It began as a tabloid, published quarterly by the Western Sugarbeet Growers Association, Inc.  Its editor was Aldrich C. (“Al”) Bloomquist, executive secretary of the Red River Valley Sugarbeet Growers Association and later vice president and then president of American Crystal Sugar Company.  (We paid tribute to Al, who passed away last August at age 91, in our November/December issue.)
    “The Sugarbeet Grower was conceived to better inform the membership of sugarbeet grower and development associations affiliated with Western Sugarbeet Growers Association, Inc. of what’s going on in the wonderfully exciting and moving world of sugar,” Al wrote in that inaugural issue.  “We are hopeful that thru the pages of the The Sugarbeet Grower you will be better informed about the complexities and workings of the Sugar Act.  We  hope you will have a better understanding of the Association of which you are a member and the plans, activities and accomplishments of that group. 
    “We hope you will be a better grower because of information on research and new techniques practiced by growers in other areas,” he continued.  “We hope that we can in time tell the story of the individual accomplishments of many individual growers.  We hope, too, to tell the story of the many and varied organizations which make up this wondrous world of sugar.”
    The Western Sugarbeet Growers Association (WSGA) existed from about 1940 to 1965, drawing its membership mainly from states where American Crystal Sugar Company (still a private stock company in that era) operated beet sugar factories.  The WSGA’s main objective was to secure congressional legislation that would allow more sugarbeet acreage.
    As of 1963, the WSGA umbrella encompassed the Red River Valley Sugarbeet Growers Association (RRVSGA), the Mason City (Iowa) District Beet Growers Association, the Southern Minnesota Beet Growers Association, the Minnesota-Dakota Beet Development Association and the Tri-County Beet Development Association.  Farmers belonging to the RRVSGA, Mason City and Southern Minnesota groups already grew for American Crystal, while the two development associations (Minnesota-Dakota in the far northern Red River Valley region and Tri-County in the Mayville, N.D., area) were seeking expanded beet acreage and factories for their respective areas.
    Bloomquist had been hired as executive secretary of RRVSGA in late 1962, according to Roots of Success, a history of the organization.  A college journalism graduate, he previously had worked in public relations for the Western Beet Sugar Producers, an industry group funded by several U.S. sugarbeet processors, including American Crystal.  “The Western Beet Sugar Producers folded up in 1962, when some of its corporate supporters withdrew their funding,” wrote Roots of Success’ author, Terry Shoptaugh.
      Headquarters for The Sugarbeet Grower as of the mid-1960s were in Bloomquist’s Moorhead, Minn., home.  By 1966, Al was listed as both editor and publisher.  Beginning with the January 1968 issue, the publication was converted to the standard magazine size of 8.5 x 11 inches.
      Bloomquist continued to own and publish The Sugarbeet Grower until 1986, more than a dozen years after Red River Valley growers had purchased American Crystal (a transition in which Al was hugely instrumental).     
      Al hired me in late 1977 to write and edit for The Sugarbeet Grower.  I did so until late 1978, working simultaneously with another ag magazine (not owned by Al, but printed by Kaye’s Printing of Fargo, as was The Sugarbeet Grower). 
      Back in 1968, Al had purchased the Gilmore Sugar Manual from a printing company in New Orleans.  Gilmore, which had been around since the early 1900s, was (and still is) a technical reference book on the U.S. sugarcane milling sector.  Al moved Gilmore operations up to Fargo-Moorhead and then published both The Sugarbeet Grower and Gilmore under the banner of his auxiliary enterprise, “Sugar Publications.”
      Al sold Sugar Publications to Kaye’s Printing of Fargo in 1986, and Kaye’s asked me to return as editor and manager of both The Sugarbeet Grower and Gilmore Sugar Manual.  I am still here — some 27 years later!
      Kaye’s was sold to Forum Communications Company (FCC) in 1999, and Sugar Publications has been owned by Forum Communications Printing (FCC’s commercial printing division) since then.  We were based in the Kaye’s building in downtown Fargo until early 2006, at which time we moved into a new Forum Printing building on the city’s northwest side.

    So now, 50 years after its first issue hit the mail, The Sugarbeet Grower perseveres — continuing that original commitment to serving the informational needs and interests of sugarbeet producers. 
    My favorite part of the job always has been — and remains — interacting with growers, researchers, sugar company personnel, association leaders and allied industry.  With few exceptions, I have been consistently impressed by the quality of individuals I’ve encountered, and likewise very grateful for their interest and support.
    During my tenure as editor of The Sugarbeet Grower, I have traveled to every beet-growing area of the U.S. and Canada — often on multiple occasions.  I have been fascinated by the variation in growing environment and production practices in the different locales, realizing, of course, that there’s always a reason why each grower uses (or does not use) a particular production regimen or implement in his operation. 
    I have also been gratified by the wonderful cooperation of so many people through the years— growers, ag staff, university and USDA scientists, industry leaders — when I interrupt their day by asking for story ideas or their time for an interview.  I often tell people, “I don’t know much; but I usually know who to ask.”  And that counts for something.  I’m likewise grateful for all those companies who show their confidence, as advertisers, in the value we provide.  Without them, this magazine never would have reached the venerable age of 50.
      The next quarter century is certain to bring major changes — some more profound than anything experienced during the past 25 years, the past 50 years.  Well, I won’t be here for the 75th anniversary of this magazine’s founding.  But I do hope and trust the sugarbeet industry will be thriving in 2038 — and that The Sugarbeet Grower will still be serving it.  It has been a wonderfully symbiotic relationship, and I am proud to have played a role in it.
    My sincere thanks and continued best wishes to you, our valued readers.  You remain, after all, the very reason we’re here. — Don Lilleboe    

