Strategy for R&D and Technology Transfer 2011 to 2016 - Relevant Science

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. Nevertheless, there are specific instances where the crop contributes significantly to the delivery of national biodiversity targets for agriculture, particularly the encouragement of stone curlews, lapwings, pink-footed geese and skylarks. The crop and the context in which it is grown 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 and can also provide resource protection. The environmental management of these areas is congruent with the aims of the Campaign for the Farmed Environment. 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, because 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, have imposed constraints on the UK. Further changes expected in the Sugar Review of 2014 may re-inforce these constraints. The immediate effect has been to consolidate production in East Anglia. This may have consequences for rotations and, therefore, weeds, pests and diseases. The impact of global warming on climate change may impact disproportionately on East Anglia, resulting in concerns over water availability and conflicting priorities for use. Water availability and temperature changes will affect cropping patterns, as some species will cease to be economic to grow and other, more exotic, species may replace them. This will affect rotations, fertiliser usage, the spectrum of weeds, pests and diseases and their dynamics. Incentives to grow crops for biofuels will affect the profitability of sugar beet in relation to, for example, cereals which are seen as a major feed stock for conversion to biofuel.

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 UK sugar industry, the BBRO programme should strike an appropriate balance of long term, strategic research and shorter term applied research, linked to an effective technology transfer programme that will ensure that the UK sugar beet industry becomes more competitive and sustainable in Europe. The research should be aimed at improving knowledge of the sugar beet crop, identifying and resolving current and future problems for the grower, the processor and the environment.

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 (2011-2016). The BBRO will continue annually to canvass opinions on the direction of its programme.

Genetic Technologies, Crop Improvement and Variety Evaluation

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 UK and across a range of crops but it is noteworthy that the UK seed market is the fourth largest in the EU and must be of significance to commercial breeders. Nevertheless, a strategic programme pursuing agronomic traits of particular relevance to the UK, and offering material for exploitation by commercial companies, if taken up rapidly, could continue to be a means of encouraging breeders’ interests in the UK seeds market. Varieties are needed with better and more uniform emergence, seedling vigour, root shape (with particular regard to reduction of soil adherence), resistance to pests and diseases (especially virus yellows, mildew, rhizomania and beet cyst nematodes), improved sugar yield, good bolting resistance, juice quality, ease of harvesting, storability including tolerance to frost for in-field storage, and the ability to perform well over the wide range of environments and harvest times experienced in the UK. Whilst remaining a possible future development, the production of autumn-sown varieties is not seen currently as a realistic research objective. It is vitally important that independent evaluation of varieties under conditions in the UK continues to provide growers with the information and confidence to adopt improved varieties rapidly.

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. It is considered that GM sugar beet will, in time, become accepted as one of a range of tools that are available to growers to enhance production. However, until consumers are willing to purchase GM sugar, there is little prospect of commercial introduction of GM sugar beet and, therefore, for the immediate future, field trials of GM varieties will not be a high priority for BBRO funding. However, assuming this eventual acceptance of GM technology, an ability to evaluate it is required and 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 UK industry.   Current targets of improved resistance to fungal and virus diseases and the control of bolting and flowering remain a priority. BBRO welcomes and encourages applications which attract additional funding from both the public and private sectors to enhance the resources and capability to pursue these objectives. BBSRC and Defra-sponsored government/industry programmes may provide suitable partnership opportunities.

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 East Anglia and predicted climate change. A number of drier than average years since 2003 has resulted in considerable losses of beet yields on soils where the crop has been subject to drought stress. At Broom’s Barn the estimated losses were 16% of potential yield. The drought research project at Broom’s Barn has identified drought tolerant genotypes and developed methodologies and screening techniques that are of increasing interest to breeders who now should make a greater tangible contribution to the underpinning research as well as to the finishing of new varieties.

The evaluation of varieties under conditions in the UK must continue to be supported by the BBRO. Trials may need to consider the evaluation of drought tolerance if the trait is successfully incorporated into finished varieties. The increasing demands on the available funds and the need to maintain an acceptable rate of levy require close collaboration between BBRO, DEFRA, trials organisations and breeders to exploit the benefits of a fully integrated national list (NL) and recommended list (RL) system. Variety evaluation provides initial monitoring of the environmental and agronomic impacts of pest and disease resistant, and herbicide tolerant varieties produced by conventional breeding or transgenic technologies before they are introduced.

