 All right, welcome back everybody. Hopefully, you know, you got your doughnut or coffee, but sorry, no caramel rolls today. We'll say it for next time. We'll continue with some of the other talks. Our next speaker is Dr. Tenen Chu from USDA RS in Fargo, and he will be presenting identification and integration of beneficial genes to improve biotech stress resistance and sugar beet yield in sugar beet. Thank you, Dr. Chu. Florida viewers. Okay, today I thank you for this opportunity for talking about my research, and I'm changing Chu and sugar beet research genetics in USDA RS was based in Fargo, Nostagoda. And so today, this title was pretty broad. And of course, this is the corporate research. That's why I'll list all the scientists here and want to get the collaboration with all people. But it's not a new to this, I want to set up more collaboration with all people joining today or even not joining today, and we can set up more connection. And so, because I'm new to this community, and I just give a little bit more background information about myself, and I received a PhD degree from Nostagoda State University in Planet Science. And during that time, I mostly do this mapping population development and for QTR identification, mostly for the fungus disease in wheat. And then I did two years postdoc in NDSU and folks on wheat FHB, that's the number one disease in wheat, and also identify QTR, and also for the other foliar disease like 10 spot. And then we use this markers needs to different resistant genes to develop the new gene plasm. And meanwhile, did some sequence analysis for us a new one organization gene that we are in B1. And that time I worked in the private company, mostly just use this with double haploid technology to accelerate the wheat breeding. And 2017, I moved to Texas A&M AgriLife Research Center, based in Amarillo, Texas. And then I did this with genetic-genomic research, mostly focused on the association mapping and the genomic prediction for wheat-green yield. And I did an analysis for identifying the drug tolerance genes in wheat. So currently, the research genetics in sugar beet, in my research, mostly I want to conduct this following research. First, I want to collaborate with entomologists for improving the sugar beet resistance to the insect root maggot. And also, I want to collaborate with the pathologists for improving the sugar beet resistance to the conservative spot and also some other root rot diseases. And also, I want to collaborate with the virologists for working on the improving the resistance to resummonia, cause by this virus. And also, I want to collaborate with agronomists, physiologists, molecular biologists for working on improving the sugar yield, sugar beet quality, and then post-harvest storage, so the photosynthesis rate. And finally, I want to explore more the technique for producing the sugar beet double haploid. And because this double haploid was 100% home diagosity, so that's the idea of material for conduct research about the hydrolysis. So for conducting all this kind of research, my thought was, of course, we start from collecting the germ pleasant. And then after we get this germ pleasant, we can, of course, we need to increase the number of the seeds for further the treaty violation in the field or in controlled conditions. And also, we need to do the genotype to know what's the genetic information of all this germ pleasant. Once we get this genetic data and the trait data, we can combine these. We can start from association mapping and to identify the genomic regions associated with some trait of the interest and identify these genes. And then we can select some specific the germ pleasant to form the bi-paranormal populations and for gene identification and to conduct genetic-genomic research. And also, we can use markers linked to the specific beneficial genes to do marker-assisted interagression. So in this way, we can develop the new germ pleasant with the interest trait. And also, we can even isolate the genes and to understand what's the genetic mechanism of control this trait. And so here, this just shows this year, this past year, I connected over 1900 germ pleasant most from the cut with the sugar beet and also some other beet. And particularly this wild beet maritima, we have almost 609 there. And now I'm starting to germinate all the seeds and to increase the seed, increase it in this year. And also do this genotype bi-sequencing to genotype all the lines to identify the SNPs to cover the whole genome. And then we will do this genetic diversity analysis and to identify a core collection that can cover all the genotypic variation in the connection. But we can minimize the number of lines we can put in for the trait evaluation. And so in this way, we can reduce the work in the field and all the efforts for the trait evaluation. So this could be like in next year, Naton, we mostly focus on this part. So here, just show some few pictures like this. We have a few seconds to wrap up, please. Okay, okay, so this just shows like, this year I did some field work for the Casper gift spot and and this insect resistance for the insect in the St. Thomas nursery. And finally, I just to show you, this is my contact information. And if you anyone want to connect me, just shoot me the email or call me. And thank you all for my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. In the best interest of time, please post your questions in the Q&A. We'll move on to our next presentation. That's Dr. Juanita Ramachandran from USDA ARS in Fargo. She'll be talking about CRISPR based next generation diagnostic method development for detecting viruses in sugar beach. So, hello, so I am Vanita Ramachandran, and I'm a sugar beet to virologist with the sugar beet and potato research unit, part of the USDA ARS located here in Fargo, North Dakota. And I joined for this position September onwards. So it's about four months and few days. And it's so far it's been exciting. And thank you for the opportunity to get introduce myself to the sugar beet research and education board audience. Today I will be discussing about a little bit on the CRISPR based next generation diagnostic method development for detecting viruses in sugar beet. So why method development is interested is because a diagnostic is a key for disease management. So viruses keep evolving and it's important to get to know the sequence identity of the virus. So in the next step would be to develop an essay which helps to identify the virus, the causative for any disease related to that in the field and then move forward with strategies to manage the disease. So with the sugar beet diagnostics, we are looking for an ideal essay that is specific for which has high specificity and the easy to do and just the rapid rapid and cost effective and the most importantly field deployable mean that you can just take it a strip or something and try to detect the virus in the field. So there are a lot of molecular technologies. Those are available and ELISA is one of those which is routinely used for resomalia field sample evaluations. And that is a protein based and it has some limitations with the specificity and it's not portable and the other technology is the QPCR which is highly sensitive and which is sequence specific but it's still not portable and the recently developed CRISPR based essay is sequence specific and it's been shown that cost effective and then it can be rapid and it is field deployable. So that is why we are interested in developing such CRISPR based virus diagnostics essay for sugar beet virus detection. So this slide shows an overview of how the essay works and this essay is developed for human virus diagnostics and basically the CRISPR technology is meant for genome editing. However, because recently a second activity was discovered with some of the Casper proteins and that set up the base for the CRISPR based essay for human virus diagnostics and basically it's a sequence specific because the CRISPR RNA which is mentioned here is the G RNA is a guide RNA that determine the specificity of the target sequence with which the essay is going to be triggered and detected later on the reporter's signal. So we are envisioning the sugar beet virus detection using this technology and the foremost important aspect to go into this technology is the isothermal amplification of the viruses. So it's been discovered in human virus diagnostics and the technology is quickly skyrocketed because of a lot of funding and effort put forward for the human virus and detection projects. So here to demonstrate the isothermal amplification of sugar beet virus. What I have shown here is the amplification of a big necrotic yellow vein virus that you can see a band here on the left side of the panel in two gel pictures. So when I loaded just five microliters and 10 microliters you can see a very nice specific band and the next thing is that okay you are seeing in the infected sample but not in the healthy samples is it a legitimate amplified correct representing the BNYVV. So I took that band and gel purified and sell it out for sangu sequencing and what you see on the right side is that is confirms the sequence identity of the