BUSINESS root of the

By Mark Flegenheimer, President and CEO

As harvest is about to get under-way, we mark an important mile-stone in history in the sugarbeetindustry. This year, 250 acres of

Roundup Ready® sugarbeets were grown inMichigan. Early this fall they will be harvested andprocessed at the Croswell factory during the first fewweeks of campaign. This commercial demonstrationis paving the way for next year when Roundup Readybeets may be grown on nearly half of our acres.Combating weeds has always been a challenge forour shareholders. Having sugarbeet varieties that cantolerate Roundup is a tool many growers havedreamed about for decades. It is now a reality.

I believe that developing varieties through biotech-nology, that will make weed control easier, is onlythe tip of the iceberg. Creating varieties with thistechnology will result in sugarbeets with a highersugar content, better storability and improvedresistance to disease.

With high competing crop prices, we, as a co-op,are doing what we can to keep beets an attractivepart of your rotation. Roundup Ready sugarbeets are

one more tool to make beets easier and more prof-itable to grow. Maintaining maximum beet acreageand throughput at the factories of your co-op willallow beets to compete with other crops.

This year, the farm bill expires and our representa-tives in Washington, D.C., are currently working on itsreplacement. The House of Representatives recentlypassed their version of a farm bill and the Senate willbegin their discussions in early fall. The sugar provi-sion in the House’s farm bill is good for our industry.It increases the loan rate for the first time in over 20years, sets a minimum allotment quantity and insti-tutes a sucrose-to-ethanol program to absorb excesssupplies caused by imports. These changes, alongwith other enhancements (see Ray VanDriessche’sWashington article, Page 4) will provide a solid foun-dation for our industry and our co-op to competeand prosper in this very competitive environment.

The future is now. This issue of The Newsbeet coverstopics that will affect our industry, our co-op and ourshareholders now and for many years to come. I hopethe articles in this issue assist you in your productionof sugarbeets in the coming years and spark yourimagination about the possibilities in the future.

Good luck with your harvest. I hope it is safe andbountiful.

2 T H E N E W S B E E T

Root of the Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2007 Crop Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

House Farm Bill Passed by Congress . . . . . . . 4

Future of Sugarbeet Production—Potential of New Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Roundup Ready® Experiencesfrom Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Roundup Ready® Sugarbeet CommercialDemonstration in Michigan, 2007 . . . . . . . 13

The Value of Sugarbeets in a Crop Rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Observations from an Outsider . . . . . . . . . . 18

Research Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Ventilation Expansion 2007–2008 . . . . . . . . . . 27

Beet Receiving Improvements, 2007 . . . . . . . . 30

Capital Projects, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Grower in the News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33–34

Summer 2007 Youth Project Trip . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2007 Scholarship Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

2007 Michigan Sugar Queen,The Sweetest Girl in the World is . . . . . . . . 37

Ray’s Ramblings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover: A beautiful Frankenmuth area home next to the Cercospora leafspot nursery on Wayne Hecht's farm.

CROP UPDATE 2007 A LOOK BACK AT HARVEST

AND OUR STORAGE SEASON

By Paul Pfenninger, Vice President of Agriculture

Our first beets were planted back onTuesday, March 27. A total of 6,135acres were planted over the next fewdays, before rain arrived on March 31.

The weather turned cold and wet once April arrived,and no beets were planted between April 1 and April15. Planting resumed slowly on April 16. A majority ofour crop was planted in a seven-day span betweenApril 20 and April 26. Approximately 106,000 acres, or66 percent of our total acreage, was planted at thattime. There were 18 days with measurable rain be-tween the first day of April and the last day of May, soplanting of the 2007 crop did have a few challenges.

Once the crop emerged, we had several dayswhere frost was a concern. Nighttime lows causedfrost on three different occasions – May 12, May 18,and May 20. Damage from the frost was minimal,but did stress the newly emerged crop.

In the end, the following report was generated:

In 2006, we harvested 163,929 acres of beets. Thenumber in 2007 is reduced because we purchased6,121 acres in the buy-back program and the baseacreage was reduced accordingly.

Harvest is still scheduled to begin in mid-September, and with an average yield of 21.5 tonsper acre, we are still looking at a 160-day campaign.The Early Delivery Premium, which was put intoplace in 2006, was successful in its inaugural year,and we expect it to work this year as well. Once westart our factories, it is imperative that we maintain asupply of beets, regardless of any outside factors.

What’s new in 2007? We are working on a phone-blast system which will notify every grower via a “pri-mary phone number” of any changes in beet deliveryschedules. This system will help us communicate withevery grower in a more timely fashion during harvest.The phoneblast system will be used for early deliveryannouncements and any other unexpected changes indelivery during open piling. This system will be espe-cially beneficial should we encounter any shutdownsin delivery due to frost/freeze or warm temperatures.

Crop Year 2007 will also be the first year of ournew “Quality Payment Program.” Your payment willinclude the Clear Juice Purity (CJP), along with yoursugar content, to calculate a Recoverable WhiteSugar per Ton (RWST). In the past, we have analyzedyour sugar sample for CJP, but payment was basedon percent sugar only. Quality is very important tothe Cooperative.

In 2007, you will also see many more ventilationtubes in Bay City and Sebewaing and also a few inCaro for the first time. Since our first study in 2005,we will add approximately 220,000 ventilated tonsthis year at the following sites:

When added to the tons ventilated previously, wewill have 270,000 tons of ventilated sugarbeets, intotal, which is about 8 percent of the crop. Newtechnology and the use of computers make ventila-tion a very beneficial capital expenditure.

On behalf of the entire Ag Staff, we wish you avery safe and successful fall harvest.

TH E N EWSB E ETFALL 2007 • VOLUME 21, NO. 2NEWSBEET TECHNICAL ADVISORS:Managing Editor: Paul Pfenninger, Vice President—AgricultureEditor: Corey Guza, PhD, AgronomistCo-Editor: William Gough, Factory Manager—CaroAssistant Editor: Julie Perry, Executive Assistant—AdministrationAdvertising: Sally Martin, Executive Assistant—Agriculture

THE NEWSBEET PUBLISHED BY MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANYCorporate Agricultural Office, 2600 S. Euclid Ave. Bay City, MI 48706 • www.michigansugar.com

COMMUNICATIONS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO:Editor, The Newsbeet, 2600 S. Euclid Ave., Bay City, MI 48706Email: editor.newsbeet@michigansugar.com

THE NEWSBEET is published by Michigan Sugar Company, Bay City, Michigan.It is prepared for grower members of Michigan Sugar Company, from informationobtained from sources which the Company believes to be reliable. However, theCompany cannot guarantee or assume any responsibility for the accuracy of theinformation or be responsible for the results obtained. Mention or illustrationsof a special technique, specific equipment or products does not constituteendorsement by the Company. Reprinting or quoting articles appearing in The Newsbeet is granted with the exception of those items credited to outside sources.

3

Acres Contracted 162,717Acres Planted 159,995Acres Replanted 4,856 (3.0%)Acres Abandoned 1,032Acres for Harvest 158,963

Sebewaing —- 90,000 tonsBay City —- 110,000 tonsCaro —- 20,000 tons

HOUSE FARM BILL PASSED BY CONGRESS

By RayVanDriessche,Director ofCommunity &GovernmentRelations

Despite efforts by CongressmenRon Kind (Wisconsin) and JeffFlake (Arizona), who submittedthe Kind-Flake Amendment as ameans to derail the farm bill pro-posed by the House AgriculturalCommittee, Congress voted toapprove the bi-partisan farm billpackage on Friday, July 27. Thepassage of the Bill was the result ofthe willingness by Ag CommitteeChairman Collin Peterson ofMinnesota to include and allow allmembers of the Ag Committee,Republican or Democrat, freshmanor seasoned legislator, to influencethe outcome of the final package.The end result was a package thatincluded compromise by all in aneffort to work within budget con-straints to reduce payments to themajor commodities and at the sametime make farm bill funds availableto specialty crops for the first timeever. The package also included anincrease to the Food and NutritionProgram of $4 billion. The methodof funding the $4 billion increase,which was considered a means ofclosing a loophole that allowedforeign companies to escape payingtaxes by one party, was consideredto be a tax increase by the otherparty. This difference in opinioncaused a bailout at the lastminute by most Republicans whohad committed to supporting thefarm bill due to budget concerns.

4 T H E N E W S B E E T

KEY ELEMENTS OF THE SUGAR PROVISION IN THE HOUSE AGCOMMITTEE’S 2007 FARM BILL(Source: American Sugar Alliance)

1. Retain inventory management approach.• No payment to producers• USDA balances supply and demand to avoid sugar loan

forfeitures by:a. Controlling domestic sales – (marketing allocations): When

U.S. production exceeds USDA estimate of market needs,sugar producers store surplus sugar at their own expense(“blocked stocks”).

b. Controlling imports: Tariff-rate quota on imported sugar• Mexican imports under NAFTA as of January 1, 2008, remain

unrestricted as of this time.

2. New market balancing mechanism: Limited sucrose to ethanolprogram• To be used only when imports exceed domestic demand• Not to be used to clear domestically produced blocked stocks

º USDA would estimate import-oversupply amount, invite bidsfrom ethanol producers to buy sugar and invite bids fromsugar producers to supply sugar.

º A tool to be used to deal with Mexican import uncertainty —which may not be needed in some years

º Helps to address U.S. desire to reduce dependence on foreign oil

3. Minimum Overall Allotment Quantity (OAQ)• U.S. producers’ share of the U.S. market – set at no less than

85% of domestic consumption

º Allotments no longer trigger off with import surge

4. Import management • Restricts initial Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) announcement in August

to trade agreement mandated minimum (WTO + CAFTA)• Would mean no TRQ increase, unless there is a crop emergency,

until April 1 of the next year.

º TRQ could then be increased if domestic production, plusinitial TRQ, plus Mexican imports are inadequate to meetdomestic market demands.

5. Loan rate increase: First since 1985 (inflation since 1985 = 90%)• Refined sugar loan rate increased 0.6 cents/pound = 60 cents/cwt

increase• Raw cane sugar loan rate increase of 0.5 cents/pound

F A L L 2 0 0 7 5

Another amendment that hadbeen put before Congress was the Davis-Kirk Amendment. Theamendment, sponsored by IllinoisCongressmen Danny Davis and Mark Kirk, both withcandy manufacturers in their dis-tricts, could have rendered thesugar program a major blow. Itwould have eliminated the firstproposed loan rate increase in22 years, imposed a forfeiturepenalty, effectively reducing theloan rate by six percent, andwould have eliminated a muchneeded market balancing mecha-nism in response to oversuppliesin the U.S. market due to highlysubsidized foreign sugar.

The final passage vote in favor ofthe House Farm Bill was 231-191.

The President has threatened to veto the farm bill saying thatthe House Bill is too costly andfails to significantly cut subsidies,which is a sticking point in WTOnegotiations. A farm bill hasnever been vetoed by a President.A compromise on the fundingproblem is expected to beworked out in the Senate confer-ence package, which would avoida veto by the President.

