How can better soil health and more efficient beef production reduce our carbon footprint? Dr. Taro Takahashi, research scientist at Rothamsted Research, discusses organic vs. inorganic fertilizers, proposed meat taxes and agriculture's overall quest toward sustainability. 

The following is an edited transcript of David Butler’s interview with Dr. Taro Takahashi. Click below to hear the full audio.

David:            I'm here with Dr. Taro Takahashi, a research scientist at Rothamsted Research in the U.K. Dr. Takahashi, thanks for joining us.

Taro:               Thank you.

David:            You gave two presentations at our conference (ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference) here this year, one on soil health and one on beef production, and they have some kind of intertwined issues, so let's talk about both of them, but let's start with your thoughts on soil health — especially around the nitrogen cycling.

Taro:               Yeah, sure. When I gave this talk at the Crop Science session, whereby I discussed the findings on long-term experiments with production systems — this is the oldest-running scientific or such experiment in the world, listed in the Guinness World (Record) Books. It started in 1843. What we try to identify here is basically the sustainability of the productions systems, and how can we manipulate the systems. The conversation we had with the audience there was on how the soil health could be different when you have got continuously different treatments to the soil — for example, when you apply different amounts of fertilizers, or when you apply different types of fertilizers, for example, inorganic and organic.

David:            Go into some detail about the different things that you see with inorganic versus organic fertilizer. You said this soil trial started in 1843, right? That's a long time ago.

Taro:               That's a long time, and this year is our 176th year. Some people just wonder why we keep doing the same thing year in and year out, but the thing about soil health is that the many soil health parameters, as we nowadays know it, are not very easy to change. For example, the total amount of carbon in the soil, it doesn't change overnight. If you have, for example, the ancillary project to work on the implication on soil health and different treatments or different farm management, then you don't actually see a lot of difference there and, therefore, you cannot derive any conclusion. By using the long-term data we have got, we can infer some of the long-term implications of what we are doing and, therefore, we can truly elucidate what sustainability really means and how we're going to achieve that.

David:            I thought it was very interesting that you're talking about the different fate for nitrogen when you add nitrogen to the soil. There are two things that can happen to that nitrogen, right? Talk a little bit about where the nitrogen goes and how that system works.

Taro:               Yeah, sure. When you just look at the farming systems within that single season or single year, then you tend to think that, when you apply nitrogen, it either gets used by the crops or it doesn't get used by crops. This concept, usually called the nitrogen-use efficiency, is not a very accurate summary of the long-term sustainability of farming systems because we actually have the third option of having the soil maintain them and carry over for the next year's production. If you think about the change in the nitrogen stop in the soil — or for any nutrient, for that matter — the picture is quite different. For example, when you just compare the amount of fertilizer you are putting in this year versus the amount of the grains you are harvesting this year, it does not give you the full picture.

David:            Okay, so if nitrogen doesn't stay in the soil — if you have excess nitrogen and it's not around next year — where did it go?

Taro:               Sometimes, there are cases where you lose them to the atmosphere in the form of, for example, nitrous oxide, which is a greenhouse gas, or it could go underground in dissolving water in the form of nitrate or ammonium. There are many ways that you could lose these nutrients, even when you apply. Our data shows that, in some cases — not all the time, but in some cases — we are losing more than half of what we're putting in, long-term, to this wastage, if you like. That's a lot of wastage in the big scheme of things.

David:            It is a lot. You said more than half of it can be lost, and that's when you're applying inorganic fertilizer. Is that right?

Taro:               The loss itself can happen even when you apply them in the organic form as well, but what we found interesting from this research was that, when you apply nitrogen in organic form, then we find that, unless you are putting a lot of nitrogen — probably more than 250 kg per hectare — we are actually extracting some of the nitrogen from the soil long-term. That means that even after 150 years, which we originally thought was long enough for the system to reach equilibrium, we are still losing, slightly, soil-organic carbon and soil-organic nitrogen every year. That means that there is the possibility that, if we keep doing this year in and year out, at some stage, we will not be able to achieve the same level of yield any longer.

