The Sugarbeet Grower Magazine July/August 2011

Hilleshög is a business unit of Syngenta Seeds, Inc. HILLESHÖG®, the ALLIANCE FRAME™, the HILLESHÖG logo, the PURPOSE ICON™ and the Syngenta logo are trademarks of a Syngenta Group Company. ©2011 Syngenta Seeds, Inc. Longmont, CO 80501. All rights reserved.

Healthy harvest stands are instrumental in achieving high-yield goals. Stand loss due to disease pressure such as Rhizoctonia Root and Crown Rot can have a devastatingeffect on sugarbeet yield, quality and storability. Syngenta’s Hilleshög® brand is your leader in Rhizoctonia tolerance – and your �rst choice in controlling the potentially destructive effects of Rhizoctonia. Allow your crop to reach its full potential. Call your Sales Rep today or visit www.hilleshog-us.com to learn more.

— Feature Articles —Early Harvest: What to Dig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Company ag officials discuss prepile field selection

Believers in Strip Till . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8The Breidenbachs of Colorado

‘European Presence’ in Michigan Harvest . . . . . . . 12Roggenbucks use German-made harvesters, cart & cleaner/loader

Energy Beets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14North Dakotans pushing biofuel industry development

California Group Also Explores Beets as Biofuel . . 16Mendota project could bring sugarbeets back to Central Valley

Energy Beet Agronomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Yield trials & variety development moving ahead

— Regular Pages —

Dateline: Washington . . . . . . . . . . 10Budget battles & the next farm bill

Write Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Humility on the Golf Course . . .

Around the Industry . . . . . . . . . . . 19Who, what & where it’s happening

— Front Cover —

A 2010 harvest scene on the Aaron Wetterlin farm in western Minnesota’s

Clay County.

Photo: Don Lilleboe

THE SUGARBEET GROWER July/August 2011 3

Page 8

Page 14

‘Serving The Nation’s SugarbeetCommunity Since 1963’

Volume 50 Number 5July/August 2011

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

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

E-Mail: [email protected] 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 Growerdoes not necessarily imply endorsement of aparticular product or service by the publisher.

Visit Our Website!Now Updated & Expanded!

www.sugarpub.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sugarpub.com

http://www.sugarpub.com

Most — but not all — sugarbeetprocessors conduct an early har-

vest (prepile) campaign to get their fac-tories up and rolling prior to theinitiation of the main harvest season.

Once the factory begins operating,of course, it must be supplied with aconstant flow of beets until the mainharvest starts a few weeks later, gener-ating the “mother lode” that will keepthings humming for months. The per-centage of the total crop that’s actuallydelivered during prepile varies fromdistrict to district and year to year, buta general range would be 10 to 20. Itcan go even higher (as it did in Michi-gan last year, where it was over 25%).

The primary consideration for bothgrower and processor when it comes toearly harvest beet delivery is neithermysterious nor surprising: maximizingrevenue, minimizing problems — bothshort- and long-term. Sometimes thedecisions regarding which acres to de-liver during prepile are fairly straight-forward; at other times, the selectioncall is decidedly less clear-cut. Withthat in mind, The Sugarbeet Grower re-cently surveyed ag officials at several

sugar companies for their thoughts re-garding the prioritization of fields forearly harvest delivery.

Which Fields First?

Tom Knudsen, vice president ofagriculture for Minn-Dak Farmers Co-operative, says his company uses asimple rule of thumb: “Harvest theworst first.” It’s a mantra shared bymost companies. “Whether the ‘worst’is caused by disease, late planting,hail, weeds or other factors, you willmaximize sugar production by keepingyour good fields untouched for as longas possible,” Knudsen observes. “Wealways prefer to get as many diseasedfields harvested as soon as possible.”In the end, though, it remains thegrower’s choice, he adds.

Paul Pfenninger, vice president-agriculture for Michigan Sugar Com-pany sees the matter similarly. “Wereally look at disease in plant develop-ment,” he says. “If Rhizoctonia or Cer-cospora leafspot got away on them forany reason, they’re not going to get abetter yield” than what’s already there.

“If there’s any one reason why a growerdelivers early, from our standpoint, itwould be disease and/or poor qualitybeets that will not store well.”

Other ingredients enter into themix too, of course. Fields testinghigher in nitrogen usually are not rec-ommended for early harvest due totheir lower sugar percentage. “Highnitrogen levels or above-average miner-alization in August could reduce thesugar content and would make it unfa-vorable to consider that field for deliv-ery during prepile season,” points outNick Arends, American Crystal SugarCompany’s ag strategy developmentmanager. That’s one reason why Amer-ican Crystal encourages growers totake prepile delivery sequence into ac-count even prior to planting their beetsin the spring. “We would typically rec-ommend 20-30 units less nitrogen on afield that is planned on being har-vested early in the prepile season tomaximize recoverable sugar per ton,”Arends explains.

Then there’s the other end of theseason — i.e., planning for the post-beet crop. “Growers also must takeinto account what preparations need tobe considered for the crop going intothat field next season,” says StaceyCamp, agricultural manager for Amal-gamated Sugar Company’s Mini-Cassiafactory district. “They may need to fallwork the ground for the next crop.”

Getting a cover crop well estab-lished on harvested beet ground priorto freeze-up also can weigh into theequation. “Some of our growers — par-ticularly in western Nebraska andnortheastern Colorado — are on highlyerodible soils,” notes Kent Wimmer, di-rector of shareholder relations forWestern Sugar Cooperative. “Theywant to get a cover crop in yet that fall,so that’s another criterion coming intoplay.”

Whole Fields or Headlands?

Some growers opt to harvest entirefields in order to fulfill their early har-vest delivery obligations; others in-stead remove headlands and“strikeout” field centers on most or alltheir fields. Again, it’s a matter ofgrower preference, not something thesugar company dictates.

“In our area, growers much preferto harvest headlands and strikeoutsduring prepile and leave the rest of thefield for full campaign,” reports Todd Geselius, vice president-agriculture forSouthern Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop-erative. “This is largely driven by theconcern for getting their other crops

Early Harvest:What to Dig

Sugar Company Ag Officials Discuss FactorsIn Prepile Field Selection Decisions

Photo: Don Lilleboe

4 THE SUGARBEET GROWER July/August 2011

2004-10 trial results at the Northwest Research & Outreach Center, University of Minnesota-Crookston — across all genetic sources — showed an advantage of 2.6 tons and $116 per acre with XBEET.

Independently proven to statistically increase

SPEED OF EMERGENCE YIELD PLANT POPULATION

Seven years of Univers i ty data

conf i rm the value of

www.germains.com

For more information on how you can benefit from this

contact our National Sales Manager, Kevin Bigger, at 218 - 233 - 4827

XBEET MinnDak OVT Norcross, MN

CHECK

SLICK PRODUCTS ALSO AVAILABLE THROUGH HORVICK, INC. CATALOG

2

harvested in a timely manner after thebeet harvest is completed. Since har-vesting the headlands and strikeouts isrelatively more time consuming, theytry to get that done when they havemore time available.”

Kent Wimmer says there’s a mix-ture of both approaches in the largefour-state region encompassed by Den-ver-based Western Sugar. “We mightget into an area where we have to man-date early harvest, and some peoplemight not want to. A lot of them willthen take out headland rows or other-wise open a field.” Western growerscan ‘shift’ early harvest tonnage obliga-tions over to willing neighbors, withoutpenalty. But if no one else agrees to‘cover’ by delivering more tons, thatgrower is then obliged to do so.

In Michigan, where many fields arein the 40-acre range, compared to sig-nificantly larger fields in states furtherwest, “guys who want to get a lot doneat a given time will open up the fields,taking out the headlands and ditchbanks. So when they pull in during‘peak’ harvest, it’s ready to roll,” PaulPfenninger says. “The downside ofthat is, if it gets wet and stays wet,where there’s still beets, they tend tosoak up some moisture and help dryout the ground a bit. But once you

open up that headland and the watersits in those cavities where the beetswere, it can be come an issue.”