The American Sugarbeet GrowersAssociation, in conjunction with U.S.Beet Sugar Association, coordinateda week long lobbying effort atCapitol Hill congressional officesjust prior to the vote. Four lobbyingteams, with team leaders fromMichigan Sugar Company, AmericanCrystal Sugar Co., AmalgamatedSugar Co. and Southern MinnesotaSugar Co., along with two unionmembers from beet processingfacilities in the Red River Valley,

called upon key legislative offices inan effort to educate legislators onthe devastating impact the Kind-Flake and Davis-Kirk Amendmentswould have on the sugar industry.Much of the initial groundworkhad been laid by our Washingtonrepresentatives and their staffsprior to our legislative visits. Thevisits to the members and theirstaffers allowed us to identify andeducate legislators who had con-cerns. On our way home, as weheard of the wide margin of votesin favor of the farm bill and againstthe Kind-Flake and Davis-KirkAmendments, we had a feeling of“mission accomplished.”

The Kind-Flake Amendmentwould have essentially gutted thefarm program as we traditionallyhave known it, slashing commodityprogram payments drastically andessentially eliminating the sugarprogram. Just prior to the vote,the amendment was softened togarner more support, but wasoverwhelmingly defeated by a bi-partisan vote.

WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP IN THE2007 FARM BILL PROCESS?

Legislators were out on summerrecess and resumed session afterLabor Day. The September legisla-tive calendar will most likely betaken up by appropriations billsand the Iraq emergency fundingdebate, which needs to be com-pleted before the beginning of thenew fiscal year beginning October1. It is very likely the farm bill willnot be on the floor until October.The Senate Agriculture Committeeneeds to get a consensus on theirversion of the farm bill, which has

not been an easy task. If time runsout, their options are to pass theHouse bill or extend the current bill.

The overwhelming defeat ofthe Kind-Flake and Davis-KirkAmendments is proof that com-mon sense is still alive and wellon Capitol Hill!

The sugar industry is very appre-ciative of those legislators whovoted in favor of the House FarmBill and those who defeated theKind-Flake and Davis-KirkAmendments. A note of apprecia-tion has been sent to all legisla-tors who supported us.

MEXICO/U.S. SWEETENERNEGOTIATIONS

With January 1, 2008, justaround the corner, discussionsbetween the U.S. and Mexicansweetener industries have seenrenewed interest in trying toarrive at a negotiated settlement.Talks have taken place over thelast three months between theU.S. sugar industry’s Mexico TaskForce and the Mexican SugarChamber (Mexican mill owners).Discussions have been positiveand encouraging, seemingly mov-ing in the right direction. If anagreement is reached betweenthe two industries and the legalwork has been done, the nextmajor hurdle will be to get theU.S. and Mexican governments to legislate and implement theagreement. If this can all beaccomplished, the result wouldbe a balanced North Americansweetener market giving muchneeded stability to the market andinstilling confidence in investing inthe future of our business.

8 T H E N E W S B E E T

Thomas K.Schwartz,Executive VicePresidentBeet SugarDevelopmentFoundation& AmericanSociety of SugarBeet Technologists

As with anything, especiallyagricultural production systems, thefuture of sugarbeet production isunknown, and is really only limitedby the minds and imaginations ofthose whose hands in which thefuture lies. It only takes a look backin history to see that advancements,however slow we thought at thetime, actually came quite rapidly.Also, sciences and technologiesthat were unheard of, or onlydreamed about, have now becomereality and are rapidly replacing orenhancing our traditional sciences.

Think about this: It was notuntil after World War II that truemechanization was introducedinto the sugarbeet industry. Untilthat time, most all operationswere done by hand labor. In1949, only half of the sugarbeetcrop in the US was harvested bymachine; by 1952, it was nearly100 percent. In fact, that is exactlywhy the industry created the BeetSugar Development Foundation,to aide in the development ofmechanization of the sugarbeetindustry. The first employees ofthe Beet Sugar DevelopmentFoundation were all engineers.

Think about this: It was notuntil the mid-1950s that we hadcommercial monogerm sugarbeetseed. This was discovered by V. F.Savitsky in an Oregon seed field,planted to Michigan Hybrid-18.There were only five plants found;only two were true monogerms andonly one became extensively used.

This means the entire advancementinto monogerm cultivation couldhave been missed had it not beenfor one scientist and one plant.That is just the agricultural side ofour business; the processing sidehas made similar strides with suchthings as molasses desugarizationand steam drying of pulp.

We have come a long way inthe past 60 years. So to predictwhere we will go in the next 60 isnearly impossible. It certainly willtake a crystal ball and then some.In the mid-20th century, agricul-ture was not even thinking aboutbiotechnology as we know ittoday. No one could have predict-ed we would be inserting specificgenes into specific plants toaccomplish specific functions andinitiate specific traits. But here weare on the verge of introducingbiotechnology to the sugarbeetindustry. Roundup Ready® is justthe tip of this iceberg.

FUTURE OF SUGARBEET PRODUCTION — POTENTIAL OF NEW TECHNOLOGY

F A L L 2 0 0 7 9

So what is the future of sugar-beet production and what are thepotential new technologies? I thinkwe must first break this into twoavenues of thought. First, what wethink of as traditional sugarbeetproduction and secondly what wemight call non-traditional produc-tion, or production for somethingother than sucrose.

When we think of our traditionalsugarbeet production, we think ofvarious ways to increase yield,either tons per acre or sucrosecontent, or reducing our costs ofproduction. Through the efforts ofour public sector scientists, thosebeing university and United StatesDepartment of Agriculture,Agriculture Research Service, andour private sector scientists,researchers within our sugar com-panies and our supplier industries,such as seed companies, we findthat we continue to make advance-ments in these areas. However,there are limits to how many tonsof sugarbeets can be produced on agiven area of land and how high ofsucrose content a beet can obtain.

We can and should continue tofine tune such things as seedingrate, fertilizer management, watermanagement (in areas where it isapplicable), traditional diseaseand insect control and traditionalweed control to name just a few.However, I do not see whereimprovements in these areasalone will result in monumental

strides in either yield increase orcost savings. However, having saidthat, when you are working in anindustry where the margins are asthin as ours, every little bit is helpful.

Earlier I mentioned that RoundupReady is just the tip of the ice-berg. I truly mean this in severalways. The introduction of RoundupReady sugarbeet into commercialproduction will open the door forseed companies and technologycompanies to develop and advanceother traits in sugarbeet through theuse of biotechnology. It is certainlyno secret that these companieshave been working on such traitsas disease resistance, insect resist-ance, nematode resistance, droughtstress, increased sucrose content,and probably others. However,until acceptance of sugar pro-duced from a biotech sugarbeetwas achieved; substantial invest-ment into these types of activitieswas not anticipated. Now I thinkwe can look forward to increasedactivity in this type of research anddevelopment. These types ofdevelopments could both increaseyield and decrease cost in thefuture. However, as I statedbefore, there are limits to howmuch we can increase yield andhow much we can decrease costs.

If we are really looking into thefuture and the potential of usingnew technologies, I think we needto look outside the “sugar bag.”What do I mean by this? We have

long thought of ourselves as sugarproducers, and only sugar produc-ers. Yes, we also produce pulp,which we sell into the feed marketand molasses, which is mostly soldinto the feed market, but mainly weproduce sucrose. There is nothingwrong with this; there is now andalways will be a need and demandfor sucrose, and we have becomeand are getting better each year atbeing a low cost supplier of thiscommodity. However, again, thereis a limit to the market for sucrose– really the only way to increasethis market is to increase consump-tion, and that we as an industry areactively pursuing. If we are to growour industry, we need to lookbeyond sugar or sucrose. There isnothing new and startling aboutthis concept. Many people havebeen thinking about it for years, andI think we are very near the verge oftaking some steps in this direction.Recently, I spoke at a meeting ofthe World Association of Beet andCane Growers. I was visiting withBill Hejl, who was then the Presi-dent, and is a beet grower from theRed River Valley. I asked Bill aboutthe name of this organization, andwhy it did not contain the wordsugar. Bill’s response to me was thatjust several years ago they removedthe word sugar from the name ofthe organization because they feltit restricted the future direction ofthe group. Don’t get me wrong, Iam not advocating removing sugar

DuPontTM

UpBeet®

Assure® IIAsana® XL

Lannate®

Manzate®

Count on DuPontfor complete beet protectionSurround your beets with DuPont protection.Start with DuPont™ UpBeet® and Assure® IIherbicides for great weed control. Get betterpest control with DuPont™ Asana® XLand Lannate® insecticides. Plus, DuPont™Manzate® fungicide offers excellent diseaseprotection.cropprotection.dupont.com

Asana® XL and Lannate® are restricted-use pesticides.

Always read and follow all label directions and precautions for use.The DuPont Oval Logo, DuPont™, The miracles of science™, Asana®, Assure®, Lannate®,Manzate® and UpBeet® are trademarks or registered trademarks of DuPont or its affiliates.Copyright © 2004-2007 E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. All Rights Reserved. 8/07 07CRLIT007929

1 0 T H E N E W S B E E T

from the name of our industry,because it is the backbone of whatwe do; however, I hope the futureholds other avenues.

Of course, the first avenue tocome to mind is biofuels. There hasbeen considerable press in the pastfew years, and even legislationwhich may hold promise for agri-culture and for an industry such asours. Let’s not limit our thinking toethanol, although it is currently themost common form of biofuels.There are other forms of biofuelssuch as methanol, butanol and

biodiesel which, are formed throughvarious fermentation processesand cellulosic conversions, arepossibilities for the future.Although our current sugarbeetscould work for these processes, itmight be advantageous to designbeets through both traditionalbreeding and biotechnology forthese types of purposes.

Recalling that the sugarbeetplant is a very efficient producerof the carbohydrate, sucrose, it ispossible to use the sugarbeetplant to produce something other

than sucrose. With new technolo-gies emerging, the possibilities ofmanipulating the sugarbeet plantto produce specialty chemicals formanufacturing of such things asbioplastics, biopharmaceuticalsand other renewable resourcesare not out of the question.

Some of these things may seema long way off, and indeed somemay never become practical, butremember, it was only about 60years ago that we were growingmultigerm seed and manuallydoing most of the work.

FUTURE OF SUGARBEET PRODUCTION — POTENTIAL OF NEW TECHNOLOGY (CONT’D.)

F A L L 2 0 0 7 1 1

By Stacey Camp,Manager ofAgriculturalServices,AmalgamatedSugar Co., LLC

With the needfor better weed control and thereduction of production expenses,the Beet Sugar DevelopmentFoundation (BSDF), with thecooperation of The AmalgamatedSugar Company LLC, proposed aresearch project to plant approxi-mately 270 acres (four half piv-ots) of Roundup Ready® sugar-beets in 2006. An equal numberof test acres (the other half of thefour pivots) were planted to aconventional variety to establishas true a baseline as is practicallypossible from a commercial farmscale operation. The RoundupReady beets have been grown,harvested, stored in potato shedsand processed. The conventional sugarbeets were harvested andhauled to the grower’s respectivereceiving stations for normal stor-age and processing. The productsfrom both the conventional andRoundup Ready varieties weresold as part of the test with allproducts from the RoundupReady beets segregated fromconventional products so that theRoundup Ready product did notenter unauthorized markets.

