The following is an edited transcript of Tom Martin’s interview with Rebecca Noble, business development executive for Alltech Crop Science.

Click below to hear the full interview:

Luther: Rebecca Noble is a business development executive for Alltech Crop Science. Welcome.

Rebecca: Thank you.

Luther: Tell me a little bit about food culture.

Rebecca: Food culture is something that we’ve talked about more in the last five to 10 years. But really, food culture is something that has existed with us since the very beginning of human civilization. Perhaps nothing is more ingrained into the concept of human survival and human livelihood than food. Because of that, it has grown with us throughout history since the first hunters and gatherers; those who survived the Ice Age were believed to be farmers. Here in the 21st century, food culture is a lot about choice and lifestyle. Food culture is something that we, as humans, depend on, emote with and cannot escape.

Luther: We’ve evolved to the point where we’re taking pictures of our food and sharing it.

Rebecca: Absolutely. That is absolutely what we’re doing.

Luther: Food is very social now.

Rebecca: Way back in the day, people carved pictures into stone to share and remember a story, so maybe it’s not even a new concept.

Luther: It might not be. Maybe there are hieroglyphics of food.

Rebecca: Exactly.

Luther: Why is food complicated, though?

Rebecca: Food culture and food have existed for millions of years. It has developed throughout our history with war, famine, economic depression and migration. A lot of that complication comes from our history.

The other part of that complication is in the monetization of food. Industrialization and capitalism joined our economy so rapidly in the past 50 to 60 years. With that, for better or worse, the intent gets complicated. The intent gets distracted. Now we have market forces — these key players — joining the conversation and interacting in new ways and disrupting the marketplace.

Luther: As we’ve evolved, we’ve come to this concept of organic food. Tell me a little bit about that.

Rebecca: We focus on consumers a lot when we talk about the organic food movement and how much they’re demanding. But the organic food movement is really something that happened from within the industry. It began most notably with British agronomist Sir Albert Howard. He was writing about organic food as opposition to the rise of scientific agriculture — to the Norman Borlaugs of science and the Haber-Bosch process of synthesizing ammonia. He was going so far as saying that artificial fertilizers would grow artificial food, which would then “nourish” artificial humans.

The idea of organic started from within the industry and then relied on key producers and growers to mobilize and take action. Then it relied on retail advocates to create the space for business — the space for capitalism, in a way — which then gave rise to the consumer movement. These are only certain consumers, I have to say, because they are classified by the middle and upper classes with rising disposable incomes; they have a bigger wallet, so we hear them a bit louder, unfortunately. These consumers will pay very high premiums ­— sometimes 30 to 40 percent more — for food labeled organic.

Organic, first and foremost, is a certification by — in our case in the U.S. — the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It’s a certification saying this good is organically produced. Then we take it a step further: organic is an idea. It’s an idea that has drawn from a lot of marketing; to use Jack Bobo's term, “disrupted communication.” This idea is not just about organic, but it’s about small, local producers, and it’s about healthy lifestyles; it’s emotion.

In an economic sense, organic is a premium that you can extend to the grower on one side and then charge it back to the consumer because the consumers are willing to pay for it. I think retailers will keep targeting these consumers because we see their behavior is different from a mainstream consumer. They are willing to pay 30 to 40 percent more for a good that is labeled organic — which is a certification that has a lot of cost behind it — and also labeled natural and sustainable. Natural and sustainable are labels that don’t have a regulation and don’t have a certification or even any kind of framework for definition.

We also know that these consumers who are buying organic are going to the grocery stores more often, maybe multiple times a week. When they do shop, they’re spending more money than a mainstream consumer. Retailers are going to continue to target these consumers because it’s good for business, and who can really blame them in some ways?

Luther: When we say the word “organic” and blend it with food, it really does tie into culture.

Rebecca: Absolutely.

Luther: It obviously ties into business and goes all the way back to the producer level. It’s a very complicated topic.

Rebecca: Very. I didn’t even get into the science behind it because we tend not to lead with science, as it complicates things. I think the one thing I want to say about science behind organic versus conventional farming and food is that it’s very complicated, and the messaging is very mixed and there’s no one clear answer.

Consumers who are buying organic are buying it on the basis that it’s healthier and it’s more nutritious. There are two ways to look at this: There are lower residues of pesticides on organic food, and that is a fact. However, in a place like the U.S., where the EPA has stronger regulations on the levels of pesticides allowed in our food — no matter organic or conventional — there’s no real evidence that it makes a difference in our diet. But, in countries where regulations on pesticides almost don’t exist, an organic option can be big for consumers in those developing worlds.

There’s also the nutrition side: The vitamins and minerals. For example, several studies have shown that strawberries have more vitamin C when grown organically, but a lot of studies have also shown otherwise.

I guess my point here is, it’s complicated, and there’s so much that we can step back and think about.

Luther: It sounds like when we use the word “organic,” we’re encapsulating a lot of different meanings from the consumer standpoint. Right?

Rebecca: Absolutely. Yes.

Luther: You said the word “organic” may mean antibiotic-free to one person and may mean locally grown to another.

Rebecca: Exactly. However, they’re not the same.

Luther: To someone else, it may mean it’s a traceable source.

Rebecca: Exactly. And that’s also not the same.

Luther: Visibility. Right?

Rebecca: Those are three separate ideas for one label. An organic label only actually certifies that the product wasn’t exposed to a list of substances during crop production and food-handling processes. That doesn’t mean that it was grown within 100 miles of you. For example, organic produce is delivered to the U.S. from Argentina every day. It’s still operating in the same system that conventional food is grown in.

Luther: Let’s talk about the global aspect just for a moment. In America, it seems like the availability of organic-labeled foods is increasing. They are more accessible.

Rebecca: Absolutely.

Luther: We’re starting to see them not just at Whole Foods — which we’ll talk about in a bit — but they’re also accessible in other, more mainstream chains.

Rebecca: Sure.

Luther: What about organic popularity globally? Is it growing? Is it also as important globally? Maybe more important than it is here?

