As the director of the Cornell Alliance for Science, Sarah Evanega pushes for evidence-based decision making in agriculture. She is also the winner of the Planet of Plenty awards in the Educator category. We spoke to her about the role that plant science plays in producing enough nutritious and safe food for a growing population.

The following is an edited transcript of the Ag Future podcast episode with Sarah Evanega hosted by Tom Martin. Click below to hear the full audio or listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Tom:                          This is Tom Martin. And our guest is Sarah Evanega, winner in the educator category of Alltech’s Planet of Plenty Awards.

                                    Sarah, also recently received the coveted Borlaug CAST Communication Award. She is director of the Cornell Alliance for Science, a global communications effort that promotes evidence-based decision making in agriculture.

                                    She is a research professor in the Department of Global Development and holds an adjunct appointment in the Section of Plant Breeding and Genetics in the School of Integrative Plant Science at Cornell, teaching courses on Agricultural Biotechnology on the undergraduate and graduate levels.

                                    Dr. Evanega, congratulations and thanks for joining us.

Sarah:                        Thanks, Tom. It’s so nice to be here.

Tom:                          So, tell us about the Alliance for Science, what are its aims, what does it do?

Sarah:                        Yeah. The Alliance for Science is a global platform. Anyone can be part of the Alliance for Science. Any individual, any organization can join the Alliance for Science.

                                    We’re a global effort to ensure access to agricultural technologies, the information that can help us improve food security, improve environmental sustainability, and really explains the quality of life globally.

                                    We’re a communications initiative standing firmly in support of the science, trying to improve the enabling environment for plant and agricultural plants.

                                    So, we work to increase public engagement and communications around plants sciences. We work to ensure good science and farm policy making that can have a positive impact on our mission.

Tom:                          Why does science even need to be defended?

Sarah:                        Yeah. Well, that’s a good question. But, the world is certainly facing some big challenges ahead, not the least of which is feeding the many, while at the same time fighting climate change.

                                    We absolutely need science and innovation to do this to meet these big challenges. And, I think, you know, this year, this past year has been a very clear demonstration of the need for science and innovation to solve complex global problems.

                                    So, for the past year and a half, we all know we’ve been reliant on good science to get us through this pandemic that we’re in. And we’ve seen firsthand the impacts of disinformation and lack of access to science and innovation. I mean, sadly, it has literally been the difference between life and death in this case and so, we absolutely need to defend science and ensure that science and forms the policies that – that really have real world implications.

Tom:                          Is it becoming increasingly difficult to cut through all that clutter of mis- and disinformation to keep people accurately and contextually informed?

Sarah:                        Yeah. I mean, we definitely live in a time when, you know, we have information overload. We’ve got so many different social media platforms that we can communicate on, some of which are opened, some of which are closed loop.

                                    It’s – it’s an information age and I think, you know, that can – can serve a really positive purpose and it can also, you know, be a disservice. And so, I think the important thing is is that we make sure that science is well represented in those information platforms and we get, you know, bonafide experts out there communicating and sharing the good science informed material information that can help people make good decisions about their life.

                                    And so, part of what we’re doing at the Alliance for Science is really trying to help equip people, young people, old people on sciences, journalists, you name it, farmers, people from all kinds of different walks of life to have the kind of communication skills that they need to get out there and share good science-based information, so that we – we have it informed public and that we have policy makers who – who can – who can stand firmly in support of the science.

Tom:                          The young people who participate in the Alliance for Science program, where do they come from?

Sarah:                        Gosh, they come from all over the world. So, in our training program broadly we’ve had about 800 trainees from roughly 50 countries from around the world.

                                    So, if you look at the map of – of where the Alliance for Science had representation in our training program, it really spans the entire globe with Antarctica as an exception. [laughs]

                                    And so, it really truly – we truly are a global alliance and that’s something we’re very proud of. We have a lot of representation in our global fellows program from across the developing world. We’ve had a lot of fantastic champions from across Latin America, from across South Africa, fantastic representation from South Asia and really vibrant group from the Philippines as well.

                                    So, I mean it really is a global – a global alliance and the champions who come to our programs are leading efforts across the globe.

Tom:                          And what sorts of issues are these students working to solve?

Sarah:                        Well, they are all coming on into our programs with a passion for these issues. So, they come to the Alliance for Science already with, you know, sharing our mission to advocate for access to agriculture innovations.

                                    So, these are people who might be concerned for example about youth employment or youth engagement in agriculture in their home countries of Zimbabwe for example. And so, they really want to develop a strategic plan to help ignite excitement for agriculture among youth in Zimbabwe for example.

                                    They might be from a farming community, who really wants to advocate for access to improve seed and other agricultural innovations that can actually help them grow resilient – resilient crops that are relevant in their country context. Maybe they’re advocating for a good biotech policies that will help ensure access to those seeds.

                                    We’ve also had a champion from Bangladesh for example who has essentially after participating in our program grown up his own Alliance for Science like organization called Farming Future Bangladesh, that is a communication initiative that is working together with the Alliance to do many of the same kinds of activities, but specifically in Bangladesh.

                                    So, I mean, really the opportunities are endless and the ideas and the projects that flow from these fellows really are driven by the issues that are the most relevant in their country context that they care deeply about. Very home grown.

Tom:                          Well, where are you seeing importance successes in those initiatives?

Sarah:                        Well, we’ve seen partners in Nigeria for example works together to advocate for access to Bt cowpea, Bt maize, and other improved seeds that could help Nigerian farmers move away from a lot of the, you know, import – imports that they are relying on as well as accessing improved seed for crops that are so important in their country context.

                                    So, since – since our Nigerian fellows for example begun working together, they and other partners around the globe like the Africa Agriculture Technology Foundation, the Open Forum Biotechnology in Africa, many commodity groups and farmer organizations across Nigeria have worked together over the last couple of years and are now seeing tremendous success and having access to new biotech crops that are going to help Nigerian farmers.

                                    You know, in the US, cowpea is kind of, you know, strange thing that we don’t eat very much. I mean, I grew up eating it on New Year’s day for good luck,  [laughs]  but it’s not really staple in our – in our diet.

                                    In Nigeria, it’s such an important source of protein and so, having access to those legumes and source of protein is so important in that cultural context.

Tom:                          I think it’s safe to say by now that climate change is being recognized by most people as one of our most serious challenges. But, I’m wondering, what are some other serious challenges that could also benefit from scientific solutions?

Sarah:                        Well, I think you’ve – you’ve said it right there. Climate change sort of looms over everything, right?

Tom:                          Uh-hmm.

Sarah:                        And, in agriculture and plant science, we are up against this enormous challenge of feeding the, you know, 9 or 10 billion people who are going to inhabit the earth in a few short years, while at the same time, addressing climate change.

                                    And that’s a big wicked problem because agriculture is the contributor to the climate change and all kinds of different ways. But, you know, when I look at the kind of innovation happening in plant science, whether it’s, you know, the classical genetic engineering or, you know, newer emerging technologies like CRISPR.

                                    I see so much research innovation happening right now that’s going to help us feed the many, while at the same time, reducing agriculture’s negative environmental footprint.

                                    We see crops being developed that are not going to need the same amount of extra fertilizer and other innovations that are going to reduce nitrogen fertilizer, which is fantastic.

                                    We see, you know, innovations that are reducing emissions in agriculture and improving soil conditions the conservation agriculture. We see applications that are reducing pesticide use, like this exciting Bt eggplant that’s being grown in Bangladesh.

                                    So many exciting applications that are happening right now through genetic engineering, through CRISPR, and a range of other technologies that are helping us do agriculture in a much cleaner and greener way.

                                    And so, while it’s an enormous challenge, I am optimistic that we – that we can achieve our – our challenge of feeding the many at the same time we’re using agriculture’s negative environmental footprint.

Tom:                          You cited many innovations that are really interesting really exciting, but the one that really, I think, qualifies for mind-blowing is CRISPR.

                                    And, I’m just wondering if you could expand on that. Anything that you can think of that’s going on in the CRISPR area that agriculture in particular might benefit from?

Sarah:                        Absolutely. We’re -- I share your enthusiasm for CRISPR, I think it’s a really exciting tool that is going to be a game-changer in food and agriculture. So, I’m excited about applications of CRISPR that are going to help improve the environment.

                                    I was just reading recently about some genes in cattle that are associated with methane emissions that, you know, can be – can be addressed to reduce methane emissions from cattle that’s an exciting CRISPR application.

                                    There are applications across the – across crop improvement that are also going to help us grow more using less resources and having less negative impact on the environment.

                                    I’m also really excited about the implications for nutrition, so using CRISPR to crops that are going to be more nutritious, that will allow us to grow more diverse crops that can stand up to climate change and other stresses.

                                    So, for example if we look at, you know, the first generation of genetically engineered crops for example, you know 99% of all the crops that are genetically engineered that are growing out there in the world are essentially just four crops, right? You have the – 50% of it is soy, 30% maize, 15% is cotton, and 4% is canola.

And so, most crops haven’t actually benefitted from those tools and CRISPR is very much democratizing tool that many researchers can use from public institutions, small and medium businesses, startups. It’s not limited to a few big companies. It’s a very democratizing tool.

