The diversity of a pig’s microbiome, or their gut’s “ecosystem”, varies along the different regions of the gastrointestinal tract, with some regions having less tolerable conditions and containing reduced microbial diversity in comparison to regions that are more favorable to microbial growth.

The challenges of modern production practices can restrict the diversity of the gastrointestinal microflora, in some instances resulting in an unhealthy imbalance, which can lead to the development of a vicious cycle of pathogen colonization and recolonization.

Producers must utilize nutritional strategies, with additional improvements in hygiene and husbandry to address the issue of antibiotic use in animal production.

During a webinar held in conjunction with Pig Progress, Dr. Richard Murphy, research director at Alltech’s European Bioscience Centre in Dunboyne, Ireland, discussed the nutritional rehabilitation and repair of the intestinal microflora in pig production.

“Gut health and its management is an intricate and complex area governed by numerous factors, including nutrition, microbiology, immunology and physiology,” said Murphy. “When gastrointestinal health is compromised, nutrient digestion and absorption are affected, feed conversion becomes reduced and susceptibility to disease is heightened, ultimately resulting in a negative economic impact.”

Diversify and repair the pig microbiome for strengthened immunity

Murphy highlighted that the diversity of the microbiome plays a critical role in gut health, with beneficial microbes forming a protective barrier lining the gut that prevents the growth of pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella, Campylobacter, Clostridia and Escherichia, amongst others.

Microbial diversity: The key to gut health

Murphy discussed four ways to rehabilitate the intestinal microbiota:

• Normalize gut microflora: Enhance microbial diversity
• Shift the balance: Reduce pathogen load
• Break the cycle: Decrease antimicrobial resistance
• Feed the recovery: Enhance nutrient digestibility

One way to address microbial repair is to use a feed supplement that focuses on diversifying and stabilizing the gut microflora. Mannan-rich fractions (MRFs) isolated from the yeast cell wall as a functional ingredient are currently being used for microbial control.

“The effects of MRF supplementation on health and performance have been studied comprehensively, and they have proven effective at improving weight gain and feed conversion efficiencies while also protecting against pathogen colonization of the gut,” stated Murphy.

Optimal pig performance begins in the gut

By making changes in the overall microbial diversity within the gut, we can aim to repair and rehabilitate gut microflora, thereby reducing pathogen load, enhancing resistance to pathogen colonization and reducing the abundance of antibiotic-resistant strains.

Improving our understanding of how changes in the gastrointestinal tract’s bacterial composition contribute to host health and performance is critical.

Alltech’s Antibiotic Reduction Programme supports European producers as they transition their animals to minimize antibiotic usage while maintaining health and productivity. The programme includes preventive medicine, management and nutrition solutions to minimize antibiotic use on pig farms. If you would like more information on the Alltech Antibiotic Reduction Programme, please click here.

To watch Dr. Richard Murphy’s microflora webinar with Pig Progress, please click here.

I would like to learn more about supporting pig health. 

To listen to our entire conversation with Aidan, click on the player.

Tom:                As Alltech's chief innovation officer, Aidan Connolly is responsible for the commercialization of Alltech's global research efforts. And as a company vice president, he oversees corporate account strategy. He led the implementation of The Pearse Lyons Accelerator, a late-stage agri-tech accelerator, and he joins us to talk about it. Thanks for being with us.

Aidan:              Thank you.

Behind the scenes of the first Pearse Lyons Accelerator program

Tom:                First, who originated the idea of establishing this accelerator program?

Aidan:              I think it's actually hard to remember exactly where it starts. I know the genesis, as always, came from Dr. Lyons himself. He has tasked us with trying to make the ONE conference the biggest, the greatest, the reason to come to Lexington in May, and obviously 4,000 people have responded to that. But this accelerator was to help people like himself, back 20, 35 years ago, starting their own businesses to have the help that they need to be successful.

Tom:                Okay. And we'll get into what you're looking for in just a minute. First of all, Alltech has partnered for this program with Dogpatch Labs of Dublin. What does each company bring to the project?

Aidan:              Well, Alltech, for those not familiar, is headquartered here in Lexington, Kentucky. We employ (approx.) 5,500 people, and we're in (approx.) 130 countries. So, clearly, from an agricultural perspective, from a food production perspective, we've got a very big footprint.

                        Conversely, Dogpatch is all about startups. It's all about people with ideas. Usually, they start on their own. Maybe a couple of people decide they're going to form a company, and they have been very good about helping those companies get started. We felt they would help us with the companies we selected, typically who are a little bit further down the process, but would provide some of that mentoring and help that we were looking for.

Tom:                So you put out this call for accelerator applications, and you got quite a response. What did it look like?

Aidan:              To put it in context, we got 183 applicants from 38 countries. In the agricultural technology field, that would already make it the number one program in the world. So just overnight, it became the number one program. And Dogpatch has connections with Google, and they have connections with many of the top organizations in the world as well. So, clearly, they brought something to the table. But I think there's a lot of attraction for these startups and partnering with Alltech and seeing that as part of their successful future.

Tom:                183 applicants and you had to pare this down to 10. It must have been quite challenging.

Aidan:              We did. It was a big task, and I think some dropped off fairly quickly, as can be the case. But I still think we had about 150 really good applications, which is remarkable. And when you're looking at them, you are looking to think, “Is this the next Alltech?” It was very exciting to be part of that, and I know that's a big thing to think about, but I think from their side as well. They were very happy to be evaluated on that basis. They were very excited about what they are doing.

Tom:                And we have potential investors coming to town to listen to their pitches. Any estimate of how many?

Aidan:              Well, the part of the conference that's specific to investors will be attended by almost 200 people who are uniquely coming to the investor part. Of course, there's a further 3,500, close to 4,000 people, who are coming to the conference for the overall conference. But, yeah, those 200 people would represent some of the bigger investors in agriculture and indeed in startups. They're not just coming from overseas, not just coming from California, of course, but even from Louisville and Cincinnati and Nashville. There are quite a lot of these startup hubs and investors who are both angel investors and venture capitalists really excited about the idea of being here.

Tom:                And does Dr. Lyons himself get involved while they're here?

Aidan:              He does indeed. In fact, he got involved with the program at every stage of it. Of course, he remembers starting Alltech in 1980 with $10,000. When you have somebody, a live person who actually built their own business, who has created something the size of Alltech, it's exciting, I think, if you're an entrepreneur, to imagine yourself being that person in the future.

Tom:                You touched on this earlier, but maybe you could expand on the benefits of this accelerator program?

Aidan:              Everybody sees things through their own eyes. But what I could say is, the 10 companies came back and said they had all raised an excess of $3 million each already, from finance rounds. So $30 million over 10 companies; they didn't really need more money. What they did need was help with sales and marketing strategy to find customers. So this was a very big deliverable for them. Frankly, being in front of 4,000 people in Lexington is a very big deal for them. What's better than when you have a great idea to get that level of exposure?

