Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) is a highly contagious viral disease that poses significant challenges to the swine industry worldwide. To effectively combat PED, a comprehensive approach involving prevention, robust biosecurity measures, effective disinfection practices, and an understanding of potential routes of entry into swine operations is essential.

Insights from the Swine Health Monitoring Project

In 2013, the introduction of PED into the United States brought a heightened awareness of disease transmission. As the first major foreign animal disease in the U.S. swine industry in decades, PED prompted the Swine Health Monitoring Project (SHMP) team, led by Dr. Bob Morrison, to extend its porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) epidemiology initiative to include PED.

Dr. Morrison, a respected swine veterinarian and University of Minnesota professor, had initiated the PRRS project to enhance understanding of the epidemic’s dynamics and seek alternative strategies to combat the disease. The integration of PED into the project meant that this model not only shed light on the PED outbreak but provided invaluable insights into the impacts of introducing new diseases to U.S. animal industries and the evaluation of control strategies.

Today, disease dynamics are reported weekly in the Morrison SHMP report. Below is an example of the PED report that many veterinarians and industry leaders receive.

This report tracks new PED cases from the initial detection of the disease in the U.S. The chart is interpreted as follows:

• “EWMA” signifies the “Exponentially Weighted Moving Average,” where weekly new case numbers, represented by the green dots, influence the movement of the weighted average, represented by the blue line. Enrolled farms update their statuses from negative to positive and vice versa.
• The number of enrolled farms, displayed at the top, affects the movement of the red “Epidemic Threshold” line. When the blue line surpasses the red line, an active outbreak is in progress; as the blue line drops below the red, the outbreak is stabilized.
• The chart also notes the commencement of outbreaks each year, indicated by specific dates. This assists veterinarians and producers in discerning the merits of seasonal versus continuous biosecurity measures.

PED classification scheme

To further understand the disease movement dynamics of PED in the U.S. swine herd, farms use a standardized classification scheme to track changes to further define cases in the U.S. This can be seen in the following chart, and the classifications are as follows:

• Farms in Status 1, “positive unstable,” continue to experience new cases within the herd each day, demonstrating unchecked movement of the virus through the herd. 
• Farms in Status 2fvi, “positive stable, field virus inoculation,” have elected to maintain a protocol of planned exposure to live virus to animals entering their herd, with the goal of producing effectively immunized animals prior to entry into the breeding herd.
• Status 2 farms, “positive stable,” have stabilized the herd from unplanned natural exposure. A “positive stable” status means that, although the virus is still identified on the farm through positive PCR on testing, the number of new daily cases has leveled out and stabilized.
• Status 3, “provisionally negative,” means that there are no longer PCR positive samples identified, but it has not yet been three consecutive months without any new cases.
• Status 4, “negative,” is attained when that threshold of three consecutive months has elapsed.

What does all this mean for producers and their veterinarians?

Bear in mind that PED is transmitted via the fecal-oral route, with little to no evidence of aerosol transmission. For this reason, outbreaks and subsequent control programs must be directed at possible fomite entry into the operation. This could be through contaminated equipment, supplies, animals, feed or personnel. Addressing these routes of entry into the herd becomes critically important, especially when one considers that these same routes of entry are how other foreign animal diseases, such as African swine fever, can enter a herd.

One valuable tool in understanding virus transmission into a herd has been Glo Germ. This product has traditionally been used to demonstrate to children how to properly wash their hands to get all the germs off, but the same principle can be applied to any livestock operation:

• To understand how viruses can infiltrate a facility, generously apply Glo Germ to the floor around any entries, wait a few days, and evaluate the surrounding floors with a blacklight.
• Spread it on the outside of boxes and bags of products coming into the farm to help staff understand how to safely transfer products into the barn.
• Put it on equipment to show how to thoroughly wash and disinfect items before entering the farm.
• Spread it on the floor of livestock trailers prior to backing up to the barn to demonstrate how contaminated trailers can contribute to disease outbreaks.

Glo Germ and hand-held blacklights can be purchased online for very reasonable prices and are excellent assets to employ in improving biosecurity on the farm.

The role of feed in disease transmission

One final concept we learned during the introduction of PED into the U.S. was the role that feed can play in the transmission of disease. Feed mills work incredibly hard to manufacture feed safely, but the sources of feed, and even the unloading methods, can lead to unintentional contamination. Mitigation of viral particles in the feed is a new field of study and another critical component of biosecurity that must be considered when evaluating all methods of viral entry into an operation.

Conclusion

Although not nearly as prevalent in our industry today as it was in 2013–14, PED remains a significant challenge for the swine industry. By adopting a comprehensive approach that includes strict biosecurity measures, effective disinfection practices, and an understanding of potential routes of entry, swine operations can mitigate the risk of PED introduction and safeguard the health and productivity of their herds. The lessons we can learn from today’s PED outbreaks can and will prove valuable as we look to the horizon for the next challenges our industry will undoubtedly face.

I want to learn more about nutrition for my pig herd. 

Setting up an effective supplement program is more than simply finding the right mineral at the right price. Knowing your herd’s needs and thoughtfully comparing them to supplement labels will go a long way toward increasing profitability.

Here are the steps you can take to choose the right mineral supplement for your herd.

1. Define your goal

Beef animals require protein, energy, certain vitamins, and both macrominerals and microminerals on a regular basis.

Though minerals are needed at much lower levels than protein, they do perform vital functions directly correlated to animal health, growth and reproductive efficiency. Even microminerals, also known as trace minerals, are essential to health, growth and reproductive function, even though the amounts needed are very small.

The problem is that mineral amounts within cultivated forages vary between forage types and even from season to season, and they are often insufficient for the animal’s needs. Therefore, there is a need to supplement, and selecting a proper mineral supplementation strategy can become quite complicated with all the different product offerings and brands available.

In selecting the right program for your herd, it is helpful not only to understand your forage quality but also to think about what goals you want to achieve. Choosing a supplement merely to prevent a deficiency is a completely different strategy — at a completely different price point — than supplementing for optimized performance, health and profitability.

So, how can you compare and evaluate supplementation programs and then select the appropriate program to support your herds’ nutritional needs and match your goals?

2. Look at the product tag

The first step will be to take a good look at the tag or tags of the products you are interested in. Product tags can be a wealth of information, as they can help you to understand not only the composition of the product but the quality of ingredients, to a certain extent. The Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) regulates the information that has to be included, and the minimum requirements for a cattle supplement tag include:

• Product and brand name
• Purpose statement: This identifies the species and class of animal the product was created for.
• Guaranteed analysis: This gives you an idea of which minerals might be included and at what rates.
• List of ingredients: All ingredients included in the formulation must be listed in descending order of predominance by weight, though they may not be included in the guaranteed analysis. This is where additives, such as enzymes or yeast cultures, are listed if they are included in the formulation. 
• Directions for use, or any limitations/precautions
• Manufacturer and/or distributor information

Let’s start by focusing on the guaranteed analysis section of the tag.

First, keep in mind that various factors will affect how much of any given mineral an animal will need across its lifespan. Requirements will vary by age, stage of production, and mineral availability in forages. To find out a particular animal’s needs, you can consult references readily available online, or your Alltech rep will be glad to advise you.

Next, calculate whether the animal’s needs will be met by this particular supplement. Note that these calculations can be confusing since vitamins are listed in international units — per kilogram (kg) or pound (lb.) — while macrominerals are listed as percentages (%) and trace minerals are listed as parts per million (ppm).

Again, your Alltech rep can help you evaluate this, but here’s an example: If you see phosphorus (P) listed on the tag at 7% and the product is a 4-ounce mineral, then you can quickly calculate that since 4 ounces is 0.25 lb., 7% of that is 0.0175 lb. You can then easily compare this to the phosphorus requirement for the animal and decide whether, with the addition of the basal levels of phosphorus found in its forages and feedstuffs, the animal will be getting all the necessary phosphorus.

When comparing the pricing of different programs, also be sure to look at feeding rates, monitoring actual consumption if possible. When comparing two different brands, if one is a 4-ounce mineral and one is a 2-ounce mineral, you can divide the cost of a 50-pound bag by the number of feedings, which will tell you the cost per animal per day — an easier comparison than just looking at the cost per bag.

