57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:22 Page A
BRITISH
sugar beet review
AUTUMN 2016
www.beetreview.co.uk
■
volume 84 no. 3
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:22 Page B
16/3/IFC/01
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:23 Page 1
BRITISH
sugar beet review
contents
regulars
Industry update from British Sugar, BBRO and NFU
2
Editor:
Paul Simmonds
Production
Editor:
Denise Woodward
BBRO activities
35
Factory update
36
features
Editorial Consultants:
The chaser concept
4
By Philip Ecclestone
Mike May,
Independent
Consultant
Newark CHP – boiler emissions compliance
8
By Phil McNaughton
Germains trials new sugar beet seed treatments
with UK growers
10
By Katherine Lindley
Dr. John King,
Independent
Consultant
Soils: Searching for the ‘X’ factor
13
By Simon Bowen
Mental Health – as important as physical health!
editorial office:
British Sugar plc,
Sugar Way, Peterborough,
Cambs, UK, PE2 9AY
t: 01733 422278
f: 01733 422080
e: [email protected]
w: www.beetreview.co.uk
17
By Tom Brown
Getting to know the BBRO
18
An agronomist’s observations on the 2016 crop
20
By Darryl Shailes
Dynamic allocation system for Beet Intake
23
By Patrick Barraclough, Diane Armitage and Donald Hume
The sugar sector in Ukraine –
A new organisation for a new beginning?
25
By Timothé Masson
Published jointly by British Sugar plc &
The British Beet Research Organisation
The British Sugar Beet Review is published
quarterly in March (spring), June (summer),
September (autumn) and December (winter).
It is sent to all sugar beet growers in the UK
and is funded jointly by growers and British
Sugar plc as part of the British Beet Research
Organisation education programme. The editor,
British Sugar plc, and the BBRO are not
necessarily in agreement with opinions
expressed in this journal. No responsibility is
accepted for statements contained in
advertisements. © Copyright is only by
permission of the editor and charges may be
applicable. Published images are copyright of
this journal unless stated otherwise.
Designed and printed in England by
Fisherprint Ltd., Peterborough, Cambs.,
PE1 5UL, Tel: 01733 341444 Fax: 01733 349416
Website: www.fisherprint.co.uk
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
BBRO Open Days 2016 –
Putting science in the spotlight
28
By Dr. Simon Bowen
A year in the life of a trials officer
30
By Wayne Tonge
Alan Mason obituary
Cover picture courtesy of Tim Scrivener, Agriphoto
BRITISH
sugar beet review
34
BASIS / FACTS
CP/51829/1917/g
2 CPD points (1CP, 1E)
NRoSO
NO462726f
2 CPD points
1
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:23 Page 2
Industry update from British Sugar,
said that, from a British Sugar perspective, irrespective of this vote,
it’s business as usual.
British Sugar update
Positive sugar pricing forecasts lead British Sugar MD
to call for more beet
I’ve been British Sugar’s MD now for a little over six months, and
while I have met a number of you I know there are lots of growers
still to meet. I am looking forward to getting more mud on my boots
over the next few months and getting more and more views as I
continue to listen to our farming partners.
I wanted to take this opportunity to share with you some of my
thoughts on the challenges we are currently facing as an industry,
not least the uncertainty regarding the UK’s vote to leave the
European Union.
At this stage, it is not at all clear exactly what Brexit will mean and
there is a range of possible outcomes. While the debate continues,
we are talking to government, the NFU and other interested parties
to understand how we can maintain an environment where the UK
beet sugar industry continues to compete, invest and grow. Having
BBRO update
Whilst most of you were firmly concentrating on the beet in the
ground and that all-important lifting date, we have been
developing our knowledge exchange plan. Our aim in 2017 is to
highlight how to make the most out of all aspects of your crop, be
that in soil preparation, variety options, nutrient requirements or
pest and disease management. We will be striving hard to help you
make informed decisions to improve your overall crop performance.
This autumn we will be concentrating on ‘Making every hectare
count’ through improved soil management.
At the last BBRO stakeholder board meeting we set out our strategy
for communication and knowledge exchange, building on the
BBRO’s track record of attendance at our events.
This programme is targeted at delivering three key objectives:
■ To strengthen and support the adoption of best practice and new
technologies on-farm by the introduction of a network of BBRO
Demonstration Farms
■ To use a more co-ordinated and targeted approach to
communication and advisory messaging
■ To undertake more collaborative and applied agronomy trials
on-farm, using a variety of approaches to assess and develop new
NFU update
More immediate are the changes to the EU Sugar Regime scheduled
for next year. As you know, as an industry we have been preparing
for this for a number of years and we have a track record of
successfully working together to the benefit of all involved. Having
had regular meetings with NFU Sugar, and having enjoyed
conversations with many growers, individually or at recently held
grower events, I believe that we know what we have to do as an
industry to adapt to our new reality.
The new sugar market will be very competitive and the new trading
environment demands new approaches. We want to work even
closer with our growers and we also need to work more closely with
our customers to make sure our supply chains remain competitive
and responsive.
One of the outcomes of this new approach has been a 2017/18
sugar beet contract with new options for growers. We successfully
concluded our annual negotiations with NFU Sugar in July and have
been able to include, as a first for the UK Industry, both one and
ideas originating from growers, British Sugar area managers,
independent and commercial agronomists.
Winter conferences. Our winter programme will consist of two
BBRO Winter Conferences to be held in early February in the
Peterborough and Diss areas. These will be designed to deliver latest
and new technical results and information, especially from the BBRO
trial and PhD/new science programme. We will also be hosting 6-8
local agronomy meetings; each targeting groups of 20-30 growers
and agronomists. These will provide a basis for a more interactive
forum in key areas aligned to the overall agronomy themes, but also
to reflect regional and local issues. Effectively, this is a more coordinated approach to the ad hoc meetings currently undertaken.
Typically, they will be ‘breakfast meetings’ delivering key grower
‘take home’ messages and a chance to address grower questions.
We have planned an exciting selection
of events for the spring and summer
months.
BBRO Open Days. Two are planned for
early June, primarily to demonstrate
the plot work in new areas of science
and technology. There will be a
northern and a southern site.
nutrition and health debates to ensure that the wider supply chain
is unaffected by the sugar tax proposed in the last budget.
Possible implications for the UK Beet Industry of Brexit
I am sure that by the time this issue of British Sugar Beet Review has
been published, you will have received your beet contracts and
made your decision on what contract option is best for your business
next year. We started the negotiations with our minds on the end
of quotas and, in our conversations with you, it was made clear to
us that you wanted the security of long-term contracts and the
option to share in any gains in the EU sugar markets, while
maintaining a headline annual price.
The UK sugar beet industry is currently tightly regulated by EU
legislation. This has led to the development of a sugar industry
which, while it may be one of the most efficient and advanced
in Europe, is ultimately restricted by a quota on production. The
UK will continue to be regulated by the relevant EU legislation
until Brexit takes place. The quota regime will continue until the
end of September 2017 and we will be subject to the current
trade agreements set up by the EU until an exit agreement is
negotiated.
Since then, UK agriculture has changed. As well as the dismantling
of the EU sugar regime, we now have to deal with the consequences
that the vote to leave the EU brings. There are many questions that
will need answers from the new Defra team. While the burning
question for farmers will be if, or at what level, farming subsidies
will be maintained by the new UK administration post-Brexit. The
sugar industry will need a balanced government position on the
Once Article 50 is signed, no one knows what will happen next. On
the one hand, the UK imports significant quantities of white sugar
from France (91,000 t), Germany (55,000 t) and Belgium (41,000 t)
and uses trade agreements to supply the refining industry with
high volumes of tariff-free raw sugar from African, Caribbean,
Pacific (ACP) and Less Developed Countries (LDC). About 0.5 Mt of
imports come from countries subjected to the CXL tariffs and from
2
BRITISH
sugar beet review
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:23 Page 3
BBRO and NFU
three year contract options with price linkages to the sugar market.
We originally indicated we would be able to accept 30% of the crop
on a three-year contract however this level of interest from our
growers was soon reached and after reviewing the situation with
the NFU we have agreed to accept all the tonnage requested for the
three year deal.
This new agreement represents a clear signal from British Sugar and
NFU Sugar that by working together we can face the challenges of
a more competitive market place with confidence. This type of
collaboration shows that we will adjust to whatever Brexit and
revised British Agricultural policies bring, in the same way we have
adapted to EU sugar regime changes.
at that time, our contracts could deliver beet prices for growers in
the region of £23.50/t on the 1 year contract and £26/t on the 3 year
contract option. We believe that this is extremely attractive.
We want to take advantage of these more favourable market
conditions and further expand the crop area. So if you are an
existing grower who is interested in additional tonnage for 2017 –
or a new or returning grower – we would be delighted to offer
you more contract.
I am more confident than ever that we will build a successful future
together. I do hope that you will take up this opportunity to grow
our business together.
We have a strong and cost efficient beet sugar industry in the UK
and I am consequently very optimistic about the opportunities
beyond the old sugar regime. By working together with NFU Sugar
and our growers, I anticipate improved returns in the future.
Paul Kenward
Managing Director
Nobody can predict future agricultural market prices with complete
accuracy. However, if the average EU market price for the 2017/18
marketing year reflected the futures market’s view of world prices
These events will include:
■ On-going science programme using display boards and trial plots
The programme will be further supported with the following
communication materials and channels:
■ A variety demonstration
■ BBRO Reference Book
■ Trade and technical demonstrations
■ BBRO Annual Report
■ Catering and hospitality area
■ BBRO Advisory Bulletin
■ An undercover discussion forum.
■ BBRO Website
BBRO Farm Demonstration network. A network of farm
demonstration sites will be established to address key areas of
technology transfer on-farm. These sites will target multiple visits of
smaller groups of growers across the season, but visits will typically
be informal. These sites will be used also to demonstrate machinerybased aspects of soil management, drilling and harvesting.
■ Twitter/social media
■ British Sugar Beet Review – BBRO content.
At BBRO we are passionate to ensure that we make all our
information as accessible as possible and we look forward to
meeting you as part of our knowledge exchange programme
in 2017.
A programme of key themes across the season will be used to
provide greater focus and action. Subject to discussion, these will
include:
■ Improved soil management: ‘Making every hectare count’
■ Crop nutrition: ‘Precision nutrition’
Colin MacEwan
Head of BBRO
■ Weed control: ‘Weeding out the competition’
■ Disease control: ‘Right choices for healthier canopies’
■ Harvesting: ‘Harvesting more of your crop’.
free-trade agreements that the EU has negotiated over time. In the
event that this trade is disrupted, there would be various options to
source this sugar including:
■ Increase domestic beet sugar production and/or
■ Increase raw cane sugar imports and/or
■ Increase white sugar imports from the EU or other countries.
Currently there are 50 or so trade agreements between the EU and
world countries. Once we leave, most commenters think that we
would have to separately negotiate a trade deal with each of them
– i.e. they wouldn’t be automatically transferable. If there are no
trade agreements in place when the UK leaves, then it is likely that
the UK would defer to the WTO default standard import tariffs,
although it may be possible for ACP/LDC countries to maintain
tariff-free access to the UK. Whatever trade relationship is agreed
within the EU, it is likely that the sugar trade flow could be affected
at some level between the EU and the UK and, furthermore, with
the rest of the world.
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
BRITISH
The extent to which the UK sugar beet industry will thrive after
leaving the EU will depend on the level that the UK government
considers sugar as strategic within its trade negotiations. All
stakeholders need to emphasise the importance of the sugar
industry to the UK economy at every opportunity. We need to
remember that the UK sugar industry is worth £200 million to
the farming economy, and in excess of £1 billion to the UK economy
as a whole. We need government to instil continued confidence
in the sector to ensure long term investment across the supply chain
so that the British sugar beet industry continues as a key player in
the future.
sugar beet review
Pamela J. Forbes
NFU Chief Sugar Adviser
3
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:23 Page 4
By
Philip Ecclestone,
British Sugar plc
The chaser concept
Chaser trailers are becoming a common sight on farms as growers and contractors introduce quicker and more
efficient ways of transporting harvestable produce around fields, before sending it to a store or processing plant.
In the last article (Ref. 1) on this subject the concept of a chaser trailer for sugar beet was introduced. In this followup article, other options and types of chaser trailers and vehicles are also covered.
In many parts of the world, as well as rapid harvesting of a
crop, there is the need to load lorries as fast as possible and
transport goods at speed; so the idea of a trailer or a selfpropelled vehicle which could collect from a harvester,
operate under any field conditions and then be able to unload
directly into a lorry was born. In dry conditions, a harvester
could unload into an actual lorry in the field, but generally
lorries don’t travel well off-road and may introduce more soil
compaction than a purpose-built trailer or self-propelled unit
would, even when the conditions are dry. Although farm
trailers can be used both in the field and on the road, they
cannot unload into a lorry. Also, they are slow and can, when
conditions are very wet, drop a lot of mud onto the public
highways, which can present safety issues. This has led to
traffic in the field being separated from the traffic used on the
road; a situation that is common in many parts of the world,
4
BRITISH
particularly for the grain harvest in the wheat and corn belt of
North America for example.