David:            So, you're saying that that loss, year after year, happens with either inorganic fertilizer or organic fertilizer.

Taro:               No. Obviously, it depends on how much nitrogen you contain, so you have to come up with some comparable amount of nitrogen. We came up with a system whereby one treatment of inorganic fertilization is comparable to an organic fertilization in terms of the amount of nitrogen included in that packet of the fertilizer. When you compare them apple-to-apple, then what we found was the extraction from the soil stock is happening much less when we apply the nitrogen in the form of organic fertilizer. In our case, we use manure from livestock for it, although there are many forms of organic amendments, and then we found that these end results are most likely attributable to the carbon bonded to the nitrogen in the organic form, and then, loosely speaking, they maintain the soil health.

David:            Right. You mentioned that manure is not the only form of organic fertilizer. What are some of the other forms that you might use?

Taro:               Some farmers in the U.K., for example, use the straws from the previous year's harvest as a part of the fertilization system, but the challenge is that, sometimes, the composition of these residuals is quite low. That means that, unless you have got a very unfavorable condition — for example, sunshine and temperature and moisture — those nitrogen may not be able to be used in the following year immediately. Manure, on the other hand, tends to get decomposed much more quickly and, therefore, for a long-term production system, it might be an easier way to amend the soil organically.

                        That said, the amount of manure we need to have a comparable amount of fertilization to what is quite standard in the U.K., for inorganic fertilization, we need about 35 tons of manure per hectare, and that's a lot, so how to secure it commercially is a huge challenge. We don't know whether it's possible in the big, big —

David:            On a large scale —

Taro:               As a method of social change.

David:            Yeah. Okay. It is very important, obviously, to make sure that any excess nitrogen stays in the soil, because all of the methods or all of the ways that you mentioned to lose the nitrogen have an environmental consequence. Nitrous oxide is a very potent greenhouse gas, and if you have nitrates or ammonia in your groundwater or leeching into your streams, that's a very bad thing as well. Do you see regulations starting to come up about that that affect fertilization rates, or do you anticipate them in the future?

Taro:               One thing we have to be careful about in this inorganic or organic debate is that our research, as well as the other team's work, recently have shown that, usually, when you have got the more intensive system — for example, an inorganic system — then the carbon footprint or climate impact per ton or kilogram of the output of grain is actually lower.

                        That means that an organic system is not necessarily environmentally-friendlier in terms of the climate impact, and you have to really strike the right balance between the soil health and long-term sustainability in terms of productivity against the climate impact and, then, how we will deal with it.

David:            It's a complicated system, and we need to keep learning more. As climate change becomes a bigger issue, we're going to make sure we're doing things that are effective and not shooting ourselves in the foot.

Taro:               Yeah, exactly. That debate was the very extreme, polarizing opinions — a probably very dangerous thing to do, because we have to achieve sustainability on many, many fronts. Health is one. Climate impact is one. Ammonia is one, and there are many, many others. To just say that the organic system is a paradise is probably misleading, but what we found was that the organic system has got an ability, probably a better capability, to keep the soil healthy for a longer period of time.

David:            Okay. Let's talk a little bit about cattle and the efficiency of cattle in producing food, compared to other forms of livestock. I know that's kind of a common topic, and people have assumed for years and years that beef cattle particularly have a lower efficiency than chickens or swine, right?

Taro:               That's right. In terms of climate impacts, it has been established for quite some time that the cattle systems have got much higher environmental burdens compared to monogastric systems — for example, poultry systems and swine systems — and that is indeed the case if you compare, for example, 100 grams of meat cut versus 100 grams of meat cut, but what we showed and what we discussed in the talk at the cattle session this time around was that, when you convert the unit of evaluation to nutritional value of the meat, then the carbon footprint of beef meat is actually very comparable to poultry and, then, swine meat — and sometimes better than them.

