the sugarbeet spring issue - · pdf filestanley svedin 12,204 larry christensen 11,911 nam pa...

s p r i n g i s s U E

THE

SUGARBEET

Spring 2012

S u g a r b e e t N e w S l e t t e r

Agriculture Offices

Mini-Cassia DistrictPaul, Idaho

Twin Falls DistrictTwin Falls, Idaho

Elwyhee DistrictMountain Home, Idaho

Nampa DistrictNampa, Idaho

Nyssa DistrictNyssa, Oregon

Agriculture Research OfficesTwin Falls, Idaho

Technical AdvisorJohn SchorrCorporate Director of Agriculture

EditorDennis SearleAg Services Manager

The Sugarbeet is published by The Amalgamated Sugar Company. The magazine is prepared by the Agriculture Department to provide growers with up-to-date information on growing and harvesting sugarbeets. The

magazine is also published to help upgrade the standards of the U.S. beet industry by providing a reliable source of information for agronomists, scientists, sugar company personnel, students, and others interested in this vital food crop.

Articles appearing in The Sugarbeet, with the exception of those items credited to other sources, may be quoted or reprinted without permission; however, mention of this publication is requested when material herein is re-printed.

Although every effort is made to ensure that the material is accurate, no responsibility can be assumed for er-rors over which the editor has no control. Mention or illustration of methods, devices, equipment, or commercial products does not constitute an endorsement by the company.

Address all communication to the Editor, The Sugarbeet, P.O. Box 8787, Nampa, ID 83653-8787.

S p r i n g i S S u e 2 0 1 2

1

C O n T E n T S

Mini-Cassia Distric t - 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Nampa Distric t - 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Nyssa Distric t - 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Twin Falls Distric t - 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Elwyhee Distric t - 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Washington Distric t - 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Assisting With Breeding for Resistance to Curly Top . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

40 Year Award: Steve Martineau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

40 Year Award: Doug Maag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Bean Brothers/Wayne And Brian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Herbic ide Combinat ions For Yellow Nut sedge Control in Roundup Ready™ Sugar Beet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Vic’s Challenge 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Disease Notes - Aphanomyces Root Rot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Usage of the Planter Test Stand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Idaho One Plan; Pesticide Applicator Reporting Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Variet y Trials to Determine Tolerance to Powdery Mildew And Aphanomyces Root Rot of Sugar Beet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

RRSB/Aphis/Chain Of Custody Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Vic’s Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Germplasm Release: Tissue Culture-Derived Curly Top-Resistant Genetic Stock . . . . 25

Treasure Valley Pest Aler t Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Determining The Economic Importance Of Damage From Leafminer Flies In Sugar Beet And Evaluating Proposed Action Thresholds In Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28


2

DISTRICT TOP TEN ACRES ERS/ACREShey E Taylor 120.0 12195Bean Brothers 746.0 12131Blaine Evans 170.0 11946

UPPER SNAkE RIVER VALLEY GROWER ASSOCIATIONBlaine Evans 170.0 11946Gehring Agri-Business 1813.0 11477Robert Giesbrecht 206.0 11336

CASSIA COUNTY BEET GROWER ASSOCIATIONShey E Taylor 120.0 12195Bean Brothers 746.0 12131Darrington Farms Inc 742.0 11614

MINIDOkA COUNTY BEET GROWERS ASSOCIATIONBret L Johnson 169.0 11331Steve Neibaur Farms Inc 559.7 11287Justin Hunter & Kevin Koch 243.0 11050

M i n i - C A S S i A D i S T r i C T - 2 0 1 1

TOP TEN PERCENT GROWER RECOGNITION

L I B E RT Y / B L ac k f o oTBlaine Evans 170.0 11946Dean Evans 102.0 11245Rich Lane Farms 262.5 11194

f I N G a L / a B E R D E E N / S p R I N G f I E L DKrown Farms 558.0 11014Robert Geisbrecht 89.0 10891Kendell Farms 499.0 10888

S o U T H p L E a S a N T Va L L E YGehring Agri-Business 684.0 12074Driscoll Brothers 1415.0 11244

N o RT H p L E a S a N T Va L L E YRobert Geisbrecht 117.0 11674Allen Farms 405.0 11297

Bean Brothers Blaine, Braxton, kamyn, kodie, and kayla Evans

Shey Taylor

Justin HunterBret Johnson kevin koch

S p r i n g i S S u e 2 0 1 2

3

S E aG U L L B aY / a M E R I c a N fa L L SGehring Agri-Business 146.0 11255Conrad Isaak 64.1 10485

B E E T V I L L EBrent L Bowen 246.0 11345Bruce R Bowen 40.0 10911

E L c o c kZollinger Dairy 189.0 10907Moo View Cow Palace 531.0 10722

H aT c HShey E Taylor 120.0 12195Darrington Farms Inc 477.0 11469Goldenview Inc 640.0 10919

H o B S o NScott Beck 548.0 10410

I Da H o M ED Jay Harper 102.0 10426

k E N Yo N / G o L D E N Va L L E Y / c R a N N E YBean Brothers 746.0 12131David Beck 1380.0 10417

Ya L EDarrington Farms Inc 265.0 11874Heglar Creek Farms 905.0 11150

a D E L a I D ESteve Neibaur Farms Inc 445.0 11004Dean Stevenson 250.0 10780Michael Telford 214.0 10712

paU L fac To RYBret L Johnson 169.0 11331Max Suhr 175.0 11123William McManus 75.0 10686Double H Ag Inc 392.0 10409Michael Telford 130.0 10388Desert Ridge Farms Inc 80.0 10376

M I N I D o k aAaron Ball Farms Inc 102.0 11282Rodney Stewart 183.3 10535Grant 4-D Farms 1260.1 10286

H Y N E SArnold & Zach Patterson 369.0 11526Triple Ace Inc 153.0 11172Justin Hunter & Kevin Koch 243.0 11050

M a XFive Star Farms Inc 136.0 10907Grant 4-D Farms 1292.0 10166

M E R I D I a NN Bruce Bagnall 103.0 10684Scott Stevenson 118.0 10531Robert and R Erick Stoker 102.0 10357

Shane Darrington Steve Neibaur


4

n A M pA D i S T r i C T - 2 0 1 1

Top Ten Percent Grower Recognition

Bobbi, alli, Sami, & Mitch Bicandi of 24/7 farms

Roger christensenJ.p. Lete

TOP GROWERS - NAMPA DISTRICT ERS/ACREJ. P. Lete 13,44324/7 Farms LLC 12,836Roger Christensen 12,434

NAMPA DISTRICT ERS/ACRE

a M S c o24/7 Farms LLC 12,836Mike Wagner Farms, Inc. 10,782

B ow M o N TJ. P. Lete 13,443Roger Christensen 12,434Stanley Svedin 12,204Larry Christensen 11,911

N a M pa fac To RYLeland Earnest 12,253M & S Farms, Inc. 11,855Ruben Asumendi 11,407

M o R aLayne Thornton 11,807Duane Yamamoto 11,316

M a R S I N GDaniel Church 11,323

N oT U SMike Skogsberg 11,507David Marchbanks 11,187

w I L D E RJason Meyers 12,398

S p r i n g i S S u e 2 0 1 2

5

TOP GROWERS - NYSSA DISTRICT ERS/ACREKip and Pam Cindell 13,954Tuckness Farms, Inc. 13,227Lewman Farms LLC 13,189

TOP GROWERS - NYSSA DISTRICT ERS/ACRE

H o M E Da L EMark and Oliver Schroeder 12,574

B U c k I N G H a MGalen Lee, Sunny Side Farm 11,714Neil Hall 11,080Rick & Robyn Purdum 11,032

N YS S a fac To RYWBH Farms, LLC 12,469Skeen Farms, Inc. 11,616Wettstein Farms, Inc. 11,535Dick Corn 11,181Ronald Detweiler 11,058Van Schulthies 11,057