3. Know the differences between forms of minerals

Another thing the tag can tell you is what form each mineral is in. This is vital information, because when it comes to minerals, especially trace minerals, the form makes a big difference. In fact, it’s much more important than the amount. This has to do with bioavailability, meaning how readily available the mineral is to be utilized by the animal’s body.

Trace minerals can be offered in both inorganic and organic forms.

• Inorganic trace minerals are often byproducts from the mining industry and other industrial processes. They are less expensive than organic options, which require the manufacturer to bind the mineral to peptides and amino acids. However, that doesn’t always translate to cost savings in the long run, as inorganics must be fed at higher levels to overcome their poor bioavailability.
• Organic forms, which are more representative of what the animal would find in nature or forages and are thus more bioavailable, protecting profitability in the long run.

To know what sources of trace minerals are included in a particular supplement, check the ingredient list. The terms “sulfate,” “oxide” or “chloride” will indicate inorganic forms, while “proteinate” indicates organic forms such as Bioplex® trace minerals, which provide zinc, manganese, copper, iron and cobalt in a bioavailable form that can be provided at lower levels while seeing better results.

Level of supplementation is extremely important. We have seen the negative health impacts associated with mineral deficiencies, but over-supplementation, especially with inorganic trace mineral sources, can be detrimental as well, leading to mineral-to-mineral interactions and the degradation of other essential nutrients, including vitamins. Also, trace minerals that are not absorbed and utilized by the animal are simply excreted, causing not only waste but potential environmental harm.

Conclusion

While carefully reading a product’s tag and then comparing it to your animals’ specific needs across seasons and life cycles takes a little time, it quickly becomes second nature, and the payoff in herd health, profitability and sustainability is substantial.

For example, optimizing trace mineral status in stressed animals such as stockers and receiving cattle can amplify their immunity and their responses to vaccines and certain health challenges, including bovine respiratory disease.

The benefits to reproductive efficiency have also been well documented: getting more cows bred earlier in the cycle, higher conception rates, improvements in the number of embryos harvested and in embryo quality, better passive immune transfer, and heavier calves at weaning.

Supplementation with organic trace minerals such as Bioplex minerals can even affect fetal programming during gestation, boosting the reproductive development and performance of the developing calf, even while in utero.

Keep in mind that just as there are differences between inorganic and organic trace minerals, there are also different categories and brands of organic trace minerals. Not all brands are equal in quality, and that can translate to major impacts on overall bioavailability and animal performance. Always ask for product-specific research when you make your decision. Alltech’s decades of research and expertise are a great resource. Just contact your Alltech rep or email the Mineral Management team at knowyourminerals@alltech.com. We look forward to helping you select the perfect mineral supplementation program for your needs.

I want to learn more about beef nutrition. 

What is sustainability?

The term “sustainability” has a lot of different meanings depending on whom you talk to and what their opinions are. In a broad context, global sustainability is an all-encompassing approach that includes environmental, social and economic resources.

When sustainability is talked about in the media in regard to agriculture, the environmental aspect is the one most focused on. For this blog, the environmental impact of poultry farming, especially with meat chickens and laying hens, will be discussed.

However, it is critical to acknowledge the positive economic and social sustainability provided by agriculture and poultry farming.  

Where does commercial poultry farming stand?

Poultry are unique in their breeding potential and the resulting creation of consumable protein, whether it is via eggs or meat. A bird generally has a three-week incubation period, with efficient and rapid growth.

When we look at protein production, meat chickens have the highest consumable protein-to-live-weight ratio when compared with other livestock sectors. However, this type of measurement does not take into consideration other aspects that contribute to biodiversity, carbon recycling, and other environmental considerations. For example, cattle production (beef and dairy) may have higher greenhouse gas emissions than commercial poultry farming production, but responsible grazing management helps to maintain natural wildlife habitats and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.    

Improvements over time and differences within production systems

Environmental life cycle assessments, as recognized by the United Nations environmental program, study environmental factors in the food supply chain. While this type of assessment is a good start, giving an idea of the impact of raising poultry, it does not consider many factors such as biodiversity, social and economic impacts.

Several environmental life cycle assessments for poultry production have been published, in many countries including Canada and the United States. The values from these assessments can be very region-specific.

Environmental impact of meat chicken

Chicken Farmers of Canada, Canada – 2017 vs. 1976 (CFC, 2018)

• Major productivity gains and 20% improvement in feed conversion ratio
• 45% lower water consumption
• 37% lower non-renewable energy consumption
• 37% lower greenhouse gas emissions

National Chicken Council, United States – 2020 vs. 2010 (NCC, 2021); 2010 vs. 1965 (Putman et al., 2017)

• Between 2010 and 2020, produced 21% more chicken by weight
• Between 2010 and 2020, had 13% lower water consumption per kilogram of bird production, compared to 58% lower from 1965 to 2010
• Between 2010 and 2020, had 13% less land use per kilogram of bird production, compared to 72% less from 1965 to 2010
• Between 2010 and 2020, had 18% lower greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of bird production, compared to 36% lower from 1965 to 2010

Environmental impact of egg production

Egg Farmers of Canada, Canada – 2012 vs. 1962 (Pelletier, 2017; Turner et al., 2019)

• Egg production increased more than 50%, with 35% improvement in feed conversion efficiency
• 81% less land used per unit of eggs produced
• 69% less water used per unit of eggs produced
• 72% lower greenhouse gas emissions per unit of eggs produced
• Various housing systems (e.g., organic, free run single or multitier, conventional, enriched) had different environmental impacts, with trade-offs between specific impacts

Egg Industry Center, United States – 2010 vs. 1960 (Pelletier et al., 2014)

• Egg production increased 27%, with 26% improvement in feed conversion efficiency
• 32% lower water use per dozen eggs
• 71% lower greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of eggs produced

In many countries, feed production had the most impact on the environment and resources. Different grains had different impacts depending on water use, contribution to nutrient runoff, ecosystem acidification and release of nitrogen. Work completed in the United Kingdom showed that the environmental impact of grains also changed depending on whether the grain had to be imported or was grown locally. Additionally, work completed in Brazil considered that the level of technology applied while raising poultry, along with the local availability of grains, had a major effect on emissions.

We must applaud the poultry industry for its constant improvements in production, resource use and emissions. Strategies such as continuing to improve efficiency and optimize manure management through actions such as nutrient cycling can be examples moving forward and will continue to help with farm profitability.

How can environmental sustainability relate to bird efficiency and profitability?

The connection between bird and intestinal health and environmental sustainability may seem far-fetched. Poultry have an amazing capability to turn feed into food. To maintain this efficiency at its optimum level, the bird should have as few stressors as possible so that the body can be focused on digesting and absorbing nutrients. Various feed additives, such as mannan-rich fraction (MRF), can successfully be used to support gut health management and overall bird performance.

The other side of poultry production is that what goes into the bird must come out of the bird as manure. Feeding as close to the bird’s requirements as possible is one step in reducing an overflow of nutrients being excreted into the manure. Different feed additives, including enzymes, can be used to prevent overfeeding of some nutrients and help with better utilization of byproducts, which can lessen the cost of feed. Another way to reduce the potential for nutrient runoff is to use proteinated trace minerals that are readily absorbed by the animal. When the mineral is readily absorbed by the animal, less of it can be included in the feed and less is excreted in the manure.

Some regions are focused on the environmental concern of nitrogen emissions into the atmosphere, and this concern can be partially addressed with feed. Nitrogen is a part of the protein that a bird must consume in order to grow. This protein is broken down in the bird and then released in several ways into the manure as different molecules that contain nitrogen. One of these molecules is ammonium, which can be released into the air as ammonia. As birds are fed closer to their true nitrogen requirements, nitrogen excretion and ammonia release are reduced, preventing emissions into the atmosphere. Another way to help reduce ammonia loss to the atmosphere is through the use of litter amendments or through the feed with different binding products, such as those derived from the Yucca schidigera plant. However, if a plant extract is being used to combat this issue, there has to be an environmental sustainability plan in place to offset the harvesting of the plant.  