David:            So, you're saying that it's a more dense source of nutrients as a food than pork or chicken?

Taro:               Exactly. The reason why this phenomenon is observed is because — and beef is much more nutritionally dense compared to chicken meat and pork meat. For example, it has got much higher level of minerals and vitamins and, therefore, a small portion of steak has got basically a better package of human nutrition than the white meat. In terms of the nutritional value, the carbon footprint can be lower than white meat, and that is very encouraging news for beef farmers around the world.

                        Having said that, the nutrient density does not mean a lot if you overeat, because if you eat a lot of nutritionally dense meat, then (a) you don't actually need to eat that much and (b) you are probably contributing more to carbon footprint anyway by eating more. Our finding doesn't negate the fact that cattle do produce methane from enteric fermentation far, far more than pigs and chickens, for example, but then, it does mean that when you look at the nutritional value, and if you eat red meat in moderation, then you have got the chance that then it is part, or it can be part, of the very sustainable food systems.

David:            It's a good point that cattle do produce methane to a greater degree than poultry or swine, but it's also worth mentioning that they can eat cellulose and fiber and convert that to meat to a much greater degree than poultry or swine, right?

Taro:               Absolutely. In the U.K., as well as in the USA, there are many parts of the country whereby, traditionally, we have not been growing any cereals at all. The reason is that, well, grasslands are there for a reason, and we have traditionally thought that cereals do not grow there very well.

David:            Let's talk about the idea that's come out recently of a meat tax. I know that there have been some stories in the press proposing that we should have a tax on meat to try to cut down on the greenhouse gas emissions from animal agriculture. You talked about some unanticipated consequences of that, and, of course, every time there's a public policy debate, there are a lot of anticipated consequences that need to be carefully examined.

Taro:               Yeah, absolutely, and we found them — this is a very interesting thing about the potential consequences of meat tax, and especially the tax against these production systems. We created the macroeconomic model to see what did really happen to the economy — not only the farming economy but the national economy — when you tax against beef production. What we found was that, just as the advocates of the meat tax argue, we also found out that the greenhouse gas emissions at the national scale will be lower, because many big producers will be deterred from producing more of the red meat.

                        However, we also found that the macroeconomy in the U.K. would shrink as a result of this taxation, and the reason is that, as I mentioned earlier, there are many lands that are not really suitable for the arable systems. So, if farmers are forced to change their farming systems on the traditionally grassland area, then that means that we will not achieve as much production and, therefore, we would be using the land endowment inefficiently. Land is one of the few resources that we have absolutely no control over in terms of the total amount available to us, and therefore, if you cannot make the most of it — if we use them forcefully in an inefficient manner — then of course we will struggle, macroeconomically speaking.

David:            Yeah, and I assume, if we are not producing meat on grassland and there's a push to produce more crops, then that means, potentially, more deforestation, which is a huge problem for greenhouse gas emissions.

Taro:               I'm not sure if deforestation will happen or not, but then, what we're interested in and what we decided to measure from now on is the loss of carbon when we convert grassland into arable land. These experiments have been taking place in many parts of the world, but then, they are mostly in the area whereby we've already believed that we can produce a lot of cereals for human consumption.

                        What we have decided to do to test this question, really, and to challenge our thinking process, if you like, is to convert one of the four farms we have got on our resuscitation in Devon that is traditionally a grassland area, a farm specialized in the production of the human edible food. So, by doing that, we have to plow up the permanent grassland that we have got here for a long, long period of time, and in so doing, we can measure how much carbon we would have to release from the soils. If that happens, then, obviously, the fertility of the soil will be lower as well. That means that, potentially, the arable production might not be as high as we think because, long-term, we will again lose carbon, and that is shown by our experience from the long-term experiment.