Most American Crystal growers useprepile to open up all their fields, har-vesting headlands and creating strike-outs, says Nick Arends. Some growers— especially in the larger acreage cate-gory — do harvest whole fields duringthe prepile campaign, however. “Theyhave figured out that if they managetheir fields correctly and identify high-quality fields, they can utilize theprepile system to their advantage byharvesting entire fields,” Arends ex-plains.

The Compensation Angle

Though each has different features,every sugar company has some type ofsystem in place to compensate growersfor the tonnage and/or sugar contentthey typically sacrifice by harvesting afield in August or early September ver-sus during the main harvest later inthe fall. Therein lies both opportunityand risk, depending upon how astutelya grower manages his early harvestschedule.

“With our system, growers are com-peting against the Red River Valleydaily average recoverable sugar/tonthroughout the entire prepile period —a number that is not known whengrowers start delivering prepile beets,”Arends explains. “Growers can stillmaximize revenue by picking the bestquality fields for their farm; but if agrower knows he will be below averagequality for that day, [he] can transfer[his] prepile quota to another growerwho is willing to deliver additionalprepile beets.”

The American Crystal prepile pay-ment system is designed to compensateshareholders for unrealized gains intonnage and sugar. Growth and sugarpremiums are based on “growth perday.“ Tonnage growth is a fixed per-centage each day, while sugar growthis calculated on a regression from thebeginning of prepile to its end, with anadditional factor for stockpile sugar atthe 50% complete point. The mostcommon error, Arends says, is that “too

many growers continue the ‘status quo’approach,” routinely delivering fromheadlands and strikeouts rather thansampling fields prior to prepile andthen making a more-educated decisionon which fields to prepile in order tomaximize revenue for their farm.

Michigan Sugar currently has atonnage premium for early harvestbeets, with plans underway to institutea quality factor as well (though per-haps not in time for the 2011 harvest).The present MSC policy gives growers97.25% of their station average sugarcontent, regardless of what their ownbeets’ content is. That naturally tendsto suppress the incentive to incur late-season inputs, such as a final fungicideapplication for Cercospora leafspot.

Western Sugar pays a per-day ton-nage premium on beets delivered dur-ing the early harvest campaign. “It’son an escalating scale: the earlier youharvest, the bigger the premium” ex-plains Kent Wimmer. Also, “duringregular harvest we use an assessmentof sugar loss to molasses. During earlyharvest, that sugar loss to molasses as-sessment is waived.”

Summing Up

No matter how well a producer hasplanned for the early harvest phase ofthe growing season, there always willbe some unknowns, some uncertainty.

Weather, of course, heads the list.“Weather is the biggest factor that canchange the order of fields to be har-vested,” affirms Amalgamated’s StaceyCamp. “Also, every grower has othercrops to deal with” that influencewhere and how one allocates labor andequipment at a given time.

Knowing one’s fields “intimately”helps avoid potential problems duringprepile — as well as during the rest ofthe harvest season, emphasizes Minn-Dak’s Tom Knudsen. “I consider[prepile] a great time for growers toshed and harvest their poorer-produc-ing fields or portions of fields,” he says,“leaving the healthiest to last.” Thatapproach maximizes sugar productionwhile keeping poor-quality beets fromgoing into long-term storage, he pointsout.

“It seems that every grower has alittle different philosophy about theprepile process and what is best fortheir operation,” summarizes SouthernMinnesota’s Todd Geselius. “Havingsaid that, growers understand what isimportant to the cooperative — andthey do an outstanding job of makingdecisions that provide the most benefitfor everyone.” — Don Lilleboe �


‘Prepile is a great time for growersto shed and harvest their poorer-producing fields or portions of

fields, leaving the healthiest to last.That maximizes sugar productionwhile keeping poor-quality beetsfrom going into long-term storage.’

Page 7

ACH Seeds Ad 4/c

Repeat February page 5

CRYSTAL SUGARBEET SEED distributed by: ACH Seeds Inc. 1.877.224.7333 Crystal Beet Seed 1.218.236.4788

The Breidenbach sugarbeet legacy innortheastern Colorado goes back a

long way — all the way, in fact, to 1905when Frank Breidenbach began grow-ing the crop for the new beet factory atSterling.

So much has changed since then, ofcourse. But the Breidenbach farmingenterprise — now comprised of one of

Frank’s grandsons, two great-grand-sons and two great-great-grandsons —has continued producing sugarbeetsand evolving with the times. Today,the family operation includes Stephen,his sons Dave and Jack, along withDave’s sons, Don and Luke. Together,they farm 5,000 acres of Logan Countyground, including 1,100 acres of sugar-

beets, another 2,500 of corn and 1,400in alfalfa. Ninety percent of theiracreage is under center-pivot irriga-tion systems that utilize ditch andreservoir water.

The Breidenbachs also run 400Angus mother cows, wintering themon corn stalks from November throughMarch.

One of the biggest changes in re-cent years has been the Breidenbachs’transition to strip-till production oftheir row crops. They began strip till-ing in 2008, and by the following yearhad converted 100% of their sugarbeetand corn acreage over to the system.

They’re hardly alone. As of 2009,about 30% of Colorado sugarbeet acreswere under strip till; by 2011, the levelwas around 35%. In neighboring Ne-braska, half of Western Sugar Cooper-ative shareholders’ acreage was instrip till as of two years ago; now it’scloser to 60%.

The region-wide trend has beenlargely driven by (1) less tillage andhence better conservation of soil mois-ture, (2) early spring wind erosion pro-tection provided by the inter-row cropresidue, (3) significant fuel savingsand reduced equipment wear due tofewer passes through the field, and (4)the ability to apply fertilizer with thestrip-till pass. It also has gone hand-in-hand with the ability to plantRoundup Ready® sugarbeets.

“I tell people that strip till,Roundup Ready and Trimble® (GPS)are, together, as big a change in farm-ing as going from a horse to a tractor,”Jack affirms. “It’s a total system.”

Annual precipitation in the areaaverages around 14-15 inches, “so con-serving moisture in the spring ishuge,” Jack continues. “I think thatwe’ve probably ‘saved’ two inches ofmoisture by moving away from con-ventional till — and, the texture of oursoil is so much better.” That in turncontributes to improved water infiltra-tion, not only during the irrigationcycle, but when Mother Nature turnson the spigot. “We tend to get hardrains,” Jack says. “With conventionaltill, that water just runs off; but withthis tillage system, it doesn’t.”

The reduced damage from winderosion has been a huge benefit, headds. “We get some vicious springwinds, and we’ve [previously] lost up

Believers in Strip TillThe Breidenbachs of N.E. Colorado

Photos: D

on Lilleboe


Breidenbach Brothers partners include,left to right: Luke, Dave, Jack and Steve.Steve is the father of Dave and Jack;Luke is Dave’s son. Dave’s other son,Don, also is a partner in the longtimefamily farm, based near Iliff, Colo.

to a third of the beets,” Jack recounts.Replants have averaged less than 5%the past three years, however, whileplant stands, as well as final yields,have steadily increased. The Brieden-bachs averaged 29 tons and 17% sugarlast year.

The Breidenbachs follow both cornand alfalfa with strip-tilled beets.They use a 12-row Orthman unitpulled by a JD 8530, tilling to a depthof 8-10 inches. Liquid fertilizer goesdown with the Orthman, while starteris added with the planter.

Because they graze cattle on muchof their ground and likewise are verybusy in the fall with row-crop harvest-ing, the strip-till pass is performed inthe spring — typically late Februaryor early March, as weather allows. Oncorn ground, they’ll typically till at anangle to the old corn rows. Plantingusually gets underway in early April.

When farming conventionally, theBreidenbachs were performing up toeight or nine field operations prior toplanting the sugarbeets — plowing,mulching twice, two land plane passes,and double bedding. “If it wasn’t dryenough, we’d go till it again to makesure it (the soil moisture) was allgone!” Jack quips, tongue in cheek.Now their entire program is comprisedof the single strip-till pass, followed bythe planter.

