— Feature Articles —

Meeting Vic’s Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Idaho program tests ag staff advice

Managing Cercospora Resistance . . . . . . . . 10Issues — and recommendations — in Michigan

— Regular Pages —

Dateline: Washington . . . . . . . . . . . 8Imports, Biotech, Insurance, Farm Bill

Write Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9And Which Is Illusion?

30 Years Ago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Excerpts from our April/May 1982 issue

Around the Industry . . . . . . . . . . . 15Who, what & where it’s happening

— Front Cover —

The 2012 growing season is off to an early start in several sugarbeet regions.

Photo: Don Lilleboe

THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2012 3

Page 4

Page 10

‘Serving The Nation’s SugarbeetCommunity Since 1963’

Volume 51 Number 4April/May 2012

Sugar Publications4601 16th Ave. N.Fargo, ND 58102

Phone: (701) 476-2111Fax: (701) 476-2182

E-Mail: sugar@forumprinting.comWeb Site: www.sugarpub.com

Publisher: Sugar Publications

General Manager & Editor: Don Lilleboe

Advertising Manager: Heidi Wieland (701) 476-2003

Graphics: Forum Communications Printing

The Sugarbeet Grower is published sixtimes annually (January, February, March,April/May, July/August, November/December)by Sugar Publications, a division of ForumCommunications Printing.North American sugarbeet producers re-

ceive the magazine on a complimentary basis.Annual subscription rates are $12.00 domes-tic and $18.00 for foreign subscribers.Advertising in The Sugarbeet Grower

does not necessarily imply endorsement of aparticular product or service by the publisher.

Visit Our Website!Updated & Expanded!

www.sugarpub.com

Being a sugar company agriculturistentails wearing a lot of hats. One of

the most important is that of crop advi-sor, fielding growers’ questions and pro-viding management recommendationson everything from choosing seed vari-eties to harvest timing and procedures.

But what if the agriculturist had tofollow his own advice and put his rec-ommendations into practice on his ownfield? Would he do things differently?And, would he be able to produce a cropas good as — perhaps even better than

— that of the growers with whom heworks?

Such was the premise behind theAmalgamated Sugar Company’s estab-lishment of a program called “Beet thePro” prior to the 2010 growing season.The idea was for some of the company’scrop consultants (formerly known as“fieldmen”) to essentially raise a crop ofsugarbeets side-by-side with one of theirgrowers. The grower would manage hisbeet acres as he saw fit; the crop con-sultant would do likewise on his portion

(with the cooperating grower conductingthe actual field operations, per the con-sultant’s directions). Then, at season’send, each portion’s yield/quality andper-acre revenue would be tallied andthe results shared with other growersand company ag staff.

The program, whose name waschanged in 2011 to “Vic’s Challenge”(after Amalgamated’s president, VicJaro), is now entering its third year.From all accounts, it has been a usefulexercise that has helped both thegrower/cooperators and the participat-ing consultants to fine-tune their re-spective best-management-practicesapproach to sugarbeet production.

“One of our goals was to show grow-ers that what we’ve been recommendingdoes work,” explains John Schorr, Amal-gamated’s corporate director of agricul-ture. Some growers have a tendency toview company ag staff with a ‘You’venever grown sugarbeets yourself, so whyshould you tell me what to do’-type per-spective, Schorr notes. “So this allowsus to say, ‘Here’s a demonstration field.Our guys did it the way we’ve beentelling you to do it — and this is the re-sult.”

That endeavor can carry some inher-ent risk, of course, as there’s the loom-ing specter of “egg on face” if the cropconsultant’s approach isn’t as produc-tive. “We don’t ‘fudge’ the data,” Schorremphasizes. “If the consultant’s resultsdidn’t turn out so well, we put that upon the screen along with an explanationof what we believe occurred. But inmany cases, we’ve also been able toshow that our field staff does have theknowledge that can help our growersimprove their productivity and rev-enue.”

Bob Huffaker and Terry Cane are twoof the Amalgamated crop consult-

ants who have participated in the pro-gram. Both are based in the Nampafactory district of western Idaho/easternOregon.

Huffaker worked with two veteranproducers in 2010: brothers Al and RaySaito of the Weiser, Idaho, area. TheSaitos had been dealing with low sug-ars, and Huffaker wanted to see if hecould help turn that around. “They’vealways been very good growers — pretty

4 THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2012

MeetingVic’s Challenge

Program at Amalgamated Sugar Puts

Ag Staff Recommendations to the Test

‘One of our goals was to show growers that

what we’ve been recom-mending does work.’For more information:

989-553-5253 or Email: jakemaurer@live.com

New harvester sales

Factory reconditioned used harvesters available with warranty

Numerous header options available: 9R20”, 8R22”, 8R20”, 6R30”, 6R20”, 4R30”, 4R28” or inquire for more options

Parts and Service

Pho

to: D

on L

illeb

oe

When it comes to fungicides, one star seems to stand out.

The powerful broad-spectrum disease control of Inspire® XT fungicide stands out from all others. By combining two superior triazole fungicides, sugarbeet growers can depend on it forlong-lasting control of Cercospora leaf spot, powdery mildew and other damaging diseases. Proven across the world, it stops disease in its tracks. For power and reliability, there’s no better choice than “top of the class” Inspire XT.

©2012 Syngenta. Important: Always read and follow all bag tag and label instructions before buying or using Syngenta products. The instructions contain important conditions of sale, including limitations of warranty and remedy. All crop protection products and seed treatments may not be registered for sale or use in all states. Please check with your state or local extension service before buying or using these products. Inspire®, the Alliance frame, the Purpose icon and the Syngenta logo are trademarks of a Syngenta Group Company. Syngenta Customer Center: 1-866-SYNGENT(A) (796-4368). www.FarmAssist.com MW 10CC2006-XT 04/12

much at the top every year in terms ofyield, averaging around 41 tons,” hepoints out. The low-sugars problem stemmed

from nitrate levels. The Saitos oftenplace beets behind onions in their rota-tions. Like other growers, they base

their applied nitrogen rates on what thesoil test shows. Still, something wasamiss. The nitrates in the Saitos’ 2009furrow-irrigated beets, for instance, av-eraged a very high 611 ppm across 227acres, with a conductivity of 0.93. For 2010, fertilizer was applied to

both of the Vic’s Challenge field portions(“Saito” and “Huffaker”) based on soiltests. Huffaker suspected the nitrateproblem experienced by the Saitosmight have its roots in their irrigationwater supply source. The Saitos pre-ferred to irrigate with well water; Huf-faker decided to go with ditch water“because I thought there might be ni-trates in the well water.” Lab tests showed he was right, indi-

cating that every time the Saitos irri-gated with the well water, they wereadding about 7.0 pounds of nitrogen peracre. (The nitrates are naturally occur-ring in area wells, according to hydrolo-gists.) “That’s why the nitrates andconductivity were so out of whack,” Huf-faker notes. “And why their sugar per-centage was low.”The Saitos adjusted their 2011 fertil-

ization as a result. While they wereforced to go with well water again onthat season’s beets (due to those fields’locations), “they cut back on their ap-plied nitrogen, realizing they were get-ting that extra N from the wells,”Huffaker explains.“There’s no question the way we wa-

tered (in 2011) lowered the nitrates andraised the sugars,” says Al Saito. Thebrothers are now factoring in the extra

6 THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2012

Above: Amalgamated Sugar Company crop consultant Bob Huffaker (right) isshown with Weiser, Idaho, area sugarbeet growers Ray (left) and Al Saito.

