BRITISH BEET RESEARCH ORGANISATION
STRATEGY FOR R&D AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 2009 TO 2014
The aims and
objectives of the BBRO are necessarily supportive of its sponsors, the growers
(through the NFU) and British Sugar, but it is well-recognised that profitable
sugar beet production can be sustainable and acceptable only if the natural
resources on which the crop depends and the environment in which it is produced
are protected or enhanced. These resources include the soil and its biota, and
the desirable fauna and flora in and around the crop. It is also essential to
minimise any possible adverse effects of water draining from sugar beet fields
or discharged by factories. It is fortunate and crucial that the means by which
profitability is achieved include agronomic objectives that deliver
consequential environmental benefits. For example: the need to use fertilisers
efficiently minimises plant nutrients lost in soil eroded from sugar beet fields
and water draining from them. Using pesticides only when necessary and ensuring
that they are delivered accurately to their targets avoids damage to non-target
organisms and the presence of residues in soil, water and the co-products of the
processed beet. The restrictions on soil accepted by factories give incentives
to growers to clean their crop before transport, so minimising the weight of
soil removed from fields. Minimising tillage can further reduce the risk of soil
damage through erosion where it is sensibly used.
Financial
support for the farming industry now depends increasingly on the delivery of
environmental benefits, particularly biodiversity which is greatly enhanced by
the presence of sugar beet in arable rotations. Sugar beet growers need to
optimise this valuable environmental advantage. Sugar beet is an intensively
managed crop with substantial use of pesticides and appreciable soil
disturbance. This means that the contribution of the crop itself to the delivery
of national biodiversity targets for agriculture, with some specific exceptions
(e.g. encouragement of stone curlews, lapwings, pink-footed geese and skylarks),
is relatively limited. Less
intensive approaches to weed control are being explored, to increase in-field
biodiversity. The crop and the context in which it is grown do offer good
opportunities to enhance the arable ecosystem and contribute towards greater
rural biodiversity. For example:-
·
It is increasingly uneconomic to grow sugar
beet on less productive field margins and headlands.
These peripheral areas offer habitats that can be exploited for
biodiversity purposes. The current entry-level environmental scheme (ELS) will
support wild flower strips, pollen and nectar mixes and uncropped cultivated
margins, all of which could be placed on these areas.
·
Sugar beet, as it is a spring sown crop, can be
preceded by an over-winter cereal stubble that, again, has environmental value
and is supported by the ELS. However,
the value of this to wildlife is variable and strategies are needed to optimise
it, within the constraints of good soil management, disease management and the
establishment of the beet crop. This
applies not only to the management of the stubble itself, so that the resource
is provided for as long as possible before sowing the beet, but also to the
management of the crop that produced the stubble, the aim being to make the
stubble floristically diverse.
·
As sugar beet is late harvested it is not
always appropriate to follow it with an autumn sown crop.
Thus, again there is an over-winter aftermath available for harbourage of
wildlife. There is a need to exploit
this resource, so that it provides optimum wildlife value without compromising
beet harvest and the successful establishment of the subsequent crop.
Recent
changes in the EU Sugar Régime, to reduce sugar production, will impose
constraints on the
The BBRO
research programme in the major areas outlined below therefore aims to maximise
the UK advantages for growing beet (long growing season, protracted harvesting,
long storage) and minimise the disadvantages (wide variation in soil type, and
low rainfall resulting in drought stress) in ways that are environmentally and
publicly acceptable. Factors affected by the increase in campaign length such as
autumn management of the crop, frost damage and dirt tare will be important.
The
beet sugar industry seeks research that will maximise delivered yield, reduce
production and processing costs, maintain effective, environmentally sound
control of pests, diseases and weeds, and aid the decisions needed to optimise
the profitability and acceptability of every aspect of crop production. It
requires research that ensures factory deliveries of optimal quality beet with
minimal soil, stone and trash throughout the processing campaign. It needs
advance knowledge of beet yields, sugar concentrations and beet quality to plan
factory opening dates, processing throughput, the length of the campaign, and
the marketing and storage of sugar. It needs also to ensure that all crop
production and processing operations comply with food assurance and
environmental regulations.
Given
the immediate threats to the
The
following pages set out the BBRO’s current view of the main areas of research
appropriate to the sugar beet industry during the next five years (2008-2013).
