Michigan State University Extension
Ag Experiment Station Special Reports - SR529201
07/28/98
Donald R. Christenson Crop and Soil Sciences Department Michigan State University
INTRODUCTION
Michigan and Ohio occupy a unique position as the only
states east of the Mississippi River which have sugarbeet
production. The sugarbeet industry has its beginnings in
1839 in Michigan when a grower produced beets at White
Pigeon, with the processing done in a pilot plant.
However, the operation failed and no beets were produced
until the 1880s. Today, there are two companies which
operate in Michigan and Ohio. Monitor Sugar Company
operates one plant in Bay City, Michigan. Michigan Sugar
Company operates four plants in Michigan (Carrollton, Caro,
Croswell and Sebewaing) and one in Fremont, Ohio.
Sugarbeet is the only field crop grown in Michigan
where the grower contracts the entire acreage. The sugar
companies each have agricultural staff which include farm
advisors (fieldmen), agronomic research staff and
laboratory facilities to analyze beets for quality. There
is a close working relationship between the sugarbeet
industry and Michigan State University.
The sugarbeet farm is larger than other farms in
Michigan which produce field crops. For example, the
average sugarbeet farm is approximately 800 acres compared
to 290 for the cash crop type of farm which does not
include sugarbeets or potatoes (Chase et al., 1990).
About 5% of the sugarbeet growers are under 25 years
of age, 18% are 25-34, 22% are 34 to 44, 23% are 45 to 54,
25% are 55 to 64 and 7% are over 65 (Ferris, 1990). The
median age of the primary operator is 48, while the second
operator is 39. The second operator is most often a
relative, usually a spouse or a son (Chase et al., 1990).
Results from the survey by Chase et al. (1990) showed
the following:
1.There is an inverse relationship between farm size
and the proportion of off-farm income generated ranging
from 53% for farms of less that 400 acres to 20% for farms
exceeding 900 acres.
2.The median net income is about $5,000 for operations
of less than 400 acres, $21,000 for operations of 400-900
acres and $63,000 for those exceeding 900 acres. The
median income for all operations is approximately $26,000.
3.Eighty-six percent of the growers follow a three-
year or longer crop rotation. Only 14% reported using
forage legumes in their rotation. However, grower records
kept by the sugarbeet companies suggest that only 2% use
forage legumes.
4.Growers plant about 20% of their cropland to
sugarbeets.
5.Only 11% of growers plan to decrease acreage in the
next 5 years, with 28% planning to increase acreage. The
rest of the growers plan to remain at the same size. Only
2% plan to sell the farm in the next 5 years. Forty-five
percent of the land is rented or leased.
6.Yield of all crops for the sugarbeet type of farm is
considerably above the state average. Sugarbeets are grown
on some of the better soils in the state.
7.Only 18% of operations smaller than 400 acres report
the use of scouting for economic thresholds in their pest
and disease control programs, while 50% of operations
between 400 and 900 acres and 74% of those over 900 acres
do.
8.The sugarbeet enterprise requires a larger
investment than other cash crop enterprises and the crop is
generally more difficult to manage than other field crops.
There has been a steady increase in the number of
acres of sugarbeets harvested in Michigan expanding from an
average of 74,000 in the period 1960-1965 to 152,000 for
the 1987-1991 period (Table 1). Yields increased from 15.6
to 18.1 tons/acre over this same period. Michigan's share
of the U. S. production has increased from 5.9% to 10.3%
during this 27-year period. However, Michigan's national
ranking did not change which reflects increased acreage in
other areas such as Minnesota, North Dakota and Idaho.
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE INDUSTRY
In 1990 there were 157,000 acres of sugarbeets
harvested in Michigan. It ranks sixth behind corn, hay,
soybeans, wheat and dry beans in Michigan with respect to
the number of acres grown. Michigan ranks fourth in the
U.S. in total tons of sugarbeet produced.