Where to go from here

Overall, poultry productions in many countries have reduced their total environmental footprint over time while maintaining the positive economic and social benefits of the industry.

Feed production has been found to have some of the highest impacts on the total footprint in broiler meat and egg production. Various nutritional strategies can be used to improve different aspects that contribute to a production’s total environmental footprint and overall profitability. Currently, poultry are not 100% efficient at converting feed to food, so there is a limit on the impact of nutritional and health strategies that must be combined with other methods to improve emissions and resource use.

This is a paraphrase of an article printed in Canadian Poultry Magazine (July 2, 2020) – “Building a green footprint,” by Kayla Price

References

“Broiler production system life cycle assessment: 2020 update.” National Chicken Council. Retrieved September 18, 2023. < https://nccsite.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Broiler-Production-System-LCA_2020-Update.pdf>

Da Silva Lima, N.D., de Alencar Nääs, I., Garcia, R.G., and de Moura, D.J. 2019. Environmental impact of Brazilian broiler production process: Evaluation using life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 237: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117752.

Dyer, J.A., Verge, X.P.C., Desjardins, R.L., and Worth, D.E. 2010. The protein-based GHG emission intensity for livestock products in Canada. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 34: 618-29.

“Environmental sustainability.” Canadian Cattlemen’s Association. Retrieved April 29, 2020. <https://www.cattle.ca/sustainability/environmental-sustainability/>

Leinonen, I., Williams, A.G., Wiseman, J., Guy, J., and Kyriazkis, I. 2012. Predicting the environmental impacts of chicken systems in the United Kingdom through a life cycle assessment: Broiler production systems. Poultry Science 91: 8-25.

Leinonen, I., Williams, A.G., Wiseman, J., Guy, J., and Kyriazkis, I. 2012. Predicting the environmental impacts of chicken systems in the United Kingdom through a life cycle assessment: Egg production systems. Poultry Science 91: 26-40.

McClelland, S.C., Arndt, C., Gordon, D.R., and Thoma, G. 2018. Type and number of environmental impact categories used in livestock life cycle assessment: A systematic review. Livestock Science 209: 39-45.

Nguyen, T.T.H, Bouvarel, I., Ponchant, P., and van der Werf, H.M.G. 2011. Using environmental constraints to formulate low-impact poultry feeds. Journal of Cleaner Production 28: 215-24.

Pelletier, N. 2017. Life cycle assessment of Canadian egg products, with differentiation by hen housing system type. Journal of Cleaner Production 152: 167-80.

Pelletier, N. 2018. Changes in the life cycle environmental footprint of egg production in Canada from 1962 to 2012. Journal of Cleaner Production 176: 1144-53.

Pelletier, N., Doyon, M., Muirhead, B., Widowski, T., Nurse-Gupta, J., and Hunniford, M. 2018. Sustainability in the Canadian egg industry: Learning from the past, navigating the present, planning for the future. Sustainability 10: 3524.

Pelletier, N., Ibarburu, M., and Xin, H. 2014. Comparison of the environmental footprint of the egg industry in the United States in 1960 and 2010. Poultry Science 93: 241-55.

Powers, W. and Angel, R. 2008. A review of the capacity for nutritional strategies to address environmental challenges in poultry production. Poultry Science 87: 1929-38.

Putman, B., Thoma, G., Burek, J., and Matlock, M. 2017. A retrospective analysis of the United States poultry industry: 1965 compared with 2010. Agricultural Systems 157: 107-117.

“Sustainability assessment of the Canadian chicken value chain.” Chicken Farmers of Canada. Retrieved April 29, 2020. <https://www.chickenfarmers.ca/resources/sustainability-assessment-of-the-canadian-chicken-value-chain/>

“Sustained progress: Environmental efficiency of Canadian milk production.” Dairy Farmers of Canada. Retrieved April 29, 2020. <https://dairyfarmersofcanada.ca/sites/default/files/2019-06/PLC-Info-%20EN.pdf>

Turner, I., Heidari, D., and Pelletier, N. 2022. Life cycle assessment of contemporary Canadian egg production systems during the transition from conventional cage to alternative housing systems: Update and analysis of trends and conditions. Resources, Conversation and Recycling 176: 1-11.

“What is sustainability?” University of Alberta Office of Sustainability. Retrieved April 29, 2020. <https://www.mcgill.ca/sustainability/files/sustainability/what-is-sustainability.pdf>

I want to learn more about poultry nutrition.

Prebiotics are primarily known for their role in stimulating beneficial gut bacteria; however, this extensive group of compounds serves a multitude of functions.

• They enhance the protective mucus barriers of the skin, gills and gut.
• They improve gut integrity, digestion, nutrient uptake and immune function, and they help to bind and remove external pathogenic bacteria from the gut, protecting the fish’s health.
• Consequently, they facilitate the cultivation of a diverse and healthy composition of gut bacteria, commonly known as a healthy microbiome.

Considering these benefits, the use of prebiotics aligns with a holistic approach to enhancing overall fish health and growth, reducing the need for antibiotics, and use of vaccinations.

The predominant sources of prebiotics are non-digestible carbohydrate fractions. Commercially available examples include β-glucans; oligosaccharides derived from galactose, fructose or mannose; organic acids; inulin; fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS); and many others, some of which are combinations of these elements. In this article, our primary focus will be on understanding the mode of action associated with prebiotics and the impact they have on the immune and digestive systems. More specifically, we’ll focus on mannan oligosaccharide (MOS), since it has been studied extensively across different fish species. This compound has demonstrated its efficacy under practical conditions on fish farms, displaying support for both fish growth and overall health across varying environmental contexts.

Three lines of defence protecting fish health

The immune system consists of an extensive network of diverse cells and tissues which work together to protect the vital functions of the body from external pathogens. These potential threats primarily include bacteria, viruses, parasites and fungi. They cause infections in an attempt to establish themselves within the host. The risk is heightened in aquaculture, because fish lack the ability to migrate to optimal environmental conditions. This increases their susceptibility to disease expression.

The immune system can be subdivided into three lines of defense against the various forms of pathogens.

First line of defense: blocking pathogens and foreign materials from entering the body

A protective mucus layer covers the entire surface area of physical barriers, such as the skin, gills and gut. Diverse microbiota optimize health through the competitive exclusion of bacteria, which reduces the risk of pathogens taking hold of the microbiome.

Fig. 1: The first line of defense prevents pathogens from entering the body by mucus layers and cell barriers (from left to right, the protective tissue and mucus layer of the skin, gills and gut)

Second line of defense: the innate immune system

The activation of the innate immune system takes place when pathogens successfully pass through external barriers and attempt to infect the organism. The innate immune system attacks invading pathogens using white blood cells (leukocytes), which can differentiate between “self” and “non-self” cells. It targets cells that lack the recognizable marker molecules of the body. Within this system, immune activity is further regulated by inflammation and antimicrobial proteins.  

Third line of defense: the adaptive immune system

The adaptive immune system differentiates itself from the innate immune system by stimulating a pathogen-specific immune response. It singles out and eradicates a single pathogen, earning the title “specific immune system.” This response is also known as the secondary immune response and forms the foundation for vaccinating many animal species.   

Image 1: Overview of the immune system

The digestive tract: facilitating nutrient uptake and immune function

Expertly formulated prebiotics in aquafeed can optimize immune defense, resulting in significant alterations within the digestive tract. They particularly affect the structure of the gut and the composition of the microbiome.

After ingestion, macronutrients such as proteins, fats and carbohydrates undergo a series of digestive processes that break them down in preparation for absorption and assimilation by the fish. These smaller components enter the body through the gut wall, which is lined with microvilli, structures that increase the gut’s surface area, promoting increased nutrient absorption.

A compromised digestive tract can lead to poor performance, characterized by a higher feed conversion ratio (FCR) and reduced immune response against pathogens. Facilitating a diverse microflora population is essential for enhancing intestinal development, ensuring gut integrity and optimizing the digestion process. Within the gut, mucus-producing cells promote a thick and protective mucus layer, protecting the delicate tissue underneath.