David:            Thank you very much, Dr. Takahashi. We've covered a lot of interesting topics here, and I appreciate you spending some time with us.

Taro:               Thank you for having me.

Dr. Taro Takahashi spoke at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE). Click here to learn about ONE and how you can access innovation on demand.

Brian Lawless is proud to fight for a healthier, more sustainable food system. As the grandson of central Kentucky cow-calf producers, Lawless has returned to his agricultural roots and now serves as Alltech’s brand manager for North America. Based at Alltech’s global headquarters in Nicholasville, Kentucky, USA, Lawless is passionate about seeing producers raise healthy animals, make more money and contribute positively to creating a Planet of Plenty.

Since 2017, Lawless has helped oversee Alltech marketing in North America for aquaculture, beef, dairy, pig and poultry. Additionally, he supports many of Alltech’s ag-tech initiatives and even got to present a pitch on the mainstage in Rupp Arena (go Cats!) during ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference as a part of the 2018 Pearse Lyons Accelerator. Lawless’ best skills and attributes include his endless energy, his creativity and his desire to learn from his peers.

Lawless received a bachelor’s degree in economics and Spanish from DePauw University and a master’s degree in agriculture from Western Kentucky University. Additionally, Lawless helps coach a high school soccer team and, along with his wife, Blair, attends a local Christian church.

Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is the number-one cause of feedlot cattle death in North America and represents more than 70% of all feedlot death and sickness. BRD is the single-largest source of morbidity and mortality in feedlots, causing an estimated $2–3 billion in losses annually (Fulton 2009; Irsik 2006). So how do you treat BRD?

First, you need to know that the phrase “treating BRD profitably” is nearly an oxymoron. Once an animal gets BRD — or shipping fever, as it’s sometimes called — four separate economic factors are negatively impacted: treatment costs increase, productivity decreases, labor costs increase and the likelihood of a BRD re-treat, chronic re-treats and/or death increases as well. Especially in a tight beef cattle market, relying on being able to treat BRD while staying profitable is practically impossible.

What is BRD and how do you spot it?

BRD is the general term for any disease of the upper respiratory tracts (e.g., bronchitis, rhinitis, tracheitis) or lower respiratory tracts (e.g., pneumonia). It is known as a “disease complex,” stemming from three factors usually working in combination: stress, a viral infection and a bacterial infection. BRD normally impacts cattle in the first four weeks after weaning, and it can be fatal.

Symptoms of BRD:

• Droopy ears
• Fever
• Lethargic behavior 
• Lack of appetite (going “off-feed”)
• Rapid, shallow breathing
• Coughing
• Bloody or excessive nasal discharge

Four strategies for beating BRD in your feed yard

A common cliché in sports is that “the best defense is a good offense.” The same principle applies to BRD. The best way for you to defend against having to treat for BRD is to have a proactive, offensive-line strategy that prevents BRD in your receiving program. Here are four things you should do to prevent BRD:

1. Reduce stress at all costs

Investing a bit more to ensure the receiving health of your cattle will pay big dividends when it comes to BRD. Remember: cattle have just endured a long, strenuous trip to your yard, so doing everything you can to reduce their stress upon arrival is critical. This begins with providing a good, clean environment with as little overcrowding and dust as possible. Pay special attention if and when adverse weather occurs (e.g., excess heat, cold, rain, etc.) and adjust accordingly to accommodate them. Be sure to provide sufficient bedding as well so the animals can get some much-needed rest. The initial process of co-mingling can introduce countless diseases, even beyond BRD, so giving cattle to have a clean place to rest will allow them to both settle down and fight off any health challenges.

Additionally, having your team trained in low-stress handling practices will help keep cattle calm when they arrive. This means limiting the amount of yelling, excessive noise and the use of electric prods to keep stress to a minimum.