The BBRO will continue annually to canvass opinions on the direction of its
programme.
The
BBRO regards the breeding, selection and development to the point of marketing
of new varieties as the responsibility of commercial seed companies. Such
companies aim their genomic research at markets wider than the
Molecular
genetic technologies make a critical contribution to the efficiency of many
research programmes, including plant breeding, by increasing accuracy and
reliability of research findings and by reducing costs of programmes.
Increasingly, molecular technologies will underpin all approaches to plant
breeding whether through the identification of ‘genetic markers’ and
‘smart breeding’ producing varieties that would not be GM, or through
transgenics which could have novel and beneficial characters but would be GM.
However, until consumers are willing to purchase GM sugar, there is no prospect
of commercial introduction of GM sugar beet and, therefore, for the foreseeable
future, field trials of GM varieties will not be a high priority for BBRO
funding. However, assuming eventual acceptance of GM technology, a
transformation capability should be maintained to develop model systems that
enable effective and efficient research of the physiology, genetics and
pathology of the sugar beet crop.
Where
appropriate, molecular genetic technologies (gene identification and
characterisation, control of gene expression, identification of molecular
markers and development of transformation protocols) will be exploited to
support the achievement of the objectives of the strategic research programme,
which remains centred on Broom’s Barn. However, the target traits researched
in the molecular programme itself must be of economic interest to the
Another,
potentially very fruitful, approach to crop improvement is the screening of the
major European germplasm collections to identify lines with resistance to
abiotic and biotic stresses. The
cultivated beet crop has a narrow genetic base, and early indications are that
there is a high probability of identifying useful traits that can then be
introgressed into the crop by conventional or transgenic means for exploitation
by the seed companies.
Researchers
will be required to liaise with the BBRO to secure revenue when genetic material
generated by levy-funded research is commercially exploited.
Drought
has been identified as a major problem contributing to beet yield losses between
establishment and harvest. This
problem is likely to increase in future years due to the greater concentration
of the beet crop in
The
evaluation of varieties under conditions in the
Considerable
technological advances have recently been made by companies manufacturing
tillage and drilling machinery. There is a need for independent evaluation of
novel equipment and methods where significant improvements are claimed. There
have also been new
The
benefits, implications for profitability, and associated risks from soil pests
and weeds associated with alternative growing practices for sugar beet need to
be kept under review. This includes the establishment of seedlings and weed
control in trashy conditions as well as headland management within overall
set-aside strategies, late-ploughing or the use of cover crops to diminish
nutrient losses over winter, and
growing sugar beet with tramlines.
The
advancement and de-vernalisation of seed to permit earlier sowing without
increased risk of bolting is now a commercial option available to growers where
appropriate but the full benefits of seed advancement and evenness and
uniformity of plant stand have still to be fully exploited by the industry. The
benefits of adding micronutrients or new pest and disease control agents to
pelleted seed remain to be determined.
The
basic agronomy and husbandry practices for the sugar beet crop are now well
established. Should it be required, new research will largely be expected to
adapt existing practices to new varieties and technologies. During the past
three decades, a better understanding of sugar beet physiology has also been
obtained. We now have a reasonable understanding of the effects of agronomic
practices and seasonal weather on plant structure and composition. Assessing the
nutrient inputs required to achieve maximum yields of good-quality beet in
environmentally acceptable ways must remain a primary objective of growers who
will benefit by using an integrated nutrient management (INM) approach to their
decisions on fertiliser requirements. It is essential that growers are made
aware of the need to maintain the appropriate P and K levels of their soils not
only for the beet crop but for all crops they grow in rotation. Recent research
has shown that the application of fresh P and K to soils at index 0 and 1 does
not increase yields to the level of those obtained on Index 2 soils. The
relationships between the supply and uptake of the major nutrients (N, K and Na)
and some of the physiological interactions between them have been quantified,
though further research may be required to support compliance with environmental
regulations. The primary effects of some nutrients, especially N, on plant
development, and the rôles of others (K, Na) in tissue osmotic and water
relations are known. Work on responses to applied sulphur is in progress. There
is no great need currently for further research on inputs of phosphate and
magnesium, and on minor elements such as boron and the possible over-treatment
with manganese, but nutrient balances need to be monitored as individual
elements become the subject of agronomic and environmental concern. Recent BBRO-funded
desk studies of past trial databases and examination of factory tarehouse data
have been an effective means of focussing further research.