Rebecca: The answer is yes. I always want to preface this with: The idea of organic and the organic movement often correlates with the development of a country and the development of a middle class with a rising disposable income.

As emerging markets enter the economy with a growing middle class, people have more choices in what they buy. As of 2017, 179 countries reported organic farming activity. I believe it is 87 or 89 countries that have a legal organic distinction available. As far as its prominence, remember that food culture is different around the world — producers and consumers look for different things.

In the U.S. and parts of northern and western Europe, the food culture is characterized as fretful. There’s a lot of anxiety around our food. Maybe we’re more apt to respond based only on anxiety and the need for nutrition and longevity than other parts of the world. In the Mediterranean and Latin American regions, food culture is characterized as social. There is still emotion around the idea of organic in these areas, but maybe it’s more centered around the social and local aspects.

In parts of Asia, it’s more about nature. We do see growth in organic markets coming from Asia as the middle class rises, and also in Latin America. We’re seeing, on average, that in the U.S., about 25 percent of consumers are purchasing organic at a premium. We’re seeing numbers in Latin America and Asia growing to 40 to 45 percent as affluence grows.

Luther: It sounds like the global market for organic is somewhat tied to the economy.

Rebecca: Economics. Absolutely. That’s the case in the U.S. as well. Organic is going to grow and will ebb and flow with the economy.

Luther: Is this a return to the past, so to speak? Before modernization, we were organic.

Rebecca: Absolutely.

Luther: We’ve modernized and brought in fertilizers and pesticides — understandably because we had to meet the rising demand. Now we’re looking at organic again. Is that a bit of a return to the past while applying today’s science?

Rebecca: I don’t think from a scientific standpoint that it’s a return to the past. I think with organics, there’s much more that we don’t know about the soil and ecosystem. We’re doing much more research into identifying different microorganisms in the ecosystem. I think from a scientific perspective, we are honoring some traditions, but I think science is going to move with organic.

I think it’s in organic’s best interest to let science move with it. It’s just a “back to basics” science, or looking at what’s inherent. From a consumer perspective, I think it’s an idea of going back to the past. It’s this idea of: This is what’s in my bones; this is what’s in my soul. Some of the first people to talk about nutrition were religious leaders. Our relationship with food is ingrained in us, even if we don’t think about it.

I think that idea and the ability to go back to basics is a luxury for some people. We should be adamant about saying that, because having food choices, in so many ways, is a luxury. I think that idea and ability to daydream about going back to basics and going back to the past is something that comes with more affluence.

Luther: The term has been coined “rising billions,” which addresses the growing populations and growing middle classes of China, India, Africa and other parts of Asia. With that growing population comes increasing strain on food production. With the rise of a middle class comes choice: Perhaps now I don’t want the same things that I used to have. With modern techniques, we’ve seen the ability to meet demand and increase yield. If we go to organic with modern science practices, are we still going to meet that demand and provide choices?

Rebecca: The easy answer to that is that we don’t know. The science is muddy. It’s very clear that conventionally farmed wheat, corn and soy have much higher yields than organically farmed wheat, corn and soy. There are other organic vegetables and fruits that may have better yields when farmed organically, but the science is so muddy. I don’t think we know. More importantly, if we are going to be farming organically, can we make food affordable?

Something I should have pointed out earlier is that organic agriculture only makes up 1.1 percent of total U.S. cropland. That means there’s a question of scalability in front of us. It’s a big question, and the science is not clear. If anything, the science overwhelmingly states that it’s impossible. Organic agriculture cannot displace conventionally grown food and the need for cheaper food.

Luther: You brought up price and the fact that 1.1 percent of farmland is currently designated for organic food. There’s still a lot of traditional food being produced. But Whole Foods came in and disrupted the marketplace. Can you give us a little insight into that?

Rebecca: Absolutely. When looking at the organic movement, Whole Foods was one of the first retail advocates, and it has been the most outspoken and transparent company within the movement. It’s grown steadily for over a decade, now reaching annual sales over $15 billion. Whole Foods set out to create the infrastructure and supply chain around organics, natural and local food.

Whole Foods opened the door for mainstream competition. We look at Costco, which reported just two years ago that it was the leader in sales of organic produce, selling over $4 billion in organic produce in 2015. It’s now working with its growers to purchase organic land for it because it simply cannot meet the demand of its consumers.

Kroger is selling $11 billion in natural and organic products — that’s 10 percent of its business — in just five years. It’s been able to reach 70 percent of Whole Foods’ capacity in just five years. We also look at Walmart, which has long been trying to enter the organics game and is on a mission to provide its customers — its mainstream customers — organic products priced 30 to 40 percent below comparable items.

Mainstream competition has really heightened. Whole Foods has made organic a mainstay within the industry. Organic is now 10 percent of Kroger and Costco business. That’s only going to grow because those margins are so much higher.

Luther: It’s great to see it has expanded and that the price point is coming down, potentially making organic food more accessible. Has the table turned a little bit for organic food at this point? Has it gone from being a niche part of the economy to a more accessible portion of the economy?

Rebecca: Absolutely. I believe so. When we talk about consumers who purchase organic, a lot of times we refer to numbers. For example, 80 percent of consumers are purchasing organic either a couple times a week, or every time they go. I think what we have are consumers — mainstream consumers who are searching for a lower price point — creeping up into this periphery category where they are looking at organic prices and making those purchases, but it’s not going to be their entire basket.

Luther: How important is age in determining whether I buy organic or I don’t buy organic?

Rebecca: Age is perhaps the factor that we’re able to study and that we’ve seen as a significant factor when looking at consumer insights. The popularity of organics, natural food and local food are more concentrated in younger generations, particularly with millennials and Generation Z — the generation of 20-year-olds and younger who are going off to college and making independent food choices for the first time. They are more likely to shop at specialty retailers that are more devoted to the natural, organic lifestyle.

Luther: What does the future hold for organic food?