In Europe, where farming tends to be on a smaller scale, there
hasn’t always been the need for such separation because farm
trailers cart short distances from the harvester to a store, often
on the public roads, and lorries are then loaded for onward
transport to factory or mill. But the logistics of transport must
change to suit modern conditions; slow-moving agricultural
machinery putting lots of mud on the road is no longer
tolerated as traffic on public roads becomes heavier, particularly
at rush hour times. Also, harvesting equipment has got bigger,
whether a combine harvester, forage harvester or even a large
self-propelled 12-row sugar beet harvester, and the volume and
type of crop being transported is changing; anaerobic digester
(AD) plants mean that maize and rye with sugar beet are now
being grown on a wide scale across the whole of the UK and
sugar beet review
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:23 Page 5
Europe. Therefore, large amounts of raw materials need to be
moved very quickly, as has been happening with sugar beet for
years. This means that contractors need to be geared up with
both the harvesting kit and the transport to handle a lot of
bulky material and at the same time prevent or reduce damage
occurring to the soil or the highway.
With these requirements a large chaser, either as a specialised
trailer or self-propelled unit, becomes more attractive. Such an
outfit needs to carry a large load, ideally matching the
capacity of the harvester, and have wide, low-flotation tyres.
It stays in the field, collecting from the harvester and filling
waiting trailers or lorries stationed on the edge of the field or
on the roadside. These fast, clean vehicles will then transport
the produce to its destination using public, or sometimes
private roads.
The chaser trailer has a flat floor with floor chains which can
move the beet to the front of the trailer for unloading with a
4.5 m unloading elevator into a waiting vehicle. The holding
capacity is 32 tonnes spread over three axles with wide flotation
tyres to support the weight and prevent the soil from being
rutted and damaged. This size means that a large self-propelled
harvester can completely unload, something that is not possible
when using a conventional trailer, which is considerably smaller.
For sugar beet, yields continue to rise, with over 100 t/ha
possible on some soil types in the UK. This means a lot of bulky
material has to be transferred, on the move, from harvester to
trailer and transported to either an infield store, such as a
Maus clamp, or back to a yard or concrete base.
Chaser trailers
Bergmann RRW 500 chaser trailer.
Hawe-Wester chaser trailer.
There are now a number of different types of chaser or
transfer trailers available on the UK market, with several that
cater for sugar beet. For most, a common chassis will be able
to carry different bodies, which can be interchanged within 15
to 20 minutes, making the trailer very versatile: becoming, for
example, a grain chaser, self-unloading silage body, muck
spreader, tipping body or even a water bowser, as well as
being used for sugar beet.
Hawe-Wester GMBH & Co., a German machinery company,
make a wide range of specialised transfer trailers from their
base at Wippingen in Lower Saxony, North West Germany.
Suffolk Farm Machinery, who sell the range in the UK, had one
out on a long-term test during the last campaign.
Bergmann is another German trailer
manufacturer that has a range of chaser
trailers for many crops, including grain
and forage, as well as spreaders for manure,
compost and lime. They already sell into
the UK but until recently did not have a
chaser trailer for transporting sugar beet.
Back in Germany they have worked
with Ropa, the sugar beet harvester
manufacturer, to develop a high-capacity,
fast-loading trailer suitable for handling
sugar beet. The first prototypes were
tested across Western Europe at the end
of 2014 and beginning of 2015, including in
the UK. Once both companies were happy with the
development, the Bergmann Beet Overloading Wagon was
formally launched at the Agritechnica machinery event in
Hanover in November 2015.
One of the main features includes having plenty of power to
unload, for example, 30 tonnes of sugar beet in less than
one minute. In order to handle a large volume of beet, the
Bergmann beet chaser trailer has a tri-fold, wide elevator,
which can be lowered when building long Maus clamps very
quickly. Just like the Ropa sugar beet harvester, there is
also all-wheel steering, which enables the chaser trailer to
‘crab’ as it moves across the field, further reducing damage
to the soil.
Hawe-Wester chaser trailer loading a waiting trailer.
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
BRITISH
sugar beet review
5
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:23 Page 6
thus providing greater stability with even ground pressure.
With this self-propelled unit being a trike it has a very tight
turning circle of only 12 m, making it very manoeuvrable in
tight situations.
Bergmann RRW 500 chaser trailer crabbing.
There are two sizes, a tandem-axle chaser trailer that can
hold almost 25 tonnes and a tri-axle, which can hold almost
38 tonnes. The Bergmann beet chaser trailer will be sold in the
UK through CTM Harpley Engineering Limited, who are also
sole agents for the Ropa sugar beet harvester range.
Self-propelled chaser vehicles
Some years ago the Dutch company Vervaet, well-known for
their range of sugar beet harvesters sold in the UK through
Jeremy Riley of J. Riley Beet Harvesters (UK) Ltd, developed a
self-propelled unit known as the Hydro Trike chassis range.
Current units are very up-to-date and use the same cab as a
Claas combine harvester. It can carry many different bodies,
from the original slurry tanker and injector system to a lime
spreader, manure spreader and a specific beet chaser body.
The latter are in conjunction with another company, Panien.
The computer system of the Panien body is fully integrated
with that of the Vervaet Hydro Trike.
The holding capacity of the sugar beet chaser is 20 tonnes and
the whole unit is made specifically as a tipping body with
unloading assisted by a powered floor trace. To build Maus
heaps on the edge of the field, the body is tipped to reduce
the fall height.
Another key feature of the Hydro Trike is that it has an
extending axle. This allows all wheels to run in different tracks
Vervaet Hydro Trike.
6
Holmer exxact Terra Variant with multi-bunker MB 35.
Another self-propelled option, made in Germany by Holmer
which is part of the Agrifac group, is the Holmer exxact Terra
Variant. This is a very modern high-performing unit which can
carry a slurry injection unit, manure spreader or fertiliser
spreader, as well as grain and sugar beet/maize transport
bodies. The latter is known as the Multi-bunker MB 35 and the
latest version was also launched at the 2015 Agritechnica
machinery show. This updated version has a capacity of 35
cubic metres and can handle sugar beet, maize or other
whole-crop silages. Changing from one crop to another is
instant as the side walls are closed, so no adjustments are
required. Unloading times are only one minute for sugar beet
and just under three minutes for maize. Equipped with a large
598 hp engine, there is no shortage of power and, coupled
with a power shift transmission, there is plenty of torque
available.
Automatic steering, coupled with the wide terra tires, helps
to reduce damage to the soil, especially if crab steering is
selected, as it utilises a three-point mount system. The
Terra Variant has a fully pivoting frame but all the connection
Vervaet Hydro Trike unloading sugar beet.
BRITISH
sugar beet review
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:23 Page 7
With a move to more bulk crops, in
addition to sugar beet, being grown and
harvested simply for their bulk for uses
such as anaerobic digestion, there has
been a move to larger transporter units
which transfer loads from ever-bigger
harvesters to waiting trailers or lorries.
The concept of separating field traffic
from road traffic is becoming more
commonplace in the UK. At the same
time, crop yields keep rising and farms
are getting bigger with longer distances
for harvested crops to be carried. In
order to take advantage of favourable
weather conditions, speed of operation
and transport to an in-field store or an
off-site storage area has become even
more imperative.
Holmer exxact Terra Variant with multi-bunker MB 35 being loaded.
points between the vehicle and the following super structure
are always in a straight line, even if crab steering is selected.
Track guidance and automatic steering can be selected, as
well as headland management and has GPS features that help
reduce fatigue for the driver. Settings such as crab steering,
torque-driven modes and height of machine in the field
can all be pre-set. As everything has been designed for ease
of use, changing from one body to another takes only
30 minutes.
The chaser trailer or self-propelled
chaser vehicle can easily collect material
from a harvester and unload it to an awaiting trailer or lorry.
From a road safety aspect, less mud should end up on the
road whilst causing less soil damage in the field.
Reference
1. Ecclestone, P. (2015). The beet chaser trailer. British Sugar Beet
Review, Vol 83 (4), 5-7.
T4-30
T4-40
LightTraxx
SixxTraxx
For all new and used harvesters, chaser bins and loaders contact :
Matt Carse T: 01354 660552 E: [email protected]
Agrifac UK, 4 Thorby Avenue, March, Cambridgeshire, PE15 0AZ
16/3/9/03
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:23 Page 8
By
Phil McNaughton,
British Sugar plc
Newark CHP – boiler
emissions compliance
As some of you will be aware, we have been reviewing options for a number of years to ensure ongoing
environmental compliance of the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant at our Newark factory. We
commenced a technology trial during the recent juice run, which we believe will meet the requirements, and
further work will continue during the campaign.
CHP Boiler plant – regulatory compliance
Newark has two 1976 vintage Sulzer marine boilers that
supply steam, and ultimately power, for the operation of
the site and sugar production. These boilers are primarily
fired on Natural Gas, with supplementary fuels being i)
Biogas (from the onsite water treatment plant), and ii)
Heavy Fuel Oil used in the event of an interruption of the
gas supply, which is now a rare occurrence.
Operating on Natural Gas, the Nitrous Oxide (NOx) emission
values recorded are currently up to 650 mg/Nm3. From
1st January 2016, 650 mg/Nm3 is the maximum legally
allowable under a new piece of legislation called the
Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). However, there is a
transition period associated with the IED legislation and,
under the Transitional National Plan (TNP) arrangements,
NOx emissions can be traded. These
TNP arrangements will operate from
1st January 2016 through to 30th June
2020 and the Newark site, along with
Wissington and Bury, has been placed
on this plan.
The selected project has been to progress with the
installation of ultra low-NOx burner technology (Pic. 1)
with flue gas recycle (Pic. 2) and, initially, to install this
equipment as a retrofit onto one of the two boilers as a
trial. This is proven technology in boiler plants in other
countries and industries, but has not been used in AB Sugar
to date. The installation was completed during the summer,
with initial commissioning and start-up operations of the
boiler towards the end of the recent juice run.
Technology trial – ultra low-NOx burners
The performance so far of this burner technology on No. 1
boiler has been very encouraging, although this has only
been over a relatively short period of time; and there is
more work to be done to gain full confidence that this is
the right solution for Newark’s boilers.
From 1st July 2020, Newark’s boilers
within the CHP plant must emit less
than 100 mg/Nm3 of NOx levels or the
plant should be switched off, as its
operation would be in contravention
of the European Directive.
Achieving compliance
There have been several options
considered, and taken through
feasibility reviews over recent years, as
to how the emission limits can be met
for the Newark CHP boiler plant. These
have included possible new CHP plants,
utilisation of renewables, abatement
technology and also the latest burner
technology.
8
Pic. 1 – Ultra low-NOx burner (trial).
BRITISH
sugar beet review
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:23 Page 9
the start-up of the boilers prior to campaign
operations. During this campaign the focus will
be to further optimise the performance of this
boiler, both the emissions and steam output,
and gain confidence through further hours of
operation.
Next steps and future
The immediate next step is to ensure the
reliability and consistency of operation, and
that emissions from this boiler meet the
requirements of the site, which will be achieved
during the campaign. This is to ensure that this
technology will meet the required lower NOx
levels under the IED, without impacting the
performance and steam output of the boiler.
Pic. 2 – Boiler flue gas recycle installation.
The emissions results achieved over this short period have
been below 100 mg/Nm3, whilst also achieving the boiler
output requirement and meeting the factory’s steam
demand requirements. The decision was therefore made to
retain this equipment, and continue with the operation of
this boiler in this mode of operation.
During the commissioning process there were a number of
changes made and improvements identified, and at the
time of writing these are being addressed in readiness for
Following a successful campaign period of
operation, and providing this technology
operates as intended, the trial installation will
be made permanent. Plans are now also being developed
to convert the other boiler at Newark to operate with the
same technology.
This project is to ensure Newark factory remains legally
compliant from 1st July 2020 in terms of CHP boiler
emissions, and can therefore continue operations as usual
with the existing CHP plant configuration. Being able to
prove the successful operation of this new technology for
British Sugar will be crucial.
BBRO
Winter Technical
Meengs
February 2017
•
•
Join the BBRO team in February and reap the benefits throughout
the sugar beet growing season and beyond. Our thought provoking •
Winter Technical meengs will help you understand what influences •
crop growth, the threats and more importantly the opportunies
•
and tools to squeeze that bit more from your beet.