    The region’s most recently reported research on spent lime’s benefits comes from the Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative (SMBSC), where the use of PCC has expanded six-fold since 2001.  Based on this use pattern, the projection is that within five years the Southern Minn factory PCC pile will be reduced significantly beyond what it already has been.  The annual PCC production by SMBSC will be available on a long-term basis for growers to use for their benefit,  
    SMBSC agronomists Mark Bredehoeft and Chris Dunsmore, in conjunction with University of Minnesota soil scientist John Lamb, have summarized five years of studies (2008-12) on the use of PCC.  Their results show increases in sugarbeet and corn yields of 23-36% and 22-35%, respectively, when either four, eight of 12 tons of PCC were applied per acre.  The SMBSC work indicates that PCC applied two years in advance of crop production was the most advantageous, compared to one and three years.
    For sugarbeets, the biggest advantage came when beets were planted in the second year (after soybeans and then corn) following the application of 12 tons of spent lime per acre.  There, beet yields were nearly 27% higher than the mean yield.  When beets were grown in the second year after the application of eight tons of lime, the yields were 20% higher than the mean; after four tons of lime two years previous, the beet yields were nearly 14% greater than the mean.  In all cases, the applied nitrogen rate was 110 pounds per acre on the beets and 140 pounds in the preceding year’s corn.
    The SMBSC research also looked at the effect of PCC on Rhizoctonia.
    A summary of results from 2009 and 2010 shows that when four tons per acre of PCC were applied to soils inoculated with Rhizoctonia solani sub-population AG 2-2 IIB, sugarbeet root yield was 4.3 tons higher than where no PCC was applied to the inoculated soil.  The difference was smaller where sub-population AG 2-2 IVA was inoculated.  There, the benefit from four tons of PCC was just 0.8 ton, well below the least significant difference (LSD at alpha level 0.05) of 3.8 tons.
    In the case where there was no inoculated disease treatment, the yield benefit from four tons of PCC was 2.9 tons per acre, versus where there was no PCC applied.  This increase was not statistically significant, however.

    The investigation, promotion and use success of PCC on crop production has been a collaborative effort by sugarbeet growers, university researchers, agricultural retail industry, crop consultants and the sugarbeet industry.  University researchers John Lamb and Dr. Albert Sims (soil scientist at the University of Minnesota’s Northwest Research and Outreach Center, Crookston) conducted a significant amount of research in cooperation with Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative to show the influence PCC can have on crop production — and the benefits to the soil as a natural additive. 
    The agricultural retail industry and crop consultants have taken the time to look at the benefits of PCC with an open mind.  There has been significant communication between the ag industry, crop consultants and SMBSC to provide a quality product to the grower.  The University of Minnesota also has been instrumental in disseminating the information to the agricultural retail industry, consultants and growers. 
    Southern Minnesota growers have accepted the research conducted by SMBSC and the university.  They’ve taken the advice of crop consultants, ag retailers and co-op ag staff and have applied the PCC with much success.  The positive results have led to overwhelming acceptance of PCC application in the region.  This collaborative effort has become a success story highlighting the use of a sugarbeet processing byproduct into a crop production enhancement additive.  It also is an excellent example of how the university, agricultural industry and growers can work together for the benefit of all. — Mark Bredehoeft   

    As of the first of April, Gary Mamer and his fellow growers in the Imperial Valley were getting ready to begin the 2013 beet harvest — a campaign that will ultimately stretch through July and probably into early August.
    That’s just one difference between raising sugarbeets in Minnesota and North Dakota versus the southern edge of California.  When one region nudges up against the Canadian border while the other rubs elbows with Mexico, there are bound to be many more.
    Desert farming runs deep in Gary Mamer’s genes.  On his maternal side, great-grandfather T.B. Shank came to the Imperial Valley in the early 1900s — right about the time irrigation water from the Colorado River first began flowing via canal over to the Valley.  Paternally, the Brawley farmer’s area roots go back three generations.  He jokingly describes himself as a bona fide “desert rat” — much more at ease in the Imperial Valley’s heat than he would be in more-northerly climates.
    By the time he’d finished a couple years of college, Mamer knew exactly what he wanted to do for a career:  come back to the Imperial Valley and farm.  That was in 1978, and Gary and his dad, Gordon, farmed together for another 23 years.  They were planting twin-row beets on 44-inch beds at the time.  “That worked really well for later-season beets; but we could never make the ‘Top 10’ ” in terms of per-acre sugar production, he recalls.  While his dad wasn’t too keen on moving to 30-inch single rows, Gary was adamant.  They made the switch in the mid-1980s.  “Lo and behold, we got ‘Top 10’ the first year out” — and never looked back.
    The Mamer farm currently includes 560 acres of sugarbeets out of 2,100 total.  His cropping sequence usually consists of three years of hay, followed by sugarbeets.  He typically plants wheat (or occasionally Sudan grass) after the sugarbeets; then comes back a year later with another beet crop, after which it’s back to hay.  “That’s the standard rotation on my farm, as I don’t do the ‘produce game’ (e.g., spinach, broccoli, onions).”
    Farming in the Imperial Valley is, of course, a year-round proposition.  There’s always some field operation going on, be it ground preparation, spraying, tillage or harvesting.  For sugarbeets, everything works backward from a given field’s anticipated harvest date.  “We get done digging on what we call ‘July 41st,’ ” Mamer quips in reference to the beet harvest commonly stretching from April into August.
    Because they are planting their beet fields based on a projected “early,” “mid” or “late” harvest date, Mamer and his fellow Imperial Valley producers traditionally have used different varieties, depending upon each field’s digging timetable.  A variety with superior root rot tolerance, for instance, typically has been planted for late-season fields since it can better withstand summer’s extreme heat.  Currently, however, Mamer seeds most of his beet ground to a single variety — Betaseed’s BTS 4521R, a conventional variety — because he’s confident he can manage it to produce well across the various harvest scenarios. 
    (Valley-wide, about 6,800 acres out of the 24,500 total are planted to Roundup Ready®  varieties this year.  That percentage is expected to increase as additional agronomically strong Roundup Ready varieties become available for this market.)

                                            Not Exactly Minimum-Till

    Planting of the Imperial Valley sugarbeet crop normally begins in early September and can often stretch into October, depending on temperatures and periodic rain delays.  But there’s a lot of field prep that goes on before the planter ever pulls into the field.
    What’s the standard regimen at Mamer Farms?  “Let’s say I’m going with beets after wheat,” Gary begins.  As soon as the wheat has been harvested in June, “we’ll stubble disk the field once, then go in and chisel it to either 24 or 28 inches.”  After a corrugator pass, the field is flooded, followed by another disking.  That process encompasses 30 to 40 days.
    Then soil samples are drawn to determine how much nitrogen and phosphorus will be needed for the beets.  Mamer’s testing service typically pulls six samples from each field: two on the head end, two in the middle and two more toward the bottom.
    Next the field is disked, tri-planed; then disked and tri-planed a second time.  “Then we go in and list the beds.  At that time, if we need some extra phosphate, we’ll probably put down 100 pounds of 11-52-0.”  The beds are then folded over, “and I’ll generally put in some 10-34-0 at that time” along with a shot of Hydra-Hume.
    “I run less fertilizer on the front (early) beets and the last beets,” Mamer adds.  “With those late beets, the taproot will go find it in our soils, with the tile lines at six feet.  Generally, too, they’ll pick up some extra fertilizer that has been ‘pushed down’ over the years.”  Actual fertilizer rates depend, of course, on the soil test results.  In-season leaf petiole sampling determines “whether we need to add a bit more in January or February.”
     Beds on the early and mid fields are usually watered first.  “We’ll set up the head end, ‘punch the pipe’ or run siphons, water it — and come back 10 to 15 days later” with a Lilliston cultivator pass, Mamer says.  “Then, probably within a week to 10 days, we’re ready to plant that field.”
    If a field is being planted in mid-September, the seed spacing will be significantly tighter compared to a field being planted in early or mid-October.  Heat, salt and the periodic heavy rain are the reasons why.  “We have to make sure we get a good stand despite all that,” Mamer points out.  “We still have the salt later on; but the ‘weather side’ isn’t as big.  So we can widen out our spacing — and the beets generally come up quicker, too.”
    After planting, the water flows again for four to five days; is shut off for another three or four days; then gets turned back on “to make sure we have a good stand.  Once we’re satisfied with the stand, we cultivate the beds.  And if we have a bunch of weeds somewhere in the field, that’s also the best time to go in with a small crew and take them out.”
    After watering back, “we’ll furrow pack out: take the weeds again with one side knife, making a little deeper furrow.  At that point, if the field has some wild beets, we come in with a shot of Treflan and Outlook.  Spraying that and ‘Lilliston-ing’ it up helps control the weeds.”  If the weed population warrants, he can also incorporate an application of Eptam with the irrigation water.
    “Then we’re off to the races.  You just keep watering the field” until harvest nears.