The Breidenbachs estimate thatthe combination of growing RoundupReady beets under a strip-till systemhas bolstered their yields by aroundthree tons per acre on average. “Wecouldn’t have done it (strip tilling)without the Roundup Ready,” Dave ob-serves. “Because we couldn’t get [ade-

quate] control from the previous herbi-cides, we’d still have had to cultivate.

“The [strip-tilled] seedbed is so

much better than it was under conven-tional,” he adds. “We have overall bet-ter soil health, including moreearthworms. And we have much lesssoil erosion from wind due to havingthat old-crop residue on top.

“It’s just a lot easier to get a goodstand. I wouldn’t go back.” — DonLilleboe �


For the past quarter century, the Breidenbachs haveused a custom-built push-tractor system to keep trucksmoving in sloping fields and wet conditions during har-vest. “It’s safer and easier than hooking up chains,”Jack notes. “You can just hook up, push them through awet spot, and release.” The disks on the back of thepush tractor fill in the center-pivot unit’s deep wheeltracks prior to passage by the beet lifter and trucks.

‘It’s just a lot easier to get a good stand. I wouldn’t go back.’

BIG-BEAR

-Tiger

-Maus

During June and July, Washingtonwas consumed by the theatrical

negotiations among our governmentleaders in their efforts to avert de-faulting on the nation’s debts on Au-gust 2. The size and timing of thespending cuts and a pitched battleover tax increases as part of the pack-age have created major political chal-lenges in achieving a solution. Mostmembers of Congress, however, havea clear determination that a solutionmust be achieved, because the ramifi-cations of inaction will negatively im-pact our nation and every citizen in asignificant way.

On various occasions, the agricul-ture community has sent letters tothe President and congressionalleaders to express concern that agri-culture not be asked to bear morethan its fair share of federal spend-ing cuts. In addition, it is very im-portant that whatever the level ofreductions required as the result ofthe negotiations, the policy changesshould be left up to the committeesof jurisdiction (i.e., the agriculturecommittees) in Congress. Thesecommittees understand the intrica-cies and the priorities of policies thatimpact agriculture.

One of the key questions in thedebt debate is, “Do you do a ‘big deal’with major changes, or string thisprocess out over time with multiplesmaller deals?”

The real answer is to do the bigdeal once. Make the painful deci-sions and lay out the new parame-ters, and then let the policymakersconform to meet the new spendingconstraints. If uncertainty lingersmonth after month with future polit-

ical standoffs and tough politicalvotes, committees are paralyzed intheir efforts to craft policies thatmust be sustained for years to come. How would you write a farm bill ifyou were never really certain of thedollars available to fund a five-yearbill? Once the ag committees get aspending number, the real policy de-bate over the next farm bill willbegin. Stay tuned.

In mid-July, your grower leaderswalked miles upon miles of hall-ways on Capitol Hill, talking withhundreds of lawmakers and staff.The message was simple and clear:“We have a no-cost sugar policy, andit is working for growers, processors,bankers, consumers and taxpayers.”

It was a message that was wellreceived. You would be extremelyproud of the job they did as ambas-sadors on your behalf. They lefttheir farms during very busy timesto do critically important work, and Iask that you express your deepestappreciation to them for their timeand effort to make these visits.

A special “thank you” also goesout to ASGA Vice President RuthannGeib for a massive undertaking toprepare and coordinate this effort.One of the coveted handouts during

the visits was the ASGA sugarbeetink pen (with a floating beet) thatwas designed by ASGA’s BrianneBlevins. Our outstanding summerintern, Heather Carlquist, was re-sponsible for assembling all of thecall materials. We have a greatteam behind our growers.

Roundup Ready EnvironmentalImpact Statement

It is our sincere hope that a draftof the extensive Roundup Ready®Environmental Impact Statementwill be available for public reviewsometime this fall. The draft willhave a time period during which thepublic can submit comments in sup-port of or opposition to the EIS.

Just as we did last winter, nu-merous comments of support fromour industry will play an importantpart in USDA’s consideration anddetermination on the future statusof the technology. May 2012 re-mains the expectation as to when afinal deregulation decision will bemade by USDA.

2012 ASGA Annual Meeting

Save the date for the 2012 ASGAAnnual Meeting: February 9-11 atthe Walt Disney World Swan andDolphin hotel in Orlando, Fla.

Reservations must be madethrough the ASGA website to receivethe group room rate of $239, whichwill be offered until December 19. Online meeting registration will beavailable beginning November 1.Visit the ASGA website for details —www.americansugarbeet.org. �

Dateline:Washington

By

Luther Markwart

Executive

Vice President

American

Sugarbeet

Growers Assn.


The message was simpleand clear: ‘We have a no-cost sugar policy, and it is working for growers,processors, bankers,

consumers and taxpayers.’

USDA’s June 30-released plantedacreage estimate for the nation’s 2011sugarbeet crop came in at nearly 1.24million acres. That’s almost 6% abovethe 2010 level of 1.17 million acres. Italso was higher than the March 2011initial projection of 1.19 million.

On a percentage basis, the biggestrise is in North Dakota, where USDA isestimating 240,000 planted acres thisyear, compared to 217,000 in 2010 — a

10.6% hike. At a projected 475,000planted acres, Minnesota comes in 5.8%above that state’s 2010 level of 449,000.

At 176,000, Idaho’s planted acreageis 3% higher than in 2010. At 152,000,the Michigan acreage level is 3.4%above last year.

Though California planted area isestimated to be down by only 100 acresthis year, that level would be the lowestbeet acreage on record for the state. �

Planted Acres Up Almost 6% Over ’10

CaliforniaColoradoIdahoMichiganMinnesotaMontanaNebraskaNorth DakotaOregonWyomingUnited States

2009

25,30035,100164,000138,000464,00038,40053,000225,00010,60032,400

1,185,800

2010

25,10028,900171,000147,000449,00042,60050,000217,00010,30030,500

1,171,400

2011*

25,00029,300176,000152,000475,00044,80053,000240,00010,90031,500

1,237,500

Planted U.S. Sugarbeet Acreage: 2009, 2010 & 2011*

* Estimated

June 2011

Source:

USDA-NASS

THE SUGARBEET GROWER (Upper Midwest) July/August 2011 1v

— Advertisers —We offer you comprehensive

coverage among growers in every North American

sugarbeet production area!

For Details, Contact:Heidi Wieland

(701) [email protected]

Upcoming Issues:November/December

JanuaryFebruaryMarch

Simplot Grower Solutions

• Start-to-Finish, Simplot does the work• Complete Software Collection / Fully Integrated• In-House Data Management and Archives• Fast Turnaround• Commitment to Education and New Technology

A Complete Precision Ag PackageIncluding Sound Agronomic Recommendations

Services Include:• Topography Mapping• Veris Mapping• Nitrogen Management with Satellite Imagery• Satellite Imagery Archive• Drainage Assistance• GPS Directed Soil Sampling

Call or visit the Simplot Grower Solutions Location nearest you today!

North Dakota MinnesotaCavalier - (701) 265-4524 Grafton - (701) 352-0861 East Grand Forks - (218) 773-2421Joliette - (701) 454-6304 Walhalla - (701) 549-2744 Shelly - (218) 886-6325Minto - (701) 248-3212 Crystal - (701) 657-2332 Hendrum - (218) 861-6222

Moorhead - (218) 233-7271Stephen - (218) 478-3312

}

mailto:[email protected]

AUniversity of Florida research project has demonstratedthe effectiveness of a partially burned organic matter

called “biochar” to remove phosphate from water. The labo-ratory study used sugarbeet tailings.

The researchers started by collecting solid residues leftafter beet tailings were fermented in an anaerobic digester,which yields methane gas. The material was baked at about1,000 degrees Fahrenheit to make biochar.

The biochar was added to a water-phosphate solution andmixed for 24 hours. It removed about three-fourths of thephosphate — much better results than those obtained withother compounds, including commercial water-treatment ma-terials. The phosphate-laden biochar can be applied directlyto soils as a slow-release fertilizer.

This project was reported on in Bioresource Technology.The UF research team plans to investigate whether

biochar could remove nitrogen from wastewater. The teamalso has been testing the potential for biochar to purify waterof heavy metals, including lead and copper.