14th February 2017 08:30 – 12:00
Making every hectare count
Precision nutrion
Weeding out the compeon
Right choices for healthier canopies
Harvesng more of your crop
16th February 2017 08:30 ‐ 12:00
The Granary Estates, Parsonage Farm, Woodion, Suffolk, CB8 9RZ
Cedric Ford Pavillion, Newark Showground, NG24 2NY
For more informaon please visit: www.bbro.co.uk
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
BRITISH
sugar beet review
9
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:23 Page 10
By
Katherine Lindley,
Germains
Germains trials new sugar
beet seed treatments with
UK growers
Germains Seed Technology has been providing sugar beet seed treatments to UK growers since the 1960s. Today,
Germains remains committed to developing industry-leading sugar beet technologies, helping growers to achieve
a faster and more consistent emergence and, ultimately, deliver greater yields to support the UK sugar industry.
Germains’ innovative R&D department have developed a range of new technologies which require large-scale
field trials.
Here, at Germains, we value engagement with growers from
all British Sugar factory areas, especially when it comes to
trialling various new seed treatments, and have been
fortunate enough to trial the seed in the annual sugar beet
grower strip trials. These trials provide excellent opportunities
for growers, British Sugar area managers and Germains’
representatives to evaluate the performance of new seed
treatments in the field on a commercial scale. The feedback
and trial results are crucial to the assessment of current and
future seed treatments in our R&D pipeline.
What is a grower strip trial?
This year’s strip trial involved
the drilling of four treatments
of trial seed: Control (Standard
Xbeet Plus), Treatment 1,
Treatment 2 and Treatment 3.
Each grower received three
units of Control, Treatment 1
or Treatment 2 or 3 that were
divided at random amongst
the 12 growers involved in the
trials; the trials are best done
with no more than three
treatments and the purpose of
this random sample was to
10
New treatments
Germains’ R&D department hold trials in conjunction with the
British Beet Research Organisation (BBRO) and Armstrong
Fisher, whom independently harvest and take the beet to
the tarehouse. As part of these trials, Germains have been
testing a new pellet type that has demonstrated a 2.5%
increase, compared to the current standard, in trials from
Markers
Key
Control
Treatment 1
Treatment 2
10m length of plot
Three growers from each of
British Sugar’s four factory areas
(Wissington, Bury St. Edmunds,
Cantley and Newark) took part
in this year’s trials. The primary
purpose of these is to have a
one-to-one interaction with
growers to obtain feedback on
the performance of the new
treatments in real conditions
out on the field.
ensure that there was a fair demonstration of the new
treatments across the Bury St. Edmunds, Newark, Cantley
and Wissington areas.
Fig. 1 – 2016 Strip Trial overview.
BRITISH
sugar beet review
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:23 Page 11
2011 to 2015. This treatment was trialled
in this year’s strip trial in order to
determine how it performed in real soil
conditions.
Furthermore, a new elicitor treatment
was tested in the trials. This is a naturallyderived treatment that triggers different
responses in the seed, not only to
pathogens, but also abiotic stresses such
as drought and temperature variations.
This treatment improves the tolerance of
the seed, promoting crop establishment,
plant growth and ultimately the yield of
the sugar beet.
Plot
Three plots measuring 10 m in length
were identified and marked out within
each of the grower’s chosen field. The
plan of each plot below was replicated
across each site assessed to create a fair
representation of the performance of
the seed and eliminate any variations in
soil conditions and drill types. (Fig. 1)
Pic. 1 – Sugar beet drilling at our Wisbech site – March 2016.
2016 strip trial update
Drilling the trial seed
The wet and cool weather experienced across East Anglia this
spring was challenging, and resulted in later than normal
drilling of seed in some areas. Consequently, emergence was
slow at some of the sites, especially within the North Norfolk
and Cantley areas. On a positive note, those sites drilled in late
March benefitted from the showery weather that followed;
there was evidence of consistent and uniform emergence as a
result of the added moisture.
Emergence counts
Post drilling, Germains representatives were in regular contact
with the growers to monitor the emergence of the trialled
seed, and scheduled visits to record and collect the emergence
data.
Three emergence counts were carried out at each site, at 25%,
50% and 75% emergence. The first count to capture 25%
emergence was conducted approximately one month post
drilling.
Emergence count results
Average number of
seedlings counted
The graphs below show the average number of seedlings
counted across all three of the growers’ sites in each of the
factory areas.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Xbeet Plus
New Treatment 1
New Treatment 2
New Treatment 3
1
2
3
Count number
Cantley – Average number of seedlings counted.
Pic. 2 – Emerging seedling at a strip trial plot in Cantley factory area,
Norfolk.
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
BRITISH
In the Cantley area, Treatment 3 consistently achieved the
highest counts at 25%, 50% and 75% emergence. This was
followed by Control (Xbeet Plus) and New Treatment 1.
sugar beet review
11
Average number of
seedlings counted
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:23 Page 12
50
40
30
20
10
0
Xbeet Plus
New Treatment 1
New Treatment 2
New Treatment 3
1
2
3
Count number
Wissington – Average number of seedlings counted.
In the Wissington factory area there was a strong performance
from New Treatment 2 at the first and second emergence
counts. The data from New Treatment 1 also showed high
growth at count number three.
In the Newark area Treatment 1 gave the highest counts of
seedlings at the second and third counts.
Average number of
seedlings counted
60
50
40
Xbeet Plus
30
New Treatment 1
20
New Treatment 2
treatments on early plant growth. The results obtained
provide data to identify new products that could support UK
growers.
The Cyclops assessments were completed at each site
approximately 100 days post drilling, which was in June this
season. These results are currently under analysis by our
research and development department and will be published
on the Germains website within the next few weeks.
10
0
SUMMARY
1
2
3
Count number
Newark – Average number of seedlings counted.
In the Bury area, Treatment 1 performed strongly at the
second and third counts but at the final count, Treatment 3
demonstrated higher counts than either of the other
treatments or the Control.
Average number of
seedlings counted
Pic. 3 – Cyclops equipment in action.
50
40
Xbeet Plus
30
New Treatment 1
20
New Treatment 2
10
New Treatment 3
0
1
2
3
Count number
We would like to thank all of the growers and area
managers who dedicated their time and resources to allow
us to conduct these trials. This has enabled us to gain a
valuable insight into the effects on emergence, early
establishment and leaf area development of these new
seed treatments. This would not have been possible
without their support.
We are looking forward to the 2017 season; Germains will
be holding further strip trials with growers to improve our
knowledge of new seed treatments so we may continue to
deliver innovative seed technology to the UK sugar beet
industry.
If you would like to learn more about our current
and future strip trial programmes, please contact a
member of the UK Commercial team on 01553 772210.
For more information on Germains’ industry-leading seed
treatments visit our website www.germains.com
Bury – Average number of seedlings counted.
Trial limitations
This season we observed more variation in the counts in
comparison to previous years. This was due to several factors,
especially the prolonged wet and cold weather. Damage was
also noticed in some fields, from birds and other pests, which
also impacted the results. When the growth of leaf area
assessments have been analysed (see below) it should provide
data to help understand some of the interactions noted
above.
Cyclops assessments
The final stage of the strip trial was a Cyclops assessment.
Cyclops is our unique imaging system that was developed to
measure leaf area. This allows us to monitor the early
development of the sugar beet plants and the effects of
12
BRITISH
sugar beet review
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:23 Page 13
By
Simon Bowen,
British Beet Research Organisation
Soils: Searching
for the ‘X’ factor
As part of our series of articles looking at soils, in this edition we take look at soil health.
We consider whether we need to remind ourselves of some of the established and traditional principles around soil
management, and also how some new science may help us to understand, identify and unlock an elusive soil health
‘X’ factor. To what extent can we improve soil management and ensure we ‘make every hectare count’?
Whilst sugar beet yields have been showing year-on-year
incremental increases, it seems to be generally accepted that
the yields of many other crops have reached a state termed
‘yield plateau’. It is therefore, perhaps, inevitable that the
‘lens’ has become focused on the soil as a way of breaking
through this plateau. However, are we just chasing a pipe
dream? Are there are genuinely novel ways of unlocking
further potential of our soils and improving our soil
management, or is it simply the case that we have lost
sight of, and are no longer following some basic soil
management practices? Have we become too reliant on the
use of fertilisers and pesticides; have more intensive arable
rotations with less mixed farming and its associated return
of organic manures back to the land meant we have
effectively by-passed and forgotten how to optimise our soil
systems?
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
BRITISH
What further yield potential does the soil
hold for sugar beet?
In the preface to the classic agricultural reference book,
‘Agriculture – The science and practice of British farming’
by Watson & More which was first published in 1924 (Ref. 1) ,
James Watson makes reference to the fact that, ‘the pace of
progress in farm science and technology, especially in respect
of farm chemicals was such that any sizable book must
inevitably be out of date, in some respect, before it leaves the
press’. Well, this may have seemed true at that time but if you
read on, especially the sections on soil management and the
importance attached to managing soil humus, this is certainly
not out of date. Indeed, their comments appear thoroughly
relevant to modern day farming and our attempts to raise
the organic matter content in our soils.
sugar beet review
13
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:23 Page 14
Pic. 1 – Slumped soils, waterlogged plants and nutrient deficiencies (manganese). Are these signs of a lack of resilience in our soils under adverse
weather conditions?
Soil humus – ‘this complex substance, though it is
constantly wasting by decay and whose amount can be
maintained only by the addition of more plant remains,
has important influence on the structure and the fertility
of the soil’
Watson & More (1924)
Soil resilience
One additional question we increasingly appear to have to
answer is, ‘How resilient are our soils to changing weather
patterns’? The weather in 2016 and the monsoon conditions in
June must have had a significant effect, because the month
ended up as the fourth wettest June on record with >200% of
the average rainfall, large amounts falling over very short
periods in some areas. This resulted in sugar beet crops sitting
in saturated soils so that, after a few days, plants began to
show a range of yellowing and other symptoms of stress and
deficiency, vitally losing key growing days (if not weeks) at
a critical time of the year. The speed of recovery from this
intense amount of rainfall varied considerably between
different fields across the beet growing area, and this was the
true reflection of their resilience (Pic. 1). We tend to relate
recovery to some established known characteristics such as
organic matter levels and soil structure, but the reality is that
the resilience of a soil is the ‘sum of its parts, maybe the ‘X’
factor?
The rotational ‘X’ factor
A quick reflection on history: in the 17th century Viscount
Townsend, affectionately known as Turnip Townsend, was a
‘believer’ in the ‘X’ factor! This is highlighted by his successful
Pic. 2 and 3 – Mustard and Tillage Radish – new rotational use of cover crops?
14
BRITISH
sugar beet review
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:23 Page 15
introduction of a new method of crop rotation on his land. He
divided his crops into four different types and grew each type
on a quarter of his fields each year, rotating the crop types
annually beginning with wheat in the first fields, clover (or
ryegrass) in the second, oats or barley in the third and, in the
fourth, turnips or swedes. The turnips were used as fodder to
feed livestock in winter, and the clover and ryegrass were
grazed by livestock. Using this system, he found that he
could grow more crops and get a better yield from the land.
At the time, this thinking was radical although now widely
agreed to be one of the factors that underpinned the yield
increases that drove the agricultural revolution. Whilst the
fertility benefits of introducing the Norfolk four-course
rotation were understood, the science explaining how the
use of different species in the rotation resulted in higher soil
organic matter (SOM), better soil structure with more
water infiltration and retention, and the improved chemical
and biological soil environment for crops was less well
appreciated.
Measuring the soil health ‘X’ factor; is it all
about soil organic matter?
Somewhat simplistically, we have tended to focus on a few
key measures of soil health and soil biology. SOM content is
usually one of the key indicators. Declining SOM levels across
our agricultural soils are being reported and interpreted as a
sign of declining soil health. There is no doubt that the SOM,
often referred to as the ‘fuel’ in the ‘engine’ of the soil, has a
vitally important soil function, not only as a source of nutrients
but also for soil structural and biological functionality.
A recent project undertaken by the AHDB (Ref. 3) is providing
some very interesting insight in this area. The project, which
started in 2012 and finishes in 2016, has been looking at the
improvement of soil structure and crop yields by adding
organic matter to soil. The work is led by Professor Andy
Whitmore at Rothamsted and involves detailed replicated plot
work as well as on-farm trials. Some of the key points to date
are summarised below:
As a post-script on Turnip Townsend, the Brassicae family,
including turnips which played such an important role in
the Norfolk four-course rotation, seems to be enjoying a
resurgence of late. The recent trend to use cover crops also
recognises the benefits of growing other closely related
Brassica species such as turnip rape, mustards and tillage
radish (Pics. 2 and 3). It would appear that Turnip Townsend
knew a thing or two!
The value of rotation on soil health and delivering the ‘X
’factor is long established. An attempt to quantify this value
was made by the Australian scientist John Kirkegaard. A
review of more than 900 experimental comparisons made
around the world showed that, on average, wheat yields were
increased by 0.5 t/ha following the growing of oats, by 0.8 t/ha
following oilseeds and 1.0 t/ha following grain legumes. The
‘break crop effect’ was often shown to extend to a second
wheat crop, especially following legumes, although rarely to a
third, except under dry conditions. A large variance in the
range of responses clearly reflects the interaction with crop
management practice and climate. Writing in the press,
Kirkegaard urged arable growers ‘to think beyond individual
crops and work in a two- to four-year time frame and capture
the synergies from one crop to another’. The average
responses are summarised below, by region:
Break crop benefits in temperate wheat production (Ref. 2).