                        At Alltech's global footprint…that is something that if you're starting out with two people, 10 people, or 15 people, you just don't readily get access to. I'd say those are the three deliverables that they highlighted primarily that they saw coming from the program.

Finding a home for agri-tech and food innovation

Tom:                Dr. Lyons has suggested that Lexington should become a hub of agricultural technology innovation. Do you agree with that? Tell us what you envision.

Aidan:              I think Kentucky can sometimes underplay Kentucky's role in terms of agriculture. It obviously has a tradition of tobacco. It has a tradition of beef cattle. It recently has become a pretty big producer of chickens, soybeans, corn. From that aspect, there's a lot going on in Kentucky with some of the larger farms. But Kentucky is also very much focused, or has a tradition of small farms as well. And I think you see consumers looking increasingly for local, fresh, to know the name of the producer, the farmer, to be able to go and visit them. So I think opportunities for cheeses, et cetera.

                        What we're looking at in farming is basically 12,000 years of doing the same thing. And this digital disruption, this explosion in using sensors and using robots and using drones. It's changing every aspect of our life. But it's changing agriculture even more than it does the rest of life.

                        Lexington, and Kentucky in particular, has an opportunity to be front and center in this, as it wants to be. Alltech is doing its best to make sure that that happens. We would love for more people to join us. We're hoping to see people there at the conference. And if they come up and say, "How are we going to help make this happen together?” we're all ears; that's our goal.

Tom:                From what I gather talking to various folks from Alltech, there's a great deal of enthusiasm about the work at hand. And I'm asking everybody, "What is it about what you do that you enjoy most?"

Aidan:              Well, if you didn't have fun, then you weren't enjoying it, you shouldn't work for whoever you're working for, but you will find that Alltech people have a disproportionate level of enjoyment in their company.

                        Clearly, we as locals will know here, we do make our beer, our own whiskey and bourbon, and that does help of course, as well. But the food business has become a very exciting business to be in. Some people call it a sexy business, which it traditionally was not. For the last whatever number of years, certainly in my career, it never seemed as though my mom was proud of what I did. Now, when you ask her, she's very proud that I don't work for the traditional industries of banking or real estate or whatever else, because food is critical. And people understand, and have a relationship with what they're consuming. They want to understand more about it. They want to be healthy. They want to be natural. And they want to do good for their body and for the bodies of their children. So yeah, it seems to be really the right time to be in this business.

Tom:                Alltech chief innovation officer, Aidan Connolly. Thank you so much for joining us.

Aidan:              Thank you.

Aidan Connolly spoke at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE17). To hear more talks from the conference, sign up for the Alltech Idea Lab. For access, click on the button below.

The smell of bread baking in the oven. The pop of a peach skin. The sweet lick of a summertime ice cream.

Food — it awakens our senses to memories, to moments, to the people who’ve mattered most in our lives.

For Alltech dairy specialist Tom Lorenzen of Wisconsin, a poppy seed pie evokes sweet remembrances of mom.

Tom began working for a registered milking short-horn dairy as a child. For 17 years, every other day he brought home fresh milk from the dairy to his mother in tin milking cans.

And that’s when mama would work her magic.

She skimmed the cream off the top of the milk to make whipped cream for a host of delights, including her popular poppy seed pie.

The pie, featuring butter and whole milk fresh from the dairy, was the highlight of family gatherings and holidays. Even when it wasn’t a special occasion, her grandchildren would ask her to make it, a request that Tom recalls them making just about every visit!

Today, Grandpa Tom serves slices to his grandchildren, sharing the story of a special mother whose love lives on through the treasured family recipe.

Grandma Lorenzen’s Poppy Seed Pie

Crust

2 packages of graham crackers (crushed into crumbs)

1/3 cup sugar

¾ cup butter

1 teaspoon vanilla

Mix all the ingredients together and pat into a 9” x 13” pan.

Bake for 10 minutes at 275º F. Cool.

Custard

1 cup sugar

3 tablespoon cornstarch

4 egg yolks

1/8 cup poppy seeds

3 cups whole milk

1 tablespoon butter

1 ½ teaspoon vanilla

Mix the first four ingredients together.

Gradually add 3 cups whole milk over medium heat.

Continue stirring constantly until thickened. Add the butter and vanilla. Cool, stirring occasionally.

Once cooled, pour the custard over the crust, and you're done! If not serving right away, refrigerate. 

Topping

8–16 ounces whipping cream

1/3 cup sugar

1 teaspoon vanilla

Mix ingredients together in a chilled bowl. Beat at high speed until thick.

Cover the entire pan with whipped cream, or add a dollop of whipped cream to each slice of dessert. 

[DUNBOYNE, Ireland] – Dairy producers strive for long-term production and productivity with their herd, right from the start, and the pre-weaning growth of a dairy calf is a good indicator. While diarrhoea is one of the most common antagonists in issues with poor digestion and weight gain in calves, supplementing with Bio-Mos® has been shown to enhance performance and improve gut health.

A recent meta-analysis conducted by Dr. Anna Catharina Berge of Berge Veterinary Consulting BVBA concluded that Bio-Mos® supplementation in milk or milk replacer increased daily weight gain in dairy calves. These trials revealed, on average, 0.14 pounds improved weight gain per head per day in pre-weaned dairy calves, which corresponded to 8.37 pounds increased weight for calves weaned at two months of age. The long-term improved performance in heifers with improved pre-weaning growth would be equivalent to 220 pounds more milk in the first lactation, generating additional farm income, and improving gut health and digestive function.

“The results are a significant improvement in average daily weight gain,” said Aidan Connolly, chief innovation officer and vice president of corporate accounts at Alltech. “This improvement leads to greater returns for the producer through enhanced milk production, health and development, and long-term productivity.”

The meta-analysis included 23 cohort studies performed in the U.S.A., the United Kingdom, Brazil, Chile, the Czech Republic, India, Japan, Peru, Poland, Spain, and Turkey between 1993 and 2012. Bio-Mos was supplemented at 2–10 grams per day, with an average inclusion of 3.8 grams per day. Twenty-one of the studies reported an increase in daily weight gain for calves fed Bio-Mos in milk or milk replacer compared to control calves.

For more information on Bio-Mos, visit http://go.alltech.com/bio-mos.

To listen to our entire conversation with George, click on the player.

Tom:                            Tesla Motors, Apple, GAP: George Blankenship’s executive resume fairly screams disruption. At Tesla, redefining the car buying experience. At Apple, designing brand-building retail methodology. And at GAP, managing the growth of more than 250 stores per year, with an eye on energy and environmental efficiencies. Thank you for joining us, George.

George:                       My pleasure to be here.

Disruption: Driven by pursuing customer delight

Tom:                            So, Tesla, Apple, GAP: Three iconic American brands. What are your key takeaways from those experiences?