Fields were prepared accordingto the grower’s standard production

practices and adjustments weremade as needed. The seed size wasmatched with the planter. Goodstand establishment was achievedin all fields. Three of the four fieldshad stands of approximately 165beets per 100 feet of row; and thefourth field had a stand of 195beets per 100 feet of row.

HERBICIDESTwo applications of Roundup®

was sufficient to give excellentweed control in the demonstra-tion fields. One of the four fields,with low weed pressure, wastreated with one Roundup sprayand the weed control was good;however, two sprays could havemade for excellent weed control.It is advisable to use at least twoRoundup sprays.

Wind will be a concern whenapplying Roundup. In all fieldsthere were delays in Roundupapplications while waiting for min-imal wind speed. Although there isa larger window of opportunity tospray Roundup than conventionalherbicides, the window is not aswide as one might think. Dependingon temperature, the weeds cangrow rapidly and put sprayingbehind schedule.

The conventional side of thefields had weed escapes eventhough early weed control lookedgood (see photo on next page).The conventional side of this fieldwas not hand weeded for demon-stration purposes.

One field received Outlook® her-bicide in a 32-row strip two daysafter the first Roundup applicationand to another field we addedOutlook herbicide with Roundupat the first application timing in a32-row strip. This was done to testif one application of Roundupwith a lay-by of Outlook would besufficient for weed control. Theresults showed good weed con-trol, but the two applications ofRoundup showed excellent con-trol. At the end of June, the fieldswere flown and infrared picturestaken. It was interesting to notethat the sugarbeet foliage wasslightly stunted (visually and infra-red) where Outlook was applied.It was not determined if yield wasaffected by Outlook.

The project in 2006 did notshow dust from the sprayingequipment to be an issue. Themoisture in the soil profile wasgood from the moisture receivedthe previous winter and spring.This year, Amalgamated has a sim-ilar Roundup Ready project andthere have been weed escapesfrom dust on the weeds from themovement of the tractor andsprayer. It would be beneficial tospray soon after an irrigation orrain to aid in dust control. Anothersolution would be to offset wherethe sprayer goes through the fieldin sequential passes. This works tohelp control the escapes.

It will be important to broad-cast apply Roundup with 10 to 15

ROUNDUP READY® EXPERIENCES FROM IDAHO

1 2 T H E N E W S B E E T

gallons of water versus bandingto avoid getting Roundup resist-ant weed escapes. Using the fullyrecommended Roundup rateswill also help reduce the risk ofresistant weed escapes.

One concern is, weeds may notbe controlled beneath the canopy.This year, drop nozzles were triedand were successful if the olderleaves were not lying on the groundand making a barrier so Roundupcould not contact the weeds.

CULTIVATIONThree of the four growers

reduced the number of cultiva-tions from three to one while thefourth field had three cultivationson the Roundup Ready side of thefield. The yield was excellent onthe Roundup Ready sides of thefield with reduced tillage. Growerswill be looking at the leastamount of tillage as possible tofind savings in the future.

NITROGENThe Roundup Ready beets

showed vigorous growth through-out the season where the leafcanopy of the conventional varietywas stunted from the convention-al sprays. Petiole nitrogen sampleswere compared throughout theseason and the Roundup Readybeets appeared to use the nitrogenearlier since they were not inhibitedby conventional sprays.

CONCLUSIONSince the Roundup Ready and

conventional sides of the field aredifferent varieties, we cannotcompare the yields. The RoundupReady Project demonstrated thefinancial benefits of growingRoundup Ready sugarbeets com-pared to conventional practices.There are savings in fewer cultiva-tions and hand labor, but there is anadded expense for the technology.

It is clearly recognized thatherbicide resistance, realizedthrough the use of biotechnology

for effective weed control in sug-arbeets, opens the door to futureadditional developments in diseaseand insect resistance, qualityimprovements, drought toleranceand other benefits. The potentialbenefits to the sugar industry aresignificant.

ROUNDUP READY® EXPERIENCES FROM IDAHO (CONT’D.)

Roundup® side of the field (on the left) and conventional side (on the right).

F A L L 2 0 0 7 1 3

By Corey Guza, Ph.DAgronomist

Up to 40,000units, or approxi-mately 80,000acres, of RoundupReady sugarbeets

may be planted by Michigan SugarCompany growers in 2008. It isimportant to test Roundup Readysugarbeets on a large scale toensure that the technology meetsthe expectations of the industry. A500-acre demonstration trial wasestablished in the East District ofMichigan Sugar Company, compar-ing 250 acres of commerciallyplanted varieties to 250 acres ofRoundup Ready varieties. The pur-pose of the Roundup Ready com-mercial demonstration trial is to

evaluate the benefit of RoundupReady sugarbeets compared toconventional varieties. The test willdemonstrate that sugar fromRoundup Ready sugarbeets is thesame as sugar from conventionalvarieties. A key component to thedemonstration trial is to ensurethat Roundup Ready varieties willperform similarly to conventionalvarieties. This includes diseaseresistance and yield. Improvementsin weed control were also evaluated.

Four fields were establishedcomparing Roundup Ready vari-eties to conventional varieties. TheShaw Brothers Farms trial is locat-ed west of Sandusky and north ofM-46 on the southwest corner ofArnold and Richards Roads. TheRoundup Ready variety was plant-ed on the east half of the field.

The Gentner-Bischer trial is locatednortheast of Sandusky on SnoverRoad, 1.5 miles east of Ruth Road.The Roundup Ready varieties wereplanted on the east half of the field.The Stoutenburg trial is located onthe northwest corner of Ruth Roadand M-46. The Roundup Readyvariety was planted in the northhalf of the field. The Thom trial islocated southeast of Sandusky onHall Road 1.5 miles west of BrownRoad. The Roundup Ready varietywas planted on the east half ofthe field. The Thom trial was thefirst large scale planting of RoundupReady sugarbeets in Michigan.

All of the trials were planted inlate April. Sugarbeets struggledto emerge due to soil crusting.Timely crust-busting resulted ingood emergence and stand

ROUNDUP READY® SUGARBEET COMMERCIALDEMONSTRATION IN MICHIGAN, 2007

establishment. Stand counts taken30 days after planting resulted inover 120 beets per 100 ft of row.Row spacing is 28 inches between

rows in each of the trials. Quadriswas applied in each of the fields,except for the Thom trial, at the 6leaf stage. Three to five micro-rate

herbicide applications were madeon the conventional sugarbeetsand two to four glyphosate appli-cations of 22 oz per acre of either

1 4 T H E N E W S B E E T

Timing and type of weed management applied to the Roundup Ready sugarbeet commercial demonstration trial at each location

TABLE 1

Allan K. Shaw Inc D & D Thom Farms Gentner-Bischer Farms LLC Stoutenburg Farms

Roundup Conventional Roundup Conventional Roundup Conventional Roundup Conventional Ready Ready Ready Ready

5/22a 5/7 5/31 4/23 5/24 5/18 6/1 5/19 Roundupb Micro-ratec Roundup Roneet Roundup Micro-rate Roundup Micro-rate WeatherMax Betamix WeatherMax 4 pts/A WeatherMax Betamix OriginalMax Betamix 22 oz/A 10 oz/A 22 oz/A 22 oz/A 10 oz/A 22 oz/A 9.6 oz/A 6/25 5/13 6/20 5/4 6/11 5/24 6/25 5/31 Roundup Micro-rate Roundup Micro-rate Cultivation Micro-rate Roundup Micro-rate WeatherMax Betamix WeatherMax Betamix Betamix OriginalMax Betamix 22 oz/A 10 oz/A 22 oz/A 10 oz/A 12 oz/A 22 oz/A 13 oz/A 5/22 7/16 5/18 6/22 6/11 8/3 6/7 Micro-rate Roundup Micro-rate Roundup Cultivation Roundup Micro-rate Betamix WeatherMax Betamix WeatherMax OriginalMax Betamix 10 oz/A 22 oz/A 12 oz/A 22 oz/A 32 oz/A 16 oz/A 5/30 8/13 5/28 7/21 6/12 6/15 Cultivation Roundup Micro-rate Roundup Split-rated Micro-rate WeatherMax Betamix WeatherMax Betamix Betamix 22 oz/A 12.8 oz/A 22 oz/A 3 pt/A 16.7 oz/A

6/6 6/22 Micro-rate Split-rate Betamix 12.8 oz/A Betamix 3 pt/A 6/22 Micro-rate Betamix 16 oz/A 6/27 Cultivation 8/2 Cultivation 8/10 Hand weeded aDate weed control treatment was applied. bAMS was added at a rate of 17 lbs per 100 gal of spray solution when using Roundup WeatherMax and OriginalMax. cMicro-rate also included UpBeet 1/8 oz/A, Stinger 1 oz/A, and MSO 1.5% v/v. dSplit-rate also included UpBeet 1/5 oz/A and Stinger 2 oz/A.

F A L L 2 0 0 7 1 5

Roundup WeatherMax or RoundupOriginalMax have been made tothe Roundup Ready sugarbeetsstarting at the 2 to 4 leaf stage(Table 1).

Timing of the glyphosate appli-cation will be critical. In the Thomtrial, the initial Roundup WeatherMaxapplication was made at the 4 to6 leaf stage of sugarbeets andweed size averaged four inches.Applying glyphosate when weedsize averages four inches may beadequate for other crops but, insugarbeets it is too late. Sugarbeetstunting from weed competitionwas observed in the trial as wellas weed uptake of fertilizerintended for the sugarbeets (seephoto). Weed control was general-ly improved with Roundup Readysugarbeets. Only the commercialvarieties were cultivated for weedcontrol.

The 2007 Roundup Ready sug-arbeet commercial demonstrationtrial has added some excitementto the growing region. Many les-sons were learned and new ques-tions need to be answered. Timingof the glyphosate application iscritical. Dust on weed leaves andrainfall less than one hour after aglyphosate application will reduceweed control with glyphosate.

Should 100 percent weed con-trol be the new goal of MichiganSugar Company growers? Howdoes weed population impactglyphosate application timing? Iscultivation no longer necessary?

There have been many visitorsto the Roundup Ready sugarbeetdemonstration fields, includingMonsanto and seed company

representatives, students fromthe beet school that was held inMichigan this summer, along withthe USDA, university and sugar

company personnel from aroundthe country. All of the visitors wereimpressed with the trials and arelooking forward to the results.

(Top): Four-inch weeds in 4 to 6 leaf stage sugarbeets in the Thom trial.

(Bottom): Left side, conventional weed control with Ronet pre and 2 Micro-rate applications.Right side, Roundup Ready sugarbeets before Roundup WeatherMax was applied in theThom trial.

1 6 T H E N E W S B E E T

Steven Poindexter,MSU ExtensionEducatorSugarbeetAdvancement

Sugarbeetshave been an

integral part of Saginaw Valleyagriculture for over 100 years.Through most of that period,beets have performed well as ahigh value cash crop when com-pared to our more traditionalcrops of corn and soybeans. Aswith most high value crops, theyrequire intense management andmore input cost, along with anincreased labor requirement.Currently, net dollars returned per

acre from traditional commoditiesis very competitive with sugar-beets. This has caused somegrowers to want to reduce or shift out of producing sugarbeets.Before crop shifts are made,growers should consider whathistory has to tell us about thevalue of sugarbeets.