Region
Average wheat
yield response to a
break crop
Range
N. America
+14%
-51% - +62%
Australia
+33%
-25% - +544%
N. Europe
+24%
-27% - +224%
England
+21%
+19% - +75%
Germany
+10%
0-+32%
■ Main trial site at Rothamsted is a silty clay loam
■ A yield benefit from applying organic amendments
that can be as high as 2 t/ha (cereals) after just two
years
■ Compost is proving to be a better improver than FYM
and AD digestate and straw effectively little different
compared to control plots
■ Response to amendments larger in drought year
■ Greatest impact on spring sown crops
■ Water infiltration improved where amendments used
■ Less draught force needed to plough where amendments used
■ Soil biota improved but difficult to measure where
amendments used
Of course, we have a good appreciation of the improved yield
of first wheats either on clean or virgin land or following
break crops such as sugar beet. Clearly, whilst part of this we
understand to be the rotational effect of ‘breaking’ pest and
disease life cycles, do we implicitly appreciate and understand
that there are additional effects of improving the soil biology
as well as the structural and chemical properties of the soil by
rotation and management practice? If so, what is this soil
health ‘X’ factor?
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
■ Organic amendments include: compost, FYM, AD
digestate & crop residues (straw)
BRITISH
■ Earthworm numbers not related to increase in yield
■ Taking a SOM measurement can be inaccurate as it
can vary in the same field by 10-20%. You could be
applying organic amendments for 4-5 years before
there’s any statistical change in SOM
■ Applying fresh material is important – that’s what
stimulates soil organisms more than a soil that has
an inherent high SOM.
sugar beet review
15
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:23 Page 16
Interesting observations from this work so far, are both the
speed of response of crops to organic amendments, and the
research teams move away from the idea that there is some
kind of magic SOM value the soil should have. According to
Professor Whitmore, ‘It is clear if you increase SOM you get an
increase in yield because of the nutrients it provides, but
there’s a greater increase than you can account for from just
the nutrient value of the amendments’. So, clearly SOM is
important but alone does not account for the ‘X’ factor; can
science unravel the more complex workings of the soil?
Time to focus on understanding soil biology
as the ‘X’ factor in soil health?
We have some good measures of the chemical and structural
properties of the soil, and we use these to decide on fertiliser
inputs and soil management practice. Increasingly, we
are developing more sophisticated pest and disease
measurements, some using novel DNA diagnostic techniques
to great effect. When it comes to soil biology, it becomes a
lot more complicated as there is unlikely to be a single
measurable component of the soil biology. It has been
suggested that earthworm numbers can be used as a guide to
soil health, and that there are target population levels which
can signify a healthy soil. The science behind this is not well
established, not to mention how inaccurate sampling and
assessment may be. Also, remember that the AHDB organic
amendments project at Rothamsted has shown that yield
increases are not related to earthworm numbers; so are there
other methods that can be used?
In fact, there is a plethora of biological methods that have
been developed by scientists, and suggested as ways of
assessing the biological and soil health status of a soil. Ritz
et al. (Ref. 4) reviewed some selected biological indicators
from published scientific literature and identified 183
potential biological indicators! After scoring and screening
these indicators, the list was reduced to 21. Some of these
were relatively developed and tested whilst others were
deemed not sufficiently robust yet for deployment. Some of
the broad groups of tests are shown below:
■ Genetic testing to describe and profile what is present
in soil biological communities using a molecular
biology technique called TRFLP
■ Phenotypic tests that measure quantity of microbial
biomass (e.g. fungi, bacteria and actinomycetes) using
PLFA as signature lipid markers
■ Functional tests that can measure soil respiration,
carbon cycling or enzyme profiling using fluorescence
techniques
■ Nematodes numbers (not earthworms) as nematodes
are the most abundant multicellular organisms in the
soil and their potential as biological indicators is widely
reported
applied to commercial practice: how robust are they, how
sensitive to changing soil management practice and,
importantly, how do they relate to soil performance and
crop yields? This is where there are many gaps in our
knowledge.
AHDB-BBRO Soil Biology and Soil Health
Partnership
To address these questions, a new project has just commenced:
The Soil Biology and Soil Health Partnership. The five-year
project funded jointly by AHDB and BBRO is being led by
Newcastle University and includes a number of collaborators
such as SRUC, ADAS, Fera, University of Lincoln and Natural
England. The project is designed around three themed work
packages (WP):
WP1 Benchmarking and baseline activities to scope and
update existing knowledge on indicators, and
developing a soil health scorecard approach
WP2 Soil health assessment (including soil-borne diseases)
and optimising long-term impact of soil management
WP3 Industry benchmarking of soil and on-farm monitoring,
especially where new and novel practices such as cover
crops and organic amendments have been used.
Assessing the knowledge gaps and the development of
additional tests to establish a validated and relevant soil
health scorecard is central to the project. This scorecard will
then be deployed and tested across a range of soil
management practices, rotations and regimes. Rotations
including sugar beet will be targeted and the work will involve
a lot of monitoring of soils on commercial farms. The project
will also work closely alongside another AHDB project which is
looking at the management of rotations, soil and water, and
has a specific focus on potatoes.
This will be one of the most comprehensive projects ever
to address the use of soil health indicators in a commercial
environment, and should take us closer to identifying the
‘X’ factor. Most importantly, it will direct us toward the best
ways of improving our soils, and possibly the identification of
some novel approaches and techniques. However, as is often
the case with soil science, there is no ‘quick fix’ and only time
will tell.
References
1. Watson & More (1956). Tenth Edition, Agriculture: The science and
practice of British Farming. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.
2. Kirkegaard et al. (2008). Break crop benefits in temperate wheat
production. Field Crops Research, 107, 185-195.
3. AHDB Project report (2015). Improvement of soil structure by
adding organic matter to the soil. AHDB project RD-2012-3789.
4. Ritz et al. (2009). Selecting biological indicators for monitoring
soils: A framework for balancing scientific and technical opinion to
assist policy development. Ecological Indicators, 9, 1212-1221.
■ Microarthropod numbers such as mites and collembola
(springtails) and ground-dwelling and soil invertebrates.
The review of Ritz et al. highlights the considerable amount of
scientific work being targeted at developing new techniques
to measure soil biology. However, to complete the jigsaw in
this area, we need to understand how these tests can be
16
BRITISH
sugar beet review
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:23 Page 17
By
Tom Brown,
British Sugar plc
Mental Health – as important
as physical health!
What is it?
‘Health & Safety’ is a very common phrase in use these days.
However, very often people just mean ‘Safety’: Guarding, Risk
Assessments, Signs; these are what most people immediately think
about. Even when we narrow it down to talk about ‘Health’ people
will still think about physical illness or injuries. When asked, “Are you
healthy?”, the reply will perhaps be, “Oh yes, I play sport once a
week” or, “I have a bit of backache, but otherwise okay”.
In the past, when people talked about mental health they maybe
thought about Jack Nicholson in ‘One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest’.
Fortunately we have come a long way since then. However, it is still
a subject that is relatively unknown and not widely discussed. We
need to do more. We need to feel as comfortable discussing this
issue as we might when talking about, say, ‘that bit of backache’.
So what should we think about in relation to the term ‘mental
health’? Well, it includes our emotional, psychological and social
well-being. It affects how we think, feel, and act. It also helps
determine how we handle stress, relate to others and make choices.
Mental health is important at every stage of life, from childhood
and adolescence through adulthood. It influences how we think and
feel about ourselves and others. It affects our capacity to learn, to
communicate, and to form, sustain and end relationships. It also
influences our ability to cope with change, transition and life events.
Mental health awareness
In the general population around one in four people will experience
mental health problems at some point in their lives and one in six will
be experiencing them at any one time. There are different types of
mental health problems: common ones are depression and anxiety
disorders whilst schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are less common.
Depression is a word that is often overused. Everyone can feel down
or sad when bad things happen, but they can manage to cope and
soon recover without treatment. When clinical depression develops,
it affects people most of the time and lasts for at least two weeks.
It affects the person’s behaviour and can interfere with their ability
to work.
Anxiety, similarly, is experienced by the majority of people. Indeed,
it can help us to avoid dangerous situations and motivate us to solve
everyday problems. However, an anxiety disorder is much more
severe and long-lasting.
harvests and concerns about policies and legislation can all have an
effect. They can spend long hours working alone and research
shows those who develop mental illness in rural communities are
less likely to seek help than those living in urban areas.
In the UK, one farmer a week dies by suicide – three times more
likely than the average person. The reasons stated above can all play
their part, but also the means of taking their own life are much
more readily available: machinery, poisons and firearms.
What to do
Often, the biggest challenge is recognising that you or someone you
know is experiencing poor mental health and needs to access the
right support as soon as possible. Key signs and symptoms include
low moods, low energy levels, lack of interest in things, poor
concentration, eating too much or too little, and sleep disruption.
People who are severely depressed can have many of these
symptoms at the same time.
If you believe someone is at risk, ask them how they are feeling and
listen to them. Being able to talk things through can be therapeutic
in itself. If necessary, encourage them to seek out professional help
such as their GP.
Lifestyle has a huge impact on staying mentally healthy. Eat well,
drink alcohol only in moderation, talk about your feelings, take time
out to do something that you enjoy.
British Sugar
As a business, we have embarked on a recent drive to raise
awareness of Mental Health in our employees, and others. We’ve
been working closely with MIND (the mental health charity) to
know what resources and support are available. We have trained
over 40 employees in Mental Health First Aid, giving them the skills
to recognise and then help people who may have mental health
problems.
Resources
MIND – www.mind.org.uk
The Farming Community Network – www.fcn.org.uk/help/health
You Are Not Alone – www.yanahelp.org
The Royal Agricultural Support Network – www.rabi.org.uk
Fortunately people can and do recover from even the most
debilitating mental health problems. Many factors can help: from
professional treatment, support from friends and family and
self-help.
www.countryfile.com/explore-countryside/food-and-farming/
farmers-and-mental-health-where-go-help
Mental health in agriculture
www.fwi.co.uk/machinery/understanding-rural-mental-healthproblems.htm
Farming is a high pressure, 24/7 occupation. Farmers face
increasingly difficult market pressures. Livestock diseases, poor
Mental Health First Aid – National Institute for Mental Health
in England
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
BRITISH
Further information
sugar beet review
17
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:23 Page 18
Getting to know
the BBRO
This is the second in a series of features where we meet different members of the BBRO team and find out more
about their day-to-day roles and their thoughts on what is important in the future of sugar beet growing.
What did you do previously?
Name:
Suzannah Cobb
For the past three years I have been at
doing a degree in biological sciences. I
plant sciences and microbiology, which a
thought was a weird mix but is ideal for
at the BBRO.
Role:
Lab Technician
Where are you from?
Leicester University
specialised in both
lot of my lecturer’s
the work I do here
Why did you want to work here?
My home is Great Ellingham
in Norfolk. I went off to
study at the University of
Leicester but Norfolk is
where my heart is, so I’m
happy to be back.
Although I wanted to work in research, I also wanted to have
a link to ‘the real world’ and to know that what I was doing
was making a difference. Very often in lab-based jobs you are
only working on a tiny element of a much bigger picture that
you don’t get to see. Once I found out about the BBRO and the
emphasis they put on the practical application of research, I
knew that was where I wanted to work.
How long have you been
with the BBRO?
I started working at the BBRO lab in Norwich in July this year,
so really not that long yet!
What does a typical day look like for
you? (at this time of year)
I start most days in the lab getting any
experiments I’m doing underway (e.g.
testing Plant Clinic samples for viruses
or fungal infections). Then it’s down to
the glasshouses to help with watering
and perhaps replenish our stock of
virus-infected plants.
But every week is slightly different. This
week I’m freeze drying leaves infected
with beet mild or beet yellows virus,
collected around the country, so that I
can use them to try out a potential new
diagnostic test in the new year.
What is your favourite part of the
sugar beet year?
If I’m honest I really don’t know yet!
Can I get back to you on this question
once I’ve experienced a whole sugar
beet year?
What projects are you involved in?
I am involved in many projects because
a lot of them involve lab work at one
18
BRITISH
sugar beet review
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:23 Page 19
UK’s ing
Lim
No.1 oduct
pr
on
rrecti
o
c
r
fo f soil
o
ty
acidi
ultimate
For
performance
point or another. Since July I have worked with ADAS on the
InnovateUK beet yellows project (trying to find new tolerant/
resistant varieties) and the SPOREID project monitoring
aphids, as well as the Plant Clinic.
What do you think is the ‘next big thing’ in agriculture?