And what that means is that we can use this tool to improve specialty crops to improve crops that are important maybe in a developing country, but not traded, yeah, globally. And so, there’s so much opportunity to – to improve a range of different crops that can help combat malnutrition, undernutrition, etc.

And also, I think, you know, in the context of the US, there’s a number of products that are being developed that – that are going to be a great interest to consumers that are going to help us consume healthier, more healthy convenient food.

So, there’s startups that are working to really improve our produce aisle. And I’m excited about that because I think that’s going to be a real game-changer for the acceptance of – of the role that plant breeding innovation can play improving our life.

Tom:                          There’s another matter that you brought up earlier that I’d like to touch on here and it has to do with population.

                                    The world seems to be going in two different directions between developing nations and developed nations. Developed seem to be depopulating. We’re getting into negative population growth, while at the same time, the developing world is going in the opposite direction.

Does that figure into your calculations as a scientist and as somebody who’s thinking about a planet of plenty and how to feed the world?

Sarah:                        I think one of the important points that – that I think a lot about is the need to engage more young people in plant and agricultural science and in the – in the careers associated with agriculture and producing the food that we need.

                                    So, in a lot of developing country context as well as the US for that matter, you know we’re not seeing young people getting into the – the field of agriculture. And I think there’s a lot of reasons for that.

                                    But, what we do see is that when young – when young people see agriculture as a good business as an exciting business where they can innovate and use state of the art technology, then they’re more likely to engage in agriculture-related fields.

                                    And so, I think, though, it goes back to the – our core mission of ensuring access to these innovations, these innovations that excite people that engage young people in agriculture that inspire entrepreneurship, so that, you know, it can become a good business and attract the young brightest minds.

                                    And I think in the context of the US, we have a great opportunity to engage more – more diverse people in plant and agricultural science as well as in agriculture. And I think that that needs to be one of our priorities in the US is to really make sure that the face of agriculture, the face of agricultural science and the face of plant sciences is as inclusive and diverse.

Tom:                          I’d like to circle back to the Alliance for Science and talk about its funding. I think it’s worth noting, you do not accept funding from corporate agriculture. Why is that and how is the effort supported?

Sarah:                        Yeah. So, we work on some controversial issue areas and we – we’re a neutral organization at a US university. And to maintain that trust that I think we’ve inspired across bringing the stakeholders, we do not accept funding from industry.

                                    And I think that’s important for us to maintain our – our neutral and very science conformed position, we are driven by science, not by corporate agendas for example.

                                    We are largely funded through philanthropic organizations. A great deal of our funding does come from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. We also have received funding from US government agencies like the USDA, USAID. So, we have some small family foundations that have given to us.

And we – we really very much in spirit of transparency and so we do list all of our funding sources on our website.

Tom:                          Sarah, I know that you’ve been instrumental in launching the AWARE initiative. AWARE is standing for Advancing Women in Agriculture through Research and Education. If you could tell us about this program?

Sarah:                        Yeah. I work on closely with a colleague on this initiative that we launched a few years ago. And our goal really was to create a cross cutting initiative, so that we would consider the needs of women in agriculture in everything that we do here in our unit.

                                    So, that ranges from really encouraging and supporting student research that will benefit women to ensuring that all of the global projects that we’re running consider for example the needs of women farmers in various country context.

                                    So, it really is about, you know, thinking about the role of women across all areas of agriculture in all that we do. And part of that also is in through our, you know, capacity building program, ensuring that we have good representation of women.

                                    In many countries where we work, women are the ones who are – are –are holding down the fort at the farm for example as – as men seek of farm labor opportunities and so forth.

                                    And so, it’s really important that, you know, in plant science, we’re thinking about the needs of women as they process these crops, not just grow them, but process them.

And so, the AWARE initiative is really all encompassing and cross cutting thinking about, okay, what are the needs of women and how can we adjust those needs through everything that we do from our research to our education opportunities.

Tom:                          We have talked about issues and challenges and obstacles as well as some amazing innovations and forward-looking programs that are going on right now.

                                    What makes you optimistic about a Planet of Plenty?

Sarah:                        I am an optimist and I, you know, I’m a plant scientist and I really do feel like the role that plants breeding and plant science can play in helping us achieve a Planet of Plenty in this – in this changing climate is so crucial.

                                    So, we, in plant science, we have the opportunities to create this Planet of Plenty to produce the food, nutritious – safe nutritious food that’s going to feed our growing population, while at the same time, playing a critical role in adapting to climate change as well as mitigating climate change.

                                    So, plant science I think is so full of opportunities and it’s my hope that, you know, as we inspire a new generation to get into plant science in a much more diverse generation to get into plant science, we’ll have new decision makers at the table, we’ll have new innovators at the table, and we really will be able to achieve this Planet of Plenty in – in a world full of enormous challenges.

Tom:                          Yes. That’s Sara Evanega, research professor in the Department of Global Development at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York overlooking beautiful Cayuga Lake.

                                    And, she’s also the winner in the educator category of Alltech’s Planet of Plenty Awards.

                                    Thank you, Sarah.

Sarah:                        Thank you, Tom. It’s been a pleasure speaking with you today.

Tom:                          I’m Tom Martin and thanks for listening.

HELM Agro and Alltech Crop Science announce a partnership to bridge the gap between traditional and biological crop input solutions. This new relationship applies a systems approach to support sustainable practices and provide growers easy access and product education on full-spectrum, integrated crop solutions.

HELM Agro will market, sell and distribute the Alltech Crop Science line of products in the U.S. Alltech Crop Science will continue to manufacture its crop science solutions while also focusing on scientific research and the development of new products. The collaboration brings together product lines from both companies and elevates science and service through expertise, resources and new, innovative product options.

The family legacies that make up the backbone of both HELM Agro and Alltech Crop Science offer a unique, synergistic partnership that furthers science and service to help deliver better performance and profitability for customers at every stage of crop production.

“Our family-owned businesses were built on the same values and with the same entrepreneurial spirit as the family farm,” said David Schumacher, president, HELM Agro US, Inc. “We’re actively seeking to provide solutions and expertise that enhance grower success. This partnership opens new opportunities and supports our customers as they push to reach their crop’s full genetic potential. Combined with Alltech’s unrelenting research and commitment to the highest quality standards, we are eager to be able to exclusively offer products you won’t find anywhere else.”

“Our collaboration with HELM Agro represents a combined 160 years of scientific rigor and crop expertise to support growers in optimizing crop efficiency at every stage of production,” said Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech. “We believe what we can achieve together will be far greater and more meaningful for the future of the ag sector.”

HELM Agro and Alltech Crop Science are committed to finding new solutions to help growers feed a growing planet. By advancing science-backed technologies and nutrigenomics, the companies hope to help take crop yields and quality to the next level.

“We believe in the power of science to feed the future,” said Lyons. “Together, we will provide even stronger support to growers, empowering them to unleash the potential of their crops through scientifically proven solutions, inspired by nature itself.”

“Like everyone in agriculture, we never stand still,” said Schumacher. “We are innovating to solve complex problems to support how growers’ produce food, feed and fiber.”

U.S. customers can continue to place orders through Alltech Crop Science by emailing cropscience@alltech.com until Sept 21, 2021. Beginning Sept. 1, 2021, U.S. customers should order through HELM Agro by emailing orders@helmagro.com.

Like with all living things, there are many aspects that need to be taken into account when aiming for the best possible crop growth and performance. Only when these factors are all accounted for can we begin to see optimal plant production. Proper nutrition plays a key role here, giving the plant metabolism everything it needs to function efficiently. But producers need to find the right balance, as leaving a crop deficient in any of its essential nutrients can leave it susceptible to disease and other debilitating issues.

The productive potential of every plant depends solely on its genetic characteristics. In order to reach this potential, plants have specific requirements that must be met. These criteria include:

• Temperature.
• Light.
• Water.
• Nutrients.

Furthermore, each of these factors must be provided to the plant in the quantities and proportions suited to each stage of development, from germination to harvest.

In crop management, we use practices that provide the best conditions for plant development. Among these, we ensure that the plant is provided with:

• Adequate irrigation.
• Phytosanitary and weed control.
• Physical preparation of the soil.
• Correct adjustment of fertility.

Finally, we supply the specific nutritional quantities and balances required for each phenological phase of the crop and the productive potential of the chosen genetic material.

There are specific mineral elements considered essential for plant nutrition. They participate in some structural or physiological functions of the plant. Without these elements, development and productivity are compromised.

In terms of macronutrients:

• Nitrogen provides more vigorous growth and boosts productivity.
• Phosphorus maximizes root development and plant longevity.
• Potassium, magnesium and sulfur intensify photosynthesis and the transport of photoassimilates, favoring a greater filling and maturation of fruits, tubers, pods, stems and grains.
• Calcium participates directly in the development and growth of plant tissue structures.

When it comes to micronutrients, one of the main players to consider is boron. This participates in the formation of the polynic tube, the firmness of the peel of the fruits, the transport of carbohydrates and greater leaf growth. The same can be said for copper, manganese, zinc, chlorine and iron. These also participate in the metabolism of photosynthetic activity.

The picture above shows a visual representation of the effect these elements can have on plant production. Of the pictured soybean crops, those provided with the necessary macro- and micronutrients, through the use of Alltech Crop Science products, have a notable greener and more robust appearance.

