A three day meeting was held on July 27-29, 1993 at Shell Beach, California.  Attending were representatives from the CBGA, Holly Sugar, Spreckels Sugar, and UCCE.  Steve Kaffka started the meeting by providing an assessment of the constraints and opportunities confronting the industry.  Bob Lewellan reported on the genetic resources available currently to farmers and plant breeders and his assessment of the time periods involved and the potential of current plant breeding programs to produce varieties with greater resistance to rhizomania, virus yellows and the common rots.  Steve Kaffka, filling in for Jack Hills, discussed:  (1) some of the University's research on virus yellows and the estimation of the distances needed to protect young beet crops from infection from older beet crops, (2) the work of Ulrich, Loomis, Hills and others on nitrogen management of sugarbeet, and (3) research on water use and irrigation management, particularly irrigation cut-off dates.  A panel of retired farm advisors who had long-term active programs in sugarbeet (Bill Fischer, Franz Kegel, and Bob Sailsbery) discussed the research and extension activities they were involved in over their long careers.  The evening concluded with a dinner hosted by Holly, Spreckels, Beta Seed, Hilleshog Mono-Hy Seed, and the CBGA.

Day two began with an overview of the CBGA, its history and activities, presented by Ben Goodwin.  Following Ben was a growers' panel with Gary Wilson, Bill Holdener, Johnny Singh and Howard Klassen.  Bob Sailsbery filled in for Marvin Lohse who could not attend and represented the northern Sacramento Valley.  The growers reported on the role of sugarbeets on their farms, the primary difficulties they experience in trying to produce the crop and the most important issues that face the growers and the industry in their respective areas.   Following the growers' panel, Bill Johannsen and John Hamilton discussed the needs of the processors and their respective points of view on the future of the industry.

After lunch, the meeting turned to open discussion and brainstorming.  John Kolberg lead the discussion on industry organization, Larry Godfrey on the virus yellows issue, and Bob Lewellan on rhizomania.  The next morning the group discussed nematodes, and natural resource and regulatory issues.  Becky Westerdahl led the discussion on nematodes and Steve Kaffka on natural resource issues.  Following a break, the group developed a list of items on which to take action.  The main points of the discussion sections and the action items are described in what follows.  In developing these notes, I have taken the liberty to group comments according to subject matter and include as well some of the ideas expressed by those who made formal presentations on the topics for discussion.

Industry Organization:

The California industry is characterized, currently, by too much factory capacity chasing too few acres.  Factories are operating at approximately 60 to 70 percent of capacity, compared to over 90 percent in some other  sugarbeet producing regions of the nation.  This results in a higher net cost of production for sugar in California than in competing states, although production costs at the farm gate, when yields reach 27 tons per acre or higher, are comparable to or better than other locations in the nation (Ben Goodwin calculation based on the most recent USDA data).  The inefficiency in the industry results from combinations of low yields and/or low capacity factory operation.  Low efficiency in the operation of the sugar factories results in low NSPs, which in turn leads to fewer acres in production, which in turn results in even lower factory efficiency.  The industry is caught in a downward cycle.  The expansion of the Red River Valley sugarbeet industry and marketing of their sugar in California could result in the loss of California's processors and therefore its sugarbeet industry, the oldest in the nation.

Various shortcomings were identified in discussion.  It was noted that more acres are available in certain parts of the state than can be contracted (Kern, Imperial), while in other areas (districts 2, 3 and 4) acres are low.  Other issues mentioned were:  the apparently inefficient and expensive movement of beets to factories (beets grown near one factory but trucked far away to be processed at a competitor's factory);  inefficiency in the marketing of sugar; the need for greater trust between growers and processors to help move the industry out of its downward spiral;  the obstacle to change presented by traditional attitudes, practices and arrangements in the industry and on the part of growers; conflicting objectives of growers and processors;  concern about financial risk  on the part of growers (will it be a bad disease year?), and about the financial health of the processors (loss of Delta Sugar); reluctance in the financial community to lend money for sugarbeet production because of a lack of awareness on the part of both lenders and growers of the effects of the sugar legislation and contract structure on reducing financial risk.

Suggestions for action included:
1.  Organize a series of bankers and growers' meeting to present clear information on the financial issues associated with sugarbeet contracting and current sugar legislation.
2.  Develop a new cost minimization study for the state's sugar industry focusing on efficient movement of beets to factories and the location and timing of sugarbeet production.
3.  Define changes needed for the benefit of the industry as a whole and explore ways to involve more people from industry and  more growers to help define and implement needed changes.

