BRITISH BEET RESEARCH ORGANISATION

STRATEGY FOR R&D AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 2009 TO 2014

SECTION 1                POLICY OBJECTIVES

The objective of the British Beet Research Organisation (BBRO) is to commission and implement research and technology transfer (grower support) designed to promote a sustainable and environmentally responsible beet sugar industry in the UK . BBRO seeks to ensure that the industry is responsive to market and regulatory forces influencing the UK sugar quota whilst increasing the competitiveness and profitability of UK beet growers and the processor. The grower support programme is also of high priority, much appreciated by growers and advisers who have attended various events in large, and growing, numbers during recent years.

Priorities Review and Bidding Guidelines

This document outlines the priorities for the sugar beet research programme determined by the BBRO. It has been prepared in consultation with representatives of the growers, the processor and the major sugar beet research contractors.

The priorities are reviewed annually by the BBRO Board, following consultation with its Scientific Advisory Committee, so that the most appropriate proposals for new research are submitted to the BBRO each year. Research proposals can rarely be uniquely relevant to UK conditions but it is expected that their successful implementation will convey some specific advantage to the home industry. When evaluating research proposals, account is taken both of the relevance of the proposed research to the agreed  “Research Target Areas” (see below) and the “Current Research Requirements” (Section 2) and of the likelihood of successful results being produced from the research within agreed timescales.

Collaboration between research centres is actively encouraged, to make best use of specialist skills available at specific institutes, and to give best value for money.

The overall aim is to produce a balanced, economically and environmentally positive programme that incorporates both strategic long-term research and more immediately exploitable applied research, accompanied by an effective grower support service.

Of most immediate concern to the BBRO now is the imminent accessibility of European markets to imports of sugar from the developing nations, linked with reductions in quota and prices under the revised Régime, and the likely impact of new pesticides regulation following revision of EU Directive 91/414/EEC. Therefore, enhancement of the UK industry’s competitiveness must remain the prime objective of the research programme, the focus being placed on yield and quality to maximise margins and profitability. Consequently, the findings of the independent review of its strategy, commissioned by the BBRO in 2001 and implemented over succeeding years remain relevant:

o       that the future “return on investment” is dependent on the BBRO ensuring that its research programme is tightly focused on deliverable benefits as determined by the Board in consultation with growers.

o       that the grower support programme should use past data more effectively, select appropriate vehicles to increase the speed of uptake by growers, evaluate grower uptake, and continue to improve independent “BBRO branding”.

o       that the main contractors should continue to work more closely together.

The BBRO priorities for research since 2000 have sought to maximise the environmental benefits, including wildlife and landscape, to be obtained from the presence of profitable sugar beet in arable rotations. A programme to optimise the judicious use of agrochemicals in weed and pest management, to enhance biodiversity and other environmental objectives is in place. Positive results have already been delivered and promise further advantages as research results accumulate over the coming years.

Influential Factors

Research programmes should take account of the following factors which will influence the profitability and public acceptability of the sugar beet crop.

·       The changes to the Sugar Régime place the industry under significant pressure from imports from the rest of the EU and the Least Developed Countries (LDC). It is essential that the UK industry increases its competitiveness and UK production is closely matched to market requirements.

·       Reduced availability of crop protection products following revision of Directive 91/414/EEC. Loss of active ingredients will force reliance on a single group of insecticides – increasing the risk of resistance developing. Loss of nematicides, triazole fungicides and herbicides may reduce options for the control of free-living nematodes, foliar diseases and weeds. The relatively poor efficacy of remaining active ingredients could result in a large drop in gross margins.

·       Regard must continue to be paid to the public demand for sustainability in agriculture, as articulated through the five Defra key priority areas: climate change and energy; natural resource protection; sustainable consumption and production; sustainable rural communities and sustainable farming and food. The BBRO programme must continue to include objectives that reduce the carbon footprint of sugar production by minimising inputs of both energy and chemicals whilst simultaneously enhancing the proven benefits that the crop provides to biodiversity. Protection of the fertility and structure of soils must be a high priority, as are the measures currently in place to monitor and ensure that production of the crop meets agreed standards of safety and environmental goals.

·       Specific environmental objectives must be maintained in the quest for yield. Particularly important are those to reduce the unnecessary use of pesticides and fertilisers applied to the crop, and to comply with regulations controlling waste, pollution and landscape e.g. set-aside, NVZ and soil management requirements with Cross Compliance, and the reduction of diffuse pollution as promoted by the Catchment Sensitive Farming Initiative within the Water Framework Directive. Crop and headland management for environmental benefits, including landscape, biodiversity and value to bird life, continue as objectives associated with the drive to reduce chemical inputs. This congruence with the environmental objectives of Government Departments offers sugar beet growers opportunities for payments in agri-environment schemes and should be promoted through the technology transfer programme.

