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

Click below to hear the full interview:

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

Rebecca: Thank you.

Luther: Tell me a little bit about food culture.

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

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

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

Luther: Food is very social now.

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

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

Rebecca: Exactly.

Luther: Why is food complicated, though?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebecca: Absolutely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebecca: Absolutely. Yes.

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

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

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

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

Luther: Visibility. Right?

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

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

Rebecca: Absolutely.

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

Rebecca: Sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebecca: Absolutely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luther: What does the future hold for organic food?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebecca: Thank you so much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fairburn turned to Alltech’s algae product.

“The hens absolutely loved it,” she said.

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

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

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

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

I want to learn more about poultry nutrition.

From the mythical tales of Pegasus and the Black Stallion to the true legacies of Alexander the Great’s Bucephalus and Man o’ War, few animals conjure up images of nobility, strength, beauty, power and freedom in our minds quite the same way a horse does. First domesticated 5,000 years ago in Europe and Asia, the role of the horse throughout history has changed considerably, and these beautiful animals have demonstrated an incredible range of abilities and athleticism. While some cultures still rely on horses for transportation or agriculture, others primarily view the relationship with the horse as one of sport or pleasure.

Now a multibillion-dollar industry, the economic value of the business of horses is estimated to be $39 billion in the U.S. alone. Also evident are the opportunities to use new technology. While the progress of the past few years has been swift, the full potential hasn’t yet been realized. Eight digital technologies discussed in previous blogs have the potential to disrupt the equine industry, altering the very fundamentals of how we take care of horses.

3D printing: The new farrier?

3D printers can provide nontraditional answers to traditional challenges. Through improved breeding and nutrition, the horse industry has been able to dramatically improve performance, but challenges remain, specifically injuries and irregular growth patterns.

3D printing could be used to create casts, splints or possibly prosthetics for animals with injured or broken legs. For every Seabiscuit, there are countless examples of valuable horses that are put down when they break a bone. Previously, the prognosis for such horses was very poor, but what if 3D printing could step in as a solution? With this tool, veterinarians could print any number of things to solve myriad health issues.

CSIRO in Australia has developed 3D horseshoe printing technology to generate horseshoes using imaging software that closely analyzes the hoof in order to provide shoes with a superior ergonomic fit.

© Copyright CSIRO Australia, 2013

Robots: For heavy horse lifting

Robotic technology is already replacing a host of repetitive tasks, particularly in manufacturing, and greatly reducing labor costs. In the horse industry, applications could actually save lives. Robots have the ability to lift a horse in a careful manner that controls weight distribution and reduces the risk of hurting horses in operations that could be life-threatening, such as broken legs or laminitis. One form of equine lift was designed through collaboration between the University of Saskatchewan and a machinery company called RMD Engineering, which had originally taken inspiration of the idea with people suffering from multiple sclerosis.

Robots can also help in equine medicine and the evolution of CT scans. Each year, hundreds of horses are fatally injured in North America due to racetrack injuries, mainly fractures. Getting an accurate scan of an animal as large as a horse can prove quite challenging, but robotic devices, such as the one created by 4DDI Equine, maneuver around the horse, reducing the need for the animal’s cooperation as well as providing a safer alternative to more traditional methods that may have involved heavier sedation, tranquilization or other anesthetics. Equimagine can scan the entire horse in 90 seconds, taking over 900 images and producing high-quality, multi-planar 3D (or even 4D!) images, all while the horse is awake and standing.

Photo Credit: Image courtesy of Penn Vet New Bolton Center.

Drones: Too much like a horrendous horsefly?

Their value is already well established in many areas of agriculture, such as monitoring crop growth and disease, but the role drones can play with horses has yet to be fully explored. The Bureau of Land Management could potentially use drones to monitor the population and movements of wild horses, without the requirement for helicopters or trackers, both of which pose their own challenges and limitations. It is also possible to imagine a future in which they could be used to deliver vaccines, antibiotics or other medical needs to veterinarians treating wild horses. At a more micro level, drones supplied with a camera, combined with machine vision, could be used to monitor the movement of a cantering or galloping horse in open spaces and to determine lameness or other idiosyncrasies not normally visible to the human observer.

Despite these positive applications, it is worth mentioning the concerns most horse people have with drones. They are, effectively, large horseflies that can cause fear, and possibly even harm, to horses that can be easily frightened by the loud hum, if not the hovering object in the sky. Death or injury of spooked horses has been reported on several occasions. Given that drones are still a relatively uncommon sight to humans, it is not likely that training for compatibility between horses and this technology will become standard.