Pests and Diseases

Virus Yellows:

From about 1970 when the beet-free program began until about 1985, virus yellows was a minor problem in California.  Since 1985, there have been two or three years when yellows significantly reduced yields, especially in the center of the state.  Where the beet-free program is strong, yellows does not occur or occurs only at mild levels.  However, there are anomalies.  The Rim-Delta area has essentially no beet-free period but has had fewer problems than the Clarksburg area which has a fall harvest.  One reason for the renewed difficulty with yellows may be the increased abundance of the black bean aphid, together with its longer period of activity, compared to the green peach aphid, long thought to be the primary vector.  We do not know very much about the biology of the black bean aphid.  Another reason may be the lack of rigorous enforcement of the beet-free regions because of inadequate acreage in districts 2, 3, and 4 especially, leading to intensified competition among three different processors (now two processors).  It is difficult under these circumstances for any of the companies to act as a "policeman" of district boundaries and clean outs.  Too many variances have been given, some of them now long-standing.  There have been difficulties in managing clean out corridors and harvests in general, which in several recent years have been confounded by late springs or unusual rainfall patterns.  Keeper and wild beets remain a problem and may contribute substantially to the occurrence of yellows in the state.  The loss of Delta Sugar may simplify planning and management of more effective beet-free zones, but the management of the current beet-free program still remains administratively complex, and subject to failure during years when either the weather or the aphids' biology deviates from average.  Prospects for a resistant or tolerant sugarbeet variety are still somewhat distant, even though the research priorities for both the public and private breeding programs give significant emphasis to yellows resistance.  Because of low acreage and growers' perceptions that sugarbeet diseases make the crop risky, it is more important than ever to reduce the pool of virus-infected, old beets and separate them from new, uninfected beets more effectively.  The processors, with the help of the university, must take the lead in this because CBGA, given its democratic character, is composed of growers who favor different, sometimes conflicting changes.

Suggestions for action included:
1.  Holly, Spreckels and researchers from U.C. will develop individually suggestions for a more effective beet-free program in districts 2, 3 and 4.  These suggestions will be combined and presented to growers on the beet-free committees in the respective districts for discussion, improvement and action.
2.  Researchers from U.C. will review the older data and research work underlying the adoption of current beet-free policies, and determine if any of the new analytical tools available (Geographic Information Systems, new statistical techniques) can improve on our understanding of the movement of virus yellows, and help us plan more effective research programs.  A more epidemiological approach will be pursued.

Rhizomania: 
Present levels of resistance-tolerance may not be enough to manage the disease, when disease pressure is high.  The level of varietal resistance will improve as plant breeders continue to incorporate rhizomania resistance into otherwise superior varieties.  The industry became dependent on a single chemical (Telone) to sustain acreage.  When that was withdrawn, acreage declined.  Some scientists think that producing sugarbeet under cooler soil temperatures, especially when the crop is young, will reduce the impact of the disease on yields.  Reducing free water near the root also will reduce the effects of the disease.  There may not be a sufficiently accurate test to predict potential losses from rhizomania.  An acceptable level of control should combine resistant varieties with agronomic practices that reduce the disease's impact.  Chemical protection should be seen as a last resort.

Suggestions for action:
1.  Continue intensive efforts to develop and test rhizomania-resistant varieties.  Approaching the resistance problem using the tools of molecular biology may be helpful in this area.
2.  Research on cultural and irrigation practices related to reducing the effect of rhizomania on yield should be carried out.
3.  Research on soil fumigants that can protect the crop and research to support their registration should be carried out.
 

Nematodes:

Nematodes were regarded during the 1960's as the most serious pest problem of sugarbeets.  While they have given up their pre-eminent position, they remain a serious problem that limits sugarbeet production in fields throughout the state.  In research at UCD, bio-control methods have demonstrated variable results, sometimes being effective, sometimes not.  Such research is a worthwhile, but long-term process.  Similarly, the use of brassica catch crops is widespread in Europe but has not yet been effective in California.  These crops hold promise for California conditions but further research is needed.  Solarization work is going on in the Imperial Valley, but tarp costs will be high.  Unconventional  control methods such as the use of super critical steam and microwaves were discussed, but no effective demonstrations of these techniques have yet been made, and cost remains an issue.  However, the cost of soil treatment can be distributed across a series of crops that benefit from nematode control.  There is some potential for the development of plant resistance to nematodes, but progress is slow.

Suggestions for action:
1.  Maintain active research programs on promising alternative techniques for nematode control (catch crops, biological control).
2.  Help with the research and registration process on new or re-labelled nematicides.