2. Provide good nutrition early and often

There are three keys to preventing BRD via nutrition. Though often overlooked, the first and most important key when cattle are arriving to the feedyard is getting them to drink water. Water is a critical first nutrient. After a long, stressful trip, getting cattle clean water as quickly as possible will help them acclimate and address any dehydration they could have experienced during transportation. The second key to preventing BRD is providing highly palatable, nutrient-dense feed. Especially during the first four to five days, getting cattle to eat much of anything may be a challenge. A good choice to include in your ration would be either a wet or dry distillers grain (depending on what is available in your region). Distillers grains are high in protein, very palatable and are generally cost-effective for a start-up ration.

Sometimes, the smallest ingredients can have the biggest impact on your cattle’s health. Providing the right micronutrients to maximize health and performance is the third and final nutritional key to preventing BRD. Establishing good gut health and mineral status proactively are paramount when attempting to stop BRD before it starts. Feed additive products from Alltech, such as Bio-Mos, can help drive gut health, and Alltech’s Bioplex and Sel-Plex support maximum trace mineral status. Both of these products are backed by peer-reviewed scientific research and have been used by producers as a part of their comprehensive BRD programs.

3. Establish a vaccination program with a vet you trust

Step one in this process may be developing a relationship built on trust with your vet. This goes beyond just “knowing” your vet to actually having full confidence that the vaccinations you are providing will set your animals up for success. A skilled local veterinarian is your best ally to make sure that the vaccines are working most effectively to fight BRD outbreaks. Furthermore, vaccination histories should play an important role in where you source your cattle. For example, finding animals who have been vaccinated as many as 45 days pre-weaning and again before shipping will help boost your ability to prevent BRD in the feed yard.

4. Use your tools wisely: Good pen riders and technology

Remember, cattle are animals of prey — meaning that they will do everything they can not to appear sick or wounded. A skilled pen rider with a keen eye is still your best preventative tool against BRD. Not every case of BRD can be prevented, but putting an end to it before it becomes critical can make all the difference. There can be as much as a three-to-five-day gap between when an animal begins to experience the symptoms of BRD and when those symptoms can be visibly detected. This makes early identification all the more important for a pen rider. The longer BRD goes undetected, the more “catching up” an animal will need to do once treated. That means lost money for your yard. As such, checking animals multiple times a day is good, profitable prevention against BRD.

New technologies continue to aid in the preventative fight against BRD. Many of these technologies still need further development before being profitably introduced, but progress is being made. Early detection swabs, drones, smart ear tags, facial recognition cameras, sensor-based hydronic shoots and much more will help reduce the labor needed to effectively manage cattle and improve overall animal welfare.

Again, your best defense against BRD is a good offense. By putting these preventative strategies in place, you are giving your cattle the best chance to be healthy and profitable. Your ability to combat the number-one feedlot disease can and will make a big difference for your operation today.

References

Fulton, R.W. 2009. Bovine respiratory disease research (1983–2009). Cambridge University Press 2009 Animal Health Research Reviews 10(2); 131–139.

Irsik, M., M. Langemeier, T. Schroeder, M. Spire, J. D. Roder. 2006. Estimating the Effects of Animal Health on the Performance of Feedlot Cattle. The Bovine Practitioner, 40(2); 65-74.

I would like a free BRD poster

A lucratividade dos produtores sofre impactos por condições que costumam ser incontroláveis, como clima e tempo.

Apesar dos imprevistos, o produtor que deseja ter sucesso na área de piscicultura deve se focar nas variáveis controláveis, como nutrição e manejo, investindo e acompanhando de perto a sua criação. Confira abaixo algumas dicas para você começar agora mesmo a tomar as rédeas do seu negócio:

1. Calcule a demanda do mercado

O primeiro fator a se preocupar é a necessidade ou demanda de mercado. De nada adianta produzir se o consumidor não tem interesse ou se o volume de demanda é muito inferior ao seu planejamento. Quando o mercado não está previamente aquecido, o produtor terá que comercializar seus pescados por valores que por vezes não cobrem os investimentos, inviabilizando a produção.