Next, we need to think about the action of the enzyme reductase nitrate, which acts in amino acid production. Amino acids act as a natural chelate or complex. They bind to minerals and other molecules and facilitate increased absorption within the plant. To help promote this action as much as possible, molybdenum is fundamental. This trace mineral also contributes to the germination of pollen grains and helps to optimize fruit maturation and tissue resistance. Nickel is also crucial for similar reasons. It is an essential catalyst for numerous enzymatic activities related to carbon and nitrogen metabolism.

In secondary metabolism, deficiency or imbalance of any of these elements will trigger negative processes. Some elements, such as copper, manganese and zinc, are directly related to the activity of antioxidant compounds. These compounds act by reducing reactive oxygen species. The same elements also contribute to better lignification of tissues and lead to metabolic activities related to the defense system of the plant.

Deficiency or imbalance in required nutrients will restrict growth and the productivity processes in plants. There will also be adverse effects on the plant’s ability to defend itself, as it will become less resistant to diseases and pests.

It is, then, essential to provide and improve the efficient absorption of the specific and balanced quantity of nutrients required at each of the crop’s phenological stages. Alltech Crop Science offers a range of products with amino acid complexing technology that allows increased nutrient absorption efficiency, both for root and foliar application. These will enable you to better meet the plants’ requirements and achieve higher crop quality and productivity levels.

It is imperative to focus on the efficient supply of nutrients to plants, regardless of the crop, soil type and climatic conditions. Only when we address this issue can plants complete their production cycle adequately and aim at a more significant accumulation of assimilates. Ultimately, this will lead to them achieving a higher level of their productive potential. This will also result in greater final profitability for the producer.

Have a question or comment?

David Butler, head of sustainability at Alltech, believes that being a sustainable business means taking care of people, the planet and your profit. He joined Ag Future to discuss Alltech’s vision of Working Together for a Planet of Plenty™, how companies can begin to take action toward sustainability and why he believes in a future where farmers are more profitable and productive because of sustainable agricultural practices.

The following is an edited transcript of the Ag Future podcast episode with David Butler hosted by Tom Martin. Click below to hear the full audio or listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Tom:                        I’m Tom Martin, and with me is David Butler, head of sustainability at Alltech. The brainstorming behind the company’s sustainability commitments and goals takes shape and form in David's office, and it's his job to ensure that Alltech is continually finding innovative ways to be more sustainable in the more than 120 countries where the company operates. Welcome, David.

David:                      Thank you, Tom. It’s great to be here.

Tom:                       That term, “sustainability,” it's a big one. It gets a lot of use these days. So, in your context, how do you define it?

David:                      Yeah. Well, I look at it as a balance of social, environmental and economic factors. So, anything you're doing — whether you're running a business or running a country — you can't neglect any one of those things. You have to look at the whole picture. So, sometimes, it's described as people, planet and profit. And you have to make sure you're not neglecting any of those areas. So, if your company is making a lot of money but you're exploiting people and damaging the environment, then you won't be able to do that forever. And so, you have to think about the long term and not just the next quarter's revenue.

Tom:                        So, how does that definition of sustainability figure into Alltech’s Planet of Plenty mission?

David:                      Well, our sustainability work is an essential foundation for (our) modern business strategy. And it's about doing the right thing, reducing risk, maximizing opportunities and looking at the long term of the company. So, it's just good business sense, really. A Planet of Plenty is something bigger than that. That's our vision statement. It’s Dr. Mark Lyons’ vision for the future of the company and the future of the agriculture industry and, in fact, the world. And it's about building partnerships and trying to do our part to work toward that long-term vision.

Tom:                        Agriculture is often cited as a source of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. How is the industry working to reverse its contribution to increasingly frequent extreme weather events and the overall warming of the planet?

David:                      Yeah. Well, certainly, agriculture is a giant industry. You know, there are over 7 billion people on the planet that we have to feed, and agriculture also produces fiber and all sorts of other products. So, it's not very surprising that we have a big footprint, you know, with greenhouse gases. And the benefit of agriculture — or kind of the good side of things — is that we’re one of the very few industries that also has (the) opportunity to capture carbon and pull it out of the atmosphere and put it into soil. And so, there are a lot of people that are working on different ways to do that through regenerative agriculture methods. There are also a lot of people that are working on ways to reduce the emissions that we produce with machinery or the production of fertilizer and, in fact, emissions from livestock.

Tom:                        In 2019, Alltech committed to the United Nations Global Compact and to work toward nine Sustainable Development Goals. Tell us about those goals.

David:                      Yeah. Well, the goals themselves are pretty amazing, I think — just the fact that they exist, because, in 2015, the United Nations came together, and they launched something called the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. So, it's a blueprint for creating a better world by the year 2030. So, 192 countries joined together on this agreement, on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. And they also agreed on how to measure progress toward them. I think that's amazing, that 192 countries could come together and do that. And the goals are really designed for countries to enact, but companies can help to advance those goals, and companies should focus on the goals that are most closely aligned with their core business. So, we looked at zero hunger, good health and well-being, quality education, gender equality, decent work and economic growth, climate change, life below water, life on land, and partnerships for the goals. And those are the nine that we chose to focus on.

Tom:                        Those are some big ones. Each one of those is pretty enormous.

David:                       Yes.

Tom:                        So, making such a commitment is quite a bold step that I would have to believe must be pretty difficult for a global company that's operating in an ever-changing world of different cultures and different economies and so forth. Why was it decided to make such a commitment?

David:                      Well, actually, Mark Lyons’ vision of a Planet of Plenty came first. We had already kind of mapped that out and decided, you know, “This is a new vision for the company going forward.” So, we started looking at actions that we could take to move that vision along and movements that we should join with other businesses. And the Sustainable Development Goals is one of the best ones around, because it provides a direction for companies and countries to work with each other, and, you know, it provides metrics for measuring progress. And the United Nations Global Compact is the organization that kind of helps companies come together and work toward the SDGs. So, we joined that.

Tom:                        If you think about this as a nine-burner stove, are you cooking on all nine burners? Are there some things that are kind of up on the front and others on the back burner?

David:                      Well, I don't know if anything's on the back burner, but yeah, they're not all on a full boil yet. We've got some work to do, of course. The ones where I see the most progress right now are the environmentally focused ones — and, of course, that's kind of closest to my heart. Climate change is such a big issue, and it's going to impact every single other Sustainable Development Goal, you know. If we can't address climate change, we're not going to succeed in any of these other areas. So, we committed to something called the Science-Based Targets Initiative, which means that a company will figure out what their greenhouse gas emissions are, and then they determine, scientifically, what they have to reduce them to by 2030 to properly address climate change. So, that means that it’s not just a PR exercise, where you wave a magic wand and say, “We're going to reduce our emissions by 10%” or whatever you think it should be. It’s based on calculations by the intergovernmental panel on climate change that say, “Your emissions are going to have to come down by X percent by 2030.”

Tom:                        What advice, David, do you have for companies that are interested in making this move to more sustainable practices and operations but may be feeling tentative about it?

David:                      Well, I think, whether you’re tentative or not, I think the best place to start — the most sensible, business-focused place to start — is by saving money. And if you can reduce your energy use, then you're also reducing your greenhouse gas footprint. And if you can reduce your water use, you're helping the environment. If you can reduce the amount of waste that you output, you're helping the environment. All of those things are very important, and they have to be done across the globe and by all companies. So, why not start there, and then, take a little time and track the amount of money that you save, and then, take that money and reinvest it in some other, more ambitious things? And you know, don't just randomly pick something that you think sounds nice. Look at what your company does — like, what are the areas where you can come up with a benefit that's really closely aligned to your core business, you know? And maybe you can get your customers or your suppliers involved, and you can build partnerships around that and find ways that you can make your business stronger and more resilient and even more profitable while you're making an improvement in the world.

Tom:                        For generations, it seemed as though sustainability on the one hand and profitability on the other hand were working at cross purposes, but do they have to be mutually exclusive?

David:                      Well, I think that perception is based on the fact that a lot of people don't know that sustainability has that economic aspect. So, if you’re running a company and you’re putting so many resources into environmentally beneficial programs or social programs that your company is not profitable, then, by definition, you're not sustainable. And if your business goes belly-up, then you're not going to be making much of an impact in the world, and all the people that depend on your company are going to get left behind. So, you really have to balance all three. So, by definition, they are not mutually exclusive. They depend on each other.

Tom:                        There’s a lot of concern about population growth in coming decades, and I’m wondering: Is it possible to feed a growing number of people without contributing further to climate change and other environmental issues? Can this be done sustainably?

David:                      Well, it can't be done doing the exact same thing that we've been doing over the past many decades, because while agriculture has gotten more and more efficient in many parts of the world, there are other parts of the world where we're still clearing forests for new agricultural land. And you know, if you look at the Amazon rainforest or other rainforests, those are actually really poor soils, once you cut the trees down. So, a farmer might go in and clear land in the Amazon rainforest only to have to clear more land again in two years, because the soils are depleted once they cut the trees.