Soil Management and Crop Establishment

Considerable technical 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 UK and EU initiatives to encourage good soil management practices to protect soil quality, and to minimise nutrient losses, soil erosion and associated water pollution in catchments which are prone to such problems. Experience shows that some growers still fail to understand the requirement for minimum cultivation passes in the spring to produce a good seedbed. The raising and monitoring of grower awareness and practice should be a technology transfer (Grower Support) target. During wetter than average years, poor soil structure tends to limit beet yields on a substantial proportion of the national acreage. The extent of poor soil structure and the means of minimising its occurrence needs investigation.

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 in controlled traffic systems.

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 new pest and disease control agents to pelleted seed remain to be determined.

Crop Physiology and Responses to Agronomic and Environmental Factors

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. Future potential increases in yield are likely to come from a better understanding of the partitioning of crop dry matter between tops, roots and sugar and the way that this is influenced by plant spacing and the availability and uptake of nutrients and water. The crop growth model used to estimate yields has in recent years performed inadequately for reasons which are being identified and, as far as possible, corrected. 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. Recent work on applied sulphur indicates a small response in beet on those soils that have already given a response in more S-sensitive crops. 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 UK industry. This may require preparedness to clamp if sufficiently long-range frost forecasts become possible.
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, Diseases and Weed Management

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 cultivars. 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 (currently 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 neonicotinoids 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 90% of the area being treated with a neonicotinoid every year, there is a great risk of resistance developing in pest populations. There are early indications that the first signs of neonicotinoid resistance in M. persicae populations have appeared in the South of France and in Spain. The UK sugar beet industry is extremely reliant on these products, with MACE and kdr resistance compromising the two other foliar insecticides approved for sugar beet. The increasing number of approvals for 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 UK populations (especially in glasshouses), and in parts of Europe (e.g. Greece) where imidacloprid spray applications are frequent. This is beginning to threaten the usefulness of neonicotinoids, illustrating the need for continuous monitoring and appraisal, the importance of continued documentation of the occurrence of resistance to non-neonicotinoids including pirimicarb and pyrethroids, and the development of control strategies.

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 are becoming more of a problem, especially now that aldicarb has been withdrawn and rotations are tightening with rape being grown frequently in the same rotations as sugar beet. The true extent of infestations is unknown but is being surveyed by BBRO in a project currently in progress. Research to incorporate the use of promising chemical, cultural or biological control measures into crop management programmes is possible. The first resistant cultivars are now available in the UK. The best approach is likely to be one which integrates more than one of these methods. Fundamental studies on host/plant interactions, and assessments of the effects of cropping systems on nematodes will need outside funding.

Activities within this area need to be integrated with government and cross-levy 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 robust 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 neonicotinoid seed treatment has been used on more than 90% 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 cultivars. The importance of this is further enhanced by the fact that there are few new modes-of-action of 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 cultivars 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 cultivars should be undertaken by commercial organisations. Characterisation of the gene cluster on Chromosome IV is under way in a BBSRC-LINK project (including BBRO and key breeders) and could provide new strategies for the future in addition to the other strategies being developed.

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 considered in the UK using historical tarehouse data. Following the loss of Protected Zone status, control of rhizomania increasingly relies on genetic resistance. Studies of the rhizomania vector and the virus have been greatly aided by the use of molecular methods and should continue in order to provide an understanding of the interactions between host, virus and vector. Promising work to identify and exploit resistance to the vector are now linked to the commercial breeding sector through a new BBSRC LINK project. Growers are encouraged to inspect their fields for suspected areas of rhizomania, sending root samples for confirmation to Broom’s Barn where tests for the common, ‘P’-type and ‘resistance-breaking’ (AYPR) strains are done. The examination of historic soil samples, collected in the 1980s/1990s with the intention of characterising virus evolution, could have implications for management of rhizomania in the UK and the development of new resistant cultivars to provide growers with on-going strategies for rhizomania control.