L a G R a N D EH. L. Wagner and Sons, Inc. 7,825Trico Farms Joint Sugar 7,278

J a M I E S o NY-1 Farms Inc. 11,852Corey Maag 11,561Fred G Heid 11,459

L U S ETuckness Farms, Inc. 13,227Gressley Farms LLC 12,117Iida Farms, Inc. 12,109

a p p L E Va L L E YWinegar Farms, Inc. 11,421Jeff Hyatt 11,186

oV E R S T R E E TKip and Pam Cindell 13,954

pa R M aLewman Farms LLC 13,189Pace & Nielsen Farms, Inc. 12,488

paY E T T EBen Hammelman Farms, Inc. 11,302Cruickshank Farms 11,192Hart Farms, Inc. 10,345

Va L EDaniel Fulleton 12,027Kitamura Farms, Inc. 11,042Koda Farms 10,837Robert Mizuta 10,702

w E I S E RTyler Amano 12,246Weiser River Packing, Inc. 12,060Grant Amano 11,719

n y S S A D i S T r i C T - 2 0 1 1


Dana Tuckness Bim & Linda Lewmankip cindell


6

TOP GROWERS - TWIN FALLS DISTRICT ACRES ERS/ACREM & R Farms, Inc. 168.0 12,756Maurice H. Eckert and Sons 563.9 12,391Star Gate Ranch 177.0 12,082

TWIN FALLS DISTRICT ACRES ERS/ACRE

H I D D E N Va L L E YR-AG, Inc. 524.0 10,594

S c H o D D E Allan Stevenson 943.0 11,534B & L Farms, Inc. 29.0 11,289Paul Tateoka 204.0 11,236

S E N T E RR. M. Robertson Farms, Inc. 484.0 10,929

D I E T R I c H Star Gate Ranch 177.0 12,082

B L ac kAllan Stevenson 117.8 11,477Ken Beem 107.4 11,034Steve Beem 147.5 10,902

S U G a R L oa fLarry A. Walter 51.4 12,043Valley View of Magic Valley, Inc. 829.3 11,205

J E Ro M EJohn, Steve, and Dewitt Marshall 158.3 12,231

k I N GJay Little 207.9 11,695

G o o D I N G Cheney Farms, Inc. 259.4 11,405

p L aT E aUSalmon Falls Land & Livestock 463.0 11,270

M aG I c waT E R M & R Farms, Inc. 168.0 12,756

f I L E RS R C Farms, Inc. 164.9 11,033Roger Blass 311.8 10,821

fac To RY David Patrick 74.0 10,919Bulcher Farms, Inc. 224.0 10,524

M U RTaU G HCraig Giles 929.8 10,623

T w i n F A l l S D i S T r i C T - 2 0 1 1


pat Elkin & Granville Eckert Jeff weberMike Eckert & Ron Elkin

S p r i n g i S S u e 2 0 1 2

7

TOP GROWERS - ELWYHEE DISTRICT ERS/ACRELance Funk Farms 13,406Fowers, Inc. (Bart Fowers) 13,011Jason Meyers 12,229

ELWYHEE DISTRICT ERS/ACRE

B RU N E aUHuey Farms, Inc. 11,202(Blaine, Randy and Travis Hulet)

G L E N N S f E R RYLance Funk Farms 13,406

R E V E R S EBrad Hall 11,119

L I T T L E Va L L E YJason Meyers 11,638Jack Post 11,513

G R a N D V I E wFowers, Inc. (Bart Fowers) 13,011Jason Meyers 12,229Scott Bennett Farms 12,076

M U R p H YHuey Farms, Inc. 10,873(Blaine, Randy and Travis Hulet)

E lw y h E E D i S T r i C T - 2 0 1 1


kevin, Hailee & Jason MeyersLance funk & ken patterson

TOP GROWERS - WASHINGTON DISTRICT ERS/ACREBrent Schulthies Farms, LLC 12,798Brent Hartley Farms, LLC 12,493

wA S h i n g T O n D i S T r i C T - 2 0 1 1


Theron, Brent & Troy HartleyBrent & Elaine Schulthies


8

A S S i S T i n g w i T h B r E E D i n g F O r r E S i S TA n C E T O C u r ly T O p

Alexander karasev

Associate Professor, Plant Virology, University of Idaho

Curly top of sugarbeet is caused by one of three Curto-virus (CTV) species., The virus is transmitted by the beet leafhopper common in the desert areas of Idaho, and other western states. Upon CTV inoculation, susceptible lines of sugarbeet start displaying growth retardation, yel-lowing, leaf distortion, and often death if infection occurs early in the season. The disease may completely wipe out the crop if no resistance is present in sugarbeet plants. Although substantial advances had been made by USDA-ARS in breeding for CTV resistance, there is still only par-tial resistance to CTV in sugarbeet cultivars. So far, CTV remains one of the main threats to the sugarbeet produc-tion in semi-arid areas of the western U.S., and constant efforts to improve resistance to CTV are necessary.

One of the difficulties in breeding for resistance to CTV is the diversity of the virus itself. CTV exists as a complex of several related but distinct virus strains that differ in host range specificities and pathogenicity in sugarbeet. At least three different viruses belong to the CTV complex, named “common”, “mild”, and “severe” CTV. Beet Sugar Development Foundation maintains a nursery for beet leafhoppers carrying a diverse population of all CTV strains found in Idaho – specifically to test for resistance in all sugarbeet lines released in the U.S. This insectory in Twin Falls, ID is a valuable tool for screening sugarbeet germplasm. However, it is difficult to study resistance

genes, inheritance of CTV resistance, and segregation of progeny populations with this beet leafhopper colony, due to mixed infections maintained in the nursery. On the other hand, it is quite difficult to separate all the individual viruses present in these mixtures.

The Virology Laboratory at the main campus of the University of Idaho in Moscow, ID, addressed this issue through the use of genetic engineering and biotechnol-ogy. This project is currently funded by the Idaho Sug-arbeet Industry. One of the CTV strains, so-called ordi-nary Beet curly top virus-Logan, was subjected to the laboratory cloning, and an artificial full-length infectious copy of this virus was built in the lab. Using this infectious copy, we initiated a study of CTV resistance in sugarbeet with collaborators from USDA-ARS in Kimberly, ID, Drs. Carl Strausbaugh and Imad Eujayl. With this uniform, fully controlled CTV genome, a wide range of experiments is being conducted, focused on the nature of the CTV re-sistance genes, their segregation, and possible pyramiding. This research is aided by the set of CTV detection tools developed in 2009-2010 in the UI Virology Lab, funded through the Idaho Sugarbeet Industry. This is the first, but important step in elucidating the nature of CTV resis-tance in sugarbeet, a step that will help in breeding for CTV resistance and providing the industry with new, pro-ductive germplasm.

S p r i n g i S S u e 2 0 1 2

9

4 0 y E A r AwA r D : S T E V E M A r T i n E A u

4 0 y E A r AwA r D : D O u g M A A g

My experience of growing sug-arbeets officially began in 1969, the year following my gradua-tion from high school. It was a 30 acre field on some rented ground about 6 miles from my dad’s farms. Prior to that year, as a young kid, I was always out in the beet fields at har-vest time riding with my dad or chasing seagulls across the fields. Other than one year in the late 70’s when I only had 7 acres, I have steadily increased my acreage up to the present 170+ acres. As with all the other 40 year recipients, the machin-ery has changed from 2 row, three row and 4 row harvesters to the present day 6 row harvesters. Presently, my son Eddy and I operate two 6 row harvesters, along with grandson Tyler who is four and sits in the buddy seats keeping dad and poppa in line.

I’m sure most of you pulled a few trucks through the muddy

fields this year as we did and thought it was terrible. But I re-member years back when we were out in the fields at 3:00 in the morning, pushing the two row Gemco harvester and push-ing and pulling the trucks all at the same time. Now that was an orchestrated effort that always ended with some very tense moments.

But my greatest reward for being a sugarbeet grower for the past 40+ years has been the experiences I have had by being a Nyssa-Nampa beet growers director. Since becoming a director in 1990 1 have helped make decisions that has kept our Asso-ciation strong and was also appointed to the ASGA board and served on that board for 11 years. The memories of seeing us buy the Amalgamated Sugar Company, helping to write farmbill legislation and lobbying for the importance of a strong sugar industry has made my 40 years as a grower something that will be with me forever. The friendships and memories my wife Vicki and I have enjoyed with the Nyssa-Nampa and the ASGA board members has been very special also.