George:                       Well, I think the one thing that all of them do is, they focus on the customer first and then sort of back into everything from there, whether it was the way we presented clothing and the design of the clothing or the way we looked at what would be good for the customer, and then back into the technology. And then at Tesla, we looked at the customer experience of buying a car and thought, you know, there’s probably a better way than the way it’s been done for the last 100-plus years. And so, we thought there’s probably a better way for the end user, the customer, and that’s what we set out to do.

Tom:                            I’m sure it’s not news to you and you’re following this, but retailers are filing for bankruptcy at a record rate these days. They’re trying to cope with a rapid acceleration of online shopping. During the first quarter of this year, at least 14 retail chains filed for bankruptcy, almost surpassing all of 2016. Retailers are closing stores faster than ever. A deep recession might explain this, but GDP has been growing for eight straight years. Gas prices are low. Unemployment is under 5 percent. In the last 18 months, we have seen wage growth, especially for middle- and lower-income Americans. What’s going on?

George:                       I think it’s a couple of factors. One is obviously online retailing is impacting brick and mortar. But I think as important or more important than that is that a lot of companies over-expanded, and there was a lot of supply of places for them to go. A lot of shopping centers that maybe shouldn’t have been built in the first place. There’s one there, and then another one comes and builds across the street. And so now, you have two in a place where really one would thrive. So, one ends up winning, the other one ends up losing.

                                    And a lot of the retailers you’re talking about, one of two things happened: either they over-expanded and they shouldn’t have, or they didn’t react enough to downsize when they should have, or they lost connection with a customer.

                                    And I think what’s important is, while the bankruptcy is going on, most of those companies are not going to go out of business. They’re going to right-size and come back.

                                    But, at the same time, there’s some major companies out there who are going into brick and mortar. You’ve got Warby Parker, who was online and going into brick and mortar. Amazon Books just opened up their sixth brick-and-mortar retail store. They’ve opened up Amazon Go in Seattle. So, while one’s moving out, there are also ones that are moving in.

Tom:                            Among those moving into brick and mortar, are they making this move to provide experiences, especially the kinds of experiences that make for good social media content?

George:                       I think it’s really to learn as much as they possibly can about their customer.

                                    An online retailer has a connection in a certain way with a customer. They know their buying habits. They know the kind of things they buy. They know those types of things, and they can suggest that online, based upon an algorithm, but people aren’t algorithms. People are people. They have a character. They have a desire. They have a way of looking at the world, and sometimes the only way you can interact with that — the only way you can really learn about that is to interact with them directly.

                                    Why did Apple open up stores in shopping centers when no one was doing that, whether it was to interact directly with the customer when they were not thinking about buying a computer? We wanted to be there, take care of them, and then open the Genius Bar. So, no matter what Apple products you have, no matter where you bought it, no matter when you bought it, if you need help, we’re there for you and you can come to the Genius Bar and get taken care of.                                   

                                    Tesla opened up in shopping centers so that we could interact with people when they were not thinking about buying a car, and it’s just a totally different relationship. And that’s the reason you do it. It’s so you can interact directly with your customer and so they can understand you better and you can understand them better.

Defining disruption

Tom:                            The theme of the Alltech Ideas Conference was disrupting the disruptors. Disruption sounds a lot like chaos to a lot of us, but it’s important today. And why is it important to understand disruption as a positive thing?

George:                       Well, yeah, disruption could be thought of as chaotic and confusing, and people see it as reckless, but it’s really not.

                                    It’s really very, very simple. It’s when you look at something. It could be an industry, or an activity, or a process that’s been done the same way for a long period of time. It could be done the same way for 20, 30, 40, 100 years and generally people think it’s okay. But the reason it’s important is because the end user, the customer, usually develops a new set of benefits, a new set of things that are better for them as a result of the disruption.

                                    I mean, think about the Apple iPhone. Think about all the things people rely on their iPhone for today, whereas if you went back before the iPhone, phones worked. They were phones, but they weren’t an active part of your daily life. Now a smartphone is a part of most people’s daily life.

                                    You think about things that have been done the same way for a long, long, long time and somebody comes in and just finds a better way for the customer to interact with something or to do something. And it’s just different benefits that are generally better.

Tom:                            Innovation in technology is keeping a pretty blinding pace these days. If disruption in that area or disruption in general becomes the norm, is there risk of all that constant churning and change outpacing our capacity to process and roll with the changes?

George:                       Not at all. People embraced the iPhone right away. People embrace the way Tesla sells cars, which is different than the auto industry has worked for 100 years. You know, they embrace it right away.

                                    I think back, 20 years ago, Amazon went IPO 20 years ago. And now, look at the impact Amazon has had on the way we do things. At first, it was Amazon and then it was Amazon Prime. So, you get delivery in two days. Now, it’s Prime Now, where you can get thousands of things available for delivery in an hour.

                                    Yes, the technology enables things, but some of it is the people enabling things.

                                    Look at Uber. Think about Uber. All right? Technology, a smartphone, allows you to have a sharing type of way of sharing your car. So, think about the experience. You push a button and a car shows up on a map. You can see where it is. It shows up at your house or your business. You get in the car and you go. You never pull out a credit card. It’s just a better overall experience.

                                    Tech enables a lot of things, but sometimes it’s just the process, like how you buy a car. It’s done differently now at Tesla without any change in technology other than you can order something on the web: a car. But other than that, it’s the shopping for the car that actually changed, that’s disruptive. But again, we thought it was a better way for a customer to buy a car.

Tom:                            From the business perspective, not the consumer point of view, but the business perspective, are the concepts of disruption and sustainability compatible?

George:                       Well, sure. Look at what Tesla’s doing. Let’s use them as an example, alright? At a Tesla store today, you can walk in and you can buy a car or you can buy what’s called a power wall, which is a battery pack that you hang on your garage and you charge it up and then it runs your house from the batteries. And then with their acquisition of Solar City last year, I mean, today, you can walk into a Tesla store and you can buy an entire program. It will take you from solar, the battery, battery to run your house and charge your car. So, it’s disrupting the way you buy a car, but it’s also disrupting the way you can actually get off the grid and from there charge your car. So, you can live totally off the grid with one visit to a Tesla store.

Funding disruption 

Tom:                            How about attracting investment capital to a business model that relies on game-changing technology, on constant innovative change? Is that difficult?

George:                       Well, when you live in Silicon Valley, there is investment capital that’s out every single day searching for what they believe could be the next disruptive technology or disruptive process to invest in. There’s a big difference in how it’s looked at today versus in the past. In the past, they were saying “Okay, show me how soon you’re gonna make a profit, and how much profit, and how soon?” All those kinds of numbers, whereas today, it’s looking like, “How much money do you need to become the leader in this?” You’re probably not going to make money for seven, or eight, or nine, or 10 years or whatever. But if you can become the leader in what you’re doing, that’s more important to us investing in you than it is saying, “Oh, in 29 months, I’ve got to break even.”

