainty to our industry early in 2011.
— Crop Insurance — On January 11, a team of sugarbeet grower representatives met with Risk Management Administration (RMA) officials to discuss the following four key issues. 1) The initial price election for the 2011 crop was established in late November at $41.50 per ton ($43 in California). We clearly believe that this price is too low and asked that
The quality deductions in the FCIC insurance policy are often much smaller than those in grower-cooperative contracts, resulting in under-coverage.
By Luther Markwart Executive Vice President American Sugarbeet Growers Assn. the estimate be revised significantly upward (upper $40s range). A final decision by RMA will be made by mid-February. 2) The replant coverage will be 1.5 times the price election for 2011. While this is an improvement of a half ton over the 2010 crop, it remains inadequate to cover growers’ actual replant costs. The ASGA, in conjunction with your state or local association, will be working to get much better third-party cost numbers to clearly justify higher replant compensation. 3) RMA also needs to work on the quality adjustment factor in the insurance policy. The quality deductions in the FCIC insurance policy are often much smaller than those in grower-cooperative contracts, resulting in under-coverage. 4) Finally, field piles, or “clamps,” have been used to increase harvest efficiencies and reduce costs — and could ultimately be very helpful in reducing losses for the grower, the cooperative, insurance agents and the government. Statistical information is being compiled on existing clamps for RMA to digest in the months ahead. Under current provision of the policy, sugarbeets are considered “harvested” once they are topped and lifted.
— Damaged Cane Crop — The sub-freezing temperatures in Florida in mid-December damaged sugarcane that was being harvested. Damage assessment usually takes some time to evaluate, and it will likely be late January before accurate assessments can be made. In the January WASDE report, USDA estimated and made an initial reduction of 100,000 tons of raw sugar for the 2010/11 crop. With production and inventories of raw sugar cane stockpiled early in the year, there is time to determine whether more sugar is needed once all the factors are adequately assessed. ■
THE SUGARBEET GROWER February 2011
Write Field
I brought along some bookwork. I finished up my tax. I’ll still make the deadline If I send it off by fax. I’m sure there is new merchandise She has never seen before. Even though to me it looks Like every other store.
By David Kragnes
I know more things than shopping Come into the mix. It’s more than checking every bolt To get a cotton fix. She needs to meet with other gals Who share the same affliction. Except that this group therapy Helps promote addiction.
All Minutes Are Not Equal I’m sitting at a quilt shop Waiting for my wife. I don’t think I’ve been here yet For more than half my life.
It’s fun to see the seasons change, To watch the flowers grow. Soon the pumpkins will come down, Then Christmas lights will glow.
This one seems a little longer Than the stop we made before. But I’m quite sure it’s only been One or two days more.
But I sit here patiently As she fingers every swatch. It’s good I brought along an extra Battery for my watch.
Here she comes with half a bolt And an extra quarter, A rotary cutter, yellow thread, Some piping for a border. I help her load her packages, I ask if she had fun. I say that we should head for home If she is sure that she is done. “Just because it’s on the way Let’s hit the John Deere store. I know that it will only take A couple minutes more.� David Kragnes farms near Felton, Minn. He is a former chairman of American Crystal Sugar Co., and currently serves on the board of directors of CoBank.
49th International Sugarbeet Institute HXUR-Tiger
March 16 & 17 Fargodome Fargo, N.D. — Speaker — Luther Markwart Exec. Vice President American Sugarbeet Growers Assn. Doors Open at 9:00 a.m. Both Days
HXUR-Maus
BIG-BEAR
FDOO ZZZ URSDQRUWKDPHULFD FRP H PDLO LQIR#URSDQRUWKDPHULFD FRP
10
North America’s Largest Sugarbeet Trade Show! THE SUGARBEET GROWER February 2011
— Advertisement —
D
Root maggots, springtails on 2011 sugarbeet insect watch list
on’t bet on 2011 being a repeat of the seemingly mild year for sugarbeet insects that occurred in the Red River Valley in 2010. That’s the advice from Dr. Mark Boetel, research and extension entomologist at North Dakota State University (NDSU). There’s a good chance that sugarbeet root maggots will be back in force in 2011. The growing problem with springtails isn’t likely to go away, either. As in most years, wireworms will be a threat to sugarbeet production, too. In reality, the 2010 root maggot infestation was worse than many growers realize, says Boetel. Evidence of the infestation was covered up
New springtail research
Control tradeoffs Warnings about challenging insect populations will focus decisions on how to control critical insects in the months ahead. On one side of the decision equation are superior performance and lower cost with soil insecticides. On the other: the planting-timing convenience of seed treatments. Boetel says the best choice isn’t clear-cut at lower insect pressures. But when root maggot pressures are high, soil insecticides tend to perform better and deliver more dollars to the bottom line. A three-year NDSU study published last year showed that under moderately high root maggot pressure, yield and
Growers opt for Counter For David Benedict and Glen Hultin, NDSU research on sugarbeet root maggots and springtails confirmed their decision to rely on Counter soil insecticide to control beet insects. David Benedict “When you need a gun, you might as well get the biggest gun you can—that’s what we’ve got with Counter for root maggots, springtails and wireworm,” says Benedict, who farms near Sabin, MN. “Counter is the only at-planting treatment that will take on springtails. The seed treatments aren’t as good. I don’t want to dive off that cliff.”
by frequent rains, which allowed beets to compensate for feeding damage. “This could be a sleeper situation,” he says. “Fly counts and fall root ratings suggest that there are plenty of root maggots out there to over-winter and infest the crop in 2011.” Projected high-risk areas for root maggot infestations in 2011 include Auburn, Glasston, Grafton, Nash and St. Thomas, all in North Dakota. Areas with projected moderate risk include Cavalier, Minto, Manvel, Oakwood, Reynolds and Thompson, in North Dakota, and Ada, Borup and Euclid, in Minnesota.
sucrose recovery from Counter® insecticide treatments were significantly higher than from seed treatments. Bottom-line gross returns from a high labeled rate of Counter were $155/acre better than the top seed treatment. “Growers in the heavily infested areas often use a more aggressive approach at planting with a granular soil insecticide,” he says. “Generally in our research we have seen that the granular materials are more efficacious for root maggot under heavy infestations.” In areas with heavy infestations, Boetel recommends coming back with an in-season postemergence insecticide treatment timed for peak fly activity, regardless of the planting-time treatment.
Hultin, who farms near Hillsboro, ND, remembers having fields devastated by root maggots in the early 1990s—and relies on Counter to avoid that experience again. “I remember harvesting 8 tons/acre in one field,” he says. “For me, using Counter is a noGlen Hultin brainer. It is cheaper and it is better.” Both Benedict and Hultin have outfitted their John Deere central-fill planters with the electronically controlled SmartBox® closed handling and application system. “The closed system is two thumbs up,” Benedict says. “It puts out the proper amount no matter how fast you go.”