                                So, we've got to look for ways to produce more food without, you know, damaging the environment further. And there are lots of innovative ways we can do that. I think one of the most important things is to look at all the waste we have in the system. We waste an amazing amount of food; it’s somewhere between 30–40%, depending on whether you're looking at the developed world or the developing world, and that's insane. I mean, all of the resources that went into all that food are wasted. And in addition to that, a lot of that food ends up in a landfill, where it turns into methane. And so, it's like you've shot yourself in both feet there. And we've really got to get a handle on the food waste. And we just waste a lot of organic matter in general, you know, into landfills — material that should be composted and put back into the soil, and instead, it's burned or it's put in a landfill or, maybe, it's dumped at sea.

Tom:                        You know, I had not heard that about the Amazon, about the condition of the soil on the forest floor. And meantime, we have experienced deforestation in this country, in places like Appalachia, due to surface mining and so forth that was on lands that were rich in soil, and we lost that as a result of the clear-cutting. A lot of irony at work here. But looking into the future, how do you see agriculture adapting to more sustainable practices?

David:                      Enthusiastically. And I might not have said that a year ago, but I really think the conversation has changed. You know, there are so many online conferences now where people are talking about real solutions to climate change — how can we start to put carbon into the soil, how can we change some of the practices that we have that are so dependent on too many chemicals, too much chemical fertilizer? You know, how can we protect our water? And I think we’re starting to approach a tipping point where people are realizing, “Hey, we can start to do things differently here. It doesn't have to be the way we've always done it for the last many decades.” And in fact, when you look at a lot of regenerative agriculture practices, they are actually very similar to practices that were done 100 years ago. But when you combine that with science and innovation and a really precise use of technology and modern automation and mechanization, then you can see do those things at scale.

Tom:                        Yeah. I guess the journey to this realization about climate change and about sustainability and so forth has been very halting over the years, but it seems as though — are you sensing that we're “getting it” now?

David:                      Yeah. I really do think we are. I mean, I’ve been on a lot of video conferences and calls with organizations like the USDA and Farm Bureau and pretty conservative legislators, and nobody is saying, “This is not happening.” They're saying, “What's the best way forward? How can we make the changes that we need to make, and how can we do it in a way that doesn't put it on the backs of the farmers?” The farmers can't afford to change everything they're doing out of their own pocket, you know. And the whole world is going to benefit when we start to put carbon back into the soil. So, the farmer should benefit from that as well.

Tom:                        What are some of the more important changes that you’ve been observing in recent times that have to do with that?

David:                      Well, I think there is a lot more talk now about complex multiple crop rotations, about cover crops keeping the soil covered year-round. Soil health is a big, big topic — much bigger than it used to be. And rotational grazing is also very, very important. So, that means that you're taking grazing animals — whether they’re cattle or sheep or even possibly bison — and you're moving them through small paddocks and moving them, maybe, as much as every day. And so, you mimic, kind of, the behavior of a natural herd that is chased by predators and is constantly moving through the environment. And that means that instead of turning them loose on 100 acres and just letting them mow that all year long, you're moving them around these small paddocks and (into) every paddock. It's a very long rest time, and the animals are bunched together, and they trample the grass into the ground, and they fertilize it. And that's how the soils in our grasslands were created, you know: in that symbiotic kind of relationship with herd animals. And those grasslands are some of the most rich — they were some of the most rich carbon sinks on the planet.

Tom:                        Wow. That's really fascinating, and the whole thing is. So, I have to believe that when you get up in the morning, you get ready to go to work, you're pretty excited about it. What excites you most about your work in agricultural sustainability?

David:                      Well, I think the thing that is most exciting to me is that agriculture does have this amazing opportunity to kind of help us rebalance the carbon cycle, pull all the excess carbon back out of the atmosphere. And in the process, we can make farmers more productive, more profitable; make the soil healthier; make our food healthier and our water healthier. And if I can have some little, small part of that, some area where I can help with that, then that's exciting to me.

Tom:                        That’s David Butler. He leads the sustainability team at Alltech. Thank you, David.

David:                      Thank you, Tom.

For the past year, Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech, has led his multinational company through a global pandemic while maintaining an optimistic focus on the future. Join us as he provides his unique insights from the helm, including the significance of sustainability, countering negative perceptions of agriculture with science and why collaboration is crucial to creating a Planet of Plenty.

Tom:              I'm Tom Martin, and I'm joined by Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech. Greetings, Dr. Lyons.

Mark:              Great to be with you.

Tom:              Mark, if you would, first, share with us a little bit of your background and how those experiences that you've had in your career are informing how you lead a company in a culture that has such a global reach.

Mark:              Absolutely. I had the great privilege to not only, I think, have a very extraordinary, dynamic father but have the opportunity to work with him, and that really started from a very early age. He, for some reason, didn't believe very much in holidays or vacations, and so he really saw the opportunity, often, to bring me with him and for me to be able to go and visit places and travel and experience things that he was doing. So, I was able to grow up very much with a global view. Obviously, our family coming over to Ireland — that was the first stop, anyway, going over to see family. Then, typically, I'd be able to travel on to continental Europe with him and experience that.

                        That formed, I think, a lot of the interests I had. Obviously, I had an interest in science — science, of course being primary in what we do as a company, but also in his family. That was his first interest, but he didn't stop there. He moved on quickly, obviously, to the business side. For my part, I think, I became very interested in comparative politics and the way that different cultures work around the world. I was able to explore those in my education, along with the science. That part — up to, I think, coming into Alltech — was very much looking at the world from a global perspective and trying to understand it at that individual level, where you have that opportunity to travel, especially being able to meet people and understand how they view the world and the experience that they have.

                        As I came into Alltech, I initially started on the production side. The idea was to really get to know the business from the inside. I was able to complete my Ph.D. at the same time focused in, of course, what is the core of Alltech: fermentation. Then, I transitioned more into the management and the sales side, having worked in Latin America, then up in North America and then over to China, where I lived for six years before coming back here in 2018.

Tom:              You, and your father before you, have spoken often about sustainability and the relationship between agriculture and the environment and sustainability. That word, “sustainability,” is used an awful lot these days. How do you define it?

Mark:              I think people get very caught up and concerned with definitions. I think, in a lot of regards, when I talk to people, I say, “Define it for yourself. What is it that this means?” I think, even in these last 12 months, this word has really grown. Now, I've been thinking about it — and, I think, in a much broader sense. Of course, we always think about environmental sustainability. That's a core element of it. But I think, right now, especially through so many challenges of COVID, we have to think about the communities that are involved, the individuals, the economic aspects of sustainability. We've fallen in love with, to a certain degree, technology and technology companies that come in and talk about disruption and “isn't this exciting?” and fast growth. But at the same time, we also need to look at the wake behind them and what that ends up costing society overall.

                        So, when we speak about sustainability, we really say that we need to think about if this new technology coming out is going to, overall, benefit society. Is it going to sustainably improve our health? Are these things really better for society or not? I think that's what it's all about. I think the sustainability mission is that: It's a journey. It's not a destination. It's all about: How can we do things that provide for today and make sure that we do have enough for today, but we also know that we have enough for tomorrow? To me, it's not about eliminating; it's about creating, and it's about making sure that we are focused on innovation and new ideas.

Tom:              Is there a distinction between local and global sustainability, or do they intersect?

Mark:              I think they intersect, but I think they're distinct. I think we have to reflect on this. Of course, being Irish, I'll tell you a story, and I'll tell you a story about the home country, as it were.

Ireland is an extraordinary environment. You have this protected Ireland temperates; the temperature never really gets too warm, for sure, but it also doesn't get too cold. It'd be very rare in Ireland to see snow. It's a place that, of course, is full of greenery. It's full of different shades of green. It's a highly productive agricultural economy and highly productive agricultural land. But if you looked at Ireland today, and if you polled Irish consumers, they would say, “To be able to achieve our environmental sustainability goals, we need to reduce the amount of agricultural outputs we have.”

                        When you think about that from a global perspective, that's a crazy idea. This is a place that is highly efficient. You have pasture-based systems. You've got other types of systems, lots of different ways of thinking about things. They've got a lot of concern, I think — just as you find in most places in the world — the farmers and agriculturalists are always looking at ways to eliminate waste and improve productivity. Their asset is their land, but yet, in Ireland, that would be the big push, would be: How do we reduce? I think, if that's the approach we take, I think we run the risk of a disimproving the global perspective on sustainability, where we may end up producing the type of dairy products that Ireland is so productive in or beef in countries that are not as productive.

                        I think we find a little bit of the same here. We use a lot of lands and a lot of inputs — especially on the ruminant side, on dairy and beef — that really couldn't be used for something else, and yet, sometimes, we're thinking about things very much on values that we find, perhaps, on a Google search or in a set of tables. We're not thinking about the actual individual producer and what that is doing to them. It's important to keep those two aspects in mind. Local sustainability is also very important, but there's this huge amount of data and a huge amount of information we need to pull in to really make sure that we're making the best decision.

Tom:              It's been only in recent years that the world seems to have begun to fully grasp the reality of climate change and pressures on the world food supply. What are your main concerns about climate and food — where we are today, and where we may be going?

Mark:              It's a great question. What's interesting about it is I studied climate change. I studied environmental science in college, and the science at that stage was clear. Again, you would speak with a climate scientist or you speak to the broader scientific community, and there really wasn't any disagreement. It's really been something that it took the acceptance from society and then, of course, the acceptance politically to maybe say, “This is something — we really need to bring about a change.”