Michigan growers received approximately $136 million
in 1990 for the sugarbeet crop, representing 3% of the
gross farm income in the state. For the key counties of
Arenac, Midland, Bay, Gratiot, Saginaw, Huron, Tuscola and
Sanilac, the combined gross from sugarbeets represented
nearly 20% of gross cash farm income (Ferris, 1990). Had
the typical sugarbeet farm replaced sugarbeets with
soybeans in 1975-88, gross margins over variable costs for
all crops would have been nearly 30% less, based on Saginaw
County yields in this period (Ferris, 1990).
In 1987, the net direct contribution of sugarbeet
production and processing to the Michigan economy amounted
to $157 million in expenditures and income. Adding the
indirect effects, the total contribution to business
activity was $434 million (Ferris, 1990).
For every dollar gained or lost in expenditures, labor
and proprietary income, another 1.76 dollars are gained or
lost in other sectors. Loss of the sugarbeet processing
industry would eliminate 889 fulltime positions. In
addition, another 2,056 fulltime equivalent jobs would be
lost, for a total of 2,945 positions (Ferris, 1990).
REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS
The most significant improvement in sugarbeet
production in the past 30 years is the discovery and
development of mono-germ seed. Sugarbeet varieties have
been developed with higher sugar yield and increased
disease resistance, particularly leaf spot. The quality of
seed is improved because of advanced processing techniques
including better sizing and elimination of dormant seed.
Better quality seed and fungicide treatment for seedling
disease, combined with the mono-germ characteristic, has
allowed the industry to shift to space planting and reduce
labor requirements for thinning.
Broad-spectrum herbicides and post-emergence herbicide
programs, coupled with band spraying, has led to cost-
effective weed control programs requiring less hand labor.
It should be noted that labor is not as available as it was
previously for both blocking and thinning and weed control.
The development of machinery which defoliates rather
than scalping (slicing off the crown) the sugarbeet has
increased storage quality. Scalping leaves a portion of
the beet root in the field and increases spoilage in the
pile during storage because of the wound to the root.
Development of 4-and 6-row harvesters which can efficiently
harvest sugarbeets in a wide range of conditions has made
it possible to increase both the acreage produced and the
size of sugarbeet farms. In processing of sugarbeets,
several advancements have decreased labor and increased
efficiency in the refining plants. Automated centrifugals
which remove liquid from the sugar allow a continuous flow
rather than a batch method of operation. This is more
efficient and requires less labor. Continuous flow
diffusers have increased the rate of sugarbeet processing.
It has also decreased the amount of labor required compared
to the batch diffuser. Continuous flow operating pans
(boiling off excess liquid from the sugar) make this phase
of the operation more efficient. This industry is in the
early stages of development of computer-controlled factory
operations which will likely change processing from an art
to a science.
The driving force behind these changes has been the
need to be more efficient. Mono-germ seed, fungicide
treatment of seed, better seed quality and new herbicides
reduce labor requirements have made production more
efficient. There has been a need to increase efficiency of
processing operations in order to remain competitive.
ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE 1990s
Agronomic. Changes in sugarbeet varieties will occur
more rapidly as a result of a larger germplasm pool and
biotechnological techniques. These varieties will have
higher sugar yield and increased disease resistance,
particularly the root disease Rhizoctonia. There is
concern about the disease Rhizomania because of the length
of time it will take to incorporate disease resistance into
varieties grown in Michigan. However, if good sanitation
is followed when moving equipment from other states, the
disease may not appear in this state. Current sugarbeet
varieties do not have resistance to the seedling diseases
Aphanomyces, Pythium and Fusarium. There will be continued
efforts to develop such resistance, but no major advances
are foreseen in the near future. Changes in seed
technology, such as coating of the seed with protectant
chemicals and priming (a technique which increases the
moisture content of the seed just prior to planting), will
increase emergence and seedling vigor. Changes in tillage
systems to increase residue on the surface are needed
because of concerns over soil movement during winter when
the soil is left bare. The feeling in the industry is that
this will become more important with environmental
concerns. Developments in nitrate testing and other
procedures will allow the formulation of nitrogen
recommendations on a field by field basis. There will be
increased use of soil testing for fertilizer
recommendations which will reduce the amount of phosphorus
used. Herbicide rates will probably decrease because of
the specific activity of the new materials. However, no
change in the percent of sugarbeet acres which have
material applied is envisioned.