Sensors: From smart saddles to dressage scripts

Sensors have already established their position as a new powerful technology for horse management. They can be used to analyze many aspects of performance and health, and already over 80 companies provide wearable sensor technology for horses. The capabilities of this modern technology can help veterinarians and the equine industry immensely.

Seaver, for instance, is a wearable girth that measures a horse’s heart and breathing rate and uses algorithms to determine the animal’s movement when jumping to provide measurable data regarding its vertical and horizontal aspects. This is accessible via the rider’s smartphone app and can be stored and played back later for riders to assess the horse’s movement, path or strides. When repeated, it can determine changes over time. Arioneo has designed a wearable that attaches to a blanket and monitors a horse at rest.

Well-known saddle maker Voltaire has developed the first smart saddle. The Blue Wing saddle is the first of its kind that is designed to actually benefit the horse while in use by collecting information and saving that information for review later by the rider. It does this using a chip in the saddle that collects information about each ride: time spent in each gait, direction, quality of the horse’s symmetry, number of jumps, etc. All of this can be reviewed later by the rider or trainer; adjustments to the training program can be made based on evaluation of the horse’s performance using these metrics.

Photo Credit: Image courtesy of Voltaire Saddlery.

Another smart, wearable gadget is the Nightwatch Smart Halter by Protequus, which uses microprocessors and sensors to provide 24-hour monitoring. If a horse is in distress, Nightwatch can send text messages or phone calls to the recipient. For sport and riding horses, GaitSmart Pegasus is a wearable designed to analyze a horse’s movements and produces a report within minutes.

Sensors may soon find their way into the dressage arena. Lemberg, a mobile and web development company, is attempting to use sensor technology to determine a rider’s location in the ring and give directions, or a “script,” to the rider as he or she performs the exercise. The company is testing different location technologies such as Xiaomi Mi4 or Apple’s iBeacons. Both offer location positioning technology without the use of satellites, thereby offering greater accuracy, which is necessary given that the arena is often covered and comparatively small, and the directions in dressage competition need to be extremely accurate and perfectly timed.

Another incredible advancement in sensor technology is a high-tech “camera pill” that allows veterinarians to see directly into the gut of the animal, thereby allowing for better diagnosis of disease, general health status or examination of surgical sites.

Other tech companies producing equine sensors include SeeHorse, Equisense, EquinITy, Connected.Horse and HorseCom.

These technologies offer owners insight into the daily health and well-being of their horse using real-time data. Potentially, this information could give veterinarians the opportunity to analyze and interpret massive amounts of information regarding both individual animals, and, if used collectively, to better understand the species as a whole.

Artificial intelligence (AI): More accurate training?

AI is the ability to gather information from sources, such as sensors or other data collection devices, and interpret that data to help make meaningful and logical decisions. AI eliminates interpretational errors by allowing for analysis of significantly larger data sets, thereby eliminating many mistakes that might occur with humans.

Equimetre is an AI-powered wearable offering insight to trainers in the horse racing industry by providing analysis of the animal while also collecting data about the conditions of the track, temperature, humidity, etc. In evaluating all of this data through AI, the company is able to provide analyses and recommendations to trainers that will best suit the horse. This technology could easily be transferred into other disciplines in the industry, including jumping, dressage, endurance or polo, or it could be used to make recommendations for racetrack betting, grossly altering the odds! Such was the case when CBS Interactive challenged Unanimous A.I. to predict a winner of the 2016 Kentucky Derby.

When combined with something like machine vision (such as the company Cainthus provides to dairy), it could provide insights into the daily routine and management of horses. These technologies can result in more accurate training and better health assessment by generating appropriate regimens for horses, riders and trainers.

Augmented reality (AR): Imagine viewing races and seeing the speeds of each horse

Augmented reality is a combination of real-world visuals supplemented with information created from external data. The augmented portion of the image is provided by digital information interpreting light frequencies not visible to the human eye. The added visuals can be imposed on the real image in such a way that they are indistinguishable. Equine thermography, for example, uses a camera that detects infrared waves on the horse’s body surface that are invisible to the human eye. Veterinary Thermal Imaging, Ltd. uses this same information to detect issues in horses’ backs, ligaments and tendons, muscles, bones and nerves, often weeks before the animal is even showing signs of pain or injury, allowing for the opportunity to preventatively treat the animal.

Photo credit: Image courtesy of Inspiritus Equine, Inc.