Soil insecticides also have a leg up on seed treatments for control of springtails. NDSU rates Counter insecticide as “Excellent” against springtails, while seed treatment products get a “Good” rating. A new three-year NDSU study bears that out that difference. The study showed that at high springtail pressures, a low labeled rate of Counter insecticide produced the highest gross economic return, $1,012/acre – $105/acre higher than the best-performing seed treatment. “Springtails are more difficult to predict than root maggots,” adds Boetel. “In the past 10 years, with wetter springs, springtails have become more of a regular issue on heavy soils conducive to their buildup.”
With Counter’s new 20G formulation, Hultin can plant about 200 acres of beets with his 24-row planter before refilling—typically one fill per day. Benedict’s 36-row system covers about 300 acres before refilling. The Counter 20G formulation, which is available for Lock ‘N Load® and SmartBox application systems, improves planting-time efficiency by covering 33% more acres per fill than the previous 15G formulation, points out Elton Hendrickson, technical sales representative for AMVAC Chemical Corp. For more information on Counter 20G Insecticide and the SmartBox System, contact Elton Hendrickson at eltonh@amvac.net or call 701-741-5608. Counter, Lock ‘N Load and SmartBox are registered trademarks of AMVAC Chemical Corporation.
Updated USDA Crop Numbers January Report Estimates Nation’s 2010 Sugarbeet Production at 31.95 Million Tons — U.S. Sugarbeet Production, 2009 & 2010 — Area Harvested
Yield
Production
(1,000 Acres)
(Tons/Ac)
(1,000 Tons)
2009 2010 25.2 25.1 California 35.0 27.9 Colorado 163.0 170.0 Idaho 136.0 147.0 Michigan 449.0 441.0 Minnesota 33.6 42.5 Montana 52.6 47.5 Nebraska 218.0 214.0 North Dakota 10.5 10.3 Oregon 25.6 30.4 Wyoming 1,148.5 1,155.7 U.S. Total
2009 43.9 27.5 34.3 24.4 23.7 29.8 24.6 22.0 37.6 26.5 25.9
2010 40.0 29.5 31.0 26.0 26.7 29.5 23.8 26.5 36.3 27.0 27.6
2009 1,106 963 5,591 3,318 10,641 1,001 1,294 4,796 395 678 29,783
2010 1,004 823 5,270 3,822 11,775 1,254 1,131 5,671 374 821 31,945
Source: USDA-NASS January 2011
Convert your bandsprayer to a broadcast sprayer!
Call today for pricing.
HIGH-PROFILE BROADCAST SPRAYERS Boom Width Up to 132 Feet 1,000- to 1,500-Gal. Fiberglass Tanks
Rotary Hoes - 60 to 88 Ft. All Crop Sprayer Up to 2000 Gal. Tank
Model 1000 V-Plows for JD Planters
— Contact Keller Today —
2v
SDA’s January estimate of 2010 U.S. sugarbeet production placed the crop at 31.95 million tons, up fractionally from the November forecast and 7% higher than 2009’s output. Growers in the 10 major sugarbeetproducing states planted 1.17 million acres of beets this past season, down slightly from the 2009 level. However, harvested area was up a bit from the previous year at 1.16 million acres. The estimated average yield of 27.6 tons per acre was 1.7 tons above the 2009 level and represents a record high. At nearly 11.8 million tons, Minnesota again is far and away the nation’s leading sugarbeet producing state. Minnesota’s 2010 output was about 1.1 million tons higher than that of 2009. The state’s average per-acre beet yield this past season was 3.0 tons above the ’09 level. At nearly 5.7 million tons, North Dakota was the nation’s second largest producer of beets this past year. The average yield in the state in 2010 was 26.5 tons per acre — 4.5 tons higher than the 2009 yield. Record high average yields were set in Minnesota, North Dakota, Colorado and Wyoming, USDA noted. Colorado’s average 2010 yield of 29.5 tons per acre was 2.0 tons higher than the previous year; the Wyoming average of 27.0 tons was a half ton higher than that of 2009. Idaho, at almost 5.3 million tons, and Michigan, at 3.8 million, ranked third and fourth in production, respectively. Five states — California, Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska and Oregon — had 2010 production levels lower than their 2009 counterpart crops. The nation’s sugarbeet output in 2008 was 26.9 million tons.
O
Model 1500
7623 County Road 19 Tintah, MN 56583
U
Phone: (218) 369-2136 Fax: (218) 369-2680
n the sugarcane side, the January USDA report placed the nation’s 2010 cane production (for sugar) at 27.85 million tons. That compares with 28.5 million the prior season and 26.1 million tons in 2008. “In Louisiana, expectations for a bumper crop were diminished when unusually dry weather conditions ruled the summer months, resulting in decreased yields and overall production,” USDA-NASS reported. Unseasonably cold temperatures in Florida in December damaged much of that state’s unharvested cane crop, with final damage assessments not available as of the time the January USDA estimates were being finalized. The production of sugarcane for seed was estimated at about 1.7 million tons in 2010, down about 250,000 tons from the 2009 level. ■
THE SUGARBEET GROWER (Upper Midwest) February 2011
Growers Report on 2010 Weed Control T
he 42nd annual survey* of weed control and production practices among sugarbeet producers in Minnesota and eastern North Dakota revealed disease — particularly Rhizoctonia and Aphanomyces — to be by far the most serious production problem during the 2010 growing season. Among survey respondents, 53% said those two diseases were their most serious problem. Another 5% listed Rhizomania and 3% listed Cercospora leafspot. As has been the case since Roundup ReadyŽ beets have been available to growers, weeds ranked low on the list of number-one production issues in the region’s beet fields. Only 6% of the 2010 survey respondents placed weeds as their top issue. That follows on the heels of 7% in 2009 and 30% in 2008. Weeds consistently ranked as the top production problem in past years. For instance, 46% of 2007 survey respondents placed weeds at the top of their problem areas; in 2001 and 2002, respectively, 52 and 53% did so. Emergence and plant stand was the biggest issue for just 5% of the 2010 crop year survey respondents. That was down from 21% in both 2008 and 2009. “No Problem� was the answer from 14% of this year’s respondents, while “Weather� garnered 8%.