                                    So, it’s a little bit different here. Now, I realize that I’m sort of in a unique pocket here in the Silicon Valley. I’m sure it’s probably more difficult to raise investment capital in other places. But here, you’ve got people looking to invest and you’ve got people looking for the investment. And is it available? Yes, it is if you have a great idea.

Tom:                            To what extent should a disruptive concept or technology be market-tested before there’s hope of attracting that investment capital?

George:                       Well, a lot of investment capital, they want to be in so early that there really is no time for testing. You’re investing in an idea because that’s where you get in the earliest and where you get in with the most opportunity for the lowest price. You know, obviously, if you’re early in …you’re the one who has the most opportunity to make the biggest gain. They would rather take multiple shots at something like that, knowing that two or three or four of them might not make it out of 10, but the ones that make it could be substantial. I mean, think about if you were one of the early investors in Google or some of the online — I mean, I saw the other day where 20 years ago — I think it was May 16 — Amazon’s IPO. And if you had invested $10,000 in Amazon 20 years ago, it would be worth $4.8 million today. So, how tested was Amazon before it went in and how long did it take to make a profit? And look at all the incredible things they’re doing today.

                                    You want to be in early. So, oftentimes, there isn’t a lot of time to test it before you actually invest.

Tom:                            So, it’s really a very strong hunch that what we’re talking about holds promise.

George:                       I think seasoned venture capitalists and those investing money are able to step back and look at things and say, “You know what, I think this has a niche. I think it has a place. And I think the place could be very big in the future. And if we get in on this now, and this becomes the leader, this could be really big.” And they step back and they sort of — you know, there may be five people in the room and they’ll look around at each other and go, “What do you think?” And if three or four of the heads nod yes, well, “Here. Here’s $30 million dollars.” It didn’t use to be like that, you know? It didn’t. No one ever did that kind of thing. But in today’s world, that’s what happens with a great idea that seems to have legs that people can look at and say, “If you can own this, it will be huge.” And that’s what people want. They want to own something and be huge.

Tom:                            So, what can make the difference between a business being disrupted versus being the disruptor?

George:                       Well, let’s go back 10 years ago. iPhone 1 was launched in June of 2007. And I believe the iPhone disrupted the cellular phone industry, actually the whole phone industry. And ask yourself: If on the day that Steve Jobs stood up and said we’re going to do a phone, chances are if you had a phone in your pocket, a mobile phone, it was a Nokia, a Motorola, a Palm or a Blackberry. Well, how many people have those in their pockets today? So, you can either be the disruptor or be disrupted. I think those four phone companies would probably wish they were the disruptor, not the ones who were disrupted. I think you always want to be on the front end of that.

Tom:                            You’ve long been a change agent, if you will. A champion of innovation. What sort of disruption are you engaged in these days?

George:                       Well, I’m helping Amazon open up their brick and mortar stores, just as a consultant, just sort of helping them get into that world. Other than that, what I’m doing now is I’m being disrupted as a grandfather. I’ve got four grandkids, and I love spending time with my wife, and my kids, and my grandkids. And I think, you know, the nice thing about grandkids is they make you young again. So, I guess I’m being disrupted by them as much as I’m disrupting the world.

Tom:                            My last question was going to be what about your work do you most enjoy, but I think it’s been upstaged by grandchildren.

George:                       Once you have grandchildren, they make you young again. They have a perspective on life that just makes you smile every time you see them, and they’re always glad to see you too. So, it’s a wonderful, wonderful situation.

Tom:                            George Blankenship, thank you so much for joining us.

                                    We appreciate it.

George:                       Absolutely my pleasure, Tom. Have a great week.

Tom:                            You too.

George Blankenship presented at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE17). To hear talks from the conference, sign up for the Alltech Idea Lab. For free access, click on the button below.

As planting begins, or continues, across various regions in North America, we should all be preparing to do the one thing that can have a significant impact on making or breaking our crops: scouting. Crop scouting is important for numerous reasons, but most importantly, it gives insight on the next steps you need to take to ensure you get the most out of your crops.

Three ways to tell if your crops need a boost:

1. Plant health

Overall plant health can be difficult to identify. The main indicators to look for include plant growth uniformity, patches of discoloration across the field and any signs of lodging. If observed, the crop may not be as healthy as it needs to be to thrive.

Soil and plant testing can identify nutrient deficiencies and other causes of decreased plant health.

2. Disease pressure

There are two key indicators of the level of disease pressure you may be dealing with: the crop’s leaves and the roots.

If the leaves are discolored and the bottom ones are beginning to wilt, you may need to speak to your agronomist about what your crop needs to get back on the path to high yields and overall crop quality.

After digging up a plant, examine the roots and look for consistent color. Also, if you have been experiencing wet weather conditions, the roots may give off a foul odor. Root rot can be caused by fungi attacking the root system, poor drainage, lack of oxygen to the root system, and phytotoxicity.  Treatment will depend on the cause, ranging from the use of fungicides to aeration, but if left untreated, root rot will eventually kill the plant. 

Increasing nutrient availability to the plants and improving plant health can  improve their ability to resist disease pressure.  Healthy plants are more likely to reach their full genetic potential of productivity.

3. Soil health

Your soil is a great storyteller. If it begins to get too dry, it will begin to crack. If it gets too wet, it turns to muck.

When you are out scouting your crops, remember to check your soil. If it is showing the indicators mentioned above, or if it lacks soil structure when you pick it up, you may want to give your agronomist a call.

If your crop scouting brings to light any of the issues listed above, ask your local trusted agronomist to thoroughly scout your field. By catching problems early, you may be able to get your crop back on the right track to achieve its full potential.

Have a question or comment?

To listen to our entire conversation with Jack, click on the player.

Tom:              Can agriculture save the planet before it destroys it? That's the question addressed by Jack Bobo, senior vice president and chief communications officer for Intrexon, a synthetic biology company focused on food, energy and health. And we thank you for being with us, Jack.

Jack:               Thank you.

Can agriculture save the planet before it destroys it?

Tom:              So, “Can agriculture save the planet before it destroys it?” That's a heavy and somewhat ominous question. Let's begin with the destructive nature of agriculture. What do you see?

Jack:               Well, in many ways, there's nothing we do that has a bigger, more negative impact on the planet than agriculture. And yet, there's nothing more critical for our daily survival. The challenge that we have is how to minimize those negatives and grow the benefits.

                        In terms of land, 40% of all the land on Earth is already devoted to agriculture, and that's a huge amount. The amount of crop land is the size of South America; the amount of pasture land, the size of Africa. So that is a really, really big footprint. If we were talking about water, well, 70% of all the freshwater we consume goes to agriculture. So, again, a huge demand on the planet. We can talk about greenhouse gases and all the other things.

Tom:              We hear an awful lot about the "rising billions," the rise of the middle-class in Asia, in India, in those areas of the world, meaning more demand, which means the need for more capacity.