Emphasis
now needs be given to ensuring that physiological knowledge is used properly to
optimise yields and beet quality and to avoid nutrient inputs in excess of those
needed by the crop or the rotation. In this context, physiological understanding
of improvement in autumn growth offers an opportunity to achieve sustainable
higher yields through defining and exploiting the apparent yield-enhancing
effects of triazole and strobilurin chemicals without compromising their use for
disease control. Opportunities to improve the tolerance of beet to drought
during growth, and to frost damage and rots whilst in the ground or in store,
need to be kept under review. Losses caused by bruising during harvesting and
handling have proved insignificant compared to losses of root fragments after
direct breakage caused by rough handling.
Systems
that help both growers and processor to make essential decisions at appropriate
stages in crop growth or the processing campaign are an invaluable aid to
technology transfer. Factory decisions are based on throughputs of beet, sugar
and other quality factors. Considerable resources and effort have been put into
the development of mathematical models to provide reliable predictions of
national sugar yield. Recent developments in Geographic Information Systems
allow enhancement of these models to incorporate local and regional variations
in crop performance through co-mapping with data for soil, weather and other
factors. This offers the possibility of refining the use of both factory records
and crop models to anticipate changes in sugar concentrations, facilitating not
only improved management of the harvest campaign and better prediction of
changes from one campaign to the next, but also the provision of detailed
information direct to growers concerning the yield, nutrient status and juice
purity of individual crops. To this end new work has begun to exploit British
Sugar’s factory tarehouse records and annual Crop Data Collection Survey to
provide growers with contract-by-contract advice.
Depending
upon priorities, research will be required to:-
-
understand the biochemical and physiological differences between
stress-resistant and stress-sensitive plants to aid the development of practices
and genotypes to avoid or ameliorate the effects of drought.
-
understand the physiological and biochemical effects of triazole and
strobilurin fungicides in the enhancement of yields in crops that have no
visible symptoms of disease.
-
establish the extent of physiological damage and recovery from frost
damage and its implications for beet storage. Given this understanding of the
factors that impact on freezing of beet, growers must replicate best agronomic
practices to maximise the competitive advantage that the longer harvesting
window confers on the
-
keep a watching brief on the need for sulphur in achieving large yields
of beet as sulphur deposition from the atmosphere continues to decline.
-
support and develop new products from the crop.
-
encourage recycling of green material for agricultural and horticultural
use.
-
understand the physiology of vernalisation, devernalisation and the
control of flowering and its prevention by chemical or other methods to provide
effective control of bolting.
Pests and
diseases continue to be a serious constraint on sugar beet productivity and
quality, and control will continue to rely on the use of pesticides unless or
until genetic resistance has been bred into sugar beet varieties. Whilst much
progress has been made in crop protection, no pest or disease has ceased to be
important, but no new serious problems, other than rhizomania (now controlled by
genetics), have arisen. However, the effects of climate change may alter the
dominance of particular species and provide more favourable conditions for alien
introductions to have economic impact. This will require vigilance and regular
review. Seed treatment with imidacloprid has successfully reduced the frequency
of virus yellows epidemics and soil pest problems, resulting in much reduced
pesticide usage, both of granules applied at drilling and overall sprays.
However, with over 70% of the area being treated with a neonicotinoid every
year, there is a great risk of resistance developing in pest populations. The
increasing number of approvals for imidacloprid and other neonicotinoids for
other crops in arable rotations on which aphid vectors also occur will enhance
resistance risks still further. There are already some indications of resistance
developing in
Diagnostic,
physiological and epidemiological studies of significant pests and diseases to
identify potential targets and strategies for control, and the development of
strategies to prolong the effective life of pesticides and minimise the risk of
resistance developing, particularly to aphicides, are of relevance to the
programme in collaboration with appropriate companies. The search for new active
ingredients, development of new pesticides, and production of finished varieties
with improved resistance to the beet yellows complex, by conventional or
transgenic means, are more appropriate to commercial organisations.
However, confirmation of the durability and spectrum of disease
resistance prior to their release is an appropriate objective of the BBRO. New
sources of resistance identified through germplasm screening are increasingly
useful to breeders who should become more involved in the funding of this
research which informs the development of their programmes. Environmental fears
necessitate continued research to develop efficient pesticide and biological
approaches that meet EU regulations and are more acceptable to the general
public.