Fungal diseases

Varying degrees of resistance to fungal pathogens exist in the available cultivars 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 UK’s soils where sugar beet is grown, and are currently controlled by the prophylactic use of seed-applied fungicides. Widespread prophylaxis runs the risk of pesticide-resistance in the target organisms but alternative approaches using seed-applied biological control agents have proved, so far, unreliable; research has been discontinued.

For leaf diseases, the use of triazole and strobilurin fungicides allows more broad-spectrum control plus possible additional physiological yield-enhancing benefits. Studies of these effects 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; demonstrating the benefits of control before the end of August and the disadvantages of later control. Rust and ramularia leaf spot are late-season problems in some years and powdery mildew or rust-susceptibility is a weakness of some rhizomania-tolerant cultivars, so there is 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 leaf spot is a minor disease in the UK but damp, warm weather during the summer months will favour the disease. However, symptoms are similar to ramularia leaf spot and, therefore, resultant difficulties in diagnosis may have caused its incidence to be underestimated. Cercospora leaf spot can decrease sugar percentage and root weight under UK conditions, and the disease could become a greater problem with climate change. However, current control strategies and most fungicides available will control these foliar diseases. Downy mildew is an increasing problem that can occur after cool, wet springs when it has been associated with hollow crowns leading to invasion of rotting pathogens in stored crops. No fungicides are approved for downy mildew in sugar beet, so an investigation into resistant cultivars, or the development of a disease nursery to assess future material, is required.

The importance of climate change on the agriculture of East Anglia may increase cropping with maize which could increase rotational problems with diseases such as rhizoctonia. The impact of the Single Payment Scheme may also alter traditional cropping patterns which will affect the soil microflora with potential consequences for establishment and yields.

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), wetrot (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 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 focussed 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. The increasing occurrence of herbicide resistant black-grass in sugar beet crops is of concern because the tools available to control it are often very limited. Failure to achieve good control diminishes the valuable rôle that beet plays in the rotational management of this aggressive weed. The development of effective control technologies merits attention.

Precision spraying techniques, 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 UK even though it could reduce costs of production. Failure to exploit this technology could seriously weaken EU competitiveness as the returns from the sugar beet crop diminish in the wake of the “Everything but Arms” (EBA) initiative and, therefore, agrochemical companies should prepare for its eventual acceptance by carrying out the tactical research necessary to maximise the benefit from weed control using GM systems on a full rotation basis and to advise growers appropriately. BBRO cannot give high priority to work on GM varieties of sugar beet until there is market acceptance of the product.

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 these products whilst being aware that performance can vary between different formulations of the same herbicides.

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. More effective control programmes are needed to manage this weed. 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.

Beet Harvesting, Handling and Storage

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.

Grower Support Programme

The BBRO funds a comprehensive Grower Support Programme and it is imperative that its contribution to the industry in terms of productivity, environmental benefits and whole farm profitability is reviewed regularly. The recently updated programme has developed achievable targets for the key areas of beet production on farms; targets based on 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 are now central to the programme. The positive net environmental benefits and acceptability of sugar beet production are objectives that are as important in the Grower Support Programme as they are in the research programme. The intention is to improve the technical and environmental awareness of UK sugar beet growers and increase their competitiveness within Europe through increased yields and lower input costs. Equally, it is important to ensure that those outside agriculture are made aware of the environmental benefits of the sugar beet crop and the management changes made by growers to enhance these benefits. Continued and expanded use of environmentally-sustainable and beneficial practices will be a pre-requisite for the future successful growing of sugar beet. Health and Safety issues on farm need addressing, particularly with reference to harvesting and storage, and safe methods of work need to be transmitted to growers.

To be effective, transfer of technical information 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 members’ farms to discuss crop management or perhaps to manage a specific crop of sugar beet is used to good effect in Holland and should be considered here. Electronic methods, and the internet in particular, will be increasingly important methods of communication but the more traditional methods will still be of great importance and value. Integration of these methods will be essential to ensure an efficient programme.

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 Grower Support 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 Grower Support 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 methods are appropriate to dissemination of the knowledge generated by the project.