Photo: D

on Lilleboe

Sponsored by American Sugar Alliance

August 3–8, 2012Coeur d’Alene Resort | Coeur d’Alene, Idaho

MARK YOUR CALENDAR!The 29th International Sweetener Symposium will be held August 3–8, 2012, at the spectacular Coeur d’Alene Resort in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Attendance at this year’s Symposium is a must for all industry stakeholders given the critical state of play of sugar policy with the pending renewal of the Farm Bill. Will we have a completed Farm Bill by August or will it still be a work-in-progress? Additional program topics will include the U.S. and world market supply-demand outlook, the effect of multilateral, regional and bilateral trade agreements on world sugar policies and U.S. commodity programs, the upcoming Congressional and Presidential election outlook, trends and forecasts in the food sector, and other key topics. All industry players will want to explore these issues with the Symposium’s panels of renowned industry experts and key policymakers. Listen, learn, and add your views at lively and informative sessions on these and other vital topics.

Traditionally around 400 people from all sectors of the sugar, corn sweetener and food manufacturing industry attend the Symposium to hear the most significant and timely issues affecting the industry and to network with their sweetener industry colleagues. In addition to the compelling program content, the Symposium schedule allows free time every afternoon to enhance your industry relations in this comfortable setting. Preliminary program and registration materials will be available in May.

This is one sweetener industry meeting you won’t want to miss. Preliminary program and registration materials will be available in May. Additional information also available at www.sugaralliance.org/symposium.

nitrates in any beet field that’s being ir-rigated with well water.

Terry Cane collaborated with anOwyhee County grower, located

about 100 miles southeast of the Saitos,during the 2011 season. They split a32-acre furrow-irrigated field, applyingsimilar fertility packages, based on soiltest results. While they planted differ-ent varieties, the main differences, interms of in-season crop management,fell into two categories: in-row seedspacing and irrigation. Cane’s half of the field was seeded at

a 4.0-inch spacing, while that of the co-operator went in a more-standard 4.7-inch spacing. Both acreages wereplanted on April 11 in 22-inch rows. ByMay 2, Cane’s beets had an averagestand count of 247 per acre; those of hiscooperator, 162. At-harvest plantstands (November 2) were 240 and 155,respectively.While the majority of Owyhee

County beet fields are under sprinklerirrigation these days, this field and afew other small and/or irregular-shapedones remain furrow irrigated. Often,only alternate rows are wateredthroughout the season, due to the laborrequired to switch back and forth.

On Cane’s half of the Vic’s Chal-lenge field, his goal was to alternate ir-rigations between “dry” and “wet” rowson a regular basis. “But after two irri-gations, he (the grower/cooperator)could no longer move sufficient waterdown those dry rows; they just did nothave a good furrow established,” Canerelates. “So we end up switching back.”Still, monthly soil samples showed that“even though we had only two irriga-tions down that dry row, I found bettermoisture all season long from one end ofthe field to the other, compared to wherewe didn’t do it.”

The grower’s half of the split fieldended up with a slightly higher yield:just over 43 tons per acre, compared toCane’s 42.5-ton average. However, thecrop consultant’s sugars averaged18.55%, compared to the grower’s17.33%. At-harvest nitrate levels were228 ppm (Cane) and 435 ppm (grower).Cane’s beets had an extractable recover-able sugar (ERS) of 13,741 pounds peracre, providing a gross revenue of$2,806.22. The cooperator’s ERS was12,866 pounds, with per-acre revenue of$2,612.83 — $193.39 less than Cane’s.“I think the difference (in ERS and

revenue) was due to a combination ofthree things,” the Amalgamated con-sultant observes. “First, lower nitratesdefinitely helped. Also, I think the vari-ety I used was a little better sugar vari-ety. And finally, the higher populationhelped to better utilize the nitrates.”Cane is working with the same coop-

erator again in 2012. Both used thesame seed variety this time around.(The grower has gone with a higherseeding rate on some of his otheracreage, given those fields’ conditionsand the chances of having a lower finalplant stand.) Cane does not recommendthe 4.0-inch spacing as a general prac-tice, however. “We did show we can do it

successfully; but it’s not something Iwould advocate across the board,” hesays. “Somewhere in that 4.5-5.0 spac-ing range is still preferable.”One area Cane hopes to compare

this year is irrigation intervals underfurrow irrigation. He wants to see ifwatering the dry rows allows a length-ening of irrigation intervals withoutnegatively affecting yield and quality.The benefits could be two-fold: (1) im-proved utilization of nitrates through-out the field, and (2) stretching outirrigation water in years of limited sup-ply. — Don Lilleboe �

THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2012 7

Terry Cane

BIG-BEAR

-Tiger

-Maus

8 THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2012

Dateline:Washington

By

Luther Markwart

Executive

Vice President

American

Sugarbeet

Growers Assn.

Additional ImportsOn April 10, USDA issued its most important supply

and demand estimate of the year. Once this estimate isfinalized, USDA typically uses this information to make adecision on any additional imports from our foreign sup-pliers. USDA has a window from April 1 (the earliest date,

barring an emergency) until approximately July 15 to an-nounce additional imports for the market, with the likeli-hood that they will be delivered before the end of thefiscal year ending September 30. This does not prohibitUSDA from making late import announcements and ex-tending the entry period into the following fiscal year. April estimates are that stocks will drop to a level of

6.8%, due to imports from Mexico dropping by 385,000tons from the previous month’s estimates. Speculatinghow much sugar will come from Mexico is a very difficultprocess, and numbers can fluctuate significantly frommonth to month. Prior to the April estimates, industrial sugar users

asked the secretary to import volumes in the 700,000- to900,000-ton range, which would clearly oversupply themarket and collapse prices. Most of the domestic indus-try has advised the Secretary to be cautious in any con-sideration of additional imports. We have an earlier-than-usual spring this year. If we avoid late-spring frostsand have a good growing season, we could see earlier har-vests and production for the 2012 crop that would be soldin the current fiscal year ending September 30. This administration has done an admirable job in

managing additional imports while constantly facing theuncertainty of unrestricted imports from Mexico and op-erating the policy at no cost to taxpayers.

BiotechThe United States District Court for the District of

Columbia has scheduled oral arguments on June 15,2012, on the summary judgment motions in the Grant lit-igation. The summary judgment motions that will beheard by the court include motions by the sugarbeet in-dustry and USDA that ask the court to conclude that thepartial deregulation of Roundup Ready® Sugarbeets wasproper, and a motion by the Center for Food Safety askingthe court to find that even partial deregulation with con-ditions required a full Environmental Impact Statement.It is unclear how soon after the argument the court willrule on the parties’ motions. We are also waiting to see afinal Environmental Impact Statement, which we believewill be ready this summer.