So this plaque will be very special to me in many ways. Thank you.

It is my pleasure and hon-or today to present this 40 year grower award to my dad, Doug Maag. It was only a few years ago, my dad was up here present-ing this award to his dad, Warner Maag and broth-ers, the late Emil and the late Benny Maag. Raising sugar beets has present-ed-our family many op-portunities, challenges, memorable stories, and a crop that returns a consistent profit to our farming operation.

My dad farmed with my grandpa, Warner Maag, in the early 1970’s raising sugar beets for Amalgamated Sugar

Company. My dad started taking over the family opera-tion during this time. My mother, Terrie Maag, remem-bers that one of the first beet crops they raised after my grandpa retired returned enough money to buy a 4430 John Deere tractor and a 3 bottom spinner plow. She was quick to note, the profit from this crop was not enough to buy a tractor with a cab. We currently still have this trac-tor on our farm. My dad’s memory from that crop was that mom was one of the best weeders he had ever seen. He said she really didn’t like Nightshade though.

Many of you know how times have changed from one generation to the next in how we grow sugar beets and how things have changed in the overall sugar beet indus-try. I’ve listened to many of my dad’s and grandpa’s stories and I can say they did some things we don’t do now. Some of Doug’s significant changes that he remembers are the following:

Steve Martineau


10

1. Seed improvement and being able to plant to stand.

2. Growers, deciding to purchase Amalgamated Sugar Company and form a grower owned cooperative.

3. Round Up ready sugar beets.

Doug has served on the Nyssa/Nampa beet growers from 1993 until 1999. At that time he joined the Snake

River Sugar Company Board of Directors and is currently still on the board.

At this time, I’d like to have two people step forward who have been my best teachers and role models in the entire world, Doug and Terrie Maag. It is my honor to present you with this award because you both have been a great team and would not of achieved what you have without each other. I’m very proud of you.

Wayne and Brian Bean who farm together under the name

Bean Brothers know what it is like to get into farming early on.

They both grew up working on a farm south of Burley watch-

ing and learning how to raise crops. Wayne and Brian both

got their start with beets as an FFA project years ago. The

brothers continued up through the FFA program, as both of

them received their American Farmer Degrees with FFA, with

Wayne being the first to receive the degree in the Burley area.

In 1991 Wayne and Brian started farming together for a living.

They remember going out and renting their own ground from

some neighbors, going to the bank to get their own operating

loan, and then going to work. Since then, they currently raise

750 acres of sugar beets along with another 2,250 acres of dry

beans, wheat, and alfalfa. Along with the farm, they own and

operate a trucking company. They run semi trucks all year long

hauling commodities such as potatoes, onions, grains, feed, and

any other commodity they can. They operate mainly in 12 west-

ern states. Wayne and Brian’s roles on the farm differ a little bit,

but they seem to have a good working balance. Wayne does

most of the business side with the finances, and Brian handles

most of the machinery, shop work, etc. I know that sometimes

that is a gray area because I have seen both of them either in

a truck or tractor many times. They mentioned that during the

growing season they have very good hired help that work for

them and that helps makes things run more smoothly. As far as

beet seed goes, they try to use a good mix of seed companies

and varieties each year and make notes on how those varieties

performed to have a seed history. Last year they also did an in

furrow starter fertilizer test to try and see the advantages and

or disadvantages of working with starter fertilizers at planting

time. They said the results were “mixed.” In the winter, Wayne

and Brian both enjoy snowmobiling and claim that they have

not been out riding near as much as they would of liked to

thus far, but there is still time. The Bean Brothers have recently

given their time and equipment to Amalgamated with some

GPS work on a receiving station and have always been more

than willing to help when asked. Wayne and Brian have always

been good to work with and I suspect that in the future they

will continue to raise very good sugar beet crops.

B E A n B r O T h E r S / wAy n E A n D B r i A n

By Donovan Hartly

S p r i n g i S S u e 2 0 1 2

11

h E r B i C i D E C O M B i n AT i O n S F O r y E l l O w n u T S E D g E C O n T r O l i n r O u n D u p r E A D y ™ S u g A r B E E T

Joel Felix Oregon State University

Malheur Experiment Station 595 Onion Ave, Ontario, OR 97914

Weed control is an important component of sugar beet production. Weeds present a major production concern for sugar beet growers because they often reduce root yield, quality, and may possibly serve as alternative hosts for other crop pests. Large weeds can also reduce air cir-culation around sugar beet plants, increasing the risk of fo-liar diseases. In eastern Oregon and southwestern Idaho, a region known as the Treasure Valley, furrow irrigation and warm growing conditions often provide ideal conditions for weed growth. One of the most problematic weeds in many Treasure Valley fields is yellow nutsedge.

Populations of yellow nutsedge can expand and contract in individual fields based on a variety of environmental and management factors. However, given its perennial nature, yellow nutsedge remains a problem once it produces ma-ture tubers in a field. Research has found that the con-trol of yellow nutsedge is difficult because reproduction is mainly by underground vegetative propagules (rhizomes and tubers). Tubers can persist for 3 to 5 years. Importantly, research results indicate that farming operations were the main cause of yellow nutsedge dispersal in fields. Tuber ad-herence to field machinery during cultivation operations is a significant factor in the distribution of yellow nutsedge in infested fields. There are some important techniques that growers could practice to minimize the spread of yellow nutsedge; (1) plan tillage activities such that infested fields are plowed last, (2) clean field equipment (especially af-ter infested fields), and (3) physical removal of newly es-tablished nutsedge plants in otherwise noninfested fields. Timely application of effective herbicides is critical in the management of yellow nutsedge. It is imperative that weed control programs in every crop grown in a rotation include products that provide effective control of yellow nutsedge.

Field studies were conducted in 2011 at the Malheur Ex-periment Station, Ontario, OR to evaluate different herbi-cide combinations and application timings for yellow nut-

sedge control in Roundup Ready™ sugar beet. The study area was plowed during the preceding fall in a field previ-ously planted to onion. On April 20, 2011, Roundup Ready hybrid ‘27RR20’ was planted at 5-inch spacing within the row on 22-inch wide beds. Crop fertilization, insecticides, and fungicides were applied according to local production practices. Sugar beets were furrow irrigated starting on May 7 and received regular irrigations to maintain adequate moisture in the top 12 inches of the soil profile. The evalu-ated herbicide treatments are presented in Figure 1. The pre-emergence treatments that included Nortron® at 16 or 32 fl oz/acre (ethofumesate 0.5 or 1 lb ai/acre) were ap-plied on April 27, while post-emergence treatments were applied on May 21 and June 4 when sugar beet plants were at the 2-leaf and 4-leaf stage, respectively. Plots were evalu-ated for early season weed control on July 6 and late sea-son control on September 8, 2011 based on 0% = no con-trol and 100% = complete weed control. Sugar beet roots were harvested on October 16 and samples transported to the factory for sucrose analysis.

All herbicide treatments provided complete control of common lambsquarters, redroot pigweed, and kochia on July 6 and September 8, 2011. Barnyardgrass was com-pletely controlled on July 6, while late season control var-ied from 90 to 100% across treatments (data not shown). Control for yellow nutsedge varied among herbicide treat-ments (Figure 1). Post-emergence sequential application of Roundup alone at 22 or 32 fl oz/acre (glyphosate 0.77 or 1.13 lb ae/acre) when sugar beet were at the 2-leaf and 4-leaf stages provided 73 to 80% yellow nutsedge control. Yellow nutsedge control improved to 81 and 84% when Nortron at 16 or 32 fl oz/acre was applied prior to sugar beet emergence and followed by the post-emergence ap-plication of Roundup at 22 fl oz/acre when sugar beets were at the 2-leaf and 4-leaf stages. Sequential application of Roundup at 22 or 32 fl oz/acre tankmixed with Dual Magnum 1.33 pt/acre (S-metolachlor 1.27 lb ai/acre) or


12

Outlook 21 fl oz/acre (dimethenamid-p 0.98 lb ai/acre) provided the best yellow nutsedge control at 98%. Late season yellow nutsedge control on September 8 ranged from 70 to 98% across herbicide treatments, with Roundup alone at 22 or 32 fl oz/acre providing the lowest control.