A key challenge is to make this biomass technology morecost-effective. One of the UF researchers helped design,build and operate an anaerobic digester at the Moorhead fac-tory of American Crystal Sugar Company. The digester,which used beet tailings similar to those in the UF study,worked well. However, the economics were not favorable, andresearch halted once the project’s grant funding ended. �

Beet Tailings Help RemovePhosphate from WaterFlorida Researchers Develop Effective Method

2v THE SUGARBEET GROWER (Upper Midwest) April/May 2011

We Are the Manufacturer of the

��Providing Parts, Sales & Service

Dealer InquiriesWelcome

CW Crookston Welding & Machine, Inc.

��

��

��

The OriginalRowfinder onThe Market To Control

BOTHSteering & Depth

�� 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.

��

��

Talk About Challenging!Every veteran sugarbeet grower has memories of at least

a few harvest seasons where Mother Nature’s water spigotseemingly never shuts off.

One of the toughest northern Red River Valley harvestsin memory has to have been that of 1959. The narrativebelow tells the story of that year’s extraordinarily challeng-ing harvest season in southern Manitoba. It is excerptedfrom Sugar Farmers of Manitoba, a book published by theManitoba Beet Growers Association in 1968.

Sugarbeets were grown and processed in Manitoba from1940 until 1995, when the Rogers Sugar factory at FortGarry (Winnipeg) closed its doors.

Hopefully history will not repeat itself — at least interms of these kinds of conditions — anytime soon.

Cold autumn rains began to fall late in September withthe harvest barely a week underway. Up to seven and a

half inches came down at one time, soaking to the skin themen on the harvesting machines. The temperature wasbarely above freezing.

The rain continued unceasingly, making the fields amorass of mud and beets, into October when the tempera-ture fell below freezing and the rain turned to snow. Soon,the temperature fell well below zero, and by Nov. 1 theground was frozen solid with 50 per cent — 135,000 tons —of the beet crop still in it.

“With the persistence that only farmers with their backsto the wall could display, we started harvest in earnestwhen the ground was frozen,” said Lee Tully.

“The harvesters started to roll day and night; beets werepiled in the fields until the ground was sufficiently frozen tocarry trucks. Many men worked around the clock until ex-haustion forced them to get some sleep. The mercurydropped to zero and then to 10 below. Still the harvesterswent until the middle of December when the factory, run-ning out of beets, was forced to shut down, stopping har-vesting operations.

Twenty per cent of the acreage was harvested afterfreeze-up, leaving about one-third unharvested.

The tonnage was cut to 192,000 from the estimated270,000. The sugar content fell to 13.8 per cent from 17.2per cent the year before. The heavier soil areas to the eastwere hardest hit. . . .

At the peak of the harvest, the farmers were working inone to two feet of snow. It was a problem just to find therow of beets. The ground got so hard that the steel slicingknives and digging wheels would break off the harvesters,forcing a halt until they were repaired. At night, whichcame about 5 p.m., a light would be attached to the har-vester and operations would proceed by the glare of onebare bulb. . . .

Not all was misery. Some farmers were fortunateenough to begin harvest immediately on Sept. 14; they werenearly finished by the time the rains came in the last weekof September. . . .

Many growers would probably have been willing to har-vest until New Year’s to get their crop in, had the factorynot closed down. . . . With numbed fingers and frozen faces,white like snowmen from the falling snow, they carried on.Their attitude was not one of defeat or despair, althoughthere was lots of groaning and moaning, but a hope that1960 would be an improvement. �

THE SUGARBEET GROWER (Upper Midwest) July/August 2011 3v

In 2005 the European Union (EU) over-hauled its sugar policy, sharply cut-

ting back domestic production andincreasing reliance on imports. Now, sixyears later, the consequences of being sodependent on foreign sugar suppliers intoday’s highly volatile world sugar mar-ket are starting to surface.

Reuters reported in June, “SomeGerman retailers are limiting theamount of sugar that customers can buyto 4 kilogrammes per purchase due to ashortage.”

Rationing sugar should bring back alot of bad memories for America. Wewere in the same boat during World WarII and were forced to ration sugar in1942 because foreign supplies dried up.

In fact, the U.S. sugar policy we havetoday — different than the EU’s policybecause it operates at no cost to taxpay-ers and without subsidy checks — wasconstructed by Congress to ensure anadequate supply of homegrown sugar.

Despite the lessons of America’s pastand the EU’s present, some in Congressare again looking to make us dependenton foreign supplies. Four bills havebeen introduced to do just that, albeitwith little fanfare.

People with impressive credentialsare cautioning U.S. lawmakers of falling

into a potentially devastating trap.Retired Army General Wesley Clark,

a former presidential candidate andSupreme Allied Commander of NATO,wrote in a February article about foodrationing: “The harsh reality is Amer-ica’s political leaders must take appro-priate measures today to ensure thatfarmers do not become an endangeredspecies tomorrow — a loss we cannot af-ford.

“I am no farm policy expert, but Iknow about national security, and Iknow that farmers are as importanttoday as they were in 1942,” Clark con-cluded. “As a new Congress debatesAmerica’s future . . . , they should thinkof the 210,000 farms that produce 80%of the country’s agricultural output as athin green line standing between pros-perity and disaster.”

Patrick Chatenay, a London-basedagricultural consultant who has workedclosely with EU sugar producers, agrees.

“The dismantling of EU sugar policyheld unexpected consequences, one ofwhich was to dramatically increase sup-ply uncertainty and price fluctuations,”he said. “Sugar is a vital ingredient inthe food supply and in key biochemicalprocesses, and to hand over control of itssupply to foreign nations isn’t wise. As

seen in the very recent past, food com-modity export bans do happen.”

Since the EU sugar policy change,just 18 of the EU’s 27 member stateshave continued to produce sugar, downfrom 23 in 2005, according to a July 8International Sugar Journal article.Only France, Denmark, the Czech Re-public and Benelux are still producing asurplus, the article noted, and the re-sulting concentrated industry in the EUhas left some of the 18 states producingjust half the amount of sugar as before.

The problems surfacing in the EUprobably wouldn’t surprise McKeany-Flavell Company of Oakland, Calif. Thecommodity research firm, which pro-vides counsel to U.S. food manufacturersand sugar producers, predicted a direfate for U.S. food companies if importsreplaced domestic production.

Volatile prices, inconsistent qualityand delivery issues would result if thedomestic food industry had to depend onforeign sugar, their 2009 study con-cluded.

“Our recommendation: be careful.Significantly greater United States de-pendence on imported sugar may notguarantee lower sugar pricing over thelong term,” read the report.

In addition to pricing concerns, thestudy examined other headaches thatfood manufacturers would face withoutAmerica’s sugar industry. Among them:consistency of supply; consistency ofquality; the form in which sugar is deliv-ered; and “just-in-time delivery,” a termused to describe the domestic sugar de-livery chain where sugar producers areresponsible for storage, handling andtransportation under precise deliveryschedules.

“[W]e must recognize the value U.S.sugar producers offer to consumers,”wrote McKeany-Flavell. “Providing con-sistent quality and supply, in the re-quested packaged form, and throughjust-in-time deliveries . . . is a very com-plex and difficult process that cannot berecreated overnight, if at all, through a100% sugar import program.”

America is already more dependenton foreign suppliers than most wouldthink. Trade deals have forced theUnited States to be the second biggestsugar importer in the world — importsaccount for approximately one-quarterof the market — and low prices in pastyears forced 33 U.S. sugar facilities toclose between 1996 and 2008.