T
he 268 growers responding to the 2010 production practices survey together accounted for 21% of the nearly 653,000 acres of sugarbeets planted across the Upper Midwest region last year in the combined American Crystal, Minn-Dak and Southern Minnesota operations areas. Of those acres reported upon, 93% were seeded to Roundup Ready beets and 7% were conventional. Total sugarbeet acreage treated with herbicides in 2010 (accounting for multiple applications) was 256%. That compares with 230% in 2009, 308% in 2008 and 383% in 2007. The reduction in the percentage of total beet acreage treated with herbicides since 2007 is attributed to the increased planting of Roundup Ready sugarbeets. Nortron and Dual were the only soil-applied herbicides used in 2010 by * The annual production practices survey is conducted, and results compiled, by Fargo-based NDSU/UM sugarbeet specialists. Other survey portions deal with entomology and plant pathology.
survey respondents. Soil-applied herbicide use for all beet acreage was just 2% this past year. That compares with 31% as of 2004 and 25% in 2007. The most common herbicide treatment reported by growers in 2010 was glyphosate applied at 0.75-lb acid equivalent per acre. Glyphosate plus Stinger (8.4%) and glyphosate plus Select (2.0%) were the most frequently reported combinations by growers with only Roundup Ready beets in 2010. The usage of postemergent grass herbicides (Select, Assure II or Poast) was on 32% of all reported acreage in
2010. That compares with 29% in 2009, 104% in 2008 and 189% in 2007. The rapid decline in postemergent grass herbicide use since 2007 is due, again, to the rapid adoption of Roundup Ready beets. Select was used on 233% of the “conventional only� beet acres in 2010, a level that’s comparable to general usage in pre-Roundup Ready years. In a related category, only 1% of reported acreage in the 2010 survey was hand-weeded — again, a reflection of Roundup Ready beet plantings. That percentage was 20% was recently as 2008; 32% in 2002; and 45% in 1997.
+ +RZ DERXW DQ H[WUD RZ DERXW DQ H[WUD FRYHUDJH FRYHUDJH R Q \RXU VXJDU EHHW UHSODQW RQ \RXU VXJDU EHHW UHSODQW R Q WRS RI \RXU IHGHUDO FURS LQVXUDQFH" RQ WRS RI \RXU IHGHUDO FURS LQVXUDQFH"
)DOO 3D\ 3UHPLXP 6DOHV &ORVLQJ 0DUFK )DOO 3D\ 3UHPLXP 6DOHV &ORVLQJ 0DUFK
3UHPLXP SHU DFUH ‡ 3LORW 3URJUDP /LPLWHG $YDLODELOLW\ 3UHPLXP SHU DFUH ‡ 3LORW 3URJUDP /LPLWHG $YDLODELOLW\
&RQWDFW 7RP 0DWW RU +ROO\ DW &RQWDFW 7RP 0DWW RU +ROO\ DW
RU RU ZZ IDUPHUVDJHQF\LQF FRP RQOLQH DW RQOLQH DW Z ZZZ IDUPHUVDJHQF\LQF FRP ( (PDLO PDLO WWHVWUHP#UXQHVWRQH QHW HVWUHP#UXQHVWRQH QHW U P PDWWD#UXQHVWRQH QHW DWWD#UXQHVWRQH QHW RRU
VW $YH 1( ‡ 3 2 %R[ ‡ (OERZ /DNH 01 ‡ )D[
THE SUGARBEET GROWER (Upper Midwest) February 2011
3v
Can Beets Be Grown in Minnesota...? Can sugarbeets be grown profitably in Minnesota? That’s a rather silly question, of course, given that beets have been produced successfully in the North Star State for more than a century and that Minnesota is, far and away, the nation’s leading beet-producing state. But the industry obviously had to get its start sometime and somewhere. And the outcome, in the early days of its establishment, was far from certain.
4v
Among the questions its first proponents had to wrestle with were the availability and economics of the labor needed to produce and process sugarbeets. The following excerpt from an early USDA publication titled “Report on the Culture of the Sugar Beet” spoke to the labor issue, should beets be introduced into the “Northwest” (i.e., Minnesota). This report was published 130 years ago, in 1880.
O
ne of the worst drawbacks to the successful introduction of the sugar beet in the Northwest would seem to be the labor question. Even with the advantage of the best implements to stir the land, thin and clean the ridges, and gather the crop, the hand-labor needed to grow sugar beets is considerable. “Wages being about three times as high in the Northwest as in Denmark, this would increase the expenses at a great rate. Supposing one hand to be needed for three acres of land for four months, about 30 days’ work would be necessary to cultivate one acre. Supposing one acre to yield 15 tons of beets or 2,400 pounds of sugar (8 per cent), 30 days’ work at $1.50 a day, would make $45 an acre, or $3 per ton of beets, or 18-3/4 cents per hundredweight of sugar . . . “And supposing the product could bear such expenses, would it be possible to gather a sufficient number of hands so as to grow 1,500 acres of beets within the limit for the area of one sugar factory? For it is a deplorable fact that, at the present development of the industry, sugar cannot be manufactured from beets on a small scale, but must be produced in large establishments which require the raw material from a large number of acres. And, on account of the bulky quality of the beets, they cannot bear long transportation, and must therefore be grown within a certain comparatively narrow distance from the factory. “Again, during the manufacturing season, which only lasts about four or five months, the factory would employ a number of hands who, after all of the beets have been disposed of, would have to look for employment elsewhere. While at the time between the clearing of the beet land and the harvesting of the beets the regular harvest of the cereals might give employment to the beet hands, would the forests of Minnesota or other industry dispose of the laboring hands during winter and early spring, until the beet field again might need them? “Sugar beets should not be attended to only when the other work of the farm is done and there is nothing else to do; but should be worked when they need working. Without independent labor at the proper time, their cultivation always proves a failure. “So also should the manufacture of sugar begin when the beets are ripe and contain most sugar . . . .” ■
THE SUGARBEET GROWER (Upper Midwest) February 2011
Stabenow Now Senate Ag Comm. Chair S en. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) took over the gavel of the Senate Agriculture Committee on January 27. The
American Sugar Alliance issued the following statement in response: “Hailing from a major sugar-produc-
THE KIEL ROWFINDER Controls both Steering and Depth, and is made to Back-up with the Harvester Down
Now Available for Amity, Artsway, and Parma !