The root yield was similar across herbicide treatments, ranging from 45 to 49 tons/acre compared to only 5.3

tons/acre for the nontreated control. The sugar content ranged from 16.6 to 17.3% across the herbicide treatments compared to 15.7% for the nontreated control. The results suggested that tank mixing Roundup with Dual Magnum or Outlook at the 2-leaf and 4-leaf stages could provide effec-tive yellow nutsedge control in furrow-irrigated sugar beet compared to Roundup alone.

figure 1. Yellow nutsedge control in Roundup Ready™ sugar beet on July 6 and September 8, 2011 with differ-ent herbicide treatments at the Malheur Experiment Station, ontario, oR. Nortron was applied prior to sugar beet emergence, while Roundup® alone or in combination with Dual Magnum® or outlook® treatments were applied when sugar beet were at the 2-leaf and 4-leaf stages.

S p r i n g i S S u e 2 0 1 2

13

The purpose of this years Vic’s Challenge was to show how a good stand of sugar beets could increase the grower’s profit.

A grower was picked that had a previous five year av-erage of 108 beets per 100 feet of row and an average ERS of 10,080 pounds per acre.

The char t shows the stand count vs ERS per acre. This is all the sugar beet fields that were contracted to the Nampa factory. As the stand counts increased usually the ERS per acre increased.

The grower had a twelve row monosem air planter, which he planted a four inch seed spacing on twenty-two inch rows. The grower normally thinned with a hand crew, but this year he decided to stay with his

original stands. He planted Beta 27RR10 which is a high tonnage but normally a low sugar on April 15, 2011.

It was decided that the center bed or dry row would be irrigated on the furrow irrigated fields. The first ir-rigations in May and June were irrigated in the wheel rows. The next irrigations were in the center rows of the bed on July 22nd and August 19th In September we changed back to the wheel row. The last irrigation was on September 15th.

Six pounds of nitrogen per historical ton of beets was used to calculate his total nitrogen requirements based on the sugar company’s soil test.

We also took a one-inch soil test on July 15th in the

V i C ’ S C h A l l E n g E 2 0 1 1

By Bob Huffaker, Senior Agriculturist


14

wheel row, which was 4 ppm-N and in the center row it was 25 ppm-N. We took another one-inch soil test on September 10. The wheel row was 5 ppm-N and the center row 4 ppm-N. We brought the center row nitrates down, so if it rained in the fall we shouldn’t lose our sugar.

We had two fields that we irrigated the center rows on. The first field was an 18.7 acre field that went 43.3 tons per acre with an average sugar content of 15.89 and a total ERS per acre of 11,767 pounds of sugar per acre. The stand count was 189 beets per 100 feet.

The other field was a 5 acre field that went 49.5 tons per acre with a 15.97 average sugar content and 13,407 ERS per acre. The stand count was 184 beets per 100 feet.

We were disappointed in the sugar content, but very impressed by the high tonnage. We recognize that we planted a high tonnage and low sugar variety.

It is evident that these higher stand counts of 184 and 189 had a better total ERS per acre compared to the grower’s five year average of 108 beets per 100 feet and 10,080 pounds of ERS per acre.

S p r i n g i S S u e 2 0 1 2

15

Extremely wet and cool weather conditions early in 2011, changing to wet and warmer conditions in the later spring, favored and increased the occurrence of Aphano-myces damping-off (early season infection, acute phase) and Aphanomyces root rot (ARR, late season infection, chronic phase), both caused by Aphanomyces cochlioides. This soil-borne pathogen is ubiquitous in Idaho soils and can cause yield losses ranging from 1% to >90%. In ad-dition to losses in the field, Aphanomyces infected beets show an increase in respiration resulting in a reduction of extractable sucrose during storage.

ARR can be found in soils ranging from pH 6.5-7.4. Cer-tain soil textures (especially in light to medium and or-ganic soils), warmer temperatures (60-86 °F), and water management issues (over irrigation, poorly drained soils, and areas with frequent standing water) can increase the occurrence and severity of ARR.

Aphanomyces damping-off

Early infection with Aphanomyces will result in seedlings damping-off, which can lead to severe stand losses as well as serve as a precursor for late season infection of beets that were not killed by damping-off. Symptoms of seed-lings damping-off can be observed as lesions formed on hypocotyls (Figure 1) near the soil surface. These lesions appear brown and water-soaked and extend up the stem towards the cotyledons. When the disease progresses, the infected stem and roots will turn black and eventually shrivel up to a slender thread (Figure 2). Damaged plants will remain turgid and only wilt at an advanced stage (Fig-ure 2).

Control of Aphanomyces damping-off is only possible by means of seed treatments with Tachigaren 70WP (active ingredient hymexazol) and cultural practices promoting disease escape (early planting in cool soils, promoting healthy seedlings and vigorous growth) and drier soils (proper irrigation, promoting soil drainage, and control-ling soil compaction).

It is necessary to keep in mind that most seed treatments

only provide protection for 3-4 weeks and that unfavor-able environmental conditions may delay emergence and aid in the breakdown of the pesticide.

Aphanomyces root rot

Healthy plants or plants which survived an early season infection with Aphanomyces damping-off can face ARR, also called late or chronic phase, which will occur later in the season (June to harvest). This infection can either cause superficial scarring (Figure 3) or in severe cases deep scars and girdling of the beet (Figure 4).

In the field, diagnosis of infected beets relies on foliar as well as root symptoms, and both need to be employed at the same time to avoid confusion with other soil borne pathogens such as Rhizoctonia root rot. Foliar symp-

D i S E A S E n O T E S - A p h A n O M y C E S r O O T r O T

Oliver T . Neher 1, Bill Wahlert 2,

1 University of Idaho, kimberly Research & Extension Center, 2 The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC

figure 1: Seedlings damping-off caused by aphanomyces cochlioides can be observed as water-soaked lesions formed on hypocotyls which will extend up the cotyle-dons.

figure 2:


16

toms include yellowing of the lower foliage and plants with stunted growth. Infected plants may wilt on hot and sunny days (Figure 5), but will recover overnight or during cool and cloudy days. Plants should not be evaluated for moisture stress in the afternoon, since foliar ARR symp-toms resemble symptoms of drought or heat stress. If misdiagnosed for drought stress and additional irrigation is prescribed, the severity of ARR could increase because

of additional/excessive moisture in the ground. In gen-eral, foliar symptoms, including wilting and yellowing, are very common with soil borne pathogens, and an accurate identification has to be based on additional characteristics such as root symptoms. Root symptoms for ARR vary by plant age. Young plants may show superficial lesions which will result in stunting of the root and the development

figure 3: Late season infection with aphanomyces cochlioides can cause superficial scarring of sugar beet roots.

figure 4: Sugar beet roots infected with aphanomyces cochlioides can show symptoms of deep scars and girdling.

figure 5: Infected sugar beet plants may wilt on hot and sunny days, but will recover overnight or during cool and cloudy days.

figure 6: Deep scars and girdling can lead to additional losses during defoliation when sugar beet plants in-fected with aphanomyces cochlioides will break and be knocked into furrows.

figure 7: Scarring on the surface of sugar beet roots caused by aphanomyces cochlioides will be superficial and can be scraped off with a knife or fingernail.