Crop diversity is a key tofinancial stability. Michigan StateUniversity Agriculture FinancialSummary Reports indicate that,generally producers who includesugarbeets and dry beans in theircrop rotation are more economi-cally stable, have a higher networth and less debt than tradi-tional farmers. Diverse crop rota-tions generally offer protection

against adverse weather condi-tions such as excess/lack of mois-ture, freeze/frost issues and pestissues affecting individual com-modities.

Sugarbeets are much more tol-erant to extreme weather condi-tions than many of our othercrops. In many areas this year, thecorn crop has suffered large yielddecreases from missing timelyrainfall. Sugarbeets, on the otherhand, have the unique ability toslow down or stop growth whenmoisture is limited, and whenmoisture returns, they resumegrowing. We have seen manyinstances of tonnage increasesdue to late season rainfall result-ing in a respectable beet crop.

THE VALUE OF SUGARBEETS IN A CROP ROTATION

F A L L 2 0 0 7 1 7

Diversity of crop production alsooffers a hedge against low cropprices. It has been obvious in thelast few years that typical corn andsoybean prices have not been veryhigh. However, in 2007, traditionalcommodity prices, including drybeans, were all high. It is one of thefew times I can remember in my27 years of working in agriculturethat prices are good for all theSaginaw Valley crops. However,history would indicate high com-modity prices do not remain high.If we look into the distant future,by 2013 projections are we willtransition to cellulose basedethanol production. How will thataffect corn prices? Remember,sugarbeet production and pro-cessing has been an integral partof the infrastructure and econom-ics of our communities for years.For every dollar generated, therollover effect is at least threetimes in the community.

Growers are always concernedabout the future of sugarbeet pro-duction in Michigan and theUnited States. Certainly, as a newcooperative, a significant but man-ageable amount of debt is beingcarried. As debt is reduced, optionsincrease for larger grower pay-ments, improvement projects forthe factory, along with resiliency incase of adversity. As owners ofthis cooperative, the business willnot just leave the state and go toa third world country as we have

seen so many times before. Newtechnologies in genetics havepromise to make beet productioneasier and more profitable.Roundup Ready® beets shouldimprove weed control and reducethe number of trips across thefield. This technology may alsolead to reduction or elimination ofcultivation, increased opportuni-ties for cover crops, and increasedopportunities for reduced tillageand no-tillage planting of beets.Newer and better sugarbeet cystnematode resistant varieties areon the way that will increase prof-its through improved yield. Othergenetics are on the way withimproved levels of Rhizomania,Rhizoctonia, and Cercosporaleafspot resistance. Each of the

new genetics will potentially offeryield enhancements, reduction ofpesticide use and increased prof-itability.

Recently, at the NationalAssociation of County AgricultureAgents annual meeting andProfessional ImprovementConference held in Michigan, over1,300 people attended from 50states. Many of the attendeescommented on how fortunate weare to have agricultural diversity inMichigan. Many of my colleaguesfrom other states were envious ofthe amount of opportunities thatour growers have to producecrops other than corn, soybeans,and wheat. WE SHOULD NOTTAKE THAT FOR GRANTED.

1 8 T H E N E W S B E E T

By Dr. H.ChristopherPeterson, NowlinChair of Consumer-ResponsiveAgriculture andProfessor ofEconomics,Michigan StateUniversity

One year has passed since Iaccepted the position of the coop-erative’s first outside director. I haveserved through one complete cyclein the cooperative’s life, even ifthe cycle was a bit backward—starting with harvest, storage, pro-cessing, and then planting. I haveenjoyed the year (especially giventhat it was a good one on somany counts), and I would liketo share some perspectives onMichigan Sugar.

Let me begin with a few factsfrom my background that give mesome legitimate right to commenton the cooperative’s performance.This is the third outside directorposition I have held—the first twobeing in the Farm Credit System(the St. Paul Bank for Cooperativesand then CoBank). In addition,I’ve been doing strategic planning,financial analysis, and related con-sulting work with cooperativemanagements and boards since1974. I have been involved withcooperatives in good times and badtimes, helping some out of trouble

and assisting others to move fromgood to superior performance.

My positive impressions ofMichigan Sugar began with theinterview process by which I wasselected. I was one of three candi-dates for the position, and one oftwo to interview. The interviewprocess was imposing. You walkedinto the board room with theentire board and top managementstaff ready to grill you on yourqualifications and motivations toserve on the board. The variousboard members did not hold backin asking me tough questionsabout what I would bring to theboard, my qualifications, and mylimitations. They expressed appro-priate concern about my ability toregularly attend, my willingness tochallenge management and myfellow board members, and mygoals to serve. I obviously passedthe grilling—they did elect me.Their care, concern, and challeng-ing approach to the selectionprocess let me know they wereserious about my service. Withouta question, if that care, concern,and challenging attitude had notbeen present, I would not havechosen to serve. The members ofthis cooperative need to know theboard and management take theirjobs seriously and exhibit a com-mitment that is appropriatelystrong and impressive.

A good cooperative board andmanagement need to be effective

across a number of factors. Foursuch factors really stand out in mymind—the presence of an effectivebusiness strategy, commitment tofinancial strength for the coopera-tive, the ability to contest toughissues in the board room, and anunfailing concern for the members’interests. The board and manage-ment of Michigan Sugar exhibit allfour characteristics. Let me com-ment on each one in turn.

Effective business strategy in abasic commodity business likesugar begins with a focus on costand efficiency. Critical costs (ener-gy, labor, transportation, etc.) aretracked appropriately and actionsto lessen those costs are pursued.Process and storage improvementsthat drive out cost or reduce wasteare also continuously on everyone’smind and in their actions. Likewise,maximizing sugar quality and yieldspreads the costs over the optimalvolume of output. Beyond thissound basic attention to a low coststrategy, Michigan Sugar takes anextra and highly valuable step tofocus on improving the top line—optimizing the mix of higher valueproducts for retail sale. Commoditysales at commodity prices are fine,but a real profit boost comes toMichigan Sugar from retail pack-aged goods and catering to a cus-tomer base that will pay top dollarfor quality and service.

A financially weak cooperativecannot effectively serve its members

OBSERVATIONS FROM AN OUTSIDER

F A L L 2 0 0 7 1 9

in the long run. Weak cooperativescannot afford investments in costimprovements and in revenueenhancing product development.The Achilles heel for many coop-eratives has been a member basethat gives too little equity and thusloads the co-op with too muchdebt. As a newly formed coopera-tive, Michigan Sugar had to assumetoo much debt or it wouldn’t havegotten the assets needed to runthe business. That’s the bad news;the good news is that the boardand management have laid out aplan to reduce debt with time andwith as little impact on membersas possible. The other good newsis that the cooperative is other-wise financially strong.

The board room needs to be aplace for reasoned and vigorousdebate. If decisions are proposedby management and uncontestedby the board, the cooperative willnot be strong and will not makegood decisions in the long-run.Without question, I can give evi-dence to the fact that decisionsand tough issues are contested inthe Michigan Sugar board room. Ihave been especially impressedwith the care given to debate. Iremember one especially longboard meeting that was adjournedto a second day rather than rush acritical decision about the cooper-ative’s future. Committee meetingsare likewise full of challengingquestions and discussions. Let me

also share that too much debateor an unwillingness for boardmembers to come together afterdebate can be weaknesses and notstrengths. Again, I think that theinterchange among board mem-bers and with management walksthe proper line between amountof debate and the needed comingtogether after a decision is made.

Perhaps I should have started withthis fourth factor rather than endwith it. It is after all the mostimportant—the members’ interestsmust be paramount in the workof board and management. AtMichigan Sugar, it is. I have yet tosee a decision debated withoutnumerous references to the mem-bers’ best interests. Even the finan-cial reports are tailored to focuseveryone’s attention on the mem-bers’ beet payment and the drivers

that will make that payment gohigher or lower. I need to also com-mend management on this point.The management did not grow upin a cooperative business environ-ment, yet they have embracedcooperative principles with amaz-ing speed and commitment.

I have enjoyed the experienceof being on your board. I’ve re-upped for a full term with the otherboard members’ approval. Is every-thing perfect at Michigan Sugar? Isevery process optimized and everydecision “right”? No organizationis perfect. There are alwaysimprovements to be made. I amconfident that the board and man-agement are committed to everyimprovement and to the mem-bers. When we all pull together,the future will be bright for thecooperative and its members.

By Jim Stewart,Director ofResearch, and LeeHubbell, ResearchAgronomist

VARIETYIMPROVEMENT

Over the pastten years, sugar-beet yield hasincreased at a rateof about one per-cent per year dueto Michigan SugarCompany’s variety

improvement program. Along withimprovements to yield and quality,sugarbeet tolerance to disease suchas Rhizoctonia, Rhizomania,Cercospora leafspot andAphanomyces, and pests like RootAphid have also improved signifi-cantly. Beginning in Spring 2008,we are on track to introduceRoundup Ready® sugarbeets.None of these advances wouldhave been possible without theOfficial Variety Trial program.

The main purpose of these“Official Variety Trials” is to identifyand introduce higher yielding,higher quality, and more disease-tolerant sugarbeet varieties for theMichigan Sugar Company growers.We are evaluating 39 varieties inthe Official Variety Trials this year ateight locations. All of the varietiesare tested for Cercospora leafspot,Root Aphid, Aphanomyces and

2 0 T H E N E W S B E E T

RESEARCH UPDATE

Nematode Strip Trials 2005 and 2006Tons Per Acre

FIGURE 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

B 5534 N Check Variety

Sugarbeet yields and quality with nematode varieties (in absence of nematodes) 2006.

TABLE 1

Tons/ % % % CLSVariety Acre Suc CJP Emerg Rate*

C 963 29.9 18.3 94.1 60.1 3.2B 5534N 32.5 17.3 93.4 57.0 5.4B 1643N 33.6 18.4 94.7 67.4 5.3

*A Cercospora rating of over 4 is very poor

Figure 1. Comparison of sugarbeet yield with the nematode resistant variety (B5534N)to a check variety.

Table 1. Yield data comparing 963 to two nematode resistant varieties.

F A L L 2 0 0 7 2 1

Rhizoctonia resistance. Almost allof the new entries are tolerant toRhizomania and 19 are RoundupReady varieties.

We have been evaluating anematode-resistant variety fromBetaSeed since 2005. In strip tri-als, this variety (Beta 5534N)increased sugarbeet yield byapproximately 25 percent. (Figure1). We are presently working withan improved nematode variety(Beta 1643N) which is higheryielding and has a higher sugarcontent than the earlier nematodevariety (Table 1). The downside ofthese nematode varieties is poorCercospora leafspot tolerance.