Kiel Innovation Corporation 1429 st. mary’s drive, crookston, mn 56716 Call: 218-280-3793 or Email: kielinnovation@yahoo.com
ing state, Sen. Stabenow has long been a vocal promoter of America’s no-cost sugar policy. We are thrilled to have a chairman who is so knowledgeable about the issues facing sugar-growing regions across the country. “But it’s not just sugar producers who are happy. Sen. Stabenow is a champion of U.S. agriculture and of rural America who has proven time and time again that she values the hard work and dedication of America’s farmers and ranchers. “We look forward to working closely with the chairman as she crafts a fiscally responsible farm bill that ensures America maintains the world’s safest, most abundant, most affordable food supply.” Stabenow is a member of the Senate Sweetener Caucus, a group of outspoken supporters of U.S. sugar policy. “That policy operates at no cost to American taxpayers, helps support 146,000 U.S. jobs, and is essential to the country’s food security,” the American Sugar Alliance notes. Home to one of the nation’s biggest sugarbeet companies and 900 sugar farmers, Michigan boasts 147,000 acres of sugarbeets and more than 15,000 jobs tied to the industry. ■
Norton is a registered tradmark of Bayer Crop Science ®
6v
THE SUGARBEET GROWER (Upper Midwest) February 2011
We Are the Manufacturer of the
DEE Rowfinder Providing Parts, Sales & Service The Only Rowfinder on The Market To Control BOTH Steering & Depth
CW
Dealer Inquiries Welcome
• A full line of sprockets, rollers & idlers for harvesters. • Carrier of heavy-duty roller chain. • We build and repair grab rolls for beet harvesters; also plastic-sleeve them. • Flails for sugarbeet defoliators . . . bearings . . . pillow blocks . . . drive lines. • Complete line of keyed shafts and cold-rolled shafts. • Gearbox exchange program for WIC defoliators. • Grab roll exchange for WIC harvesters.
Crookston Welding & Machine, Inc. H ighw ay 75 South • C rookston,M N 56716
(218) 281-6911 or (800) 569-1309
Make Plans to Attend the 49th
International Sugarbeet Institute March 16 & 17 Fargodome • Fargo, N.D. Doors Open at 9:00 a.m. Both Days
— Our Speaker — Wed. Afternoon & Thur. Morning
Luther Markwart Executive Vice President American Sugarbeet Growers Assn.
A ‘Groovy’ Modification Allows Michigan Growers to Utilize Their Wide-Belt Track Tractor for Narrow-Row Beets
W
hen the Bierlein brothers — Warren and Brian — decided to trade for a wider row-crop planter, they simultaneously decided to switch from their traditional 28-inch sugarbeet rows over to 22s. So this past spring, instead of planting their beets and other row crops with an 18-row unit, they did so with a 58-foot-wide Bauer-built John
Deere DB58 that allowed them to seed 32 (22-inch) rows at a crack. But the changeover did bring along a complication. How would the Vassar, Mich., growers be able to utilize their preferred tractor — a John Deere 9400T Series track unit — to plant the narrow-row beets? The tractor had not been suited for 28-inch rows due to its
30-inch-wide tracks. So how could it be workable in 22s? “We wanted to plant with a track tractor to eliminate compaction,” Warren relates. “But we didn’t want to buy an 8000 Series row-crop tractor; we wanted to utilize the 9400 Series that we already had.” The solution? How about cutting a groove down the middle of the track under which the crop row could fit? “I measured the tractor and found that the center of the belt was about 1.5 inches off the center” of 22-inch beet rows, Warren recounts. The next order of business was a call to D & S Tires in Richmond, Ind. Could they gouge out a groove along the belt center so that the track lugs would not compress the crop row beneath it? Tammy Scholz, manager of the D & S Richmond facility, told Bierlein they’d never had a request like that — but yes, why not? So he hauled the tracks down to Richmond, where D & S cut a groove nine inches wide. The ground-out portion of the lugs ended up being flush with the belt. The results were exactly what the Bierleins had hoped for. The tractor weight remained on the lugs on either side of the groove, “but right in the center, there was no weight pressing down,” Warren says. The proof was in the pudding, as the Bierleins’ 2010 sugarbeet plant stands and crop growth were excellent. They changed back to “regular” tracks on the 9400 for fall tillage duties, but you can bet those groovy tracks will be back on in time for the 2011 spring planting season. — Don Lilleboe ■
Photos: Don Lilleboe
Left: Warren Bierlein stands next to one of the grooved belts that allow him and brother Brian to use their JD 9400T Series track tractor to plant beets in 22-inch rows with their new Bauer-built JD DB58 planter (below).
THE SUGARBEET GROWER February 2011
11
Photo: John Smith
Shank Depth for Zone Tillage in Beets
Report on a Three-Year Nebraska Study By John Smith*
Z
one (strip) tillage in sugarbeets has become notably more popular in recent years across the beet-producing areas of Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming and Montana. The system conserves soil, soil water and input energy compared to “broadcast” tillage systems that employ a moldboard plow, disk and/or chisel plow. Zone-till implements also can be used to apply fertilizer or Telone II at one or more depths
Monopill SE
Above: A “medium compaction” study plot area shows the difference in sugarbeet plant growth with zero tillage (left) and with zone tillage shanks set at a 10-inch depth (right). below where the seed will eventually be placed. With some systems, the beet planter can be positioned on the rear of the zone-till tool for a true one-pass
sugar beet planters
Plant your seed more effectively -precise seed spacing and placement -optimal spacing for higher yields -reduce seed use and technology user fees -robust yet light weight, low horsepower for early planting -population adjustment as you plant -individual row control
tillage-planting operation. A frequent question of zone-till producers has been the depth to which they should adjust the shanks on their zone-tillage machine when used for sugarbeet production. If the shank is operated too deep, we needlessly waste input (energy) costs and limit the implement’s field capacity. The deeper the shank is operated, the more clods that are often created and the more difficult it is to completely close the shank mark deep in the soil. But if operated too shallow, any undisturbed soil compaction may limit root development or water and nutrient movement in the soil, thus restricting yield potential. The objective of the study described here was to evaluate different zonetillage shank operating depths and, in turn, to provide information on sugarbeet yield response for the benefit of beet producers.
T
he study was conducted in 2008, 2009 and 2010 at the University of Nebraska Panhandle Research & Ex-
Ropa North America 1- 519-786-3025 www. ropanorthamerica.com or e-mail: info@ropanorthamerica.com
12
* John Smith is an agricultural engineer at the University of Nebraska Panhandle Research & Extension Center, Scottsbluff.