Crop InsuranceFor years we have tried to address the problematic

lack of adequate compensation for costs to replant our

crop. The system that is currently in place has two keyfactors for determining coverage: price election (whichchanges each year based on the presumed value of thecrop before it is planted) and a multiplier of the priceelection. When market prices are stronger, this formulais helpful to cover replant costs. But when market pricesdrop, so does the replant coverage when using the currentsystem. Grower leaders have asked for — and we have now

achieved — a fixed number for replant coverage. Havinga fixed number decouples it from market price swings, sowhen market prices drop and your costs don’t, you have abetter risk management tool. In April, RMA published a fixed number for replants

for the 2013 crop at $80 per acre in California (closingdate is April 30); and we expect that this will be applica-ble to all other growing areas. This number can bechanged as future costs continue to increase. The cover-age only applies to seed and fuel, which is why it does notfully reflect your actual cost of replanting the crop.

2012 Farm BillA clear path for completing a farm bill in 2012 re-

mains shrouded in a cloud of uncertainty. The SenateAgriculture Committee is committed to reporting out abill in April for consideration on the Senate floor as earlyas May. There is no assurance as to when it will come upfor debate, but the Senate will need to act promptly inorder to force the House to move on a farm bill. Typically,the House forces members to take tough votes on bills,only to have the bills die in the Senate — which createspolitical risk for House members. So, in an election year,the House will wait for the Senate to act before taking abill to the House floor. There also are two fundamental problems that have to

be dealt with. First, the Senate is writing a farm bill with cuts of

$23 billion over 10 years from the commodity-related pro-visions. Under the House budget (which is not law be-cause the Senate will not agree to it), the House versionis supposed to cut about $33 billion out of the commodityprovisions of the farm bill. So the two bodies would haveto somehow reconcile a $10 billion difference betweentheir bills, which is no simple task. Second, time is slipping away. When the House re-

turns on May 7, there will be only 51 legislative days be-fore the election, which is not a lot of time to pass a bill asmajor as the farm bill. Four anti-sugar policy bills (twoin the House and two in the Senate) remain active, butwith relatively few co-sponsors — most of whom are theusual fervent opponents. The industry is well-preparedto oppose such proposals when they are brought to thefloor as amendments to the farm bill. �

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsackkicked off the commemoration of the

department's 150th anniversary atUSDA’s recent 2012 Agricultural Out-look Forum titled “Moving AgricultureForward.” To commemorate USDA’srich history as well as its potential, Sec-retary Vilsack moderated a panel dis-cussion with former secretaries ofagriculture Ed Schafer, Mike Johanns,Ann Veneman, Dan Glickman, MikeEspy, Clayton Yeutter, John Block andBob Bergland.“Nine secretaries of agriculture, rep-

resenting 35 years of service, in oneplace at the same time was an incredi-ble opportunity to learn about USDA'scontributions to the strength and healthof this nation with an eye for the impactthe department can have in the future,”Vilsack remarked. “As we reflect on the

department’s 150 years, this historicgathering will help us guide how wetransform USDA into a more modernand efficient service provider.”At the forum, USDA introduced a

short film titled “Secretaries of Agricul-ture – 30 Leaders, 150 Years.” Availableat http://www.usda.gov/USDA150, thisfilm looks at the history of USDA fromthe viewpoints of its nine most recentsecretaries. Each secretary shared re-flections on his or her time at USDAand presented ideas and challenges tothe future of American agriculture. Thefilm explores the history and role ofUSDA in American life, and why it con-tinues to be known by the name given itby its founder, President Abraham Lin-coln: “The Peoples Department.”The secretaries of agriculture fea-

tured in the film include:

• Tom Vilsack, 2009-Present• Ed Schafer, 2008-2009• Mike Johanns, 2005-2008• Ann M. Veneman, 2001-2005• Dan Glickman, 1995-2001• Mike Espy, 1993-1994• Clayton Yeutter, 1989-1991• John Block, 1981-1986• Robert Bergland, 1977-1981

President Lincoln established USDAbecause he recognized the potential

of America’s farmers and ranchers toprovide a safe, ample food supply for thenation and the world. Throughout 2012,USDA will recognize important events,such as President Lincoln’s signing ofan act to establish the Department ofAgriculture on May, 15, 1862, and theJuly 1862 signing of the Morrill Act thatestablished public land grant universi-ties. Employees in many USDA field of-fices across the country also will findways to celebrate this landmark an-niversary. Visit http://www.usda.gov/USDA150

to sign up for daily email alerts and funfacts about USDA’s history. Visitorsalso can view photos from the USDAgallery and the National Archives andRecords Administration that representUSDA’s 150 years of service. �

USDA Now Celebrating theDepartment’s 150th BirthdayAbraham Lincoln Signed Establishment Act in May 1862

THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2012 (Upper Midwest) 1v

USDA’s March 30-released plantingintentions report for the 2012 sugar-beet crop came in at just over 1.24 mil-lion acres. That’s slightly above the2011 level of 1.23 million.On a percentage basis, the biggest

projected rise is in Colorado, whereUSDA is projecting 32,100 acres thisyear, compared to 29,400 in 2011 — a9% hike. At a projected 183,000 plantedacres, Idaho comes in at 4% above that

state’s 2011 level of 176,000.Nebraska is expected to plant 4%

fewer beet acres: 50,000, compared to52,200 last season. Wyoming also isforecast to be down slightly.At 480,000 projected acres, Min-

nesota again leads the way, followed byNorth Dakota at 230,000. Michigan isfourth, behind Idaho, at 154,000.The next USDA planted acreage re-

port will be released in late June. �

2v THE SUGARBEET GROWER (Upper Midwest) April/May 2012

Acreage Up Slightly: USDA

CaliforniaColoradoIdahoMichiganMinnesotaMontanaNebraskaNorth DakotaOregonWyomingUnited States

2010

25,60028,900171,000147,000449,00042,60050,000217,00010,30030,500

1,171,900

2011

25,10029,400176,000153,000479,00045,00052,200231,00010,90031,200

1,232,800

2012*

25,00032,100183,000154,000480,00045,50050,000230,00011,00030,700

1,241,300

Planted U.S. Sugarbeet Acreage: 2010, 2011 & 2012*

* ProjectedMarch 2012

Source:USDA-NASS

— Advertisers —We offer you comprehensive coverage among growers in

every North American sugarbeet production area!