In terms of the effect on my work the ‘next big thing’ in
agriculture could be the future (or lack of it!) of neonicotinoid
insecticides. It will be a big challenge to find alternatives but,
for people like me, it is also a really exciting time. The
discoveries I make from my tests in the lab and the glasshouses
could be vital in protecting sugar beet plants from disease in
the future.
Optimises
soil pH
Increases
available calcium
Fast acting and long lasting
What are your aspirations for the future?
I really enjoy this type of applied research but one day I’d
like to be involved in writing about the projects being
investigated, and translating the knowledge we learn from
them to the wider agricultural community. In the nearer future
I want to do a PhD and I’m looking forward to doing the
Advanced Sugar Beet Course next month, which should help
me build up my general sugar beet knowledge.
Provides valuable nutrients
Improves soil structure
Flexible service options
Helpdesk 0870 240 2314
fax 0870 240 2729
[email protected]
limex.co.uk
*
LimeX is a business of British Sugar plc
16/3/7/02
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
BRITISH
sugar beet review
19
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:24 Page 20
By
Darryl Shailes,
Hutchinsons
An agronomist’s
observations on
the 2016 crop
The yields of sugar beet that growers have achieved over the last few years, 100 tonne/ha and more, would have
only been dreamt of in the past. The advances in breeding and growing techniques have meant that sugar beet
yields have increased at a time when other crops have, in the main, reached a so called ‘Yield Plateau’. ‘Down the
row by the Suffolk show and across the row by the Norfolk show’, was always the measure of a good crop of beet
when I first started walking them, and 50 tonne/ha was closer to the norm.
The Beet Yield Competition should now give us a much more
accurate measure of a good, or even great, beet crop. New for
2017, it will look at the yield potential of a grower, not just his
actual total yield. BBRO and British Sugar have developed
a yield prediction model called the Beet Grow Model, which
takes into account various different agronomic factors to
determine the yield potential of the crop and site. The winners
of the competition will be, not just the highest-yield growers,
but the growers who capture the highest percentage of their
potential yields, so the competition is opened up to growers
on all soil types and locations. This should ultimately feed back
excellent practice and innovation into the grower base. At
Hutchinsons we are very pleased to have been involved in this
project since its conception in 2015, in conjunction with BBRO,
British Sugar and the NFU.
colleagues seem to remember halcyon years when it was
always easy, but my memory’s not that good.
For sand-land growers with a free-living nematode problem
the news that there wouldn’t be any oxamyl (e.g. Vydate)
nematicide available for the 2016 crop, to control Docking
Disorder, was bad news. Ever since I’ve been involved with
sugar beet, Docking Disorder control has been a crucial part of
the management of sugar beet on very light and sandy soils.
Docking Disorder is caused by Trichodorus and Longidorus
free-living nematodes feeding on the roots and causing the
plants and root systems to be stunted.
2016, like most years now it would seem, has had its fair share
of challenges for growers and agronomists alike; several of my
This shouldn’t be an issue for 2017 as we should have oxamyl
back for in-furrow use. Anecdotally, there seems to be an
additive effect where a strongly tolerant beet cyst nematode
variety is also grown, but it would be good to get this
validated in replicated trials.
Untreated block in middle.
Treated vs Untreated.
20
BRITISH
sugar beet review
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:24 Page 21
Another problem we had to contend
with in 2016, but this time on heavier
soils, was the lack of over-winter frosts
to make any frost mould on ploughed
land. This meant that seed beds were
difficult to form, with all the associated
issues that followed on. No doubt the
dreaded power harrow was used in
several places, with its potential for
damage when working in the plasticine
layer of these very fragile soils.
However, taking all that into account,
crop establishment was good in most
places with the recommended target of
100,000 plants/ha being achieved in
most fields.
Early weed control was good. Modern
chemistry takes a lot of chance out of this
formerly tricky area, and the newer
products are much safer and more
effective than the ones we used years
ago. Over the last few years we’ve
Area of beet affected by low pH.
developed an in-house broad-acre
many crops, not the least sugar beet. A programmed approach
approach using modern formulations, but at reduced rates
and starting earlier than in the classic method; this has met
is always best and we’re looking at managing blackgrass
with great success and has been adopted by many of our
rotationally using strip-tillage and low disturbance drills to see
growers and agronomists. In most situations this keeps weed
how we can improve upon its control. The good thing about
control pretty simple and cost effective.
beet in this process is, it brings in spring cropping and the
ability to use inter-row treatments and different chemistry in
One of the problems that has manifested itself in recent years
is blackgrass control, and it’s proving to be a challenge in
the rotation.
W
E
N
Grimme Matrix Beet Drills
Grimme Matrix beet drills are designed for a range of precision planting applications including min-till.
Grimme Section Control and Clever Planting technology make for faster, more accurate and economical
planting. Take full control from the driver’s seat via the integrated Isobus terminal.
Standard specification includes:
•
•
•
•
Generous 10l seed hoppers – less downtime
Maximum seed drop - 2.5cm – very accurate
Hydraulic folding frame for fast set up
Cellular wheel electric drive for selective shut off
• Optical sensor monitors seed placement
• Parallelogram seeder guidance for exact
depth control
• Integrated spray track shut-off.
Want more information? Contact your local Grimme Retail outlet on the numbers below.
Swineshead T: 01205 821 491
York T: 01904 481 648
Shrewsbury T: 01743 443 665
www.grimme.co.uk
Fife T: 01592 631 291
16/3/21/04
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
BRITISH
sugar beet review
21
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:24 Page 22
pH testing solution showing acidity.
Then came the heavy rains of June, when one of my growers
recorded over 240 mm of rain in a 10 day period. This slumped
the soils very badly and, as the soil dried out and the better
areas started to grow away, compaction and other problems
were seen as stunted and yellow beet in the poorer areas of
fields across a range of soil types in East Anglia.
On further investigation, very low pH was found to be
contributing to a lot of these problems, no doubt exacerbated
by the very heavy rains. There is a lot of interest in soil at
present, and long-term strategies for soil management are
making the headlines. The Agriculture and Horticulture
Development Board (AHDB) have their great soils project and
there are many different management strategies being
proposed that look at organic matter, soil life and managing
compaction etc.. The one area that seems to have missed all
the recent interest is pH; it’s long been known that pH affects
the productivity of many crops, especially sugar beet, but in
recent years has not been deemed a sexy subject and seems to
be on the low-interest end of the soil management spectrum
at present. As we know, pH affects not only the availability of
nutrients from the soil, but more fundamentally the ability of
the crop to grow. It’s very easy to test for pH, and many still
use the old ADAS solution and always have some in the car to
check suspect areas.
Ideally, soils should be maintained at around pH 7, and fields
should be tested 18 months before a beet crop comes in the
rotation, allowing any corrective lime to be mixed through the
soil profile. It should not be applied just in front of the crop
and ploughed down.
Also during this time, weed control became trickier as the crop
looked extremely stressed and there is always the temptation
to leave the weeds alone and allow the crop to recover. This
frequently leads to weedy fields; in general, weed control
programmes should be adapted but continued in all but the
worst situations. Sometimes I think we forget that sugar beet
herbicides are designed to control weeds in sugar beet and
not sugar beet in a weedy field.
These stress factors were compounded in many fields,
especially around the Fens, by beet leaf miner which made
weed control decisions even more complicated, and BBRO did
very well to get an emergency approval for Biscaya towards
the end of June. The frequent heavy rains did a great job at
controlling many insect pests across many different crops, and
I did not really see many problems until very recently, for
example cabbage stem flea beetle in some oilseed rape.
22
BRITISH
Testing pH in the field.
As the soil dried out canopies recovered in the main and,
where pH was identified as an issue, several fields responded
very well to in-season applications of lime. Hoeing appeared
to alleviate some of the problems caused by slumping and deoxygenation of the soil. Perhaps a little surprisingly, many
fields were across-the-row by the Cereals Event, looking very
good despite the atrocious weather they experienced earlier
in the year, and they appear on target to make a good crop.
Around the end of July the first bits of brown rust were
detected and a broad-spectrum fungicide was applied as is
advised by BBRO. Since then we’ve had record breaking
temperatures in September and reports of rust and powdery
mildew have been few and far between.
It will be interesting to examine any untreated plots in sugar
beet field trials now, as over the last couple of weeks there
have been some incidences of very high levels of powdery
mildew in various different crops. This was brought on by the
hot sunny days and heavy overnight dews, perfect for
powdery mildew to go mad.
As I’m writing, it’s pouring with rain outside. It is the first
significant rain we’ve had in the east for some time and I’m
sure the non-irrigated beet crop will be enjoying a long
awaited drink to help it reach its potential. The slightly later
opening of the factories will allow root weight to keep
building and, hopefully, sugars to rise just a little further
before first lifts.
sugar beet review
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:24 Page 23
By
Patrick Barraclough,
British Sugar plc and
Diane Armitage and Donald Hume,
National Farmers’ Union
Dynamic allocation
system for Beet
Intake
The dynamic allocation system evolved from the Logistics Working Group which was set up as a joint initiative
between British Sugar and NFU Sugar to look for efficiencies in beet logistics. This practical solution was developed
to offer more flexibility to hauliers while offering greater efficiency for all parties concerned (Ref. 1). An initial trial
was carried out during the 2015/16 campaign with hauliers working on the Industry Harvest and Haulage Scheme
(IHHS) at the Bury and Cantley factories. In the 2016/17 campaign, further trials will be carried out at all four sites.
All IHHS hauliers will be using this system for both IHHS growers and non-IHHS growers that they have contracted
to them. Therefore by default there will be some growers that are included in this trial even if they haven’t opted
into the IHHS scheme. From a grower’s perspective they will see no difference to their deliveries.
Load estimate
The dynamic allocation system initially calculates each
grower’s estimated number of loads for the whole campaign.
This calculation is no different to the current delivery permit
system, which is based on a calculation of hectares grown
multiplied by the five-year clean average yield multiplied by
the field survey adjustment factor divided by clean load
weight from previous year (Ref. 2). Currently this data is used
to produce a load allocation by day for every haulier.
Although there is some flexibility in the current system, loads
are allocated on the factory’s requirements; this does not
take account of the haulier’s ability to deliver them on any
given day. The dynamic allocation enables hauliers to request
additional permits or relinquish them according to their ability
to deliver. Their entitlement is then constantly adjusted so
that they never get ahead or behind other haulage groups.
This increased flexibility can be useful if:
■ delivering beet from a longer distance to the factory and
therefore unable to make as many deliveries in a day as
they normally would
■ delivering from a shorter distance to the factory and
therefore able to deliver more loads than they have
permits for
■ they have fewer vehicles available to them in a given week
e.g. some vehicles may have been diverted to different
work or are being repaired or are out of action
■ the contractor has not been able to harvest the required
amount of beet: possibly due to poor weather conditions
etc.
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
BRITISH
How does the dynamic allocation system
work?
The system is best explained by way of an example:
For the purposes of the example let us consider five hauliers
on the system, all of whom have an initial allocation of permits
for the campaign (Table 1).
Table 1 – Dynamic system for allocating delivery permits.
Pro-rata
percentage
Entitlement
Offers
Allocated
Haulier A
15%
90
95
95
Haulier B
30%
180
160
160
Haulier C
20%
120
140
130
Haulier D
25%
150
150
150
Haulier E
10%
60
80
65
600
625
600
– Hauliers’ shares of loads calculated on a percentage of the
factory total
– Daily entitlement proportionate to each haulier’s percentage share of factory requirement
– Hauliers’ offers to deliver as many as they believe is
reasonably possible based on the number of lorries and
distance from the factory
– The allocation calculator uses the supplied information to
provide an allocation for each haulier.
sugar beet review
23
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:24 Page 24
What happened in the trial at Bury and
Cantley during the 2015/16 campaign?
What will happen in the trial during the
2016/17 campaign at all four sites?
At the start of the campaign, the allocation of loads was
typically initiated each day by the hauliers telephoning
Beet Intake to indicate how many loads they wanted to
deliver. Once all the hauliers had submitted their offers,
British Sugar would calculate their allocations and inform
them of it.
Bury and Cantley will continue with the systems evolved
during the last campaign, and will be joined by the Newark
and Wissington factories. This means that all sites will work in
a similar way. However, there may be some subtle variations
between sites.
As the trial continued, instead of a daily allocation, the same
system was trialled for three-day periods (Monday to
Wednesday: Thursday to Saturday) at Cantley, and four–day
periods (Thursday to Sunday) at Bury.
Some basic ground rules were set up for all the loads allocated
to these hauliers who were part of the system, as follows:
■ All loads were allocated for three days and placed on
Monday’s schedule.
■ Any unused loads/permits not delivered on Monday were
rolled over to Tuesday for delivery, and subsequently to
Wednesday if they were not used.
■ Any unused loads not delivered on the Wednesday were
NOT carried forward to the Thursday.
Benefits of the dynamic allocation system
■ Hauliers are in control of their own allocation, and can flex
it around their other work.