Natural resources:

Irrigation-related costs comprise approximately 30% of all sugarbeet production costs.  Water for agriculture, either from irrigation districts or from groundwater will become increasingly scarce and the reduction in water availability will tend to affect the low valued crops (especially field crops), disproportionately.  Salinization of soils in the San Joaquin Valley will remain a problem until an agricultural drain is built.  Rapid urbanization in the central valley has eroded the land base for commercial agriculture and will continue to do so, making it more difficult for the sugarbeet industry to find sufficient acres.  Sugarbeet can serve many roles in crop rotations in a resource constrained and highly regulated future.  It is among the most efficient crops at recovering soil nitrogen, among the crops most tolerant of salinity, and can be grown during winter when the need for irrigation water is low, making it an efficient user of irrigation water (low quantity) under those circumstances.  The crop's niche in farming systems may be increased by emphasizing these advantages.  This could lead to an increase in acres.  There may be some advantage to the industry to promote the crop's advantages in this area, and learn to work actively with the groups that seek to regulate or otherwise control farm practices.  There was some discussion about the role of the industry in such efforts.  The CBGA already belongs to a number of organizations which advocate for agriculture and their policy is to otherwise keep a low profile on such issues.  The provision of jobs and the generation of wealth by the sugarbeet industry to the benefit of the entire population of the state helps reflects favorably on the industry with policy makers.

Despite water restrictions, even during the drought, Spreckels determined from a survey of growers they conducted that diseases, particularly rhizomania, were the primary reasons for the abandonment of sugarbeet production by many growers.  The loss of Telone exposed the industry's weakness with respect to preventative disease management.  Telone, was in effect, the single line of defense.  In the future, more pesticides will be lost than will be introduced, costs will rise, and the use of pesticides will be increasingly restricted.  The loss of Telone was consistent with this trend and further losses of materials should be foreseen.  Pesticide regulation is especially restrictive in California compared to other parts of the country and world.  Currently, this puts California growers at a disadvantage.  To the degree other states and countries come to emulate California, the industry in this state will have the advantage of already having adjusted to the use of fewer materials.  The industry's goal against all pest and disease problems should be three lines of defence: 1) plant resistance, 2) agronomic practices, and 3) pesticides.  CBGA currently monitors the status of the pesticides that are important in the production of sugarbeet.  When threats to the label occur, they decide if action is necessary and proceed (lobby) appropriately.

Suggestions for action:

1.  The industry should consider research and demonstration projects that increase the role for sugarbeets in different farm operations and improve the capacity of the crop to achieve high yields in the face of disease pressure.

The Next Steps

If the industry is to thrive once again, the profitability of growing sugarbeets in California must improve.  One of the steps to improving profitability for growers is to improve the efficiency of the state's factories.  To improve factory efficiency, more acres of beets are needed and longer factory runs.  The movement of beets to factories needs to be rationalized.  One factor contributing to the number of acres available is loss to rhizomania and virus yellows, especially in districts 2, 3 and 4.  The processors must take a leadership role in improving the beet-free program, then involve the growers through discussion and negotiation with the beet-free committees around the state.  For changes in the program to result in improvement, a number of districts may have to coordinate their actions.  In evolving an improved strategy to combat virus yellows, the university's researchers can play an impartial, informational role that helps the processors cooperate on the basis of the biology of pest management without their violating anti-trust regulations.

In addition to sugarbeet diseases, several of the growers mentioned that improving stand establishment was an important priority, and should be given emphasis.

More effective extension and communication was discussed.  The most important clientele in the sugarbeet industry for farm advisors may be the company field men, and the PCAs who are increasingly important in advising growers about management practices.  The value of field trials and demonstrations was reaffirmed.  The need to educate the lending community and growers on the risks and security provided by sugarbeet contracts, and trade and legislative issues was reaffirmed.  The specialist should work with CBGA and the companies to organize such meetings in the near future.  Better coordination of effort among farm advisors in the various regions (San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento Valley and Intermountain region) should take place.  The state specialist should aid this coordination by holding regional meetings with the farm advisors periodically, and by developing a newsletter in which research results are reported.

Discussion took place about the need to communicate research results in a form which non-technical readers in the sugarbeet industry can evaluate.  Executive or interpretive summaries were suggested for CBGA funded work and other industry funded efforts.  Some of the UC publications may need updating, and the specialist should coordinate and/or lead that effort.  Closer contact between the CBGA and industry sponsors of research during the  research process could lead to a better understanding of the research process and its results and better cooperation among university and industry groups.
There was a consensus that the meeting as a whole had been valuable and should be repeated again in the near future to assess progress and continue discussing the issues affecting the industry's future.

Suggestions for action:

1.  Organize bankers meetings in key regions of the state.
2.  Strengthen the cooperative research and demonstration relationships among farm advisors in the different regions of the state.  The specialist should facilitate this effort.
3.  The specialist should develop a research newsletter and help organize the CBGA funded and other research results in a format accessible to readers with differing technical backgrounds.  Other ways should be considered for making more transparent the research process.
4.  The processors and researchers from the university should independently re-evaluate the virus yellows program in the state, then coordinate their efforts and work with the CBGA's beet free committees to improve the effectiveness of the program.
5.  The specialist, together with CBGA and the processors, should explore the potential value of an optimization study of production, transport and processing relationships for the industry as a whole.
6.  The specialist, together with others from the workgroup and industry should develop ways to continue the work and discussion focussing on the long-term future of the industry  started at Shell Beach over the upcoming year.