Upcoming Issues:

July/AugustNovember/December

For Details, Contact:

Heidi Wieland(701) 476-2003

hwieland@forumprinting.com

H & S Sugar Beet Cart20, 24, 30 & 35 Ton

“Head and Shoulders above the rest.”1-800-ROW-CROP

1-800-769-2767 • www.hsrowcrop.com

• Quality Built for Over 15 Years• Increase Your Payment with Less Tare• Reduce Truck Turn-Around Time

Call for pricing todayFall delivery still available

Thanks to the no-cost sugar policypassed by Congress in 2008, the

widespread closures of sugar facilitiesthat once plagued sugar farmers andsugar workers have largely subsided,the American Sugar Alliance (ASA) re-ported to the U.S. Senate AgricultureCommittee on March 15 in written tes-timony.“U.S. sugar policy has been a re-

sounding success during the 2008Farm Bill and deserves to be ex-tended,” ASA wrote. “It has achievedits goals of providing reliable suppliesof high-quality sugar at reasonableprices, and a critical safety net for pro-ducers. It has done so without govern-ment expenditure. Furthermore, ifextended, USDA predicts zero expendi-tures through 2022.”All told, the U.S. sugar industry

“has shed 139,000 jobs in the past 19years” because of two decades of low,stagnant prices and rising input costs.But there have been fewer facility clo-sures under the current farm bill thanany of its predecessors, ASA noted.In addition to U.S. sugar producers,

who rank among the world’s most effi-cient, the current no-cost policy isworking well for others, ASA found.Consumers continue to benefit. “Amer-

ican retail prices for sugar have beenremarkably stable over the past threedecades,” ASA wrote. And according toglobal surveys, “consumer prices in therest of the developed world have aver-aged 10 to 30% higher than here.”

Confectioners — who are one of thefew opponents of sugar policy — haveincreased U.S. production by 2.5%since the 2008 farm bill became law, ac-cording to U.S. Census data, the ASAtestimony pointed out. �

THE SUGARBEET GROWER (Upper Midwest) April/May 2012 3v

Sugar Alliance Testifies to Farm Bill Success

Call: 218-280-3793 or Email: kielinnovation@yahoo.com

TTHHEE KKIIEELL RROOWWFFIINNDDEERR Automatically

Controls Steering, Depth, and NOW SIDE-LEVELING!

KKiieell IInnnnoovvaattiioonn CCoorrppoorraattiioonn

Participants in the 2012 Interna-tional Sugarbeet Institute were part

of an especially noteworthy event: the50th anniversary of ISBI. Held at theAlerus Center in Grand Forks, N.D., onMarch 14 and 15, this year’s show fea-tured about 125 commercial exhibitorsand drew more than 2,300 visitors dur-ing its two-day run. Speakers at the 50th ISBI were

Owen Wagner, senior economist-NorthAmerica, for LMC International, andLeon Osborne, president of MeridianEnvironmental Technology, GrandForks. Wagner addressed the outlookfor NAFTA sugar markets, while Os-

borne focused on the weather patternsof the past winter and what’s antici-pated for the 2012 growing season.Roots of the International Sugar-

beet Institute, North America’s largesttrade show dedicated solely to the pro-duction of this crop, date back to 1963.In that year, a growers seminar washeld at the Red River Valley WinterShows building in Crookston, Minn.The show soon became a full-scaletrade show and educational seminar,held annually since 1969. It gained its“International” monicker in 1986 fromthe inclusion of Manitoba committeemembers and grower/visitors in the era

when the Canadian province had a sug-arbeet industry. Though that ended in1995, the ISBI still draws visitors fromCanada and occasionally other coun-tries, so the “International” tag hasbeen retained.In its early years, the first day of the

trade show was on a Tuesday in WestFargo, N.D. Wednesday was a “travelday” during which exhibitors movedtheir equipment and wares to Crook-ston, where they set up once again forthe show’s second day on Thursday.That arrangement — conducted for theconvenience of growers at both ends ofthe lengthy Red River Valley — didn’tlast too long. The ISBI was thenhoused exclusively at the Red RiverValley Winter Shows, Crookston. The Crookston connection continued

until 1998, when the ISBI took place forthe first time at the new Fargodome inFargo, N.D. Since 2002, the show hasalternated between the Fargodome andthe even-newer Alerus Center in GrandForks.The ISBI is organized and hosted by

a 21-person committee comprised ofrepresentatives from North DakotaState University, the University of Min-nesota, American Crystal Sugar Com-pany, Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative,Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop-erative and the Red River Valley Sugar-beet Growers Association. Also on thecommittee are representatives from thefloor and booth commercial exhibitorscommunity. The committee’s chairmanis Mohamed Khan, extension sugarbeetspecialist with NDSU/UM. Don Lille-boe, editor of The Sugarbeet Grower, iscommittee secretary, and Kelly Brant-ner, a beet grower from Felton, Minn.,currently serves as ISBI treasurer.The 2013 International Sugarbeet

Institute will be held at the Fargodomeon March 14 and 15. �

4v THE SUGARBEET GROWER (Upper Midwest) April/May 2012

ISBI Marks ‘50th’ Milestone

Above: ISBI Chairman Mohamed Khan(left) presents an appreciation plaqueto Russ Severson, who served on theISBI committee while with the Universityof Minnesota Extension Service.

Those of you about my age may re-member the title of this piece as the

last line from the poem that comes atthe end of the Moody Blues song,“Nights In White Satin.” For severalvaried reasons, that line has repeatedlycome back to my head this winter.In February my wife and I took the

grandkids to Disney World. At Disneythey go to great lengths to make thingslook real. All cast members must re-main in costume at all times and neverbe seen out of character. Yet with alltheir focus on the appearance of reality,we have come to expect complete fan-

tasy. So much so that when anyonewants to describe a person or idea ascompletely without basis in fact, theyare described as being from Disneyland.Illusion has become reality.In March I attended a training class

in San Antonio. Having dinner outsidealong the River Walk, I realized I wassitting next to what had started as astream in the area but was now a con-crete ditch with well-tended plants thatwere kept up at great expense sotourists could eat “genuine” Mexicanfood while watching “nature.” Andwhich is illusion?At the River Walk, seated at a

nearby table, four young girls sat with-out speaking for the whole time it tookto get their food, as they feverishlytyped on their phones — presumably,communicating with their friends. Andwhich is illusion?At the American Sugarbeet Growers

Association meeting this winter, therewas much discussion about the “FarmBill” — a bill before Congress in which80% of the money spent never sees afarmer. At what point will it be rela-beled “The Food Stamp Bill?” Am I wrong in thinking, if this were

a canned food product, the USDA wouldnot allow it to be so misleadingly la-beled? Then again, expecting anythingfrom Washington in an election yearthat isn’t a well-crafted illusion shows Imay have spent too much time in Dis-ney World. “And just what the truth is I can’t

say anymore” seems to be the appropri-ate verse from the song.I hope you have a great summer. �

David Kragnes farms near Felton, Minn.He is a former chairman of AmericanCrystal Sugar Company and currentlyserves on the board of directors ofCoBank.

And Which Is Illusion?

THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2012 9

U.S. Sugar Industry DirectoryThe new 2011/12 U.S. Sugar Industry

Directory is by far the most comprehensive“who’s who” of U.S. sugar, providing listingsfor several hundred companies, organiza-tions and agencies involved in the produc-tion, processing and marketing of U.S. beetand cane sugar and co-products. The 148-page full-color 8-1/2” x 11” book includes:• Address, phone, fax, email, website &

names of key personnel for all of the sugar-related entities, along with types of prod-ucts/services provided.