isothermal amplified BNYVV fragment indicating that we have developed the isothermal amplification of BNYVV and that happens to be the right containing the right sequence. So the rest of the essay for developing this CRISPR diagnostic approach for sugar beet virus detection is in progress and this slide shows my first sugar beet field trip which is kindly coordinated by John Weiland and kindly done by Joe Hastings from the American Crystal Sugar Company. I was really excited and this was my ever first field trip. Thank you Joe Hastings and I was so excited to see the different processes that's being involved although it was at the end of or the middle of October end of the season. So I was happy to see how the sugar beet field is processed to get the beet out of the field and how it's processed and piled for sugar extraction in the industries. So this will be my first field trip and I hope that many more it to come across the nation in the coming years. So with that I would like to thank the everyone in the sugar beet and potato research unit here in Forgo. So I thank Melvin for his support and feedback and providing resources for carrying out the virology work and John Weiland has already established sugar beet related virus work and he has been very instrumental in introducing me to collaborators and to the field samples and to many many many more things and Jonathan Neubauer is a lab manager and he is very kind in introducing me to several instruments in the lab and Alisa to also several materials that I needed here and there to like a buffer or something. So she is very kind and Alex Desert for man care watering and Dr. Karen Focke introducing me to different and required USDA related administrative startups and Changin Ju. So he's my neighbor and we chat every day for small small help I take from him and the Linda Bacon for office support and all members of the Bolton Lab and I would like to thank Joe Hastings again for the field trip and we have got the soil and beet sample from more blue quest from southern Minnesota Beach Sugar Cooperative and we have conducted some research sapping the transferring the viral diseases from the beet to sugar beet and that is giving a lot of interesting and exciting data which are it to come and we are thankful to the seed companies for providing us seeds to carry out our virology related research to work here at the center and here is my contact information and my anytime please feel free to shoot me an email or here's my cell number in case if there is any question related to the virus diseases in sugar beet and I'll be happy to you collaborate on any aspect with that so thank you so much and I can take any questions so our next speaker is Dr. Karen Fugate from USDA RS in Fargo and she'll be talking about effect of sarcastically spot on sugar beet root storage properties looks really good Karen thank you you can go ahead yeah thanks Ashok I really appreciate the opportunity to to speak here today okay sarcastically is a disease that really needs no introduction the effect of the disease on sucrose content yielded harvest are well known what we don't know however is the effect of disease on on storage properties and so what we're interested in is how sarcastically spot affects storage properties of roots and what we're interested in are properties like respiration rates sucrose loss and storage and how root purity might change during storage and the reason for this is actually pretty straightforward we need to know how sarcastically stop leaf spot affects storage properties if we want to be able to predict storage losses if we want to find out if there are certain levels of disease that would preclude the roots from being included in the storage piles or determining if there is maybe a benefit to segregating beets with sarcastically spot for early processing we started out doing an experiment or we when we still are working with Muhammad Khan and his his people and Muhammad is doing the field studies and we're doing the the storage study but basically the experiment is fairly straightforward field plots were established in a field outside of foxhole minnesota the plants were inoculated with sarcospera particular infected leaves in mid july and then the field plots were treated with different fungicide compounds or different fungicides and different fungicide regimes to obtain plants with a varying range of disease symptoms just prior to harvest the plants were rated on a 1 to 10 scale where a 1 would be a completely healthy plant 10 would be a plant that was completely defoliated and the roots were then harvested Muhammad then gave us the roots that he harvested from these plots and we took roots that had four levels of disease severity we took the healthiest roots the most diseased roots and two intermediate levels so we had four levels of disease severity based on the cls ratings the roots were stored for 120 days at five degrees c and we looked at storage properties at harvest and after 3090 and 120 days in storage the experiment was started in 2018 and it's been conducted also in 2019 and 2020 we're currently in the third storage study what i'm going to be presenting today is the results from 2018 and 2019 because those experiments have been have been completed but what we've seen so far in the third year is is consistent with the results that that i'll be presenting today so the first thing we look at when we look at storage traits is typically looking at respiration sugar beets respire they're they're living organs and they respire until they are killed either by freezing or by processing respiration is important for the root because it provides the metabolic energy to support its processes but it's it's detrimental for the industry because it uses sucrose and is the principal cause of sucrose loss in storage respiration is also a problem because it generates heat which contributes to the warming of storage piles so what you see here is the data that we collected in the first two years of the study we got year one and year two we had roots with four different degrees of sucrose relief spot both years were very similar and they range from a cls rating of three up to almost 10 so we've got the four ratings we we collect the data at 30 90 and 120 days i'm only showing the 30 and 120 20 days of storage or days after harvest just in the interest of times but know that the 90 degree day is consistent with this data and rather than actually look at the number actually which which we really should do is look at the letters where the letter if the letters the same then the data is statistically significant with with other items or other other um other values that have that same letter and the data is really clear and very easy to see if you look at 30 days or 120 days we see all a's going down same with year two you see all the the data all the respiration rates are statistically the same and so uh fairly straightforward conclusion that sucrose relief spot at any severity level had no effect on storage respiration rate the second trait we looked at was sucrose content so this is the percent sucrose content of the sugar beet root again we're looking at the same two years and the same cls ratings on these four groups of beats and what you can see here is um the first two the the roots with the lower levels of sucrose have similar levels of sucrose content while those with the what what i consider moderate to severe those with cls ratings is six to ten um you see a different letter meaning that they're statistically different so we're seeing for the moderate to severely the beats that have moderate and severe cls you see a decline in sucrose content we see it at 30 days 120 days we see it in both years so the so what we're looking at is you're seeing lower sucrose content but the thing that we need to remember is that these beats started out with less sucrose at harvest if you look at the harvest data you see that same trend uh the moderate and severely uh infected roots have or infected plants have um lower sucrose content at harvest so the question is then is is sarcospro affecting sucrose content in harvest or i'm affecting sucrose content during storage or is it just a reflection of this difference in sucrose content that occurred at harvest and to look at this it is a little bit confusing but it's what we did on this for this graph or for this table is if you look at how much sucrose is lost due to the increasing severity of sarcospro um so for example you know if you're looking at this harvest data these roots with the cls rating at 3.3 has have 0.3 percent less sucrose while those with a cls rating at 9.8 have 2.2 percent less sucrose relative to our our most healthy roots in the study and what you can see is as you look across the data whether it's year one or year two you can see that the loss that you had due to increasing severity of sarcospro doesn't get bigger with time so what that that suggests to us is that um we're not seeing an acceleration and the rate of sucrose lost during storage we see less sucrose in these beats during storage because there was less sucrose in them at harvest sucrose lost to molasses is another trait that we typically look at it's a it's