DOCSLIB.ORG

The Costly Benefits of the US Sugar Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Sweets for the Sweet The Costly Benefits of the US Sugar Program by Michael K. Wohlgenant Sweets for the Sweet The Costly Benefits of the US Sugar Program by Michael K. Wohlgenant Introduction The US sugar industry receives enormous government support and protection from foreign competition. The sugar program has changed over time, becoming a complex set of rules developed to promote sugar production primarily at the expense of domestic consumers. The program has also affected foreign producers and consumers through import restrictions that have significantly reduced the world sugar price. Since the mid-1970s, as a result of the sugar program, the price of sugar in the United States has been almost twice as high as the price of sugar on the world market in most years. Michael K. Wohlgenant ([email protected]) is the William Neal Reynolds Distinguished Professor in the Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics at North Carolina State University. 1 The resulting estimated costs to US consumers program on the mix of sweeteners and mix of have averaged $2.4 billion per year, with producers sugars. Policy recommendations are provided in benefiting by about $1.4 billion per year. So the net the conclusion. costs of income transfers to producers have averaged about $1 billion per year. Distortions due to the Structure of the US Sugar Industry sugar program have also led to the development of the high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) industry and extensive use of HFCS as a substitute for sugar in Sugar in the United States is produced using soft drinks and other sweetened products. In addi- both sugar cane and sugar beets. Historically, tion, in most years, the sugar program has caused sugar-beet production was slightly greater than world market prices to be about 8.5 percent lower sugar-cane production, and the trend has moved than they would otherwise be, with concomitant slowly in favor of sugar beets over time. Techno- adverse effects on the incomes of some of the world’s logical change due to improved plant varieties and poorest farmers. improved harvesting and processing methods has The 2008 Farm Bill shifted the conservation focus led to increased yields. Trends in sugar-beet and from land-retirement to working-land programs. sugar-cane production are shown in figure 1 over The traditional reliance on voluntary approaches to the period 1975–2008. Figure 2 shows trends in solving environmental problems was reaffirmed by real prices (1982–84 constant dollars) of sugar the use of a consolidated set of financial-assistance cane and sugar beets. The trends move downward, programs supported by research and education. reflecting technological improvements over time. The current sugar program, which relies on a Sugar-beet production is concentrated in eleven tariff rate quota system that raises domestic prices states encompassing the upper Great Plains, upper and restricts imports, has been in place for many Midwest, and far West. Minnesota and North Dakota years and is a costly way of transferring income to account for about 55 percent of all sugar-beet acreage. producers. Alternate income-transfer polices such Of sugar-beet acreage, Michigan accounts for about as straightforward loan-rate programs or direct 12 percent; the upper Great Plains states (western cash-transfer payments are costly to taxpayers and, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and especially in the current climate, politically infea- Nebraska) account for 14 percent; Idaho, Washing- sible. Another option is a buyout program through ton, and Oregon account for almost 15 percent; and which producers receive a one-time payment and California accounts for the remaining 4 percent.1 the program is discontinued. That would also likely Sugar beets are generally produced on relatively be an expensive option, involving multiple billions small farms. In 2007, the average farm size was of taxpayer dollars. Given the current high world 312 acres. The number of farms has decreased over prices for sugar and near-record returns and time as average farm size has increased, yet there are incomes for sugar-beet