■ A continuous recalculation of loads remaining ensures that
groups are kept balanced as the campaign progresses,
rather than experiencing the step changes that occurred
previously with a single roundup.
■ Supports the concept of ‘permit trading’ but avoids the
complexities of managing and achieving this in practice
with fixed allocations.
■ British Sugar can be more confident that loads will be
delivered by hauliers.
■ This system helps to reduce the number of missed loads.
■ The aim of the new system is for hauliers to give an
accurate account of what they intend to deliver, so
roll-over should not be necessary all through the week.
British Sugar does not want to encourage hauliers to
consistently ask for more loads than they can deliver.
■ The system gives British Sugar an understanding of the
amount of spare haulage capacity and provides an early
warning of impending beet supply issues when the number
of loads offered in excess of the requirement reduces.
■ Any reduction or increase in call-up letter on respective
days was not actioned for any of these hauliers who were
part of the system where the call-up letter moved by 10%
or less (Table 2).
So what does the future hold for dynamic
allocation?
Table 2 – The Call-Up Delivery Matrix (‘L’ is initial haulier
allocation before adjustment) (Ref. 2).
Letter call
% of L
Letter call
% of L
A
25%
M
105%
B
35%
N
110%
C
45%
P
115%
D
55%
R
120%
E
65%
S
125%
F
75%
T
130%
G
80%
U
135%
H
85%
W
140%
J
90%
Y
145%
K
95%
Z
150%
L
100%
This project is in its trial phase and there are still some issues
to be addressed before it can be fully rolled out to the entire
haulage fleet. This system supports the future practical use of
data that is already held by British Sugar. It can give flexibility
both day-to-day and longer term, and can be modelled on a
variety of business rules which can be operated within the
system.
The system would benefit from being fully automated. This
would ensure that there is minimal intervention from the Beet
Intake staff and enable the hauliers to self-manage their
allocations. This is a significant investment, and needs to be
fully proven before being put in place. In the meantime, the
system can be run simultaneously with the current permit
system.
References
1. Dear, A., Ovey J. and Young, T. (2015). NFU/British Sugar Logistics
Working Group update. British Sugar Beet Review, 83 (3), 4-6.
2. Morris, N. and Thorpe, D. (2012). Delivery scheduling explained.
British Sugar Beet Review, 80 (3), 7-9.
Where the call-up letter was increased or decreased by
more than 10%, then a re-allocation was carried out.
■ Where free loading comes into operation, then the
dynamic allocation was suspended.
■ When, ‘No return loads’ is called then this will apply also to
hauliers on the dynamic allocation.
24
BRITISH
sugar beet review
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:24 Page 25
By
Timothé Masson,
WABCG
The sugar sector in Ukraine
A new organisation
for a new beginning?
On 25th August 2016, Jean-Pierre Dubray, WABCG President, met Ukrainian representative Andrii Dykun in Paris.
Ukraine was a very significant sugar producer (over 4 Mt in the 1990s), but the difficulties encountered by the
sector have halved production figures.
Andrii Dykun, former deputy Minister
for Agriculture in Ukraine, is now
President of the Ukrainian Agricultural
Council (UAC), which groups together
the interests of Ukraine’s agricultural
sectors, including sugar.
He has been asked by the Ministry to
help implement the organisation of the
sector in Ukraine. Jean-Pierre Dubray
underlined the interest of growers’
associations, explained how they work
and initiated a co-operation which
could lead to the implementation of a
new local entity.
He suggested to Andrii Dykun that
local growers be invited to attend
the London WABCG meeting as an
opportunity to meet their counterparts
from throughout the world.
From left to right: Timothé Masson (Executive Secretary of WABCG), Jean-Pierre Dubray
(President of WABCG), Andrii Dykun (President of UAC), Aleksandr Shuiskyi (First Secretary of
the Ukrainian Embassy in France).
General situation in Ukraine
Sugar policy in Ukraine
Ukraine, independent since 1991, has been experiencing a
period of unrest since 2013, torn between Europe and Russia.
The annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, after a local
referendum not recognised by Kiev, has been denounced by
the United Nations’ General Assembly and has been a source
of internal conflict in Ukraine (the war in Donbass), where
there is currently a ceasefire.
Sugar production in Ukraine is based on a quota system.
The quota (called ‘A’ quota, although there are no others),
is for domestic consumption and is fixed annually by the
government. It was 1.67 Mt for the 2015/2016 marketing
year and will be 1.72 Mt in 2016/2017. Any sugar produced
outside this quota can only be exported, stored, or used
for non-food purposes.
This has obviously affected the economy:
The minimum sugar price for this quota is fixed annually
by government, as is the minimum beet price paid to
growers. For the 2015/2016 marketing year, the selling price
for sugar ex-works was 245.9 US$/t, and the beet price was
17 US$/t. The State fixing of the price whilst inflation rises
and the currency plummets, is problematic.
■ Local currency movements (Ukrainian Hryvnia, UAH) have
been chaotic, reflecting the national situation. On 1st
January 2014, 8.2 UAH were needed for 1 US$ whereas
15.8 UAH were needed at the beginning of 2015 and
24.0 UAH at the beginning of 2016 (currently 25.3 UAH/
US$).
■ Inflation is settling (+4.8% this year up till July), but was
spectacular in 2015 (+43%).
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
BRITISH
Moreover it would appear that these quotas and minimum
prices are not effectively in application owing to a lack of
appropriate controls. Ukraine therefore envisages removing
sugar beet review
25
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:24 Page 26
this system to move towards total liberalisation. The most
optimistic commentators say that this could happen from
early 2017.
Production
Sugar production in Ukraine over the last few years
appears to be diverse, reaching a low in 2009 (below 1.3 Mt)
whereas 2.8 Mt had been reached three years previously
and 4 Mt at the beginning of the 1990s. Ukraine does not
produce ethanol from sugar beet. Production for 2014/2015
was 2.1 Mt, a figure close to the 5-year average. The
marketing year officially begins on 1st September but
frequently (as is the case this year) production begins at
the end of August.
Upstream: an increasingly integrated sector
For the 2015/2016 marketing year, planted area is at a historic
low since Ukraine’s independence in 1991, at 280.000 ha, for
11.7 Mt of sugar beet. Yields remain low, around 45 t/ha, but
are nevertheless significantly increasing: they have doubled
over the last 15 years.
Downstream: difficulty for the sector to restructure
The sugar sector itself has changed considerably. In 2011, 77
factories were active, falling to only 48 in 2014. FO Licht still
registers about 50 sugar factories, existing but not
operational, without giving any information as to a possible
re-opening in the medium term.
Factories are frequently small (daily processing of 2,000 to
4,000 t of beet) and the companies seem to only have a
majority hold in one factory. There are two exceptions: the
Mt
This downward trend in production can be put on a
parallel with the reduction in beet rotation by independent
growers at a rhythm which the agroindustrial
groups
–
increasingly
5
numerous – cannot mitigate. Growers
4
are mainly turning towards crops
considered more profitable, particularly
4
maize, sunflower and soya as, despite
3
the public sugar policy, sugar beet is
the increase in costs in Ukraine due to the country’s economic
situation also seem to have impacted production over recent
years.
not considered as an economically
profitable crop in Ukraine.
3
2
26
2
1
1
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
USDA considers that the integrated
groups will continue to dominate sugar
production over the next few years and
that the number of independent growers
will continue to decrease. Depending on
the year and the source, it is estimated
that between 50 and 80% of the beet
area is grown by these integrated
groups. The drop in world market and
Sugar production in Ukraine.
BRITISH
sugar beet review
(Source: ISO)
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
Consumption and trade
Slow consumption
1000
50
900
45
800
40
700
35
600
30
500
25
400
20
300
15
200
10
100
5
0
0
Tonne of sugar beet t/ha
Ukrainian group Astarta, national
leader with nine factories, and which
covers almost 25% of national sugar
production, and the German Pfeifer &
Langen (since 2013), which seems to be
the only foreign sugar group in Ukraine,
with two factories.
Thousand of hectares
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:24 Page 27
The population in Ukraine has been
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015e 2016e
declining since the 1990s: from over 52M
*1,000 ha
Yield (t/ha)
inhabitants in 1994 there are less than
45M today, according to the World Bank.
Sugar beet acreage and yield in Ukraine.
(Source: USDA, Ukrtsukor, FoLicht)
Sugar consumption follows the same
trend, decreasing by 2.5% per year and, according to FO Licht,
Conclusion
is now about 1.7 Mt, compared with almost 2.9 Mt at the
beginning of the 1990s according to ISO. Isoglucose would
At the beginning of the 1990s, Ukraine exported annually
appear to be totally absent from Ukrainian consumption.
up to 2 Mt of sugar compared with about 100,000 t
currently, and only to protected markets. With declining
Exports limited
consumption, the sector seems moribund and the
Ukraine has very little sugar trade with third countries and
independent growers, who only see mediocre economic
what it does have is only periodical:
viability in sugar beet, are disappearing to the benefit of
agro-industrial groups.
■ Annual imports have not exceeded 50,000 t for the last five
marketing years. Ukraine does not appear to have any
refining capacity.
■ Whereas Ukraine exported up to 2 Mt per year at the
beginning of the 1990s, it now hardly exports at all,
between 100 and 130,000 t depending on the year, to two
regions with which it has privileged connections:
■ the Eurasian Economic Community (Russia, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan), of which Ukraine is
an observer member, seems to be the destination for
the remaining sugar, although the shutting down of
trade with Russia seems problematic.
The Ukrainian sugar policy, based on a system of quotas
and minimum prices, but which is struggling to be truly
respected, is being liberalised.
The ambition to strengthen the organisation of the sector
to accompany the movement could enable the
independent growers to benefit from it. This could be a
first step towards the revival of sugar production in
Ukraine, which was over 4 Mt at the beginning of the
1990s, with a yield half of that currently achieved.
■ and to the European Union, to which it sends 20,000 t
annually, duty free, and almost exclusively to Romania.
■ EU-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement
The free trade agreement between the European Union
and Ukraine was drawn up in December 2011; but its
ratification was rejected by Ukraine in November 2013, in
order to privilege a partnership with Russia. A major
political crisis followed in Ukraine; the agreement was
finally signed in June 2014 and ratified by European
Parliament on 15th September 2014; this agreement is
applied unilaterally (to the sole benefit of Ukraine).
Regarding sugar, the EU has granted a quota of 20,070 t
sugar duty free and will benefit – once there is reciprocal
application (not planned for the moment) – from a quota
of 30,000 t sugar, readjusted to 40,000 t after a 5-year
period. Added to this is the duty-free quota granted by the
EU of 10,000 t of isoglucose, fructose and glucose (with a
linear increase to 20,000 t after 5 years), and 2,000 t as
processed sugar (with a linear increase to 3,000 t after
5 years).
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
BRITISH
sugar beet review
27
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:24 Page 28
BBRO Open Days 2016
Putting science in
the spotlight
Despite the best efforts of the weather to interrupt the BBRO programme of events during the summer, four BBRO
Site Open Days, a soil management demonstration at the NORMAC (Norfolk Farm Machinery Club) event at
Hardingham Farm in September, and a number of smaller grower field visits and meetings have all added up to
this being a busy period for BBRO.
‘Our objective has been to show how we put great science at
the core of our work; developing and demonstrating how this
can translate into new sugar beet production practice is our
imperative’, says Dr. Simon Bowen of BBRO who leads the
BBRO Knowledge Exchange programme.
There have been many great examples of this on display at the
various events during the summer. The development of the infield disease spore capture and diagnostics project (SporeID)
highlights the sophisticated approaches being developed. ‘It
takes in-field disease monitoring to a new level, linking clever
in-field robotic diagnostics to behind-the-scenes disease
modelling and yield forecasting to identify the risks of disease,
and to make informed decisions about when to apply
fungicides’, says Dr. Bowen. The project is led by Dr. Mark
Stevens of BBRO and receives some joint funding from
Innovate UK to support the large team of collaborating
scientists working on the project.
28
BRITISH
BBRO Open Day at Wimblington, Cambridgeshire.
sugar beet review
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:24 Page 29
The BBRO PhD studentship programme with Nottingham
University was also highlighted during the summer events. The
programme allows us to develop some underpinning science
in key areas such as BCN, cover crops and water and nutrient
uptake. The opportunity for the PhD students to meet and
discuss their work with growers provides a vital link, ensuring
the science is focused to deliver against growers’ needs but
also enabling growers to appreciate the value of rigorous and
robust science in providing good information and direction.
Soil management also featured highly on the agenda of the
various events. ‘Making every hectare count’ is the objective of
the campaign to improve our management of the soil.