Rebecca: We have to remember that organic is a label; it’s a certification. It means that the product was not grown with this list of substances. It’s not so much about what the future holds for organic food, but it’s about the next premium. What is that next action that production consumers and proactive consumers can take, either through organic or conventional growers? Is it a label or a third-party certification regarding their energy use; their water efficiency; their labor practices; how they treat biodiversity within their land? That’s really the next frontier. It’s not so much organics. Organics are pretty much here to stay. We have a consumer base that will pay that premium.

The question is: What are retailers going to be looking to capitalize on next? Maybe looking to conventional growers? What changes are conventional growers going to have to make to fulfill that demand? It’s less about the organic label and more about the next demand on agricultural production, whether it’s organic or conventional growers. We know that consumers, proactive retailers and producers are forcing change within the industry. What’s next is more about how producers are sustainable and how you can communicate that effectively to a consumer.

Luther: Last question: What is the favorite part of your job?

Rebecca: I think, without a doubt, the favorite part of my job is being able to be in the food industry and to have discussions about food.

We started off the podcast today talking about food culture, and that’s something that I absolutely feel: Food is not just about feeding myself. It’s about emoting and showing support, love and security for people all over the world. It’s about having an absolute passion for food and how it’s grown, being able to better understand that and then, hopefully, being able to communicate that to other people.

At our conference, Jack Bobo said that never have consumers cared more but known less about how their food was produced. Being able to understand that, meet the people who produce our food and who are responsible for meeting our needs is a real honor. It’s my absolute favorite part of my job.

Luther: Rebecca Noble, business development executive for Alltech Crop Science. Thank you for joining us.

Rebecca: Thank you so much.

Rebecca Noble spoke at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE17). To hear more talks from the conference, sign up for the Alltech Idea Lab.

We know more than ever about the power of preventative medicine. But busy lifestyles can present all sorts of obstacles to actually practicing “wellness.”

Getting enough exercise is one issue, but making sure we keep our bodies fed with essential nutrients can also fall victim to time pressures and convenience.

Functional foods, such as enriched eggs, can fill the gap, delivering essential nutrients in delicious forms that most of us already enjoy.

“Fortified” foods have been around for nearly a century. Vitamin D was added to milk in the 1920s to combat rickets in young children, around the same time when salt was enriched with iodine to combat goiter, a disease of the thyroid gland.

But cultures with low fish consumption are more or less starved of one very essential nutrient: omega-3 fatty acids.

Intake of fatty acids in general populations worldwide does not meet dietary recommendations to prevent coronary heart disease, according to a review of data from 40 countries. reported in the Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism.

“Three fatty acids make up the omega-3 family: alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA),” explained Alltech registered dietitian nutritionist Nikki Putnam. “Each of these omega-3 fatty acids is considered essential, meaning that they cannot be synthesized by the human body.

“However, not all omega-3 fatty acids are created equal,” she continued. “DHA is the most important of the omega-3 fatty acids and is primarily responsible for the benefits commonly associated with omega-3 foods and supplements.”

Traditionally, there has been a lack of discrimination between the various omega-3 fatty acids, and effects have been broadly attributed to the trio as a whole, according to the National Institutes of Health.

Evidence of the unique effects of DHA is growing. Well-known for its cardiovascular benefits, it has been documented that omega-3 DHA also improves cognitive development and can combat behavioral problems, such as attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Improved mental health, a reduction in inflammatory and auto-immune disease, and overall general well-being are among other benefits.

Some of the more promising outcomes are being documented in people who regularly consume DHA-enriched eggs.

Gaining a great deal of attention in this area is research conducted in Thailand by Dr. Mongkol Kaewsutas, a veterinarian.

“The research carried out by Kaewsutas suggests that increasing dietary intake of DHA via functional food — DHA-enriched eggs — rather than through traditional pills or capsules, can help to improve brain cognitive function,” said Putnam.

Kaewsutas reasoned that eggs are an inexpensive source of daily protein and, as such, could be used to deliver DHA.

The problem was odor. DHA can be obtained from fish oil, but he doubted “fishy-smelling” eggs would appeal to consumers. So he turned to another natural source: algae.

“Feeding 2 percent microalgae (Schizochytrium sp.) in the diet of hens for at least four weeks resulted in an increase in the DHA level to above 100 milligrams per egg,” he found.

He wanted to test the theory that a diet including daily consumption of microalgae-DHA-enriched eggs could impact areas of the brain responsible for executive function and cognitive activities such as planning, problem-solving and focused attention.

Forty-five healthy subjects, all in their early twenties, were selected from among soldiers at Medical Battalion, Phramongkutklao Hospital in Bangkok for an eight-week trial. Subjects were randomly assigned to consume two boiled eggs per day: either normal eggs (51.82 milligrams of DHA per day) or microalgae-DHA eggs (278 milligrams of DHA per day). Electroencephalograms (EEG) were used to measure brainwave patterns before and after the trial.

The conclusion, according to Kaewsutas: “The consumption of two DHA-enriched eggs per day can improve brain reaction time 22 percent after eight weeks of consumption. There was no change (in brain reaction time) with subjects who had normal eggs in their meals.”

Four to eight weeks of DHA egg consumption, he found, seems to improve imagination, visualization, memory, learning, concentration, logic and critical reasoning.

“Alltech’s dried microalgae fermentation products give producers the opportunity to increase the nutrient content of eggs, as well as meats and milk, without changing the flavor and quality consumers expect,” said Putnam.

In another study conducted by researchers at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, low daily doses of omega-3 fatty acids, around 1,080 milligrams, were found to help decrease the frequency of epileptic seizures in people who haven’t been helped by drug treatments.

This was the experience of 9-year-old Maya Teves, who, unrelated to the UCLA study, experienced a sharp reduction in her epilepsy symptoms after adding at least three DHA-enriched eggs per day to her diet. Her father, farmer Wilfred Teves from Davao City, the Philippines, began working with Alltech scientists to develop an enriched egg product that will soon go to market under the brand Mega Eggs.