Mode of action of MOS for different fish species

Now that we have a thorough understanding of the immune system and digestive tract, let’s delve deeper into examining the specific impacts of the prebiotic mannan oligosaccharide (MOS). MOS is derived from the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, commonly known as “baker’s yeast.” Through a sophisticated refinery process, MOS is extracted from the yeast and incorporated into the feed ingredient mixture. The effectiveness of MOS is determined by several factors, including fermentation conditions, genetic strains and various processing parameters. As a result, not all forms of MOS yield identical effects. At Alltech Coppens, we combine Bio-Mos® and Actigen® with a chelated mineral mix, Bioplex®, to create Aquate®, which is integrated into all our feed formulations.

Image 2: Results after Aquate technologies were adopted in the Mediterranean Sea bass industry on large-scale commercial farms

At Alltech, research is the primary focus. To determine the effects of Bio-Mos on fish performance and gut health, several R&D actions were undertaken.

For rainbow trout, it was observed that beneficial bacteria colonization was promoted in the gut of a healthy individual when gut bacterial load was reduced (Dimitroglou et al. 2007). Furthermore, Bio-Mos has demonstrated improvements in microvilli density and length, contributing significantly to improved nutrient absorption and enhancing fish performance (Sweetman et al. 2008). Finally, Bio-Mos can enhance the thickness of the mucus layer across the skin, gills and gut, creating a prophylactic effect for many fish species (Sweetman et al., 2010).

The effects of MOS on fish health and growth have been extensively documented across numerous peer-reviewed papers. In rainbow trout, the inclusion of MOS positively influenced growth rates and improved FCR and survival rates. It also displayed positive effects on growth in a wide variety of other species, such as brook trout, sturgeon, common carp, koi, African catfish, European sea bass and sea bream. Additionally, beneficial effects were observed in gut structure, pathogen-binding capacity (both in vitro and in vivo), immunostimulant properties, and nutrient digestibility for many fish species (Ringø et al. 2014).

Extensive research on sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) demonstrated a more robust immune system and improved resistance to Vibrio alginolyticus. In a separate sea bass study, notable improvements in intestinal tissue structure, increased stress resistance, and improved mucus production were noted, all contributing to strengthening protective barriers. Sea bream displayed positive outcomes in terms of protein digestibility, intestinal tissue enhancement and the modulation of the microbiome (Ringø et al. 2014).

The benefits stemming from the inclusion of prebiotics in aquafeed play an important role in fostering sustainable and efficient growth as well as promoting the health of fish. To delve deeper into the Alltech Gut Health program, watch this explainer video or visit alltechcoppens.com.

References

Dimitroglou, A., S. Davies, R. Moate, P. Spring and J. Sweetman (2007). The beneficial effect of Bio-Mos on gut integrity and enhancement of fish health. Presented at Alltech’s Technical Seminar Series held in Dublin, November 2007.

Sweetman, J., A, Dimitroglou, S. Davies, and S. Torrecillas (2008). Gut morphology: a key to efficient nutrition. International AquaFeed, 11, 27-30.

Sweetman, J. W., S. Torrecillas, A. Dimitroglou, S. Rider, S.J. Davies and M.S. Izquierdo (2010). Enhancing the natural defences and barrier protection of aquaculture species. Aquaculture Research, 41(3), 345-55.

Ringø, E., A. Dimitroglou, S.H. Hoseinifar and S.J. Davies (2014). Prebiotics in finfish: an update. Aquaculture Nutrition: Gut Health, Probiotics and Prebiotics, 360-400.

I want to learn more about aquaculture nutrition.

A groundbreaking new study suggests that agriculture could be carbon-negative by 2050, reinforcing Alltech’s long-held belief that agriculture has the greatest potential to shape the future of our planet.

Changes to agricultural technology and management have the potential to not only slow down the growth of greenhouse gas emissions from the global food system but actually achieve net negative emissions, according to the study, published earlier this month in PLOS Climate. These changes could result in an annual removal of 13 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂) by 2050. To put this into context, the world currently emits about 50 billion tons of CO₂ equivalent each year.

“Our study recognizes the food system as one of the most powerful weapons in the battle against global climate change,” said co-lead author Professor Benjamin Houlton, dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University. “We need to move beyond silver-bullet thinking and rapidly test, verify and scale local solutions by leveraging market-based incentives.”

The study, led by Houlton and Maya Almaraz of Princeton University, was organized by the World Wildlife Fund in collaboration with the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis and funded by The Rockefeller Foundation.

Using a global food system model, the researchers explored the influence of consumer choice, climate-smart agro-industrial technologies, and reductions in food waste as means to achieve net negative emissions by 2050. They also examined various scenarios under the conditions of full yield gap closures and caloric demands in a world projected to have a population of 10 billion.

Dietary changes and agricultural technologies were examined as options for reducing GHG emissions, including an analysis of carbon sequestration — the process of capturing and storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. While state-of-the-art agricultural technologies have the potential for substantial sector-wide negative emissions, the research team found that dietary changes had little effect on carbon sequestration.

The study identified several promising technologies for achieving net negative emissions, such as hydrogen-powered fertilizer production, innovative livestock feeds, organic and inorganic soil modifications, agroforestry and sustainable seafood harvesting practices.

A research alliance between Alltech and Archbold Expeditions is measuring the carbon emissions of beef production and carbon sequestration potential at Buck Island Ranch in Florida. 

Scaling solutions to capitalize on carbon sequestration potential

Focusing on soil health, leading-edge nutrition and pasture management practices, and use of and climate-smart technologies will allow the agriculture industry to capture more carbon each year, according to Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech.

“The biggest carbon sink that we can have is our land,” he said. “Agriculture is the answer.”

While agriculture currently contributes about a quarter of global GHG emissions, it possesses a unique capability to reduce its own emissions and capture and sequester emissions released by other industries. This makes agriculture a powerful tool in the fight against climate change.

“We are the only industry that captures carbon for a living,” said Dr. Vaughn Holder, Alltech’s director of ruminant research. “We’re the only industry that exists at the scale that is required to pull gigatons of carbon out of the environment and put it back into the soil. That’s our moral responsibility.”

Reducing emissions is important, but it won’t solve climate change, he said. Carbon sequestration is the ultimate solution. The challenge ahead lies in confirming and scaling technologies that enhance sequestration.

Agricultural technologies and practices required to increase carbon capture could be “regionally down-scaled according to local culture, economics, technology readiness and agricultural management capacities,” the PLOS Climate study concluded. “This makes agriculture a unique economic sector and reiterates that it should be a key focus when discussing climate targets.”

Alltech has been studying the agriculture industry’s ability to sequester carbon through a research alliance based at the 10,000-acre Buck Island Ranch in Lake Placid, Florida. The researchers have learned that grazing ruminant animals on land actually benefits the environment and improves carbon cycling. The team is measuring the carbon emissions of beef production and evaluating the effects of pasture management, grazing strategies, mineral supplementation and other nutritional strategies.

The results have confirmed that carbon-neutral – and even net-positive – beef production is possible at Buck Island, and that same potential likely extends to environments around the world.

“What Buck Island shows us is that with animals on the land, we capture more carbon than without them,” said Dr. Lyons.

Scientists at Buck Island are also working with Alltech E-CO₂ and various partners to create precision tools designed to measure methane yields and intensity. The next step is the inclusion of advanced sequestering measurements that will evaluate how grazing practices, pasture management, nutritional strategies and other techniques affect the carbon cycle and make it possible for beef operations to sequester carbon.

The soil’s ability to sequester carbon is a critical part of the story. Alltech Crop Science and Ideagro, a recent addition to Alltech’s family of companies, are studying how microbial populations can enrich soil chemistry and nutrient density, leading to increased carbon sequestration in the soil.

The potential to capture carbon in the soil presents a significant opportunity for the agri-food community to embrace our critical role in combatting climate change while simultaneously improving soil health, boosting crop yields and promoting biodiversity.

“One of the most powerful weapons against global climate change is our food system,” said Dr. Lyons. “If we produce our food in the right way, we can deliver on some of those big objectives of having the right nutrition, of creating new economic opportunities, and protecting and renewing our natural resources. It's very exciting.”