an indicator of the amount of sugar that is not recoverable during processing and it's it's not recoverable due to the concentrations of three impurities sodium potassium and amino nitrogen compounds and these three compounds tend to pull sucrose into molasses making it unrecoverable by crystallization um if we look at the first year this the data is just very simple to look at there aren't any statistically significant changes that occur at 30 days or 120 days in the sucrose lost to molasses year two uh we saw a difference just in one data point uh this was at 30 days after harvest and these were the beats that had the most severe cls rating they did have a statistically greater increase in um the amount of sucrose lost to molasses but again when we do that same sort of calculation where we look at um is this the difference in purity at harvest or is it an increase in impurities during storage we see that the differences are the differences that existed in at harvest and there seems to be no acceleration in the accumulation of non sugars during storage invert sugars is another impurity it's it doesn't enter into the slm calculation but it's an important impurity because invert sugars degrade to colored compounds which makes it more difficult to to produce white sugar they increase sucrose lost to molasses they break down to acidic compounds which increase the use of lime and they can make beats unprocessable if present and sufficient quantities uh this one we see kind of the same trend that we've seen with the other traits in year one we do see an increase in invert sugars at 30 days we don't see that at 120 days and we don't see it at all in year year two either at 30 days or 120 days um so only at this 30 days at harvest well we saw this increase in invert sugars in the beats that had more severe cls symptoms but again that wasn't repeatable in in year two the last trait that we looked at was recoverable sugar per ton it's the yield of sugar after processing and it takes into account not only the sugar content of the roots but also the expected losses sucrose to molasses during processing um what we see here is very similar to what we saw with the sucrose content where the beats with the two highest ratings of sarcospora have lower recoverable sugar per ton and we see it in both years of the study and we see it at both 30 days and 120 days after harvest but again the question comes up um is it because of the differences at harvest because if we look here we see that these beats in both year one and year two have less recoverable sugar at the time that they were harvested and again doing that same sort of calculation you can look at the numbers and you could see that for the most part um you don't see an increase in the amount of recoverable sugar per ton that is lost as you go um from the less diseased roots to the more diseased roots so again the conclusion is what we've seen for the other traits is there seems to be no acceleration in the loss of recoverable sugar per ton during storage due to sarcospora leaf stuff leaf spot so it makes the conclusions of this experiment very simple um it seems that sarcospora leaf spot has no apparent impact on sugar beet root storage properties regardless of the severity of the infection levels um this is based on two years of of research um that we've completed and we've got a third third year going on and that's the third year study seems to be entirely consistent with what we've seen here uh what's presented here and so really what this comes down to is it suggests that there's there's no reason to take any special precautions with um plants that have or with the storage of roots that come from plants that have been infected with sarcospora particular and perhaps maybe not surprising since this is a foliar disease that seems to that shows no symptoms in the roots and with that I'd like to thank the R&E board for funding this research all right hey hey Dr. Karen Fugate I have a quick question this is Austin Lean here um I was just curious if there's ever been work to look at if sarcospora leaf spot may exacerbate the negative impacts that occurs um from root rots in storage so if you know the beets are also infected with root rots if sarcospora can will negatively impact storage in that sense well I think it's a really good question and it's something that we don't have any data to make a suggestion one way or the other you know I guess it's possible but you know it's with what we've seen with the sarcospora leaf spot it just doesn't look like it's having any effect now the root rots we know have serious effects on storage properties um but you know as far as an interaction between the two I I I would hate to guess whether there is you know we just don't have any data to support any conclusions thank you thank you Dr. Fugate I think we just need to move on to our next presentation here so that will be Dr. Gehry Sikor from NDSU he'll be talking about monitoring sensitivity of sarcospora beta coli to foliar fungicides in sugar beet fields of Minnesota and not Dakota in 2021 okay Gehry yep thank you for that introduction and happy to be here I'm gonna jump right into the slides and the results from this year because one you've heard me talk about this for 20 years you already know the background and two the previous speakers have already done a good job of introducing the subject so I do want to acknowledge Viviana and Melvin as co-workers on this project and we'll just start right out with 10 here and I'm just going to go right through the results from this year and the accumulated results this is the incidence and severity of 10 resistance collected from 1990 1998 to 2000 and you can see that you can see the chart so we've been doing this for more than 20 years the blue bars are the field incidence uh the number of fields with resistance and the reddish brown line is the incidence of spore germination in 2020 we tested 12 1201 samples which is about average we usually test about 1200 samples you can see that in 2020 uh well you can see that the high was in 2017 where we had 97% of the fields with 10 resistance that dropped to 62 to 21 in 2019 2020 the number of field with circus for with resistance to 10 jumped up to 68% which is just about the same as what we started at in 1998 so it does uh there is some variability there the spore germination also increased from about 15% to about 40% in in 2020 I think that this increase is because we've lost over the years from 2015 to 2020 we've had an increase in dmi resistance we've lost q o i so we've had more 10 applications and so we're increasing the resistance but don't forget that there is a fitness penalty in 10 to so the resets and isolates usually disappear from the population uh this is the incidence of 10 resistance by uh factory district in 2020 and you can see that they go from left to right in each factory district is 17 18 19 and 20 and you can see that the 10 incidents increased in all of the factory districts compared to last year except for our friends at southern minnesota beach sugar cooperative the incidence of 10 resistance actually reduced all the other factory districts the 10 incidents increased this is the distribution of sarcospa isolates with ec 50 to the dmi fungicides from 2019 and 2020 and again the bars in each group is the 2019 and 2020 for each of the four fungicides at the bottom of the table and if we go left to right it's low values to high values from 0.01 to greater than 100 ec 50 values and you can see that with eminent the incidence uh greater than 100 was reduced in 2020 to inspire the incidence greater than 100 reduced again to uh from 25 to four in proline the incidence greater than 100 was reduced but in provisal uh in the right hand side the incidence was about the same in 2019 and 2020 okay for the ice which greater than 100 uh so you can see that we've had some some changes in these values and this may be to the the different four different fungicides the dmi fungicides that were um could have been alternated at at different combinations which may affect the performance of the fungicides i also want to point out that in addition to the ec 50 values we usually convert these to a resistance factor which is is the ec 50 value divided by the baseline sensitivity so it puts all of the fungicides on on a comparable basis so we can compare them directly and you can see that beginning in 2016 we had we got so much resistance we started testing at 10 and in 2019 we began testing at greater than 100 parts per million so our the resistance levels of the rf levels to the dmi's kept increasing so we had to keep increasing our uh the test rates so this is a resistance factor of ice that's collected from 2017 to 2020 to inspire proline eminent and provisal and again they go from left to right 17 18 19 and 20 and you can see that inspire uh the resistance factor increased in 2020 eminent increase in 2020 provisal increased in 2020 they're at about the same level so the resistance factor is about the same in those three fungicides the one that is consistently lower is proline and you can see from this data that proline is consistent the resistance factor proline is continually lower and there's some