Another egg producer, one of the largest in the U.K., LJ Fairburn & Son Limited, moved into the production of enriched eggs, but their initial approach ran into problems.

Sarah Louise Fairburn, the company’s brand and sales director, explained why her family switched their enrichment process to an Alltech solution.

“We were selling an omega egg line into major retail, but the linseed product we were using in our hens’ diets was making them ill,” said Fairburn. “They went completely off their food, as they didn’t find this product palatable. And, of course, a hen that doesn’t want to eat her food isn’t a happy one and doesn’t lay as many eggs.”

Fairburn turned to Alltech’s algae product.

“The hens absolutely loved it,” she said.

But, wait. Wouldn’t consuming more eggs raise your cholesterol levels?

“As it turns out,” noted Nikki Putnam, “dietary cholesterol does not impact our blood cholesterol the way physicians and dietitians once believed. It’s saturated fat — not dietary cholesterol — that has the greatest dietary impact on raising blood cholesterol.”

The value to consumers of enriching eggs with DHA is tremendous, according to Putnam.

“With the addition of algae to the layer diet,” she said, “a naturally DHA-rich egg is produced, giving the consumer the opportunity to easily increase their DHA intake, which was previously only associated with fatty fish, in a convenient, economical, tasty and easy-to-prepare package — the egg.”

I want to learn more about poultry nutrition.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, every year in the United States, Salmonella is estimated to cause 1 million foodborne illnesses, with 19,000 hospitalizations and over 300 deaths. The most common symptoms of a Salmonella infection are diarrhea, fever and abdominal cramps. Although illness from Salmonella can be the result of multiple factors, including improper food preparation, poultry producers can help reduce the risk to consumers through good farm practices.

Potential sources of bacterial contamination:

• Wild birds/pests (e.g., beetles, flies, rodents)
• Water
• Visitors
• Human personnel’s hygiene

In poultry production, there are eight areas that require attention in order to reduce bad bacterial contamination on-farm and aid in the prevention of Salmonella.

1. Cleaning and hygiene

Residual contamination from previous flocks is a common reason for Salmonella-positive birds. Cleaning growing houses between flocks can significantly reduce the prevalence of Salmonella in live production. Effective biosecurity and pest control are also key to avoiding contamination.

2. Feed

Contaminated grains and feed ingredients can increase the risk of Salmonella in the final feed. Use heat-pelleted feed and source feed from mills operating with stringent quality standards.

3. Water management

Water management is a crucial part of any Salmonella control program in poultry, since water can serve as a medium for the organism to spread from bird to bird. Chlorinated water and the use of organic acids in the water have been shown to reduce Salmonella levels in the flock.

4. Dust

Dust can also be a medium for Salmonella to spread. A system that keeps dust levels below 3 milligrams per cubic meter is an important prevention tool.

5. Litter management

Poultry litter with high moisture and pH levels allows Salmonella to thrive. Managing the moisture and pH of the litter has been shown to be an effective way to control Salmonella in live poultry production.

6. Managing gut flora

Establishing and maintaining proper gut flora soon after hatching is very important to prevent Salmonella from colonizing birds. Programs that include the use of probiotics, organic acids, enzymes and yeast technologies have been shown to be effective at maintaining optimal gut health.

7. Coccidiosis

Intestinal challenges caused by poor gastrointestinal integrity can have a big impact on Salmonella levels in broilers. Strong cocci management needs to be part of every Salmonella control program.

8. Vaccination

The use of vaccines, especially at the breeder level, has the potential to reduce the prevalence of Salmonella among day-old chicks.

If you would like to learn more about how you can stop the spread of Salmonella in your poultry operation, please fill out the form below.

We are dedicated to working alongside producers in order to optimize the well-being and performance of animals, unleashing their true genetic potential through nutrition.

Being a part of the Alltech Young Scientist (AYS) program has been an incredible and unforgettable experience.

I first got involved in research as an undergraduate studying food science and biochemistry, focusing on developing new analytical techniques for detecting antibiotics and other banned substances in food products. When my advisor suggested last year that I should submit my research paper to the competition, I never could have imagined what would come of it. The whole experience has been an amazing ride, and I know that it has had an enormous impact on all of the participants.

I couldn’t believe my eyes when I first saw that I had been selected as a regional undergraduate finalist — it was a great honor to represent North America, and I looked forward to presenting my research and meeting the other regional finalists.

When the global competition came, I headed to Kentucky with great anticipation. Meeting the incredibly talented scientists in the competition and learning about their areas of research could not have been more rewarding, and we all got an exciting up-close look at the innovative work that Alltech does to improve our agricultural systems.

Winning the global competition was a once-in-a-lifetime experience that I will never forget. My time spent with the Alltech Young Scientist program has had an incalculable impact on my future plans and inspired me to work harder to help solve the problems that we face as a society. I am looking forward to beginning my Ph.D. studies, and I hope to continue working on the development of new methods to keep our food supply safe from contamination. I am deeply grateful for Alltech’s support in helping to achieve this very important goal.

In closing, I would wholeheartedly encourage all who are interested to apply to the Alltech Young Scientist program. Getting the opportunity to participate in an international event such as this, and being able to expose yourself to groundbreaking ideas and different perspectives, is as valuable an experience as any that a student pursuing a future in agricultural science could get. Take the chance and apply — it could be the best decision you ever make!

The following is an edited transcript of Tom Martin’s interview with Dr. Vaughn Holder, research project manager for beef at Alltech.

Click below to hear the full interview:

Tom: We’re talking with Dr. Vaughn Holder, research project manager at Alltech, where he leads the global nutritional research on beef cattle. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Holder.

Vaughn: Thank you.

Tom: How does a producer take a “head-out-of-the-sand” approach?

Vaughn: The idea behind the “head-out-of-the-sand” approach is that we want producers to identify the opportunities that they have available to them.

There is significant social pressure these days. People want certain agricultural species to change the way they’re doing things. I think oftentimes consumers don’t necessarily understand the way producers are operating or that they’re already doing those things.