RELATED: Blog/podcast with Dr. Vaughn Holder — Beef’s contribution to global food security

RELATED: Feeding people while preserving the planet

RELATED: Agriculture is vital to meeting the world's climate change goals

In 2020, Pacific white shrimp, alternatively known as Litopenaeus vannamei, emerged as the most popular seafood, with a production volume of 5.8 million tonnes. This accounts for 12% of total aquaculture output, as reported by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in 2022. The global shrimp farming industry relies heavily on intensive operations primarily situated in East and Southeast Asia and in Latin America, serving lucrative markets in North America, Europe and Japan.

An ever-changing feeding landscape

Shrimp have historically required diets rich in protein, primarily sourced from fishmeal obtained from wild-caught, low-trophic fish species. However, with the increase in prices and the limited availability of fishmeal, extensive research has been dedicated to what to feed shrimp. This means exploring alternative sources of protein, including those from plants, animals and single-cell protein sources (Chen et al. 2023).

Over the past two decades, plant-based protein sources have gained prominence in commercial shrimp feed formulations as substitutes for fishmeal. These plant-based substitutes encompass a range of meal options, such as soybean meal, cottonseed meal, rapeseed meal, peanut meal and sunflower meal. Additionally, cereals like wheat, corn, barley and their byproducts, including corn gluten and wheat bran as well as distillers’ dried grains (DDGs), have been incorporated into shrimp diets.

The increasing use of plant-based ingredients in aquafeed, including for shrimp feed, comes with certain nutritional challenges. These challenges encompass amino acid deficiencies, issues related to palatability, reduced digestibility, and the presence of anti-nutritional factors. Furthermore, the elevated inclusion of plant-based ingredients has raised concern about the potential introduction of mycotoxins into the final feeds, which would pose a significant issue for feed safety within the aquaculture industry.

Mycotoxins are toxic compounds produced by fungi. They can contaminate crops before or after harvest, depending on prevailing temperatures and humidity levels. These mycotoxins can ultimately find their way into the ingredients and final feeds used in aquaculture.

A 2021 study (Koletsi et al.) shed light on the prevalence of mycotoxins in raw materials and aquafeed samples from 2012–2019. The analysis was carried out using liquid chromatography- tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) at an Alltech 37+® lab. Of the tested wheat samples, 80% tested positive for at least one mycotoxin, with 63% showing the presence of multiple mycotoxins. Similarly, 93% of corn samples analyzed contained at least one mycotoxin, with 88% exhibiting the presence of multiple mycotoxins. Soybean meal was not exempt from these findings, as 87% of samples tested positive for at least one mycotoxin, with 75% containing multiple mycotoxins.

Presence of mycotoxins in shrimp feed ingredients

Now we present an update on mycotoxin profiles from 2023 detected in commonly used plant-based ingredients in shrimp feeds, namely soybean meal (n=85), DDGs (n=63), wheat (n=109), corn (n=247), and byproducts such as wheat bran and corn gluten (n=23). These samples, sourced from around the world, were submitted to the Alltech 37+ lab for analysis between January and June of 2023. Using LC-MS/MS, the lab was able to detect up to 54 mycotoxins. The results, which are detailed in Table 1, reveal that regardless of the ingredient, all samples tested positive for at least one mycotoxin, with most showing co-occurrence of multiple mycotoxins within the same sample. Mycotoxin groups with occurrence rates above 10% are presented in the table for reference.

Table 1: The most frequent mycotoxin groups (occurrence > 10%) in plant-based ingredients commonly used in shrimp feeds, with their average and maximum levels (ppb)

What is apparent in Table 1 is the high occurrence of “emerging mycotoxins” in all tested ingredients, with frequencies ranging from 94% to 100%. These mycotoxins, neither routinely detected on-farm nor legislatively regulated, are on the rise. Corn, often a key component in shrimp feeds, had the highest average and maximum concentration of emerging mycotoxins (254.4 ppb and 4,751 ppb, respectively) This is not surprising  considering the absence of regulatory limits for these toxins.

Additionally, other mycotoxin groups, like fusaric acid, fumonisins, type B trichothecenes, type A trichothecenes, and zearalenone were also highly prevalent in the tested feed ingredients. For example, in corn, the levels of type A and type b trichothecenes exceeded recommended limits for cereals intended for animal feeds.

Risk quantification in shrimp feeds

To estimate the total risk of mycotoxin contamination in shrimp feeds, we employed the Alltech® DIET™ Estimator tool. This factors in the inclusion rates of plant-based ingredients and the mycotoxin contamination data. The risk was assessed using a shrimp feed recipe from the Practical Aquaculture Feed Formulation Database (PAFF) and mycotoxin results from the first half of 2023. The resulting Alltech risk equivalent quantity (REQ) was measured at 10.4 ppb, considered moderate for shrimp.

The inclusion rates of ingredients matter significantly in calculating overall contamination risk. Shrimp formulations from Southeast Asia and Latin America exhibited varying levels of risk, with Latin American diets showing a higher risk due to the inclusion of corn.

Figure 1. Estimation of REQ based on the inclusion level of plant-based ingredients used in a shrimp feed

Mycotoxins’ impact on productivity and health

Shrimp farms, particularly in tropical areas, provide ideal conditions for Aspergillus fungi, raising concerns about aflatoxin B1 contamination. Research indicates that aflatoxin B1 levels above 1 mg/kg adversely affect shrimp survival rates, growth and tissue health.

Other mycotoxins, such as deoxynivalenol (DON), T-2 toxins, and fumonisin B1, can also have severe consequences. High levels of DON impair growth and weaken the shrimp’s immune response, while T-2 toxins induce oxidative stress and damage various physiological aspects. Fumonisin B1 has been shown to reduce growth, muscle protein concentration and immune response, affecting both the shrimp’s texture and consumer acceptability.

The co-occurrence of multiple mycotoxins in plant-based ingredients is a concern. While in vitro studies hint at synergistic effects, the full impact of mycotoxin occurrence on shrimp remains unknown. Emerging mycotoxins and fusaric acid, though prevalent, lack regulatory limits and research on their effects on shrimp.

The findings emphasize the urgent need for a holistic mycotoxin management approach in the shrimp farming industry. Without effective strategies to mitigate the risks, both shrimp health and the industry’s economic stability are at stake.

To learn more about the tools and technologies offered by the Alltech Mycotoxin Management program, visit knowmycotoxins.com.

To recognize the signs of mycotoxin exposure in shrimp, click here.

I want to learn more about aquaculture nutrition.

Cage-free egg production: trends and impact on the welfare of laying hens

Cage-free systems have been the most impactful trend for egg producers in recent decades. Also called “alternative” systems, they already account for over 60% of eggs produced in the European Union (Graph 1), and the European Commission is currently assessing the feasibility of banning cage systems starting in 2027. The share of cage-free hens has also been steadily increasing in the United States: it currently stands at 39%, more than twice what it was in 2018 (18%). A recent survey has revealed that major U.S. egg producers believe that 66% of the nation’s hens will be cage-free in 2030. Likewise, on a worldwide level, many large egg producers, retailers, food service companies and hotel chains have committed to banning cage systems from their egg supply chains.

Graph 1: Share of laying hens housed in each system (enriched cage, barn, free-range or organic), European Union. Source: European Commission.

Cage-free houses provide laying hens with more space and equipment (litter, slats, nests, etc.), which enables greater mobility and increased expression of the birds’ natural behaviors. However, even cage-free farming can be associated with some welfare concerns, such as wet litter, air quality, gut health, several parasitic and infectious diseases, feather pecking and keel bone fractures, which need to be addressed by egg producers.

Keel bone fractures

Keel bone fractures (Image 1) are an important welfare problem of modern egg production. Cage-free housing systems have been associated with a significantly higher prevalence and severity of keel bone fractures (KBF), and most researchers believe that KBF are due to trauma from collisions with house equipment. However, a recent study reported that collisions cannot be responsible for most fractures, proposing instead that KBF develop from the inside of the keel by a mechanism not yet understood.

Image 1: Keel bone fractures, from normal (left) to most severe (right).
Source: Wilkins et al., (2011).