• Personnel & basic production informa-tion for each of the nation’s sugarbeet facto-ries, sugarcane mills & cane sugar refineries.• Mexican & Canadian sugar sections.• Listings of local, state, regional, na-

tional & international sugar organizations.Also, listings of USDA & university sugarbeet& sugarcane researchers.• Commentary & statistics (current and

historic) on the U.S. sugar industry — plusa color map depicting U.S. beet & canegrowing areas.

Individual Copy Price: $49.50Price includes postage & handling on U.S. & Canadian orders. Add $10.00 for airmail postageto other countries; U.S. funds. Visa & Mastercard accepted. Quantity discounts available.

Lilleboe Communications Ltd.P.O. Box 2684Fargo, ND 58108

Phone: 701-238-2393Email: lillcomm@yahoo.com

Now Available!

The 2011/12

�������������������������

�����������������

����� �������������������

�������

�������� ������������������

�����������

Expecting anything from

Washington in an election year

that isn’t a well-crafted illusion

shows I may have spent too

WriteField

By David Kragnes

Cercospora leafspot is among the most serious diseases ofsugarbeets in Michigan, capable of inflicting significant

tonnage and sucrose losses as well as increased impurities.Yield losses of two tons per acre and one-fourth point ofsugar are common in our growing region, with some fieldshaving lost upwards of several tons and a couple points ofsugar.Cercospora has been more difficult for some Michigan

growers to control during the past two seasons — and it ap-pears resistance issues with a couple strobilurin fungicideslie behind the problem. Typically, the region’s growers useQuadris® (a strobilurin) for Rhizoctonia control; then applyProline®, Eminent®, Enable® or Inspire® (all triazoles) as thefirst leafspot spray. Headline® or Gem® (strobilurins) are gen-erally the second leafspot spray, and that’s where it appearswe are losing some control of Cercospora.A sentinel plot was conducted near Elkton, Mich., in 2011

to evaluate the efficacy of fungicides for leafspot control. Re-sults from that trial (graph at upper right) showed thatHeadline and Gem did not provide adequate leafspot controllast year, compared to prior years. (Values are based on theCercospora rating scale of 0-9 and are expressed as a percentof the untreated.) Eminent, Inspire, Proline and Super Tindid provide good Cercospora control.Leaves from the 2011 sentinel plot were gathered and

sent to Michigan State University and to North Dakota StateUniversity to analyze for Cercospora resistance. Resultsfrom both universities indicated that Cercospora spores fromthe sentinel plots were resistant to Headline and Gem.Michigan Sugar Company agriculturists also sampled

leaves from around the sugarbeet growing area, and a highpercentage of those leaves tested positive for resistance toHeadline and Gem. Analysis from both universities (illus-tration of NDSU results depicted at right) showed thatmore than 90% of the samples had an effective concentra-tion (EC50) greater than 1.0 ppm, which indicates insensi-tivity (resistance).“Why did resistance happen?” That question has been

asked multiple times — and it’s a difficult one to answer,since many variables could contribute to the resistance issue.Possible reasons include:• Increased use of susceptible varieties.• Failing to rotate fungicide modes of action.• Stretching spray intervals.• Spraying other crops (e.g., corn, soybeans, dry beans, wheat) with Headline and Gem (strobilurin) and not rotating the mode of action.• Late first leafspot application.• Poor spraying techniques. (Con’t. on Page 12)

10 THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2012

ManagingCercosporaResistance

An Outline of the Issue — And Recommendations —

In Michigan Sugarbeets

By Greg Clark* Photo: D

on Lilleboe

* Greg Clark is agronomist with Michigan Sugar Com-pany. This article is based on a recent publication ofMSC and Michigan Sugarbeet REACH.

Cercospora Fungicide Efficacy / Michigan

Cercospora Leafspot Resistance Management in Sugarbeets

Description of the Problem

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

% o

f u

ntr

eate

d Inspire

Eminent

Super Tin

Headline

Gem

Untreated

Graph 1: Cercospora Fungicide Efficacy

Sentinel Plot

Fig. 2: Strobilurins Resistance

NDSU, 2011

Legend

Insensitivity(Resistance)

Sensitivity(No Resistance)

Legend

Insensitivity(Resistance)

Sensitivity(No Resistance)

Legend

Insensitivity(Resistance)

Sensitivity(No Resistance)

Fig 1: Red Counties Indicate Strobilurins

Resistance - MSU, 2011

Cercospora leafspot, caused by the fungus Cercospora beticola, is one of the most serious diseases of sugarbeets in Michigan. This disease can cause reduced tonnage and sucrose and increased impurities. Yield losses of 2 tons per acre and 1/4 point of sugar are common in our growing region. Fields that burndown will lose more than 5 tons per acre and up to 2 points of sugar. Cercospora leafspot has been more difficult for some growers to control the past two seasons. Typically growers use Quadris (a strobilurin) for Rhizoctonia control then apply Proline, Eminent, Enable, or Inspire (triazoles) as the first leafspot spray. Headline or Gem (strobilurins) are generally the second leafspot spray and it appears that we are losing control of Cercospora at that time. A sentinel plot was conducted near Elkton, MI in 2011 to evaluate the efficacy of fungicides for leafspot control. Results from this trial show that Headline and Gem (strobilurins) did not provide adequate leafspot control in 2011(Graph 1). This graph shows leafspot control for fungicides over time. Values are based on the Cercospora rating scale of 0-9 and are expressed as a percent of the untreated. At the sentinel plot in 2011, Eminent, Inspire, Proline and Super Tin provide good Cercospora control, while Headline and Gem failed to control leafspot. Leaves from the sentinel plot were gathered and sent to Michigan State University and to North Dakota State University to analyze for Cercospora resistance. Results from both universities indicated that Cercospora spores from the sentinel plot are resistant to Headline and Gem. Michigan Sugar Company agriculturists also sampled leaves from around the sugarbeet growing area and a high percentage of those leaves tested positive for resistance to Headline and Gem. Analysis from both universities (Fig. 1 & 2) showed that over 90% of the samples had an effective concentration (EC50) greater than 1 ppm, which indicates insensitivity (resistance). The same question has been asked multiple times, “why did resistance happen?” This is a difficult question to answer, since many variables could lead to this resistance issue. Here

Cercospora Leafspot Resistance Management in Sugarbeets

Description of the Problem

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

% o

f u

ntr

eate

d Inspire

Eminent

Super Tin

Headline

Gem

Untreated

Graph 1: Cercospora Fungicide Efficacy

Sentinel Plot

Fig. 2: Strobilurins Resistance

NDSU, 2011

Legend

Insensitivity(Resistance)

Sensitivity(No Resistance)

Legend

Insensitivity(Resistance)

Sensitivity(No Resistance)

Legend

Insensitivity(Resistance)

Sensitivity(No Resistance)