The Equine Motion Analysis System is a software technology company that examines horse and rider symmetry. Designed by a computer programmer and equitation scientist, the program is designed to create an image depicting where a horse, rider and saddle are properly (or improperly) aligned.

Additionally, the future of horse racing betting could easily benefit from this type of technology. Using AR, bettors could more easily see what is happening on the track through the use of devices such as goggles; real vision could be supplemented with additional information such as speed, placement, and market or betting information. From a trainer’s perspective, more detailed information regarding the individual horse could be provided, thereby giving insight into the animal’s health status in real time. AR’s expense could be offset by the creation of new betting mechanisms. Companies like YantramStudio, Meta and Vuzix are the likely future of AR, and their use could be replicated in the equine industry.

Virtual reality (VR): A new way for vets to train

Virtual reality provides a new tool for veterinarians and those training to work with horses. Complicated or rare surgeries could be practiced in a classroom ad libitum, minimizing the risk to students, technicians and teachers. Although expensive, VR has the ability to greatly reduce other costs, such as time and energy, as well as save an animal from enduring invasive procedures for the purpose of learning and training. As VR becomes more common and less expensive, it could be used in more mundane training for managers and workers.

It could also be used for equestrian-related entertainment. William Hill unveiled its latest horseracing prototype called “Get in the Race,” in which users can experience a live horse race (from the back of the horse!) in a 3D virtual environment. Unit9 has developed a polo playing experience using software such as Google Cardboard. If more companies such as Oculus Rift choose to get in the game, the potential for cost savings to users could greatly increase.

Blockchain: A secure, global network of horse information

Blockchain technology is possibly one of the most universally beneficial technologies transforming business today. Blockchain is a database of information contained across a network that uses a decentralized system of information management, thereby making it difficult to corrupt the information. It is basically a database where digital records can be stored by anyone, and security is guaranteed. It is public and transparent because all the information is embedded within a distributed network.

Historically, blockchain has been used primarily in the financial industry, but it can be applied to business. An individual company or user doesn’t need to understand how to manage it, but only how to use it. In the equine industry, blockchain allows buyers from all over the world to store valuable and trustworthy information about horses, prices, treatments, scientific studies, feeding and technology, etc. Essentially, any equine company can access the database and register anything about horses such as birth, surgery, injections, veterinary visits, injuries, height and weight, treatments and more. Increasingly, more federations are requiring microchipping in horses, including the United States Equestrian Federation and The Jockey Club. Microchip manufacturers are benefiting from this, but so will prospective horse owners, veterinarians and anyone else interested in learning more information about a specific animal if this information is also housed using blockchain technology.

Roping it all together

The old business models are being disrupted with these eight technologies. Combined, they can be part of the internet of things (IoT), a system in which everything is connected and sourceable. GMAX is already using IoT technology to connect various equine technologies and provide incredible amounts of data, interpretation, analysis and recommendations to users. Such applications can be transformative to the equine industry. EquInnolab provides educational opportunities for learning and collaboration involving these technologies within the equine industry.

Not since the invention of the saddle and stirrup have horse people had so many opportunities to reimagine the future. These technological changes are only the beginning. More improvements are ahead as equine digital technologies are further adapted and refined. What will the industry look like in five years? While that is hard to predict, we can know for certain that it won’t look like it has these past 5,000 years.

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

Potential sources of bacterial contamination:

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

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

1. Cleaning and hygiene

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

2. Feed

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

3. Water management

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

4. Dust

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

5. Litter management

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

6. Managing gut flora

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

7. Coccidiosis

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

8. Vaccination

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

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

Visual appearance, palatability and consistency all factor into the consumer’s meat buying process. As producers, what can you do to ensure the meat that ends up at the store is nutritious, has the qualities consumers look for and won’t result in a loss to your profit?

In the recent webinar “Better-tasting meat starts with better nutrition,” Dr. Rebecca Delles, research scientist at Alltech, discussed key factors that affect meat quality and how feed plays an important role in providing a better product for consumers.

Key takeaways from the webinar include:

• Some factors that affect meat quality are genetics, feeding regimen, and pre- and post-slaughtering conditions.
• Meat needs antioxidants to improve stability and shelf life.
• Studies show the effects of Alltech’s Total Replacement Technology™ and the importance of organic trace minerals in the diet.

To view the webinar and get the full story behind the takeaways, click on the button below:

Watch Webinar

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does the future hold for farming and the entire food supply chain?