                                                                That All-Important Water

    Sugarbeet growers in the Imperial Valley do not presently operate under water restrictions.  That may change in the future; but to date, “we’ve been able to have enough water at our discretion to use as we see fit,” Mamer says. 
    The high salt content of Valley soils is managed mainly through tiling and summer flood irrigation.  “We make sure our tile lines are clean, chisel anywhere from 24 to 28 inches deep — and then do that summer flood,” he explains.  “Once the water is running across the top of the field, it tends to push the salts deeper,” away from the beet growth zone.
    “If you want to get rid of even more salts, you’re better off leveling the field,” Mamer continues.  “Make it nice and flat, with a little bit of fall so the water drains off the lower end.”  But, he adds, no one wants to drain off too much water, either.  The Imperial Irrigation District operates gauges on field headgates and tailgates to monitor field runoff.  “We’re always watching that.  We don’t like extra waste water,” Mamer emphasizes.  “There’s no reason to put more [salty] water into the [Salton] Sea.”
    The veteran grower and board member of the California Beet Growers Association admits that the water needs of sugarbeets can be harder to gauge than some of his other crops — especially during the winter months.  While some growers use more “high-tech” methods for scheduling irrigation, he still relies largely on “the old-fashioned way of pulling the sugarbeet out of the ground.  If there’s mud sticking to it, don’t water.  If the dirt falls off and the taproot is clean, turn the water on.”
    As the season progresses and harvest approaches, however, “there’s a ‘fine line’ in keeping the moisture more constant.  We don’t want cracks developing in the root.  The beets get so big here that the cell walls on the outside can split and cracks develop.  You don’t want water hitting that” and contributing to more root rot.
    So, while water sets in February commonly run for 24 hours, “once we get into June and onward — especially with all the later-harvested beets — we’ll go to 12- to 14-hour sets.”  Also, those sets will be conducted during the evening and nighttime hours.

                                                                Harvesting at 100+ Degrees

    When you have beets growing for 10 or 11 months under ample irrigation and with lots of heat units, you’re likely to end up with some excellent yields. The average Imperial Valley yield this past harvest season was 46.5 tons per acre (a record), with sugar content just a shade under 16%.  This is the environment, after all, where a new world-record beet field seems to be achieved every two or three years.  On Gary Mamer’s own farm, one section of a 2012 beet field pushed 80-plus tons per acre.
    Given the length of the harvest season and variance in beet root size from early fields to late fields, “we’re always adjusting the digger, up or down” Mamer allows.  “We’re always asking our truckers, ‘How’s our dirt going?’ ”
    Digging speeds are slow, especially on later-harvested fields with their exceptionally large beets.  “Our taproots go pretty deep, so we’re careful not to break off too much,” he says. “With the size of our beets, we’re concerned about slicing them, too, so we’re always moving the row finder one way or the other to make sure it’s dead center.”
    Because of the mass of foliage, Mamer runs a flail chopper through his fields a day ahead of the defoliator pass.  “That chopper really takes off a lot of the foliage and helps the [defoliator] do a much better job,” he affirms.
    And what about the dynamics of harvesting beets when temperatures hover well above 100 degrees?  “All our guys are pretty spoiled these days,” Mamer smiles.  “Everything has AC in it.  So as long as you keep rolling, you’re fine.  You’re going to break down occasionally; but we don’t know any differently. 
    “It is what it is.” — Don Lilleboe

    Left: A veteran of several ASGA annual meetings and numerous other sugar industry events, the always-popular Jim Wiesemeyer delivered his take on the ag and trade outlook.  Informa Economics’ senior vice president for farm and trade policy named nine key factors impacting U.S. and global food and agricultural markets over the next decade, including: (1) global growth and rise of the middle class in developing countries; (2) value of the U.S. dollar; (3) worldwide biofuels production; (4) role of trade and trade liberalization and transportation; (5) energy and agricultural input prices; (6) biotech and other yield/precision developments; (7) additional land for crops in places like Brazil, Africa and the Ukraine; and the two “wild cards” — (8) the weather; and (9) politics and policy.  His take-away message: strong growth in food demand from emerging markets will keep global prices and profitability strong.
    Wiesemeyer envisioned a new farm bill probably being a reality by the August congressional recess. “Stand your guard,” he cautioned beet growers.

    Left: Pam Bailey, president and CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, outlined the ever-increasing complexity of the global food supply.  (Also shown in this photo are Kelly Erickson, ASGA president, and Luther Markwart, ASGA executive vice president.)  Within the U.S., she noted, the average grocery store stocked about 7,300 different products as of 1965; today it is closer to 40,000.  Most consumers don’t have much understanding of what goes into providing their food, she observed.  “What consumers do pay attention to is the media” — including social media, she said.  “It is imperative that we, as a value chain, provide consumers with simple, easy-to-understand information.”
     Speaking on the subject of biotech and food labeling, “GMA and its member companies strongly support the continued use of food ingredients made from [biotech products],” Bailey stated. GMA and many of its member companies worked extensively to help defeat the recent California Proposition 37 labeling initiative.  But “the public debate is far from over” on this subject, she stressed.