Demonstrations at the various events showed how BBRO
are using some of the latest technologies to drive towards
this goal. For example: the use of the X-ray CT scanning
technology to follow root development in detail, and to assist
in understanding how to produce better seedbeds; remote
sensing was also demonstrated to show how this helps identify
soil problems, such as compaction, and could be further
developed to identify different soil management zones within
fields. At the NORMAC event, there was a focus on soil
structure, combining traditional soil pit inspections with
soil penetrometer measurement to
identify potential problem areas and
help subsoilers to be set to work at the
right depth.
Looking ahead to next year, BBRO will
continue to demonstrate its science
programme at two principal science sites,
providing that essential opportunity for
scientists and growers to discuss and
exchange ideas. ‘However, we will be
doing something a little different next
year’, explains Dr. Bowen. ‘In conjunction
with the main BBRO science sites we
will be establishing a number of BBRO
demonstration farms where we can take
a really close look at applying some of
the more recent developed science and
ideas in practice on commercial farms.
Working in partnership with growers
on these farms will provide a much
improved insight into commercial
application as well as allowing growers,
importantly, to help direct and shape
the work’. Growers will be able to visit
BBRO Open Day at Hibaldstow, Lincolnshire.
these demonstration farms throughout the season to follow a
range of treatment and technologies through to yield and
harvesting. Locations and dates of the BBRO demonstration
farm visits will be announced early in the New Year.
SporeID – In field technology.
The BBRO soil pit at NORMAC in September.
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
BRITISH
sugar beet review
29
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:24 Page 30
By
Wayne Tonge,
British Beet Research Organisation
A year in the life
of a trials officer
I am one of the team of BBRO Trials Officers and I have been involved with sugar beet trials for the last 19 years.
Initially with an independent seed company, I joined British Sugar in 2007 before moving over to become one of
the team of BBRO Trials Officers. Each year, the BBRO runs four of the 13 variety trials from which eight are
normally selected to provide information for the BBRO recommended list (RL): this is the list from which growers
choose the varieties they wish to grow. I look after two of those four BBRO trials. Here is a year in the life of a
variety trial, from someone on the ground.
Preparations – Jan/Feb
Preparation for a variety trial actually
begins in the summer of the previous
year, with the choosing of a suitable field
and soil sampling. Where possible we use
regular host growers; for the two sites I
look after, we have had trials on the
same farms for as long as I have been
involved with the work. Building a good
relationship with our hosts is very
important; it needs to be a positive
experience for both parties. Certain
fields always grow good trials due to
their evenness, so it is always good to
come back to them when sugar beet is
due in the rotation.
Pic. 1 – Packets of trials seed laid out ready for racking up.
The part of the field where the trial is to
be grown needs to be as flat and as even as possible with no
variation of soil type. Trials are grown on a variety of soil types
to reflect the differences across the beet growing area. Really
heavy and light drought-prone soil types are avoided to give
the best chance of harvesting a successful
trial. The evenness of the previous crop is
a good indicator of a suitable location
but is not the be-all and end-all. Google
Earth is a good means of avoiding any
old field boundaries, pipelines or poor
patches.
As soon as the previous crop has been
harvested, the soil can be tested for
pH (minimum 7.0), the absence of
rhizomania and for BCN, P, K and micro
nutrients. All base fertilisers are applied
pre-ploughing with no bulk organic
manures, as these cannot be guaranteed
to distribute nutrients evenly. Fields need
to be ploughed dry in the autumn or in
line with best local practice on lighter
soil types.
30
As with most farming operations, the early part of the year
is the time for preparation and maintenance. Tractors and
machines are serviced, and those little jobs from last year are
remembered and dealt with. Seed from the breeders is
Pic. 2 – BBRO designed seed lot splitter – empty seed packets on the left, white drill cassettes
on the right.
BRITISH
sugar beet review
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:24 Page 31
pelleted by Germains before being
packaged and distributed to us by NIAB;
each variety has five individual packets
per trial (Pic. 1), one for each of the four
replicates of the trial, plus a spare. The
packets are then ‘racked-up’ into
cassettes through a seed-lot splitter
(Pic. 2) ready for drilling. Whilst all this is
happening, other trials work continues;
for example the final fungicide plots
are being harvested while the last of
the storage trial clamps are dismantled
and the bags of beet are conveyed
to Wissington for analysis. Drills and
cultivators are pre-positioned ready for
the coming season as we generally know
which sites are likely to go first. And then
the wait begins.
Pic. 3 – Bracebridge Heath trials field 4th April 2016.
with a field covered in hailstones (Pic. 3) was just one of the
unexpected problems that can happen.
Getting them going
As 1st March comes and goes, we keep a keen ‘weather eye’
on forecasts and the sky. Fields are trudged, soil temperatures
taken, mud is scraped off boots, and the prospects for a start
discussed with colleagues. Will it be an early year? Do we think
we are going too early? Will conditions improve or is this as
good as it gets? How reliable are the forecasts? If we drill now,
is it likely to rain causing soils to slump or cap? Will it dry out
leading to a gappy emergence? I have the same worries and
concerns as everyone else reading this article. If anyone knows
all the answers, please let me know!
Drilling usually starts in early March, depending on weather
and soil conditions. Having a number of trials on varying soil
types in different parts of the beet growing area presents its
own logistical problems. You can usually guarantee it will be
raining at the site where you have assembled all the kit, whilst
un-interrupted sunshine will occur where you are not. Turning
up to start cultivations at Bracebridge this year, only to be met
My involvement in the drilling of sites looked after by other
team members allows me to check progress and assess the
likelihood that a field of my own might be ready for drilling.
Communication with colleagues and the host growers, who do
their own cultivations, is maintained and co-ordinated to
allow as smooth an operation as possible. As our trial sites can
contain as many as 13 different trials, the entire field needs to
be cultivated before a drill turns a wheel, so that all the
necessary cross-headlands can be put in place first. It is
certainly not a case of working just enough ground to allow
the drill to catch up in case the weather turns! The type of
cultivator used varies from a tine/roller combination through
to a power harrow, depending on conditions.
The BBRO’s Wintersteiger plot drill (Pic. 4) makes short work of
a variety trial, completing it in 2-3 hours. This is the cause of
one of the main gripes about doing trials; so many hours of
preparation are required for only a couple of hours drilling!
Pic. 4 – BBRO Wintersteiger plot drill.
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
BRITISH
sugar beet review
31
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:24 Page 32
The drill tractor is RTK controlled to ensure as straight and as
even plot joins as possible. Plots each have three 50 cm rows
and are 7.5 m long. All variety trials are drilled at 9 cm spacings
and gapped out to 18 cm at a later date; several years ago a
number of trials were lost due to gappy emergence so it was
decided to drill at the closer spacing to ensure the required
number of plants is established. Plots are marked and labelled
straight after drilling, before the whole operation moves on
to the next site.
Growing the crop – May to September
As soon as the drill leaves the field, thoughts turn to the tasks
required to ensure that a successful trial is achieved. Tramlines
are marked and different trials identified. Alongside a variety
trial, herbicide or fertiliser trials might be grown, so these
need to be clearly marked to prevent any unintentional
operations being made between trials.
Nitrogen fertilisers go on in two splits, the first as soon after
drilling as possible, with the remainder applied as soon as all
the beet can be seen down the row. This ensures nutrients are
available when needed and also avoids any scorching of the
growing point by prills becoming lodged in the burgeoning
plants.
Where possible, I like to use a pre-emergence herbicide as this
gives greater flexibility to later herbicide applications. This is
very important as I may be involved drilling other sites or
carrying out establishment counts in another county! Without
getting too involved in the annual debate as to whether ‘preems’ are a waste of money more years than not, I find them a
great help spreading the risk, especially where black-grass
Pic. 5 – A Skylark’s nest, Hibaldstow trial field.
(Alopecurus myosuroides) may be a concern. I like to let a few
days pass to allow the seedbed to settle before the spray goes
on. I tend to follow a herbicide policy based around Betanal
Maxxpro (phenmedipham, desmedipham, ethofumesate,
lenacil), Goltix (metamitron) and oil with the addition of
Venzar (lenacil), Debut (triflusulfuron-methyl) and/or Dow
Shield (clopyralid) (or proprietary brands) depending on the
weeds present at the time. Having a sugar beet variety trial in
the same rotation as potatoes can lead to issues, especially
where late sprouts from well-buried tubers put in an
appearance. Levels need to be assessed and a view taken so
that enough effective herbicide is held back to keep on top of
the problem. Having trials next to fields of peas or poppies
reinforces the need to keep a close eye on forecasts of wind
speeds and direction. Opportunities need to be grasped when
conditions are right, regardless of when they occur. Early
mornings and weekends seem disproportionately represented,
which many an operator reading this will recognise.
Gapping of the variety trial is carried out at the 2-4 true leaf
stage when all plants have emerged but before the plants
become too big to handle. Generally, every alternate plant is
removed, paying close attention to any existing gaps to obtain
as even a stand as possible of around 100,000 plants/ha. The
gapping gang is supervised to ensure that each person gaps
16/3/32/05
32
BRITISH
sugar beet review
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:24 Page 33
one rep each and so that the same standards are applied
across each replicate.
Rabbit netting is used in an attempt to keep out any hares or
other large pests. Bird scarers are set up to dissuade any
winged pests from attacking the young plants. The song of the
skylark is a constant accompaniment to operations in a sugar
beet field during the early part of the season. It is great to
hear the tuneful song of this ground-nesting bird (Pic. 5), so
long as they don’t do too much damage.
During the growing season, a number of inspections and
assessments are carried out on all plots in a variety trial. The
plots are assessed by an independent trials auditor to make
sure they are likely to produce reliable information. It is always
good to see as many ‘9s’ in the audit boxes as possible, as this
is the highest measure of success. Bolters are counted, stripped
and recorded at the end of June, the end of July, and again
before harvest; any material deemed likely to produce viable
seed is removed from the field.
A robust fungicide programme is followed, with multiple
applications made where trials will be late lifted. Harvest
intervals are strictly observed to avoid potential food safety
issues because, at the end of the day, we are still producing a
product that will go into the food-chain.
Reaping what you sow
Whilst all the above is going on, preparations for harvest are
proceeding apace. Harvesters are serviced, haulage quotes
obtained and harvest contractors contacted to discuss timings.
Before the plot harvester can roll, the first task is to get the
field opened up. I speak regularly with the contractor to coordinate all this, and I accompany the machine around the
field. All headlands and cross-headlands are lifted first, and
non-plot beet is harvested to expose the trials. Six ‘discard’ or
guard rows are always left next to each side of a trial. These
serve to prevent any
edge effect in case
the trial has to be
lifted later, as well as
providing beet for
setting-up the harvester to suit the
prevailing conditions.
They also provide
bags of beet with
which to calibrate the
BBRO trials processing
facility when the trial
bags are delivered.
All variety trials are
harvested by the same
BBRO-owned
and
-operated machine. It
is based around a sixrow flail defoliator
and a six-row lifter/
bagger unit which
harvests two plots at
a time (Pic. 6). This
is very much a team
effort with everyone involved. The
harvester has to be
driven, two people need to put bags on, and to glean as they
go, before each bag is tied and labelled. Bags are then moved
from the field to a safe, convenient loading point. This is
usually my main job at harvest as I also co-ordinate haulage as
bags are conveyed to the trials tarehouse at Wissington on
‘walking- floor’ trucks. These are a much safer option when
unloading, as well as being much gentler on the beet. Bags
hanging in bulkers and dropping from height are now,
thankfully, avoided.
Once harvested, trials protocols dictate that the bags must be
delivered within 24 hours. This poses its own problems as it is
hard to allow for trucks being delayed by roadworks,
breakdowns or delayed tipping on their last job. Close cooperation with the haulier ensures a truck will be there within
the required timeframe. All variety trials are harvested and
processed by the end of November, with the remainder of the
year taken up harvesting other trials.
SUMMARY
Hopefully this has given you an insight into the trials and
tribulations of, well, trials! Variety trials are one of our
many activities and, where possible, we do harvest other
trials whilst on site. We are not alone in being exposed to
the vagaries of the British climate but we do suffer more
than most in that we are operating on many different soil
types over the whole of the beet growing area. Despite
this, it is a very interesting and rewarding job. No two days
are ever the same and you never know what exactly is
around the next corner. One of these years, everything is
going to happen smoothly and as planned, with no
interventions from the weather. Am I alone in believing
this, probably yes! But this is just my view, from one of the
many sharp ends in this great industry.
Pic. 6 – BBRO 6-row plot harvester lifting two plots at a time.
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
BRITISH
sugar beet review
33
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:24 Page 34
obituary
Alan Mason
Alan Mason, who sadly passed
away on 30th August, aged 80,
was a key member of the
Agricultural Research and
Development (R&D) department
of British Sugar from 1984 until
his retirement in 1997.
Alan was born in 1936, in
Connington, a small village out
in the fens of what was
Huntingdonshire near to
Holmewood Hall. Brought up in
a rural community, on leaving
school Alan went to work on a
local farm carrying out many of
the tasks associated with
growing a wide range of
arable crops.