S p r i n g i S S u e 2 0 1 2

17

of excess lateral roots (similar to Rhizomania). In severe or advanced cases, the root tip might be rotten, resulting in tasseling of the vascular tissue. Older plants will show scarring ranging from superficial (Figure 3) to deep scars and girdling of the root (Figure 4). Deep scars and gir-dling can lead to additional losses during defoliation when infected beets will break and be knocked into furrows (Figure 6). These beets are not likely to be picked up by the harvester. Lesions on the beet surface will appear water-soaked, or tan-yellow color, and will change to a light-medium brown color with age. Older lesions might be confused with symptoms caused by Rhizoctonia solani, but the main difference between ARR and Rhizoctonia crown and root rot is the depth of the infection. Scarring caused by ARR will be superficial and can be scraped off with a knife or fingernail (Figure 7), whereas infections with R. solani penetrate deep into the tissue (Figure 8).

Control measures for ARR include seed treatments with Tachigaren WP 70 to prevent early infection and the use of partially resistant varieties. In addition to the earlier mentioned cultural practices, producers saw a beneficial effect of spend lime applications. Spend lime is able to increase soil pH, but also to supply micro/macro-nutri-ents which can increase plant health and stimulate other beneficial soil microbes. But most importantly, irrigation practices need to be monitored to avoid over irrigation, and in case of an infection with ARR, irrigation needs to be reduced to avoid a further increase of severity.

figure 8: characteristic infection symptoms of Rhizoc-tonia crown and root rot. Infection penetrates deep into the sugar beet root tissue.


18

Establishing an optimal plant population is a critical agron-omy practice leading to profitable sugar beet production. Proper operation of a well maintained and cared for plant-er is essential to effective stand establishment . Growers must give careful attention to details of planter mainte-nance and storage if they expect it to operate properly. Planters are precision tools….treat them as such.

For every missed seed when you’re planting – every skip – subtract one plant from your harvest. Do that 5% of the time and you’ve lost 5% of your yield.

Every time you plant two seeds at once – every double – you’ve just wasted one valuable seed, and neither plant is likely to be as productive as it can be. It adds to expense and subtracts from your wallet. That’s what makes plant-ing a single seed , right where it belongs, every time – so important . That’s why you need to calibrate your plant-ers annually to your spacing , your speed, your seeds. It

minimizes the skips and doubles and thus restores yields and profit.

What should be done to planters

• Numbereachseedingunit

• Numbereachplateforeachunit

• Numbereachdoorforeachunit

• Markpositionofeachplatewhen installedonseedunit

• Make sure knocker wheels are installed not wiperbars

Off season storage

• Clean planter with high pressure air or pressurewasher or both

• Remove plates and store on a wood dowel hunghorizontally

u S A g E O F T h E p l A n T E r T E S T S TA n D

George SchroederPhotos by Howard Binford

S p r i n g i S S u e 2 0 1 2

19

• Remove seedplatedoors–donot stackon topofeach other

• Mouse proof seed hoppers and tubes (fabric soft-ener sheets in seed hoppers)

• Keeptrackofacresseededeveryyear

Following these steps should eliminate nearly all warped plates, damaged doors and hinges, or ruined gaskets.

These procedures will extend life of the planter and seeding mechanism and maintain optimum stand estab-lishment.

So don’t miss out, take advantage of the planter test stand in your area. Call your consultant and set up an appoint-ment to have your planter units checked, and put more dollars in your pocket .

Over the past couple of years, a collaborative team consisting of employees from UI CALS, USDA-NRCS and Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts secured substantial grant funding and developed an on-line pesticide applicator repor ting program that is par t of the Idaho One Plan. The idea for this project origi-nated at a crops advisory meeting in Canyon County a few years ago. The web address is http://oneplan.org/par.

Oneplan PAR is an easy way to keep required pesti-cide application records. Since One plan PAR is on the Oneplan website it is secured by Idaho Code 22-2718 which states “ The information provided by those us-ing the “Idaho One Plan” shall be deemed to be trade secrets, production records or other proprietary in-formation and shall be kept confidential and shall be exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 9-340D, Idaho Code.” There is no cost to use One plan PAR.

Records kept with One plan PAR meet the require-ments of the US EPA Worker Protection Standard and the Idaho State Depar tment of Agriculture. For 2012, a new feature meeting the new US EPA soil fumiga-tion recording keeping requirements was added. Also new for 2012, is the mapping program that now uses Google Ear th. As a result, the maps are higher quality and using Google Ear th make the program usable for any location.

An evaluation of the 2011 website use was recently

conducted. Some of the results are shown below:

Users were asked, “Was the OnePlan.org/PAR comput-erized pesticide record keeping program useful to you or your organization this year?” 100% said “yes”

Users were asked, “On a scale of 1 to 4, how useful was the record keeping program?” 78% said “Useful” or “Very Useful”

Users were asked, “Which statement(s) below best reflect(s) your view of OnePlan.org/PAR? (you may se-lect more than one response)”

• I increased my compliance with state and federalpesticide record keeping laws. 93%

• Iwasbetterabletokeeptrackofpesticideapplica-tions by field and/or crop. 50%

• IwasmoreconfidentinmyabilitytosupplyWorkerProtection (WPS) information to my employees. 57%

• WouldyourecommendtheOnePlanPARtoacol-league? 100 % said “yes”

Starting in late 2009, numerous presentations were made to industry groups by project collaborators to promote use of the website. The first year the software was available for use by the public was 2010. Currently there are slightly over 250 users.

i D A h O O n E p l A n ; p E S T i C i D E A p p l i C AT O r r E p O r T i n g p r O g r A M

Jerry Neufeld


20

areas in the western part of the TaSco growing region, including eastern oregon and part of eastern washing-ton, face problems with powdery mildew (pM) and apha-nomyces root rot (aRR). To overcome these problems, growers rely on fungicides applications, including foliar sprays, for the control of pM and seed treatments to con-trol aphanomyces damping-off. The only tools growers have to control aRR are the application of spend lime and the use of tolerant varieties, since aRR cannot be controlled by means of seed treatments or foliar applied fungicides. The use of tolerant varieties can help to delay disease onset and the spread of the disease and there-fore reduce overall disease severity. In addition, tolerant varieties could potentially help to reduce fungicide ap-plications, or under low disease pressure eliminate them completely. Little is known about varietal performance under Idaho disease pressure; because of that, variety tri-als with commercial sugar beet varieties were conducted to test their performance in western Idaho and oregon.

Powdery mildew variety trial

Late disease onset in 2011 allowed for only one, final rat-ing on September 08. Nevertheless, this rating provided enough statistical separation based on the calculated per-cent mature leaf area diseased (%MLaD, Table 1, figure 1) and yield parameter. percent MLaD was based on the assessment of pM severity using a 0-5 rating scale, where 0=0%, 1=1-10%, 2=11-35%, 3=36-65%, 4=66-90%, 5=91-100%. percent MLaD ranged from nearly 80% (BTS 28RRR4N) to as low as 31% (HM925 RR). No cor-relation could be observed between low ratings associ-ated with %MLaD and an increase in yield parameters. The nematode resistant variety BTS 28RR4N had the highest %MLaD, indicating a low tolerance for powdery mildew, but was still one of the highest yielding varieties with 12037 lbs ERS/a. In comparison, HM 9295RR, which had the lowest %MLaD, also had the lowest ERS of all tested varieties (9773 lbs/a). The specialty variety HM pM9172RR, entered as a pM tolerant variety, performed

as expected and showed the second lowest %MLaD of all tested varieties.

It is known that tolerant varieties might exhibit a certain yield drag under low or no disease conditions, but their usage can still be justified in years with high disease se-verity. as mentioned earlier, 2011 was a low disease year with late disease onset, and tolerant varieties were not able to perform to their full potential. Nevertheless, it is encouraged to use tolerant varieties, or at least moder-ately tolerant varieties, in combination with one or two fungicide applications in areas with high pM pressure.

Aphanomyces root rot variety trial

In 2011, aphanomyces root rot pressure was uniform throughout the study area, and disease severity was suf-ficient to observe varietal separation for disease severity ratings and yield parameters. Ratings were based on a 0-7 scale, where 0=no visible disease and 7=root com-pletely dead. all tested varieties showed significantly less disease symptoms and higher yields when compared to the susceptible standard variety (Table 2). SX Usher RR and BTS 66RR70 had the numerically lowest disease rat-ings with SX Usher RR having the highest yield with 8422 lbs ERS/a.