    Jeff Harrison of Combest, Sell & Associates, whose clients include the American Sugar Alliance, reviewed the 112th Congress’ accomplishments (or lack thereof) and looked ahead to the 113th.  Analyzing why a new five-year farm bill was not enacted, “I place the blame on a situation where Congress and Washington were more prone to extension,” he stated, noting that of 241 laws passed during the 112th Congress, only eight could be considered “major new legislation.”
     Calling the sugar lobby an excellent example of “unity on substance and strategy,” Harrison encouraged ASGA members to “make your House and Senate members your champions,” to continue educating other members of Congress, and to remain supportive of their political action committees. “You have great representation in Washington, and you are excellent ‘on the ground’ there,” he emphasized.

    Maxine Enciso of global public relations agency Ketchum works with the U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance to infuse the voice of agriculture into the conversation taking place about food. “This is about having a long-term conversation with consumers and decision makers,” she explained.  Trust and transparency are vital elements in helping consumers understand and be comfortable with the quality of the food they are buying and eating, Enciso said.
     For more details on this program, visit www.fooddialogues.com.

    Dr. Charles Baker (left), executive vice president and chief science officer for the Sugar Association, Inc., was one of several individuals and teams to be recognized by the ASGA Board of Directors for special contributions to the beet sugar industry in connection with bringing Roundup Ready sugarbeets to market and helping defend the technology during extended litigation. Baker was instrumental in the collection and analysis of sugar samples from around the world to prove that sugar from Roundup Ready beets was identical at the molecular level to sugar produced from conventionally or organically grown beet or cane.  Here he is being presented with a resolution certificate by Kelly Erickson, ASGA president.
     Others recognized via ASGA board resolutions included Tom Schwartz, executive vice president of the Beet Sugar Development Foundation; Idaho sugarbeet producer Duane Grant; Wyoming producer John Snyder; ASGA’s executive vice president, Luther Markwart; James Johnson, president of the United States Beet Sugar Association; the Monsanto Roundup Ready sugarbeet technology team; the USDA-APHIS Biotechnology Regulatory Services team; USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack; and members of the Baker Hostetler legal team.

    Retiring ASGA board member and Michigan grower Gene Meylan (left) is presented with an appreciation plaque by ASGA President Kelly Erickson for his years of service to the association.  Other board retirees this year were Doug Etten (Minn-Dak) and Jeff Henry (Idaho).
    New members of the ASGA Board of Directors include Nick Ludowese (Southern Minnesota), Clark Gerstacker (Michigan) and a yet-to-be named member from Idaho.
     “As we look to the year ahead, we must maneuver in a political environment that is both turbulent and unpredictable,” Erickson noted in his closing remarks to the 2013 annual meeting’s audience.  “Such an environment requires us to  play both offense and defense at the same time.  Our industry is unified, coordinated, with strategic plans in place — and we are all properly motivated to carry out our respective tasks.”

      ASGA’s 2013 leadership team includes, left to right:  Executive Vice President Luther Markwart; President Kelly Erickson (Hallock, Minn.); Vice President John Snyder (Worland, Wyo.); and Treasurer Don Steinbeisser, Jr. (Sidney, Mont.).

        As important a player as Roundup Ready varieties are, however, they’re really the “opening chapter” in a futuristic biotech book now being written.  That was the core message from three seed company leaders who comprised the “Potential Opportunities in Sugarbeet Biotechnology” panel at the 2013 American Sugarbeet Growers Association annual meeting.  The three were: Steve Fritz, general manager of SES Vanderhave USA; Darcy Pawlik, North America industry relations lead for Syngenta; and Kurt Wickstrom, president of Betaseed, Inc.  The trio discussed various challenges and likely timelines in bringing new biotech-trait products to the marketplace, and also shared some of the specific priorities at their respective companies.

    SES Vanderhave’s Fritz pointed out that one of the most important objectives in bringing new genetics and biotech traits to the market is to not pull unwanted traits along with the desired ones.  “In addition to eliminating unwanted traits, we focus on maintaining or increasing existing disease packages, recoverable sugar, recoverable tons — and overall grower revenue,” he noted.  So rather than developing single traits in a consecutive fashion, “all active tracks are worked on at the same time.”
    Bringing a new sugarbeet biotech trait to the market can take upwards of 10 years — or more, Fritz explained.  The process at SES Vanderhave encompasses several critical steps:  (1) trait discovery; (2) proof of concept; (3) early development; (4) advancement; (5) deregulation; (6) the pre-commercial phase; and (7) actual market delivery.  “The regulatory process for any new biotech trait will continue to be long and expensive for any crop,” Fritz observed.  That phase of the process is complicated by the fact that various other crops are in the governmental regulatory review/approval pipeline simultaneously with their own requests and needs.
    SES Vanderhave — which recently built a new multi-million dollar greenhouse complex at its headquarters in Belgium to bolster its breeding programs — is working on several biotech sugarbeet traits.  The only one that is currently commercialized in the U.S. industry is Roundup Ready beets.  Other biotech projects being pursued by SES Vanderhave are still in the discovery/proof of concept/early development phases.  Among them are virus resistance (e.g., rhizomania), nitrogen use efficiency, water use efficiency, fungal resistance (e.g., Cercospora leafspot), yield improvement and stacked herbicide resistance traits.

    Syngenta’s Pawlik began his remarks by reminding the ASGA audience of several key benefits reaped from biotech advancements in sugarbeets, including: new options for weed control, insect protection and disease resistance; improved crop productivity; the identification and development of integrated crop solutions; a lessening of impacts on the environment; and the preservation of a sustainable and geographically diverse supply of sugar.
    One eye-opening avenue being pursued at Syngenta, Pawlik reported, is the development of a winter beet, known as WIZZARD®.  These varieties would be planted in late summer/early fall in areas like the Treasure Valley of Oregon/Idaho and possibly the southern Idaho region; then harvested 10 to 11 months later.  Along with agronomic benefits for the grower (up to 25% more yield, improved sugar content, more-efficient uptake of nitrogen), the winter beet also would extend the processing campaign at these areas’ factories, thus better utilizing those huge fixed assets.
    Several years of overwinter trials of WIZZARD have already been conducted in Europe, with the plant survival rate being high.  Successful trials also have been conducted in the United States.  However, the winter beet is still a long way from commercialization, Pawlik emphasized.
    Syngenta also is working on a biotech approach to rhizomania resistance.  The trait is based on a gene silencing mechanism that stops the replication of the virus within the plant cell.  Efficacy of this event — referred to as GM RZ — has been proven in greenhouse and field trials, but commercialization is still several years down the road.
    One major consideration for any company evaluating commercialization of a new biotech trait, Pawlik pointed out, is market size.  With the entire North American sugarbeet area being about 1.2 million acres, the ability to recoup costs is much more difficult than in a crop like corn or soybeans.  However, if countries like Russia, the Ukraine and China likewise were viable markets for this technology, commercialization challenges would be reduced.  Western Europe, for the time being at least, is not as accepting of biotechnology.
   