there's some uh unusual things about this molecule that probably make this this uh this resistance factor so low uh i'm going to show each of the four fungicides across factory districts so you can see where you are in the factory district this first slide shows the uh ec 50 values um for the for eminent across factory district and you can see that they're pretty even the color that is the most prominent is this flesh colored so most of the isolates are between 10 and 100 part per million okay so that's eminent eminent if you look at inspire you can see that most of the isolates with resistance are between one and 10 so the inspire level is it's a little lower again the factory districts are about the same uh this is proline you can see that there's a lot of isolates in the 10 to 100 parts per million and a lot of isolates that are beginning to show up in red that are greater than 100 parts per million again it's pretty similar across factory districts this is provisal across factory districts you can see despite the fact we've only had this product registered for two years we already have a pretty high level of resistance greater than 100 parts per million and then we have another group between one and 10 parts per million so this is a little bit bimodal but again it's pretty much the same across all factory districts so it looks like there's consistent um resistant to all four of the dmi's across all of the factory districts this is sensitivity of isolates to headline from 2012 to 2020 and again the news is is not any better than it's been in the past years you can see we started out with green in 2012 with no resistance and by 2020 we've got a high level of resistance red is completely 100 percent resistance flesh colored in yellow are more than 50 percent or equal to 50 percent so very few isolates with resistance so the trend is continuing that the resistance is not going away um this is this is this is resistance to headline across factory districts and you can see that all of the factory districts have a lot of red for those resistance except mendak and mendak has 38 percent of the isolates that are more than 50 percent but look at how much less there is for absolute resistance and mendak and the green is even increasing a little bit in mendak now i don't know what they're doing and what church they're going to but whatever they're doing they need to continue because this is this is an encouraging and surprising aspect that we didn't anticipate and if we look at factory districts in 2019 and 2020 you can see we started to see this trend in mendak in 2019 and it continues in 2020 so there there may be something that we don't understand what's going on but i think we need to investigate this and you guys at mendak i'm going to need your help to figure out what's going on here so a little bit of a summary in conclusion tin continues to be our best weapon that we only have in the us the number of fields with tin resistance declined 36 and 65 percent the past two years but increased 69 percent this year the incidents went from 20 percent to 30 percent to 40 percent in 2020 so i think we're using it more we need to do everything we can to preserve this fungicide topson we've got consistent resistance we did not test for for topson this year because the resistance is so consistent it doesn't seem to go away at all the trizols this is where most of the action is because we have the four have these four fungicides the resistance factor is increasing for eminent inspire and provisal but not from proline since 2017 we hope that there's a fitness penalty of these islets with high rf values and as the high rf values continue to increase i can't help but think we're going to end up with some fitness penalties we are evaluating the pcr detection using particularly one mutation the l 144 f that dr bolton talked about that came from his lab that was becky's work for her phd thesis we are in the process or his lab is in the process of validating and evaluating whether we can use this in future years so we can get faster results for the dmi's and of course they should be applied with manka zeb or copper partner uh copper inhibits for germination at 10 parts per million and i've had two questions about resistance to manka zeb resistance has never ever been reported as ever it should be never reported to manka zeb since registration in 1948 so there's never been an incidence of resistance in manka zeb or to manka zeb at any crop by any fungus so i think we're pretty safe with that um q o is the single mutation has been present since 2016 does not appear to be a fitness penalty to allow the population to revert so far but min doc results are really encouraging and surprising we're still not recommending q oi for cls management but for sure for frost protection um i think we need to develop better cls resistant sugar beet varieties and we do have those now that were introduced this year that got some really high resistance i think we need to look at the question do these new varieties with high resistance uh affect fungicide resistance in other words if they're highly resistant does that get rid of those fungicide resistant isolates we need to look at this in the future uh i think we need to continue to look at cultural practice to reduce initial inoculum help those fungicides work better uh getting rid of uh deep plowing to re to bury the inoculum burning the inoculum those kinds of things those cultural practices and i think we can adjust the forecasting to include sport production of germination that viviana talked about for early fungicide timing because it looks like from field work and our work that early fungicide application is going to be a very important aspect of managing chikostro uh and i'd like to acknowledge the sugar beet research and education board for uh support for this work thanks for the companies that provided technical grade product for us and the technical assistance of judith and joe is greatly appreciated as well so with that i will end my presentation and happy to answer questions probably by i think we have time for a question gary thank you uh i'll ask probably the the second one first because that looks maybe short answer for that or something similar so why do you think the tin resistance is decreased in certain minnesota but i saw the same trend for christian compared to everything else did you that's that's interesting i wonder if if those ice that's at the temperatures were colder or if you know because they're at a fitness penalty with tin and and maybe whatever conditions in those two areas where they did more plowing in the fall bury the inoculum where the temperatures were colder i don't know the answer but it is interesting but it does vacillate a little bit from time to time i i don't know the answer for sure as shock thank you so the other question from christine from ontario canada could you please explain some the background on tin if you have a quick answer that would be good christine you you don't use tin in canada because i know you're up in guelph there but the background in tin is it's been it's been here forever and it's it's a broad spectrum uh fungicide and our growers use it fairly frequently usually one or two applications per season i don't know if that's the background you wanted i could talk a lot longer so if you want to call me or i can call you or we can email i'm happy to do that as well thank you very much gary sorry three applications per season of the tin how many three they make use of a default tree in most places maximum amount oh wow so there was up to three see that's that's an increase in the number of applications to them yeah thank you raman okay gary you do have a question in the q and a box too if you want to check that out thank you i will mark all right thank you uh let's uh move on to our next presenter uh that's dr lou from haptocota state university fitness of sarcospera vertical resistant populations and their management with fungicides uh so my name is yang shillio from nostogodas the university uh today my presentation is fitness of sarcospera resistant population and the layer management based funding sites and uh first i will uh introduce my outlines of today's presentation so first i will introduce the sarcospera live spot which is a big problem to the industry and then i will talk about the situation sarcospera pedicola developed the resistance for these two fungicides and then i will present my research the final study of this resistant population and how to manage this resistant population using couple fungicides so sarcospera live spot is a big problem as you see in this photo the disease becomes so epidemic in this field and the real problem is uh the funding size applied to this field are not working especially qi uh funding sites uh why is that the reason is uh you can find from this table uh talking about different fungicide uses for controlling sarcospera live spot in 2015 uh in the red circles and you can see how many acres of fields are private dmi and qi funding sites and uh that's the reason actually these two fungicides has been used extensively used for more than 10 years the nest of two slides is talking about how the sarcospera