Of the eight Official VarietyTrials, two of the trials look verygood, three look fair to good, andthree probably will not be goodenough to provide reliable data.We have also planted fourCercospora leafspot nurseries. Allof the locations look very good;however, the disease moved quiteslow this year due to the dryweather. All of the varieties plantedby Michigan Sugar Companygrowers are evaluated in thesetrials. They are inoculated usingdiseased leaves kept from previous

years. Visual ratings are made byat least three people and ratingswill be made from three to fivetimes by each person at eachlocation. There are 234 individualplots at each location. Thisprocess ensures our growers havea level of resistance in the vari-eties that makes Cercosporaleafspot more manageable.

NEW PRODUCTS FOR MANAGINGCERCOSPORA LEAFSPOT

In addition to Cercospora varietywork, we are also conducting seven

different fungicide trials for leafspotcontrol in 2007. This work will focuson new products from BayerCropScience, Syngenta and SipcamAgro, and new application tech-niques and timings. Michigan Sugarhas taken the lead in developingrecommendations for the newgroup of fungicides in sugarbeets,which we are now using (Headline,Gem, Quadris, Eminent and Enable).We have conducted over 30research trials in recent years todetermine how to best utilizethese products.

Varieties sold in 2007 or approved for 2008

TABLE 2

Level of Rhizoctonia Resistance

Excellent Good Fair HM 9027RR HM 2779Rz SX Prompt HM 9028RR Beta 5736 Crystal 355 HM 7172Rz Crystal 963 Crystal R509 Beta 5833R HM 9029RR Beta 5451

Comparison of selected approved varieties to three Roundup Ready varieties approved

for planting in 2008 (2007 data)

TABLE 3

Tons/ % CLSVariety RWSA RWST %Suc %CJP Acre Emerg1 Rate2 Rhizoc3 Aph4

HM 9028RR5 8281 251 17.1 94.6 32.8 68 3.7 67 99C 271 8139 259 17.7 94.5 31.1 66 3.3 104 81HM 9029RR 8128 248 17.0 94.4 32.4 63 3.8 - 136C 963 8093 258 17.6 94.7 31.0 63 3.2 84 85HM 9027RR 8023 248 17.3 94.3 32.2 68 3.6 56 131B 5833R 8020 252 17.1 95.1 31.7 68 3.9 85 -C R442 7900 257 17.7 94.1 30.6 66 2.9 - 84HM 79RZ 7872 248 17.1 94.2 31.6 63 3.5 72 90C 355 7758 253 17.3 94.5 30.4 64 1.9 84 86HM 2771RZ 7437 257 17.5 94.9 28.6 60 3.2 117 89HM 7172RZ 7343 246 17.1 93.8 29.8 63 3.3 76 1181Emergence data from 20072CLS Rate: 0-9 Scale with 0 = no disease and 9 = complete infection, over 3.6 = poor3Rhizoc: % of E17, higher number = less resistance to Rhizoctonia, over 90 = poor4Aph: % of E17, higher number = less resistance to Aphanomyces, over 130 = poor5RR: Roundup Ready

2 2 T H E N E W S B E E T

RHIZOCTONIA RESISTANCENURSERIES

Rhizoctonia Crown Rot is aproblem in parts of the Michigangrowing area and can cause sig-nificant yield loss. In previousyears, varieties have been testedfor resistance in Fort Collins,Colorado, in a trial conducted bythe USDA. In 2006, we startedconducting this nursery here inMichigan to help ensure reliableresults. We also produced ourown inoculum. The trial was a

success. We planted two locationsof this nursery in 2007. Sugarbeetgrowth has been good. On July24, our two nurseries were inocu-lated. We collected resistance datafrom both locations late in August.Dead beets will be counted andall roots will be dug and evaluatedfor disease at harvest.

If Rhizoctonia is a problem onyour farm consider planting a vari-ety with Rhizoctonia resistance(Table 2). There are also RoundupReady varieties being tested for

the first time in 2007 that containsome resistance to Rhizoctonia(Table 3).

ROUNDUP READY® VARIETIES Three Roundup Ready varieties

have been granted special approvalfor planting in 2008. These vari-eties, HM 9027RR, HM 9028RR,and HM 9029RR, did not make fullapproval, but came close. Comparedto our approved varieties, thesespecially approved varieties have avery high yield but are relatively

RESEARCH UPDATE (CONT’D.)

F A L L 2 0 0 7 2 3

low in sugar and are borderlinefor Cercospora tolerance. Theygenerally emerge well and two ofthe three varieties have goodRhizoctonia tolerance. Preliminaryresults indicate that two of thesevarieties do not have good toler-ance to Aphanomyces (Table 3).

ROUNDUP READY® WEEDCONTROL RESEARCH

In addition to the varietyimprovement work with RoundupReady varieties, Michigan SugarCompany is also conductingresearch trials to determine howto best use glyphosate (RoundupWeatherMax) for weed control insugarbeets. Small plot replicatedand large plot demonstration trialsare underway to answer questionssuch as the number of applica-tions needed, application timingsand the safety of tank mix part-ners with glyphosate. Preliminarydata suggests that at least two,and possibly three, applications ofglyphosate will be required toobtain adequate weed control. InMichigan Sugar Company trials, asingle application, either early orlate, has not provided season longcontrol. When applied early, lategerminating weeds have infestedthe crop. Late applications (8 to10 leaf stage) have only controlledabout 90 percent of the weedsand sugarbeets have been stuntedfrom early season weed competi-tion (Figure 2).

It appears that RoundupWeatherMax can be tank mixedwith most common fungicidesand herbicides such as fungicidesfor Cercospora leafspot control andDual Magnum or Outlook. None ofthe leafspot fungicides caused anyinjury when tank mixed withRoundup WeatherMax. Minor injuryoccurred when Dual Magnum orOutlook was applied with RoundupWeatherMax to sugarbeets withfour true-leaves or less. Quadriscaused minor injury when appliedwith Roundup WeatherMax at thetwo to four leaf stage of sugarbeets.However, tank mixing glyphosatefor weed control and Quadris for

Rhizoctonia control may be costprohibitive because Quadris is typ-ically applied in a band and it isadvisable to spray glyphosatebroadcast.

BEETCASTThe BeetCast predictive model

was developed by Dr. Ron Pitblado,Plant Pathologist, while at theUniversity of Guelph in Ontario,Canada. The system includes over50 weather stations throughoutour growing region which meas-ure air temperature, soil tempera-ture, rainfall and leaf wetness. Tohelp manage Cercospora leafspot,the system uses leaf wetness and

Timing of glyphosate applications in Roundup Ready sugarbeets

FIGURE 2

50556065707580859095

100

glyphosate4 lf

glyphosate4 lf,

6–8 lf,10 lf

glyphosate10 lf

glyphosate4 lf,10 lf

% WeedControl

3 applications2 applications

1 application early 1 application late

temperature to predict when toapply fungicides. The combinationof leaf wetness and temperature isrecorded daily as a DSV, or diseaseseverity value. Growers can log ontothe Beetcast website (www.michi-ganbeets.com) to follow the DSVprogression in their area.

Beginning in 2002, MichiganSugar Company began researchon the BeetCast system. A two-year study was conducted nearAkron, MI, proving that applyingfungicides every 55 DSVs workswell in that area. In recent years,BeetCast research has been concentrated in other areas ofthe growing region. Results fromthose trials have been used tocreate risk management zones(Figure 3). Additional informationcan be found on the BeetCastwebsite.

To utilize BeetCast, growersneed to follow the DSVs andcouple that with their zone on therisk management map. The redand orange zones will benefitfrom following a 55 DSV program.For farms in the yellow zones,applying fungicides at 70 DSV

intervals or less will be mosteconomical. In the green zones,growers should wait for the firstsign of disease or 80 DSVs,whichever comes first.

PRIMING TRIALSSugarbeet priming started in

Michigan using PAT. There was anadvantage in speed of emergenceand the improvement was greaterin cold conditions. MichiganSugar Company and SugarbeetAdvancement, conducted manytrials proving that PAT treatedseed was beneficial to growers.All seed is now primed using different processes. The seed com-panies now do most of the priming.GTG, the company that developedPAT, has been claiming they have

an improved priming called XBEET.Trials conducted using XBEET haveonly been compared to primingalso done by GTG. There appearsto be an advantage using XBEET inthese trials. There have not beenany trials comparing the primingprocesses used by different compa-nies. Trials comparing the processesused by different companies maynever happen. There are challengesin using the same variety with eachof the primary processes and theresults from seed primed in smallsample quantities may be differentthan the same variety processed inlarge commercial quantities.

We are conducting trials in 2007comparing XBEET priming to non-primed seed of the same variety.The trials contain SX Prompt and

2 4 T H E N E W S B E E T

RESEARCH UPDATE (CONT’D.)

XBEET Trials, Prompt Primed vs Non-Primed(Average of 4 Michigan Locations)

FIGURE 4

0

40

80

120

160

200

Early Mid Final

Non-Primed

XBEET

Beets/100 ft

Sugarbeet StandFigure 3. Cercospora risk management map.

XBEET Trials, RRV Varieties, Primed vs Non-Primed(Average of 4 Michigan Locations)

Sugarbeet Stand

FIGURE 5

0

40

80

120

160

200

MidEarly Final

Non-Primed

XBEET

Beets/100 ft

ACHACH SeedsSeedsDistrict Market

Manager

Andy Bernia877-769-0195

Springtime, summertime and harvest time, your Crystal sugarbeet seed sales team is there for you. Westand ready to meet the ever-changing demands placed on your operation and the sugarbeet industry.As the emerging force in sugarbeet seed, we've met these demands and today we've fully grown into thecompany that you've come to count on for great service, strong variety performance, and high qualityseed. Sunup to sundown - we'll be there.

F A L L 2 0 0 7 2 5

four varieties sold in the Red RiverValley, processed in commercialquantities. As expected, the XBEETprimed seed emerges significantlyquicker but has a smaller advan-tage in final stand compared tonon-primed seed. (Figures 4 and 5).Research conducted by MichiganSugar and Sugarbeet Advancementin 2006 showed similar results.Trials conducted by the Universityof Minnesota over the past threeyears also indicate that XBEETgives a significant advantage overPAT and unprimed seed.

2 6 T H E N E W S B E E T

Guaranteed Analysis (Wet Basis)

Crude Protein Minimum 1.33%Crude Fat Minimum 0.04%Crude Fiber Maximum 3.83%Moisture Maximum 75.00%N-Free Extract Minimum 8.67%Ash 1.50%Composed of sugarbeet residue after extraction of sucrose.

Our pressed pulp program gives you two options for purchase; either pick upat any of our four factory locations or have pulp delivered to your farm. Thereare also several discount or rebate options to help you reduce your feed costs.Pressed pulp is made to order, with a guaranteed moisture level that will notexceed 75%.

Pressed pulp can be fed fresh or ensiled in a bunker or Ag-Bag. Properlyensiled pulp contains more than 20% dry substance, is light gray in color andmaintains its texture well.

Sugarbeet pulp has been recognized as a valuable livestock feed. It has highenergy value, is a good source of protein and contains minerals essential for animalhealth. Pressed pulp is highly digestible and can reduce digestive disturbances.It is a key ingredient in livestock rations, especially for dairy and beef cattle.

