Beet yields rise, but…
EASTON LODGE
Beet yields rise, but…
THE dry spell in the middle of October coincided well with our plans to lift the first 7ha (17.29 acres) of sugar beet. We have graduated one place in the haulage order this year so have moved harvesting a week forward.
Contractor Nigel Harrison from Wisbech made light work of lifting one-third of our crop on Oct 14 and was off down the road to his next customer within eight hours.
Mountains of Sleaford moved in to load, clean and haul 15 loads to the factory at Newark on Oct 28 and collected the balance of three loads on Nov 1 to leave approximately half a load in the clamp.
The yield of roots looks good with 463.5t of dirty beet delivered off 7ha – 66.2t/ha (26.8t/acre). That compares favourably with this time last year when having lifted 9ha (22.23 acres) we delivered 455.3t of dirty beet – 50.6t/ha (20.5t/acre). To compare this years results with previous seasons is premature since we have not, at the time of going to press, received the weekly beet invoice for all the roots dispatched.
Early indications are that total tares are up by 2% mainly on the back of a tremendous hike upward in top tares to an unheard of 9% – our 10-year average is 6%! The sooner we move to a contract based on whole beet sampling and payment the better.
Sugar percentage is slightly disappointing at 16.2% for the first 15 loads but there is clearly a dilution effect due to the high yield of roots. Last year the first lift was averaging 18.6% and in 1997 and 1996 we averaged 18.0% and 19.4% respectively for first lifts only.
Price, too, is on a downward trend. The interim amount paid for A & B quota this year is £28.80/t – 2% less than last season – and haulage rates have also been reduced by 2.3%. Add to this the increase of 7.8p/t adjusted beet for the Rhizomania Compensation Scheme, and we shall receive £270 less this season for our first delivery, than last year when comparing like with like, or 80p per adjusted tonne of beet.
It is just as well that we are mindful of our variable costs. For the fifth year in succession we have been able to reduce our combined seed, fertiliser and spray costs but there is very little more fat left to trim if we are to continue to do the job properly.
If sugar beet is to remain in the UK arable rotation and we are to maintain our national quota, British Sugar is going to have to come up with some more cash.
I believe that if growers analyse more carefully the hidden costs associated with sugar beet production, the penalties associated with following crops and the effect on soil structure and farm infrastructure, they may well reconsider their decision.
If the partnership between growers and processor, of which we hear so much, is to flourish and move forward, then I would suggest that the attitude from British Sugar must change from one of an arrogant monopoly that does just enough to keep most of us in line, to one of an equal partner with whom the pot is more fairly shared.
I can cite a personal example of the high-handed attitude and pedantic precision metered out by British Sugar.
In September, we were asked to fill in a verification record of pesticides applied to our sugar beet as part of the Crop Data Collection Survey. This duly done I then received a letter with a violation form from the head of agricultural R&D at British Sugar albeit the week after we had lifted one-third of our crop.
It appears we had sprayed the product phenmedipham "more than the allowed number of treatments for that chemical." The citation went on "however, it has not received more than the maximum total dose allowed for the chemical in question."
When investigating further it appears that some phenmedipham products restrict application to just three and the individual maximum dose is 7.5litres/ha and the maximum total dose is 15 litres/ha.
We had applied four applications in legal tank mixes with other products, the maximum single dose applied was 2.5litres/ha and the total used was 7.5litres/ha.
Did this really justify a slap on the wrist? The closing sentence read: "In this instance British Sugar will accept these beet for processing because any residues of the chemical applied are likely to be within the allowed limits."
Being pig producers, we are well used to food safety audits. We are also members of Assured British Meat and the Assured Combinable Crops Scheme. In short, we are professionals in the business of food production.
What we did was in line with the principles of integrated crop management philosophy; good husbandry, environmental safety, food safety and sound commercial practice. Who needs partners who disagree with that? *
Wisbech-based contractor Nigel Harrison makes light work of lifting about one-third of our sugar beet crop at Easton Lodge. Although yields look as though they will be better than last year that will not compensate for a 2% reduction in price.