A “head-out-of-the-sand” approach is a way of saying to the producers, “Let’s take the good in what you do and let’s get you paid for it.”

Tom: How can a producer bring unique, traceable and healthy beef to the world marketplace?

Vaughn: Beef producers are actually very good environmental stewards. We’ve been producing beef from the land for several hundred years, and beef is still a viable product today.

What traceability does — or what verification does ­— is allows producers to market it as a part of their programs. This all starts with age and source verification, which is easy for most farmers who take records. It’s just being able to tell when the animal was born and where it comes from.

Tom: What are the key industry resources that allow a producer to, as you say, "steak" their claim?

Vaughn: “Steak" their claim — that’s great. You need two things: First, you need to have someone who can verify what you’re doing and that it fits into a certain program. Whether we’re talking about age and source verification or non-hormone treated cattle, you need somebody to come in and verify or certify that that’s what you’re doing.

Secondly, you may need to use some technologies if you are looking at replacing either antibiotics or hormones, or whatever it might be. There may be some minor modifications that you must make in your production system, and you may need some technologies to help you do that. That’s where Alltech comes in.

Tom: Why is there a need to rethink the process of taking beef products to the marketplace?

Vaughn: Most of this has been driven by social pressures — by consumer pressures — or by retail pressures. Basically, what happens is there are requirements from our consumers for certain types of production processes — or for the absence of certain production processes. When we are in business, we need to satisfy our customers’ needs, and that’s where most of this is coming from.

Tom: In your view, how could the disruptive technology CRISPR impact beef production?

Vaughn: The impacts of CRISPR are probably beyond what someone could tell you. To give you an example, if we look at polled dairy cows — “polled” meaning dairy cows without horns — if we had to go through the process of using breeding technologies to remove the horns from dairy cattle, it would probably take a process of about 10 years. It would take another 10 years to get the milk production of the dairy cows back to where they were. CRISPR would allow us to do that in a single generation.

Essentially, what CRISPR does is it allows you to edit genetics on the fly; to edit the gene sequence of the animal on the fly. That has connotations well beyond even what we can imagine in agriculture. You can imagine the consequences for medicine, for example.

Tom: You were involved in the 2016 launch of EPNIX®, Alltech’s program designed to improve the health and profitability of beef feedlot cattle independent of the use of antibiotics or other pharmaceutical technologies. Though, it does work both with and without antibiotics. Can you provide a bit more detail on the program?

Vaughn: Sure. EPNIX was a program that was developed through our nutrigenomics and epigenetics laboratory at Alltech. We have those programs in multiple species. However, the nutrition program in beef has probably seen the most progress commercially.

The culmination of that research — probably about 11 years’ worth of research — has resulted in EPNIX, which is essentially just a program designed to improve the health and performance of feedlot cattle, regardless of the use of other technologies. And that’s important; we are not replacing those technologies. We’re not talking about another antibiotic or another hormone. EPNIX products work by a completely different mechanism than those technologies. So, they do work in every situation.

Tom: How is EPNIX being received in the industry?

Vaughn: We’ve had a lot of good response from this. Agriculture is a very conservative industry. It’s actually very difficult to gain ground with folks in that industry because they are naturally suspicious of people trying to sell them all the latest and greatest technology. However, we partnered with one of the preeminent feeding groups in the industry and one of the most trusted research institutions in the industry: Cactus Feeders. They perform their own internal research for their own purposes. They are wholly owned by themselves and do not consult for anyone else. The research is taken very seriously.

We chose the right partner, and that’s why we chose to do the endpoint commercial research on the program. We had validated it in the laboratory, but we needed a place that could be trusted to show what the program can do commercially. That’s what has led to EPNIX being broadly accepted by the industry.

Tom: Are you seeing significant results?

Vaughn: Yes. In fact, from the two experiments that we have completed at Cactus Feeders thus far, we were able to improve the production of the cattle above and beyond what they are already doing. That’s important because I think it can be easy to set up a control group to fail otherwise. You need to compare new results to their current best. You need to be able to show that you can do better if you want any kind of mainstream adoption. In successive trials at Cactus Feeders, whether antibiotics were used or not, this program has improved the bottom line of those cattle.

Tom: What important future challenges does the industry face?

Vaughn: There are several. I think most of them pertain to the massive use of many technologies that the industry has grown accustomed to or has grown to rely on. The use of in-feed antibiotics is under a lot of scrutiny right now. I think it scares a lot of people — the thought that they might lose the use of those antibiotics, or as a worst-case scenario, that we might lose antibiotics altogether. I think it’s very bad if we end up in a situation where we can’t treat sick animals. That will not be good for the industry.

Tom: How does your work affect the average consumer in their kitchen table?

Vaughn: That is a very good question. The initial work that was done on the nutrition program was an effort to improve the quality of the meat. Now, it is quite difficult to implement when the beef industry is segmented. You have different entities involved in different parts of the production of meat. It becomes difficult to get one partner to pay for something that another partner will benefit from.

It has always been difficult to implement technologies that improve the quality of meat. However, because this program was based on improving quality initially, and now that we also have the health and performance aspect attached to it, we’ve seen that we can carry that benefit through. The main point of that is getting meat that has a longer shelf life and enriched micronutrient concentrations. You also get meat that is juicier and retains water better.

Tom: What do you enjoy most about your work?

Vaughn: I enjoy the act of taking something from a theoretical standpoint — from the laboratory standpoint — and coming up with an idea and seeing it applied out in the world one day. That’s the most satisfying part of the job for me. I think it can be frustrating to many scientists that you sit in the laboratory and do this amazing work, but if it doesn’t have an actual impact on the world, at the end of the day, it can become quite frustrating. So, to see this fed to real animals in real life and end up on people’s tables is quite satisfying.

Tom: Dr. Vaughn Holder, research project manager at Alltech. Thank you for joining us.

Vaughn: Thanks.

Dr. Vaughn Holder spoke at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE17). To hear more talks from the conference, sign up for the Alltech Idea Lab.