V A r i E T y T r i A l S T O D E T E r M i n E T O l E r A n C E T O p O w D E r y M i l D E w A n D A p h A n O M y C E S r O O T r O T O F S u g A r B E E T

Oliver T . Neher1, Bill Wahlert2, David Elison2, Greg Dean2, Dennis Searle2

1 . University of Idaho, kimberly Research & Extension Center, kimberly, ID; 2 . The Amalgamated Sugar Company, LLC, Boise, ID .

figure 1: Varietal effects on powdery mildew symptoms. Left: susceptible variety; right: tolerant variety.

S p r i n g i S S u e 2 0 1 2

21

Table 1: Varietal performance during 2011 powdery mildew variety trial conducted at the University of Idaho South-west Idaho Research and Extension center parma, ID.

cultivar z %MLaD y clean yield (t/a) % Sugar ERS x

(lb/a)BTS 20RR15 45.24 g-j w 46.63 a 14.9 hi 12315 aBTS 26RR14 45.93 f-j 44.37 ab 14.8 i 11630 a-gBTS 28RR24 46.69 e-j 42.72 b-e 15.9 ab 12012 a-dBTS 28RR04 62.29 b-e 43.99 a-c 15.1 g-i 11642 a-fBTS 20RR28 64.44 a-d 40.87 c-h 15.4 d-g 11142 b-lBTS 29RR3N 66.06 a-c 42.47 b-e 15.7 a-e 11875 a-eBTS 27RR20 67.45 a-c 39.01 f-i 16.1 a 11216 b-lBTS 27RR10 67.57 a-c 44.25 ab 14.9 hi 11431 a-iBTS 28RR4N 79.44 a 41.42 b-g 16.2 a 12037 a-ccrystal RR922 53.19 c-g 43.35 a-d 14.9 hi 11117 c-lcrystal RR933 53.94 c-g 44.29 ab 15.3 f-h 10297 k-ncrystal RR929 54.22 c-g 36.63 i 16.1 a 10480 j-ncrystal RR835 61.18 b-g 41.79 b-f 16.1 a 10694 g-ncrystal RR989 65.66 a-c 41.90 b-f 15.2 f-i 10963 e-mcrystal RR892 74.00 ab 40.68 d-h 16.1 a 10254 l-ncrystal RR047 76.17 ab 41.33 b-g 15.1 g-i 11406 a-jHH SV36901 32.48 j 40.48 d-h 15.8 a-c 11086 d-lHH SV36005 39.07 h-j 38.40 g-i 15.9 a-c 11555 a-hHH SV36803 43.06 h-j 36.52 i 15.4 e-g 11808 a-fHH SV36602 43.52 h-j 35.84 i 15.5 b-f 11423 a-iHH SV36004 48.77 d-i 37.74 hi 15.8 a-e 12020 a-dHH SV36902 54.12 c-g 41.98 b-f 16.0 a 10648 h-nHH SV36603 61.79 b-f 42.53 b-e 15.6 b-f 10594 i-nHM 9295RR 31.02 j 40.22 d-h 15.3 f-h 9773 nHM pM9172RR 32.08 j 38.19 g-i 15.4 e-g 11379 a-jHM Rp9120RR 35.76 ij 37.99 hi 15.5 b-g 12077 abHM 9294RR 60.20 b-g 37.86 hi 15.4 c-g 11717 a-fHM 9036RR 68.47 a-c 43.21 b-e 14.8 i 10885 f-mHM 9047RR 73.23 ab 40.02 e-h 15.1 g-i 9828 nSX 1502RR 49.38 d-i 36.11 i 15.8 a-d 10087 mnLSD (p 0.05) v 16.13 3.30 0.4 936pr>f <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

z Plots were planted on 27 Apr 11 and established on 8 Jun 11. For more information on cultivars contact the respective companies: BTS = Betaseed, Crystal = ACH Seeds Inc., HH = Holly Hybrids, HM = Hilleshog, SX = Seedex.

y %MLAD = diseased mature leaf area in percent, calculated based on powdery mildew infection rated by using a 0-5 rating scale, where 0 = 0%, 1 = 1-10%, 2 = 11-35%, 3 = 36-65%, 4 = 66-90%, and 5 = 91-100% of leaf area covered by powdery mildew.

x ERS = estimated recoverable sucrose.w Treatment means followed by the same letter are not significantly different from each other (fisher’s protected LSD P 0.05).v LSD = fisher’s protected least significant different value. pr > f was the probability associated with the f value.


22

Table 2: Varietal performance during 2011 aphanomyces root rot variety trial conducted near La Grande, oR.

cultivar z Severity Rating y

% Stand reduction

clean Yield (t/a) % Sugar ERS x

(lb/a)

BTS ID-2……....susceptible………..... 5.13 a w 60.4 a 13.38 g 16.8 a 3871 f

crystal RR892……..………………… 4.00 b 43.8 cd 24.13 d-f 16.0 b-d 7067 b-e

crystal RR989……..……………….... 4.00 b 25.0 ef 25.61 b-f 15.9 c-e 6805 c-e

BTS ID-3…….…moderately tolerant 3.69 bc 45.0 b-d 26.27 a-f 16.6 ab 7447 a-d

crystal RR876……..………….…….. 3.63 b-d 16.7 f 30.16 a 15.7 de 8213 ab

HM 9047RR………………………… 3.25 c-e 26.2 ef 24.65 c-f 15.9 c-e 6896 c-e

BTS 21RR33……...………….……… 3.13 c-e 19.6 ef 28.82 a-c 15.5 e 7827 a-c

BTS 26RR14……...…………..……… 3.00 d-f 39.6 d 28.02 a-d 15.8 c-e 7732 a-c

BTS ID-4….…...highly tolerant….….. 2.63 e-g 37.5 d 26.46 a-e 16.1 b-d 7477 a-c

SX Usher RR……..…….…………… 2.44 fg 22.9 ef 29.76 ab 16.2 abc 8422 a

BTS 66RR70……...………..………… 2.38 fg 52.5 b 22.11 f 15.8 c-e 6211 e

BTS ID-1…...…...moderately tolerant 2.06 g 50.4 bc 23.05 ef 15.8 c-e 6281 de

LSD (P 0.05) v 0.66 7.7 4.19 0.5 1177

pr>f <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0002 <.0001

z plots were planted on 25 May 11. BTS ID-1 through ID-04 were varieties with known tolerance levels against aphanomyces root rot. for more information on cultivars contact the respective companies: BTS = Betaseed, crystal = acH Seeds Inc., HM = Hilleshog, SX = Seedex.

y Severity rating = harvested beet roots were rated by using a 0-7 rating scale, where 0 = no visible disease, 7 = root completely dead.

x ERS = estimated recoverable sucrose.

w Treatment means followed by the same letter are not significantly different from each other (fisher’s protected LSD P 0.05).

v LSD = fisher’s protected least significant different value. pr > f was the probability associated with the f value.

S p r i n g i S S u e 2 0 1 2

23

In this article I will discuss all of the forms available to you the producer that you may use to satisfy the record keeping and report requirements under the apHIS com-pliance agreement. There was some confusion this past year. These forms are all on the web page of the coop as you enter into the members only section. They are in two forms. Under the heading RRSB PRINTABLE FORMS are the forms that can be printed out and used as hard copies. However, the really exciting forms are found just above and under the words Bolter Statement. The first form is headed RRSB [APHIS] [Grower]Bolter Inspection Form. These are exciting because when you input the information it stays in the computer and can be used again and it also e-mails me the in-formation I need to forward to APHIS.

Let’s look at the forms:

RRSB [apHIS] [Grower] Bolter Inspection form/Re-quired Bolter Identification Survey 2011: This form is used to record the current growing crop bolter infor-mation. This form is used to record your ¾ week in-spections. when or if bolters are found you hit yes and when you save the form it automatically is e-mailed to me and I forward it to apHIS. Then you print out a hard copy for your records. If you are using just the hard copy there is no way for me to make my report without you giving me a call and verbally relaying the informa-tion. I have 48 hours to make this report to apHIS

RRSB [Grower] Un-authorized Release: This form is used when there is spillage between the points of desti-nation (field to receiving station). once again if you use the computer when filling out the report, when you hit save it e-mails it to me and I forward it on. If you use the hard copy method you will need to call me with the information so I can build the report. I have 24 hours to get this report to apHIS.