THE SUGARBEET GROWER February 2011
tension Center near Scottsbluff. The soil type at this location is a fine sandy loam with 1.0% organic matter and 8.0 pH. Corn was the previous crop for all three study years, with the stalks shredded, disked twice and moldboard plowed (to a depth of 11-12 inches) in the spring of each study year. The fields were then roller harrowed twice to firm the soil. Granular fertilizer (rates based on soil test) was applied between roller-harrow operations. These operations, it should be noted, were made using a tractor equipped with flotation tires and when the soil was relatively dry — the intent being to minimize surface-applied soil compaction. Four zone-tillage shank depths (0, 5, 10 and 15 inches) were applied, as were three soil compaction levels (“none,� “moderate� compaction and “high� compaction) after the second roller-harrow operation. The compaction levels were applied at the soil surface, meaning the degree of compaction would be expected to decrease with distance from the surface. The “moderate� soil compaction treatment consisted of one pass over the entire compaction plot area with an empty tandem-axle truck (weight of 21,000 pounds). The “high� compaction treatment consisted of a pass of the same truck but with a near-rated maximum load, for a total gross weight of 52,000 pounds. Both truck passes were made when the soil was relatively dry. Following the compaction treatments, the entire plot area (including the “no compaction�) was tilled to a 2.0-inch depth to achieve uniform planting seed depth. The zone-tillage machine was a sixrow (22-inch row spacing) three-point mounted Schlagel Till-N-Plant model, which used a 0.75-inch wide parabolicshaped shank. Field speed was 3.5 mph. Shank depth was adjusted to maintain correct operating functions for the advance coulter, the wavy closing coulters behind the shank, and for the rear rolling baskets. The machine was not used on the “0� depth plots. Following the zone-tillage pass, all plots received one pass with a machine with individual rows of two rolling baskets (no shanks or disks). Its purpose was to break up any big clods left by the zone-tillage machine and to firm the seedbed, as the study intent was to focus on shank depth, not seedbed irregularities. After each year’s plot planting (to the same Roundup ReadyŽ pelleted variety), the field was sprinkler irrigated
THE SUGARBEET GROWER February 2011
A shank depth of 15 inches did not increase beet yield, compared to the 10-inch depth, for any of the soil compaction levels. as needed for high emergence. It also was roughened with a rotary hoe between rows as needed to prevent wind erosion, but was not cultivated. Weeds were controlled with three applications of glyphosate, QuadrisÂŽ was applied to help control rhizoctonia, and the plots were sprinkler irrigated for the dura-
tion of the crop season. Along with plant stand counts made when emergence was considered complete, compaction effects were measured with a soil cone penetrometer. Maximum resistance measurements were taken with this instrument at four soil depth ranges: 0-3, 3-8, 8-13 and 13-18 inches. Beet root shapes were visually rated at harvest.
W
hat were the findings of this three-year zone-tillage shankdepth study? The accompanying tables (see next page) summarize the results in terms of
Committed to Innovation Amity Technology has a long history in the sugar beet industry. Our commitment to farming shows in the breakthrough technology we’ve developed to make farming more productive – cutting producers’ costs and increasing yields.
-ELROE (ARROW 7EEDER
ROW 7HEEL (ARVESTER
Our dedication to farming and the sugar beet industry goes back more than 70 years. E.G. Melroe, the grandfather of Amity founders Howard and Brian Dahl, was the founder of Melroe Manufacturing &RPSDQ\ LQ 2QH RI 0HOURH¡V ÀUVW manufactured implements was the harrow weeder – widely used by sugar beet farmers in the early days. The Dahl family was also involved in the transition of Farmhand to WIC, now Amity Technology. The Amity sugar beet equipment line is the leader in sugar beet harvesting equipment in North America and throughout the world. Amity Technology will always strive to bring the latest in sugar innovation to producers throughout the United States.
ROW $EFOLIATOR
www.amitytech.com TH !VENUE .ORTH s &ARGO .$ 0HONE s &AX
13
Table 1. Plant Stand for Compaction Treatments, Averaged Over Shank Depths & Three Years (2008-10) Compaction Treatment None Applied Moderate High
Plant Stand/Acre Averaged Over Shank Depths 40,500 37,900 36,500
Values that differ by less than 1,100 plants/ac are not statistically different (p = 0.05).
Table 2. Plant Stand for Shank Depth Treatments, Averaged Over Compaction Treatments, 2008-10 Shank Depth Plant Stand/Acre Averaged (Inches) Over Compaction Treatments 0 38,900 5 39,000 10 38,200 15 37,000 Differences < 1,200 pl./ac are not statistically diff.
Table 3. Sugarbeet Root Yield (Tons/Acre), Three Years Combined (2008-10) Shank Depth (Inches) 0 5 10 15
- - - Soil Compaction ‘Level’ - - None Applied Moderate High 34.5 30.2 18.5 32.3 32.8 27.5 33.8 33.7 32.1 31.4 32.7 32.1
Values within a column that differ by less than 2.5 tons/ac are not statistically different. Values within a row that differ by less than 2.6 tons/ac are not statistically different (p =0.05).
Table 4. Sugar Yield (Lbs/Acre), Three Years Combined (2008-10) Shank Depth (Inches) 0 5 10 15
14
- - - Soil Compaction ‘Level’ - - None Applied Moderate High 10,900 9,700 5,800 10,400 10,500 8,800 10,900 10,700 10,300 10,100 10,400 10,300
Values within a column that differ by less than 900 lbs/ac are not statistically different. Values within a row that differ by less than 1,000 lbs/ac are not statistically different (p =0.05).