Jack:               Yeah, so on one hand, we're going from 7 to 9 billion people, and so that's adding a couple billion more people. But perhaps even more important than that is the fact that their incomes are increasing, and so it's not that they're just more mouths to feed, but they're people that want more protein and better nutrition and better products. All of that means that we're not just going to need 30% more food, but we'll need 60% to as much as 100% more food in many places.

Tom:              So that's just going to put more pressure on those resources.

Jack:               Absolutely true.

Tom:              Well, let's flip the coin. What can save the planet?

Jack:               Well, one thing that can save the planet is innovation and new technologies. Because we need to produce all of that new food using the same amount of land or less, the same amount of water or less. We need to do everything better tomorrow than we're doing it today. But our rivers and lakes are already running dry, and so it's a huge challenge. But the only way we will ever be able to do it is to have science and technology help us to solve these problems. We need to get to 2050 without screwing up the planet and sustainably feed those 9 billion people.

                 Far from the farm: Consumers care more, know less

Tom:              As food shoppers, consumers, have we become disconnected from the origins of what we're eating and feeding our families?

Jack:               Absolutely, and it's inevitable. If you go back 200 years, pretty much everybody was a farmer or engaged in farming or knew a farmer, and today, it's 1% of the population is involved in farming, and most of us, it's a very distant activity. It's not really surprising that people are less aware of what goes into our food system today.

Tom:              Innovation versus Change. Do people revere one, loathe the other?

Jack:               Yeah. Well, I do like to say that people love innovation almost as much as they despise change. And there's nothing that they despise change in more than in the food they eat because food is what brings us together as family, as friends. It brings us together around the table. When you mess with my food, in many ways you're messing with my family, and people just don't like it.

Disrupting the discussion about food

Tom:              We're in an era of disruption. In fact, the theme of the conference is "Disrupting the Disruptors." What are the consequences of not being able to roll with those changes?

Jack:               I have a lot of confidence in the science and technology that we will in fact be able to address these challenges, if given the opportunity to do so.

                        What I was really talking about is disrupting how we communicate about food and agriculture, and that's really the challenge that we all have: figuring out how do we bridge the divide between those who think we should produce food the way we did a hundred years ago and those that think we need to produce food more intensively, because they all have something to contribute to this conversation.

Tom:              What about the emerging technologies that are bringing data to the platform and data that could be accessible, even all the way down the food chain to the consumer?

Jack:               Well, I like to say big data reveal small differences, and this is a really exciting aspect.

                        Imagine if you're an organic farmer today. For the last 50 years, you’ve probably been planting something called cover crops, which you plant in between growing seasons to maintain the soil and add maybe some more nutrients back into the soil. You've been doing it because you believed in your heart it was the right thing to do. Well, today, big data allows us to tell what's the return on my investment of planting a cover crop? And for the first time, a lot of big conventional farmers are planting cover crops because big data told them, yes, in fact, you get a return on your investment. That's just an example of how organic practices become mainstream practices as a result of this data.

Tom:              On a scale of one to 10, 10 being the best, how would you rate the public's level of trust in the food industry today?

Jack:               Well, it's certainly not very high. And that's really unfortunate. Because the only way we're going to save the planet is if the food companies are part of the solution. And there's no way we can do it without them. And if we make them the bad guy, if we make them the villain in the story, why are they going to work with us to try to solve these problems? Why are they going to care what the consumers think if the consumer just thinks that they're out to somehow undermine them?

                        The reality is that we need to gain the trust. It's not the consumers' fault. As a food company, you need to be trustworthy in order for people to trust you. That's something that is earned. It's not something that's given.

Tom:              What have you observed the industry doing that, if you were given the opportunity to change it and to improve it so that it became more credible, “it” being the industry, you would make that change?

Jack:               Well, I mean one of the things I worry about is food fads. There's always a new fad coming along — a new superfood or a new diet or other things. And food companies tend to just jump in, and that's because the marketing guys are saying, "Hey, everybody wants gluten-free. We need to produce a gluten-free product." Even if the company itself doesn't believe that product is going to benefit the consumer.

                        So you can actually find gluten-free water now, and you can find non-GMO water. Well, as far as I know, there's never ever been any water that's had gluten in it or was GMO. They're really selling a concept to the consumer, and consumers no longer understand. What is gluten? Most people don't even know. Unless you have celiac disease, you probably don't need to be avoiding gluten at all. And yet, when people go to the grocery store and they choose between two products, one is gluten-free and the other isn't, they think that contributes to their health. And the company knows it does not contribute to their health, and yet, they're willing to take that premium.

                        I really think that when consumers have a false belief, it's more often in the interest of industry to cater to the belief than to try to eradicate it. And that's really short-term thinking. The companies that are going to be around a hundred years from now are those who are in it with the consumer, not out to get the consumer.

Tom:              What, in your estimation, is the best, most effective way to deliver important, complex information to the public?

Jack:               It's an interesting question, because, in fact, in many ways, science doesn't matter. If people don't trust you, science doesn't matter. And if people do trust you, science doesn't matter. Because if you trust me, you don't need to see my science; and if you don't trust me, you don't care to see my science. So it's really about building that relationship, and that's a long-term relationship.

                        Information follows trust. It can't precede it.

Tom:              Here's a question for the times. It kind of has little to do with what we've talked about so far, but you're a communicator and I'd like to get your opinion on how we go about, in these times, engaging people who have different opinions about things.

Jack:               I think we need to start with ways of connecting with people. Where are our shared values?

                        It doesn't really matter where you are on the political spectrum or on the food spectrum, you probably worry about the negative impacts of agriculture, you care about the future of our planet, you want people to be healthier and better fed, and so there are a lot of things that we have in common. The question is how we get there. The only way that we're going to figure it out is by talking to each other, not talking at each other. Ultimately, what will determine whether or not agriculture can save the planet is, do we have a conversation that allows us to make those choices?

Tom:              Back to the food industry, are there any particular trends that you have your eyes on these days?

Jack:               Well, one of the exciting ones that my company is involved in relates to something called the Arctic Apple. It's a non-browning, genetically engineered apple. I'm hoping that it will actually change the nature of the conversation around GMOs. Because what we haven't had up until now is a product that people choose because it's a GMO. Once you choose a product because it's a GMO, you're not really going to think very much about soybeans and corn and other things like that. And people often say, "It's just an apple," but the apple is the third most wasted food item in the United States.

Tom:               Really?

Jack:               It's an important one. And the great thing about our apple is, if you're a grower of apples, you have less finger bruising and loss. If you're a shipper, less bruising and loss. If you're a retailer, less bruising and loss. And if you're a consumer, your kids will eat the apple slices that you put in their lunch bags.

Tom:              Well, I have to ask. Apples are really good, why do we waste them so much?