Beet cyst
nematodes still pose a problem on many fields, especially now that aldicarb has
been withdrawn, although the true extent of infestations currently is unknown
since the last survey in the mid-1980s. Research to incorporate the use of
promising chemical, cultural or biological control measures into crop management
programmes is possible. For example, resistant varieties are available in
continental
Activities
within this area need to be integrated with LINK funding where and when
appropriate, as is the case in some of the forecasting, disease resistance and
pesticides-related work, and the results of the crop protection programme need
to be integrated into Decision Support Systems for the industry.
Viruses and their vectors
Recently
virus yellows has not caused severe losses, partly because of weather
conditions, and also because imidacloprid seed treatment has been used on c. 70%
of the national crop. Such
extensive, prophylactic use of a chemical might accelerate the development of
resistance in the target aphid species especially now that it is being used
widely in other crops such as autumn-sown oilseed rape and has off label
approval for use in other high-value brassica crops.
This might have potential negative consequences on non-target soil, fauna
and insects, and hence on ecosystems. Where
neonicotinoids are being used solely for the control of virus yellows the
industry needs to re-think its control strategy to exploit the forecasting and
spray warning schemes to their full potential, and prioritise development of
virus-resistant varieties. The
importance of this is further enhanced by the fact that there are few new
mode-of-action insecticides known to be in development by Agrochemical
Companies. Timely collection, interpretation and dissemination of information
that can inform growers of the need for aphid control should continue and could
eventually be coupled with delayed neonicotinoid-treatment of a proportion of
the seed to allow judicious selection according to risk, of areas in which
treated seed should be used. Some preliminary ecological work has shown no
adverse effects so far on non-target populations in the soil, but further work
on rotational use of neonicotinoids (e.g where they are also used as seed
treatments on cereals and /or oilseed rape) is necessary as this group of
insecticides increases in popularity.
A
wide-ranging programme of virus yellows research is currently funded by the BBRO
to ensure improved control and knowledge of the different viruses.
A virus yellows diagnostic ‘tool kit’ is available and as further
advances in serological and molecular methods are made these will be
incorporated to ensure better detection and discrimination of the different
yellowing viruses and their strains in plants and single aphids. Currently, the
detection of virus and the levels of insecticide resistance in migrant winged
populations is being incorporated into regional decision support systems to
advise on local, integrated control strategies. The role and impact of recently
identified viruses (e.g. Beet chlorosis
virus) on the epidemiology of the disease complex needs clarification, and
the identification of durable sources of virus resistance as an alternative to
insecticides should be a key target for the industry.
The interactions between the different yellowing viruses and with other
sugar beet viruses on the growth and physiology of sugar beet (e.g. disease
synergy), as well as the possibility of cross-protection between different virus
infections, need to be addressed, especially as new virus resistant varieties
become available. In addition, BBSRC-funded research at Broom’s Barn has
enabled studies on virus-host-plant interactions, and an infectious clone of one
of the yellowing viruses has been produced.
These tools are being used to identify the host range determinants of the
viruses and to identify viral genes that play a rôle in disease resistance.
Such research is likely to lead to new options for control, for example by
identifying genes which interfere with movement of the viruses within the
plants, thus protecting the plant from infection.
The incorporation of such genes and the production of resistant finished
varieties should be undertaken by commercial organisations.
A range of
approaches must be used to combat rhizomania. Austrian and Dutch methods using
high Na:amino-N ratios in delivered beet as indicators of infection are being
developed in the
Fungal diseases
Varying
degrees of resistance to fungal pathogens exist in the available varieties of
sugar beet and disease resistance should continue to be a high priority for
breeders but, where genetic resistance is inadequate, growers require other
means of control.
Pathogens of
seedlings occur in about 60% of the
For leaf
diseases, the recent introduction of triazole and strobilurin fungicides offers
the prospect of more broad spectrum control plus possible additional
physiological yield-enhancing benefits. Ongoing studies (2004-8) of these
effects will lead to improved crop health and yield increments, especially
during the autumn period. Good progress has been made in forecasting the
incidence of powdery mildew and demonstrating the benefits of control before the
end of August and disadvantages of later control. Rust and Ramularia
are late-season problems in some years and powdery mildew or
rust-susceptibility is a weakness of some rhizomania-tolerant varieties so there
is some need for a better agronomic, pathological and physiological
understanding of the effects of late-season leaf diseases on beet yield and
quality coupled with the use of a second later-applied fungicide. Cercospora
could become a problem in the
The
importance of climate change on the agriculture of
With limited
active ingredients, either available or under development, for use on sugar
beet, strategies to preserve the efficacy of those in current use are vital if
control of existing diseases and potential threats is to be maintained.