    In addition to the ongoing development of Roundup Ready varieties, Betaseed is currently working on four major biotech-centered projects with potential for the North American market, Kurt Wickstrom told the ASGA audience.  One is transgenic rhizomania resistance.  That takes on a special urgency, given the prospect of the virus overcoming the current resistance from traditional sources.  A transgenic approach would provide a different mode of action and complete resistance.  An “elite event selection” was made in 2012, Wickstrom noted; but commercialization is still several years away.
    Betaseed also is developing winter beets.  Again, Wickstrom pointed out, a winter beet would be planted in the fall, would have an extended vegetation period, a 20-30% increase in sugar yield, flowering control (no bolters), cold tolerance — and it would allow the beet sugar factories to undertake a longer processing campaign.  Like Syngenta, the market introduction of Betaseed’s winter beet is still several years away.
    The third major biotech focus for Betaseed is in fungal disease control — specifically, Cercospora leafspot.  The market introduction of transgenic varieties resistant to Cercospora would probably not come until at least 2020.
    Finally, Betaseed is working cooperatively with BASF on a “yield gene” project for sugarbeets.  This biotech effort is focusing on the development of higher-yielding and drought-tolerant beet varieties, with an anticipated yield boost of around 15% over current varieties.  Such varieties will, Wickstrom observed, enhance sugarbeet’s competitiveness with other crops.  This project is still in the “proof of concept” stage, with expected commercialization several years off.
   
    All this work takes time and money — a lot of time and a lot of money.
It can easily require a decade or more — and tens of millions of dollars — to take a new biotech trait from conception all the way to a farmer’s field. But the seed companies obviously believe that is where the future lies — not only their own future, but also that of the overall sugarbeet industry.  Stay tuned! — Don Lilleboe   

    First, he noted, several key points deserve repeated emphasis when visiting either with fellow growers, government decision makers or the public in general:
    • “This sugar policy has been [operated] at no cost to the taxpayer for 11 years.”
    • The U.S. sugar industry accounts for 142,000 jobs.
    • “We generate $20 billion into the economy” per year.
    • “It provides food security, because 70% of all the foods you buy in the store, off the shelf, have sugar in them.  So if you have a sugar supply problem, you have a food security problem.”
    • The United States is the world’s largest importer of sugar.
    • “We have to respond to unfair foreign trade practices.”
    • And finally, “the one message that is really resonating on Capitol Hill right now is that Europe went through a major reform of its sugar policy.  They shut down 84 factories, lost more than 100,000 jobs — and now their prices are higher and they have supply issues.  The message is:  ‘Don’t do what Europe did.  Don’t make the mistakes they made.’ ”
    Markwart then provided an overview of international trade issues upon which ASGA is focused in 2013.  He began with the World Trade Organization (WTO), whose longstanding priorities have included: (1) reducing domestic supports; (3) eliminating export subsidies; and (3) increasing market access, eliminating import tariffs — and, particularly for the least-developed-countries section, “get duty-free, quota-free access to our markets — which would be devastating for us.”
    There’s not much sugar-related movement going on within WTO at present, Markwart noted.  “But we’re watching it.  We watch it every year.”
    The closer focus right now is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).  The TPP umbrella currently encompasses 11 countries, including Australia, Vietnam, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia, as well as Chile, Peru, Mexico, Canada and the United States.  Australia, which annually exports about 4.0 million tons of sugar, is an immediate concern.  “In the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement, we did not give them any additional access,” Markwart pointed out.  “And we do not want any additional access in this market for Australia.”
    “Regional cummulation” refers to a way for a country like Australia to potentially maneuver around such restrictions.  If the U.S. denies any further access, the Australians could, for instance, set up a facility in New Zealand, ship raw or refined sugar into that country — “and maybe blend in some cocoa products and others that cause it then to become an ‘origin of New Zealand,’ ” Markwart stated.
    Another potential concern with TPP would be countries like Thailand or the Philippines.  What happens if their production expands and they seek more access to international markets (e.g., the United States)?
    “We talk about all the oversupply issues we have in our market today and what that’s doing to price, “ Markwart continued.  “Well, if you’re ever going to  have a problem with depressed price and oversupply, now is the ‘perfect’ time to have it — when you’re trying to pass a farm bill and you can show: ‘Look, we need a safety net.  Things today aren’t like they were three or four years ago.  And [that safety net] has to be adequate enough for us to sustain our production.
    “So the message to both farm policy and our trade negotiators is: this market can’t take more sugar.”

    Markwart’s update on sugarbeet crop insurance reflected significant progress in that arena.  He noted that stage removal is now complete, which is very good news.  Regarding replant coverage, the previous formula (1.5 x price election) now has been changed to a fixed amount ($80 per acre) for the 2013 crop.  The prior formula was fine as long as price election and prices were strong.  But what happens in a situation like the current one, where prices are down — but input costs obviously will not be?  “It needed to get fixed to protect you in years to come,” the ASGA leader told growers.  “We do have the ability, in future years, to show that the number needs to be higher than what it is now,” he added.
    The field pile (clamp) pilot project — utilized in Michigan and southern Minnesota — is now covered for the entire insurance period (through mid-November), Markwart reported.  Also, if other beet-growing areas wish to begin utilizing field clamps, “that pilot can be expanded.”
    The news in price election also is very positive.         
    “Every year, [when] we were going into the increase in sugar prices, USDA was always lagging behind in terms of having price elections that reflected what was going on in the marketplace,” Markwart noted.  Input from John Doxsie, president of United Sugars Corporation, helped USDA’s Risk Management Agency to update those elections based on current market realities.  As a result, estimated additional guarantees are $43.00 per ton for the 2009 year, $43.75 for 2010, $47.50 for 2011 and $59.85 for 2012.  “For 2013, they’ve dropped a little bit (to $58.95 a ton),” Markwart said.  “That’s only a 90-cent reduction; and in this market, I think that’s pretty good.”
    The ASGA executive vice president’s final discussion area centered on biotechnology — specifically the long and circuitous legal route for Roundup Ready® sugarbeets.  “”We’ve been through five years of litigation; we had four cases, three appeals, three courts and six different judges looking at the issues,” he observed.  “We also had an 800-page Environmental Impact Statement.” 
    While deregulation of Roundup Ready beets has occurred and growers continue having full access to these transgenic varieties, that does not mean the matter has been relegated to the history books, Markwart emphasized.  “Now we need to continue to focus on stewardship: weed resistance and bolter destruction,” he affirmed.  “We also have to oppose restrictions on planting the seed crop in Oregon.”  Prospective labeling ballot initiatives in states like Washington are on ASGA’s radar screen as well.
    “”I am going to do everything I can to make sure they never take this technology away from us,” Markwart concluded.   