As Wesley Clark said, the time hascome to hold the thin green line. AndCongress could take a big step in thatdirection by keeping current sugar pol-icy, and current domestic sugar produc-tion, in place. �

4v THE SUGARBEET GROWER (Upper Midwest) July/August 2011

EU Faces Sugar Shortage; CouldCongress Position U.S. Likewise?— Commentary from the American Sugar Alliance —

Were it not for the American-madesemis rumbling to and from field

perimeters, visitors to Helena ValleyFarms during the sugarbeet harvestseason could be excused for wonderingif they weren’t actually somewhere inEurope rather than the Thumb regionof eastern Michigan. Two huge Ropa“Tiger” self-propelled harvesters moveup and down the field, each dumpingits topped and lifted beets into a 34-ton-capacity “Big Bear” track cart. Thecart in turn unloads its contents onfield headlands, where the beets sit forat least a couple days before being runthrough a self-propelled “Maus” — an-other Ropa-built unit that cleans andloads the piled beets into trucks for thetrip to the factory.

Together, those four machines rep-resent a very big investment for theirowners — around $900,000. But for theRoggenbucks of Helena Valley Farms,the Ropa implements also representbig savings — savings in labor, savingsin use of other harvest-related equip-ment, and savings in field traffic.

Father Mike and brothers Doug andJim Roggenbuck were the first U.S.sugarbeet producers to purchase a Ger-man-built “Tiger” harvester. Theybought it new in 2003 through south-western Ontario growers John Noor-loos and Eugen Burgin, who operatethe Ropa franchise for North America.After expanding their beet acreage, theRoggenbucks bought a used secondTiger in 2005. Two years later theypurchased a used Maus for their Huronand Sanilac County-based operation.The most recent addition to their har-vest package, the Big Bear cart, waspurchased new for the 2010 harvest.

Before traveling the Ropa route,“we had two toppers, two harvestersand four carts,” in a given field, Jim re-counts. That meant eight drivers —compared to a total of three to operatethe two Ropa harvesters and Big Bearcart. The Roggenbucks simultaneouslytransitioned from 30-inch rows down to20s when first switching over to theTiger; so they top and dig six 20-inchrows with each harvester.

Helena Valley Farms currently in-cludes 1,500 acres of sugarbeets withinits cropping rotation.

Truck traffic on their heavy claysoils can produce both traction chal-lenges and compaction problems dur-ing a wet harvest season. Even beforethey bought the Big Bear, the Roggen-bucks kept trucks out of the fields, in-stead carting everything to field edgesto eventually be loaded by the Mausinto waiting semi trailers. TheRoggenbucks actually bought the Big

‘European Presence’In Michigan Harvest


Above: One of two Ropa ‘Tiger’ self-propelled harvesters owned by the Roggenbucks,who farm near Harbor Beach, Mich. They purchased their first one in 2003.

Below: Doug, Jim and Mike Roggenbuck of Michigan’s Helena Valley Farms.

Roggenbucks Utilize German-Built Ropa ‘Tigers,’ ‘Maus’ & ‘Big Bear’ to Bring in Their Beet Crop

Photos: Don Lilleboe

Bear because they had a nice problem:“Our yields had increased, and weweren’t able to make a full round withthe harvester,” Jim explains.

Soil compaction also is reduced bythe wide flotation tires on the Tigerharvester, the Roggenbucks point out.The offset positioning of the unit’sthree axles likewise lessens compactionby spreading tire contact and machineweight over a broader soil zone.

Jim notes that since the Mauscleans while loading, Helena ValleyFarms’ beets are hauled direct to thefactory, not to a company piling site.“The beets are a lot easier to clean upafter sitting on the headlands for twodays,” he affirms.

The Roggenbucks have been verypleased with the topping and diggingperformance of both Tiger self-pro-pelled harvesters. Though there are alot of components — the electrical and

Humility on theGolf Course


Below: The Roggenbucks welcomednearly 300 visitors to their farm in the fallof 2003 to witness the first U.S. beet fieldbeing harvested with a Ropa Tiger.

It’s easy in the winter to plan big. It’s easy to think somehow thoselong days in June can never be overfilled. And July — why, July

has no harvest or planting, so there will be plenty of time to read abook in a hammock as well as learn something new that challenges.

Perhaps it’s a carryover from my school days when the long daysof summer allowed such a wonderful change for this boy who felttrapped indoors. The summer days I remember seemed long enoughto get almost anything done; and so, well, I don’t think twice aboutpromising to host the whole family at the lake for a weekend. Thelocal clubs I belong to are holding a special event? No problem, thesun is up 18 hours, I can farm early and help out. Grind somestumps and re-landscape the yard? Easy. Move a shed, build a bin,stain the house, weed the garden? No problem.

Suddenly the calendar is full and the grandkids’ T-ball gamesaren’t yet listed. Wednesday night motorcycle runs haven’t been accounted for, the harsh reality of grain harvest is looming, and Ihaven’t been fishing.

Golf hasn’t been mentioned yet because for the most part I don’tlike golf. But the local sugarbeet groups I have been a part of for solong always schedule a couple rounds each summer. I make at leastone event just to see friends I have worked with and catch up onwhat’s going on in their lives. It is always a humbling experience.

I’m going golfing with Michael.It happens about once a year.

You’d think I’d get smart, forget about golf,Just go along and drink beer.

Each year I give him a new chanceTo make me look just like a fool.

I don’t even have the right kind of shirt.And Mike, well, he’s always dressed cool.

Some guys seem to think golfingIs a sociable summertime sport.

But those guys don’t drive the ball seven times,Then three putt and still come up short.

I concentrate on my backswing’Til the sweat’s beaded up on my brow.

And yet when I’ve swung, I’ve missed the ball cleanOr dug a deep trench like a plow.

Though Mike would never make fun ofMy complete lack of golfing finesse,

Waiting for me, lost in the trees,Surely must cause him some stress.

Mike says the score ain’t important.But once more like clockwork he wins.

I add up the strokes, then grovel and whine.Mike, well, he stands there and grins.

David Kragnes farms near Felton, Minn. He is a formerchairman of American Crystal Sugar Co., and currentlyserves on the board of directors of CoBank.

hydraulic systems are complex — “ineight years, we’ve made no modifica-tions,” Jim reports.

They also like the digging shoe(compared to pinch wheels on standardlifters) and depth control offered by theTiger. “We can control the depth as wemove across the field,” Doug notes.“The header floats independently of themain unit, following the contours of theground. It works on the same principleas the flex head on a grain combine.”The system allows “on the go” adjust-ment from the cab of both topping andlifting mechanisms.

Beet cleaning starts with the grabrolls located on the header unit. Thebeets are then conveyed on to threecleaning turbines (baskets), whosespinning speed can be adjusted fromthe cab. They’re then transported intothe Tiger’s beet tank, which holdsabout 25 tons. — Don Lilleboe � P

hoto: D

ebbie Roggenbuck

Write

Field By David Kragnes

The only parts of North Dakotawhere you’ll find commercial sug-

arbeet fields are in the Red River Val-ley along the state’s eastern edge andin the Mon-Dak vicinity of northwest-ern North Dakota. The crop has neverbeen grown commercially anywhereelse in the Peace Garden State.

But there’s a good chance it will be,one day soon.

If and when that comes to pass,however, the “new” population ofNorth Dakota sugarbeet growers willnot be producing beets for sugar. In-stead, they’ll be raising them for en-ergy — specifically, for processing anduse as biofuels.

For the past three years, an entitycalled Green Vision Group (GVG) hasbeen investigating and promoting thedevelopment of an energy beet indus-try in the Northern Plains. The en-deavor has had two primary goals: (1)to help lower society’s carbon footprint,and (2) to simultaneously feed ruraleconomic development in the region.Current principals in GVG are threeNorth Dakotans with a long history ofentrepreneurship and community de-velopment: Maynard Helgaas of West

Fargo, Lloyd Anderson of Fargo, andRod Holth of Grand Forks. Helgaas,who owned a farm implement dealer-ship in Jamestown for three decades, isGVG’s president. (The group’s websiteaddress is www.beetsallbiofuel.com.)

The stakes are potentially veryhigh. Under the Energy Independence

and Security Act(EISA) of 2007,fuel produced fromsugarbeets quali-fies as an “ad-vanced” biofuel —and EISA man-dates the nationalproduction of 15billion gallons ofadvanced biofuels

annually by 2022. Concurrently, theeconomic development impact in thoseareas where such biofuels end upbeing produced is obviously huge.