RRSB [Grower] Non-compliance: This form is used to report any non-compliance issue. Let’s say there is a spill on the way to the station and it does not get

cleaned up. a report needs to be made and a solution offered. or perhaps some bolters do not get removed and the producer knows they are there, but chooses to ignore them. a report needs to be made and a solution offered. I have 48 hours to get this report to apHIS.

RRSB [Grower] planting Record: This is the record that you keep for your record of planting which if you are inspected you will need to show. This report does not need to be sent to apHIS. This is for your records and for inspections. If you use the web page it will be saved there and when you hit save it automatically sends the report to your crop consultant. You will need to print out a hard copy for your inspection records.

Grower RRSB Volunteer Inspection Report: In the year 2012 we will be looking for bolters in two different kinds of fields. In the 2012 fields that have the 2012 crop growing in them you will use the RRSB [Grower] Bolter Inspection Form/Required Bolter Identifi-cation Survey2012 (depending on whether you are using the web version or a hard copy). I have 48 hours to get this report to apHIS. The 2011 crop year fields that need to be inspected twice a year will use this form (Grower RRSB Volunteer Inspection Report). If bolters are found they need to be destroyed. There only needs to be two reports made for the year. They need to be in your records and they need to come to me. They will not be sent to apHIS. when you are in-spected you will be asked for these reports. when using the web page when you hit save the report is sent to me. My recommendation for inspections in the 2011 crop year fields is June and august.

RRSB [Grower] Daily Truck Loading Report: This re-port is for the loader operator to record the loads for the day. This is required because of the chain of custody rule. If you use the web page you can type in all the information except the loads themselves, print a hard copy and go to the loader. The information stays in the computer so you can print out a copy on a daily basis or

r r S B / A p h i S / C h A i n O F C u S T O D y r E p O r T i n g

A M u S T r E A D A r T i C l E

Dennis Searle


24

print several at one time and write in the dates. These do not go to apHIS but will be needed during an inspec-tion.

RRSB Delivery Driver Record: This record is not on the web. It is a booklet with 30 pages in it. It is meant to be given to a driver and it allows him to record his loads for the day. The requirement would be that he turn this sheet into you every day. This is another way to meet the needs of chain of custody. You need only use one of

these two methods, the operator in the cab of the trac-tor or the driver of the truck.

This is more confusing than it is difficult. I would rec-ommend that you keep this article handy so you can refer back to it. also your crop consultant can help you work your way through all this paper work. Good luck.

If you attended the Amalgamated Sugar annual meet-ings the last few years, you may recall consultants in different regions of Idaho speaking on sugar beet fields they were directly involved in growing. These fields are raised due to an idea derived by Vic Jaro allowing each growing district’s agriculture depar tment to be directly involved in the management of a sugar beet field from planting to harvest.

In order to facilitate the planting and growing of these fields a grower/cooperator is needed to provide land and other resources. The shares are provided by the cooperative at a minimal cost and are based on the acres of each field involved in the challenge. In addition to the share rental, other input costs related to the growing of these fields are also provided by the grow-er/cooperator. At harvest the crop is delivered by the grower in their name and they receive all the proceeds.

In exchange for the provided shares, the grower allows the consultant to be involved in the management deci-sions of the sugar beet crop. Some of these decisions may include variety selection, methods of ground preparation, plant spacing, water scheduling, fertilizer rates, etc…

The focus of “Vic’s Challenge” was simple: Implement the best management practices for the purpose of real-izing the greatest return. However, each challenge field may also realize specific benefits, such as determining the optimum plant spacing or fine tuning nitrogen rates. Another benefit of the challenge fields is to allow con-sultants to gain a broader knowledge of the production of sugar beets. Consultants also gain insight into specific challenges growers face in producing a high quality sugar beet crop. The consultants are also able to work closely with a grower to address a specific production issue they may be encountering.

The procedures and results of the challenge fields are then published either through articles or more recently presented to the growers at the annual meeting or other grower meetings.

The Amalgamated Sugar field staff is dedicated to work-ing closely with growers in order to deliver the highest quality of sugar beets to the factories thus increasing the grower’s bottom line. This program is another tool to ac-complish this goal. If you are interested in participating in this program, have a specific problem in your area or want to explore different methods in the production of your sugar beets, contact your consultant.

V i C ’ S C h A l l E n g E

S p r i n g i S S u e 2 0 1 2

25

Curly top may be caused by three different virus species, Beet curly top virus, Beet mild curly top virus, or Beet severe curly top virus, which are transmitted by the beet leafhop-per (Circulifer tenellus). Curly top is one of the major dis-eases of sugarbeet in the semi-arid areas of the western US. The ARS sugarbeet research program at Kimberly is focused on discovering novel genes for resistance to this and other economically important diseases. It is vital in genetics research to develop uniform breeding lines and genetic stocks for inheritance studies, gene transfer (through conventional hybridization), and molecular ge-netics research. There is almost no information on the in-heritance of curly top resistance in sugarbeet. It is a very time consuming process to produce inbred lines in sug-arbeet. This process requires several one-year inbreeding cycles because the plant is biennial and the public germ-plasm has much genetic diversity. We have adopted a well-established tissue culture approach to develop a type of pure breeding lines called ‘doubled haploid line’ (DHL). Haploid plants have only one-half the normal number of chromosomes, and when doubled, the resulting plants have the normal number of chromosomes (called dip-loid) and are genetically very uniform. These lines are of-ten produced using unfertilized sugarbeet ovules, pollens,

or anthers.This approach has worked well in plant breed-ing and genetic studies for several decades, but it rarely hasbeen attempted by USDA-ARS sugarbeet researchers.

To develop a tissue culture-derived pure breeding line, a self fertilized (S1) individual plant from germplasm C762-17 (PI560130) was used as a donor of floral buds for tis-sue culture. C762-17 was developed by the USDA-ARS sugarbeet program at Salinas, CA and released in 1989 as a curly top-resistant parental line, but is genetically vari-able and not all plants produce viable pollen. To select the most suitable plant part for tissue culture, we tested pol-len and unfertilized ovules from sugarbeet. Tissue culture of the ovule proved the most successful and was used for producing haploid plants (Fig. 1). Twenty-eight plants were produced and all were tested for chromosome number using DNA quantification equipment known as flow cy-tometry. We used a specific tissue culture media in which the plant parts (ex-plant) we chose were expected to spontaneously develop the correct number of chromo-somes without applying special chemicals such as colchi-cine and oryzalin. Three of the plants that developed were confirmed to be true diploids (2n=18) because they had the correct number of chromosomes. These three plants were considered to be genetically different breeding lines, and were advanced separately as three DHLs named KDH04, KDH09 and KDH13(where K signifies Kimberly).

The USDA-ARS Kimberly sugarbeet program, in cooper-ation with the Beet Sugar Development Foundation, has released the pure genetic stock KDH13 (PI663862) to public breeders and seed companies. The stock has been deposited at the Western Regional Plant Introduction Sta-tion (WRPIS) in Pullman, WA. KDH13 is the first publically available sugarbeet genetic stock that is highly resistant to curly top. It has performed better than the resistant check, Hilleshog PM90, in two greenhouse experiments (9 replications per treatment and 6 leaf hoppers per plant in a clip-cage) and same as the resistant check in the 2011 Curly Top Nursery in Kimberly, ID. Leaf samples were collected from plants in the greenhouse experiment to

g E r M p l A S M r E l E A S E : T i S S u E C u lT u r E - D E r i V E D C u r ly T O p - r E S i S TA n T g E n E T i C S T O C k

Imad Eujayl and Carl StrausbaughUSDA-ARS- NWISRL, 3793 N . 3600 E ., kimberly, ID 83341

E-mail: imad .eujayl@ars .usda .gov

fig.1. DHLs at advanced stages of development dif-ferentiated from unfertilized ovules from c762-17 in tissue culture media.