    The photogate was a supplement to — not a replacement for — the standard grease belt method.  But while the grower and test stand operator still viewed the seeds as they dropped onto the grease belt, the resulting seed spacing histogram was a more-accurate reflection of overall planter unit performance.
    As innovative as that development was nine years ago, it’s now “history” in the Western Sugar Cooperative (WSC) growing region.  In 2009, Smith (who has since retired from the university) procured a MeterMax® Ultra test stand manufactured by Illinois-based Precision Planting, Inc.  The Ultra is able to calibrate meters for virtually any of the planter models used by the region’s beet growers (e.g., John Deere MaxEmerge, John Deere 71 Flex [with an adapter developed by Smith], Case IH, Kinze, Monosem, White, Great Plains).  That same year, Western Sugar agriculturists ran the Ultra side by side with the computerized grease belt for comparison.
    The complete transition away from the grease belt happened quickly.  “In 2010 we used the Ultra solely,” says Terry Butcher, Scottsbluff-based WSC senior agriculturist.  “That worked OK; but we soon realized we couldn’t get all the planter meters tested with just one test stand.”  So for 2011 the Western Sugar Cooperative-Grower Joint Research Committee invested in three Ultra test stands in order to adequately cover the region’s needs.  One of the Ultras is used exclusively in the northern growing area (Lovell, Wyo., and Billings, Mont., factory districts).  The other two — working together — cover western Nebraska and northeastern Colorado.
    Response from the region’s sugarbeet producers has been enthusiastic.  “In most of our areas, we will have around 90% participation by our growers,” Butcher reports.  He estimates that about half of the growers also bring in seed tubes to be tested for wear and performance.
    Nick Lapaseotes is a grower and farm implement dealer (21st Century Equipment) from Bridgeport, Neb.  He also is the new chairman of Western Sugar Cooperative.  “As a partner in 21st Century Equipment, we have been involved since when they bought the first [Ultra],” Lapaseotes notes.  “The stands are set up at some of our dealership locations, and we have parts on hand so they can replace what is needed on site.  Also, as a grower, I used it the first year and have since.”
    Lapaseotes is a strong proponent of every seed meter — and at least some seed tubes — being tested with the MeterMax Ultra.  “Since we began doing this, I have seen our planters work a lot better — from improved seed placement to vacuum psi being more consistent,” he says.  “We have seen our seed units test at the ‘high 90s%’ accuracy level.  I’ve also taken new seed units when we trade planters and [have been] surprised how a knockout wheel or a new gasket doesn’t seal right.
    “I wouldn’t put a planter in the field in the spring without testing the seed units and seed tubes.”

    In comparing the grease-belt method with the Ultra, John Smith lists several benefits to the Precision Planting unit:
    • It is much smaller and easier to transport between locations.
    • Set-up is quick (15 minutes or so, compared to about a half hour with
the grease belt); also, there’s no oil on hands, clothes or the floor.
    • The Ultra provides numerical results rather than a subjective “OK” or “not OK” visual evaluation.
    • Growers can take home a performance printout, if desired.
    • The Ultra provides numerical information on skips, multiples and accuracy of seed spacing of “good” spacings, as well as a visual histogram of all seed spacings within a given run.
    • And finally, it’s very accurate.
    Terry Butcher adds a couple more:  “It’s not necessary to bring the seed hoppers in (all you need is the meter): and, lastly but just as important, is the ability of the Ultra to measure the torque needed to turn the meter.”
    “I think it is reasonable to estimate, in general, that accurate plant spacing resulting from accurate planter performance contributes one ton per acre of harvested yield,” Smith observes.  “Good plant spacing does not just ‘happen.’  The planter test stand clinics that WSC — and other sugarbeet cooperatives — have conducted over the years have contributed highly to this outcome.  The Ultra just makes this task easier, faster and more accurate, to keep up with the faster and more-accurate planters we have today — and to provide the best match of seed configuration, plate options, vacuum options, singulator adjustment options, etc.” — Don Lilleboe     

    The need for a formal organization to facilitate communication among diverse facets of the beet sugar industry was recognized by participants in an informal group known as “The Sugar Beet Roundtable.”  T. G. Stewart, extension agronomist with Colorado State College of Agriculture (now Colorado State University), is credited with organizing the first Roundtable meeting at Fort Collins, Colo., in 1935. 
    After the second meeting in 1936, researchers from California were invited to join the 1937 discussions.  The process of creating a more-structured national organization that would bring together the various facets of the industry culminated on January 7 during the closing session of the 1937 meeting. 
    At least 24 groups, including processing companies, seed companies, state universities, the U.S Department of Agriculture and sugarbeet grower associations from across the United States and Canada, were represented at the 1937 Roundtable.  A. W. Skuderna of American Crystal Sugar Co. (Rocky Ford, Colo.) was elected the first president, while N.R. McCreery of the Great Western Sugar Company (Denver, Colo.) was elected vice president, and H.E. Brewbaker (with USDA, Fort Collins), secretary-treasurer.  A committee was assigned the task of drafting a constitution and bylaws for discussion at the first session of the 1938 meeting.
    The participation of representatives of the Canadian sugar industry in the 1937 Roundtable discussions was likely instrumental in the Society becoming the “American Society” with the inclusion of Canadians as full participants in the organization since its inception.
    The American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists (ASSBT) was officially created on January 13, 1938, in Salt Lake City, Utah, with the adoption of a constitution and bylaws; membership dues were set at $1.00.  Sixty-four papers, including one presented by a Danish researcher, were presented at the 1938 meeting.  Discussions at the Roundtable meetings were limited to breeding, agronomy or other phases of production research.  However, ASSBT has included chemists and factory technologists as full participants since its beginning.
    According to the original constitution, “The objective of this society shall be to foster all phases of sugar beet and beet sugar research, and act as a clearing house for the exchange of ideas resulting from such work.” The wording of the current mission statement has changed slightly, but remains primarily focused upon the original objectives.         The interchange of ideas through the Society is credited with breaking down many barriers between companies and leading to a free discussion of mutual problems.  On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of ASSBT in 1987, President Donald Oldemeyer contended that the value of ASSBT in fostering cooperation among federal, state and private researchers — which, in turn, contributes to the cohesiveness and survival of the industry — could not be overemphasized. 
    ASSBT has fostered exchanges not only among its North American members, but also has facilitated communication with colleagues in Europe.  As early as 1940, the membership rolls included three European researchers.  Furthermore, a notification of the ASSBT meeting and greetings were sent via cablegram to the IIRB (International Institute for Beet Research) in Brussels, Belgium, during the inaugural ASSBT meeting in 1938. The regular attendance of IIRB representatives at ASSBT meetings since then is evidence of an enduring productive relationship between IIRB and ASSBT.
    Between 37 and 140 sugarbeet researchers participated in the 1935 to 1937 Roundtable discussions that preceded the formation of ASSBT.  Two years after the formation of ASSBT, the organization had 256 members.  Membership had increased to 354 on the 10th anniversary of the formation of ASSBT, and regional meetings were held in Detroit, Mich., and Salt Lake City.  By its 25th anniversary, ASSBT had 633 members representing 35 state and 20 countries, and the Society’s journal was distributed to 59 countries. Membership had dropped to 550 by ASSBT’s 50th anniversary and is currently about 300 as it celebrates its 75th anniversary.