How do you prefer your salmon: wild-caught or farm-raised?

When that question came up in dinner conversations 20 years ago, the answer likely would have revealed skepticism about farmed fish.

In those days, the industry was new. Salmon farms were being accused of polluting the oceans. Some were found to be harboring and incubating disease, turning a blind eye to infected escapees, and wiping out forage fish, up to 7 pounds of which once went into each pound of farmed Atlantic salmon.

But those negatives did nothing to dampen a growing world population’s appetite for fish. Seventeen percent of the protein people eat already comes from the sea, and demand is set to rise by 40 percent by 2050, according to the Norwegian Seafood Council.

“The consumption of salmon has tripled over the past 15 years,” said Keith Filer, research coordinator for aquaculture at Alltech. “The increased consumption would not be possible by relying on wild-caught salmon. Farmed-raised salmon is the only option for supplying the increase in demand.”

Still, it’s not unusual to encounter lingering debate and a host of misperceptions over wild-caught versus farmed salmon. And in this era of the smart device with details about our foods accessible at our fingertips, there has been commensurate pressure from consumer and wildlife advocates to reform aquaculture.

“Salmon farmers did a funny thing,” wrote The Washington Post contributor Tamar Haspel. “They listened. The survival of the industry depended on farmers cleaning up their act, and so that’s what they started to do.”

That has included an effort to boost consumer confidence and demonstrate a commitment to the environment through independent, third-party certification.

“The best-regarded of the certification programs will require record keeping, disclosure and transparency so the public can know that the fish they choose has been secured with care,” said Contessa Kellogg-Winters, communications director at the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC).

The ASC has developed certification based on industry standards that address the adverse impacts associated with aquaculture. Thousands of NGOs, scientists, academics, farmers and industry experts contributed to the process.

According to Kellogg-Winters, the ASC standards:

• Regulate where farms can be sited to protect vulnerable nature areas.
• Help protect the surrounding ecosystems and biodiversity.
• Preserve the quality of the water.
• Mandate strict criteria for resources use.
• Regulate feed practices and mandate that farms use more sustainable feed.
• Require best practices that combat the spread of illness and parasites between farmed fish and wild fish.
• Proactively prevent fish escapes.
• Reduce the use of pesticides and chemicals.
• Set stringent controls for the use of antibiotics.

These standards not only raise the bar on the quality of production, but also serve to combat misperceptions about farmed salmon. Here are some of the more persistent among them:

Myth: Farmed salmon are raised with growth hormones and antibiotics

“An important misperception that I have come across is the use of growth hormones and antibiotics in feeds for farmed salmon,” said Gijs Rutjes, technical sales support manager at the fish feed producer Alltech Coppens. “This is not true for the growth hormones. Antibiotics are only used as a last resort in salmon farming to cure a potentially dangerous bacterial disease but never to prevent diseases or to get performance benefit. Just like we would go to the doctor when we are seriously ill.”

Myth: Farmed fish are raised in dirty conditions and generate pollution

Concerns that fish are farmed in dirty water and crowded conditions linger. The industry, however, has developed a better understanding of regional capacity — the total number of farmed fish an area can support, according to the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch. The result has been a decline in pollution as farms allow areas to recover before fish are replaced there.

Fish farmers “choose suitable sites for cage farming where the conditions and water quality are optimal,” said Rutjes. “They use feeds that keep the fish healthy and that ensure good growth. Nets are cleaned regularly to make sure sufficient water flow is there and to keep oxygen levels optimal. The salmon are kept at rather low densities, and they have spacious net cages that provide ample possibilities for natural behavior.”

Marine Harvest's salmon net cages in Norway.

For example, to prevent overcrowding, Norwegian law requires that salmon make up less than 2.5 percent of the pen’s volume. Each pen is made up of 97.5 percent water to allow for maximum comfort and a healthy growth cycle.

Salmon farms, he said, have been moving production to land-based recirculation aquaculture systems (RAS). These closed systems have no escapees, and the feces are collected and removed.

Salmon raised indoors at Marine Harvest in Norway.

Rutjes added that it’s in the fish farmer’s best interests to maintain a clean operation.

“A salmon farmer cares about his fish and knows the better he looks after them, the better the growth and flesh quality,” he explained.

Myth: Feed conversion rates are high and inefficient for farmed fish

Among lingering misconceptions is that a feed conversion rate of as much as 7 pounds of forage fish is needed to grow 1 pound of farmed salmon.

“The salmon industry has worked for many years to reduce the use of marine products in diets,” said Filer. “The feed conversion ratio for the industry has been reduced to as little as 1.6 to 1. The marine species that are used are not ones that are consumed by humans, and the major fish meal producers are much better at restricting the amount of fish harvested on a yearly basis.”

Alltech Coppens has yielded several new algae-based products that help reduce dependence on forage fish. These include the sustainable fish oil replacer ForPlus, an algae-derived fish oil substitute containing very high levels of DHA, which has been found to help reduce risk factors for heart diseases like high cholesterol and high blood pressure.

Myth: Farmed salmon are not an environmentally friendly choice

According to Kellogg-Winters, a side-by-side comparison of the resources and emissions it takes to produce salmon, chicken, pork, beef and lamb has shown salmon to be the most environmentally friendly of the group.

“Salmon convert more of what they are fed into consumable protein for the end user and require fewer resources for their feed,” she explained. “Pound for pound, salmon farming produces less waste — and requires fewer raw materials — to produce more of the food our growing global population needs.”

Myth: Farmed salmon’s pink hue is the result of artificial injections

A Lerøy Seafood Group employee fillets farmed salmon raised in Norway.

Another concern voiced by consumers is the notion that farmed salmon get their pink color from artificial injections. Kiara Vallier, a writer for the submersible vehicle manufacturer Deep Trekker, notes, “Both wild and farmed salmon get their pink color from a carotenoid antioxidant in their diet called astaxanthin, which is traditionally produced by algae that wild salmon consume. Generally, farmed salmon are fed a diet that contains a chemically synthesized astaxanthin, so they get their color from the same antioxidant as their wild counterparts.”