2. Invista em mão de obra

A mão de obra capacitada no dia a dia da produção faz toda a diferença no resultado final: quem lida com os animas precisa entender o comportamento deles, interpretando os sinais que eles nos dão, tais como: queda na voracidade na alimentação, cardumes com perda de agilidade durante manejo ou a diferenciação entre uma doença ou uma alteração no ambiente. Frente a essas análises, eles conseguirão descobrir também qual é a melhor alternativa para amenizar os prejuízos.

3. Fique de olho nos índices zootécnicos

Saber o quanto você realmente gasta de ração para engordar 1kg de peixe (conversão alimentar) é o “feijão com arroz” para alcançar a rentabilidade desejada. Sem saber o custo total (já incluindo custo com estrutura, mão de obra, energia, mortalidade e outros potenciais gastos) é difícil saber até quanto você pode vender sem ter prejuízos.

4. Foco no tripé da produção animal

Não menos importante que os outros fatores, o tripé de toda e qualquer produção animal - genética, manejo e nutrição – deve ser uma preocupação constante de quem está no mercado da piscicultura. Cada um destes pilares é assunto para livros e artigos de tanta informação existente. Além disso, existe uma forte interação entre eles e, caso um destes elementos seja descuidado, a base toda se desequilibra. Várias empresas no setor oferecem informação e assessoria de qualidade sobre estes assuntos, é importante ter uma boa referência e conseguir acompanhar a evolução.

Além das dicas citadas acima, questões como bem-estar animal e sustentabilidade nas criações estarão cada vez mais em destaque e farão toda a diferença em termos de competitividade. Estamos vivenciando uma revolução na cultura de peixes, com evoluções desde a genética, nutrição, manejo, sanidade, equipamentos e finalizando na comercialização. Os elos da cadeia precisam estar unidos para juntarem forças nas dificuldades e crescerem juntos.

Seguindo essas dicas você terá mais chances de estar preparado para aumentar a rentabilidade do seu negócio e sair na frente em situações críticas, quando muitos concorrentes acabam se desesperando e colocando tudo a perder. Tenha pleno domínio do seu negócio, se prepare para os desafios e os resultados certamente virão!

Ficou com alguma dúvida sobre como alavancar a rentabilidade na piscicultura?

Então vamos continuar a nossa conversa. Preencha o formulário abaixo para compartilhar suas questões e receber mais dicas sobre aquicultura. 

As técnicas de conservação das frutas tropicais têm como objetivo reduzir a atividade metabólica do fruto, retardando seu processo de envelhecimento. A meta não é preservar o produto indefinidamente, mas sim, garantir que ele possa chegar a outros mercados, como a Europa, principal consumidora de frutas brasileira com qualidade. A tecnologia pós-colheita busca aumentar o tempo de vida útil do produto. A qualidade é definida como o conjunto de características que diferenciam unidades individuais de um produto e que tem significância na determinação do grau de aceitabilidade pelo consumidor.

Os produtores dão prioridade à aparência, rendimento de produção e resistência a doenças. Os distribuidores e comerciantes têm a aparência como atributo mais importante, com ênfase na firmeza e potencial de conservação. Os consumidores dão ênfase aos atributos sensoriais, enquanto que as indústrias valorizam o rendimento da matéria-prima, a cor, a textura e o valor nutricional.

A avaliação de qualidade deve ser realizada em todos os segmentos, desde o campo até a fase de comercialização para se ter conhecimento do valor real do produto. Hoje iremos tecer alguns comentários sobre o teor de sólidos solúveis com foco nos consumidores.

Durante a maturação dos frutos, uma das principais características é o acúmulo de açúcares (especialmente, glicose, frutose e sacarose), o qual ocorre simultaneamente com a redução da acidez. O teor de açúcares atinge o máximo no final da maturação conferindo excelência de qualidade ao produto.