    Formal communication among ASSBT members occurs via oral and poster presentations at biennial meetings, published proceedings of the meetings, articles relevant to the industry in a peer-reviewed journal, and via online websites that allow unrestricted access to all society publications.
    Midwinter biennial meetings were held in or near sugarbeet production areas prior to 1968.  But having to endure temperatures that never exceeded 0° F during the 1966 meeting in Minneapolis, Minn., prompted the scheduling of future meetings at warmer, more-southern sites, according to anecdotes.  There was no meeting in 1944 because of war-time restrictions, and the meeting scheduled for 1980 was delayed until the winter of 1981 because of severe economic problems in the industry.  All other meetings have occurred at two-year intervals. The only biennial meeting convened outside the borders of the U.S. was the 31st gathering, held in Vancouver, B.C., in 2001.
    Prior to 1956, all research reports were published as proceedings of the biennial meetings.  With the exception of 1944, from 1942 to 1954 the proceedings were compiled in book form.           
    After its launch in 1956, the Journal of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists (JASSBT) became the principal ASSBT publication for distribution of research results.  JASSBT was renamed the Journal of Sugar Beet Research (JSBR) in 1988.  James Fischer edited the JASSBT for many years in conjunction with his responsibilities as secretary-treasurer of ASSBT.  Susan Martin replaced Fischer as editor; and since then, three members have served as Journal editors — Alan Dexter, Larry Campbell and Lee Panella — with the assistance of many associate editors and expert reviewers.
    It is in the spirit of the founders that the publications of the ASSBT are now accessible without charge to the general public on recently established websites.  These sites provide access to all issues of JASSBT and JSBR (assbt-jsbr.org), and the proceedings of the first (1938) to the 36th (2011) biennial meetings (assbt-proceedings.org).      Since 1993, abstracts of papers presented at the biennial meetings have been published in JSBR.  The sites allow users to search by topic or author. This enhancement of communication among sugarbeet researchers worldwide will, in turn, complement a longtime objective of ASSBT, i.e., “producing more sugar per acre at decreased cost.”
    ASSBT has established four award categories to recognize members whose contributions to the industry and/or the Society are substantial. The Forty-Year Veteran Award recognizes any individual, member or nonmember whose service has benefited the industry for 40 years. The Meritorious Service Award acknowledges members “who have been outstanding in promoting the objectives of the Society, or have made significant contributions to the beet sugar industry.”  Those elected to Honorary Membership “have rendered outstanding service to the beet sugar industry or have by virtue of scientific accomplishment acquired the admiration and respect of this Society.”
    The most prestigious award the Society offers is the Savitsky Memorial Award named in honor of Viacheslav and Helen Savitsky.  The Savitsky Award recognizes those who “have excelled in either scientific advancement in the field of sugar technology, or service and dedication to the sugar industry.”  Only seven individuals have received the Savitsky Memorial Award: Richard A. McGinnis in 1991, James H. Fischer in 1995, James E. Duffus in 2001, Marius Christian G. Middelburg in 2003, Alan G. Dexter in 2007 and Alvin W. Erichsen and Robert T. Lewellen in 2009.
   
    ASSBT shares many common objectives with — and has benefited from — a close association with the Beet Sugar Development Foundation (BSDF).  BSDF was chartered under the laws of Colorado in July 1945.  At that time, it was primarily concerned with mechanizing sugarbeet production.  BSDF membership consists of sugarbeet processing companies and seed companies.  “The BSDF is dedicated to the advancement of sugarbeet production and beet sugar processing through science-based research and leading educational programs.” BSDF financed publication of the proceedings of the 1946 ASSBT meeting and has since provided supplemental funding for many of the research projects managed by members of ASSBT, and others.
    James H. Fischer was the first paid secretary-treasurer of BSDF, originally hired on a part-time basis in January 1947 while an engineering student — and on a full-time basis in 1948.  Fischer held the position for 40 years.  Beginning in 1952, he also served jointly as secretary-treasurer of ASSBT and was a major force behind the 1956 launch of the Journal of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists. 
    Stephen Reynolds was hired in 1986, initially to work with Fischer and then assume full responsibilities upon Fischer’s retirement in 1987.  Reynolds served as secretary-treasurer until his departure in 1988.
    Thomas Schwartz was hired to replace Reynolds in September 1988 and has promoted the objectives of and guided BSDF and ASSBT since then. Schwartz’s title was changed to “executive vice president” to more accurately reflect the executive duties of the office.  Schwartz was instrumental in updating the Journal format, including changing its name and logo in 1988 and, more recently, the establishment of the Journal’s online presence.