fungal population become more resistant over years i think uh dr gary seeker has made a group presentation to talking about how the resistant population become more resistant to dmi and qi funding sites so i just skip these two slides so since we have this resistant population so how can we handle this situation so we have conducted a phoenix study to try to understand this resistant population uh we would like to know if resistant isolates they are similar to sensitive isolates in some important fitness components such as aggressiveness to the sugar bits uh so this is the research objective to determine the fairness components of sarcospera resistant isolates compared to the sensitive isolates uh in this study the resistant isolates include qi resistant dmi resistant and both resistant isolates and sensitive isolates they are sensitive to qi and dmi funding sites in this study we evaluated four different fitness components which are mycelial growth spore germination and production and aggressiveness study in a greenhouse this table is talking about the difference in different fitness components across different resistant group of isolates if you see the first lion the sensitive isolates has the highest number in the radio growth and spore production compared to other resistant isolates and in spore germination they are almost the same this is the aggressiveness study in a greenhouse we evaluate the disease development as we call AUDPC caused by different resistant isolates you can see from the first lion the qi dmi sensitive isolates they had highest AUDPC which is similar to the both resistant isolates even we can see a significance in the AUDPC but when you see the but when you see the photos on the right and however all the isolates get very high disease severity at the end so from this information so this is a summary although the resistant isolates had a relatively slower disease development due to their fairness penalty on the radio growth and spore production but the resistant isolates still cause high disease severity so from this information we know the resistant population they are still aggressive so as extension people we would like to found some ways to manage this resistant population so that's the reason today I would like to introduce my next chapter how to manage this resistant how to manage this resistant population using copper foundry sites this is a field experiment photos from 2017 you can see how big difference if you use copper mixtures with other dmi foundry sites so this big comparison gives us an idea copper foundry sites are working so we have this research to evaluate the sensitivity of so cospora resistant isolates and we also to the copper foundry sites and we also evaluate the copper foundry sites efficacy in the greenhouse and field studies this is the product list for a copper foundry sites experiment most of copper products they are registered for use on sugar beet we also include one product of sulfur and we also include another product of copper fertilizer this is the lab study tasting the sensitivity of the isolates to the copper foundry sites and you can see from the photos we make different copper concentrations into the media so we have copper media then we place conidia onto the water aga and 16 hours afterwards and we use microscope to see how they germinate this is the table this is the result the table is talking about the mean ac50 value for each copper product inhibiting the spoil inhibiting the spoil germination by 50 percentage and from the photos you can clearly see the spoils can germinate well well in the control compared to the copper media the spoil germination has been limited this is the green this is the greenhouse evaluating the efficacy of these products we first we use this machine in the photo in the greenhouse to spread the copper foundry sites on the leaves drying the leaves for one for one day and we do inoculation with spoil suspension and then we place them into the humidity chamber for disease development for a couple of days then we do disease evaluation so this is the results from the photo and you can see a lot of brown spots in untreated check and for the leaves traded with copper they are pretty good and this is the results from analyzed data and you can see there's a very high AUDBC in untreated check on the left so obviously the copper foundry sites provide effective control compared to the untreated check and it's also noted the mixture of coppers and sulfur are even more effective than using them alone this is the field study we also do the field study in 2019 this is the photos in the foxhole Minnesota we do inoculation in July using resistant population as inoculum we do disease evaluation during the growing season and we harvest them to the factory and we get sucrose data afterwards this is the photos from the field and in the middle you can see this is untreated check you can see the brown leaves so that field is not good if you see on the left which is the copper foundry site treatments which is much better than the middle photo the right photo is the mixture of copper and sulfur from my personal well I think mixture is a little bit better than a couple alone this is the analyzed results as you see untreated check has highest disease ratings nine and the lowest sucrose obviously any copper can do a better job than the check similar to the greenhouse study the fields the field study you can also see mixture is more effective than any product alone this is a summary in the lab study where found copper foundry sites they are so effective to inhibit mature growth and spoil germination and in the greenhouse and field study copper foundry sites are very effective and although we found some phytotoxicity in the greenhouse study but we haven't seen any negative things in the green in the field study we really recommend growers can do the mixtures a couple mixtures with other foundry sites because you will get a better disease control so I will summarize a little bit today's presentation as take home message number one we have a sucrose population which is resistant to qi and dmi foundry sites and this population I guess is everywhere in the nostalgota and the many soda should be growing area number two these resistant population they are still aggressive and dangerous number three the couple foundry sites are very effective to provide disease control number four we highly recommend it to do the copper mixtures with other foundry sites especially with site specific foundry sites such as dmi when growers do the mixtures you will get a better disease control and at the same time you are managing the foundry site resistant issues that's all for today thank you this is my acknowledgement I would like to thank my advisor dr. mohammed com and my founding resources our team members peter huck and zea and everybody in our department plan pathology and dsu I just make my long story short so if you have any question about details of my experiment you are so welcome I just graduate so if you have any job opportunity please inform me thank you thank you dr. lu thank you it's an excellent presentation and I see one question here but I'm not sure if it's meant for Gary or you but it says that applying mannip or manzite products work best for lead spot and other products did not work so would it be better if you just pray mannip or manzite fundy site every seven days and skip other products man manzite this kind of chemical products is also recommended I haven't heard any resistant issues from that products it will be effective too usually we do usually we do the applications every 14 days but if you get a rainfall you will shorten the intervals seven days or 10 days that will be good I answered that question well yes you can also follow up with the audience to know who posed the question too another question is how does copper compared to other protectant fundy sites in terms of efficacy and longevity copper copper provide very effective disease control if you see the leaves in the greenhouse study they are pretty good pretty clean in the field study they also prefer very good as other like standard treatments I also post a field study in 2017 and you can see how big difference there if you add cupboards into dmi fundy sites they are pretty good pretty green so I believe that cupboards are very effective especially you use them in the mixture thank you okay thank you again let's move on to our next speaker now Austin Lynn from University of Minnesota Department of Plant Pathology so Austin is my first year PhD student he's going to talk about management of sarcastically spot white tank mixing is important perfect thank you for the introduction thank you for the introduction Dr. Chanda and hello everyone so a little bit of redundancy here but you know as we've been hearing sugar beet growers deal with many challenges but sarcastically spot caused by sarcastically particular has earned the reputation of being the most destructive foliar disease of sugar beet and in Minnesota and North Dakota alone the disease causes significant economic damage and this results from the reduced harvest weights and the reduction of sugar percent and quality which occurs