Myth: Wild salmon tastes better than farmed salmon

Meanwhile, at the dinner table, how does wild-caught salmon differ in taste and texture from the farmed variety? Which is best?

To find out, The Washington Post assembled a panel of noted Washington seafood chefs and a seafood wholesaler for a blind taste test. They included Scott Drewno, executive chef of The Source by Wolfgang Puck; chef-restaurateur Kaz Okochi (Kaz Sushi Bistro, Masa 14); chef-restaurateur Bob Kinkead (Ancora); Bonnie S. Benwick, Tim Carman and Jane Touzalin of The Washington Post; and John Rorapaugh, director of sustainable initiatives at ProFish.

The fish, in order of panel preference (rated 1–10, with 10 being the highest score):

1. Costco farmed Atlantic, frozen in 4 percent salt solution, from Norway; $6 per pound (7.6 out of 10)

2. Trader Joe’s farmed Atlantic, from Norway; $10.99 per pound (6.4)

3. Loch Duart farmed Atlantic, from Scotland; $15 to $18 per pound (6.1)

4. Verlasso farmed Atlantic, from Chile; $12 to $15 per pound (6)

5. Whole Foods farmed Atlantic salmon, from Scotland; $14.99 per pound (5.6)

6. ProFish wild king (netted), from Willapa Bay, Washington; $16 to $20 per pound (5.3)

7. AquaChile farmed Atlantic, from Chile; $12 to $15 per pound (4.9)

8. ProFish wild coho (trolled), from Alaska; $16 to $20 per pound (4.4)

9. ProFish wild king (trolled), from Willapa Bay, Washington; $16 to $20 per pound (4)

10. Costco wild coho, from Alaska; $10.99 per pound (3.9)

Much has changed, and for the better, since the early days of salmon farming.

“We have certainly seen improvements in the performance of the aquaculture sector over the years, and we expect even more to come as a greater number of farms understand the imperative of operating with great care for the environment and those who work on their farms,” noted Kellogg-Winters. “The farms that voluntarily commit to the ASC have to operate in a transparent manner: they must keep records, work well with the community and improve their environmental performance to meet the standard.”

You can stay current on salmon and other seafood by checking FishWatch, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) website. The site profiles six salmon species: chum, coho, chinook, sockeye, pink and Atlantic (both wild and farmed).

Want to try your hand at whipping up a great salmon dinner? Listen to a segment of NPR’s “America’s Test Kitchen” on cooking wild versus farm-raised salmon.

Also, check out these salmon recipes from Norway.

I want to learn more about nutritional solutions for salmon.

As the winter months near, you may be in the midst of harvest. Perhaps you’ve already started thinking about how to increase your crop quality or increase your yield next year.

As you consider how to better your crops, there are a few things you can do now to prepare your soil for the winter and the eventual spring.

Setting your soil up for success

1. Broadcast or drill in a cover crop

Topsoil has been a big topic of discussion across the globe. Each year, erosion eliminates some of our fields’ topsoil, and it takes many years to try and rebuild it, if it can be done at all. One way to maintain the top soil in your fields is to keep it covered throughout the winter by broadcasting or drilling in a cover crop post-harvest.

2. Apply a soil amendment

One of the challenges of minimum tillage or no-till practices is the buildup of residue on the soil post-harvest and pre-plant. To help reduce this buildup of residue and use it to benefit your soil, try applying a soil amendment like Soil-Set®. By breaking down that buildup of residue, it will turn into organic matter for the soil, and planting may be a bit easier, too.

3. Get your soil tested

Many people only soil test their fields on a biannual or triannual basis, making it difficult to have a solid understanding of what is going on in their fields year after year. By getting your soil tested post-harvest, you can have a better idea of what you need to apply in the spring to get the most out of your soil and ultimately grow a better crop. Many agriculture retailers offer this as a service and can help with the planning of proper nutrient placement and timing once the results are back.

Want to learn more about getting your soil set for success? Click here to contact us.

How do you gauge the success of your mineral formulation?

How much do you know about the mineral program on your dairy? What level are minerals used in your rations, and what type are they? The mineral program on your dairy has a big impact on the health and productivity of your herd. Dairy producers are generally aware that part of their feed cost includes the minerals they supplement but have no real way to measure the success of their program.

Forages and concentrates meet some of the mineral needs of dairy cattle. They do not, however, meet the total mineral requirements of healthy productive cattle. Therefore, supplemental trace minerals are required to maintain cow health, production, reproduction and adequate mineral stores in the animal.

The minerals supplemented to dairy cows are classified in two ways: macro and trace minerals. Macro minerals are minerals that are fed in quantities of grams, including calcium, phosphorous, potassium, magnesium, sodium, chlorine and sulfur. Trace minerals are those fed at milligram quantities, including zinc, copper, iodine, selenium, cobalt and molybdenum. Alltech is an industry leader in organic trace mineral programs, with extensive research and industry-leading technologies such as Bioplex® and Sel-Plex®.

Achieving optimal mineral formulation can be a challenge

Designing an effective mineral program is difficult, especially considering the small inclusion in the diet and variation in mineral content. The National Research Council is generally referenced as a guideline to formulate diets; however, the guidelines are not always up to date and are often ignored. As a result, arbitrary levels are chosen to supplement.

Mineral interactions can cause antagonistic effects. For instance, molybdenum, iron and sulfur are some of the minerals that reduce the absorption of other minerals supplemented. Mineral source also has an impact. Organic minerals have been shown to have greater bioavailability than inorganic minerals. Bioavailability of Bioplex® Zinc, for example, is greater than zinc sulfate (J.L. Pierce, et. al. 2006). Considering all the factors at play, correct levels of supplementation are difficult to accomplish.