How to contact us for more information:Contact us at 989-686-1549, ext. 243 or ext. 253. Orders for specific tonnage

must be placed two days prior to delivery to ensure availability.Loading is normally scheduled during daylight hours during the processing

season (late September to mid-February). Specific loading hours for each factorycan be determined when orders are placed.

Payments will be due 15 days following an invoice. All trucks are weighed atthe factory to determine quantities sold.

PRESSED BEET PULP2007

LIMEMICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANY OFFERS

FOR AGRICULTURAL USEWe have calcitic lime available right now,

and it can be yours!

Lime is great for agricultural soils because:

• It neutralizes acidic soils, increasing soil pH

• Increases microbiological activity; accelerating decomposition of crop residue

• Improves legume growth

• Improves stand, root growth, and sugar content of sugarbeets

Give your crops the extra edge to increase yield potential.

For more information, CALL your nearest Michigan Sugar Companyprocessing facility during business hours.* Monday–Friday, 7:30 a.m.to 3:00 p.m.

We’ll even load it for you!

Bay City (989) 686-1549, ext. 222 Caro (989) 673-7560 Croswell (810) 679-3740Carrollton (989) 753-9491 Sebewaing (989) 883-3201

This offer is available from your friends at Michigan Sugar Company,producers of Pioneer and Big Chief Sugar. Locally grown. Locally owned.

* Truckers/users of lime must comply with DEQ/MI Department of Agriculture regulations. A brief outline of the applicable regulations are as follows:

• Truckers: the same regulations for hauling quarry lime apply. You may need to take steps to prevent blowing of dust from the truck.

• Users: the nutrient loading should be accounted for in your fertilizing program. The sugarbeet lime contains: Nitrogen 5.5 pounds per ton, Phosphorus 1.0 pound per ton, Potassium 0.36 pounds per ton, Calcium 570 pounds per ton (80% as CaCO3 or limestone, Organic content 8%, Moisture content 10%–15%,and Micro nutrients typical background levels

Application should be conducted to not impact any water. A more detailed discussioncan be found in the Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices forNutrient Utilization as approved by the Michigan Commission of Agriculture at thefollowing internet address: http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-1567_1599_1605-70361--,00.html

By Corey Guza, Ph.DAgronomist

Sugarbeet storage is animportant part of improv-ing the profitability ofMichigan Sugar Company.Sugarbeet pile ventilationis an effective way to

reduce the risk of storage loss, particularlyas campaign length is increased. As part ofthe requirement for receiving $250,000 fromthe State of Michigan from the Julian-Stillsgrant, Michigan Sugar Company has beenconducting research to determine thevalue of sugarbeet pile ventilation inMichigan. Due to the positive results fromthe research, a decision was made toexpand the ventilation project to haveavailable 21 slice-days of ventilated sugar-beets on hand at each factory location.

Michigan Sugar Company has beentesting pile ventilation for two years, the2005–2006 campaign and the 2006–2007campaign at both the Bay City andSebewaing locations. The first year of test-ing proved that ventilating piles was a suc-cess, resulting in an average of 18 lbs ofsugar per ton (RWST) increase in the ven-tilated piles vs. the non-ventilated check(Newsbeet, Spring 2007). In the samestudy conducted in 2006–2007, the resultswere even better.

F A L L 2 0 0 7 2 7

VENTILATION EXPANSION 2007–2008

FIGURE 1

Factory recoverable white sugar per ton (RWST)

150

170

190

210

230

250

270

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Factory Lime Salts

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Percent net extraction in the factory

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7days

Factory performance databefore, during and after processing ventilated sugarbeets

Shaded area: ventilated sugarbeets

2 8 T H E N E W S B E E T

Sugarbeets generally stored wellin 2006–2007 as indicated by theability to process sugarbeets wellinto March without needing todispose of any. Cold weather inJanuary and February, along withgood pile management, were criti-cal factors in the successful cam-paign. In 2005–2006, the non-ventilated check beets wereprocessed a month earlier thanthe ventilated beets due to poorstorage conditions. In 2006–2007,the non-ventilated beets wereprocessed at the same time as theventilated beets. At the end of the2006–2007 campaign, beet quali-ty deteriorated rapidly as air tem-peratures increased. Despite thechallenging weather conditions,the ventilated sugarbeets contin-ued to process well as indicatedby the drop in lime salts andimprovement in extraction andrecoverable white sugar per ton(RWST) (Figure1). Cossette sam-ples taken before, during and afterthe ventilated beets wereprocessed indicated that ventilationimproved RWST. This was due tothe higher sugar content and clearjuice purity in the ventilated beetscompared to the non-ventilatedbeets (Table 1). The results fromthe captive samples in which thevariety Beta 5451 was used, indi-cated an improvement in RWSTwith ventilation, particularly at theBay City location (Table 2). Onaverage, ventilation improved

sugar recovery by 39 lbs per tonfor the 2006–2007 campaign.

Due to the impressive results,the ventilation project will be

expanded for the 2007–2008campaign. A total of 270,000 tonsof sugarbeets will be ventilatedbetween three locations; Bay City,

Ventilation Study ResultsCaptive samples

TABLE 2

Bay City RWST %CJP %Sugar Date RemovedNon-ventilated 127 78.11 15.32 3/6/07Ventilated* 235 89.88 17.89

SebewaingNon-ventilated 249 92.07 17.97 3/6/07Ventilated 252 89.98 19.11

Ventilation Study ResultsFactory cossettes

TABLE 1

Bay City RWST %CJP %Sugar #7AM 3/6 – 5PM 3/6 207 90.79 15.56 117AM 3/7 – 11AM 3/9* 251 92.97 17.77 252PM 3/9 – 1PM 3/10 220 90.69 16.56 11

Sebewaing7AM 3/5 – 3PM 3/7 255 92.94 18.06 303PM 3/7 – 4PM 3/8 244 91.93 17.70 106PM 3/8 – 4AM 3/9 266 93.88 18.38 157AM 3/9 – 8PM 3/10 214 89.79 16.47 10

VENTILATION EXPANSION 2007–2008 (CONT’D.)

*Red font indicates ventilated sugarbeets.

F A L L 2 0 0 7 2 9

Sebewaing and Caro. At Bay City,20,000 tons of sugarbeets havebeen ventilated in pile number 10and an additional 30,000 tons ofsugarbeets will be ventilated inthat pile for a total of 50,000 tons.There will be 80,000 tons ventilatedin piles 6 and 7 for a total of130,000 tons of ventilated sugar-beets at the Bay City location. AtSebewaing, 30,000 tons of beetshave been ventilated. In 2007–2008,120,000 tons will be ventilatedwith 40,000 tons each in piles 10,14 and 15. Caro will have enoughequipment installed in the pilenear the fairgrounds to ventilate20,000 tons of beets.

The expansion of the ventilationproject this year is a positive stepto reaching the goal of having 21slice-days of ventilated beets onhand each year. With increasingamounts of ventilated beets, moreoptions are available for managingsugarbeet storage and improvingsugar recovery. Risk of large stor-age losses that have occurred inthe past will be reduced and theconcern of reduced beet qualitywith long campaigns will diminish.Sugarbeet ventilation will have along-term positive impact on theproductivity and profitability ofMichigan Sugar Company.

Contact Rob Gerstenbergeror visit our

website:www.betaseed.com

Betaseed, Inc. 1-866-517-2685

Projected ReturnAverage increase in sugar recovery from

ventilation vs. no ventilation

2005–2006: 18 lbs/ton2006–2007: 39 lbs/ton

3 0 T H E N E W S B E E T

By Keith Kalso,AgriculturalManager, EastDistrict

Michigan SugarCompany contin-ues to “move for-

ward” and improve the receivingequipment with not only routinerepair and maintenance but, withnew and innovative equipmentmodifications. This beet harvest,two major improvement jobs havetaken place to make harvest moreefficient and economical.

The most innovative modificationfor Harvest 2007 will be used atthe Verona receiving station. Adump box dirt handling systemhas been installed on piler #4 toreplace the old and damaged dirtbelt and frame. This system wasdeveloped and proved at the Doverreceiving station.

The dump box system utilizestwo dump boxes (much like pull-type dump carts) to hold and sep-arate the tare soil on a piler. Eachbox will hold six to seven tons oftare soil and serve as a superiorreplacement for the conventionaldirt belt/hopper systems (most ofwhich are too heavy, expensive,have high maintenance and are acontinuous target for careless truckdrivers). The dump boxes are outof harm’s way from any truck inter-ference, making it very easy to iso-late each truck’s tare and virtually

eliminating the chances of grower’stare being mixed. The dirt systemallows for continual beet piling,since waiting for truck boxes toslowly settle will not cause thepiling process to be delayed. Thedump box dirt handling system inVerona will be the third such sys-tem in place at Michigan SugarCompany. The two systems at theDover Receiving Station have beenunder two pilers that have piledapproximately 160,000 tons ofsugarbeets since their existence.The proven system is the way ofthe future; it represents a newdirection on how tare soil is han-dled while improving productivity.

A major improvement to theCroswell Factory scale complex isthe new 80-foot-long truck scaleinstallation. This new scale isinstalled in the same location asthe previous “pit” scale. The endwalls were extended 10 feet oneach end to expand from 60 to 80feet. The scale being replaced hadan old lever-style weigh bridge thatwas badly deteriorated. The newscale incorporates dependabledigital technology and a long lifespan. This longer scale will be ableto weigh longer farm, transfer, andsugar trucks. Less traffic congestionwill be welcomed from thisdependable piece of equipment.

BEET RECEIVING IMPROVEMENTS,2007

(Top): Building the new scale in Croswell.(Bottom): The new dump box in Verona and Dover.

F A L L 2 0 0 7 3 1

CAPITAL PROJECTS, 2007

by William Gough,Manager, CaroFactory

Everyone likesclean air, right?Michigan Sugar Co.

has invested millions of dollars tomeet new air emission standards.All of our available capital thisrepair season has gone toward twoprojects; one at Caro and one atCroswell. Our coal fired boilers, atSebewaing, Croswell and Caro,must comply with new air emis-sion standards effective in the Fallof 2007. Maximum AchievableControl Technology (MACT) is thename given to recent federal rulesand regulations developed to helpus do a better job of controllingand reducing air emissions. Coal iscurrently the most cost-effectiveenergy source we can use for ourenergy intensive process. As longas the price of coal remains favor-able, we will continue maintainingthese boilers and operating in amanner that complies with regula-tions. Coal will remain our mostutilized energy source as long asthese conditions exist.

Compliance with the new MACTstandards began last year with theinstallation of a flue gas scrubbersystem at the Sebewaing factory,designed and installed by ESI Inc.of Tennessee. By installing onelast year, we were able to reduceour emissions and evaluate the

technology and equipment beforecommitting resources and capitalfor similar installations at Croswelland Caro. Results at Sebewaingwere favorable and the “greenlight” was given for work to pro-ceed on the final two installationsthis year.