Processing: The ionic exclusion process will increase
the efficiency of the desugaring of molasses. There will
be more thick juice storage, which will allow the
processing plants to process more tons of beets during the
usual campaign and refine the sugar after the slicing
campaign is finished. As a result, the acreage of
sugarbeets can be increased without extending the time of
slicing or building new plants. Continued developments in
storage of sugarbeets will improve the processing quality.
Food safety issues will continue to be important in the
industry. There will be the need to have a quality
product. Increased concerns for the environment will
require additional control of waste water and odors.
Removal of lime from the factories will be necessary, even
to the point of requiring each grower to remove a fair
share.
Consumption and marketing: There will be a small per
capita increase in consumption of sucrose in the next 5-10
years. There seems to be more consumer confidence in the
attributes of sugar. There probably won't be an increase
in the number of brokers marketing sugar. Monitor Sugar is
marketing nearly all of its own sugar. Michigan Sugar is
using brokers, but doesn't envision any increase in the
number. There will be an increase in the amount of liquid
sugar marketed, the variety of packages and the amount and
number of private labels.
Domestic and international agricultural programs:
Domestic and international programs will influence
sugarbeet production more than any one other factor. The
following is taken from Bateman (1991) concerning sugarbeet
production in the near term:
USDA cost data reveal that beet sugar output is
profitable in most beet regions. The Red River Valley, the
Mountain States and the Northern Plains produced refined
sugar in 1987 at a total cost of 16-17 cents per pound.
Barring adverse weather, production costs are still in the
16-17 cent range in these three regions. Costs in the
Michigan/Ohio region during favorable weather years are
near 18 cents. Production costs are highest in California
and Texas.
Acreage will increase at 0.5% per annum under an 18-
cent support regime, but will decline at a 1.7% annual rate
if price supports are dropped to 14.4 cents on raw sugar.
Yields are expected to rise at a 1% per annum rate during
1991-1995 as a result of new recovery investments and
agronomic improvements in the field. Finally, sugar output
will rise from 3.76 million STRV (short ton raw value) in
1990 to 4.15 million by 1995 if the higher supports
prevail, but will remain static near 3.80 million given
lower price supports. The beet region which will struggle
most is California, due to competition from alternative
crops.
Assuming a 1% growth in sugar usage, imports will
decline from 1.385 million STRV in 1991 to the
congressionally mandated minimum of 1.250 million in 1992-
1995. If a lower support level is introduced, import
requirements will expand.
PROJECTIONS TO THE YEAR 2000
Production: The acreage of sugarbeets will increase
over the next 10 years if the trade/political situation
doesn't change appreciably. We should see an increase in
the amount of sugar recovered per acre due to better
varieties and increased efficiency in the sugar processing.
Innovations in the development of planting equipment and
tillage management, along with better quality seed, will
increase the emergence/survival of sugarbeets from planting
to harvest.
Input requirements: The reliance on chemicals
manufactured from fossil fuels will continue to be a
reality. However, the amount may decrease because of
changes in soil test values and stronger efforts to make
nitrogen recommendations on a site-specific basis.
Herbicides which are applied at smaller volumes per acre
will reduce the energy needed to produce a sugarbeet crop.
Strides are being made to reduce the amount of energy
used in processing. Development of ionic exclusion and
computer-controlled factory operations will make recovery
more efficient, increasing the yield of sugar per ton of
sugarbeet. Further development of computer control of
factory operations will increase efficiency.
Major agronomic technological innovations: Genetic
manipulation will allow for better varieties to be produced
in a shorter period of time. Herbicide and pest resistance
will be incorporated into varieties grown. Better
herbicides will allow for more targeted weed control with
less environmental risk. Reduction in erosion with
innovative tillage and planting methods will also occur.
With new technology, fertilizer application rates will
be varied according to soil type or soil test value within
the field. Developments in guidance control will allow
controlled traffic and more precise placement of rows in
the field. There is the possibility of remotely controlled
tractors for field operations.
Major technological innovations for processing: The
entire process will be more energy efficient as a result of
utilizing computer technology, ionic exclusion, recycled
steam, and other technological advancements.