Key to the GVG vision has been itspartnership with North Dakota StateUniversity and with Muscatine, Iowa-based Heartland Renewable Energy.To date, this partnership has produceda major economic feasibility study, con-ducted energy beet yield trials in sev-

eral locations around North Dakota,and commercially tested a process(patented by Heartland) that uses a co-product of energy beets (“stillage”) toprovide up to 70% of a biofuel plant’sthermal needs. They’ve also initiatedjuice storage research at NDSU to en-able year-round processing and plantutilization, and are currently workingto attain EPA’s formal approval of thebeet-origin ethanol as an “advanced”biofuel.

While they don’t view energy beetsas a competitor to ethanol made fromcorn, GVG does emphasize a primaryadvantage of fuel produced from thisfeedstock: “We can grow almost twiceas much ethanol, per acre, as you canwith corn,” says Helgaas. That obvi-ously reduces the amount of land re-quired to grow an equivalent amountof “energy fuel.”

Another advantage of sugarbeets isthat the processing regimen is simpler.With corn, Helgaas notes, the feed-stock’s starches must first be brokendown into sugars before ethanol can beproduced. With sugarbeets, that stepis unnecessary.

So the bottom line is a reduced unitcost to convert the raw commodity intoethanol.

Released in July 2010, the energybeet economic feasibility study wasconducted by NDSU biofuel economistCole Gustafson and his colleague,Thein Maung. Gustafson, who hasworked closely with Green VisionGroup for the past three years, saysthe analysis showed the estimatedbreakeven ethanol price for a 20-mil-lion-gallon-per-year (MGY) energybeet/ethanol plant to be $1.52 per gal-lon; for a 10-million-gallon plant, itwas $1.71 per gallon. “At an ethanolprice of $1.84 per gallon, and assumingother factors remain unchanged, theestimated net present value of the 20MGY plant is $41.54 million,” theNDSU economists reported.

Over the past year, of course, theenergy cost picture has changed signif-icantly. Market prices of feedstocks(sugarbeets and corn) are higher thanthey were when the report was beingresearched and written. So too is thecost of petroleum-based energy. But“the difference we’re interested in isthe margin,” Gustafson points out.“And that remains about the same. Istill see [beets as biofuel] as being avery profitable alternative. We shouldbe able to compete quite well in themarketplace.”

To qualify as an “advanced” biofuel,the product must produce at least 50%fewer emissions than petroleum.

Energy BeetsWill a New Biofuels Sector SoonSpring Up Across North Dakota?


Maynard Helgaas

Monopill SE 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

Ropa North America 1- 519-786-3025 www. ropanorthamerica.com or e-mail: [email protected]

(Corn produces 20% less.) Add to thatthe intent for energy beet plants toburn their own waste (the “stillage”produced during fermentation) for pro-cessing and heating, and that numbercould climb up toward 60%, Helgaasbelieves. Along with the stillage, otherco-products will be a brewer’s yeast,pulp for livestock feed, and potash leftover after the stillage is burned. Thepotash could be utilized as a fertilizer.

What major hurdles remain beforeNorth Dakota could have an op-

erating beet-to-ethanol plant — andwhat timeline appears realistic, as-suming those hurdles can be cleared?

Phase I of the GVG plan, now com-plete, was comprised of the 2010 eco-nomic feasibility study, the testing ofthe Heartland-patented process to cre-ate thermal energy from waste mate-rial, and the initiation of energy beetyield trials. (See article on page 17.)All those components resulted in veryencouraging findings.

Phase II, now underway, will likelytake one and a half to two years, ac-cording to Gustafson. Hopefully to bebolstered by a $1 million potentialgrant from the North Dakota Renew-able Energy Council, its major compo-nents include:

• Expanding the yield trials to ad-ditional locations this year to gainmore agronomic data and to build cropinsurance history so that when grow-ers in a given area consider investingin beets-to-biofuel, they’ll have riskmanagement tools available to them.

• Looking at additional juice stor-age technology. Though the results ofPhase I juice storage research werepositive, “we want to take it a step fur-ther,” Gustafson says. “Our goal is tobe able to process the beets in the fall,develop ‘thick juice’ and then storethat through the winter months so ourplants can operate year-round.”

• Front-end processing technology.Whereas the traditional beet sugar in-dustry slices beets entering the factoryand then heats the resulting cossettesin a diffuser to extract the sucrose, theenergy beet model takes a different ap-proach. “We don’t need the degree ofrefinement (i.e., removal of impurities)

that beet sugar factories do,” Gustaf-son explains. “So we’re looking at ex-trusion and grinding methods” as away of separating the sugar from thepulp.

• Pursuing EPA designation of sug-arbeet-origin ethanol as an “advanced”biofuel. While there are no up-frontguarantees, “we’re very confident” ofattaining that status, Gustafson says.“That’s going to be a real key to ourproject,” he emphasizes. “That’s thedriver in all this.”

Phase III would be the actual con-struction of the first commercial beet-to-ethanol plant in North Dakota.Maynard Helgaas expects it to be a 20-MGY facility, given the positive eco-nomics compared to a smaller plant.He also expects it to be located next toan existing corn ethanol facility orelectricity generating plant. “Co-locat-ing reduces our investment signifi-cantly,” he points out. “We can use thesame railroad tracks or spurs, we canbuy their steam — and they can buyour waste product (stillage) and burnit with their coal.” If co-located with acorn ethanol plant, there also could besharing opportunities with respect todistillation, marketing services andenvironmental permitting processes,Gustafson adds.

Right now, $50 million — including$10 million in operating capital — isthe ballpark number Green VisionGroup projects will be needed to get a20-MGY plant up and operating. As-suming that flagship plant gets off to agood start and the biofuels sector as awhole is healthy and growing, Helgaasenvisions several similar facilities oneday dotting the North Dakota land-

scape. “We’re looking at having plantswhere [the grower] won’t have to haulthe beets over 10 miles,” he says. Theidea is to have 30,000 acres of beetsper year within that 20-mile-diametercircle to feed the plant. “To maintainreduced carbon emissions and qualifyas an ‘advanced biofuel,’ we need tomaintain production within that 10-mile perimeter of the refinery,” Hel-gaas states.

No energy beet production and pro-cessing operations are planned withinthe Red River Valley, GVG’s presidentadds, so as to not infringe upon the ex-isting sugarbeet industry’s need forsufficient acreage, including any futureexpansion. GVG is also emphasizingthe need for energy beet growers to fol-low four- to five-year crop rotations toreduce the risk of disease buildup.

As positive as the research and de-velopment efforts have been to

date, there’s still plenty of uncertaintysurrounding the young energy beetsector. Cole Gustafson uses the word“mixed” when asked for adjectives todescribe the economic and political cli-mate for energy beet biofuels as ofSummer 2011.

“There’s a lot of momentum in theproject, a lot of optimism on severalfronts,” the NDSU economist affirms.“Last year’s yield trials were very posi-tive, and they’re looking good againthis year. The research we’ve done oneconomic feasibility, on juice storageand on the patented technology are allmore positive than we’d expected.

“On the other side, though, there’sthe national recession and the diffi-culty of getting financing. All projectsare facing that right now.

“Another difficulty is the currentnational discussion about ethanol andtax credits. That has cast a cloud —even though we don’t include any ofthose kinds of subsidies in our finan-cial analyses. We’re often ‘lumped’ into

Attaining EPA designation of sugarbeet-origin ethanol as an ‘advanced’ biofuel

is key to the establishment of an energy beet industry.

Pho

to:

Don

Lilleb

oe


NDSU biofuel economist Cole Gustafsonholds jars containing liquid ‘stillage’ (left),obtained from the bottom of the fermenta-tion tank, and the dried powder (right) forburning in the beets-to-ethanol plant.

it, though we’re a very different biofuelwith a different market opportunity.”