plant stand, root yield and sugar per acre. Plant response to soil compaction and to tillage systems is notorious for having high variability. This study was no exception. But there are several clear messages from this study regarding (1) surface-applied soil compaction and sugarbeet yield, and (2) zonetillage shank depth and beet yield: • The sugarbeet plants in the highcompaction, “0” shank depth plots were very small and unhealthy until midJuly. Based on the early growth, it was very surprising that root yield ended up as high as it did. • Even moderate surface-applied soil compaction disfigured beet root shape and reduced yield. High soil compaction had an even bigger effect. • In treatments with moderate or high surface-applied compaction, beet yield was increased by using a shank depth of 5 inches, compared to no zone tillage (“0” depth). Increasing the shank depth to 10 inches further increased yield in high compaction plots. • A shank depth of 15 inches did not increase beet yield, compared to the 10inch depth, for any of the three soil compaction levels. • Zone tillage did not completely eliminate sugarbeet root yield reduction caused by intentional moderate and high surface-applied soil compaction. This might suggest running the shanks between old rows instead of in the old rows when zone tillage follows zone tillage and if soil compaction is present. • Generally, soil compaction with a soil cone penetrometer resistance of greater than about 400 psi began to reduce beet root yield. • Each field should be examined for the presence and depth of any soil compaction prior to the zone-tillage operation. In most situations, a shank depth of about 10 inches will be a good compromise of several factors. ■
THE SUGARBEET GROWER February 2011
30 Years Ago From the City Lights of Texas to Sugarbeet Farming . . . — “Bill Cleavinger, president of the Texas and New Mexico Sugar Beet Growers Association, isn’t your stereotype Texan. True, he’s a big boy, but he’s a soft, quiet spoken Texas who went into farming backwards. ‘I was born in the city — Amarillo — and came to the farm,’ Bill explains, which goes against the national trend of boys leaving the farm for the bright city lights. “The only time Bill raises his voice is when someone says an unkind word about either sugarbeets or farming within his hearing. Bill has an evangelist’s fervor when it comes to extolling the importance of the sugarbeet industry. In fact, his desire to grow sugarbeets resulted in a difference of opinion with his father, with whom he had a farming partnership, and Bill’s going it alone as a successful, progressive sugarbeet farmer. “Bill’s father had been a schoolteacher while Bill was growing up in the Texas Panhandle during the dust bowl days. . . . [After four years in the Air Force, Bill] returned to farming in partnership with his father. . . . In 1964, when Holly Sugar Corporation opened its new 6,500-tons-a-day factory in Hereford, Texas, Bill and his father came to a parting of the ways. Bill was eager to grow sugarbeets for the new plant, and his father wanted to stay with the old established crops. So Bill was given the opportunity to buy the farm from his father, who was the John Deere dealer in Canyon. “Bill started into sugarbeets with 50 acres at his farm near Wildorado, mid-point between his birthplace of Amarillo and Holly’s factory. Today, Bill has 300 acres planted to sugarbeets. . . .” Editor’s Note: Bill Cleavinger served as president of the American Sugarbeet Growers Association in 1987-89 and was president of the Texas growers group from 1978 to 1996. He passed away in 1997. The Hereford factory of Holly Sugar Corporation closed in 1998. American Crystal Vice President Proclaims U.S. Beet Sugar Industry ‘Alive and Well’ — “The U.S. beet sugar industry, despite continued economic pressures and future uncertainty, was proclaimed ‘alive and well’ by Aldrich C. Bloomquist, vice president, American Crystal Sugar Company, during the 62nd annual meeting of the American Farm Bureau Federation in New Orleans, La. “Addressing a group of AFBF delegates at the Marriott Hotel, Bloomquist said the beet sugar industry has remained remarkably efficient and viable considering the difficult financial climate of today. “Bloomquist told delegates that Congress is expected to address the issue of the Farm Program in 1981. Currently there is no legislation covering sugar. ‘I anticipate that Congress will include a section dealing with sugar in the Farm Bill,’ he said. ‘My suggestion for such a pro-
THE SUGARBEET GROWER February 2011
Excerpts from the February 1981 Issue of The Sugarbeet Grower
gram is that it should be premised on the belief that sugarbeet growers should be treated the same as growers of all other major crops.’ “Bloomquist stated that the ‘old’ Sugar Act, which utilized production and import controls to achieve stable prices and supplies for U.S. consumers, had ‘served both consumers and the industry well’ before its demise in 1974. Following that time, however, the sugar industry and consumers have witnessed wildly fluctuating prices which have precipitated the closures of 13 beet sugar processing plants since 1975.” Sugar Price Support Legislation Needed — “High sugar prices and predictions for a shortfall in world sugar production apparently will not be incentives enough for U.S. sugarbeet growers and U.S. refiners to substantially increase their output during 1981, according to several industry sources. “Representatives for growers and processors conceded that while current world prices and prospects for even higher prices are attractive and should encourage greater output, the overriding problem is that they have no guarantee these higher sugar prices will be sustained over a period of time long enough to justify the expense involved in expanding processing plants. . . . “One industry economist said when sugar prices dropped from a high in 1974 of 46.7 cents to below 20 cents in 1975, 13 plants were shut down. However, he said the recent increase in prices will not have the opposite effect of leading to plant growth.” Future Crops May Withstand Stress Better — “The ability of future crop varieties to withstand shortterm stress, such as abrupt weather changes, could be improved if a new theory on photosynthesis proves true, reports the U.S. Department of Agriculture. John W. Cary, a soil scientist with the USDA’s Science and Education Administration, Kimberly, Idaho, has isolated four factors that, individually or in combination, can limit photosynthesis. . . . “It will probably be a long while before plant geneticists can compensate for any of these four limiting factors through selective breeding. However, Cary’s work has already proven beneficial for future studies of plant growth response to stress periods. . . . “Yields of plants such as sugarbeets, wheat, barley, beans and corn are extremely sensitive to photosynthesis — the ability of plant leaves to fix or utilize carbon dioxide. . . . For example, in sugarbeets a 20 percent increase in average annual photosynthesis can boost root yields 27 percent, while a 20 percent decrease can cut yield by more than 35 percent.” ■
15
Photo: Don Lilleboe / Lantic Inc. Sugarbeet Factory, Taber
Sugar, HFCS & Ethanol in Canada — An Overview — About 10% of Nation’s Sugar Production Comes from Domestically Grown Beets; Remainder from Imported Raw Cane Sugar Refined in Canada By Peter Buzzanell* Canada’s beet sugar production has evolved from several plants to one located in Alberta. The bulk of Canadian sugar supplies come from imported raw cane sugar processed at three refineries, located in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, respectively. The resulting refined sugar is marketed to individual buyers in the retail market and mainly to large customers in the country’s beverage and food industry. Corn sweeteners are produced in eastern Canada and compete in sweetener markets with sugar. Canada is also a major producer of maple syrup and honey, with exports going mainly to the U.S. market. Canada has recently initiated an ethanol program to mix ethanol with gasoline, using corn and wheat as the major feedstocks.
in 2010 in the southwestern tip of Ontario. These beets are transported across the border into eastern Michigan, where they are processed at Michigan Sugar Company’s Croswell factory. Ontario producers also have an ownership stake in Michigan Sugar, which became a cooperative in 2002. Canada’s sugarbeet industry operates under an openmarket policy and has never had a national sugar price support program. However, in 1987 the National Tripartite Stabilization Program was established to protect sugarbeet growers from fluctuating open-market prices. It was a costshare program funded equally by the federal government, the provincial government and beet growers. In 1996, Alberta growers opted out of the program, as its benefits were seen to be too minimal to justify further participation.