Fig 1: Red Counties Indicate Strobilurins

Resistance - MSU, 2011

Cercospora leafspot, caused by the fungus Cercospora beticola, is one of the most serious diseases of sugarbeets in Michigan. This disease can cause reduced tonnage and sucrose and increased impurities. Yield losses of 2 tons per acre and 1/4 point of sugar are common in our growing region. Fields that burndown will lose more than 5 tons per acre and up to 2 points of sugar. Cercospora leafspot has been more difficult for some growers to control the past two seasons. Typically growers use Quadris (a strobilurin) for Rhizoctonia control then apply Proline, Eminent, Enable, or Inspire (triazoles) as the first leafspot spray. Headline or Gem (strobilurins) are generally the second leafspot spray and it appears that we are losing control of Cercospora at that time. A sentinel plot was conducted near Elkton, MI in 2011 to evaluate the efficacy of fungicides for leafspot control. Results from this trial show that Headline and Gem (strobilurins) did not provide adequate leafspot control in 2011(Graph 1). This graph shows leafspot control for fungicides over time. Values are based on the Cercospora rating scale of 0-9 and are expressed as a percent of the untreated. At the sentinel plot in 2011, Eminent, Inspire, Proline and Super Tin provide good Cercospora control, while Headline and Gem failed to control leafspot. Leaves from the sentinel plot were gathered and sent to Michigan State University and to North Dakota State University to analyze for Cercospora resistance. Results from both universities indicated that Cercospora spores from the sentinel plot are resistant to Headline and Gem. Michigan Sugar Company agriculturists also sampled leaves from around the sugarbeet growing area and a high percentage of those leaves tested positive for resistance to Headline and Gem. Analysis from both universities (Fig. 1 & 2) showed that over 90% of the samples had an effective concentration (EC50) greater than 1 ppm, which indicates insensitivity (resistance). The same question has been asked multiple times, “why did resistance happen?” This is a difficult question to answer, since many variables could lead to this resistance issue. Here

Mich. Samples Cercospora Analysis, 2011 (NDSU)

CITATION

SUGARBEETCITATION

SUGARBEET

CITATIONHIGH QUALITY FOOD GRADE ADJUVANT

CITATIONHIGH QUALITY FOOD GRADE ADJUVANT

1st APPLICATION

2nd APPLICATION

1st APPLICATION

2nd APPLICATION

WITH IT’S NANO-SIZED COLLOIDSA POWERFUL FOLIAR CONCENTRATION IS AATION IS CIT CITA

Y ENHANCING TLTLY ENHANCING ACE GREAACE GREATLSURFSURFACE GREA

INSECT AND AS WELL AS PLANT THY HEALHEALTHY A . PLANTPLANT.

(FOOD-CONDUCTING TISSUE) TPHLOEM THE ASCULAR THE VTHE VASCULAR CLEANSE

THE TION HAS AATION HAS CIT CITA,WITH IT’S NANO-SIZED COLLOIDSTE A POWERFUL FOLIAR CONCENTRAA POWERFUL FOLIAR CONCENTRATE

. EXPERTT. EXPERTHE END RESULTHE END RESULTY ENHANCING

PRESSURE.DISEASE INSECT AND WITHSTO TABILITY THE HAS PLANT

FREELO (FOOD-CONDUCTING TISSUE) TALLOWING ,PLANTPLANT,OF THE STEM SYSYSTEM ASCULAR

ADDED NUTRIENTS INTO DRIVE TABILITY THE THE PLANTS IMMUNE SYTURNS UP Y T SIMPLT SIMPLY THATHAT SIMPLTE

T CITTHATHAT CITTHEORIZE TS . EXPER. EXPERTS

FROM DROUGHTSHOCK MORE AND WITHSTWITHSTAND NUTRITION AND WT Y TRANSPORFREELFREELY TRANSPOR

TER-CONDUCTING AATER-CONDUCTING (W(WAXYLEM THE ALLOWING

THE LEAF O ADDED NUTRIENTS INTSTEM. THE PLANTS IMMUNE SY

TABILITY THE TION HAS AATION HAS T CITT CITA

HAIL AND FROST ,FROM DROUGHTFROM DROUGHT,TER THROUGHOUT THE AATER THROUGHOUT THE NUTRITION AND WNUTRITION AND WA

AND TISSUE) TER-CONDUCTING

THE LEAF STEM.

O T

HAIL TER THROUGHOUT THE

AND

CARBO-TECH

CARBO-TECHDIRECT ALL US TODCCALL US TOD

Y OR VIST OUR WEBSITE FOR MORE INFORMAAALL US TODALL US TODA

TION! Y OR VIST OUR WEBSITE FOR MORE INFORMA

• Not tank mixing with other modes of action.• Earlier planting dates.• Not controlling leafspot to the end of the season.There are two general types of fungicide resistance:

“quantitative” and “qualitative.” With quantitative resist-ance, resistant fungus strains develop slowly; and initially,an increased dosage or shorter spray intervals will compen-sate for the decreased fungicide efficacy. Triazoles (e.g., In-spire, Eminent, Proline, Enable) can develop resistance inthis way. Full-blown resistance with triazoles develops overa long period of time.With qualitative resistance, the resistant fungus strains

develop very rapidly, and an increased dose or shorter sprayintervals will not compensate for the decreased efficacy.When a fungicide develops qualitative resistance, the effectof spraying that fungicide is akin to spraying with water.Strobilurins (e.g., Headline, Gem) develop resistance in thismanner.When different fungicides have the same mode of action,

the fungus does not distinguish between the fungicides. Thisis called “cross-resistance.” For example, if a fungus is resist-ant to Headline, it also will be resistant to Gem since theyhave the same mode of action.

Management for Cercospora Leafspot Resistance

Cultural Practices — Since the Cercospora fungus over-winters on infected beet leaves and on some weed species,crop rotation is an important strategy in resistance manage-ment. A three- to four-year rotation is recommended for re-ducing carryover of the fungus. Since spores can be blown several hundred feet, it’s im-

portant to check with surrounding growers to learn whetherthey had poor performance with a given fungicide the previ-ous year. Under the “right” conditions, spores will germinatefrom last year’s sugarbeet fields and infect this year’s adja-cent beet fields.The spores break down more rapidly if buried, but they

can survive 10 months or longer if buried eight inches or less.Burying sugarbeet litter via tillage helps reduce inoculumsurvival and dispersal. Fall tillage is most effective for re-ducing Cercospora populations, but it likewise may increasesoil erosion.

Varieties — Referring to the Michigan sugarbeet regionspecifically, there are large differences in varietal susceptibil-ity to Cercospora leafspot. The disease develops slowly ontolerant varieties, and normal control measures will effec-tively control Cercospora. However, leafspot is difficult to

control with highly susceptible varieties, so an aggressivespray program then is required to protect the crop.

Fungicides — There currently are two general types ofregistered fungicides: protectants and systemics.

Protectant Fungicides — Protectant fungicides such asSuper Tin, the EBDCs (e.g., Dithane, Manzate, Penncozeb)and copper products kill fungi on the leaf surface and do notpenetrate the leaves. These fungicides generally providebroad-spectrum disease control and have several modes ofaction, so that they do not develop resistance easily. Protec-tant-type fungicides do not provide long residual control andare susceptible to being washed off the leaves by rain. Theyshould be tank-mixed with fungicides with higher risk for re-sistance development. Used in this manner, they will helpslow resistance development.