Actual construction activities werepreceded by engineering design,soil borings to determine footingrequirements for the heavy equip-ment, site visits to determine andconfirm the equipment sizing, physi-cal layout around existing structures,ductwork, piping, etc. Everything hadto fit in the space available and per-form as designed, right from thevery first day of campaign.

The following describes some ofthe construction activity for Caro.Keep in mind that this work andactivity was also conducted atSebewaing and Croswell.

As last season’s campaign con-cluded, demolition of the existingboiler ductwork, induced draft fan,steam lines and concrete floorsbegan. A hole was cut in the wallto allow demolition equipmentaccess and to remove obsoleteparts and debris. Small excavatorswere driven inside the factory tobreak the concrete into pieces andload out the debris. A portion ofthe roof was removed so largepieces could be extracted and newparts inserted by mobile cranes.

The chimney stack was in needof some repair and was ultimately

shortened by several feet, whichremoved a structurally unsafe por-tion. Old peeling paint had to beremoved, new lightning rods wereattached, a fresh coat of protectivepaint applied and concrete pouredinside to form a level base to setthe fiberglass stack liner.

Contractors then rebuilt theconcrete floor, poured footings forequipment and connected floordrains. Metal fabricators installedstructural steel to mount thescrubber and associated equip-ment. Nearly all of the equipmentand structural steel was lowered

Mobile crane and workers positioning themain separator body for insertion throughthe Caro factory roof and onto the newlyformed concrete base inside.

CAPITAL PROJECTS, 2007 (CONT’D.)

3 2 T H E N E W S B E E T

into place with mobile cranes.At Caro, an additional 13,200 volt

primary electrical supply had to berouted to a new set of transformersto supply the 1,250 horsepower,4,160 volt, 3 phase motor thatdrives the new induced draft fan.At Croswell, additional 8,320 voltprimary power was routed to thefactory and then similarly reducedfor that fan motor. This fan isrequired to keep the flue gassesmoving from boilers through thescrubber to the atmosphere.

Additional transformers wereinstalled to make the reduction tothe usual 480 volt, 3 phase forpump motors and drives, alongwith 120 volt for control and mon-itoring systems.

At Caro, a water line was addedand connected to the village watersystem to assure an ample supplyof emergency cooling water. Themunicipal water supply had beentight under normal operating con-ditions in the past and an ampleemergency supply is required. If

something happens to the circu-lating water and the flue gas tem-perature is not reduced beforegoing into the chimney stack, thefiberglass liner could be damaged.That would not be a good situation.

When you look at the coal firedboiler stacks this coming cam-paign, you will see a plume ofwater vapor (similar to the drierstacks) with far fewer particulatesexhausted into our air. Now, wecan all breathe a little cleaner air.

Can Cercospora resist your fungicide program?

Always read and follow label directions.®Dithane and Enable are trademarks of Dow AgroSciences LLC.®Roundup Ready is a registered trademark of Monsanto Company.www.dowagro.com www.DithaneFungicide.com www.EnableFungicide.com

F A L L 2 0 0 7 3 3

IN THE NEWS grower JOHN SCHLUCKEBIER

By David Ganton,Agriculturist, WestDistrict

JohnSchluckebier hashad the same

address for the entire 77 years ofhis life. Just because he has been onthe same farm since 1930 doesn’tmean things haven’t changed.

John credits his success to afew different things; first, a goodteacher, his father Arthur; second,good soil; and third, a good part-ner in his nephew, John Krick.Without any of those three, John’sfarming operation would not bewhat it is today.

Attending Frankenmuth Schoolsuntil eighth grade, John wasimmediately submersed into thefarm that his grandfather andfather had established. The onlytime he deviated from his farmingtasks was to serve his country inthe military.

Today, the cows are gone andthe barn is used for the storage ofequipment and not the housing ofanimals. John Schluckebier andJohn Krick farm about 1,200 acreswith a diverse rotation that includesdry beans, corn, soybeans, wheatwith clover, and, of course, over300 acres of sugarbeets. Johncan’t remember not growing sug-arbeets on the farm and his earli-est recollection is a 20-acre con-tract with delivery to Carrollton.“We sure have come a long way”,says John. “I remember getting ourfirst one-row McCormick, and think-ing we had it made. Now, theoperation digs with a six-row Art’s-Way and delivers five miles up the

road to the Blumfield receiving sta-tion. One of many things I havelearned is the future will surprise us.”

Hard work, good weather andattention to detail make theSchluckebier operation a success.One of John’s few regrets is thathe didn’t graduate from highschool. He has made it a practiceto keep a detailed record of theevents and growing practices ontheir farm. In his words “it givesme something to review and learnfrom, good and bad, and with asmile he says, “At 77, I still forget.Years go by too fast and cropsrotate quickly. So to look back andsee how a certain variety performedon a certain soil type is a real valueto me. Record keeping is a must.In addition to the valued knowl-edge of my nephew, I realize thatI am never too old to learn. I gath-er information from those aroundme whether it is from my neigh-bors, my agriculturist or my agri-cultural products dealer and try tomake the best decision possible.”

On the subject of being a goodneighbor, ask anyone and they willsay John fits the definition to a “T”.

Always friendly and willing to help,he is very much a part of the com-munity. Even though he is a busyman, he is never too busy to taketime to chat and be interested inwhat’s going on in your life and thatis what a good neighbor is all about.

John has two daughters, Sherriand Lisa, who remind him of hisdeceased wife, Betty. They werehappily married for 41 years. As amember of St. Michael’s churchand past elder, John lives a well-rounded and Godly life. John hasbeen (and wishes he still couldbe) an avid snowmobiler, but agehas caught up with him. He nowspends his free time playing cards,staying active in the local conser-vation clubs and serving as anelected official of the SaginawCounty FSA committee.

On a personal note, the job ofan agriculturist is diversified andwe wear many hats, but the one Icherish most is the personal rela-tionships we develop. After spend-ing time with John Schluckebier, ithas truly been my pleasure to knowhim and to call him my friend.

John Schluckebier

3 4 T H E N E W S B E E T

IN THE NEWS grower THE PAWLOWSKI FAMILY

By MatthewBooms,Agriculturist,Central District

The rural areasurrounding the

small town of Filion, Michigan, isthe place where Brian Pawlowskiand his wife, Tricia, chose to raisea family. They have two children;Sheridan (10), and Kendall (8).Tricia is the Technology Director fornearby Deckerville Schools, whileBrian currently farms approximate-ly 950 acres of land with a largevariety of crops consisting of drybeans, wheat, soybeans, corn,alfalfa and sugarbeets.

After graduating from highschool, Brian began farming on apart-time basis. He also worked ata local machine shop for sevenyears before deciding to take upfarming full time. In 1991, heraised sugarbeets for the firsttime, planting only 18 acres. Thefollowing year, he nearly doubledhis sugarbeet acreage and sincethen has steadily increased hisacres grown until he reached hiscurrent contract of 150 acres.

Brian has a deep rooted philos-ophy on farming, as his grandfa-ther farmed and his father farmedin addition to working at the localsoil conservation office. Althoughhis grandfather and father aredeceased, Brian credits his father asbeing his biggest influence when itcomes to being a good steward ofthe land he farms. Brian chucklesquietly as he repeats his father’swords, “Take care of the groundand it will take care of you.” Briantakes heed of his father’s advice

and currently rents out 45 acres ofhis farm to a neighboring farmerfor growing alfalfa. He doesn’t dothis because it is profitable, butbecause he believes his soil willreap the great benefits of havingalfalfa in the rotation.

As of this year, Brian has com-pleted a total switchover of plant-ing in 22-inch rows. He cites hisdesire to clip dry beans directlyinto the combine as his main rea-son for changing the row spacing;although he knows his beets willreap the benefits of early canopyclosure and its closely associatedweed control. A possible yieldincrease would simply help thebottom line.

Two-thirds of Brian’s beets areplanted following Roundup Ready®

corn. This helps to prevent anyherbicide carryover. He also is afirm believer in conventionalmoldboard plowing of the cornstalks. His farm is closely sur-rounded by the cool waters ofLake Huron and he feels plowinghelps to warm the soil in the spring.

Brian uses 100% GPS soil sam-pling on his sugarbeet acres andapplies fertilizer based on its rec-

ommendations. The MichiganSugar Company website has alsoproven to be a very useful tool toBrian, as he closely watches the DSVmap and uses it to decide when toapply fungicide for Cercosporaleafspot. He plants with a White6100 planter equipped with adouble frame to accommodatetwelve 22-inch rows and harvestswith a six-row Art’s-Way 690 model.The tractor that he plants with maybe slightly smaller than average;but he believes he creates less soilcompaction with it. He also feelsthat early planting of sugarbeets isimportant, but that it should not bedone before the ground is ready.In the future, Brian would like toplant more of his sugarbeets intoa fall-prepared stale seedbed.

Brian’s hobbies include campingin his fifth-wheel trailer with hisfamily and deer hunting. He espe-cially remembers the nine pointbuck that he bagged a couple ofyears ago. He said it was quiteunique because it had a droppedtine. In his spare time, Brian alsoserves as the Lincoln TownshipAssessor. Brian and his family attendthe Bad Axe Free Methodist Church.

The Pawlowski Family: Sheridan, Tricia, Kendall and Brian.

F A L L 2 0 0 7 3 5

SUMMER 2007 YOUTH PROJECT TRIP

Nearly 250 Youth Project partici-pants were treated to a fantastictrip to Dow Diamond, the newballpark in Midland. The eventwas June 29, a beautiful Fridaynight. Dow Diamond is home tothe Great Lakes Loons, an affiliateof the LA Dodgers. The partici-pants were fortunate to see theLoons play the Lansing Lugnuts,a team some of the project partic-ipants saw in 2003.

The Sebewaing and Caro areagroups were picked up by tourbuses, courtesy of the RichmondBros. They stopped in Sebewaingat the Agriculture Office, the CaroAgriculture Office and at ReeseHigh School for pickup. It wasnice to keep the groups togetherand arrive at the same time.When the participants arrived,Ray VanDriessche and BarbWallace had everything organizedfor sign-in and then the groupmoved to the entrance. From therethe participants went to an area ofthe park that was designated forour group.

The venue for watching thegame was superb. The group wasable to view the game while eat-ing a nice barbequed meal in thePavilion. There were choices onwhether to sit at tables or on thelawn close to the game action.The park is very open, accessibleand great for family or group out-ings. Some brought lawn chairsand were sitting on the grass.There was a playscape on thesoutheast corner of the park forthe smaller children. It is a verynice place from which to watch abaseball game.

Each youth participant wasgiven a Loons commemorativebaseball and several people hadopportunities to snatch foul ballhits that came close to our group.The Loons ended up losing thegame, but the sugarbeet projectparticipants were all winners!

Top photo: Ray Van Driessche visits withmotor coach drivers Mike Richmond andTim Henderson shortly after arrival at theLoons Baseball Park.

Bottom Photo: Carl Bednarski and his sonwait for the gates to open at the LoonsBallpark.