Everything from automated farm implements and nonstop reams of data to consumers’ ability to trace their food to its source and create supply chain reversal, according to a panel of agribusiness experts.

Looking ahead into that near (and already here) future was the basis of a live video panel discussion entitled “Farming the Future.”

What’s changed about what it means to be a food consumer?

“I think we’re in the middle of a food movement,” said Mary Shelman, former director of Harvard Business School’s Agribusiness Program.

She cited the rise of “engaged eating” — taking the consumption of food beyond simply eating to making food choices that are considered nutritious, safe, culturally appropriate and produced in environmentally sustainable ways.

“A big piece of that is the millennial consumer,” she explained. “Technology is all around them. They get information in different ways. They have different values. They’re the biggest demographic group in the U.S., and they’re just at the stage of having families and moving up in their income potential, so they’re very attractive to the food industry.”

Shelman noted that the millennial generation, born between the early 1980s and 1990s, has a much greater understanding of the relationship between health and food.

“What they eat is part of their identity,” she said. “Food actually reflects who they are as a person, as well as their values.”

This presents what, in her view, may be the food industry’s biggest challenge.

“Not only do they want products that meet certain price and safety points, but they also want products that have a purpose,” she said.

Shelman noted that these “prosumers” have a strong belief in their purchasing power’s ability to affect the change they wish to see in the world. They “vote” with their dollars.

What’s changed about what it means to be a farmer?

Aidan Connolly, chief innovation officer at Alltech, recognized that the rate of change occurring in agriculture is outpacing comprehension of its scope and scale.

“I think that if anybody thinks that agriculture is going to be the same in 20 or 30 years, they’ve got their head in the sand,” he said.

Connolly, who has written about digital disruptions that are currently transforming agriculture, cited those technologies: “…robots and drones, blockchain, nutrigenomics, the internet of things, virtual reality and enhanced reality — these are technologies that can fundamentally change the ways in which we understand what happens when we grow plants or animals.”

Perhaps the most widely felt game-changer in agriculture has been the arrival of “big data.”

“You have a tool here that looks at millions and billions of observations, whether it’s productivity, food intake, the way we grow our crops, how much rain you get — all of this can be integrated into very precise models, and that’s going to be the big change in agriculture,” said Dr. Karl Dawson, chief scientific officer at Alltech. “We’re talking about moving to ‘armchair farming.’ We’re going to be making our decisions from a site, sitting in front of a computer, looking to see what we can predict in the future. That’s a tremendous tool that we’ve never had.”

What does this imply about the knowledge and skills required of the 21st-century farmer?

“I think we’re looking at a fundamental change in what that person is going to look like,” said Connolly. “They won’t necessarily grow up on a farm. They might grow up in a city. They won’t necessarily have the skills of understanding animals or plants. They will understand data, analytics, equipment and decision-making about all the various technologies and which investments should and should not be made. So, dramatically different skills from those used for the last thousands of years will determine who is and who is not a farmer.”

Key among those talents are analytical skills that are tied to data and information, according to Michael Boehlje, distinguished professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University.

“We are going to have to increasingly develop that skill and feel comfortable with looking at numbers, looking at information,” he said.

Boehlje emphasized that this doesn’t mean a farmer has to transform into a number cruncher but will need to understand the stories that the numbers tell.

“It’s not just the story they (data) tell in terms of average yields,” he explained. “It’s the distributions that count. It’s what happens when you are in parts of your field where you have low yields and where you’re getting high yields as well.

“The same is true with animals,” continued Boehlje. “We’re starting to see different animal performance even in the same pen. That’s a function of their genetics and a number of factors. We’re going to get more granular in the data. So, data assessment, data summarization, data visualization, strategic thinking, risk assessment — those increasingly are going to be the skills that we need to have.”

Attracting a new generation of talent to farming

Shelman agreed that new and emerging farm technologies will enable agriculture to be successful in meeting increasing demand, but attracting and retaining that new generation of farmers requires something more.

“Supply and demand economics don’t tend to move in lockstep,” she said. “For instance, in crop farming in the U.S. today, prices are relatively low compared to other times in the last five years. So, there’s a need to maintain an economic viability for farmers to survive — and, in particular, to attract new, younger farmers.”

Shelman pointed out that the average age of the American farmer today is reaching 60 years.

“We need new talent, and they will only come in if there are attractive returns in the sector,” she said.

This new generation is being attracted to farming for very different reasons than their predecessors.