Systemic Fungicides — Systemics (e.g., Headline, Gem,Enable, Proline, Eminent) are absorbed by sugarbeet leavesand are rain-fast when dry. Systemic fungicides are activeagainst Cercospora for a longer period of time, compared toprotectants. They are highly susceptible to the developmentof resistance, however, and should always be tank-mixed witha protectant fungicide. The main value of protectants, for oursugarbeet situation, is for resistance management as tank-mix and rotation partners with the triazoles and strobilurins.All of the fungicides used in sugarbeets should be applied

preventively, as they do not “cure” an established Cercosporainfection.Unlike protectant fungicides, penetrant fungicides are

rain-fast within a few hours of application and may requireless-thorough application coverage to be effective. Both typesof fungicides provide good disease control when applied priorto infection and are best applied on a preventive schedule.

The following list of Cercospora resistance managementrecommendations was developed for Michigan growers in2012. The first two points are obviously already in the “his-tory book” as of this writing, but are still important to keepin mind for next year and beyond:• Plant susceptible varieties only if you are willing to fol-

low an aggressive spray recommendation.• Use of more-tolerant varieties is especially important

when planting next to a field that had Cercospora problemsthe previous year.• Tank mix triazoles, strobilurins and Topsin fungicides

with an EBDC, Super Tin or copper product.• Never spray with the same modes of action back to

back.• Use Headline and Gem (strobilurins) and Topsin only

once per season.• Use the highest labeled rates of all fungicides, even in

tank mixes.• Apply fungicides in a manner that ensures maximum

coverage, as enhanced coverage results in improved Cer-cospora leafspot control.• Use 20-25 gallons of water with 90 psi or greater, as

higher pressure and gallonage produce the best control. (Aminimum of 20 gallons and 80 psi would be acceptable.)• Use surfactants and additives as required by product

labels.• Do not delay your first leafspot application. Follow the

BEETcast model; or, if scouting, don’t apply later than thefirst leafspot appearance in your area.• When using Headline or Gem in other crops, always

tank mix with a fungicide that has a different mode of action— or use available combination products.• Longer crop rotation plays a key role in reducing the

threat from Cercospora leafspot. �

12 THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2012

Michigan Spray Schedule Recommendations, 2012

If Headline or Gem Performed Well in 2011

• Triazole tank mix with anEBDC or Copper

• Super Tin tank mix withTopsin or EBDC or Copper

• Headline or Gem tankmix with an EBDC

• Triazole tank mix with anEBDC or Copper

• Super Tin tank mix withan EBDC or Copper

If Headline or Gem Failed in 2011

• Triazole tank mix with anEBDC or Copper

• Super Tin tank mix withan EBDC or Copper

• Topsin tank mix with anEBDC

• Triazole tank mix with anEBDC or Copper

• Super Tin tank mix withan EBDC or Copper

o360 Apache Tour

Build Your Own Apache

VideoPlayer

Schedulea Demo

ApacheFeatures

CustomerTestimonials

ETsprayers.com Tools & Resources

I am a Businessman.

ETsprayers.com 866.362.2472

I am an Apache owner.

Becoming an Apache owner is the easiest business decision you will make this year. As a producer, we know you are faced with extreme volatility in virtually every aspect of your operation. The Apache is a rare constant you can depend on. The legendary Apache mechanical drive continues to be the driving force of its dependability and profitability. Apache owners do not worry about costly repairs and complicated routine maintenance; they know how low cost-of-ownership and high resale value leads to maximum R.O.I.

All it takes is one demo and you will see why the Apache has earned its place as the most dependable and profitable machine our producers have ever owned. But, you do not have to take our word for it… Visit ETsprayers.com to learn more from growers across North America.

“““We didn’t look anywhere else because we had our (Apache) 790 for nine seasons and had so few breakdowns. It was just very impressive. I was surprised with the resale value on it; it was almost as much as we paid for it new. It’s a win - win for me. It’s going to cost me less to buy and it’s going to cost me less to own. Those are the two things you want: The lowest cost and the best return on your investment. I know it’s giving me both.”

Chris KimererBritton, Michigan

Ruggedly Simple, Dependable and Profitable

30 Years Ago Excerpts from theApril/May 1982 Issue of

The Sugarbeet Grower

Markwart Assume[s] ASGA Executive Vice Pres.Position — “Luther A. Markwart assumed the position ofExecutive Vice President of the American SugarbeetGrowers Association as of April 1, 1982. Markwart’s re-sponsibilities will be to represent the common interest ofsugarbeet growers from 13 states to Congress, the Admin-istration and also internationally. He will also workclosely with other farm organizations on a national basisto promote and protect the interests of agriculture.“Markwart leaves his position as Executive Vice Presi-

dent of the Farmers and Manufacturers Beet Sugar Asso-ciation based in Saginaw, Michigan, to accept the nationalposition in Washington, D.C. He replaces Richard W.Blake, who has retired after 33 years of service to thesugar industry.“As a 1977 Michigan State University graduate in

business administration, Markwart has a background insales, public relations and photography. He is also an in-structor of public speaking and human relations for theDale Carnegie Courses in Saginaw.”

Beet Tops: A Good Source ofNitrogen — “Have you ever won-dered what those beet tops youleave in the field might do for thenext crop? An experiment at Davis(California) [has] given an answerconcerning the contribution of thetops to the nitrogen fertilization of afollowing wheat crop.“A beet crop (US H11) was planted

April 22, 1980, received 140 pounds fer-tilizer nitrogen (N) per acre, and washarvested October 9. The harvest wasby hand with the tops being cut off justbelow the oldest living leaf. The crop pro-duced 42 tons of roots (12.7% sucrose) and16 tons of tops per acre. Tops were re-moved from some plots; but in others theywere rototilled into the top 4 inches of soilon November 10. On November 11 the area was fertilizedfor Anza wheat, which was planted on November 12. Themature wheat was harvested June 22, 1981. . . .“Where tops were incorporated, they furnished the

equivalent of 40 pounds of fertilizer N for wheat produc-tion; an additional 80 pounds of fertilizer N were neededto maximize economic return. When tops were not incor-porated and were removed from the field, 120 pounds offertilizer N were necessary for maximum economic yield.”