Jack:               Well, we don't really have a choice. When apples are bruised, they're not going to fit the quality demands to go to the store. I've talked to some people and they'll say, "I still eat bruised apples." And that's fine, but do you buy bruised apples? You're not intentionally going out there and looking for them. And so it just undermines the quality, and at the end of the day, the apples that have slight bruising are going to get tossed.

Tom:              So what about your work, Jack? What do you enjoy the most?

Jack:               Well, I'm passionate about trying to figure out how are we going to solve this huge problem that we all face, and do it in a way that actually makes everybody better. I'm hopeful that we have some of the tools. Now we just have to find the right dialogue that allows us to get there.

Tom:              Jack Bobo, senior vice president and chief communications officer for Intrexon. We thank you for joining us, Jack.

Jack:               Thank you.

Jack Bobo presented at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE17). To hear talks from the conference, sign up for the Alltech Idea Lab. For free access, click on the button below.

To listen to our entire conversation with Lisa, click on the player.
 

Tom:                           As founder and CEO of futurethink, Lisa Bodell has transformed teams within organizations like Google, Novartis, Accenture, HBO, Cisco Systems, Citigroup, Merck, Fidelity, even the U.S. Navy.

Best-selling author of “Kill the Company,” her latest is “Why Simple Wins: Escape the Complexity Trap and Get to Work That Matters,” which is what we will do right now.                                    

Thanks for joining us, Lisa.

Lisa:                            Oh, thanks for having me.

Tom:                           And do we humans have this tendency to complicate everything?

Lisa:                            We definitely have a tendency to complicate things. And one of the things that was interesting to me about doing the research in this book was that so much of the complexity that exists is self-imposed and unproductive, but most of it has actually been put on us unintentionally.

                                    We create the beast that we become a slave to all the time. And a lot of that is driven by risk and fear and power and control, and that’s what drives us to want to have just one more metric to be safe; one more KPI; one more report, just to triple-check things; one more meeting to make another person help us with that decision, versus a lot more reliance on our gut, and we need to get back to that balance.
 

Clear away the clutter
 

Tom:                           You offer guidance on how to eliminate the mundane or the unnecessary from the daily routine and free up more time for work that matters. What are some key ways to clear away all that clutter?

Lisa:                            Oh, my gosh, I wish we had more time. The good news is that there are so many things that you can do that are very easy, and I’ll tell you a few of my favorites.

                                    One of the things that you can do for yourself or with your team is you can kill stupid rules. A lot of things that we put in place had a purpose at one point, but they may have outlived their time. Things changed. We don’t spend enough time going back and reviewing our work practices and the rules we put in place to see if they’re relevant anymore.

                                    So, what we do is we get people in the room and we say to them: “If you could kill any two rules to help you be more productive at work or be more innovative, what would you kill and why?” And what’s interesting is, that most people, they come up with rules, but most of the things they come up with are tools. They are cultural assumptions, they’re annoyances, they are those reports and meetings and e-mails. So, killing a stupid rule is great because it gets you in the process of subtraction, but also it gives people permission to eliminate. That’s one.

                                    Another thing is to look for redundancies in your work or the things that you do that are duplicate. Do things less frequently. Some people have meetings for an hour just because that’s the default on their Outlook calendar.

                                    We teach people a practice we call NNTR, and what this does is it helps clear (your) inbox. A lot of times, people get clogs in their inbox by people that are just responding with “thanks,” “got it,” you know, pleasantries, and those become annoyances. NNTR is called “no need to respond.” And when you put that in your subject line, people know that this is just an FYI e-mail, don’t feel the pressure to respond and, in fact, don’t respond, because I don’t want it in my inbox.   
 

Tom:                           I’m going to thank you for that, right now.

Lisa:                            [Laughs]

Making simplicity practical

Tom:                           I found on your website, futurethink.com, a simplification toolkit, which seems to carry forward the ideas that you were just talking about. Tell us about that?

Lisa:                            One of the things I really like to do is not just talk about a theory, but really about practice. This is kind of the Midwesterner in me. I really like the practical “get things done.” 

                                    When I wrote this book, I decided I didn’t just want to talk about why simplicity is important. I have a full chapter dedicated to tools people can do right away.

                                    We created a whole toolkit that people could actually use with facilitation instructions and worksheets with their own teams to really make it stick because simplicity can’t become a habit if we don’t change behaviors and the tactics that drive them.

                                    So, the idea of the toolkit was: “Don’t take my word for it, try it, use it; one of these will help you get to the work that matters.”

Tom:                           And that can be downloaded straight from your site?

Lisa:                            It can be. It’s actually available on the site for purchase. They also have it on Amazon. So, if you get the book, you can get the toolkit, and it’s the perfect marriage.

Tom:                           What sorts of complexities do you most often encounter when you begin looking into a client’s structure, their culture, their problems?

Lisa:                            Well, you know, it’s interesting because when you ask people what complexities really hold them back, here’s what they’ll say: regulation. We’ll regulate it, so we have regulatory complexities. Well, there are people that are regulated that operate with simplicity more than others, so that can’t be the only thing.

                                    And then, they start to talk about organizational complexities. Those are the things you put in place to manage, right? Regulation like new structures or charts reporting things. But, those aren’t really the culprits, it’s two other things you don’t expect. It’s tactical, everyday complexities that really bother people; the things you put in place to manage the organization. So, it’s PowerPoints, it’s meetings, it’s e-mails, it’s decision-making. Those are the things that really bother people.

                                    The habits are driven by very human things. It’s human behavior that drives these risks, fear, power and control. So, if we really acknowledge the fact that we’re operating from a place of fear, of power, etc., if we get comfortable with doing less, we’re subtracting; we’re saying no. A lot of those tactical complexities — one more resource, one more PowerPoint, one more meeting — they’ll start to fall away and people will have more time in their hands.

Success from simplification

Tom:                           Is there a particular outstanding outcome after you’ve taken a company through the process of simplifying?

Lisa:                            Yes. Yeah. People have more time. That’s really what it is to do meaningful work. So, it’s interesting when you ask people what they want, they say they want to do more meaningful work — and I’ll get to that in a second; they don’t know what that is. That’s the problem. They have a bunch of stuff, they just need to learn how to clear it out.

                                    Teaching people how to clear out the non-meaningful work is really the most important thing because that’s what sucks up their time. When I look at a company and I figure what is the most important metric that I measure success by, a lot of people say it’s creating a culture of innovation. “The more innovative we are, the better off we must be.”  That’s not it. The metric I want to really move the needle on is the ability to get things done because my saying is, “If you get the work right, you get the culture right.” So, if I give you the right work and we don’t focus on mundane stuff but more meaningful things, you’re focusing on the right stuff, then you can get things done. That’s where real culture happens. That’s meaningful.

Don’t complicate simplicity

Tom:                           Is achieving simplicity a complex endeavor?