“It’s about being able to understand the market,” said Shelman. “It’s, ‘How do I deliver this differentiated product that has extra value?’ So, it’s not just about producing at the lowest price, but producing what different segments of the market want and being able to sell into those channels.”

The result: supply chain reversal

The industry is seeing the rise of “demand-driven chains with consumers increasingly telling the entire chain ‘what we want, how we want it and how it ought to be done,’” according to Boehlje.

“So, a really important skill that is going to be much, much more important for farmers is going to be understanding and working in an interdependent system, rather than as an independent farmer, that is very focused on relationships, collaboration and interpersonal skills — things that many farmers have historically not liked to do,” he said. “But those are going to be skills that will be essential to being a successful farmer.”

So, how can farmers change the way they sell foods?

Consumers are moving beyond the traditional demand for cheap, accessible, safe food to shopping decisions that align with their values, according to Shelman.

“I think that provides some opportunities at the farm level,” she said. “First, to become much more market-oriented and know what the market is interested in buying rather than what you want to sell.”

Added Boehlje, “We’re increasingly seeing this entire food production and distribution industry move very dramatically from a commodity orientation and a supply chain mentality to a differentiated product orientation and a demand-driven system. And the technology to get that done is increasingly available.”

Shelman cited as examples the rise of brands such as Laura’s Lean Beef or Pete and Gerry’s eggs, items that come with specialty propositions.

“If you look at the Amazon Fresh website, you can buy hamburgers from a single cow,” she said.

She acknowledged that dealing with the market at such a level is not for everyone in farming, but it’s increasingly popular among consumers.

“There’s tremendous resistance in the system to making those kinds of changes because our system has been set up to move big quantities of relatively undifferentiated products,” said Shelman.

Dawson cautioned, however, that there remains a messaging gap in the commercialization chain that has failed to win the buy-in of the middleman.

“Alltech Angus was an example of a succulent meat product that received very good reviews, but, quite frankly, we never could make it go because there was a barrier between us and the consumer,” he explained.

Still, noted Connolly, technologies enabling transparency and traceability are ushering in a new era for the farm-consumer relationship.

“We are seeing very large changes in consumer behavior,” he said. “Apps on phones, websites, the ability to see through cameras what’s actually happening on the farm, to see through blockchain what has occurred in the way your food is processed — these are all tremendous opportunities for farmers to engage directly with consumers of their food, and I think, eventually, that makes for a more profitable farming system.”

Success in farming, said Boehlje, will depend on an ability to move away from the mentality “If I produce it, they will come.” That, increasingly, is not the industry of tomorrow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Kellogg-Winters, the ASC standards:

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

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

Myth: Farmed salmon are raised with growth hormones and antibiotics

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

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

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

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

Marine Harvest's salmon net cages in Norway.

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

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

Salmon raised indoors at Marine Harvest in Norway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Myth: Farmed salmon are not an environmentally friendly choice

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

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

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

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

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

Myth: Wild salmon tastes better than farmed salmon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, check out these salmon recipes from Norway.

I want to learn more about nutritional solutions for salmon.

Water is essential for life, yet water intake usually gets less attention than feed intake. We focus on quality, density and processing of feed, but we tend to take water for granted because it costs “nothing” — or at least does not appear on the feed bill.

Feed and water are closely linked, however. Birds typically drink 1.6 to two times the equivalent weight of feed, and, if water intake is limited, then feed intake declines. Furthermore, all digestive activity is dependant on water. Poor water quality can mean getting less than expected results from even the best quality feed.

Let’s get back to the basics of this element. There are several ways we can use water intake to help newly-placed chicks get a good start.

Water quality profiles

Minerals, hard and soft water, pH and alkalinity

Mineral content, pH, microbial contamination and temperature affect water quality and intake. Water quality profiles include pH, alkalinity and hardness.

pH is a measure of acidity, with pure water having a pH of 7. Values of less than 7 are considered acidic, while those above 7 are basic, or “alkaline.” Alkalinity reflects the capacity of water sources to buffer added acids without changing pH (total acidity). Water hardness, pH and/or alkalinity are not always directly associated, but generally, hard water has a higher pH.

Hard water contains larger amounts of minerals in the form of calcium and magnesium ions, which are picked up as rainwater percolates down through rock layers. In contrast, soft water has more sodium ions. The challenge with hard water is that it causes scale buildup, which gradually constricts pipes. The scale slows water flow, which ultimately reduces water consumption and, consequently, feed intake.