from the destruction of the leaf tissue seen in this picture as well as the effects of the pathotoxins produced by the fungus so signs of the pathogen typically include these black pseudo stromata scattered within mature lesions and these are actually the structures that can overwinter uninfected leaf residue and under ideal conditions of high humidity canidia then develop from those stromata and once those canidia detach and then land on another sugar beet leaf they cause more infection so this process of developing new canidia occurs several times and creates multiple infection cycles throughout the growing season and in the field those circular leaf spots are initially produced on the older leaves and the disease progressively moves to younger leaves and with the progression of the disease individual spots will coalesce into lesions and the heavily infected leaves will turn necrotic remaining attached to the plant so being that sugar beets are first defoliated during harvest and all of that leaf residue is left in the field management of the disease must incorporate the use of practices such as conventional tillage crop rotation and when possible even spatial separation from previous sugar beet fields and also when possible the use of resistant varieties can really help limit disease but each variety does have unique characteristics and most are still susceptible or only moderately resistant to sarcospura and moreover there is no substitute for the control achieved from fungicides and the fungicides ability to interrupt the development of disease and without effective fungicide based management significant economic losses can occur so for managing sarcospura leaf spot in sugar beets these are the protectant fungicides that are commonly used these are the systemic fungicides that have been used and as we've been discussing fungicide resistance has been reported in many of these fungicide groups and now sarcospura isolates are showing decreased sensitivity to dmi fungicides as well and this is likely the result of the substantial reliance we have on dmi's so one tactic to maintain effectiveness of dmi's is by tank mixing or combining the dmi fungicide with the protectant fungicide in the tank for one spray application and primarily copper and ebbc are used ebbc or mankozeb are used as tank mix partners which are at low risk for developing resistance and the use of these fungicide mixtures comes from a recommendation by the fungicide resistance action committee to delay the resistance of evolution but also so the rationale for this trial is that reports strongly suggest that tank mixing can provide more than additive effects in regards to disease control however anecdotal evidence along with their own preliminary field trials suggest that unanticipated and antagonistic effects can result from tank mixing certain chemistries and formulations and also lastly reports and field trials have also suggested other protectant fungicides other than copper and ebbc that could be an effective tank mix partner so this past summer we conducted a field trial in which combinations of dmi fungicides and protectant fungicides were evaluated for their effect on harvestable root yield and sucrose quality and of course the relative control of sarcospura leaf spot disease on sugar beet essentially the questions we want to answer are do all these treatments provide equal control or are any of these combinations synergistic or maybe even antagonistic so the dmi fungicides treatments used in this trial were Proline Minerva also called eminent we also use provisal and inspirext provisal was first available at the sugar beet growers in 2019 and these are the protectant fungicides or the tank mix partners that we used in the trial and as mentioned ebbc and copper are frequently used but sulfur was actually included as it's shown the potential to improve management of late leaf spot of peanut when added to dmi fungicides next we have phosphates or phosphonates these were reclassified actually is having activity and host plant defense induction and studies have shown it may have fungistatic properties also studies have shown bicarbonate or baking soda may have fungicidal properties and also the michigan sugar beet research council has been evaluating baking soda as a potential tank mix partner and lastly we have bacillus subtilis which is classified as a biological with multiple modes of action so we established our field trial at the university of minnesota's northwest research and outreach center in crookston the experimental design was a randomized split plot with four replicates where the dmi treatments were assigned as main plots and the protectant fungicides were assigned as sub plots plants were thinned to establish a uniform stand of 200 plants per 100 foot of row and all plants were inoculated with this mixture infected sugar beet leaves and fine tulk at a rate of three grams per row using this duster we created from a power drill at an algae bottle fungicide sensitivity results also indicated that the first leaf spots collected two weeks after inoculation were in fact susceptible to a dmi so fungicides were applied to the middle four rows and applications began when disease was first apparent treatments were applied repeatedly about every 10 days for a total of five applications throughout the growing season and to assess sir cospirally spot disease severity for each plot i actually collected leaves weekly from the middle two rows each leaf was then photographed and then analyzed with this assess 2.0 computer software and then i was able to take the average percent severity to determine progress disease progress and also the ordinal radians of zero to 10 the middle two rows of each plot were then harvested and weighed for root yield and 12 representative roots from each plot were analyzed for quality at the american crystal lab in moorhead so this figure is comparing the recoverable sucrose per acre for each main plot which are the dmi fungicide made treatments so on the left is essentially all of the protectant fungicides in which no dmi was used and then each dmi category is representative of all treatments treatment combinations that contained that particular dmi the dotted line you see is the average across all treatments and the differing letters indicate significant differences so essentially this figure is showing the significant impact that dmi's have in preventing yield loss compared to using only protectant fungicides and although there is variation among proline minerva inspire and provisal it seems that statistically the achieved yield was equivalent so this figure is also showing recoverable sucrose per acre comparing the protectant fungicide treatments and the treatments that included ebbc or mancosem provided the greatest yield return compared to the other treatments followed by copper and actually phosphite so disease severity here is represented by that zero to 10 rating where zero is a healthy leaf and 10 equals severe disease and a rating of six represented by this horizontal dash line is equivalent to three percent severity which is the threshold for proven economic damage so probably many of us are aware that weather conditions this year were extremely favorable for the development of sucrose per leaf spot and leaf spots were first noticed at 54 days after planting and then all treatments progressed similarly until 83 days after planting where the no dmi main plot began to have significantly higher disease pressure additionally there seems to be this trend where disease progressed similarly for the minerva and provisal treatments and the inspire and proline treatments were similar and after 91 days after planting interactions among treatment combinations were becoming were present so this picture was taken at the end of august and it just shows the heavy disease pressure we had this season in the non-treated plots compared to treated plots this picture or the set of pictures was taken the day before harvest and it shows the general outcome of tank mixing so the left is the non-treated control the middle picture shows a plot that was treated with minerva and as you can see the defoliation is not as severe but there's still quite a bit of disease and this is how the ebbc or man mankozeb treatment plot looked as well and finally the plot that was treated with both minerva and ebbc as a tank mix had much lower disease pressure so this is the disease the final disease severity rating and now on the left that no dmi main plot is broken down into all of the protectant fungicide treatments by themselves and the non-treated control and then each dmi category contains all treatment combinations including that particular dmi fungicide compared to the dmi by itself so with few exceptions the addition of a tank mix partner improved the relative control achieved at the end of the season however interesting interactions are present so when protectant fungicide treatments were used by themselves ebbc copper and sulfur resulted in significantly lower disease pressure compared to the non-treated control but for the proline treatments the addition of ebbc and phosphite resulted in significantly lower disease pressure compared to