and sugar-cane farmers, still about four thousand sugar-beet farms.2 many elements of the sugar program currently do Sugar-cane production is limited to subtropical not come into play. Now may be the right time for and tropical areas of the country: (in order of out- Congress to end the program. put) Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and Hawaii. Sugar- The purpose of this paper is to review the struc- cane production has been growing the fastest in ture of the US sugar industry, trace the evolution of Louisiana, with substantial growth also in Florida government intervention in sugar, and quantify and Texas. Hawaiian production has declined the costs of the sugar program. In addition, indi- significantly over time due to the high opportunity rect costs associated with the distortions of the cost of land for other nonagricultural uses.3 The program are discussed, including the effects of the growth of sugar-cane production in Florida has 2 American Boondoggle: Fixing the 2012 Farm Bill Figure 1: Trends in US Sugar Beets and Sugar Cane, 1975–2008 6000 slowed in recent years due to e u l a 5000 pollution problems. In 2008, V w 4000 a Florida proposed a buyout of R , s 3000 n sugar-cane production to o T 2000 0 improve water quality in the 0 0 1000 sugar beets produced sugar cane produced , Everglades. The planned buy- 1 0 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 out of all sugar production 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Year and milling for $1.75 billion SOURCE: US Department of Agriculture (USDA), “Sugar and Sweeteners: Background,” www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Sugar/Background.htm devolved into a partial buyout (accessed May 2, 2011). of just $175 million.4 Like sugar-beet farms, sugar-cane farms have also Figure 2: Real US Sugar-Beet and Sugar-Cane Prices, 1975–2008 increased in average size. Sugar-cane production is 70 ) 60 d real refined sugar-beet price real raw sugar-cane price n concentrated in the largest u 50 o P / 40 s farms. The share of produc- t n e 30 C tion for farms larger than ( 20 e c i r 10 2,000 acres is almost 60 per- P cent. The share of production 0 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 for farms greater than 500 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 acres is over 90 percent. Year Farms smaller than 250 acres SOURCE: USDA, “Sugar and Sweeteners: Background,” www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Sugar/Background.htm (accessed May 2, 2011). account for only 3 percent of sugar-caneproduction.5 A major difference between sugar cane and sugar into refined sugar but also into a range of prod- beets is that sugar cane is a perennial crop that ucts containing sugar, including bakery products, requires less management. Sugar-cane harvesting beverages (canned, frozen, and bottled), confections, occurs continually, as needed by mills for processing, and dairy.8 while beet harvesting in the northern United States As figure 3 shows, the US sugar industry has faced occurs in September and October to avoid the beets competition from HFCS in the last several decades. freezing in the ground. In fact, the industry came into existence largely Both sugar beets and sugar cane must be processed because of high sugar prices resulting from the sugar into refined sugar (sugar beets) and raw sugar (sugar program. The HFCS industry has grown, and now cane) soon after harvesting. Sugar beets can be stored HFCS represents over 50 percent of all sweeteners. for a short time after harvest before being refined The relationship between sugar prices and HFCS into sugar. This means the number and location of prices is apparent in figure 4. In the 1970s and 1980s, sugar-processing plants are critical to sugar produc- the high relative sugar price induced substitution of tion. Without sugar-beet refineries and sugar- HFCS for sugar. Since about 1990, there has not cane mills, sugar beets and sugar cane have little or no been much movement in the relative sugar price. economic value.6 Consequently, only small substitution of HFCS for The number of sugar refineries has declined sig- sugar has occurred.
Recommended publications
  • An Economic History of the United States Sugar Program