Today’s high prices for corn, soy-beans, wheat and other ag commodi-ties also factor into the equation.Gustafson says there are geographicpockets in North Dakota where farmerinterest in energy beets is very high.“In fact, we had more requests fromproducers to have yield trials on theirproperty this year than we can man-age,” he notes. But current crop priceshave muted the interest from other po-tential energy beet producers whodon’t see the need to add another cropwhen the ones they’re already growing

are so profitable — and familiar.Adequate grower participation is

key not only from the feedstock pro-duction standpoint, but in the owner-ship arena as well. “We call ourselves‘architects for rural development,’ ”Maynard Helgaas emphasizes. “Wewould like to see farmer ownership [of

beets-to-biofuel] plants to some level— at least 40%.”

So as always, “time will tell” whenit comes to whether a commercial en-ergy beet enterprise takes root in theNorthern Plains and grows into ahealthy, vibrant industry. There’s a lotgoing on, with many positive signs.There also are clouds of uncertainty,both economic and political. Green Vi-sion Group and its partners continueto forge ahead, with the hope and theexpectation that their efforts will payoff handsomely for both the region’srural economy and the nation’s renew-able energy needs. — Don Lilleboe �

Along with North Dakota, energy beets also are receiv-ing close attention in several other states — and es-

pecially in the Central Valley of California. There, theresearch and development catalyst has been MendotaBioenergy LLC, a group comprised of former SpreckelsSugar Company growers from Fresno County. Also work-ing on the project are various university water/energy/biomass specialists and several companies with experi-ence in biofuels engineering and development.

The Mendota biorefinery effort got rolling in 2008after Spreckels Sugar (owned by Southern MinnesotaBeet Sugar Co-op) announced its beet factory there wouldbe closed. Area growers initially looked into the possibil-ity of buying the factory and continuing to grow andprocess beets for sugar, but decided that was not feasible.As an alternative, the newly formed Mendota AdvancedBioenergy Beet Cooperative began investigating whetherenergy beets could have a future in Fresno County. JohnDiener, a longtime sugarbeet grower from Five Points,was the cooperative’s founding president. Jim Tischer ofthe California Water Institute at Cal State-Fresno servesas project coordinator. Former Spreckels employees and

other consultants also are involved with the project.The co-op applied for and received a $72,000 USDA

value-added product grant for an initial feasibility study,which was completed in mid-2009. Then, in 2010, theMendota group applied for and was awarded a $1.5 mil-lion competitive matching grant from the California En-ergy Commission to further examine the viability ofprocessing sugarbeets, as well as farm waste products(e.g., almond orchard prunings), for fuel and energy.

The goal is to build a biorefinery that will utilize be-tween 840,000 to one million-plus tons of locally grownsugarbeets each year, along with another 80,000 tons ofalmond prunings and other agricultural waste. Fromthose feedstocks, Mendota Bioenergy expects to produce33.5 million gallons of advanced ethanol, 6.3 megawattsof certified green electricity, 1.6 million/million cubic feetof renewable biomethane, and high-nutrient compost andliquid fertilizer. The biorefinery also is expected to re-claim one million gallons of treated water per day, whichin turn will be used for the facility’s operations.

“Work on the $1.5 million matching grant began [in]April 2011 and is scheduled to be completed in January2013,” Tischer notes. This current phase includes explor-ing the project’s technical feasibility, economic viabilityand environmental impacts. Specific areas of explorationinclude the assessment of feedstock material properties,development of integrated biomass processing and con-

version technologies, pilot-scale digester operations,and analyzing life-cycle environmental impacts andsustainability. Other work will focus on economicareas, such as a production sales and distributionplan, agreements for the use of the renewable energy,low-carbon and water-wise products, and the estab-lishment of a Best Management Practices programframework for beet growers and others providingfeedstocks to the biorefinery.

If the project still appears feasible upon comple-tion of the above work, full development, financingand construction on the $200 million Mendota biore-finery would then proceed. “If not, we’ll all go back toour ‘day jobs,’ ” Tischer says. “In an ‘ideal world,’ wewould proceed with full development in 2013 and con-struction and startup in 2014. Construction is not,however, pre-ordained in today’s problematic projectfinance environment.” — Don Lilleboe �

California Group Also Explores Beets as BiofuelMendota Bioenergy Leadership Group

Includes Former Spreckels Sugar Growers

8

Below: Schematic of the proposed Mendota biorefinery process.

© 2

010

/ Men

dota

Adv

ance

d B

ioen

ergy

B

eet C

oope

rativ

e / U

sed

By

Per

mis

sion

Adequate grower participationis key not only from the feed-stock production standpoint,

but also in the ownership arena.


When a commercialenergy beet indus-

try does takes root andgrow in North Dakota,it will do so in areasoutside the traditionalbeet belt. Beets for biofuel will begrown in locales where farmers have along history of wheat, barley and sun-flower production, not sugarbeets.

That means there’ll be a learningcurve. Although a lot of sugarbeetknowledge can be transferred from theRed River Valley or the Mon-Dak areaof northwestern North Dakota/north-eastern Montana, a grower in centralNorth Dakota needs some specializedinformation geared to his environment— and he also needs specialized beetseed varieties that are designed for abiofuel end use, not for the refinedsugar marketplace.

Recognizing that, research is wellunderway to develop varieties andcompile agronomic data for the envi-sioned energy beet production sector.In conjunction with the Green Vision

Group, North DakotaState University is nowin its third year of yieldtrials, testing underboth dryland and irri-gated conditions. Some

sugarbeet seed companies likewise areheavily involved in testing their cur-rent materials and breeding new vari-eties for the biofuel industry.

The 2010 North Dakota yield trialsproduced some impressive data.Here’s a summary of the results, pro-vided by Blaine Schatz, director/agron-omist at the NDSU CarringtonResearch Extension Center and coordi-nator of the trials. Syngenta/Hilleshogwas the seed company collaborator atCarrington and Oakes, while Betaseedwas the collaborator at Williston,Dazey and Turtle Lake.

• Carrington — Carrington is lo-cated in central North Dakota. Trialsat the NDSU center there were con-ducted under both dryland and irri-gated conditions. Sixteen differentvarieties were tested in 2010. The

mean root yield in the dryland plotswas 25.2 tons per acre, with an aver-age sugar content of 19.2%.Corresponding numbers in the irri-gated plots were 37.8 tons and 18.5%sugar.

• Oakes — Oakes is in DickeyCounty of southeastern North Dakota.The 16 varieties tested under irriga-tion in 2010 at the NDSU Oakes sta-tion averaged 37.4 tons per acre with a17.8% sugar.

• Williston — Located in north-western North Dakota, NDSU’s Willis-ton station tested five energy beetvarieties under irrigation in 2010. Theaverage yield was 29.7 tons per acre,with sugar content averaging 17.7%.

• Dazey — Dazey is in east centralNorth Dakota’s Barnes County. Bothirrigated and dryland trials were con-ducted on the farm of cooperator JimBroten. Dryland yields averaged 31.7tons; irrigated, 35.5 tons per acre.Sugar content of the dryland energybeets averaged 16.8%; for the irrigatedplots, 18.3%.

• Turtle Lake — Turtle Lake is incentral North Dakota, about 50 milesnorth of the state’s capital city, Bis-marck. Five varieties were grownunder irrigation on the farm of cooper-ator Steve Knorr. They averaged 25.9tons and 18.0% sugar.

In terms of sugar per acre, the topvariety across all trial sites produced16,044 pounds in an irrigated plot atCarrington. That plot yielded 43.1tons per acre with an 18.6% sugar con-tent.

Yield trials have again been estab-lished in 2011 at the above locations,along with two more: a dryland trial atLangdon in Cavalier County (north-eastern North Dakota) and anotherdryland trial at Minot (Ward County,in the north central part of the state).

The bottom line with the yield trialsto date is that very respectable

yields and sugar contents can beachieved throughout North Dakota.“It should be noted that the perform-ance of the energy beets at both theTurtle Lake and Williston locations[was] somewhat compromised by less-than-optimum planting date or har-vest date,” Schatz reports. “Optimumdates would have likely resulted in anadditional three to six tons per acre atboth these locations.” The 2010 yieldtrials also underscored that, just like“regular” sugarbeets, energy beet vari-eties respond differently from locationto location.