Lisa:                            It can be. It can be, but it doesn’t have to be. I think it can start on the individual level, and that’s the good news, which is, you have a lot of things you can do with your sphere of influence, your sphere of control. You can say no to meetings. You can look at your own work and figure out what’s redundant. You can spend less time on e-mail throughout the day and you can bunch them. You can communicate with more clarity, versus jargon. So, there are things you can do.

                                    There are also more structural things that can be put into place like cut-the-crap committees that are in charge of looking at things and eradicating complexity. I guess my key takeaway is: It doesn’t have to be complex.When people start to look at redoing the organization and re-managing IT systems, I think they’re going about it at too high a level and making it much more than it needs to be to start.

Tom:                           What kinds of complications that are ripe for simplification have you encountered in highly regulated businesses?

Lisa:                            The interesting thing is, regulated businesses, when it comes down to it, aside from the regulation part, are not that much different than other industries because the things that drive people crazy are the day-to-day complexities.

                                    So, what are some of the things I’ve seen? Let me take Merck for an example. They have a simplification team in Canada, and they had so many things that were complex much like, frankly, a lot of other industries.

                                    What they decided was that they needed to tackle simplifying meetings. So they focused on one thing and they created a code of conduct for how meetings were going to be run and everyone had to adhere to those simplified behaviors. There had to be a decision maker, there had to be less than an hour. They couldn’t be repeated unless everybody agreed to it. You know you can’t have those zombie meetings. There had to be an agenda.

                                    All these kinds of behaviors that everybody started to adhere to caused people to use their time better and use the time they got back in more meaningful work. Focus on one thing. Agree to behaviors. Give yourself more time.

Is digital technology the savior of simplicity or the blockade?

Tom:                           Is digital technology aiding and abetting simplicity, or the opposite?
 

Lisa:                            [Laughs] The answer is “yes.” The problem with technology is, you ask people if it’s helped or hindered, and the answer is “yes.” Technology has helped us get more things done and many things more easily. Kickstarter lets us get funding more easily. Airbnb, we can get, you know, access to a hotel room more easily. Uber, you get a car more easily. So, technology can be a great thing. Unfortunately, we don’t know when to stop, and the problem with human nature is, just because you can does not mean you should. And so, that’s where it kind of goes over the edge where, you know, you want one more metric, you want one more report because it’s just so easy to generate.

                                    And so, we spend all these times drowning in mundane internal tasks, versus relying a little less on those things so you can focus on what’s important, the external customer-facing stuff.

Simplicity skepticism

Tom:                           What are some typical pushbacks, resistance to change and simplify, even if it is in the best interests of the client?

Lisa:                            Well, it’s interesting. How I would answer this question is, I don’t get a lot of pushback in terms of people wanting simplicity. In fact, it’s the best question I could ask people and get the answer I want. You know, “Who would like more simplicity in their lives?” Everyone raises their hand, and they’re so excited about it. What I get instead is skepticism. They don’t really believe that they’re allowed to make it happen, that their bosses will let it happen, that they’re able to do it, and there’s a few reasons why. We are conditioned around more. We are valued, we are awarded for doing more, not less, so it seems almost counterintuitive. A lot of our bosses operate out of risk, fear, power, control, so that’s why they put these things on us. And, a lot of it is, I’ll get down to habit, because I tell people that they — they need to just try not doing something. 

                                     You know, “What if I didn’t?” is a great question to ask because you think you’re in a groove, but you may be in a rut, and it’s very hard to tell the difference and to try and change one behavior and stop doing something.

Tom:                           I wonder if a lot of people are like this. I find that in my case, I’m a morning person.

Lisa:                            Yeah.

Tom:                           I get a day’s worth of work done in the morning.

Lisa:                            Me, too.

Tom:                           Yet if you are employed somewhere where you must clock in and put in your eight or nine hours. You feel guilty if you’re not applying nose to grindstone all eight or nine hours.

Lisa:                            So, here is the difference, right? It’s that simplicity is a time versus value equation. I want to get people off the time and get to the value. So, simplicity is not about time management. I’m sure you — just like you just said — you are really good at getting stuff done. You can look at a to-do list, and you can check things off. I get great satisfaction from doing that. I admit to people that I’m the person that, after I got stuff done — just for that satisfaction — I will create my to-do list and then check all the things on it that I already did because it makes me feel so good. But, it’s not about getting things done on your to-do list; it’s about what should have been on that to-do list in the first place. And that’s the habit we have to get into, which is not “How much am I getting done?” but “Am I doing the right things?”

Tom:                           Well, it’s very obvious, Lisa, that you enjoy this work, but what would you say you enjoy most?

Lisa:                            Oh, my gosh, I’ll try to focus on one thing. I get a lot of satisfaction in showing people how to get their time back, how to do more meaningful things. So, what that says to me is, people come to work to do meaningful things, and they are drowning in mundane work. And if I can teach them one or two simple things that can make them more fulfilled at work or frankly have more time at home with their kids, I will feel like I’ve done a good job.

Tom:                           Lisa Bodell is founder and CEO of futurethink, and we thank you for being with us.

Lisa:                            Thank you for having me.

Lisa Bodell presented at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE17). To hear talks from the conference, sign up for the Alltech Idea Lab. For free access, click on the button below.

[LEXINGTON, Ky.] – Two students accepted the top global awards for the 12th annual Alltech Young Scientist (AYS) program, the world’ most prestigious agriscience competition for university students.
The AYS awards, recognizing pioneering research in the agriscience sector, were presented at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE17), an event dedicated to inspiring innovation in Lexington, Kentucky, USA, held May 21–24. Now in its 33rd year, the annual international conference is expected to draw approximately 4,000 attendees from nearly 80 countries to network and discuss disruptive ideas in business, technology, food and agriculture.

The global undergraduate winner was Joshua C. Gukowsky, who attends the University of Massachusetts Amherst in the U.S. Gukowsky was offered a fully funded Ph.D. position and $5,000 USD. The global graduate winner was Jonas de Souza, who attends Michigan State University in the U.S. De Souza was offered a fully funded postdoctorate position and $10,000 USD.

Dr. Aoife Lyons, director of educational initiatives and engagement at Alltech, and Victoria Liu, Alltech Young Scientist program manager, presented the awards in the famed Rupp Arena during ONE17.

“This year, we encouraged students to think about the ONE disruptive idea that will transform the way we think and work in agriculture in order for it to thrive and be sustainable,” said Lyons. “The international panel of judges, led by Irish professor Maurice Boland, was encouraged by this group of hugely talented students, all of whom place a huge emphasis on their scientific education.

“I speak for all of the judges on this year’s panel when I congratulate the 2017 winners,” continued Lyons. “The students not only exemplified great skill, but also aptitude and curiosity, which, in our minds, demonstrate their potential as the scientific leaders of tomorrow.”