It's crazy. When you think about this country, the Clean Air Act was passed by a Republican president, George Bush, Sr., and that was something that you would not anticipate when you think of the world that we're in today. That gives you an idea, in such a short amount of time, of how things got a little bit off.

                        I think, now, we see a lot more of the outcomes, and I think there are a lot more concerns — whether it's permafrost thawing in Siberia and the potential methane emissions that could create and how that could be a process that we can't turn around, or people being concerned about erratic weather. If I speak to the lady, I stayed over with in Germany years and years ago as a kid — it used to snow in the winter, and it doesn't snow there anymore. So, I think, in Western Europe, there's a real realization, because they see it every winter. They see a change.

                        I think that acceptance has come about from a broader perspective. Also, I think the change in the role of companies has really brought about this change. I guess, as I look forward, I just think that this is a moment where, if we don't make the change that we need to make fast enough, it ends up being an out-of-control scenario. Having said that, I would be very optimistic. When I look at the improvements that our industry, in agriculture, has made over the last 30, 40, 50 years, it's extraordinary how we are producing far more with less. If you start to look at that trajectory and you realize that we have become much more sustainable over this period of time without necessarily putting a focus on that — the focus probably was on reducing costs, but the outcome was an improvement in sustainability — imagine what we're going to be able to achieve now, with so much more technology coming into the sector and a different way of thinking.

                        My concern, honestly, is not so much on the change within the agriculture sector. I think the impact of agriculture on climate change is over-emphasized. I think it's the industry that can change and adapt quickly. My bigger concern is our reliance on fossil fuels and how we will bring about that change, particularly standing here in Kentucky, doesn't disadvantage those who may be energy producers today. How do we make sure that innovation does rest in locations, perhaps, that are high energy producers today and create new jobs and create new opportunities?

Tom:              We've had some pretty powerful dynamics in play, especially in this recent year: COVID-19, the increasing drive toward sustainability and a rising sense of imperative behind climate change. I'm just wondering how all those things have, perhaps, changed your business.

Mark:              Yeah. I think, over the last three years, we're just, at this time of year, thinking about my father, who passed away three years ago. We went through a big cultural change within the company. We had been building and growing the company, and, of course, that was a big shock, losing him. I think, for our business, the story that started three years ago, in a certain regard, prepared us, in some odd way, for this challenge of the last 12 months.

COVID has obviously impacted all aspects of all businesses and supply chains. It's made everything so difficult. We're very much a relationship business. We're a business that likes to be in the office. We like to be together. We like to be with our customers. That's what drives us. "Make a friend" was the message my father was always sharing with us — that we were to go out and foster relationships. That has been a big challenge, but I think that the cultural closeness that was created over the last three years — as we reflected on the loss that we had and thought a lot about what we talk about a lot, the “founder's mentality,” the objective and the way that my father thought and how we could continue to replicate that and grow — that concept got us ready.

                        We've stayed very close. I could tell you — as I'm sure you would hear from many other executives — I think this time of the pandemic, it almost takes more energy. We travel less, but we're talking to people, probably, even more. I think the responsibility of senior management, but particularly the CEO, has changed. I believe — and I think this was the case before for our good CEOs — but the CEO should not be responsible for just the bottom line or top line or those types of results. You have the CFO. You have the COO. The CEO is there to make sure that you maximize the most important asset of any company, which is people, and making sure that those individuals, I think, in this period of time, not only are productive but also healthy, and that's making sure that we can protect them from COVID and put those policies in place and make sure that works but, also, their mental health when we are separated.

                        I think that aspect has been a big shift. We've adopted all the technology possible, but I would quickly say that I think it's a poor second to being in-person. We look forward to being together again. But really, I think that both of these thoughts — the COVID challenge and then the sustainability, which has really accelerated, I think, in terms of urgency over the last 12 months — is something that it's probably positioned the company instead of a lot of the things we talk about. We've been talking about this “Working Together for Planet of Plenty^TM” mission now for over two years. I think that has really moved from being “some idea that Mark has” to, really, something that is driving our business. In every single conversation we have, people are bringing it up in new ways. I think that goes together with that realization that sustainability is something that's here to stay.

Tom:              I know that part of the growth that you mentioned a moment ago includes the acquisition of the Environmental Services Company, E-CO₂, to provide advice, tools and services to help farmers measure and improve their environmental performance. With the rise of the European Green Deal and the United States' renewed commitment to climate action, over 70% of the global economy has now set or is intending to set targets to reach net zero emissions. Do you sense that E-CO₂'s moment has arrived?

Mark:              It's interesting. Before we called it the Alltech ONE Ideas Conference, it was the Symposium, and we had the symposium where one of the themes was “niche to mainstream.” I went and found the book the other day, and here it was, from the late '90s — here was my father saying that these ideas that Alltech had were becoming mainstream. Of course, we look, now, forward, and it was probably 20 years later when that was true.

I think E-CO₂ is actually that type of a story. This was something that was niche. It was something aspirational. I think it was these number of retailers in the U.K. who said, “We've got to put plans in place so that we can make sure that we know what the environmental impact of farming is and of our products on the shelf.” That was where the business began. It was actually founded by a farmer, which I think makes it highly relevant. It was always built from that perspective and then came into the Alltech fold about eight years ago. It was something that was focused there. We thought, “Maybe there's an opportunity to go global in the future, but it’s very much a British business.” Now, over the last 12 months, it has truly gone global.

So, as we build out our what we call now Planet of Plenty partnerships — so, working with customers, helping them with their sustainability journey — E-CO₂ plays a critical role in that. We can explain what the environmental foot-printing is, what the greenhouse gas emissions are. We could talk about ways to reduce those, then, as we bring in the Alltech colleagues and look at the nutrition and different technologies that can be utilized or different farming practices. It's a critical aspect, because if we don't measure it, it doesn't get done. So, we've got to make sure that we have that ability to measure the science in it and provide the data behind to track things.

                        When you're able to put a dashboard in front of somebody and say, "This is what we've done in terms of your environmental footprint" and, actually, you overlay on top of that the economics, you can quickly see that the two can go together very easily and that environmental sustainability or improvements around that can very much mean economic sustainability as well.

Tom:              I mentioned the EU Green Deal, which is driven by the aim of the European Union to become the world's first climate-neutral bloc by 2050. I'm wondering: What is your view of that initiative?

Mark:              Well, I think it's something that I'm very positive about. I think it is a good move. There are a lot of different initiatives there. There's a lot of thinking about cities and the way that cities are going to operate, especially — COVID, again, is challenging us on that. It really is top of mind. When you think about consumers in the U.S., I think there are some people who would reflect on those elements. In Europe, it's very much a situation that people are thinking about the environment in a much more serious way. They also see this as an opportunity for leadership for the European Union. This is an area, this is a topic, that Europe has always been leading on. To make that type of a goal, that this is something they can pull together and achieve — I think that aspect is very positive.

                        One concern I would have is they have a farm-to-fork program. This program, when you look at who is running it, it's very much led by some medical doctors, some human nutritionists, but it's not really looking at things from a pure or a full-chain approach. That's something that has been a little bit of a concern for us. Does agriculture or even the agri-food industry have a seat at the table?

                        I also think that there are a lot of very well-minded intended ideas. I think the question is going to be: How are they going to be implemented at the member-state level and then at that very local level? How do we make sure that we don't have unintended consequences? Which I think every government, when they go out and create these types of programs, has to look at and make sure that we are really achieving the best, exactly as you were describing earlier, asking earlier, this global-local question. If the EU puts so many constraints on the producers within the market, how does that then respond to imports? How are you going to hold imported products to the same levels, and how is that all going to be balanced out?

                        I think the phasing of this process is going to be a critical element. We're really pushing our teams to get very engaged and help to really achieve that implementation of this type of initiative and make sure that we take all the stakeholders into account when we're making the decisions that we need to make.

Tom:              You mentioned the importance of being aware of anticipating unintended consequences. Here's one: reducing the use of farming inputs, fertilizer, pesticides. It's been going on for many years; machinery, mapping, measurement systems have all become more efficient. But are there risks that reducing the use of those inputs could potentially lead to a reduction in food output?

Mark:              Certainly. I think, again, when you think of that global-local element, we've got to think about that aspect. We don't want to become so focused on reducing the environmental impact that we're not looking at the total production. We're often pushing people to say, “What is the production we have per unit of milk, per unit of bushel of corn?” or whatever the metric is, because that's really what we need to be looking for. We are in a situation, as a global planet, as a global community, where we do have malnourishment. We do have a huge amount of countries that are going to be left in a position post-COVID that is even less food-secure than they were before. So how do we make sure that we keep that productivity and realize that that's a big part of what we need to be doing as well?

                        Having said that, I think that there are different technologies. The soil science area is fascinating. We think about the microbiome of the soil and what we're able to achieve there — maybe changing some of these inputs, fertilizers, pesticides, and moving towards a more holistic approach and regenerative agriculture. I think these are areas that we can keep that productivity and add the efficiency but also keep the outputs. Those are the types of areas that we're really trying to put a focus on and highlight on as we look at Planet of Plenty and as we look at our Alltech ONE Ideas Conference coming up. Those are the types of stories we're looking to focus on.

Tom:              I think we often talk about achieving the goal of net zero emissions in aspirational terms, as something off in the future, but I'm wondering if we don't now have the affordable technology to achieve net zero.