Sugarbeet Production Higher
A Significant Sugar Importer
Of total sugar demand for sugar in Canada, about 10% consists of beet sugar. Canada’s sugarbeet production is concentrated in southern Alberta. In 2010, Alberta growers contracted with the Lantic Inc. (formerly Rogers Sugar) Taber plant for a total of 30,000 acres. The Taber plant has a current daily slice capacity of 7,000 tons. The 2010 harvest began in early September, with factory processing commencing in late September. According to Lantic officials, a total of 30,360 acres of sugarbeets were harvested in Alberta in 2010, yielding 573,640 (metric) tons of beets. This compares with 29,174 acres and 613,376 tons for the most recent five-year annual average (Table 1). The beet sugar produced is marketed as “Rogers Sugar” in the western areas of Canada. The price paid to growers varies considerably and depends on the world sugar market price. As in U.S. sugarbeet districts, key byproducts of the refining process for Alberta beets are dried beet pulp and beet molasses. Dried beet pulp is sold throughout western Canada as a highly nutritious feed for livestock. Beet molasses is sold as a liquid feed supplement for livestock or as an important feedstock in yeast production. In addition to Alberta, 9,500 acres of beets were planted
The bulk of sugar supplies are imported into Canada at world raw sugar prices for refining and sale. During the past five years, raw cane sugar imports have averaged 1.26 million metric tons. Leading suppliers were Brazil, Guatemala and Australia, which together accounted for three-fourths of the total (Figure 1). The three refineries in Canada that refine imported raw cane sugar are as follows: • Rogers’ Vancouver refinery services western Canada and has a daily melting capacity of 1,000 tons, along with storage capacity for 30,000 tons of raw sugar and 14,000 tons of storage for refined sugar. • The Lantic refinery, owned in part by Rogers Sugar, is located in Montreal and services eastern Canada. It has a
* Peter Buzzanell is the director of Virginia-based Peter Buzzanell, LLC. Prior to his retirement from USDA, he was head of the Sugar & Sweetener Analysis Unit at that agency’s Economic Research Service.
16
Table 1. Alberta Sugarbeet Area, Yield & Production
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
Harvested Acreage 33,616 36,791 34,065 18,161 23,235 30,360
Beet Yield Metric T/A 19.9 26.2 25.1 21.2 22.7 18.9
Production Metric Tons 668,141 963,165 853,669 385,219 526,686 573,640
Av. Sugar Content (%) 19.1 18.5 18.1 18.5 18.1 18.6
Source: Lantic Inc., Taber
THE SUGARBEET GROWER February 2011
Figure 1. Canada Raw Sugar Import Sources, Av. 2005-09
Annual Average: 1,261,445 metric tons Source: Internat’l Sugar Organization
daily melting capacity of 1,900 tons and a storage capacity of 55,000 tons of raw sugar and 10,000 tons storage for refined sugar. • The third refinery is the Redpath facility located in Toronto, which services mainly the heavy population and sugar using industries in Ontario. Redpath is the largest Canadian sugar refinery, with a rated daily melting capacity of 2,160 tons, for an annual capacity of more than 700,000 tons. This refinery has a storage ca-
pacity of 60,000 tons of raw sugar and 9,000 tons for refined sugar. In 2007, the refinery was sold by Tate & Lyle to American Sugar Refining, Inc. Logistically, Redpath has to plan for the annual closing of the port of Toronto due to ice buildup. The port is closed to shipping from December to mid-April, so the refinery needs to store raw sugar for refining during the winter season. Canada also imports a small volume of refined sugar each year. Refined imports, mainly from the U.S., averaged nearly 48,000 tons annually during the past five years (Figure 2). Due to “rules of origin,” Canada’s U.S. refined sugar tariff rate quota (TRQ) imports of 10,300 tons are supplied by the Taber facility since that sugar is Canadian grown and processed. Under the “firstcome, first served” rule for the global portion of the refined sugar TRQ — 7,090 tons — Canadian refineries can participate, as the refined sugar does not have to be Canadian origin. With respect to the in-quota amount of 64,709 tons for the TRQ on certain sugar-containing products (SCP) maintained under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, the U.S. government allocates 59,250 tons to Canada. According to staff at one of
Figure 1. Canada Refined Sugar Import Sources, Av. 2005-09
Annual Average: 47,851 metric tons Source: Internat’l Sugar Organization
the Canadian refineries, they take advantage of this SCP quota for Canada by shipping a significant volume of ice tea mix, greater than 10% sugar, annually to the U.S. market.
Sweetener Consumption, Demand Diverse Canada utilizes the full range of sweeteners: sugar, corn sweeteners and high-intensity sweeteners. In addition, maple syrup and honey are produced
INCREASE YIELD
NOT ACREAGE ility! Versatility & Dependab With Milton’s Accuracy,
The Milton n Precision Planter offers the perfect combination of accuracy, versatility and dependability, in a planter that’s also competitively priced. With interchangeable seed wheels and drive gears, the Milton n can be used to plant virtually all small seed crops, including onions and sugar beets. And the narrow design can be configured to plant 4” rows to increase your yield, not your acreage!
miltonplanters.com ers com 1-800-859-0399 – Starco MFG, Inc. THE SUGARBEET GROWER February 2011
17
that in the U.S. According to Canadian sugar industry repreExports Consumption Imports sentatives, per-capita - - - - - - 1,000 Metric Tons - - - - - sugar consumption has been steady for 37 2005 1,425 1,312 years, and the indus89 2006 1,425 1,388 try relies on popula39 2007 1,425 1,259 tion growth to 108 2008 1,420 1,365 expand its market. 24 2009 1,420 1,204 Canada’s large Asian 35 2010 1,420 1,500 immigrate population does not constitute a 95 2011* 1,425 1,395 sizeable share of the * Projected direct consumption Source: International Sugar Organization market, reflecting a non-tradition of bakand widely used and exported. Sugar ing and heavy direct sugar use. This is consumption in Canada is fairly steady in contrast to the traditions of the rapat 1.4 million metric tons (Table 2). idly growing Hispanic community in The nation has a population of about 34 the U.S. million which is largely located along Industrial users represent about the U.S. border. Ontario alone has a 84% of total sugar use and are a growpopulation estimated at 13 million, 38% ing market. The confectionery industry, of the national total. Three cities — in particular, is a large and growing inToronto, Montreal and Vancouver — dustrial user of sugar. While the dototal 11 million people, one-third of mestic market has grown, sugar for Canada’s entire population. Sugar con- products to be exported has expanded sumption patterns for the bulk of the greatly. For example, Canadian confecpopulation mirror those in the U.S. tionery exports climbed from $370 milThe retail-direct consumption marlion in 1996 to $1.35 billion in 2008. ket represents about 16% of total use, The sugar industry faces competiand its selling price is comparable to tion for industrial markets from corn sweeteners. Canadian industrial corn is widely grown; however, Ontario and Quebec are the largest producers with more than 350 million bushels harvested annually. Canada is also a significant importer of U.S. corn. Virtually all of the carbonated soft drink market is sweetened by highfructose corn syrup (HFCS), though some small soft drink plants may still be using some sugar. The largest producer of HFCS and 800.279.3200, ext. 3402 other corn sweeteners in Canada is the alerusagstock.com CASCO Company, a division of Corn Products’ International. CASCO has three corn refining facilities in Ontario Current market pricing — Cardinal, Port Colborne and London Signed written contracts Escrowed funds — that produce high-fructose and glu Assistance with transfer documents cose syrups used to sweeten a variety of products, including beverages, baked goods, canned foods, ice cream and candies. Dextrose is used for its light sweetness, texture, bulking and color in a variety of food and confectionery ap-
Table 2. Canadian Sugar Consumption & Trade
Buying or Selling Beet Stock?