    An Economic History of the United States Sugar Program

    AN ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES SUGAR PROGRAM by Tyler James Wiltgen A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Applied Economics MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana August 2007 © COPYRIGHT by Tyler James Wiltgen 2007 All Rights Reserved ii APPROVAL of a thesis submitted by Tyler James Wiltgen This thesis has been read by each member of the thesis committee and has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is ready for submission to the Division of Graduate Education. Chair Vincent H. Smith Approved for the Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics Myles J. Watts Approved for the Division of Graduate Education Carl A. Fox iii STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree at Montana State University, I agree that the Library shall make it available to borrowers under rules of the Library. If I have indicated my intention to copyright this thesis by including a copyright notice page, copy is allowed for scholarly purposes, consistent with “fair use” as prescribed in U.S. Copyright Law. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this thesis in whole or in parts may be granted only by the copyright holder. Tyler James Wiltgen August 2007 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am greatly indebted to Dr. Vincent Smith, my thesis committee chairman, for his guidance throughout the development of this thesis; I appreciate all of his help and support. In addition, I would like to thank the other members of the committee, Dr.
  • Sugar Act, 2020

    Sugar Act, 2020

    TI{E R:EPT'BI,IC OF UGAI{DA THE suGARAcr, 2020', PARLIAMENT LIBRARY I PO 8OX 7178, XAMPALA \ * 28APR?f;;3 * CALL NO TTIE REPUBLXC Otr UGAIIDA PARLIAMENT LIBRARY PO BOX 7178. KAMPALA * 7 8. APR ;i:I * CALL I sIcNIry my assent to the bill. t President Date of assent 3r^J Act Sugar Act 2020 TTM SUGAR ACT,2O2O. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section Penr I-PnsLrMrNARY 1. Commencement 2. Interpretation Panr II-UcnNoe Sucen Bonno 3. Establishment of the Uganda Sugar Board 4. Composition of the Board 5. Tenure of office of members of the Board 6. Remuneration of members of the Board PARLIAMENT LIBRARY PO BOX 7178. XAMPALA Functions of the Board * 2 t f":l l*"' * 7 . Functions of the Board ACC NO: 8. Cooperation with other agencies CALL NO:... 9. Powers of the Board 10. Powers of Minister 11. Meetings of the Board and related matters 12. Committees of the Board 13. Delegation of functions of the Board Penr Itr-STAFF oF rHp Boano t4 Executive director. 15 Functions of the executive director 16 Staff of the Board Penr IV-FTNANCES 17. Funds of the Board 18. Duty to operate in accordance with the Public Finance Management Act and sound financial principles Act Sugar Act 2020 Section Pexr V-LrcENsrNc on MrI-s 19. Licensing of mills 20. Application for a licence to operate mill 21. Processing, grant or refusal of licence 22. Modification of mill or plant Pnnr VI-Sucm INousrRY AcREEMENTS 23. Sugar industry agreements Penr VII-Sucnn CeNs PRlctNc 24. Sugar cane pricing Panr VIII-NATIoNAL Sucen Rrsrancs INsrtrure 25.
  • Relationships Among Impurity Components, Sucrose, and Sugarbeet Processing Quality

    Relationships Among Impurity Components, Sucrose, and Sugarbeet Processing Quality

    2 Journal of Sugar Beet Research Vol. 52 Nos. 1 & 2 Relationships Among Impurity Components, Sucrose, and Sugarbeet Processing Quality L. G. Campbell and K.K. Fugate USDA-ARS Northern Crop Science Laboratory, Fargo, ND 58102-2765 Corresponding author: Larry Campbell ([email protected]) DOI: 10.5274/jsbr.52.1.2 ABSTRACT Sodium, potassium, amino-nitrogen, and invert sugar are nat- urally-occurring constituents of the sugarbeet root, referred to as impurities, which impede sucrose extraction during rou- tine factory operations. Three germplasm lines selected for low sodium, potassium, or amino-nitrogen and a line selected for high amino-nitrogen concentration from the same parental population and two lines selected from another source, one for high and the other for low amino-nitrogen concentration, were the basis for examining relationships among the impurity components and between the impurity components and sucrose concentration, sucrose loss to mo- lasses, and sucrose extraction rate. Concentrations of the three impurity components were altered through selection; however, in no case did this result in a consistent significant increase in sucrose concentration or estimates of the propor- tion of the sucrose that would be extracted. Correlation analyses indicated a larger role for sodium than for potas- sium or amino-nitrogen in determining relative sucrose con- centration. Selection for low sodium concentration, however, did not increase the percent extractable sucrose, relative to the parental population. The probability of significant im- provement in the processing quality of elite germplasm by re- ducing the concentration of individual impurity components appears to be low, based upon the populations examined in this study.
  • Biotechnology Statement Sugar Beet Derived Granulated, Brown And

    Biotechnology Statement Sugar Beet Derived Granulated, Brown And

    Biotechnology statement Sugar beet derived granulated, brown and liquid sugar produced by our partners, Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC, Spreckels Sugar Company, and Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative, and marketed by NSM has been extracted from sugar beets grown from seed utilizing Monsanto event H7-1. The pure sugar does not contain genetically modified DNA and or proteins derived from genetically modified DNA. In the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (December 21, 2018), described in 7 CFR Part 66, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has affirmed “that foods with undetectable modified genetic material are not bioengineered foods.” Pursuant to 7 CFR Part 66 §66.9 (b)(2) the refining process completely excludes all genetic components. The sugar has been tested and shown to be PCR negative. The sugar is the same as that produced from traditional beet seed. Therefore, no bioengineered food labeling is required. Powdered sugar is produced by fracturing beet or cane sugar crystals to a defined particle size resulting in the various grades (6X,10X,12X, etc.) and adding a small amount (2- 4% by weight) of cornstarch. The cornstarch is added as an anti-caking agent to promote the flowability of the product. Powdered sugar is produced using two grades of cornstarch. Conventional cornstarch may be derived from genetically modified corn, and the powdered sugar could, therefore, be considered genetically modified. Identity preserved (IP) cornstarch is added to cane sugar to produce a non-GMO powdered sugar and is designated as non-GMO. Granulated and liquid cane sugar provided by National Sugar Marketing LLC (NSM) has been produced from sugar cane that has not been genetically modified nor does it contain genetically modified DNA and or proteins.
  • The Case for Neonicotinoids in Pelleted Sugar Beet Seeds