Total Replacement Technology™ (TRT): impact on egg quality, mineral excretion and bone health

Animal feed has traditionally been supplemented with high levels of inorganic trace minerals (ITMs). Those ITMs undergo antagonistic reactions with important feed components, such as other minerals, vitamins, antioxidants and enzymes, thereby reducing the nutritive value of feed. Furthermore, the use of high levels of ITMs generates a heavy load of minerals in the manure. In order to reduce mineral excretion and mitigate the associated environmental impacts, it is necessary to decrease the level of mineral supplementation, without sacrificing the health and performance of farm animals.

Genetic companies have made remarkable progress in the selection of laying hens with improved persistency in lay and eggshell quality. Production standards are now available until 100 weeks of age, and hens may produce over 500 eggs. However, in many countries, laying hen flocks are still routinely depleted around 80 weeks of age, due to non-genetic factors that affect flock performance and egg quality. Among those factors, eggshell defects are the main reason to terminate a layer flock.

An effective solution to optimize egg production and eggshell quality with a reduction in mineral excretion can be achieved by replacing ITMs with organically bound minerals at lower inclusion levels. Qiu et al. (2020) accomplished a significant reduction in the fecal concentration of Zn (-44%), Mn (-53%), Cu (-58%) and Fe (-61%) when ITMs were totally replaced with much lower levels of Alltech’s Bioplex® proteinates Zn, Mn, Cu and Fe (just one third of the supplemented ITM levels). The same study also showed a significant reduction in the percentage of rejected eggs (soft shells, broken shells, misshapen eggs and other defects).

Image 2: Total Replacement Technology (TRT)

More recently, a study was performed in brown laying hens, over five cage-free farms, to investigate the effect of replacing ITMs with organic trace minerals (OTMs) on eggshell strength, mineral excretion, keel bone and tibia traits*.

The control and treatment birds received diets of the same specifications, except for Zn, Cu, Mn, Fe and Se. Control birds received a diet supplemented with ITM only, at conventional levels. The treatment group’s diet was supplemented with OTM only, using Total Replacement Technology™ (TRT): ITMs were totally replaced with Bioplex proteinates for Zn, Cu, Mn and Fe, at approximately 40% of ITM levels used in the control diet, and the inorganic Se source was replaced with organic selenium yeast (Alltech’s Sel-Plex®).

Despite the reduced mineral supplementation in the diet, eggshell strength was significantly improved in treatment (TRT) birds during the trial (p˂0.05), whereas the mineral content in the feces of Zn, Mn, Cu, Ca, K and Na was significantly lower (p˂0.05, Table 1). These results further validate that TRT™ significantly reduces mineral excretion in the feces of laying hens, due to the higher bioavailability of Bioplex proteinates. The reduced excretion of Ca, K and Na is likely a consequence of the reduced antagonistic interaction when removing ITMs from the diet, allowing for improved intestinal absorption.

Table 1: Mineral content in the manure

Tibia breaking strength, Ca and P contents were unaffected by treatment (Graph 2). Calcium and phosphorus percentages in keel bone ash were greater in TRT birds, while ash percentage and keel bone breaking strength were lower (p˂0.05, Graph 3). However, TRT birds had a lower keel bone damage score than the control in the caudal (p˂0.05, Table 2), middle and cranial portions of the keel, which means that TRT had a lower percentage of birds with damaged keels (fractures and/or deviations).

Graph 2: Tibia chemical and mechanical traits

Table 2: Keel bone damage scores

Graph 3: Keel bone chemical and mechanical traits

Lower keel bone damage score in TRT birds was associated with reduced mineralization. The healing process of KBF goes along the formation of a fracture callus, in which a greater mineral content is found. A higher number of fractures results in more callus formation, which can explain this study’s results.

The finding that keel bone damage was greater in the group with greater keel breaking strength indicates that other bone structural factors, still unidentified, have a role in the development of keel bone damage. This is in agreement with recent research on KBF (Thøfner et al., 2020).

These novel findings demonstrate that TRT can increase eggshell strength and reduce mineral excretion, while maintaining tibia strength and alleviating keel bone damage in laying hens.

*Presented at the XIXth European Symposium on the Quality of Eggs and Egg Products, Kraków (Poland), September 2023 (Estevinho, J., Walker, H., Taylor-Pickard, J. Total Replacement Technology™ (TRT) improves eggshell strength and keel bone health, while reducing mineral excretion.

Alltech’s smarter, more sustainable solutions for agriculture are built on a strong foundation of science that began when founder Dr. Pearse Lyons first harnessed his expertise in yeast fermentation. Today, the company’s unparalleled global presence and research foundation have powered the creation of many technologies that enhance animal health and productivity, strengthen the safety of the entire food chain and support sustainable agri-food.

From optimizing animal health to safeguarding our natural resources, the agri-food industry faces many obstacles today, particularly as it works to nourish a burgeoning world population.

“Agricultural science must rise to the challenges now, which is why we fervently believe in the synergistic power of research partnerships,” said Janna Norton, who oversees university relations and education outreach for Alltech as the company’s research business manager.

More than 100 scientists conduct research activities across five Alltech bioscience centers and five divisions: ruminant, monogastric, chemistry and toxicology, biological sciences and life sciences. Alltech has pioneered scientific breakthroughs regarding the application of yeast and yeast-derived products, organic trace mineral nutrition, selenium’s role in animal and human health, the function of digestive enzymes in maximizing feed efficiency, nutritional strategies for performance and well-being, and more.

Alltech has also established research alliances with leading universities and institutions around the world that bring together leading experts in their respective fields and provide the necessary resources to drive industry transformation.

Alltech researchers are creating leading-edge solutions that harness the power of science to nourish people and the planet, illustrating Alltech’s commitment to Working Together for a Planet of Plenty™. From reducing antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance to lowering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improving soil health and more, Alltech’s teams are seeking answers to some of the biggest questions facing the agriculture industry and the world.

Alltech’s role in the fight against antimicrobial resistance (AMR)

Alltech researchers are making advancements in pathogen control and the global fight against antimicrobial resistance (AMR), one of the largest and most urgent threats to global health, food security and socioeconomic development today. In 2019, nearly 5 million human deaths worldwide were associated with bacterial AMR according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By 2050, that number could be as high as 10 million deaths per year.

Antibiotic resistance can develop in bacteria naturally, but the use and misuse of antimicrobials in disease prevention and treatment in humans and in animals — and their use for improving growth rates in food-producing animals — have contributed to an accelerated development of AMR, explained Dr. Richard Murphy, research director of the Alltech European Bioscience Centre in Dunboyne, Ireland.

There is a global movement to reduce antimicrobial use in livestock production, especially as a growth promoter. Restricting or banning the use of antibiotics, however, does not eliminate or significantly decrease AMR, Dr. Murphy said. Despite increasing levels of control and restrictions on antibiotic use, resistance remains high. The answer lies in finding strategies to reduce the prevalence of resistant organisms in our production systems and in our environment, creating ways to control multiple types of resistance without compromising food safety and increasing the susceptibility of resistant microbes to antimicrobials.

We need to think beyond antibiotic-free.

“Rather than focusing solely on antimicrobial resistance, we also need to focus on the pathogens, because of the high-level prevalence of antimicrobial resistance that’s present in those pathogens,” he said.

As part of ongoing efforts to support restrictions on the non-therapeutic use of antimicrobials in the poultry and pig industries, recent research at Alltech has focused on the mechanisms surrounding antimicrobial resistance and its impacts on antimicrobial efficacy toward common foodborne pathogens, such as resistant E. coli.

The research has shown that mannan-rich fraction (MRF) can enhance the sensitivity of bacteria to the effects of antibiotics.

By enhancing overall microbial diversity and balance within the gut, we can enhance the gut’s resistance to pathogen colonization.

“If you can expand the richness and the diversity of the gut microflora, that enables the GI tract to self-police. You get greater resistance to pathogen colonization of the GI tract,” Dr. Murphy said.

Actigen^® is a key technology in this space, as it participates in normalizing gut microflora and promoting microbiome diversity.

“Actigen can improve the integrity of tight junctions in the gut, which give us better intestinal barrier function,” said Dr. Jules Taylor-Pickard, director of the Alltech Gut Health Management platform. “So, if we have better intestinal barrier function, we can help to prevent pathogenic bacteria from actually entering the animal’s system and also making them sick.”