The Alerus advantage:
The leader in sugarbeet stock brokerage since 1994. This information does not constitute an offer to buy nor a solicitation to sell. The products offered (1) are not FDIC insured, (2) are not deposits or other obligations of a bank or guaranteed by a bank and (3) involve investment risks, including possible loss of principal amount invested. Alerus Securities is a wholly owned subsidiary of Alerus Financial. Member FINRA & SIPC
18
Canadian per-capita sugar consumption has been steady for years, and the industry relies on population growth to expand its market.
plications. Corn oil is used in cooking and as an ingredient in margarine. While CASCO markets these products mainly in Canada, the Port Colborne plant also produces HFCS for the northeast U.S. For diet products, such as diet soft drinks, aspartame has been permitted for use as a food additive in Canada since 1981 and is the most prominent. It is also used in desserts, breakfast cereals and chewing gum. In recent years, Canada has approved the use of other high-intensity sweeteners such as acesulfame-k and sucralose, which now compete in the marketplace with aspartame. Canada is a major producer and exporter of maple syrup. Quebec is the main producing province, and its output has nearly doubled in recent years. Imports from Canada supplant the annual U.S. domestic shortfall, according to USDA. Of Canada’s total maple syrup exports, nearly one-half is shipped to the U.S. Canada is also a significant producer and user of honey. Annually, Canada is also one of the leading sources of U.S. honey imports.
New Ethanol Initiative Canada recently embarked on an ethanol program with the goal of increasing its domestic production and use. On December 15, 2010, the Canadian government’s Renewable Fuels Standard officially came into force. Officially, 5% of the gasoline Canadians pump into their vehicles is now ethanol. This renewable transportation fuel, using corn and wheat as the primary feedstocks, is designed to reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. Plans are to build and expand plants to develop capacity to approximately 1.0 billion liters per year. Biodiesel is also expected to expand with implementation of a requirement for 2% renewable content in diesel fuel. According to Environment Canada, regulating renewable fuel content in gasoline is just one of several steps the government is taking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector, which account for about a quarter of those emissions. Support for renewable fuels is seen as support for farmers, rural communities and the economy, Canada’s minister of agriculture has noted. The Canadian Renewable Fuels Association touts ethanol and biodiesel plants across Canada. Some are already in operation; others are in the planning stage. The goal is to reduce Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020. ■
THE SUGARBEET GROWER February 2011
Around The Industry Downard Joins Betaseed Station at Kimberly, Idaho Betaseed, Inc., has named Robert Downard as research agronomist and assistant station manager for the company’s Western Sugarbeet Research Center in Kimberly, Idaho. Downard is responsible for supervising all activities associated with Robert Downard seed production, including steckling production. In addition he will assist with management
of the Kimberly station. A Twin Falls resident, Downard holds an M.S. degree from Utah State University. He has more than 10 years of experience in sugarbeet seed and research activities, most recently as an agriculturist with Amalgamated Sugar Company.
28th International Sweetener Symposium Is July 29-Aug. 3 The 28th International Sweetener Symposium, hosted by the American Sugar Alliance, has been scheduled for July 29 to August 3, 2011, at the Stowe Mountain Lodge in Stowe, Vt. Preliminary event information is on ASA’s
Mr. President, Times Two Cattanach to Serve Consecutively as Prexy of BSDF & ASSBT Allan Cattanach may well be making sugarbeet history in March when he assumes the presidency of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists (ASSBT) during the group’s biennial meeting in Albuquerque, N. Mex. That’s not unique in itself, of course. But Cattanach is also the president of the Beet Sugar Development Foundation (BSDF), making him, it appears, the only individual to ever serve as president of both organizations consecutively. Tom Schwartz, executive vice president of Denver-based ASSBT and BSDF, says a similar situation “has not occurred in my tenure, which began in 1988. I do not think it occurred prior to that, either.” Cattanach, American Crystal Sugar Company’s general agronomist, brings a strong familiarity with both groups to his role as president. He has served as an American Crystal director on the BSDF board since 2003 and has been an active member of ASSBT since 1975, twice serving on its board during that period. Cattanach, who became BSDF president in 2010, has been chairman of that organization’s project review committee since its inception in 2004. A graduate of the University of Wisconsin, Cattanach went on to
THE SUGARBEET GROWER February 2011
earn an M.S. degree from North Dakota State University and a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota, both in soil science. After serving with the NDSU Extension Service as extension agent in Pembina and Renville counties, he became extension sugarbeet specialist with NDSU/UM in Allan Cattanach 1975. Cattanach joined American Crystal in 1998 as its general agronomist. “I have traveled with Allan on many occasions, both domestically and internationally,” says Schwartz, “and found him to be known throughout the sugarbeet world and recognized for his wide knowledge of sugarbeet production. I’ve enjoyed working with Allan this past year as he was president of the Beet Sugar Development Foundation, and look forward to the next two years of his presidency with the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists.” The Beet Sugar Development Foundation’s membership consists of sugarbeet processing companies from throughout North America, along
website — www.sugaralliance.org — with more program and registration details to become available this spring. Traditionally, about 400 people attend the symposium to hear about timely, significant issues affecting the sweetener industry and to interact with industry colleagues. This year’s event is sure to include a look ahead to the next farm bill, as well as discussion of the U.S. and world market supplydemand outlook and the effects of multinational, regional and bilateral trade agreements on world sugar policies and U.S. commodity programs. Stowe is located in north central Vermont, about 45 minutes from Burlington. ■ with beet seed suppliers. BSDF works closely with beet research groups within the USDA Agricultural Research Service, providing both funding and recommendations on the objectives and nature of ARS sugarbeet-related research. BSDF also sponsors the McGinnis Institute of Beet Sugar Technology, a factory-focused educational program conducted at Colorado State University, and the Beet Sugar Agricultural School, a sugar company agriculturist-focused educational program held annually at rotating institutions in sugarbeet production regions. BSDF also has been actively involved in the Sugar Industry Biotech Council in recent years. The American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists, whose Albuquerque gathering is its 35th biennial meeting, encompasses sugarbeet and beet sugar researchers from USDA, universities and industry companies. ASSBT seeks to “foster all phases of sugarbeet and beet sugar research [and] to promote the dissemination of resultant scientific knowledge.” The biennial meeting — at which researchers present numerous papers in the areas of (1) agronomy, (2) entomology and plant pathology, (3) physiology, biotechnology, genetics and germplasm and (4) chemistry/instrumentation and factory operations — is a major ASSBT priority. The group also publishes the Journal of Sugar Beet Research.
19