A change of career came in 1984
when Alan joined British Sugar
and went to work as a tractor
driver and trials technician at
Homewood Hall which, as well as
being a conference venue, was
the company’s centre for sugar
beet R&D.
The agronomy and
mechanisation of growing
sugar beet advanced rapidly
during the latter half of the
twentieth century. Alan, being
a key member of the team, was
involved in the wide range of
trials programmes which led to
the development of many of
the techniques used by
growers today.
1936-2016
One key area that Alan was
involved in was working with
the late John Prince developing
seed treatments for sugar beet.
This included the very first
priming treatments used with
seed-applied fungicides and
insecticides. He was also fully
involved in all the sugar beet
drill performance testing that
also took place during this era.
Alan will probably be best
remembered for the time he
spent maintaining and working
on the mobile tare houses. These
were run by NIAB and British
Sugar, to harvest and process all
the sugar beet variety trials used
to produce the Recommended
and National Lists in the UK. As
well as maintaining both
machines, Alan spent the
autumn months working on the
British Sugar mobile tare house
to harvest all the northern
variety and contract plant
breeding trials, stretching from
Peterborough in the east, to
Shropshire in the west, and
through to North Yorkshire.
In retirement, Alan spent more
time fishing and gardening and
was able to devote more time to
his family, particularly his two
children and grandchildren and,
in recent years, caring for his
wife Fran.
By Philip Ecclestone,
British Sugar plc
34
BRITISH
sugar beet review
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:24 Page 35
BBRO
activities
By
Daniel Godsmark,
BBRO Trials Manager
BBRO field team activities
rain led to uneven plant growth, compaction and nutrient
deficiency problems. Our other sites have passed the various
milestone inspections so far and continue to look good.
The BBRO sequential fungicide programme has three drilling dates,
two harvest dates and various application windows; the first being
6th July. Applying the treatments in the correct conditions during
some extremely hot weather was another challenge, but early
morning applications avoided the extreme heat and meant we
could listen to the birds singing. The results of these trials will be
reported in the BBRO Knowledge Exchange programme.
The BBRO trials processing facility.
The summer has been busy. The BBRO Summer Demonstrations
provided the BBRO team with lots of work, not only with the
formulation of a ‘Plan B’ at all four events owing to severe rain on
the set-up days themselves, but also ensuring the sites continued to
be maintained well. This work, to make the sites accessible,
continues throughout the season to ensure British Sugar area
managers and the BBRO can show growers and agronomy groups
around at different times in the season, and continue to lead
discussion on the drive for yield progression.
Three of the four open days had the new flow layouts to ensure all
attendees could view the current BBRO work. The meandering flows
received good feedback and generated good interaction with the
BBRO speakers. The only open day where the flows proved not be
possible was the Bury event, which was affected so badly by the rain
that a ‘Plan C’ had to be put in place! While assessing the site with
the host grower, and looking at the weather forecast, it was
decided that if any more rain fell we would hold the event in the
host grower’s farm building – and of course more rain fell! Again
feedback was positive and all appreciated the great work by the
team to move all the required displays, boards and other
demonstration materials from
the field to the farm building.
No single piece of work is more
important than another, and
ensuring the trials and open
days all run smoothly is hard
work. While the open days are
being put together, all the
other trial work continues: late
plant counts, bolter counts in
variety trials, plot assessments,
trial inspections, pesticide
applications and general site
maintenance, to name only a
few activities. Like many
growers this year, we also had
a site that suffered owing to
the
wet
and
miserable
spring/early summer. The heavy
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
At the time of writing preparations for the trials harvest campaign
have begun with servicing of both the Garford 6- and 3-row plot
harvesters. Safety is of utmost importance, and I also want to avoid
as much down time as possible during harvest; a thorough service
will assist with both these aims. Site harvest plans are being put
together, and meetings with host growers ensure the hard work of
producing the trials is not lost during harvest. ‘Fingers crossed’ for
suitable weather during the campaign; not too dry, not too wet, not
too warm and not too cold, ‘Is it much to ask for…?’
I hope you all have a successful and safe campaign.
Beet counting.
Plot spraying.
BRITISH
sugar beet review
35
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:24 Page 36
factory update
BURY ST. EDMUNDS FACTORY
CANTLEY FACTORY
2016/17 Campaign
The gap period between the end of the 15/16 and the start
of the 16/17 Campaign has been the longest for several
years, but the Cantley team have been busy maintaining
and thoroughly testing the factory following further
significant capital investment to replace 70% of the
factory’s core control system.
2016/17 Campaign
Preparations for the start-up of the Bury factory on 4th
October went extremely well. As with all British Sugar sites,
the factory team adhered to a structured planning and
scheduling process which meant that the various unit
operations were in a high state of readiness for when beet
arrived at the gates.
Whilst the mechanical maintenance and process cleaning
took place, over 4,000 control loops were rewired within an
eight week period. These were then tested to ensure that
they operated effectively. A significant amount of time has
been spent off-site by the factory process and control teams
checking software prior to loading on-site and then running
an extended trials period to test both elements together.
Commissioning and trials both have been completed
without any significant issues and, at the time of writing,
we are looking forward to a 20-day juice run to fully test our
Sugar End plant prior to campaign start on the 11th
October. With such large scale change, from the hardware
and software through to the operator interaction, the juice
run period and the early campaign represent a real
challenge to the site, but one that we have been planning
for over the last 12 months.
This time of year means significant change on the site as we
move between different operational modes (maintenance
to production). The start of a new processing campaign also
means an influx of approximately 40 new starters to the site
who go through our standard safety induction process as
part of their ‘on-boarding’. This fact, alongside the change
of operational mode, means that we have to ensure
peoples’ safety in this transition and, equally importantly,
we must ensure that they understand our attitude towards
safety culture and where they play a part.
The major change to the site completion during the year has
been the addition of a brand new Anaerobic Digestion (AD)
plant (see article on page 11 of the British Sugar Beet
Review, Summer 2016, Vol 84 No. 2), which will use a
proportion of the factory’s pulp co-product as a feedstock
to generate gas and, in turn, electricity for the grid.
Construction and commissioning of the new facility
progressed well during the summer months and the plant is
now up and running. During the operational campaign the
AD plant receives pulp direct from our production. The
current challenge for the factory team is baling and storage
of pulp from the co-product stream in order to maintain a
constant feed to the AD facility on a year-round basis.
A full programme of improvements at the factory is about
to be embarked upon for 2016/17, including a focus on
areas such as water usage reduction, through which we aim
to increase our sustainability.
The second of our two major projects this year was
replacement of our over-silo conveying equipment to raise
standards in this area. This has involved some careful
planning to remove and install belt conveyors and screws
in sections above the Cantley silos using a 200 t crane to
perform several of the lifts. This project is entering its final
stages and is due for commissioning in the coming weeks.
Several other improvements have also taken place over the
summer, including floor replacement and waste heat
recovery projects; these will all be commissioned during
September.
There is, as ever, plenty happening but the Bury St.
Edmunds team are looking forward to a safe, food-safe
and productive processing campaign!
As always, our maintenance programme has covered a
diverse range of equipment throughout the factory,
including our vacuum pan stirrer gearboxes and electrical
board replacements, as well as many of the routine tasks we
have to carry out. Trials during July were very encouraging
with a low level of snagging jobs coming out of it, and a
35% reduction in the volume of water used for testing.
Steve McNamara, Development Manager
Dan Green, Factory Manager
36
BRITISH
sugar beet review
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:24 Page 37
NEWARK FACTORY
WISSINGTON FACTORY
Safety is always top of my agenda, and therefore I am pleased to
report that Wissington had an excellent safety performance over
the last 12 months, but we can always do more to improve.
As we improve our all-injury performance, our goal of ZERO Lost
Time Injury (LTI) becomes more achievable with only 1 LTI for the
last year, beating our previous best of 4 LTI during 2012/13.
2016/17 Campaign
Since the finish of last season’s harvest our teams have been
processing over 150,000 t of that campaign’s thick juice into
sugar. They have also been maintaining the factory
plant/equipment and delivering improvement projects
which range from a £5M fifth thick juice storage tank to
improvements in our safety systems for offloading chemicals
(e.g. sulphuric acid). Together this year we have delivered
over 40 improvement projects for the site.
Our incident reporting remains high, and our food safety and
quality performance remains strong. However we have had four
first dressings (minor injuries which are recommended to have
treatment) this year which is four too many, and as such we still
need to up our game: keep putting safety first and keep
challenging each other to make sure we do everything in the
safest possible way. Remember: Safety, Quality, and Quantity in
that order. Safety also means Food Safety!
While the additional fifth thick juice storage tank is the
single largest investment this year, and will reduce beet
diversions from the Newark growing area, the most
significant work-stream for the long term at Newark has
been the successful trialling of new natural gas burning
technology on our Combined Heat and Power (CHP) (see
article on page 8 of this issue of the British Sugar Beet
Review) plant’s No. 1 main high pressure boiler. This trial
installed new-technology burners to an industrial steam
boiler, something which has never before been attempted
on a boiler of this type.
Start-up at Wissington is always a key part of the campaign, a
good start-up is a significant factor towards a good average
throughput for the whole campaign. All off-season maintenance
was completed in full, but you cannot plan or improve for the
unpredictable events that can occur after the factory actually
starts running. This year, slicing was brought forward by one day
due to sugar demand from customers, and though the factory
was ready for this, on day one an unforeseen event occurred with
the newly installed factory control system in the beet end of the
factory (beet-to-juice area); this resulted in a stop during the first
day’s operation. Since this stop the factory has been reliable and
stable with a factory throughput average, to date, of just under
17,000 tonnes/day.
The trial (conducted during the 2016 thick juice refining and
pre-campaign testing periods) successfully met the post
2020 emissions legislation and ensures we can continue to
use the existing CHP plant long into the future.
The project team have been particularly busy once again during
the off-season, delivering a mixture of multi-year and in-year
capital projects, as well as completing preparatory pre-spends for
future years’ work; the factory continues to receive investment
for the future.
Our programme will continue to optimise the boiler
technology during the 16/17 campaign and will then be
replicated on our No. 2 boiler, completing the CHP plant’s
emission improvement works.
The site maintenance programme has been extensive with
our own teams assisted by over 200,000 hours of contract
labour and specialist contract support. New working
structures and practices introduced last year continue to be
optimised including facilitating further training and testing
of plant before the campaign operations start.
Improvements to diffusers, of which Wissington has three called
A, B and C. have continued with the on-going work on C (£3.6m
over just 4 years) proceeding now to a reduced time plan to
bring it in line with the new work starting on A and B. The
diffuser shell replacement (£1.9m), on A and B, is a two-year plan
to selectively replace the diffuser outer walls which are badly
pitted, corroded and leak regularly during the campaign.
Commissioning of a new Experion control system was completely
successful; diffusers, lime kiln, beet intake, animal feed pelleting
and driers are all part of this replacement. Next year is the final
year of this three-year project.
As I write the 16/17 beet processing campaign operations
are underway, anticipating a safe and reliably processing
period.
I would like to wish all growers, contractors and hauliers working
on the supply of sugar beet, our key raw material to the factory,
a successful and in particular, a safe campaign.
Graham Heatrick, Factory Manager
Bob Howe, Factory Manager
AUTUMN 2016 ■ volume 84 no. 3
BRITISH
sugar beet review
37
57860-Beet Review Vol84 No3 6thPrf_- 01/11/2016 13:24 Page 38
Beet Cyst Nematode –
Identify, Act and Protect Yields
SEEDING
THE FUTURE
www.kws-uk.com
SINCE 1856
What are Beet Cyst Nematodes (BCN)?
Beet Cyst
Nematode in the UK
1 mm long eelworms that invade and
feed from the root cells. Each cyst
holds up to 200 eggs and larvae.
positive BCN soil samples
10 %
The first
of yield losses
mostly shows no visible symptoms.
Common risk factors
Patches of wilting leaves
under midday sun
Warm and moist soils
Tight crop rotation
Host plants e. g. OSR
Stunted and
deformed root growth
Spread by cultivation &
machinery
Roots develop a
“bearded appearance”
The effect:
30 – 60 %
Visible white or brown
cysts on root hairs
Yield losses
Source: BBRO, 2016
What to do against nematodes?
+
1. Observation
Soil sampling
2. Crop
rotation
BCN
3. Choose
tolerant varieties
BCN +
52
t / ha
root yield
BCN –
Regularly check soil and crop for
BCN infestation. Annual soil sampling
will indicate population levels.
BCN infestation decreases by approx.
−40 % per year in non-host plants. A wide
crop rotation helps to reduce infestation.
Non-tolerant variety
(under BCN infestation)
75
t / ha
root yield
BCN tolerant variety
(under BCN infestation)
There are now no yield penalties for BCN
tolerant varieties. Drill BCN tolerant varieties
alongside non-tolerant varieties in suspected
fields. Monitor for any differences during the
season.
16/3/BC/06