“And we also know that the main multiplication of resistant bacteria are in the gut, which acts as a reservoir for these resistant bacteria and resistant genes,” she added. “Again, this highlights the importance of good gut health.”

The use of alternative products designed to regulate and support the gut environment and its microflora will assist in the move to antibiotic-free production, Dr. Taylor-Pickard said.

Among these products are several nutritional solutions Alltech has pioneered: feed enzymes, organic minerals, yeast cell wall derivatives, such as mannan-oligosaccharides (MOS) and mannose-rich fraction, and functional nutrients and probiotics.

The Alltech Gut Health Management platform helps producers strengthen gut microflora to enable the GI tract to offer greater pathogen resistance. It offers a path to antibiotic-free production that begins with the Seed, Feed, Weed program, which ‘seeds’ the gut with favorable organisms, ‘feeds’ a favorable environment to provide a competitive advantage to favorable bacteria, and ‘weeds’ out unfavorable bacteria.

There is no “silver bullet” for reducing AMR, Dr. Murphy said. It is difficult to replace antibiotics with a single compound or nutritional additive.

However, through a combination of strategies, producers can rehabilitate and accelerate the evolution of intestinal microbiota.

Buck Island collaboration shows potential of carbon-negative beef production

Is carbon-negative beef production possible?

Yes! Alltech researchers have observed it at Buck Island Ranch in Lake Placid, Florida, and the potential likely extends to environments around the world.

Through a strategic research alliance with Archbold Expeditions at Buck Island, Alltech has had the unique opportunity over the past three years to measure the carbon emissions of beef production and evaluate the effects of pasture management, grazing strategies, mineral supplementation and other nutritional strategies. What the researchers have learned is astounding: These measures have allowed Buck Island’s beef ranch to become carbon neutral.

By comparing Alltech’s data to Archbold’s historical records, the researchers have demonstrated a direct connection between sustainability and improved cow efficiency. The project has also provided a new understanding of the full carbon cycle on a beef ranch, one that is not solely focused on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the animal but also on natural GHG emissions from the land, the photosynthesis of GHGs, and the sequestration of carbon in the soil.

Animal emissions are not the full story!

Buck Island is a 10,000-acre ranch with about 3,000 cows, and it produces 2,300 calves annually. For many years, Archbold has been monitoring GHG emissions there by using eddy flux towers, collecting soil samples and keeping an annual soil sample database, and using GPS to monitor grazing.

The alliance has partnered Archbold’s ecologists with Alltech’s animal scientists, creating a well-rounded team that is unlocking new knowledge of the soil microbiome and carbon sequestration, optimizing nutrition and improving production.

Because of a lack of practical tools to measure carbon flux on farms, most carbon emission models use a book value to determine the carbon footprint instead of taking measurements directly. That is not the case at Buck Island. The Buck Island research team uses eddy flux towers to take actual measurements of GHGs in the atmosphere and evaluate carbon capture by the soil.

The team can compare the historical records of cattle management and performance, pasture management, plant growth and soil biodiversity with current measurements to determine the effects of changes in nutritional and management strategies on the ecosystem of Buck Island.

Only focusing on the animal misses the bigger picture. Alltech Crop Science and Ideagro have a wealth of information and technologies for nourishing the soil through its microbial population. The teams will continue to investigate how these microbes boost soil chemistry and nutrient density, helping to sequester more carbon in the soil. By including soil in the equation, we bring the carbon sequestration cycle full-circle.

The work at Buck Island continues as researchers collaborate with Alltech E-CO₂ and others to develop precision tools to measure methane yields and intensity. The next step is the inclusion of advanced sequestering measurements that will evaluate how management and nutrition affect the carbon cycle and make it possible for beef operations to sequester carbon. A life-cycle analysis is also being conducted.

Thanks to the Buck Island project, Alltech is defining climate-smart management practices for reducing GHG emissions and promoting carbon sequestration in cattle production systems.

Carlson Farm project: Understanding the soil microbiome

To better understand microbial populations, Alltech researchers carried out a pilot study of pasture lands at Carlson Farm in Missouri. The study compared three pasture management strategies: ungrazed, lightly grazed and heavily grazed.

The team used a genomic approach to assess the microbial population. This provides information on the composition of the microbiome and the relative abundance of organisms in the soil. On average, the ungrazed pasture samples had a lower carbon index (i.e., less sequestration) and greater activities in pathways associated with carbon loss (e.g., methanogenesis, respiration and fermentation).

Other microbial and functional differences predicted from the evaluation of pasture management practices included:

• Increased biodiversity in grazed pastures
• Improved soil quality in grazed pastures
• Decreased methanogenesis in grazed pastures
• Decreased aerobic respiration in grazed pastures
• System changes for plant nutrition
• Mineral uptake and transport
• Changes in plant hormones and stimulants

The analysis provides promising tools for measuring the potential for carbon sequestration in pasture soils. It will be used in more extensive validation studies at Buck Island to evaluate sequestration potential and climate-safe practices.

 Demonstrating our sustainability commitments

The 2022 Alltech Sustainability Report shares our sustainability journey through the lens of the three main objectives of Working Together for a Planet of Plenty™:

• Replenishing the planet’s natural resources
• Providing nutrition for all
• Revitalizing local economies

Download and read the report at alltech.com/sustainability.

Alltech has committed to completing life cycle analyses (LCAs) of our core nutritional technologies across all its manufacturing sites globally.

Alltech has completed seven product LCAs and plans to complete 40 assessments by the end of 2023.

LCAs quantify the environmental impacts associated with a product. The assessments consider all inputs including ingredients, energy, transport, packaging and all pollutants generated in the production of a product, from cradle to factory gate.

Alltech follows the LCA framework standard ISO 14067 in addition to guidance documents from the Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance Partnership (LEAP). We also work with the Carbon Trust to ensure services provided through Alltech E-CO₂ are independently verified to be in line with the product carbon footprint standards PAS:2050 and ISO 140067.

“Completing such assessments allows us to generate more accurate metrics on the environmental impact of our business activities,” said Dr. Stephen Ross, senior sustainability specialist, Alltech E-CO₂. “Life cycle analysis requires us to look at energy consumption at the production level, revealing opportunities for process efficiency improvements, which will reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.”

Rather than utilize an assumed value for cradle-to-grave analysis of products, Alltech utilizes cradle-to-factory-gate analysis, as through Alltech E-CO₂, to conduct on-farm livestock carbon footprints that take into account the use phase of Alltech technologies.

In addition to product LCAs, Alltech has completed carbon footprint assessments for each of our production plants. We will update these carbon footprint scores annually. Alltech also has begun installing monitoring equipment to capture energy consumption data on individual product lines.

Alltech E-CO₂ measures and helps reduce agriculture’s environmental impact

The E-CO₂ Project was established in 2009 to provide the agriculture industry with a tool to measure and manage environmental impact at the farm level. In the first few years of business, it pioneered the use of environmental tools and assessments to provide opportunities to benchmark and improve on-farm efficiency, thereby leading to increased profitability and sustainability.

The E-CO₂ Project joined the Alltech family of companies in February 2015 and became Alltech E-CO₂, with a goal of expanding to more locations and offering additional services. Today, Alltech E-CO₂ serves a wide range of customers, from individual farms to multinational organizations in multiple countries.

Alltech E-CO₂ has conducted more than 20,000 on-farm and remote assessments globally and has developed assessment models for crops and all major livestock species.

Certified environmental assessments provide a wealth of in-depth data on animal production, health, feed, fertilizer, nitrogen balance, water, energy and resource use. The data collected is used to deliver practical on-farm and online programs, as well as benchmark reporting, with clear and concise consultancy advice to lower the producer’s carbon emissions.

Helping feed manufacturers reduce their carbon footprint

Alltech E-CO₂ launched the Feeds EA™ (environmental assessment) model to help feed manufacturers and producers globally measure and lower the carbon footprint of their feed. Feeds EA measures the environmental impact of feed production at the feed mill level by assessing the impact of existing compounds or blends. This is determined by calculating greenhouse gas emissions from production, cultivation, processing, energy utilization and transportation in the manufacturing of the feed. Feeds EA can calculate emissions from a database of more than 300 ingredients, including raw materials, soya products, byproducts and additives.