Mark:              Yeah. I think that, from a lot of what I've looked at, those initial steps — I think we can make some big reductions, but when getting to net zero, I think those last steps are going to be the most costly. We're going to need to look at the things that are simple and easier to do. There are a lot of technologies, particularly when it comes to energy, that are becoming more and more affordable that can help us to make those first steps, but I think that last piece is really where it will be a little bit more challenged.

                        For me, I suppose we've always been ones that have said — if we think of the Chinese context, “the journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step,” it's the type of thing that we have to make those first steps. And typically, once we create those frameworks and start to say, “These are the KPIs or the outcomes that we want to achieve,” I think that will lead people in the right places. So, we're really trying to push our colleagues and encourage our customers to be trying out new things, trying out technologies. That's where a lot of our interest comes in, on that ag-tech area, the aggregation of technology, so that we can start to see what works and what doesn't.

                        We have to try things differently in different places. It's one of the things I love about my job, is how diverse the agricultural sector is. I think it is going to be something that will take some time to get there, but if we don't get started, we'll simply be analyzing this to death and we'll never really get there. I think there is a lot there, and so many of the technologies, they do help us to lower costs. That's one of the great things about, I think, especially the American agriculture sector. So much is really created around the improvements and the productivity, and nobody's having something subsidized. They're really having to go out and sell their idea and implement it because it's giving that return on investment.

Tom:              Earlier, when we were talking about the EU and the Green Deal initiative, you expressed the hope that agriculture would have a seat at the table in those discussions. I'm wondering about one aspect: carbon capture and carbon sequestration. Is that a science that is agriculture's role, and should that be a part of that conversation?

Mark:              Yeah. There's a lot in terms of, I think, people thinking about carbon farming and these types of things. I think we have to look at it as, maybe, an element that could be incorporated in different agricultural systems. One of our Planet of Plenty videos is actually an example of silvopasture, which is a mixed-use system where you have the land, you've got crops, you've got trees growing and you have, in this case, beef cattle in the same environment.

                        I think that's a great example of, really, what this whole system is. We are in this biogenic cycle, especially in the ruminant side. There's a lot of focus on methane production and a lot of confusion about it and a lot of, I think, misinformation when you really look at the fact that the methane is staying with us for a short period of time: ten years. It is a potent greenhouse gas, but it also breaks down quickly. Also, everything that the animals are eating, the CO₂ that ends up going back into the crops, is what created the plants that they consume, so it is a cycle. I think it's something that, as we become more and more efficient, as we probably have smaller dairy herds and smaller beef herds — which is something that has been a longstanding trend already — you can actually see how the overall environmental impact is reduced, too.

                        I think that there are some of these technologies that can come in. I think it will become an element of agriculture. People are going to look at their farms, at their operations, and say, “Let's add this aspect in,” whether that's methane digesters and trying to create energy out of materials already produced or, indeed, pure carbon capture plays that are going to be involved, and looking at some of those ways that you can mix things up. I think it's an exciting area. Again, it creates another income stream, a new income stream, for producers.

Tom:              Let's stay with that theme of methane for just a moment. In an article on its online news page, the United Nations states that, and I'm quoting here, "Livestock produce significant levels of methane, a greenhouse gas, and these could be reduced drastically if we eat less meat and more plant-based foods." Here, again, the signs are promising, such as the rising popularity of plant-based meats now being sold in major international fast-food chains. Do you envision a large-scale consumer shift to plant-based meats? How should the beef and dairy industries be positioning around the prospect of an increasing market presence of these meat alternatives?

Mark:              I think it's interesting. We've noticed, over a number of years, that the UN does like to come out with these statements, and we're not really sure which part of the UN they come from, because you do have such, obviously, a broad array of individuals, but you also have them living in a certain demographic and a certain geography in the world, and they sit in a certain place in society. There's been a massive amount of money made with plant-based meats already, and a lot of them have been quite speculative, a lot on the banking side — those that launched the IPOs, et cetera. There are a lot of people looking at this area as a big moneymaker for the future.

                        I think, if you step back and you look at the science, both in terms of the environmental side, I think there are some questions in terms of the claims being made — claims that, I would say, in more established industries, will be difficult to make. Then, on the human health side, the science there is also a little bit dubious.

So, we think that it's definitely going to be a trend. It's an area that has gotten the attraction of people. It's an area that people are interested in. It's catchy, and there's been a ton of marketing money put into it. But actually, when you look at the numbers, the growth actually has been miniscule compared to the overall protein market. That has been quite interesting to note, particularly during COVID. When you look at the percentages of increase for plant-based protein, it seems dramatic and astounding. When you look at the growth, the small percentage growth that took place more in the animal proteins, that actually dwarfs the growth that took place, on a real-volume basis, of plant-based.

                        We are a world that needs more protein. At Alltech, we don't have an issue of that being insect protein or that being plant-based proteins. But to a large degree, we've had a lot of these types of products in the past that have been far less processed. Again, based on my time in Asia, there's a lot of plant-based proteins that are out there and traditional ways of producing food, and I think coming at this thinking that this is some amazing technology and not thinking, again, about sustainability in a broader way — of what takes place in communities that were producing these products, of what takes place in the environment if we remove animals. Animals are critical to the soil health of our planet. If we remove them from the system, we're going to see a lot more deleterious effects. A world without cows, a world without animals, it's not a world I want to be in, and it is a world that we need to have to be able to make sure that we achieve what we need to.

                        As an environmentalist, I think one of my biggest concerns with this area is that we may have a population, we may have consumers who think they're genuinely doing the right thing by changing their diet, but in reality, we're actually not solving the climate issue, which is really being driven by fossil fuel usage.

Tom:              That's really interesting. Can you expand on that a little bit? Why is it wrong to think that way?

Mark:              I think it's because we're not looking at the whole system. We're not looking at the fact that agriculture produces, yes, greenhouse gases, but it also, as a primary function, captures carbon. Our food production system is actually pretty efficient, and it's getting more and more efficient. If we all stopped eating meat, we do not save the planet, if you want to say it that way. We do not stop climate change. This is one area where I do think diets will change. Diets will change in a lot of different ways. I think we're learning more and more about how our individual diets need to change throughout our lives. There are certain times we probably need more protein and times we need less. Also, it depends on our individual behaviors and lifestyle.

                        I think that, to me, it simply comes down to the fact that if we do not remove ourselves from fossil fuel usage and we continue to put more new carbon into the environment, that is really what's driving the change. The carbon that is being put into the atmosphere by animals in agriculture is carbon that we sequester with the crops that we grow. I think looking at that in that regard and realizing — can we improve yet further? Absolutely, we will, but that's not the area that I think we should be focused on. Those are the areas that concern me when I see statements like that from the UN, where I think that they're taking their eye off the ball and perhaps being, sometimes, misled to lead us down a path that may not achieve what we need to.

Tom:              It's projected that, by 2050, ten billion people will inhabit this planet, and that means making room for feeding and sheltering another two billion people in less than 30 years. Can world population growth at that pace be sustained, even as we're also dealing with climate change?

Mark:              Yeah, I think it absolutely can. I think a lot of it does have to come back to the fact that we do need to make changes. This has to be based on continued improvements. I don't think that this is something where this is a done deal that we can achieve this, but I do think, if we continue to focus on innovations and new technologies, it does give us that sense that the next 30 years really are going to be the most critical.

This is a time where we've got to make sure that we, I think — particularly in a time where we're not necessarily our most connected globally — we need to realize that we do need to be thinking as one world. A lot of this growth is going to be taking place in Asia. It's going to be taking place in Africa. It's going to be taking place, therefore, in places that we need to make sure that we are partnering with. A lot of what we're trying to do — we're operating in markets around the world as we connect with entrepreneurs. We help them to grow their businesses and, in a large degree, bring them the technology and the ideas and, sometimes, just the inspiration that they need to move those businesses forward. Those are going to be the people who build and have got a nutritional base for that protein that's required, the food that's needed for that growing population and, at the same time, grow those economies.

                        I think the fact is, when you speak to people in that position, they clearly see climate change as part of the environment that they're in, and they realize that this is something that they have to be thinking about. But I think, when we look back over the history of humankind, we've had situations such as this before where it was stated that we couldn't sustain our populations, and we've always achieved that. We have a lot of changes, of course, too, in more developed countries where, obviously, the population growth is slower. So, when I look at it in terms of the speed of growth, I think we're in a position now that this can be managed, I think, to a large degree. I think we're going to need some of those new people coming in, young people with new ideas, and they're going to be a big part of us helping us to achieve what needs to be done.

Tom:              At the beginning of the year, we spoke to a few experts about their insights and expectations for agriculture and food in 2021 and beyond. Some talked about the impact COVID-19 has had on the food chain; others talked about new regulations, innovations, emerging technologies. What big themes and big trends currently capture your attention?

Mark:              I think we spoke about a number that, really, at the onset of COVID, we could already see were going to be challenged. One of those was this whole idea of supply chains. Suddenly, when you have a disruption like COVID, your supply chain is thrown into chaos. You've got to not just understand and trust your suppliers — you also need to understand and trust your customers and make sure that those systems can work and be fluid and adapt to shocks. That was a big theme that we saw.