    The Case for Neonicotinoids in Pelleted Sugar Beet Seeds

    International Confederation of European Beet Growers CONFEDERATION INTERNATIONALE INTERNATIONALE VEREINIGUNG DES BETTERAVIERS EUROPEENS EUROPÄISCHER RÜBENANBAUER * * CONFEDERAZIONE INTERNAZIONALE MIĘDZYNARODOWA KONFEDERACJA DEI BIETICOLTORI EUROPEI EUROPEJSKICH PLANTATORÓW BURAKA 111/9 Boulevard Anspachlaan – B-1000 Brussels Tel: +32 2 504 60 90 – Fax: +32 2 504 60 99 www.cibe-europe.eu D.58/2.4.2018 Brussels, 2nd April 2018 The case for neonicotinoids in pelleted sugar beet seeds Introduction Within the context of the current debate on neonicotinoids, CIBE wishes to explain with the present note that the use of neonicotinoid-treated beet seed pellets is a good agricultural practice in sustainable sugar beet growing. 1. Neonicotinoid seed treatment in sugar beet does not endanger non-target organisms (including pollinators) and the environment Sugar beet is not attractive to pollinators since it does not flower/produce pollen during the growing period used for sugar production. The release of neonicotinoids to the environment via guttation or harvest residues is very low because: sugar beet is a low guttation crop with few and small droplets, and only at high humidity level (>90%); due to this comparative rareness of crop guttation in sugar beet (see illustration below), exposure to neonicotinoids from guttation seems to be unlikely because guttation droplets from sugar beet are unlikely to serve as a preferred source for e.g. water foraging bees; neonicotinoids and their metabolites occur in very low concentrations in the soil after harvest. This low concentration, combined with the fact that practically no flowering plants are found in a beet field during the early stage of crop development (EFSA Peer reviews of the pesticide risk assessment for the active substances imidacloprid & clothianidin, November 2016) and especially after harvest, makes it less likely that non-target organisms in general and pollinators in particular risk being exposed to neonicotinoids (Baker et al 2002).
  • Picture Tour: Growing Sugarbeets

    Picture Tour: Growing Sugarbeets

    1 Picture Tour: Growing Sugarbeets Saginaw Valley Research and Extension Center agbioresearch.msu.edu Images of: Plowing · Planting · Crop emergence · Growth · Fields · Harvest PLOWING Most beet ground is either moldboard or chisel plowed in the fall. Better stands are often achieved if the soil is worked early and seeds are planted into a stale seed bed. Land is tilled in the spring to level the ground and incorporate fertilizer, usually the day before or the day of planting. 2 Sugar beets are typically planted from March 31 to May 15. PLANTING Beets are planted in rowspacings from 15-30". Rows are planted as straight as possible to make it easier to cultivate and harvest. 3 Seed is dropped into the row and pressed firmly into moisture. CROP EMERGENCE Beets generally emerge 1-2 weeks after planting. 4 Leaves emerge in pairs. Beets are most susceptible to injury from frost, wind, disease, herbicides etc. during the first 30 days. 5 GROWTH As beets grow, the leaves develop a waxy coat and the taproot grows downward in search of water and nutrients. During July the root enlarges and stores sugar created by photosynthesis .Sugar beet roots continue to grow until harvest. 6 As beets mature the crown often extends above the surface of the soil. FIELDS Sugar beets will usually fill the rows by the end of June. Beet leaves continue to grow and expand, utilizing all available sunlight. 7 HARVEST Beet leaves are removed prior to harvest with a rotating drum topper. Rubber flails remove leaves and petioles in the topping operation.
  • Teacher Guide.Qxd