Minerals, such as magnesium, iron, sulfur, sodium and copper, can cause water rejection at very high concentrations due to bitter taste, or they can have laxative effects, whether from hard or soft water. Elevated mineral levels can be due to natural reasons or pollution.

Bacterial counts and biofilms

Zero bacteria per milliliter of water is desirable, but contamination is common. Coliform bacteria are of special concern. Coliforms are found in animal and human digestive tracts, and their presence in ground or surface water indicates fecal contamination.

Biofilms result from bacterial colonies that adhere to the inner walls of water lines. They produce a film that attracts other microbes and debris. A biofilm might occur in patches and can, on occasion, completely cover pipe walls. Biofilms protect bacteria from antibiotics and disinfectants and can block water lines. Bacteria (including coliforms) in biofilms flourish in places where water moves slowest or temperature is elevated, like the end of drinker lines, and when water remains in the line before the next use.

Using water to promote gut health

Chick hydration after placing

Early and sufficient water intake is critical during the first week of life. It is not uncommon for chicks to arrive at the shed dehydrated, and quick resolution is needed. Chicks drink sooner when placed near drinkers that dispense clean water at the right temperature and flow rate. Attention-getting lights and reflective drinker surfaces help, too.

Water and gut health

The chick’s digestive tract develops rapidly over the first week of life, and anything we can do to promote gut health during this time pays off in lower early mortality and overall feed efficiency. A healthy gut has the right mix of microbes, enzymes and healthy intestinal villi to aid pathogen defense and feed digestion. The medium in which these entities exist is water.

Microbial growth and digestive enzyme activity are sensitive to pH. Coliforms, including E. coli and Salmonella, grow best at pH levels above 7. In contrast, beneficial bacteria such as lactobacilli thrive at more acidic conditions (below 7). pH varies throughout the digestive tract, with values lowest (~2) in the stomach for the digestion of protein, then higher in the intestine and colon for the digestion of fats and carbohydrates. The bird needs the ability to maintain correct gut pH from the beginning, but gut cells are still developing. A simple way we can help the bird is by lowering drinking water pH.

Acidification: Prevents biofilms, lowers scale accumulation and reduces drinking water pH for better bird health

Acid-Pak 4-Way® contains a citric acid buffer, electrolytes and probiotics. When added to water, it reduces pH (i.e., increases acidity), which benefits both birds and pipes. Water pH is reduced to 4.5–5.5, which promotes the growth of normal and healthy bacteria in the gut, such as lactobacilli. At the same time, the lower pH discourages the growth of coliforms. The lower water pH also helps chicks adapt to dry feeds because it controls pH, promotes beneficial microbial growth and aids enzyme production.

Adding Acid-Pak 4-Way aids water line maintenance, too. It helps keep water flow steady, in addition to other benefits. Scale does not accumulate from hard water when acidified. Importantly, reducing pH by adding Acid-Pak 4-Way unseats biofilms in the water lines and keeps them from re-forming.

BEFORE placing your chicks, open the drinking lines, put Acid-Pak 4-Way in the water, flush the lines and THEN place the chicks.

Have a question or comment?

Fall is here, and that means calving season is starting up again for some producers. Dr. Shelby Roberts, postdoctoral research fellow in Alltech’s beef nutrition research department, shares her tips on scours prevention in your calves this season.

1. Stop calf scours early

Early detection of scours is essential so that fluids and electrolytes can be restored in order to correct dehydration as soon as possible. Some common symptoms associated with scours include depression, weak suckling reflex, dehydration (sunken eyes) and abnormal breathing.

2. Manage your herd to minimize risk

Manage your cow herd to minimize calf exposure to pathogens and stress. For example, try to keep calving areas as clean as possible to reduce the calves’ pathogen exposure. If possible, isolate sick calves and their dams from the cow herd to prevent the spread of the pathogen. 

3. Manage nutrient requirements for mother cows

Make sure the dams’ nutritional requirements are being met. Colostrum quality and quantity can be negatively affected by inadequate dam nutrition. Remember, when managing your fall calving herd: Fall calving cows will be lactating throughout the winter, so they will have higher nutritional requirements compared to spring calvers.

4. Use the fecal scoring guide

Check your fecal score using the guide below. If you have a fecal score of less than 2.5 for more than five days, your calves have a problem.

% diarrhea = Total number of calves with a fecal score of “4” x 100 / Number of calves in pen

Duration of diarrhea = Total days from weaning in which calves exhibit a fecal score of “4”

Have a question or comment?