O teor de sólidos solúveis, também conhecido como ºBrix, pode ser utilizado como uma medida indireta do teor de açúcares, uma vez que aumenta de valor à medida que estes vão se acumulando no fruto. A sua medição não representa o teor exato dos açúcares, pois, outras substâncias também se encontram dissolvidas (vitaminas, fenólicos, pectinas, ácidos orgânicos, etc.). No entanto, dentre estas, os açúcares são os mais representativos, chegando a constituir até 85 – 90% dos sólidos solúveis (Chitarra e Chitarra, 2005). Os teores variam de acordo com a espécie, a cultivar, o estádio de maturação e o clima, podendo encontra-se numa faixa de 2 a 25% com valores médios entre 8 e 14%.

A determinação do estádio de maturação de frutos é importante porque quando os mesmos são colhidos na época adequada, ou seja, com grau de maturação apropriado, respeitando a maturação fisiológica, não só apresentam melhor qualidade comestível, como também maior rendimento como matéria-prima.

A relação entre os sólidos solúveis e a acidez titulável (relação SS/AT) é utilizada como critério de avaliação de sabor. O aumento do SS e a redução do AT resulta em aumento na razão SS/AT, a qual está associada à aceitação dos frutos pelo consumidor e é altamente influenciado pelo genótipo (Figueiredo, 2000). O teor de sólidos solúveis pode ser utilizado em conjunto com a acidez como ponto de referência do estádio de maturação ou da qualidade de frutos.

Na tabela 1 encontram-se os valores para sólidos solúveis, acidez e sua relação durante a maturação de alguns frutos.

Referências

Chitarra, M.I.F; Chitarra, A.B. Pós-colheita de frutas e hortaliças: fisiologia e manuseio. 2Ed., Lavras: UFLA, 2005. 783p.
Figueiredo, R.W. Qualidade e bioquímica de parede celular durante o desenvolvimento, maturação e armazenamento de pedúnculo de caju. 2000, 154p. Tese (doutorado), USP, São Paulo.

Autor: Prof. Acácio Figueiredo Neto, Engenheiro Agrônomo, com doutorado na área de Tecnologia Pós-colheita de Produtos Agrícolas, atualmente professor adjunto do departamento de Engenharia Agrícola da Universidade Federal do Vale do São Francisco (UNIVASF).

Deseja conferir outras reportagens especiais sobre o cultivo de hortifrúti? Preencha o formulário abaixo para fazer download da 10ª Edição da Revista Em Folha

Kia ora and welcome!

At Alltech, we help farmers feed the world, raise healthy plants and animals, and protect the environment through nutrition and scientific innovation.

Alltech solutions have been an integral part of the agriculture industry in New Zealand for over 30 years. In 2008, we opened our first office in New Zealand and soon expanded, moving to our current location in West Auckland.

A valuable addition to the site is our Alltech® In Vitro Fermentation Model (IFM) laboratory, which focuses on research dedicated to feed efficiency, profitability and reducing greenhouse gasses. IFM also serves as a diagnostic tool for nutritionists to evaluate and troubleshoot dairy rations. Feed samples have been gathered from all regions of the country to support on-farm data and help evaluate feed diets.

Because our products are stored in both the North and South Islands, we are able to work quickly to deliver solutions to our customers.

Alltech New Zealand provides a wide range of products, solutions and programmes to the agriculture industry, with an emphasis on the ruminant sector as well as the monogastric and equine industries. These scientifically proven solutions include Yea-Sacc®, Bioplex® organic trace minerals, Optisync®, Sel-Plex® selenium and Mycosorb®, a proven mycotoxin adsorbent fully registered with the Ministry for Primary Industries.

Additionally, Alltech’s team of dairy experts provides on-farm assistance to support healthy animals and increase efficiency, productivity and profitability. To learn more, please reach out to us on 0800 ALLTECH.