This year, the program received more than 150 nominations from 134 professors, representing the world’s top 121 universities from 36 countries. To participate, students were nominated by their professors and submitted scientific papers on topics such as animal health and nutrition, agriculture analytical methods, food chain safety and traceability, human health and nutrition, and other agriscience-related sectors. Each student’s paper first competed within their own region of North America, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, or Europe and Africa. The first place regional winners, eight in total, were invited to an all-expenses-paid Alltech Discovery Week in Kentucky that culminated at ONE17, where a panel of leading judges selected the winners for the 2017 program.

“Thank you, everyone — this is a great honor to receive this prize,” said de Souza, the graduate winner. “Thank you to Dr. Aoife Lyons for putting this competition together to support new and young scientists. We are all winners in this program.”

De Souza’s research focused on altering the ratio of dietary palmitic, stearic and oleic acids, or fatty acids, in diets with or without whole cottonseed and the responses of dairy cows.

“Wow, thank you so much — I was really not expecting this,” said Gukowsky, the undergraduate winner. “First and foremost, I want to thank my parents and family.”

Gukowsky’s research featured detecting antibiotic residues in the foods we consume.

Entry for the 2018 program will open in September 2017.

For more information about ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference, visit one.alltech.com. Join the conversation online with #ONE17.

The world seemed convinced that 2016 was the worst year in history, a theme that media outlets from The New York Times (“2016: Worst. Year. Ever?”) to The New Yorker (“The Worst Year Ever, Until Next Year”) featured profusely at the end of the year. John Oliver, host of HBO’s “Last Week Tonight,” even blew up a giant “2016” during his season finale.

When we take a closer look at the overwhelmingly negative stories filling the news — from war and disease to poverty and inequality — it’s not hard to understand why we feel so pessimistic about where the world is heading, because it’s all we seem to hear.

Peter Diamandis, however, couldn’t disagree with this paradigm more, pointing out that the technology currently in the hands of billions of individuals today illustrates a power that only countries and governments possessed 20 years ago.

“I want to give you a view of the world that impassions me,” Diamandis, founder of the XPRIZE Foundation and co-founder of Singularity University, said at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE17). “It’s clear that the world is getting better at an extraordinary rate.”

What’s the key thing driving this lightning-fast change? Exponential technology.

Below are the five exponential trends that Diamandis says will change the world (and you).

1. The world is going linear

While humans have evolved to think and live in a local and linear fashion, putting one foot in front of the other in measured, baby steps, Diamandis said that today the world is global and exponential.

“Things are changing year to year, not century to decade,” he explained. “This can be disruptive stress or a disruptive opportunity, depending on your point of view.”

He pointed to the example of Facebook buying Instagram in 2012, the same year that Kodak, ignoring the digital photography trend, went bankrupt. Technologies are doubling in power every year, giving rise to increasingly powerful exponential technology. In fact, the rate of disruption is so fast today that the average life of the company has dropped to 15 years.

“The question is, as you’re starting companies and solving problems: Are you basing these on exponential trends?” asked Diamandis.

The technologies that are evolving today and changing the world are riding Moore’s Law, he said. In 1965, Intel co-founder Gordon Moore noticed that the number of transistors per square inch on circuits had doubled every year since they were invented. This trend is continuing and can be applied to all technology. In fact, it’s right on schedule and is enabling us to innovate and make progress at increasingly faster rates. 
 

2. 6Ds of exponentials

Diamandis described the way that exponential technology follows Moore’s Law and explodes onto the scene, much as apps such as Snapchat have done in recent years, in six steps, or the “6Ds of exponentials.”

He explained the first three steps in the following way:

 “In the early days of digitization, that growth is rather deceptive,” he said. “But all of a sudden, 30 doublings later, it’s a billion times better, and it becomes disruptive.”

After the initial three steps, technology reaches the last three critical steps:

• Demonetized. Think Uber and Airbnb, which don’t have to create products from scratch.
• Dematerialized: Technology that once filled entire rooms can now fit into your pocket, such as iPhones.
• Democratized: Demonetization and dematerialization enable you to offer your products to billions of people around the world.

Importantly, Diamandis noted that by 2022, 3 billion new consumers will be online and consuming those products, representing tens of trillions of dollars flowing into the global economy. They will buy technologies that continue to connect the entire planet digitally via ventures such as Google’s Project Loon, further increasing the rate of exponential technology.
 

3. An explosion of sensors and networks

A key element driving exponential technology to new heights includes the sensors and networks connecting people, places and things globally, from drones and satellites to the smartwatch on your wrist, taking images and collecting data on everything imaginable. This connectivity is propelling us from a period of time when we’ve virtually been “blind” to one in which we have an unlimited supply of information.

“This, for me, blows my mind,” said Diamandis. “It means that these sensors will allow us to know anything we want, anytime, anywhere.”

Furthermore, this technology is experiencing massive price reductions. Huge sensors that were millions of dollars in the 1960s are only $1 today and are molecular in size. This trend is showing no signs of slowing down, and Diamandis predicts that soon we’ll all be proud owners of such tech, such as augmented reality glasses we simply can’t live without.
 

4. Exponential technology will transform every industry

Faster, cheaper computing power is leading to unexpected consequences, Diamandis said, in which technologies such as robotics, 3D applications, virtual reality and artificial intelligence are combining to produce even more groundbreaking products. This is causing a paradigm shift in which every industry will soon be revolutionized by more efficient technology, such as self-driving cars and Watson, an artificial intelligence (AI) program that won an episode of “Jeopardy!” in 2011.

Some skeptics are worried about the negative consequences these new technologies might have.

“I’m not worried about AI as ‘The Terminator,’” said Diamandis. “I’m worried that AI is going to transform job markets. It’s the rate of change that we need to deal with.”

5. Moonshot thinking

The last, and arguably most important, of Diamandis’ five exponential trends is “moonshot thinking,” or thinking about how you can impact more than a billion people with a single venture.

The phrase, coined by Google, is the idea that today, any one of us can think about achieving 10 times more growth while the rest of the world is only focused on growing by 10 percent. Diamandis said that this requires a shift in mindset, since we have been trained to accomplish 10 percent more by merely working hard.

“When you ask yourself to go 10 times bigger, it forces you to think in a radically different fashion,” he said. “It forces you to throw out all that you’ve done before.”

He said that, personally, he focuses on “What’s the moonshot?” at the beginning of all of his new ventures, such as Human Longevity Inc., which aims to make being 100 years old the new 60 years old.

“I think, ‘OK, this is impossible; now let’s figure out how to make it happen,’” said Diamandis.

The news may continue to beat us down with up-to-the-minute, anxiety-inducing doom and gloom, but by using exponential technology, we can take matters into our own hands to change the world for the better.

“We’re living in the most exciting time in human history, a time when you as an individual have access to more capital, more computational power than experts in any time, ever,” said Diamandis. “You can solve any problem you put your mind to, and, ultimately, it’s the power of your passion and your mind that’s the most powerful thing on the planet today.”