Nor-Am Introduces New Herbicide, Betamix® —“Nor-Am Agricultural Products, Inc., is introducing Be-tamix®, a new broad-spectrum sugarbeet herbicide, accord-ing to H. Broughton Smith, Product Manager, Herbicides,for the company.“Betamix, a selective post-emergence herbicide, con-

trols a wide range of weeds such as wild mustard, lamb-squarters, redroot pigweed and kochia that infest

sugarbeet plants. The product is a ready-to-use 50:50 mixof Nor-Am’s Betanal® (phenmedipham) and Betanex®(desmedipham), the two largest selling sugarbeet herbi-cides throughout the world, including Russia . . . .“ ‘Betamix was developed as a convenience for growers,’

explained Smith. ‘Approximately 50 percent to 60 percentof the sugarbeet growers were mixing [Betanal and Be-tanex] to control a large number of weeds more effectively.Between the two, these products control 18 different typesof weeds. The application of Betamix achieves the sameresults, with the added advantage of a premixed herbi-cide.’ ”

News in the Sugar Industry — “Sugar, once king ofHawaii’s economy and the catalyst that resulted in themultiracial mix on these tropical isles, is in serious trou-ble, industry and union officials say.“The industry is looking to state and federal govern-

ments for help in surviving the erraticswings in sugar prices of recent years,which saw the industry earn $200 millionin 1980 and then lose $83 million in 1981.A similar loss is expected this year by theindustry, which is now the state’s thirdlargest behind tourism and defense.“ ‘The sugar industry in this state is

presently in a precarious financial posi-tion,’ says Robert H. Hughes, presidentof the 100-year-old Hawaii SugarPlanters Association. ‘As a conse-quence, the state is facing a significantchange in its economy both now andin the future.’“The sugar industry employs

30,000 people, pays 10 percent of thestate’s revenues and provides thetourist industry with scenic ex-

panses of lush cane fields, Hughes re-cently told the state Senate Committee on Agriculture.“For 40 years, from 1934 to 1974, prices for American

sugar were stabilized under the U.S. Sugar Act, whichused import fees to protect domestic producers from low-cost competition by foreign producers. Congress allowedthe Sugar Act to die in 1974, and the price for raw sugar inthe American market has been on a pogo stick ever since.“The immediate impact was a surge in the price to 65

cents a pound in 1974. It then plunged to 9 cents in 1976,rebounded to 44 cents in 1980 and now is back down toabout 16 cents. The Hawaiian companies say it costs them19.2 cents a pound to produce sugar.”

Great Western Announces Cease of Operationsfor 3 Beet Plants — “The Great Western Sugar Companyhas announced that beet processing plants at Ovid, Col-orado; Bayard, Nebraska, and Fremont, Ohio, will not op-erate in 1982. The company also announced that acreagein Colorado, Kansas, Wyoming and Nebraska will be cut by37%.” �

14 THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2012

29th International SweetenerSymposium Set for Aug. 3-8

The 29th International SweetenerSymposium, hosted by the AmericanSugar Alliance (ASA), is scheduled forAugust 3-8 at the Coeur d’Alene Golf &Spa Resort in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

Traditionally, about 400 people at-tend the International Sweetener Sym-posium to hear about timely issues ofsignificance affecting the sweetener in-dustry, and to interact with industrycolleagues.

“Attendance at this year’s sympo-sium is a must for all industry stake-holders, given the critical state of playof sugar policy with the pending re-newal of the farm bill,” according toASA. “Will we have a completed farmbill by August, or will it still be a work-in-progress?”

Other 2012 symposium programtopics will include U.S. and world mar-ket supply-demand outlooks, and the ef-fect of multilateral, regional andbilateral trade agreements on worldsugar policies and U.S. commodity pro-grams.

The acclaimed Coeur d’Alene Resortis located in scenic northern Idaho,about 30 miles east of Spokane, Wash.,and 100 miles south of the Canadianborder. The world-class resort isperched on the shores of spectacularLake Coeur d’Alene, flanked by thefoothills of the Bitterroot Mountains.

For more details on the 2012 Inter-national Sweetener Symposium, visitASA’s website: www.sugaralliance.org.

Sugarbeet Scholarship ProgramAgain Sponsored by Syngenta

Continuing its investment in the fu-ture of agriculture, Syngenta is accept-ing applications for the SyngentaSugarbeet Scholarship programthrough June 15, 2012.

“The Sugarbeet Scholarship is oneof many ways Syngenta demonstratesits commitment to and passion for sug-arbeet growers and the sugarbeet in-dustry,” explains Tyler Ring, Syngenta’scrop portfolio head for sugarbeets.“Through investments in research anddevelopment and partnerships withleaders throughout the sugarbeet in-dustry, Syngenta consistently demon-

strates an investment that directly im-pacts the industry, its leaders and nowits future leaders.”

The four $1,500 scholarship awardsare available to students who meetthese requirements: 1) Current highschool senior interested in agricultureor college freshman, sophomore or jun-ior intending to major in an agricul-ture-related field, as of fall of 2012; 2) involvement in 4-H, FFA and/or thesugarbeet industry; and 3) reside or at-tend school in one of the following re-gions: Region 1 — Idaho/Washington/Oregon; Region 2 — North Dakota/Minnesota; Region 3 — Wyoming/Col-orado/Nebraska/Montana; Region 4:Michigan.

Applicants will need to complete theapplication form at: www.SyngentaSug-arbeetScholarship.com. They will beasked to describe their involvement in4-H, FFA and/or the sugarbeet industry,and submit an essay in 700 words orless that answers the following ques-tion: The sugarbeet industry has a richhistory and has made significant ad-vancements through the years. What doyou think has had the biggest impact onproduction or the industry in general,and why? Also, what would you do toimprove sugarbeet production, or the in-dustry, for the future?

Applications must be submitted byJune 15, 2012. Syngenta will be ad-dressing questions on Facebook andTwitter. Applications can be submittedonline or sent to: Emily Reynolds,Gibbs & Soell, 125 S. Wacker Drive, Ste.2600, Chicago, IL 60606; phone (312)648-6700; fax (312) 422-0660; emailereynolds@gibbs-soell.com.

Scholarship winners will be an-

nounced in August. Previous sugarbeetscholarship winners are not eligible forfuture scholarship awards. For addi-tional information and instructions toapply online, visit www.SyngentaSugar-beetScholarship.com.

New U.S. Sugar Industry Directory Now Available

The newest biennial U.S. Sugar In-dustry Directory is now available. The148-page 2011/12 edition is the mostcomprehensive “who’s who” for the na-tion’s sugar industry, encompassingproduction, processing, marketing andresearch entities. It also include basicinformation and factory listings for theCanadian and Mexican sugar sectors.

Along with sections on sugarbeetfactories, sugarcane mills and canesugar refineries, the U.S. Sugar Indus-try Directory carries listings of sweet-ener organizations, university andUSDA beet and cane researchers, aswell as sugar-related federal agencies.Industry production and use statisticsare included, as is a map showing thelocation of U.S. sugarbeet and sugar-cane growing areas. Another sectionlists hundreds of companies providingproducts and services to the U.S. sugarindustry.

The 2011/12 U.S. Sugar Industry Di-rectory is available for $49.50 per copy(postage and handling included). For-eign orders should add $10.00 for air-mail postage. Volume discounts also areavailable.

To order, or for more details, contactLilleboe Communications Ltd., P.O. Box2684, Fargo, ND 58108; phone (701)238-2393; email: lillcomm@yahoo.com.�

Around The Industry

THE SUGARBEET GROWER April/May 2012 15

Amity Technology sugar beet harvesters have the uncompromised design and engineering you expect from Amity Technology.

Amity Technology’s newest harvester, the 12-row Wheel Harvester, is the preferred choice around the world with features like:

root in dry conditions and less mud in wet conditions

Plus, Active Depth Control from Amity Technology continuously

hitch and rear cylinders to match digging depth across the machine.

from going into the harvester!

www.amitytech.com

Harvested with

Harvested without