 👉ALLTECH ti presenta la nuova serie di consigli gestionali per la tua azienda. Scopri come attraversare al meglio questa fase post stress da caldo!

Clicca qui per leggere i consigli!

Bio-Chrome (or Co-Factor III) is a biological source of chromium for animal feeds.

Understanding how ammonia gas is formed, the major and minor impacts it can have on the bird and what can be done to manage this issue can be helpful for proper poultry management.

Click here for the full article. 

Frank Dowling runs a busy spring calving herd in Freshford, Co. Kilkenny. He is feeding his dairy cows with a MechFiber360, his third KEENAN machine, during the winter and around June for buffer feeding.

“One year, I forgot about servicing the machine and a bearing went. It was in the middle of winter, the machine was needed every day and I could not have done it without it,” says Frank. Since then, Frank gets his KEENAN serviced every year at the end of summer to have the machine ready for winter feeding. “A regular service avoids downtime for the machine — it’s really for peace of mind,” explains Frank.

Martin Nolan, experienced KEENAN service agent, goes out to Frank’s farm to perform a 40+ machine check and routine maintenance, including greasing, a weighing system check and zeroing. Martin flags if any replacements or repairs are needed. Frank wants to make sure his body blades are always up to scratch because he knows that “it is quicker chopping straw after the knives are sharpened or replaced.”

Frank says he will continue getting a service at the end of every summer, because “if you are busy in spring, all you want to do is get up on the tractor and feed.”

If you would like to talk to us about the new KEENAN service contracts that are individually tailored to your farm needs to keep your machine in top condition, avoid downtime and ensure the unique KEENAN quality and consistent mix, please contact the KEENAN service team:

Ireland: 059 977 1200

UK: 01780 437521

keenaninfo@alltech.com

1 October 2019 - Alltech has issued a word of caution with regard to some technologies available that claim to reduce enteric methane emissions in ruminants. These can potentially have a negative impact on rumen bacteria and, ultimately, animal performance.

In today’s interview, Matthew Smith, Vice President, Alltech, stresses the importance of adopting tried and trusted programmes for reducing emissions and a farm’s carbon footprint via nutrition and feeds that are digestible and that maximise animal production and efficiency.

[EINDHOVEN, the Netherlands] Alltech Coppens has announced fish farm Tropic Ribarstvo, and its invention, a peracetic acid dispenser for trout farms, as the winner of the inaugural Inventor program.

In the intensive production of rainbow trout, there are conditions, such as gills diseases, that need to be treated with peracetic acid or a similar medical supplement. Zoran Tepic, managing director of Tropic Ribarstvo, from Bosnia and Herzegovina and his team have invented a device for safely applying treatments to fish tanks and raceways. The peracetic acid dispenser offers farmers a measured and safe way to effectively make such applications while also minimising stress on the fish.

“There was a wide range of exciting and diverse innovations, and the choice of selecting a winner was exceptionally difficult,” said Pat Charlton, CEO of Alltech Coppens. “Traditionally, the flow in the fish tank is stopped and the peracetic acid is manually applied to the water — this can cause additional stress on the fish and uneven distribution of the therapeutic. This invention is an extremely efficient method of treating fish in a way that ensures safe and stable dosing while minimising stress to fish stock during the process.

Along with showcasing his invention to leaders and peers of the aquaculture industry at Aqua InDepth, taking place in Eindhoven, the Netherlands on October 1–2, Mr. Tepic’s company has won €2,000 worth of Alltech Coppens feed and the support of the Alltech Innovation team to help develop the idea and communicate it to the aquaculture industry.

“The Inventor program was created with the aim of discovering and supporting some of the unique ideas developed by farmers for farmers,” explained Mr. Charlton. “At Alltech Coppens, we want to pay tribute to the small and big innovations happening each day on aqua farms across the world. We want to empower farmers who are contributing to a Planet of Plenty™ by supporting their inventions and bringing them to a global stage.”