“Optimizing the sustainability of feed production provides a huge opportunity for the whole supply chain,” said Ben Braou, business general manager for Alltech E-CO₂. “By utilizing Feeds EA, feed manufacturers are provided with the means to further enhance their product range and sustainability credentials through supplying feed with a lower environmental impact.”

Demonstrating our sustainability commitments

The 2022 Alltech Sustainability Report shares our sustainability journey through the lens of the three main objectives of Working Together for a Planet of Plenty™:

• Replenishing the planet’s natural resources
• Providing nutrition for all
• Revitalizing local economies

Download and read the report at alltech.com/sustainability.

In the realm of modern agriculture, biostimulants have emerged as biotechnological marvels with the potential to revolutionize plant growth, bolster yield, and fortify sustainability.

These natural powerhouses are quickly gaining ground in agriculture, offering a more environmentally friendly alternative to boost plant growth and vitality. From researchers to consultants to farmers, the industry is recognizing the value of biostimulants in optimizing the stages of photosynthesis and supporting plant metabolism. This isn’t just another trend; it’s a breakthrough biotechnological solution with the potential to transform how we cultivate our crops.

Biostimulation and plant growth: a harmonious partnership

Imagine plants growing with a newfound vigor — this is where biostimulants come in. By stimulating natural processes within the plant’s metabolism, they heighten the efficiency of nutrient uptake, making sure plants get the nourishment they need. This boost, especially during the critical stages of photosynthesis, fuels growth and development. The effect is so potent that it amplifies other aspects of crop growth as well.

The result? Bigger harvests, richer nutrient content, and plants that better weather the challenges thrown their way.

Nutrient uptake and the rhizosphere: a symbiotic affair

The influence of biostimulants extends beyond direct growth enhancement. By promoting the decomposition of organic matter, these substances contribute to soil health and fertility. This promotes healthier ecosystems, protects water quality and supports biodiversity.

This harmonious relationship with the soil ecosystem further exemplifies the sustainable impact of biostimulants, which supercharge nutrient cycling and ensure that plants get the right nutrients at the right time.

One of the hallmark benefits of plant biostimulants is their capacity to enhance nutrient uptake.

Biostimulants, per se, do not supply nutrients directly to the plants. Rather, they facilitate the plant and soil metabolic processes to improve nutrient availability.

Through fostering a symbiotic relationship with the rhizosphere — the soil region surrounding plant roots — biostimulants unlock essential minerals such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.

By improving soil health and nutrient cycling, biostimulants can help mitigate soil erosion, enhance water retention, and reduce nutrient runoff into water bodies.

Moreover, healthier root systems and enhanced nutrient uptake mechanisms enable plants to better withstand the rigors of water scarcity, fluctuating temperatures, suboptimal nutrient availability, and other stressors.

Humic and fulvic acids, which are integral components of biostimulants, further enhance nutrient availability and absorption, elevating the plant’s nutrient content and fortifying its growth potential.

Biostimulants play a crucial role in optimizing nutrient uptake by plants, enhancing their ability to efficiently assimilate essential elements from the soil, thereby promoting healthier growth and development.

Stress tolerance and enhanced resilience: a pivotal role in adversity

Stress reduction is one of the mechanisms through which these biotechnological solutions can help improve the use of nutrients. In fact, biostimulants’ efficiency in nutrient utilization is often driven by their role in stress correction.

A 60–70% yield gap is reportedly due to abiotic stresses, specifically salinity, heat stress, drought, nutrient deficiency, and hypoxia.

Biostimulants are often applied to help plants cope with environmental stresses, as they can enhance a plant’s ability to withstand such stresses by improving root development, increasing antioxidant activity, and stimulating defense mechanisms.

The interaction of growth factors, stress-relieving enzymes, and symbiotic microbes fine-tunes the plant’s responses, shifting energy toward effective nutrient uptake and utilization.

Biostimulants enhance plants' stress tolerance by strengthening their natural defense mechanisms and physiological responses, enabling them to withstand challenging environmental conditions more effectively and maintain consistent yields.

Sustainability and food security: biostimulants’ noble contribution

In an era burdened with environmental challenges and a growing population, the role of biostimulants in ensuring sustainability and food security cannot be overstated.

Globally, nutrient efficiency spans from 30% to 50%. This implies that out of 100 kg of fertilizer applied, only 30 to 50 kg will actually contribute to nourishing the crops. The excess is lost to the environment, causing both financial setbacks and ecological harm.

As excess amounts of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus are washed away from fields due to runoff or leaching, they can contaminate water bodies like rivers, lakes and oceans. This, in turn, can trigger harmful algal blooms, disrupt aquatic ecosystems, and degrade water quality, posing risks to both human health and wildlife.

Furthermore, the financial implications of this nutrient loss are substantial. Farmers invest significant resources in purchasing and applying fertilizers, only to witness considerable portions of these investments literally flowing away. In addition to causing direct financial losses, this wastage also requires more frequent reapplication of fertilizers, further escalating costs.

This nutrient application–nutrient loss cycle underscores the importance of adopting biostimulants as an integral part of a strategy to safeguard the environment, promote sustainable crop production, and ensure food security. As countries such as Japan, China and the United States, along with the European Union, increasingly focus on addressing nutrient runoff, the role of biostimulants is becoming particularly relevant.

Biostimulants promote sustainable agriculture by decreasing dependency on synthetic inputs like fertilizers and pesticides, mitigating environmental issues linked to conventional farming, and concurrently improving crop productivity, quality and resilience, thus supporting global food security efforts.

The market potential and beyond

But perhaps equally relevant — if not more so — to producers are the pressures exerted by those purchasing their products. Whether we’re talking about large global distributors, major processors, local retailers, or final consumers, the demand for more sustainable crop production is increasingly pressing.

As the agriculture industry embraces more sustainable practices, biostimulants occupy a prime position in the market, resonating with farmers seeking eco-friendly alternatives to traditional agrochemicals. The potential of biostimulants is underscored by their capacity to amplify yield, enhance nutrient content, and bolster plants’ natural defenses — all while contributing to the larger goal of sustainable food production.

The biostimulant market is anticipated to experience substantial growth in the near future, with a projected value of US$10 billion by 2030.

The aforementioned growing awareness of sustainability and environmental concerns, and the resulting alignment with consumer preferences, are only part of the reason for the growth in this product category. Regulatory clarity, personalized application, and microbial integration are other key drivers:

• Evolving regulations for biostimulants globally will bring clarity to manufacturers, growers, and consumers, spurring research, development, and standardization.
• Personalized precision agriculture combines the use of technology and data analysis to customize biostimulant applications for specific crops, growth stages, and environmental circumstances to maximize benefits and reduce waste.
• The increased use of microorganisms like beneficial bacteria, fungi, and algae in biostimulant formulations is anticipated. These microorganisms establish symbiotic relantionships with plants, enhancing nutrient uptake, disease resilience, and overall plant health.

Together, they are making biostimulants a crucial component of modern agriculture.

We must not overlook the significant societal contribution of this category of agricultural solutions. The use of biostimulants supports rural livelihoods, conserves biodiversity, and aligns with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, including Zero Hunger (SDG #2), Clean Water and Sanitation (SDG #6), Climate Action (SDG #13), and Life on Land (SDG #15). Biostimulants help us foster a more ecologically responsible and resilient agricultural system that addresses pressing societal needs while reducing the ecological footprint of farming practices.

By utilizing biostimulants, we can align with the demands of global distributors and local retailers who seek sustainable production methods. This approach not only addresses environmental concerns but also contributes to the overall goal of ensuring a resilient and secure food supply for present and future generations.

With their profound impact on plant growth, yield, sustainability, and food security, biostimulants hold the key to unlocking a new era of agriculture productivity. From optimizing the stages of photosynthesis to fortifying the plant’s metabolism, these biological solutions have ushered in a new era of agricultural innovation.

As the world struggles to feed an ever-growing population while preserving our planet’s resources, biostimulants are establishing themselves as a tremendous ally for a future where productivity, sustainability and food security coexist harmoniously.

I want to learn more about crop biologicals.