Michigan Sugar Company awardsscholarships to eligible high schoolsenior Youth Project winners eachyear. These scholarships thatMichigan Sugar administers wereestablished to honor the memoriesof their namesakes after their pass-ing; Albert Flegenheimer (1890–1972), a former Chairman ofMichigan Sugar Company; PhilBrimhall (1938–1999), a formeragronomist for Michigan SugarCompany; and Guy Beals (1964–2003), a former Michigan SugarCompany sugarbeet grower nearBrown City. This past year, we alsoawarded an additional scholarshipsponsored by Bayer CropScience.

The Albert FlegenheimerScholarship is awarded each year toan outstanding young individual whohas shown leadership in academicand extracurricular activities. Therecipient must have participated inthe 4H/FFA Sugarbeet Project. Thisyear’s scholarship has been award-ed to Sara Smith of Pigeon. Sara’sparents are Scott and Nancy Smith.Sara graduated from Laker HighSchool with a 3.974 grade pointaverage. She will be attendingSaginaw Valley State University witha major in mathematics. She plansto go into elementary education andhopes to promote and continue tobe very involved in the FFA program.

Sara has been heavily involved inboth school activities and commu-nity activities all during her schoolyears. She has participated in 4-Hfor eight years and won outstandingawards for numerous years. Sarais ranked fifth in her graduatingclass and is local chapter presidentof the National Honor Society.

The Phil Brimhall MemorialScholarship is awarded each yearto a deserving young person whohas participated in the 4-H/FFASugarbeet Project. This year’sscholarship has been awarded toBrittany Armbruster of Pigeon.Brittany’s parents are David andDebra Armbruster. Brittany gradu-ated from Laker High School with a3.3 grade point average. She plansto attend Michigan State Universityto pursue a career in agronomy.

Brittany has been involved inmany extra-curricular activities suchas Student Council, Band, and hasbeen very involved in FFA. Next yearshe will be serving as the Region IIIState Vice President for FFA. Shehas earned the Premier Award forthe Sugarbeet Project five times.

The Guy Beals MemorialScholarship is awarded each yearto the 4-H sugarbeet project par-ticipant from the East District whoearned the most points in the pro-gram. This year’s recipient of theGuy Beals Memorial Scholarship wasRita Gentner from Minden City.Allen and Debbie Bischer (and thelate Robert Gentner) are the par-ents of Rita; she is the fourth old-est of eight children. The Bischers'farm land in the Ruth, MindenCity, and Deckerville areas.

Rita scored the highest quantityof points in the Youth AdvisorySugarbeet Project in 2006 whichearned her this distinctive $500academic scholarship. She hasbeen involved in the SugarbeetProject for the past ten years. Withher hard work in the Project, shehas earned Premier Grower Awardsfour times, and was the Master ofCeremonies at the 2006 CroswellSugarbeet Project Awards Banquet.

Rita graduated from Ubly HighSchool in June 2007 with honorsand was ranked seventh in herclass. Rita was very activethroughout her high school years,participating in several sports, theNational Honor Society, andBusiness Professional of Americato name a few. She plans to attendSaginaw Valley State University inthe Fall of 2007, working toward adegree in Crop and Soil Sciences orlandscaping.

The Bayer CropScience YouthScholarship was awarded to CodyKurzer. Cody’s parents areRaymond and Candra Kurzer.Cody graduated from Unionville-Sebewaing Area High School witha 3.753 grade point average. Heplans to attend Michigan StateUniversity to pursue a career inagronomy or chemical engineering.

2007 SCHOLARSHIPAWARDS

3 6 T H E N E W S B E E T

Sara Smith Brittany Armbruster Rita Gentner Cody Kurzer

F A L L 2 0 0 7 3 7

Cody has been involved in manyextracurricular activities in hisschool, church and community. Hehas been a member of FFA forfour years and has participated inthe Sugarbeet Project for nine years,winning both Premier and Prestigeawards. Cody is a member of theNational Honor Society and hasbeen on the High Honor Roll.

Michigan Sugar is proud to honorthese very deserving students andwishes them the best in theirfuture endeavors.

… Samantha Bishop of Avoca.The 2007 Michigan Sugar Queenwas crowned at the 43rd AnnualMichigan Sugar Festival on June 22,2007, at the Sebewaing Village Park.

Samantha will represent thesugarbeet industry as she visitswith public officials, food industryleaders and the general public.Her schedule includes many offi-cial appearances during the year,mostly riding on the Pioneer Sugarfloat in over 20 parades through-out Michigan. Sam is the daughterof Edward and Linda Bishop ofAvoca. Sam graduated from YaleHigh School as Valedictorian in2005 and has been attending St.Clair Community College and willbe transferring to Michigan StateUniversity in the fall to finish herdegree in finance and management.

Lou Tibbits of Bay Shore Camp,emcee for the event, announcedthe winners of the contest. Firstrunner-up, Samantha Runyan, ofHale, and second runner-up, SaraSmith, of Pigeon, will serve as rep-resentatives for the company alongwith Queen Samantha.

Samantha Runyan is the daughterof Glen and Kam Runyan of Hale.She is a recent graduate from HaleHigh School and will be attendingCentral Michigan University whereshe wishes to pursue a businessadministration and managementdegree.

Sara Smith is the daughter ofScott and Nancy Smith of Pigeon.Sara recently graduated fromLaker High School and will contin-ue her education at SaginawValley State University where shewill seek her degree in mathemat-ics and science and begin herpath toward becoming a teacher.

Twenty-two young ladies fromour growing areas competed forthe 2007 Michigan Sugar Queentitle. The judging for this event isheld two weeks prior at Bay Shore

Camp, where the contestants havean opportunity to meet the out-going queen and court, enjoy aluncheon, and are also introducedto the community leaders andcompany personnel.

Layher Jewelers of Sebewainghas been a long-time donator ofthe jeweled crowns presented to thequeen and court. Jackie’s CountryFlowers, also of Sebewaing donatesthe fresh bouquet of flowers pre-sented to the winners. After JohnBalk retired from making the tradi-tional “sugar” crown a few yearsago, Judy Bollstetter, a formersugar queen, committed to mak-ing the “sugar” crown for the queenfor the second year in a row.

As the sole sponsor of theMichigan Sugar Queen event,Michigan Sugar Company providesthe queen with a $2,000 scholar-ship for use at the university ofher choice. The first and secondrunners-up will each be awardeda $1,000 scholarship. Applicationsfor the 2008 contest will be avail-able in January on our website(www.michigansugar.com).

THESWEETESTGIRL IN THEWORLD IS…

Samantha Runyan, Samantha Bishop, and Sara Smith.

3 8 T H E N E W S B E E T

RAMBLINGSray’s DOES IT “MELT AWAY” LIKE ICE CREAM?

By RayVanDriessche,Director ofCommunity &GovernmentRelations

A big ice cream cone on hotday — it doesn’t get much betterthan that! Do I buy a single, dou-ble or go all the way and get atriple? Ice cream looks and tastesgreat and I have a tendency toorder a triple scoop and often-times it “melts away” before I geta chance to enjoy it all. It is a nat-ural tendency to grab at some-thing that looks appealing andtake all we can get without think-ing about the long-term effects.

It is easy to get caught up in thesame mentality when it comes tomaking cropping decisions, espe-cially when we see an upswing inthe market of a particular com-modity. It only makes sense tolock in a good price for our cropsand make some minor adjust-ments in our rotation when theopportunity is knocking on ourdoor; however, making extremecrop rotation swings could haveshort-term appeal and long-termdisadvantages. On our farm, Dadalways told my brother and I overthe years not to chase after or getin and out of crops based on“roller coaster markets.” We haveseen neighbors get in and out ofcertain crops, sell equipment relat-ed to one crop, and spend a tonof money on machinery for a dif-ferent crop, only to have the highmarket “melt away.” Throw in amix of bad weather conditions like

we have experienced this summerand many times, the financialstrength of the farming operationhas deteriorated to the pointwhere it takes years to recover —and that is if they are luckyenough to survive at all.

Just as weather unpredictabilitycan have a devastating impact onour ability to survive, commoditymarket price volatility can be justas devastating. The June/July 2007futures markets are a perfectexample. On June 15, corn hit$4.25 a bushel and 25 market-trading days later on July 23, theprice had dropped .9875 cents.Soybeans saw a similar trend witha drop of $1.01 in a ten-day peri-od in July. A number of factors arespurring this volatility. One majorconcern within the biofuels indus-try is that the infrastructure is notin place to distribute the billionsof gallons of ethanol andbiodiesel from plants currentlyproducing and those that are pro-jected to be completed within thenext year.

With the biofuels industrybeginning to mature, we oftenhear about the legitimate concernfor an adequate supply of a “feed-stock” to make the venture prof-itable and reliable. Sugarbeets arethe “feedstock” for our MichiganSugar Company factories and therecord tonnages we enjoyed fromthe 2006 crop allowed our coop-erative to maximize factory“throughput” and efficiencies,resulting in a beet payment pro-jected to exceed $40/ton. Theweather played a role in reachingthe record tonnage of 2006, butthe key is “total acres planted.”

Planting our full acreage allows forthe potential of record tonnageseach and every year.

The key element to any success-ful business is decisions based onlong-term, predictable streams ofincome incorporated with minoradjustments when opportunitiesarise. Past history has shown thatsugarbeets have been the founda-tion upon which many of us havebuilt our farming operation.Sugarbeets have been “the mort-gage payer” for many farmingoperations. This proven trackrecord is the reason lending insti-tutions have been known to basethe size of operating loans onhow many acres of sugarbeetswere projected to be in a grower’srotation. With market priceincreases for other commoditiessuch as corn, soybeans andwheat, the temptation is there tothink “short term” and forget thatsugarbeets are the crop that makesthe cash flow for most farms inthe area, year in and year out. It istempting to “order that extra scoopof ice cream” or plant an extra 40acres of corn; however, if we dothat, our investment in the Co-opmay “melt away” before we canenjoy it.

WE’RE GROWING YOUR FUTURE!

A B R A N D O F S Y N G E N T A

1-800-331-4305

Hilleshög is ready for Michigan Sugar’s RoundupReady® Sugarbeet launch in 2008. Our new boxand new orange-colored seed make it easy toidentify Hilleshög Roundup Ready Sugarbeet seed.

Are you ready? Call Doug Ruppal at 989-691-5100or visit www.hilleshog-us.com to learn more.

THE NEWSBEETFall 2007Michigan Sugar Company2600 S. Euclid Ave.Bay City, MI 48706

Address Service Requested

PRSRT STDUS POSTAGE

PAIDLANSING, MIPERMIT #75

Roundup Ready crops contain genes that confer tolerance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup® agricultural herbicides. Roundup agricultural herbicides will kill crops that are not glyphosate tolerant. Roundup Ready® Sugarbeet is for sale and distribution by authorized Seed Companies or their dealers in the United States and Canada. Any product produced from a Roundup Ready® Sugarbeet crop or seed, including sugar and by-products, may only be used, exported to, processed or sold in countries where necessary regulatory approvals have been granted. It is a violation of national and international law to move material containing biotech traits across boundaries into nations where import is not permitted. Always read and follow pesticide label directions. Roundup®, Roundup Ready®, Roundup WeatherMAX® and Roundup Original MAX® are registered trademarks of Monsanto Company. [28578-sw-8/07]