A recent
grower survey of root disease problems indicated that these were on the increase
generally but with considerable regional and annual fluctuations. Diseases
affecting beet in store include scab (Streptomyces
scabies), phoma (Phoma betae), wet
rot (Phytophthora megasperma), violet
root rot (Helicobasidium purpureum) and
rots caused by Fusarium spp.,
Penicillium spp., Botrytis cinerea, Rhizopus nigricans and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Harvesting, handling and storage
conditions are likely to have an effect on the incidence and severity of root
diseases in store. The relative contributions of these diseases to losses in
store are unknown. Prospects for chemical control are poor and genetic
resistance is the obvious long-term solution. To encourage involvement by the
commercial breeding sector, the development of screening methods and
identification of novel sources of resistance may merit investigation if these
diseases begin to impose serious constraints on production or processing.
Pests
Pests,
like pathogens, are strongly influenced by the weather and, because crop/climate
relationships are dynamic, it is important to bear in mind and that solutions to
today's problems are unlikely to last forever. New combinations of climatic
variables and adaptations in the crop and its competitors may bring back or
modify old problems or provide conditions for new problems. There is clearly a
need for a long-term view and a strong knowledge base.
Aphids, as
vectors of the beet yellows complex, are the most important pests of sugar beet.
Sporadic problems with other pests such as two-spotted spider mite and Silver-Y
moth occur, so there needs to be flexibility within the research programme to
assess their economic significance and to develop effective control measures as
situations develop. Contractual arrangements impose the early purchase of seed,
long before the risk of pest damage can be assessed. This leads to greater
prophylactic use of seed treatments, particularly neonicotinoids but it must be
noted that such targeted use of insecticides has led to a great reduction in the
amount of active ingredients applied per hectare. The continuing beneficial
effects of these active ingredients against soil and leaf pests and the
associated decrease in the need for other soil-applied pesticides (especially
granules) need to be monitored carefully.
The
implications of improved early-season virus control with neonicotinoid seed
treatments, and perhaps late-season fungus control with triazoles or
strobilurins, for crop growth and yield in the period leading up to the
processing campaign need to be quantified.
Weed management
The
evaluation of commercial herbicides and the methods and timing of spray
applications to ensure efficient, well-targeted and cost-effective weed control
are appropriate for funding by the BBRO. The emphasis of the research should be
on the evaluation of commercially available products in cost-effective,
environmentally-sound programmes which recognise the effects of cultivation
practices on weed spectra. Research should be strongly backed by education and
extension funding.
Air-assisted
application of agrochemicals is becoming more common and its use in sugar beet
requires continued evaluation. Band spraying, combined with inter-row
cultivations, needs to be developed as a component of weed control strategies as
environmental pressures on the use of pesticides increase.
GM herbicide
tolerant sugar beet has been developed but current market resistance precludes
its immediate uptake in the
If growers
are to achieve effective but cheap weed control, there is a need to provide them
with easy to use and comprehensive information on weed control systems and
products. The rise in use of generic products offers opportunities to use
relatively low-cost inputs and growers need to understand how to use this
advantage.
The incidence
of weed beet has increased over the last decade to a point where the majority of
crops are infested, although the degree of infestation in individual fields is
not known. A programme of education again is vital so that growers are made
clearly aware of the risks from not controlling this weed effectively,
especially in view of its potential rôle in accelerating the within-field
spread of rhizomania. Education
regarding weed beet build-up will be essential if GM herbicide tolerant
varieties are ever introduced.
Machinery
design and development are high priorities for the industry and the BBRO will
consider collaborative studies between manufacturers and researchers where
particularly intractable issues arise. In addition, BBRO sponsorship of
education and demonstration programmes such as the harvesting demonstrations is
essential to ensure that beneficial new developments rapidly become on-farm
practice.