pro proline by itself and the sulfur also added some benefit whereas the sodium bicarbonate seems to be antagonistic for the minerva treatments it shows that ebbc and copper significantly provide added control which has generally been the standard but also phosphite and sulfur are providing a small improvement the treatments with inspire all seem to be statistically similar however adding ebbc or copper did not provide the greatest control and interestingly sulfur, phosphite and the baking soda provided some added benefit and for the provisal treatments ebbc was the only tank mix partner that provided significant control compared to provisal by itself but all treatments except for the biological did result in less disease as well so this is the last little bit of data I wanted to show so by taking that average percent severity and the number of leaf spots per leaf from the assess computer software I was also able to determine a relative size for the leaf spots and that's represented by the size of the dot and interestingly even though the number of leaf spots for the ebbc treatments was generally much lower the size of those leaf spots were generally larger leading me to believe there may be some additional interactions that may be occurring that could hinder the performance of the dmi and that we're just not able to see so results from this 2020 field trial have indicated that tank mixing generally improves sir cospora leaf spot disease control with dmi's however depending on the combination interactions are occurring between certain chemistries and formulations that results in variable efficacy in addition phosphite and sulfur seem to be candidate tank mix partners that can provide equivalent or improved control however a subsequent field trial is needed to validate these interactions that have been identified and lastly you may be asking so how does tank mixing actually interfere with the development of resistance so I've actually I've also been isolating hundreds of sir cospora cultures from this trial and I'll be working with Dr. Melvin Bolton to gain a better understanding so with that I would like to thank the sugar beet R&E board for funding the guys at our north farm particularly Jeff Nielsen and the rest of our summer crew and of course the many companies for chemical product and seed and lastly a big shout out for Dr. Ashok Chanda for his guidance and support and with that I'll take any questions so let's move on to our next speaker for the morning session here Dr. Muhammad Khan he'll be talking about managing sir cospora leaf spot using condosides and post resistance thank you ready Ashok yeah yes you can go I will continue what we're lean left off I will discuss about managing sir cospora leaf spot and I will summarize the highlights of what we've been doing the past five years so this is a picture of southern Minnesota and the Mindak area this is what happened in 2016 and it's still a problem today we saw way back in 2016 that the checks by the end of august the leaves are gone and a few weeks later the oldest leaves are killed that helps in reduction in our tonnage as well as reduction in sugar concentration as Luke spoke earlier the pyroclastrobin and the trifloxistrobin as well as our dmi's they were very very effective from around 2000 to 2015 but starting in 2016 we had full-scale resistance the qis were not working early in the season as well as later in the season you can kind of see effect on the reduction in growth our other savior you're hoping will be biological control but by themselves basillus mycoidus or basillus amylolic fasciens or not different from the check neither was basillus subtilis or the plant product renotria satchella lenses they were also not significantly different from the check the triazoles which are very effective until about 2015 suddenly also became less efficacious because of reduced sensitivity it didn't matter if it was tetrakonazole the mixture diphenkonazole and propiconazole or the older flow triathlon these numbers will kind of show you here that as you get high disease severity the ricobal sucrose goes down these products used to be very effective at one time will probably give you least spot rating of less than six which is more or less the economic threshold what we saw also was that depending on the year the amount of rainfall the frequency of rainfall that affected also the efficacy of the dmi's here and in 2017 you can see tetrakonazole inspire xt and proline uh in terms of efficacy proline was the most efficacious but they are again not as effective as they were prior to 2016 in 2019 where the disease pressure was much lower at least earlier in the season all the triazoles look fairly well and if you compare the least spot rating as well as the ricobal sucrose per acre you can see in 2019 the triazoles work much better less than six was the least spot rating whereas in 2017 the spot rating was much higher eight nine point five and with the higher least spot rating high disease severity the ricobal sucrose was also lower compared to 2019 so a lot depends on the uh environmental conditions also as to how these fundicides will act Dr. Sikor spoke earlier about tin tin has been our savior it is one of the most effective fundicides since 2016 when used individually the other fundicides which works well some of the years but not every year is proline however if you add proline with tin as in the top pictures you get better disease control early in the season and the top picture was taken at the field plot day and the lower picture was taken two weeks afterwards you can see with the addition of tin the proline was much more effective we also saw that inspire by itself was not as effective as when you added triphenyl tin hydroxide and the same story could be said for Minerva by itself was not as effective as when you add tin to it so this table here tells us that proline inspire and in Minerva in this particular year here was performing fairly well lower than six four point three and five point eight tin was doing well by itself at four point three and when you added tin to the triazoles you had lower disease severity and higher numerically number for ricobal sucrose per acre what about the multi-site fundicides prior to uh 2016 we were not using mankozeb dietin or copper in our fundicide program however because of resistance widespread resistance in 2016 we started using the mankozeb and the copper and you can see in this table here the mankozeb and the batch by themselves give you a least spot rating of less than six which is telling us that there's no significant economic damage and you have fairly high ricobal sucrose per acre if you were to mix these two different modes of action multi-site a copper with an ebdc you also get good control and high ricobal sucrose per acre at least we're seeing that visually and at the same time they're helping to manage resistance this picture tells the story again here with an ebdc and a site specific this is what we recommend to growers but we don't recommend using the same thing over and over again for those of you us who are not aware of southern minnesota those growers have to apply fundicides six or seven times per season and they have to apply mixtures so we only have so many fundicides that we can kind of use in these mixtures so triazole is one of the base and tin so we typically will use those with an ebdc or a copper so here you have an ebdc as well as a triazole you can use a copper and a triazole and you have excellently spot control compared to even the guess rules you can also use if you're in an area where your pressure is not so high two ebdcs which will be a copper and an ebdc and you'll have good control if you're in the northern part of the valley where the pressure is not very high although tops in by itself is not very effective because we don't recommend using that throughout the season but if you use it once in the season in your first application with tin tin is already working well you have excellent disease control if you want to manage resistance you can do a three-way split whereby you have a triazole you have a tin and you have a copper so you can use that combination or an ebdc so you have better disease control and you're getting rid of your sensitive your resistant isolates what else did we find we have tested a number of other products experimental products nothing has really been effective chlorothonyl which is labeled on probably mole crops and any other fungicide but not labeled for a sugar beet in the us by itself provides fear control but when used with products that are not very effective by themselves such as priaxor which is a qi and proline provided fairly effective disease control and high-recovered sucrose pericor now we do the individual treatments more or less just to see how they will perform by themselves or in mixtures again just using the same product four or five times per season that is more or less for the scientists we also do rotational programs and these are the programs that we recommend to growers and you can see if you mix fungicides different modes of action you have high-recovered sucrose and you make money in terms of recoverable dollars per acre these pictures