·       The UK is well placed, in comparison with other EU member states, to take advantage of its long season, high yields, good beet quality and relatively low factory costs, to remain among the most competitive producers in Europe ; survival as an industry depends upon this. The aim therefore is for the UK beet industry to expand competitively; we should be striving ever harder to raise yields above the 2009 record average of 66.5 adjusted tonnes per hectare for the industry to remain profitable. This should be possible, within the timescale set for the planned reductions in support prices under the new Sugar Régime, and with current technology. Some growers are already achieving much more than 70 t/ha, with the best exceeding 100 t/ha, thus raising the benchmark necessary to maintain margins at a level necessary for beet to remain competitive within the arable rotation. Reductions in input costs may prove difficult to achieve, given the current economic climate, but initiatives should be sought to explore possibilities which will further enhance profitability.

·        The value of the crop to the processor both for white sugar and for bioethanol, and the need to maintain sugar content and quality during a longer campaign.

·        The changing views of the ultimate customers of the industry, including customers for sugar, animal feed and other finished products.

·       Changes in crop management necessitated by trends in UK weather patterns e.g. rainfall amount and distribution which, experience shows, can change rapidly. Evidence that climate is changing continues to be published; already the growing season begins earlier with early drilling and, at the end of the season, more crops can be left in the field until required for processing.

·        The potential for collaboration with other levy organisations both in research and technology transfer has been a major feature of BBRO research and is expected to develop further. Levy-funded research on sugar beet has created leverage for public funding which should be further exploited. As LINK becomes a more important mechanism by which Government provides public funding for commodity research, the levy boards are encouraged to work together to identify common goals and approaches. Involvement in the Agriculture and Horticulture Research Forum (AHRF) facilitates closer interaction and rapid access to information. The AHRF is seen increasingly as the conduit for exchange on agricultural research between research funders and an influence on government prioritisation and investment in research.

·       The importance of an effective grower support programme to deliver the output of the research programmes to the end user.

Research Target Areas and Financial Accountability

Preservation of crop and product safety, continuing production of safe food of high quality, improvement in yield, quality and resource-use efficiency continue to be the drivers behind specific research targets in both the growing and processing of the crop. Shifts in emphasis of the various elements of the programmes will occur in response to external forces but the following broad objectives need to be kept under constant review:-

·       Increase intrinsic sugar yield per hectare by identifying and growing the best varieties, and ensuring the establishment of healthy crops in well-managed and fertile soils. To this end it is necessary to optimise the inputs of nutrients in relation to soil analyses and the nutrient content of organic manures as part of an integrated nutrient management (INM) approach to decisions on nutrient inputs, and timing of these, for the crop.

·       Reduce root losses both in the field and during transport to the factory. Soil conditions must allow the crop to be harvested efficiently. Harvesting machinery must be set to top the beet efficiently and avoid damage to roots at harvest. Subsequent mechanical handling operations as beet is transported to, and within, the factory must minimise root damage.

·       Optimise the use of crop pesticides by ensuring that they are delivered only to their targets, at the correct time and in the correct amounts. The aim is to avoid off-target effects on the environment and consumer and to reduce the risk of resistance evolving in pest/pathogen populations. This should ensure that key active ingredients such as the neonicotinoids (which have facilitated enormous reductions in the use of insecticides and, after changes in EU pesticide regulations, could be used increasingly) remain available to the industry for as long as possible.

·       Improve the environmental impacts of the crop and industry including the effects on biodiversity and bird life both within the crop and around it. Restricting cropping to the profitably-productive areas of fields leaves opportunities to enhance the environmental benefits of uncropped areas such as headlands. Careful management of pests and weeds could maintain them at levels that are not competitive with the crop but which are of positive advantage to flora and fauna. Opportunities might exist in this area for future funding within the higher level payments of the agri-environment scheme.

Financial pressures on the industry as outlined above continue to demand a re-adjustment to diminishing prices whilst public and regulatory pressures to cut pesticide inputs, use inorganic fertilisers efficiently, and control wastes serve to reinforce the industry’s long-established aim to reduce the costs of growing the crop. Much has been done to achieve this aim in recent years but much more is possible and this, coupled with the improved yields promised by new varieties of sugar beet, should enable growers to increase sugar beet yields and profitability, even without the advantages of the GM technology that the EU industry is currently denied. Root yields in 2008/09 have averaged 66.5 t/ha, with more than one third of growers exceeding 70 t/ha, and objectives to spread this success more widely, and to reduce production and processing costs over the coming years are the highest priority. The objective of both grower and processor must be profitability. For growers, this requires an effective and rapid technology transfer programme, to ensure that the crop to be processed is produced as economically as possible.

The congruence of the industry’s need and the public’s requirement to reduce inputs to achieve environmental benefits should continually be brought to the attention of HMG, appropriate NGO’s and the popular press. Active promotion of the positive net environmental contribution from growing sugar beet is a legitimate objective of the technology transfer programme.

The need remains for strict accountability of levy-funded Research and Technology Transfer through rigorous monitoring of each objective against pre-set milestones. An essential requirement for achieving value for money is the close co-ordination of individual programmes, especially those involving different sites or research organisations, together with appropriate involvement in HMG Schemes such as LINK.