The current
challenge is to achieve more efficient and gentler beet handling from field to
factory with minimum loss of sugar and the greatest effective reduction in the
amount of soil entering factories. This requires improvements in mechanical
topping systems, improved lifting mechanisms to minimise root losses, and
improved cleaning mechanisms to minimise breakage and bruising of beet through
the harvester. Better trailer design and improved mechanisation of storage-clamp
building and handling of beet from clamp to lorry and on factory delivery pads
are needed. The extent of damage at critical points during all these activities
has been rigorously quantified using the electronic beet technology. BBRO
research in these areas is ended but there is a continued and urgent need to
advise growers how best to harvest and handle the crop. Clamp design and
management to minimise sugar loss and avoid rotting continues to be a high
priority.
The
BBRO funds a comprehensive technology transfer programme in support of growers. It is imperative that
its contribution to the industry in terms of productivity, environmental
benefits and whole farm profitability is reviewed regularly. The programme needs
to develop achievable targets for the key areas of beet production on farms;
targets that are based on accurate farm surveys designed both to identify which
are the most important management shortfalls, and later to measure if these
targets have been met. The design of such surveys and their implementation
should be central to the TT programme. The positive net environmental benefits
and acceptability of sugar beet production are objectives that are as important
in the technology transfer programme, as they are in the research programme. The
intention is to improve the technical and environmental awareness of
To be
effective, technology transfer needs to be a truly two-way process between
advisers and all who seek to improve their performance. The activities must be
aimed at and designed for those decision makers who actively seek to improve
their performance. The grower base
is likely to decline (as has been observed with the recent re-structuring of the
industry) and individuals become responsible for the production of larger areas
of sugar beet. Bringing individuals
together in discussion groups on each others farms to discuss crop management or
perhaps to manage a specific crop of sugar beet is used to good effect in
The
development of a wide range of information and communications systems must be
managed in an integrated way to allow the full benefits of information
cross-referencing and efficient access. To
facilitate this, the BBRO will take advantage of ‘best of breed’ technology
and co-ordinate the activities of contractors working in this area.
Co-ordination
of all education activities within the BBRO programme is essential; dialogue
between the contractor organisations, as well as with the rest of the industry
must be maintained so that extension work is co-ordinated from the planning
stages. Growers and advisers must be
kept informed of useful results from the BBRO and other research programmes and
advised how to adapt in a cost-effective way to new agronomic practices and
changing environmental requirements.
Significant
in an effective programme of technology transfer is the advisory support offered
by the British Sugar Area Manager team which receives some of its funding from
the BBRO for work towards agreed targets. Subject to the same contractual
restraints as other providers, the area managers are well placed to identify the
decision makers and the areas of research most applicable to each decision
maker. This team is in constant face-to-face contact with growers and advisers
and, with continued good direction, should reach a larger proportion of growers,
and continue to form a cornerstone of the technology transfer programme. Area
Managers are particularly important in ensuring decision makers’ attendance at
BBRO events such as:
·
growers’ meetings to cover recent progress in
sugar beet research and development, new products, environmental and legislative
developments, and regional news.
·
regional trial-field open days and
demonstrations at major agricultural events (Cereals, Beet UK etc). These
should aim to provide practical demonstrations of the main elements of BBRO-funded
work on aspects of spring agronomy, seed treatments, varieties, disease control,
quality, harvesting and storage, environmental and health and safety awareness,
new developments in machinery, communications etc.
·
operator training days to provide practical
training courses aimed specifically at the operator on all relevant aspects of
sugar beet crop husbandry.
·
adviser training meetings to transfer
information to growers through their agrochemical and independent advisers.
Other
communication vehicles include:
·
provision of user-friendly warning messages and
bulletins for growers, agrochemical representatives and independent crop
consultants based on forecasts of pests and diseases.
·
telephone help-lines, closed and open internet
information services, the Broom’s Barn Plant Clinic and conference
publications are also essential tools in the education process.
A
forum for discussion between project managers working in related fields and
technology transfer coordinators needs to be developed to understand better and
more effectively communicate results from research.
It is
essential that the research funded by BBRO is published as soon as possible in
recognised scientific journals to ensure its scientific credibility. The British
Sugar Beet Review will continue to provide researchers with an invaluable
opportunity to present their research to the levy payers, and will continue to
take advantage of new production, content management and distribution
techniques.
The
specifications of each research project should contain the intended timetable
for the publication of the research, and indicate which technology transfer
vehicles are appropriate to dissemination of the knowledge generated by the
project.