A firsthand look at mineral supplementation in Midwest dairy cattle

A survey by the University of Wisconsin-Madison on liver samples from dairy cattle in Wisconsin confirmed the challenges of supplementing trace minerals. Analysis of liver samples indicated that copper was elevated and potentially detrimental (Lyman, 2013). It is important to note, however, that differences in geography and feeding practices within the dairy industry mean that knowing the challenges that are unique to your area are critical when formulating your mineral programs.

This past summer, through the help of a local veterinary clinic and an Alltech summer intern, we set out to measure the success of mineral programs along the Interstate 29 corridor. Ben Sieve, Alltech intern, and Dr. Corale Dorn of Dells Veterinary Clinic collected liver samples from dairies along Interstate 29. Liver biopsies on seven cows from five dairies were collected for a total of 35 cows. Samples were analyzed at Michigan State University. Water and TMR were also collected and analyzed by Dairyland Laboratories. Sampled cows averaged 100 days in milk. Average herd size was around 2,000 cows milking.

What we learned from the dairy cows along Interstate 29

Elevated copper levels in liver samples were not as common along Interstate 29 compared to the data collected in Wisconsin. Using Michigan State University’s laboratory for analysis, six of the 35 cows measured showed elevated copper levels. Average copper concentration in South Dakota was a 132 parts per million (ppm) wet weight, which compared to an average ppm wet weight of 163 in the Wisconsin survey.

Interestingly, we found that zinc deficiency may be more prevalent than we realize. Fifty percent of the sample results were deficient in zinc, according to Michigan State University standards.

Selenium levels in South Dakota are often a concern due to elevated selenium in the soil. Elevated selenium levels were observed with some of the dairies surveyed.

On-farm responses

It is well-documented that organic minerals have higher bioavailability than inorganic ingredients, such as zinc and copper sulfate. Research conducted on Bioplex minerals has identified programs in which 100 percent of the minerals supplemented from organic sources delivered positive performance response. In that trial, cows on 100 percent Bioplex minerals produced 442 kilograms (972 pounds) more milk in a 305-day lactation and had 34 percent lower somatic cell count (SCC) (Kinal, 2007). These programs decrease the excretion of unused minerals, decrease the risk of antagonists and have demonstrated strong production responses in research trials.

One of the dairies involved in the Interstate 29 mineral study implemented these practices into their mineral program. Hilltop Dairy started feeding Bioplex minerals in fall 2016. By using Bioplex, they required lower levels of minerals. The results from the liver survey showed Hilltop Dairy more appropriately in the ranges suggested by Michigan State University.

“After nearly a year, our dairy’s SCC is down 43 percent, and we are up in milk production compared to last year,” said Hilltop Dairy owner, Wilfried Reuvekamp. “Normally in the summer, SCC goes up and production goes down. We have never had a summer like this!”

Learn more information on Bioplex® and Sel-Plex®.

I want to learn more about nutrition for my dairy.

There’s a coolness in the air, and leaves are starting to turn. The onset of fall weather means harvest season is upon us. During this time, farmers have much work to do in a short time. That sense of urgency can lead to accidents and damage that might otherwise have been prevented.

While we want you to accomplish your tasks efficiently, we’d like to ensure you do so safely. Therefore, we’ve compiled some recommended safety guidelines that should be useful reminders during your busy season.

Equipment and operator safety

Harvest inevitably means long hours spent behind the wheel of heavy machinery, and the safe completion of related tasks depends on both overall knowledge and attentiveness. It’s perfectly normal for us to take pride in our work, especially if that means putting in long hours in pursuit of a common goal. This is particularly evident in harvesting operations. Yet exhaustion and sickness regularly contribute to accidents in the field. It is important to recognize what your body is trying to tell you. If you aren’t feeling your best, consider turning the operation over to a trusted friend while you recover.

Keep in mind these safety tips:

• Take regular breaks to aid in divvying up the monotony of machinery operation.
• Turn off engines, remove keys and wait for all moving parts to stop before getting out of machinery.
• If you are going to eat in the field, climb down from the combine and relax for a little while.
• Dress with both comfort and safety in mind. Wear protective footwear and close-fitting clothes.
• Proper safety gear should be worn at all times around dangerous noise, dust or hazardous materials.
• Turn equipment off before making any repairs or adjustments.
• Do not remove safety shields, roll bars or guards. They are there to protect you.

Grain bin safety

Farm workers should all know the hazards of flowing grain and how to prevent a grain entrapment situation. When grain is being unloaded from the bottom of a bin, it flows downward from the top center, creating a funnel effect. If a person is on top of the grain in a bin being unloaded, they can be pulled into the flowing grain within a matter of seconds, likely rendering them helpless and potentially resulting in suffocation. Anybody who works with grain, in any capacity, must be aware of the dangers.

If you must enter a bin, it is vitally important to follow these safety precautions:

• Shut off and lock all unloading equipment before entering a bin.
• When possible, ladders should be installed inside grain bins as emergency exits.
• Avoid entering the bin when possible. A long pole can be used to break up crusted grain instead of having a worker enter the bin. Grain that has crusted can cover open spaces, which likely will not support the weight of a person.
• Wear a harness that is attached to a properly secured rope.
• Stay near the outer wall of the bin. If the grain starts to flow, move to the bin ladder or safety rope as quickly as possible.
• Never enter a bin alone. Have at least one person stand outside the bin, someone who can help you should you become entrapped. It is best to have two people available who are properly trained to follow all safety procedures for entering the bin.
• Wear a dust filter or filter respirator when working in a grain bin, especially while cleaning.
• Do not allow children to play in or around grain bins, wagons or truck beds.

Farm equipment road safety

If you need to drive your equipment on any roadways, you should consider the following safety tips:

• Increase visibility by using the equipment’s lights and flashers, especially during inclement weather or when light is low (early mornings and evenings).
• Avoid busy roads whenever possible.
• If there is a line of cars behind you and a suitable shoulder is available, pull over and allow traffic to pass before proceeding.

It is our hope that, by following these and other appropriate farm safety guidelines, you will have a productive and safe harvest not only this year, but for many years to come.