                        Another big theme has been health. Everybody is, of course, far more concerned about their health than they were before. I think that is changing our diets, and that really should be one of the major drivers for our, of course, dietary decisions.

I think another element, of course, that we've seen over the last year has been very much around inclusion and, I think empathy — companies needing to make sure that they're thinking about all stakeholders and all elements and how they're having a positive impact there.

Those have been, I think, big elements. One that's come forward to us also that I think is a little bit new actually goes back to your question around the growing population. If you think about how much food is wasted in our world, that, in and of itself, could have an extraordinary impact on all of these elements: on feeding the planet, on the environmental impacts and, really, on just having a better environment that we're living in. If you consider all food waste, that would actually represent 8% of greenhouse gases that are produced in the world — it would be the third-largest country, if it was a country, in terms of greenhouse gas production. This is an area which, again, is almost a pre-competitive area. How do we, as an entire food system, reduce that? We know that a lot of it is happening, obviously, a little bit through food production at that farm level, through transportation, through spoilage, maybe, in the retail side or waste in restaurants, or it's happening in our own homes. So, what are the types of things that we can work together on and, again, very much on a local level to reduce that? I think that could have a huge impact on us feeding that global population.

That's a real trend. I think it's starting to move. I think this is going to be a big area of focus, and it's one that we within Alltech are talking about. We're going to be exploring some of that starting in May and then growing out over the next few years to think about how we can reduce that food waste.

Tom:              You mentioned supply chain disruptions, and that makes me curious. Has your company, Alltech, experienced problems due to supply chain disruptions?

Mark:              Well, I think there was certainly a heightened focus on this area. Again, it goes back to that element we always talk about: making a friend — and we normally are thinking about that being a customer, but it also goes with our suppliers. We have to make sure that we have good relationships with them. Thankfully, we really did.

I think that there have been disruptions for our industry. Alltech, I think we're in a very good position. We have over 100 production facilities around the world. That gives us a lot of flexibility. It gives us options. If one facility has an issue, we can supply from another facility. I think that optionality helped us.

                        We also immediately, at the start of COVID, stated that safety was the number-one focus, and we wanted to take care of the health of our colleagues, our customers and our communities. Those were our three Cs. I didn't realize it at the time, but that really set the tone and made sure that everybody understood our operational capabilities and our ability to keep our own people safe, our customers safe. It was the critical thing, and so we've been able to maintain operations all the way through COVID. We haven't had those disruptions. We also have been able to have that flexibility of supply, having different suppliers, having deep relationships with those suppliers that have really helped us.

Tom:              Back to looking at trends, I'm wondering: What trends are actually, in real time, transforming the future of food and feed?

Mark:              I think, with the trends, I do think that the sustainability one is probably the thing that's changing the fastest. We're seeing it in Europe very quickly, but we also see, now, a trend here where, if you go into a Panera, you can see a “cool eats” menu. You can see what might be better for the planet. You can see the same types of ideas being explored in Chipotle. Other companies are looking at that as well.

                        Those types of messages are kind of a new fad. I think that quickly behind the fad needs to come the data and the story backing it up. That's something that I think we all need to be aware of. I don't think our industry is yet quite as focused on that as maybe we need to be. We've been thinking about: how did that shift, maybe, take place, and how quickly will it occur?

                        The other elements, though, might come back to this health idea. I think there's a lot of focus on: How can we produce foods that are better for our health, that are more enriched, that are health-enhancing? We've been able to show that, through some of our programs, we're not only reducing the reliance on antibiotics and food production but that we're actually reversing antibiotic resistance in bacteria and systems in and around those farms. That isn't an impact just for the production of that food but may be, also, an impact for the health of the people who work on those facilities.

                        That's an element — health, overall, and a focus on health — that, through this time of so much loss and so much grief, maybe is a silver lining or a benefit, that we're going to be more focused on our health and also, maybe, start to look at nutrition and our diets as a way to improve our health as opposed to constantly thinking that it's going to be a medical intervention that overcomes that challenge. I think that might be a big trend. When we look back in ten years, we'll say, “Wow, that was a moment when that aspect of our society changed.”

Tom:              The idea of carbon counting is pretty new to a lot of people. Do you see the day coming when carbon counting will have a place right there on the menu alongside calorie counting?

Mark:              Yeah. As I mentioned with the Panera idea and, I think, Chipotle — I think Chipotle is taking it a little bit further. They're almost saying, “You're having this burrito. What's the impact on the environment that this burrito had?” I don't know if they've got it totally dialed in yet, but they're seeing that as a clever way to differentiate themselves vis-à-vis their competitors.

We've noted that one in five millennials would say that they would change their diet to improve the planet's health. That's a pretty staggering number. I think that you could see, certainly, the case that this is the next thing, the next fad that comes along: “I'm not just thinking about how many calories I had today. I'm thinking about, actually, ‘What was the impact I had on the environment?’”

                        I think, within the European context, it's even going further. People are already changing what they're doing in terms of how they're traveling, where they're willing to travel, what types of jobs they will take because of the distance they will travel. I think the dietary aspect of that is just going to be a part of it, and that's going to be something that I think we'll probably see play out in a number of different ways. Diets have already been shifting, probably, away from beef more to pork or maybe poultry products over a number of years. Aquaculture is growing, and maybe that's going to play a bigger role, as well, as people start to think about those things. That's where we have to make sure — and I think our customers need to make sure they're getting out and telling the story and are accurately able to demonstrate and provide the metrics of what the actual environmental impact is of their food.

                        When you look at a steak in a restaurant, it's not exactly going to be totally clear what the environmental impact is of that. Every single producer has a different way of producing. I think that's where we've got to get to what we're really explaining: “As a producer, this is what I'm doing, and this is what makes me different to, maybe, somebody else.” I think those elements are going to be really speeding up in major trends that are going to impact our producers over the next five years.

Tom:              Earlier, you mentioned the mantra that your father carried with him throughout his life and career and, now, you are carrying with you. It's simple: it's “make friends.” How does collaboration fall into elevating the agri-food sector, the whole sector?

Mark:              You know, it is an industry, and he used to like to say this: He had a colleague early on who said to him, "Pearse, isn't this great? We travel around, we talk to great people, and they pay us for it." It always stuck with me, where I genuinely would say agriculture is one of those sectors that is made up of great people. I think anytime you're involved with animals, it somehow makes you a better human being. I think that they're very much people who care about each other, who care about their communities, who are there doing the right things, maybe, because they work outside, because they work on the soil, because they work with animals. For us, I think, when you have that type of mindset, I think that's the mindset that helps you realize you depend on your neighbor. You depend on that person coming down the farm drive and, maybe, giving you some insights or ideas or providing you with a technology. Collaboration is somewhat second nature within our industry.

                        I think, within our company, when you start out as a small startup, in a way, and grow, and you've got to go and do things a little bit differently — and I remember my father saying this to me: "Mark, I had to go and do it myself because I didn't have anybody else. But you, you'll have the opportunity to work with lots of people because of what has been built, because of what we've achieved” — and because of where, I think, the world is.

I think that the world is in a position for collaboration. It's been something that we've really all seen as a major growth driver for the future. It sits in a very important place. When we talk about Planet of Plenty, I would say the words in front of that that are even more important: "Working together." Working together is a clear signal. We are open to work with people. We're open to discuss ideas. I think that was always his way. He loved to have people come and visit, to sit around and talk about ideas. Many times, there was nothing related to business at all. It was simply, "How can I help you? How can my people help you? How does this have that impact?" And that positive impact makes that difference that we want to make in the world.

                        As I mentioned before, I think, three years ago, we really reflected deeply on that, and we said, “That is our mission. That's our purpose as a company.” It suddenly went from being a Pearse Lyons idea that he encouraged his colleagues to take on to, suddenly, everybody's idea. I think that's been, really, one of the most exciting things over the past few years. I guess that's what they always say: Great leaders make more leaders, and I think that's what he achieved.

Tom:              Alltech's work in Haiti comes immediately to mind — the Haitian coffee product. What new business models might be created following that Planet of Plenty mission statement?

Mark:              I think one of the elements that we've been talking about that goes back to that trend of trust. There are transactional relationships, and those are critical to businesses and very important. That's a lot of what our businesses operate, but partnership is something different. Partnerships, I think, really are going to be the future. We are now moving into a phase where we've had a few dozen companies that we are working with, different markets that have been success stories focused on this Planet of Plenty collaboration. I think that's a new business model. That's a way of saying, “What are the aspects that you're working on? What's the big goal you have as a company? How can we help you to achieve that?” And equally, in many regards, those customers also may be companies that are helping Alltech with our own objectives.

                        So, the mutually aligned goals, the idea that this isn't just about one sales order; it's about a much longer-term relationship. Companies that are saying to us, "Can we work with you on multi-year projects and deals?" That's a new business model that's pretty exciting that I think has come out of this message, because a lot of people are saying, "We love the Planet of Plenty idea. We want to be a part of it. How do we do that?" So we've created that framework.

                        It's interesting because some of the framework and some of the ideas of this actually came from something that might seem not so aligned and something that took place now ten and a half years ago, which was the Alltech FEI World Equestrian Games. Within that, we created feed partners, and those feed partners were customers of Alltech, and we help them with their marketing. We help them with their IT. We help them with whatever they needed, and I think we're able to replicate that now — maybe in an even more meaningful way in terms of some of these big issues that we're all going to be dealing with globally in the Planet of Plenty partnerships.