Number and size of farms: There will be slow increase
in size of farms and a reduction in number, but not at the
rate seen from 1980-87. However, a significant change in
the financial structure including availability of loans and
prices of commodities could bring about changes similar to
what occurred in the early 1980s.
Number and size of marketing and processing firms: No
changes in the number and size of processing firms are
anticipated. However, there will be an increase in
capacity of existing plants as new technology is installed.
Shifts in location in the state: There won't be any
major shifts in the location of production of sugarbeets in
the state. Expansion will be primarily in the existing
growing areas, although there may be some in the outlying
areas.
EMERGING ISSUES AND NEED FOR COORDINATED ACTION
Within the industry itself: The major issue within
the industry is the price supports described above.
Domestic and international sugar policy will control sugar
production.
Pervasive across a broad spectrum of Michigan
agriculture: Concern for environmental quality is a major
issue needing coordinated action. This includes surface
and groundwater quality, waste water, soil erosion and odor
control and encompasses all of agriculture including farms
and processing plants. The impact of the "Right to Farm"
legislation will remain to be seen. It will affect farming
operations as long as urbanization and farms interface.
Research Needs: Decline in public support for
agricultural research is a serious concern to the industry.
While the industry has been very supportive of research
efforts at Michigan State University, declining resources
at both the state and national levels could create a
situation where problems are not solved as readily. Areas
of high priority research are as follows: variety
development, weed control, general crop and soil
management, insect and disease control, new uses for
current crops and ground water pollution control. Areas of
low priority are irrigation, solid waste disposal, odor
pollution control, harvesting and storage.
REFERENCES
Bateman, M. 1991. Prospects for United States sugarbeets, 1991-1995. p. 3-42. In Proceedings of 26th Biennial Meeting, Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech.
Chase, R., D. Christenson, R. Lucas, R. Black, T. Harrigan, D. Landis, P. Hart and R. Vlasin. 1990. Type of farming systems study: Sugarbeet survey. Mich. State Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 507
Ferris, J. N. 1990. Contribution of the sugarbeet industry to the Michigan economy. Mich. State Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 501.
Michigan Agricultural Statistics. 1991. Michigan Dept. Agric. Lansing.
Table 1. Production of sugarbeets in Michigan, 1960-1991.
Area Area Michigan U. S. MI's
Planted Harvested Yield Product. Product. Share
Year
1000 acres t/acre - 1000 tons - %
1960 69 68 13.9 943 16421 5.74 1961 77 72 16.3 1178 17704 6.65 1962 75 66 16.3 1081 18250 5.92 1963 83 78 15.0 1175 23328 5.04 1964 90 85 16.3 1386 23389 5.93 1965 80 69 16.4 1136 20918 5.43 1966 79 76 15.4 1172 20342 5.76 1967 79 72 17.4 1256 19197 6.54 1968 91 90 19.0 1708 25363 6.73 1969 94 93 16.2 1504 27736 5.42
1970 93 90 21.3 1913 26378 7.25 1971 91 83 17.1 1415 27096 5.22 1972 95 87 18.9 1638 28410 5.77 1973 89 87 17.6 1524 24499 6.22 1974 82 80 17.0 1364 22123 6.17 1975 94 91 19.2 1755 29704 5.91 1976 94 91 16.8 1540 29386 5.24 1977 92 86 21.0 1796 25007 7.18 1978 93 92 19.3 1770 25788 6.86 1979 93 88 17.6 1550 21996 7.05
1980 99 98 19.3 1892 23502 8.05 1981 102 99 20.5 2030 27538 7.37 1982 98 97 19.2 1853 20894 8.87 1983 106 104 19.0 1976 20992 9.41 1984 110 108 19.6 2117 22134 9.56 1985 124 118 19.7 2325 22529 10.32 1986 137 110 20.8 2288 25162 9.09 1987 144 142 20.5 2911 28072 10.37 1988 152 145 16.5 2393 24810 9.65 1989 154 150 17.1 2565 25131 10.21
1990 160 157 20.8 3266 27513 11.86 1991 171 166 15.5 2573 27848 9.24
Projections to year 2000:
MIAGMOD 154 150 20.9 3139 - -
Author's 180 175 20.6 3605 - -