    Teacher Guide.Qxd

    Classroom Materials developed by the New-YYork Historical Society as a companion to the exhibit Generous support provided by THE NEW-YYORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY Since its founding in 1804, the New-York Historical Society (N-YHS) has been a mainstay of cultural life in New York City and a center of historical scholarship and education. For generations, students and teachers have been able to benefit directly from the N-YHS’s mission to collect, preserve and interpret materials relevant to the history of our city, state and nation. N-YHS consistently creates opportunities to experience the nation’s history through the prism of New York. Our uniquely integrated collection of documents and objects are par- ticularly well-suited for educational purposes, not only for scholars but also for school children, teachers and the larger public. The story of New York’s rootedness in the enslavement of Africans is largely unknown to the general public. Over the next two years, the New-York Historical Society, together with the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, will stage two major exhibitions, with walking tours, educational materials and programs for learners of all ages. The first of these exhibits, entitled “Slavery in New York,” explores the vital roles enslaved labor and the slave trade played in making New York one of the wealthiest cities in the world. In bringing this compelling and dramatic story to the forefront of historical inquiry, “Slavery in New York” will transform col- lective understanding of this great city’s past, present and future. The enclosed resources have been devel- oped to facilitate pre- and post-visit lessons in the classroom and provide learning experiences beyond the duration of the exhibit.
  • Ethanol from Sugar Beets: a Process and Economic Analysis

    Ethanol from Sugar Beets: a Process and Economic Analysis

    Ethanol from Sugar Beets: A Process and Economic Analysis A Major Qualifying Project Submitted to the faculty of WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Bachelor of Science Emily Bowen Sean C. Kennedy Kelsey Miranda Submitted April 29th 2010 Report submitted to: Professor William M. Clark Worcester Polytechnic Institute This report represents the work of three WPI undergraduate students submitted to the faculty as evidence of completion of a degree requirement. WPI routinely publishes these reports on its website without editorial or peer review. i Acknowledgements Our team would first like to thank Professor William Clark for advising and supporting our project. We greatly appreciate the guidance, support, and help he provided us with throughout the project. We also want to thank the scientists and engineers at the USDA who provided us with the SuperPro Designer file and report from their project “Modeling the Process and Costs of Fuel Ethanol Production by the Corn Dry-Grind Process”. This information allowed us to thoroughly explore the benefits and disadvantages of using sugar beets as opposed to corn in the production of bioethanol. We would like to thank the extractor vendor Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt AG (BMA) for providing us with an approximate extractor cost with which we were able to compare data gained through our software. Finally, we want to thank Worcester Polytechnic Institute for providing us with the resources and software we needed to complete our project and for providing us with the opportunity to participate in such a worthwhile and rewarding project. ii Abstract The aim of this project was to design a process for producing bioethanol from sugar beets as a possible feedstock replacement for corn.
  • Sugar Regimes in Major Producing and Consuming Countries in Asia and the Pacific

    Sugar Regimes in Major Producing and Consuming Countries in Asia and the Pacific

    SUGAR REGIMES IN MAJOR PRODUCING AND CONSUMING COUNTRIES IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC Mr Kaison Chang, Senior Commodity Specialist, Sugar and Beverages Group, Commodities and Trade Division, FAO. INTRODUCTION Sugar is one of the world's most important crops and one, which is of prominence to countries represented here. It has widespread implications for the earnings and well being of farm communities, as well as for consumers of this important food item. Today it is my task to briefly introduce existing sugar regimes in selected countries in Asia. Before touching on some of the salient features of individual sugar regimes, it is useful to place the Asia and Pacific region in its global context in as far as production, trade and consumption of sugar are concerned. OVERVIEW Of the nearly 128 million tonnes of sugar produced globally more than 36 percent was produced in the Asia and Pacific region with major producing countries being Australia, China, India and Thailand. In terms of trade, the region accounted for 43 percent of global exports and 29 percent of imports in 1998. The major net exporting countries were Australia, Thailand, India and Fiji and net-importing countries included China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia and the Republic of Korea. I would like to turn now to some of the features of individual policy in selected countries. My presentation is restricted to only a few countries due to time limitation. However, several more countries are included in the document that has been circulated. AUSTRALIA Introduction Australia's sugar industry is widely acknowledged as one of the lowest cost in the world.
  • Proximate, Chemical Compositions and Sensory Properties of Wine Produced from Beetroot (Beta Vulgaris)

    Proximate, Chemical Compositions and Sensory Properties of Wine Produced from Beetroot (Beta Vulgaris)