Syngenta and Betaseed have beenbreeding for the energy beet market

Energy Beet Agronomics

2010 N.D. Yield Trials Demonstrate Productivity;Seed Companies Lay Groundwork With Special Varieties

Above: A 2010 irrigated energybeet plot at the North DakotaState University Carrington Research Extension Center.

Photo: B

laine Schatz


for quite some time. Both have Euro-pean parent organizations, and Europehas a longer history in this arena thandoes the United States. “KWS (Be-taseed’s parent) has been breeding forenergy crops and energy beets for over10 years,” says Steve Libsack, directorof business development and strategicaccounts for Betaseed. “We under-stand that energy beets will requiredifferent growing and quality charac-teristics than a conventional sugar-beet. We are breeding for those traits,as well as breeding varieties that canbe grown in many more climatesaround the world — everything fromdrought regions to tropical regions.”

Trent Wimmer, business develop-ment manager for Syngenta/Hilleshog,explains that impurity levels are a keydifference between beets bred for en-ergy use versus beets bred to produce

sugar for human consumption. “Today,most sugar processors have impuritystandards in place and demand high-quality varieties with low impuritylevels,” he observes. “These impuritiesdon’t allow the sucrose to crystallize,and the sugar is lost to molasses.”That then equates to lost revenue forthe processor.

“For energy production, these sameimpurities don’t hinder fermentationor digestion,” Wimmer continues, “so itreally opens up the possibilities for va-riety selection. It allows us to bring inperformance and yield options.

“At the end of the day, though, westill need the sugar. So sugar per acreis a key driver.”

“Biotech seed has allowed us to de-crease the learning curve for a newgrower,” Wimmer points out. “Flexibil-ity with weed control allows us to focuson other important agronomics, suchas soil preparation, plantability anddisease control. We spend a good por-tion of time on seed-to-soil contact andseed depth and spacing, with the goalof establishing a good stand.”

Growers in “new” beet areas willcertainly be faced with some chal-lenges. There would be the invest-ment in a sugarbeet harvester,

individually or in a group; altered croprotations, requiring special attentionto herbicide carryover and insecticideusage; fertilization; and, in general,the risks involved in growing an unfa-miliar crop. “It certainly won’t fit intoevery grower’s operation in ‘nontradi-tional’ beet growing regions,” says Be-taseed’s Libsack. “But there will befantastic opportunity for many.”

That said, no one disputes the un-certainty that exists as of 2011. “We’restill in the ‘fact finding’ stage,” Libsackaffirms. “But once we’ve proven thatbeets can be economically and feasiblygrown for [ethanol] production — andat a lower cost than corn — I can seethe industry moving ahead veryquickly. I firmly believe that whoeverbuilds the first plant utilizing beetswill be breaking ground for a quick-to-develop industry.” — Don Lilleboe �

‘We understand that energybeets will require different grow-ing and quality characteristicsthan a conventional sugarbeet.We are breeding for those traits.’

Energy beet processing doesn’trequire the low impurity levelsneeded by regular beet sugarprocessors. But at the end of

the day, ‘we still need the sugar.’


John Richmond Honored As‘Sugar Man of the Year 2010’

John Richmond, former presidentand CEO of Southern Minnesota BeetSugar Cooperative, was honored as“Sugar Man of the Year 2010” during aMay luncheon of the Sugar Club inNew York City.

Richmond is the 53rd recipient ofthe prestigious Dyer Memorial Award,named after thefounder of B.W.Dyer & Company,a 108-year-old bro-kerage companyfor sweeteners andother foods.

Richmond’snearly four-decadecareer in the sugarindustry began asa management trainee with HollySugar Corporation in 1973. He heldseveral positions with Holly (later Im-perial Holly), including vice presidentof operations and later managing direc-tor of Imperial Holly, in which post hewas in charge of 11 beet sugar factoriesand cane sugar refining operations.

The Kearney, Neb., native becamepresident/CEO of Southern MinnesotaBeet Sugar Cooperative in 2001, guid-ing the company until his retirement in2008. That tenure included SouthernMinn’s purchase of Holly, thereby pro-viding the Minnesota co-op with addi-tional marketing allocations.Richmond thus also became presi-dent/CEO of Holly, which was renamedSpreckels Sugar.

Richmond, who graduated with adegree in chemistry from KearneyState College, served as president ofthe American Society of Sugar BeetTechnologists, the Sugar Processing Re-search Institute and the United StatesNational Committee on Sugar Analysis.He also was an instructor at theMcGinnis Institute of Beet Sugar Tech-nology.

“Although you retired in 2008 andreside in Colorado Springs with yourwife, Sharon, you remain active in thesugar industry as an advisor to the co-operative,” read Richmond’s Sugar Clubcitation. “Your reputation as a soundthinker is widely respected, and yourgood humor is legendary.”

RRV Sugarbeet Museum Hosting7th Harvest Festival on Sept. 11

The Red River Valley SugarbeetMuseum celebrates its 7th annual Har-vest Festival on Sunday, September 11.The museum is located on the south-east side of Crookston, Minn., at theformer Crookston Implement site.

The festival begins at 11:00 a.m.,with a roast pork dinner starting at11:30. Sugarbeets will be harvestedwith vintage equipment, with wagonsprovided so the public can ride along-side the old-time harvesters and viewthe operation. New this year will be arestored “Harvall” beet harvester, builtat the American Crystal factory in EastGrand Forks, Minn.

The 2011 Harvest Festival also willhonor Al Bloomquist, well known toeveryone in the Upper Midwest sugar-beet industry. Bloomquist was instru-mental in Red River Valley growers’purchase of American Crystal SugarCompany in the early 1970s, later serv-ing as vice president and president ofthe cooperative prior to his retirement.

For more information on the RedRiver Valley Sugarbeet Museum andthis year’s Harvest Festival, visitwww.sugarbeetmuseum.com.

John Smith Retires After 30-YearCareer at UN Panhandle Center

John Smith, well-known machinerysystems engineer at the University ofNebraska Panhandle Research and Ex-tension Center, retired at the end ofJune after a 30-year career with theuniversity. During his three-decadetenure in the Panhandle, he worked ex-tensively with machinery manufactur-ers, farmers, commodity groups and hisuniversity peers to improve farm ma-chinery systems for field production ofcrops — particularly tillage, planting

and harvesting systems for sugarbeetsand dry edible beans, two of westernNebraska’s major irrigated crops.

Smith became involved in testingsugarbeet planters for growers, prior tothe planting season, during the mid-1990s when he and a colleague devel-oped an electronic planter test stand.“That gave us the ability to measureplanter performance with numbers asopposed to a visual subjective view of

the planter,” henoted.

Smith alsoworked on trans-planting of sugar-beets and helpeddevelop planterimprovements fortheir use with thiscrop. In recentyears, he also con-

ducted research on zone (strip) till pro-duction of row crops, which hasexpanded considerably in the region.

Among his many outreach activitieshave been Smith’s valuable contribu-tions to The Sugarbeet Grower — bothas an author of research results and asa resource person for other articles.

After growing up on a farm in Ohio,Smith earned a bachelor’s degree inmechanical engineering from Tri StateCollege in Angola, Ind. He worked forsix years as a design engineer before re-turning to school, receiving a master’sdegree in agricultural engineering fromthe University of Wyoming. After twoyears with Parma Company, he joinedthe UN Panhandle station in 1981.

50th International SugarbeetInstitute Set for March 14 & 15

The 2012 International SugarbeetInstitute is scheduled for March 14 and15 at the Alerus Center in GrandForks, N.D. Next year’s event marksthe 50th anniversary of ISBI — thelargest sugarbeet industry trade showin North America.

Companies desiring preliminary ex-hibiting information for the 2012 Inter-national Sugarbeet Institute cancontact exhibits coordinator Bob Cour-nia at (218) 281-4681. Other ISBI-re-lated inquiries should be directed to Dr.Mohamed Khan, organizing committeechairman, at (701) 231-8596. �

Around The Industry


John Richmond John Smith

Documents

The Sugarbeet Grower Magazine July/August 2011