26

determine virus accumulation in the plants using the En-zyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) analysis (per-formed by Dr. Alex Karasev, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID). Though the plant performance data were similar to the ELISA data, there was variation in the amount of virus particles within the resistant check and the KDHLs (Fig. 2). This observation is a very important one because we know this variation is not due to genetic variation within a DHL. Therefore, the variation might be due to the spe-cific virus species that infected the plant, as well as to the interaction among the three virus species.To answer these research questions, we currently are using KDH13 to develop beet leafhopper populations that carry a single virus species. Having a genetically uniform line eliminates

the normal genetic variation between plants when we are testing for specific virus species.

In summary, KDH13 is monogerm, self-fertile, and high-ly resistant to bolting. It has light green, upright, narrow leaves, and a small compact canopy. It’s susceptible to rhizomania, caused by the beet necrotic yellow vein vi-rus (BNYVV), and powdery mildew (caused by Erysiphe polygoni). KDH13 can be an ideal donor of curly top resis-tance in hybrids, or used for backcrossing and inheritance studies of other economically important traits. The initial sugarbeet ovule culture work was performed under con-tract by a private company.

fig. 2.ELISa results show level of virus accumulation in susceptible check (Mono = Monohikari), resistant check (HM pM90), and kDH13 (inoculated). kDH13c is control not subjected to beet leafhopper feeding.

S p r i n g i S S u e 2 0 1 2

27

The Treasure Valley/Pacific Northwest Pest Alert Network has been in operation for eleven years. Currently, pest alerts are being reported for a wide variety of crops across all of southern Idaho and in the Treasure Valley of Oregon. In 2011, the number of subscribers increased 12.5%. During 2011, 77 alerts about pest outbreaks in potatoes, small grains, sugarbeets, alfalfa seed, sweet corn, onions and several other crops were posted to the website. An evaluation follow-ing the 2011 growing season indicates 98 percent of the TV/PNWPestAlert.net survey respondents felt the website was useful to their operations. On a scale of 1 (not very useful) to 5 (very useful) average usefulness rated 3.98.

As a result of information received from TV/PNWPestAlert.net in 2011, 17 percent of website subscribers reduced the number of sprays applied to their crops, 35 percent said their spray applications were more effective because they received timely information they could use to help them make pest management decisions, and 30 percent of website subscrib-ers reported they have increased their use of field scout-ing to document pest levels before implementing control measures. The 2004 through 2011 surveys indicate that as a result of information received from TV/PNWPestAlert.net,

website subscribers are using on average 5.9 percent less chemical on their crops than they were before they used the pest alert network.

Each year survey respondents are asked to give specific ex-amples of how TV/PNWPestAlert.net benefited them. Fol-lowing are a few of the many positive responses received:

• Ithelpsyou to takemoreofan IPMapproach thanablanket approach in spraying for pests.

• Ipass infoon togrowerseven though Idonotworkwith all the crops, helps keep them aware.

• Helpedwithbeingmoreefficientwithfieldscouting.

• Italertedmetothetimingoftheappearanceofpow-dery mildew in beets.

Following are examples of alerts posted in 2011.

In 2011, there were approximately 46,974 visits to the web-site and approximately 47,620 emails alerts were sent to website subscribers.

T r E A S u r E VA l l E y p E S T A l E r T n E T w O r k

Jerry Neufeld


28

The second year of a field experiment was conduct-ed to clarify the importance of damage from the beet leafminer to Idaho sugar beet production. The study was designed to: (1) determine whether mid- to late-season damage from leafminers affects sugar yield, (2) experi-mentally evaluate the utility of proposed leafminer ac-tion thresholds in Idaho, and (3) determine the duration of control of leafminers using Poncho Beta seed treat-ment. The experimental treatments established on field plots at the U-Idaho Kimberly R & E Center were as follows: (1) untreated check, (2) early-season leafminer removal (leafminer eggs physically removed from emer-gence until mid June), (3) early- to mid-season leafminer removal (leafminer eggs physically removed from emer-gence until early July), (4) Poncho Beta (clothianidin + beta-cyfluthrin) insecticide seed treatment, (5) 50% in-

festation threshold (i.e., applying Temik [aldicarb] when 50% or more of plants are infested with eggs or larvae), and (6) a “late” application of Temik(i.e., during the eight- to ten-leaf stage, which is thought to be the point at which leafminers are no longer causing economic dam-age to sugar beet).

Weekly mine and egg counts over twelve weeks indi-cated that the two removal treatments successfully protected plants from leafminer damage relative to the untreated check. Poncho Beta treatment significantly re-duced leafminer larvae relative to the untreated check at least until the end of June(i.e., about two months af-ter planting), at which point there was no difference in the number of mines between the Poncho Beta treat-ment and the untreated check for the remainder of the season. Temik was applied for the 50% threshold treat-

D E T E r M i n i n g T h E E C O n O M i C i M p O r TA n C E O F D A M A g E F r O M l E A F M i n E r F l i E S i n S u g A r B E E T A n D E VA l u AT i n g p r O p O S E D A C T i O n T h r E S h O l D S i n i D A h O

Erik J . Wenninger

Table 1.Mean ± Standard Error of yield parameters compared among treatments.

Treatment Yield (tons per acre)1 % sucrose1 ERS (pounds per acre)1

1. Untreated check 34.7 ± 2.0a 16.1 ± 0.3a 10,207 ± 682a

2. Early removal 37.1 ± 1.3a 16.1 ± 0.2a 10,845 ± 390a

3. Early-mid removal 37.8 ± 0.9a 16.0 ± 0.2a 10,900 ± 334a

4. Poncho Beta 36.7 ± 1.2a 16.4 ± 0.1a 10,874 ± 335a

5. 50% threshold (season control with Temik)

39.1 ± 2.5a 16.3 ± 0.2a 11,517 ± 788a

6. “Late” control with Temik 40.2 ± 1.9a 16.3 ± 0.2a 11,770 ± 467a

1Means within a column that share the same letter are not significantly different.

S p r i n g i S S u e 2 0 1 2

29

ment plots on June 16 and remained effective against leafminers through the end of July. The “late” application of Temik was made on June 24 and remained effective against leafminers through the end of July. By August leafminer densities were low across all treatments.

Neither clean yield (tons per acre), nor percent sucrose, nor Estimated Recoverable Sucrose (ERS) differed signif-icantly among treatments (Table 1); however, there were numerical differences among treatments that reflected the expected trends. Yields tended to be lowest for the untreated check, highest for the Temik treatments, and intermediate for the remaining treatments. Because dif-ferences among treatments in regard to yield were also subtle in 2010, during 2011 additional tare samples were collected from each plot and stored within the outdoor beet storage pile in Twin Falls. Samples were retrieved at ca. 40-day intervals beginning in December to conduct

sugar analyses with the collaboration of Carl Straus-baugh (USDA-ARS, Kimberly, ID). We hypothesize that subtle differences in sugar yield at harvest may become more pronounced over time in storage; however, the storage data have yet to be fully analyzed.

Weather during spring 2011 was unusually cool and wet, which delayed population development of leafminers; thus, populations were likely relatively small during the critical early growth stage of sugar beets. This study will have to be repeated at least one more season before definitive conclusions can be drawn. Results thus far sug-gest that effects of beet leafminer flies on sugar yield are relatively small when considered alone, but even subtle effects on yield may be important, especially if it should turn out that leafminer damage compromises the ability of beets to withstand damage from other pests or to maintain sugar content in storage.

PRSRT STDU.S. POSTAGE PAID

LOGAN, UTPERMIT NO. 21

P.O. BOX 8787NamPa, ID 83653-8787

THE

SUGARBEET

A s k Y o u r W h i t e s At i n F i e l d s tA F F

Su

ga

r Content another 1/2%

Ask Me hoW

Whit

e S

atin Sugar

the sugarbeet spring issue - · pdf filestanley svedin 12,204 larry christensen 11,911 nam pa...

Documents