shows you that if you use fungicides in rotation different modes of action you have effective disease control when your fungicides are not impacted by frequent rainfall so 2018 and 2019 you had excellent disease control 2016 and 2020 you had poor disease control and i will show you a few slides where even if you had six or seven fungicide application your your disease control was still ineffective for those of us who will us like to use the multi-site fungicides and keep the site specific fungicides away for some time with the hope of trying to keep that population down these pictures show us that the multi-site fungicides in mixtures three four or five applications depending on where you are will control the disease please note that our label says we can only use tin tree applications per season at a full rate so most growers will use at least three applications of tin to max it out because it's our best fungicide these pictures here show our resort site at fox home on august 25th and in september 2nd if you look carefully on the left hand side here you can see some really green plots and some that are not so brown a few one week afterward if you go there because of favorable environmental condition you can see even less green plots but some of them are very very standout and those are varieties that are resistant in the resource plots any green that you're seeing here is more or less not because of fungicides but because of fungicide of the host resistance of the particular varieties this final picture that I will show here wherever you see brown doesn't mean that fungicides are not applied in most of these areas in this particular slide here fungicides were applied the places where they are are effective is a combination of the varietal resistance ratings of two or three more or less and where you have the brown areas is you have varieties of five or 4.5 and higher five and six applications were not controlling this disease in 2020 so what's my take home message we need to have improved cls resistant varieties and i'm thankful to the seed companies for providing a number of these varieties that will be available probably at a limited amount for some of the growers especially in the min-dock area and hopefully hopefully in more growing areas next season our population is still highly resistant to the qois and the you have reduced sensitivity to the dmi's if we use mixtures starting at an early timing and continue in a timely manner if rainfall does not impact our fungicides we will have effective disease control timeliness of fungicide is critical and the first fungicide application is very critical with that I will say thank you especially to the r&d board for funding my research seed and chemical industries who have helped out bruce sondine from accoms who helped with some pictures and luke scans card from kwbs who took a lot of the site pictures kevin for allowing me to work on his farm and all my colleagues for doing the hard work and making this research available to you if you have any questions you can address those in the question box or send an email to mohamed dot con at n dsu dot edu thank you thank you dr con for your excellent presentation we have time for public questions here so i do have a question mohammed did you have any treatments in 2020 only using uh the multi-site fungicides yes i had fungicides with the multi-site fungicides and uh depending on the variety if you had a variety that was resistant it will look good but for the most part if you were using a susceptible variety even the tin which works well by itself by the beginning of september everything was going down and even in some trials where we had adjuvants mixed with the multi-site even those adjuvants could not help because of the frequency of the rainfall that we had so it is very very imperative that we do get improved resistant varieties because we don't know what kind of weather we get during the growing season thank you but if you have any more questions please follow with dr con with q and a or chat options and now i would just want to give the floor to uh mr erick edmund the chair for the chikabit research and education board of minnesota and octocuda again we thank you for funding this valuable research erick and all the board members um yeah please go ahead all right thank you dr chanda uh on behalf of the research and education board it is my pleasure to present three awards today starting with the doctor dexter uh scholarship award hopefully that popped up on the screen to share yes that's good that's good okay great our award winner for the doctor doctor dexter scholarship award is mr jake botkin jake a native of a native of corcoran minnesota obtained his bs from the university of minnesota and is pursuing an ms degree in plant pathology at the university of minnesota as well his advisors are doctors chan of shuk chanda and kori hirsh jake's research is focused on developing a dna based detection method for sugar beta phenomiasis in soil and plant tissues jake hope said his research will be useful in estimating the risk of phenomiasis in growers fields and understanding the biology of this important pathogen at the molecular level jake is known for his calmness highest work ethic and passion for research and plant sciences jake congratulations on the award moving on to our distinguished service award he's got to get my screen organized here yeah stop sharing for us yeah yep our distinguished service award winner is dr tom peters dr peters is the extension sugar beta agronomist and weed control specialist at north dakota state university and the university of minnesota supporting farmers growing sugar beats in minnesota north dakota and eastern montana his interests are integrated weed management including nursing cover crops and inter row cultivation complementing pre and post herbicides and sugar beet and weed control and crops and sequence of sugar beet peters consistently ask growers and agriculture about their weed control challenges and has worked diligently to provide solutions that meet their needs he does an excellent job of tailoring his research to the needs of different geographies an example of his research made a real difference is in controlling glyphosate resistant water hemp while maintaining the use of cover crops his work regarding the control of kosha and common ragweed are also important but for a different geography demonstrating his understanding of different needs and different geographies dr peterson dr peters influence expands beyond minnesota north dakota sugar beet growing regions tom has established himself as one of the go-to weed scientists in the sugar beet industry consequently let's see sorry about that consequently his advice and opinion are requested by people from across the country dr peters joined nbsu and the university of minnesota 2014 following a 25-year career at monsanto tom is a minnesota native receiving his bs degree in agronomy and soil science at the university of minnesota his ms degree from the university of nebraska and his phd from north dakota state university tom's advisor at nbsu was dr allen dexter long time extension sugar beet specialist and friend to this community committee tom has numerous hobbies including college football tom and his family are a long time gopher season ticket holders holders growing hosta and listening to folk music on vinyl tom congratulations on the distinguished service award and our final award is our meritus service award and for that the sugar beet research and education board would like to recognize dr elbert sims for his dedication and contributions to our to the sugar beet industry dr sims is a soil and fertility specialist and was instrumental in getting our growers to adapt the practice of using starter fertilizer to get the crop the sugar beet crops off to a fast and healthy start dr sims is awarded the distinguished service award 2004 for his many contributions to the industry as director of the university minnesota crookston research and outreach center he has also served on the sugar beet research and education board and the international sugar beet institute we thank him for his decades of service as a researcher educator and for providing leadership with that being said we award the meritorious service award to dr elbert sims congratulations mr our congratulations dr sims on behalf of the sugar beet research and education board and our industry i'd like to thank these gentlemen for their past current and future contributions to our industry thank you very much eric you mind if i say a couple of words and i promise i'll be brief absolutely so i i need to thank everybody um it's really been a privilege and an honor to work in the sugar beet industry and i'll be honest with you i had no idea about how complicated weed management would be so um we've tried a lot of ideas and we're going to continue to try different things and i really appreciate the trust of the board and also the growers that are considering our different ideas for controlling weeds and lastly eric i i i need to thank the the gentleman that nominated me for the award um mr todd jasilius mr mark bloomquist from southern minnesota beet sugar thanks guys