    History documents the fact that the beet sugar industry has faced many challenges — some from natural sources, others from public policy decisions and perceived health concerns.  Protected by a 1.685-cent-per-pound tariff, the U.S. sugar industry flourished in the 10-year period following 1896.  The pending elimination of the tariff probably would have been a deathblow to the industry had it not been for the increase in domestic food production prompted by World War I.             
    During World War II, a similar need for a reliable domestic sugar supply benefited the industry.  Immigration policy limiting the availability of Mexican nationals was cited as a problem that would complicate weed control in sugarbeet fields in the presidential address at the 1964 ASSBT biennial meeting.  While government policies affect the well-being of the industry and may impact the resources available for research and the nature of the research conducted, ASSBT, as a society, is not directly involved in molding policy. 
    Although specific research objectives change over the years, ASSBT and its members always have focused on increasing productivity, reducing costs and adapting new technology to old problems.  A priority topic at the 1940 meeting was the standardization of experimental methods.  Mechanization of all facets of production — but particularly harvesting — was emphasized during ASSBT’s first 10 years. 
    Disease, insect and weed control issues have changed over time; but they remain a constant threat to production.  Fertilizer management, tillage options, seedling emergence and other management practices have been frequent topics at ASSBT meetings and continually require refinement as new equipment, varieties and knowledge become available.  Postharvest storage losses have been recognized by ASSBT as a problem at least since 1946. 
    Improving sucrose extraction rates and efficiencies of factories has been and continues to be a high priority.  Public policy decisions that will affect profitability remain unpredictable. 
Diseases and insect pests are occurring with increased intensity in some areas and show no sign of diminishing.  The optimization of precision agriculture technologies to specific environments will enhance production efficiency. 
    Remaining competitive in a global economy will require the continuation of the productive cooperation between industry and public research institutions that has been facilitated for the past 75 years by ASSBT.  ASSBT will remain a strong, effective, vehicle for this cooperation as long as it keeps the vision of its founders — and those who have followed — as its mission.

    USDA Agricultural Research Service researchers and colleagues have long been studying the potential of sugarbeet pulp utilization.  Now, chemist LinShu Liu and plant physiologist Arland Hotchkiss, both with the Dairy and Functional Foods Unit at ARS’s Eastern Regional Research Center in Wyndmoor, Pa., and colleagues have found new uses for sugarbeet pulp.
    In collaboration with professor Jinwen Zhang of Washington State University (WSU) in Pullman, Liu and ARS-WSU colleagues developed a biodegradable thermoplastic (meaning plastic that becomes soft when heated) that could be used in disposable food containers.
    The bioplastic is manufactured from both sugarbeet pulp and a bio-degradable polymer called polylactic acid, or PLA, using a twin screw extruder.  PLA is a commercially available polymer derived from the sugars in corn, sugarbeet, sugarcane, switchgrass and other plants/renewable feedstocks.  Extrusion is a cost-effective manufacturing process that is popularly used in large-scale production of food, plastics and composite materials.  Many biopolymers and their composite materials with petroleum-based polymers also can be extruded.
    The scientists showed that up to 50% sugarbeet pulp can be incorporated with PLA, and the resulting thermoplastic composites retain mechanical properties similar to those of polystyrene and polypropylene — the compounds used to make white, spongy food packages.  The new thermoplastic is cost competitive with commonly used petrochemical plastics.  The study was published in Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research in 2008.
   
    ARS-WSU researchers also developed other beet pulp materials.  Under extrusion compounding, sugarbeet pulp was turned into a thermoplastic-like material with the assistance of water and/or glycerol.  This material can be subsequently processed by extrusion or injection molding to produce neat (meaning pure) sugarbeet pulp products.
    The resulting thermoplastic sugarbeet pulp possesses mechanical properties that are similar to those of low-density polyethylene — the commonly produced materials used for opaque plastic containers, bags and film coverings.  It can also be blended with PLA and other biodegradable polymers for enhanced water resistance.  The composite could function as a lightweight-bearing material comprising up to 98% sugarbeet pulp.
    This continued development of the sugarbeet pulp plastic (for example, as yogurt cups, cottage cheese tubs or other thin, opaque plastic containers) could benefit sugarbeet growers and beet sugar processors.  (More findings were reported in the Journal of Polymers and the Environment and Industrial Engineering Chemistry Research in 2011.)
    The new composite plastics containing sugarbeet pulp are cost competitive when compared to materials that are made solely of PLA, according to Liu and Hotchkiss.  “The technology is promising and provides a ‘green’ material for food packaging,” says Hotchkiss. — Rosalie Marion Bliss, ARS Information Staff          

     Tim and Tony Hought accomplished
that enviable objective several years ago when they were looking for a way to help protect their emerging sugarbeets from strong early spring winds on their west central Minnesota farm.  “In our ground, we need to leave lumps out there, or we blow,” Tim affirms. 
    The Houghts, who farm near Foxhome, Minn., with their father, John, came up with a simple yet highly effective solution.  They took a bunch of old press drill disks, welded small perpendicular flanges on them, and mounted the modified disks on shanks — with hubs and bearings intact — for installation on their planter.  The result?  Homemade “stingers” that rough up enough soil to help blunt strong winds and thus guard those young beets. “We don’t get the soil lumps as large as we would with a ripper,” Tony relates, “but it’s still enough.”
    Prior to developing their stingers several years ago, the Houghts had been utilizing standard S-tine rippers on their cultivator (in the pre-Roundup Ready® beet days) to work corn stalks and barley cover crop residue.   On their planter, they mounted S-tine rippers to clean between the 22-inch rows.      But they experienced a fair amount of plugging when planting on old corn ground or in other heavier-residue conditions.  Plus, they were putting the ripper shanks on the planter in fields with lower residue; then taking them off again when seeding fields with higher residue.  (They do still run the rippers in their tractor tracks and in the planter’s wheel tracks, however, to loosen that compacted soil.)

    The homemade stingers stay on the planter permanently, so the sole required labor comes when they have to replace one (typically only after multiple seasons of use).  Occasionally, a corn root ball may get stuck between the stinger shank and a wide-flange disk, and the disk will slide along rather than roll; but that’s rare.  “If it does happen, we just need to lift up, and by that time it typically drops off, and away you go again,” Tim says.
    The Houghts did experiment a bit at first with the width of the flanges.  Their initial sets were about ¾-inch wide; but they did not provide enough soil disturbance.  So they made another group whose flanges were around one inch in diameter; then a third of about 1.5 inches in width.  The widest ones barely cleared the shank and tended to be a little too aggressive, in their view; so now they typically employ the mid-width ones.  With the flanges being welded on both sides of the flat disk, the worked soil zone for each disk thus is two-plus inches.
    “Their main purpose is just to rough up the soil in the spring so the field doesn’t blow,” Tony reiterates.  “We can go on ground where there isn’t hardly any trash, and it still leaves enough roughed to not blow.  Then we can go into another place where there’s heavy corn residue — but it won’t plug.  So it works out well in both situations.
    “Plus, we’re not taking them off or adjusting them all the time.”
    Mike Metzger, Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative research agronomist and the Houghts’ former agriculturist, agrees that their homemade stingers provide an effective, simple solution to a sometimes-vexing issue.  “What makes them so attractive is that they can be used on fields with large amounts of residue and/or trash without plugging, whereas most other growers would have to flip the stingers up or take them completely off to avoid this nuisance,” Metzger concurs.  “With the increased acreage of sugarbeets following corn [in the Minn-Dak operations area] in recent years, this type of ‘recycling program’ really makes a lot of sense.” — Don Lilleboe