    Chemical Science Review and Letters ISSN 2278-6783 Research Article Proximate, Chemical Compositions and Sensory Properties of Wine Produced from Beetroot (Beta vulgaris) Ezenwa Mo1*, Eze Ji1 and Okolo Ca2 1Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria 2Department of Food Science and Technology, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria Abstract Table wine was produced from juice which had been The vitamin and mineral contents of the anaerobic and extracted from washed and peeled beetroot. Fermentation aerobic fermented wine samples were Pro-vitamin A of the juice lasted for 21days at room temperature and (24.16-25.83mg/100mL), Vitamin B1, (0.523- aging for 21days at below 100C. The wine sample 0.433mg/100mL), Vitamin C (1.697- produced under anaerobic and aerobic fermentation was 1.873mg/100mL), Vitamin E (0.315-0.374mg/100mL) coded BN and BA respectively. A commercial table wine and iron content (0.750-0.773mg/100mL), potassium (WBO) was used as reference sample. There were (28.360-29.056 mg/100mL), Magnesium (0.780-0.803 gradual changes in the physicochemical properties of the mg/100mL). The commercial sample was the most must as fermentation (aerobic and anaerobic) and ageing preferred with highest score (7.70) in general lasted. There was reduction in the pH from 4.7 to 3.9, acceptability. The anaerobic fermented wine sample Specific gravity from 1.092 to 1.021, 0Brix from 21.84 to was more preferred with higher score (7.13) in general 6.22 and increase were recorded for alcohol from 0 to 8.4 acceptability.
  • Feeding Sugar Beet Byproducts to Cattle AS1365

    Feeding Sugar Beet Byproducts to Cattle AS1365

    AS1365 (Revised) Feeding Sugar Beet Byproducts to Cattle Reviewed by variety of options to choose from in Sugar Beet Processing alternative feeds; however, the choice Greg Lardy To better understand the nutrient of those feeds depends on several NDSU Animal Sciences characteristics of sugar beet Department Head factors, including availability and byproducts, understanding the nutrient composition, as well as process that is used to extract storage and handling characteristics. sugar from sugar beets is important. The Red River Valley region of One possibility is to incorporate At the processing plant, foreign Minnesota and North Dakota, along sugar beet byproducts into the diet. material, small beets and leaves with the Yellowstone and Upper Beet byproducts are fed predominantly are removed from the beets prior to Missouri River Valley regions of in northeastern South Dakota, western processing. This material is known North Dakota and Montana, are Minnesota and eastern North Dakota, as “sugar beet tailings,” which important sugar beet-producing as well as western North Dakota and also is used as livestock feed. regions. In fact, Minnesota, North eastern Montana. This is due to the The sugar beets are sliced into long Dakota and Montana ranked 1, 3 availability and the perishable strips called cossettes. The cossettes and 5, respectively, in sugar beet nature of the wet byproducts. are cooked in hot water to remove the production in 2014. Together, these sugar. This process is called diffusion. three states produced more than The predominant byproducts fed in At the end of the diffusion process, 52 percent of the U.S. sugar beet crop this region are wet beet pulp and beet the hot water and sugar mixture is in 2014.
  • Beets Beta Vulgaris

    Beets Beta Vulgaris

    Beets Beta vulgaris Entry posted by Yvonne Kerr Schick, Hamilton Horizons student in College Seminar 235 Food for Thought: The Science, Culture, and Politics of Food, Spring 2008. (Photo from flilkcr.com) Scientific Classification1 Kingdom: Plantae Division: Magnoliophyta Class: Magnoliopsida Order: Caryophyllales Family: Chenopodiaceae Genis: Beta Species: vulgaris Binomial name Beta vulgaris Etymology The beet is derived from the wild beet or sea beet (Beta maritima) which grows on the coasts of Eurasia.2 Ancient Greeks called the beet teutlion and used it for its leaves, both as a culinary herb and medicinally. The Romans also used the beet medicinally, but were the first to cultivate the plant for its root. They referred to the beet as beta.3 Common names for the beet include: beetroot, chard, European sugar beet, red garden beet, Harvard beet, blood turnip, maangelwurzel, mangel, and spinach beet. Botanical Description The beetroot, commonly called the beet, is a biennial plant that produces seeds the second year of growth and is usually grown as an annual for the fleshy root and young 1 Wikipedia Foundation, Inc., website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beets. 2 A Modern Herbal website: http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/b/beetro28.html. 3 Health Diaries website: http://www.healthdiaries.com/eatthis/25-facts-about-beets.html. leaves. The Beta vulgaris has three basic varieties: chard, grown specifically for its leaves; beets, grown for its bulbous root, with edible leaves (with varieties in white, yellow and red roots); and sugar beets, grown for making sugar from the long, thick root. The beet is a root vegetable with purple-green variegated leaves.