                        That's a concept I'm very excited about. What's been great is, as I said before, it's gone from being an idea to really something that our local markets are embracing. I was on a call today with Asia, Latin America, North America. In each of those calls, people were talking about a company that they had a connection with, an idea they had about creating a Planet of Plenty partnership. So, it's really taken root within the organization, and it's moving very quickly.

Tom:              You have a very big event coming up. In the years before this pandemic forced you to go virtual for 2020, the Alltech ONE Ideas Conference has gathered in one place. You mentioned the Symposium, which is what it was before it was called ONE, and that was here in Lexington, Kentucky. It gave a platform to agri-food expertise, from insights into animal feed and nutrition to developments in CRISPR research from all over the world. In fact, we interviewed many of the people who spoke at those conferences. And I have to tell you, Mark, my head was about to explode at the end of one of those days. The information is incredible.

So, the dates of the virtual conference have been set for this year: May 25–27. This will be the second year that the Alltech ONE Ideas Conference has gone virtual. What are the themes for this year's conference?

Mark:              Well, we've taken this and focused back on that Planet of Plenty message. If you look at the logo we have for Planet of Plenty, we have these three leaves. One stands for science, one stands for sustainability and one stands for storytelling. We're going to use those three as the themes of the conference. We've been thinking about this in terms of how these elements are interconnected. There's so much that's taking place, but we have to also be led by that science. At the same time, we can only really communicate, and communicate effectively, if we have that storytelling ability and that ability to connect with people. Those are going to be, on a broader scale, some of the themes.

                        Some new things that we're doing — we did decide, almost this time last year, to move the conference to a virtual format. We had to make that decision. Our team worked very, very quickly and established a very successful program. We took the conference from an in-person, 3,500-person event to almost 25,000 people on the platform. This year, what we want to do is make sure that we're engaging in a deeper way with that audience and also continuing to grow. We decided to invest in our own platform. We didn't want to work purely with third parties. We now have our own trade show area. We've got our own place that really looks like, almost, the Central Bank Convention Center, and so it's really exciting to see how we're going to be able to utilize that.

                        The conference will be those three days. If people come through, they'll be able to see some of the different tracks they normally would see by species, perhaps something on general business, on human health, crop science, all those different things that they would see — but they're also going to be able to look at different talks and see, “This one is focused on health and wellness. This one is focused on sustainability. This one is focused on regenerative agriculture, and I want to follow those throughout.” So now, different to a physical conference, it's very easy to be able to listen to a talk, then pop into another section — plus all the information that's on demand so people could come back. I think that might give us all a little bit of a better chance to not get a headache, as you did, and be able to absorb some of the information.

Those are going to be exciting ways that the conference is changing. The other element here is that we're going to open the conference, the trade show area, a little bit early so people will get a chance to go in. They'll be able to experience that and use the environment. I think that'll create the opportunity for more interaction. This platform gives us the chance to have one-on-one meetings but also workshops on certain topics where smaller groups can have a voice. I think, through so much of the past year, when you're looking at the screen and hearing somebody give a talk, that's one thing, but that opportunity for interaction is the key. That's, of course, what makes our conference unique, I think, and really exciting — when we're all able to be in the same place and have those conversations, that makes that impact. That's what we want to make sure that we replicate and what our teams are working on now.

Tom:              Well, I must say that it's a delightful headache to have. I'm wondering: Do you hear from people? Do you get feedback about the connections made, ideas hatched, collaborations formed after a conference has occurred?

Mark:              Absolutely. It's something that there isn't, certainly, a year that goes by that there aren't many of those collaborations created. We have a lot of people who end up creating businesses together or establishing working relationships at the conference. They can hearken back to that and say, "Well, I met that person at the ONE; I met that person in the President's Club," or whatever the case may be. That's a critical aspect.

                        I think the networking element is really important. What we want to make sure is that we provide that networking opportunity in this format, and I'll tell you why that's important. Say we have 3,500 people at the physical conference. We probably have three-fold that, so maybe roughly 10,000-plus people who have never been to the conference. But if we're up to 25,000 people, that means there are people for whom this is the conference — the majority of people have experienced it in a virtual format than ever in a physical format. So, this really means that we can connect with anyone at any time. We can engage with those people, as I mentioned — perhaps they are entrepreneurs who are running a business who don't have time to travel or have never had the ability to gain access to this type of information. Also, we now are able to provide them with an opportunity to network with others. I think that's a really exciting thing.

                        It really goes back to the purpose of the conference. Is it to explore new ideas? Absolutely, but it's also about the relationships that we build along the way and how we can continue, beyond the conference, to have that positive impact. It was something we wanted to do, for a number of years, as a virtual element — and of course, in 2020 we were forced to. It's going to be something that will be with us from here on out. That's the challenge for 2022, is running a physical and a virtual conference as one.

Tom:              That's going to be interesting. Is registration already underway? Is it available on the Alltech website?

Mark:              Yes. Everything's up there on the website at one.alltech.com. The registration is open. We're looking forward to welcoming so many people back in. We have, of course, continued coverage throughout the year, and that has been another element that we've added with our Alltech ONE Virtual Experience, but we really shifted back into that Alltech ONE Ideas Conference message and the look and feel of that.

I'm really, really excited for this year's program. As I mentioned already, we already have a team, a separate team, working on 2022 — when I think it's going to be even bigger — who are really pushing to think about things in new ways. I mentioned that waste aspect before. That's going to be something that is a big focus. Just one shocking statistic that I learned on food waste is that the average American wastes the same amount of money on food as we are receiving in our stimulus checks — $2,000 of wasted food per American in a country which actually has some of the cheapest food in the world. The volume of that food is also very significant. That's an idea, I think, that we need to focus on and will be an element of this year's program and a much bigger element of next year's.

Tom:              Well, something to ponder. Thank you for leaving us with that. That's incredible. Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech, thank you so much for this almost hour-long conversation. I really appreciate it.

Mark:              Yes, thank you for the opportunity. I really enjoyed it as well.

Tom:              I'm Tom Martin, and thank you for listening

You may have heard that there are over a billion microbes in every gram of soil. That means that there are more microbes in one spoonful of soil than there are people in the world. An entire world in one small spoonful. 

What are microbes?

When you think of a microbe, you probably think of your high school biology class or the last time you had food poisoning, but they have a hand in so much more. Microbes are microscopic organisms that are all around us. They can be found in soil, water, air, and even in places that would be inhospitable, such as volcanic areas. 

In agriculture, microbes are involved in various plant processes and form symbiotic relationships with the plants around them. Microbial communities and their products play a significant role in plant health, productivity and vigor. Microbes help plants by doing things such as playing a role in breaking down organic residue, neutralizing potentially toxic compounds in soils, enhancing root growth, improving plant metabolism, increasing a plant’s access to nutrients, providing some disease suppression properties, and not only increasing the plant’s defense mechanisms against stressors but boosting the plant’s resistance to environmental changes and extremes. On the other hand, soils that have less of the microbial presence that plants rely on will also have decreased soil fertility, less organic matter and little organic activity, resulting in a crop that will not reach its potential for growth and development.

Microbes are able to provide such services to plants through the different metabolites that they produce during their life cycle. During their lifetimes, microbes — such as nitrogen-fixing bacteria — extract water and minerals from the soil. Once they die, they are broken down by other organisms and microbes, and the minerals that had been taken in by those microbes then become available to plants, combined with both organic and amino acids. 

What are metabolites?

Metabolites are molecular compounds that result from the life cycle of microorganisms. Metabolites play a role not only in agriculture and crop management but in human health and many other industries as well. One of the most recognized metabolites is penicillin. Other antibiotics are also metabolites of various bacteria and other microorganisms. 

Metabolites produced from bacteria during the fermentation process have a wide range of uses in nature. They are not just a byproduct created during the growth and development of the microbe; they can also have beneficial properties — like plant nutrient availability and aiding in disease management — that promote symbiotic relationships.

There are two types of metabolites that are created by the microbes. First, primary metabolites are those that are essential for the plant’s growth and development. 

Primary metabolites

• Amino acids: The building blocks of protein molecules
• Enzymes: Developed from the microorganisms themselves, they act as catalysts for various reactions without losing their own properties and characteristics
• Vitamins: Essential micronutrients required by plants and animals to function
• Organic acids and alcohols: These products of primary metabolism are predominantly used in industries outside of agriculture and range in their uses, from flavorings to fermentation, as well as many others

Secondary metabolites are more geared toward helping a plant respond to stressors, such as drought, salinity and pest pressure, and inducing the plant’s resistance to both biotic and abiotic stressors. Metabolites have also been found to be linked to the nutrient quality and availability of crops. 

Secondary metabolite properties

• Pest management: Some secondary metabolites have biopesticide properties that target specific pests and weeds while decreasing environmental risks
• Plant growth regulation: These metabolites act on differentiating plant cells and promoting or inhibiting plant growth as needed
• Induced resistance: Secondary metabolites push the plant to form a response mechanism to stressors so those stressors have a diluted effect on plant growth, vigor and productivity

What are some of the beneficial microbes found in soil, and what do their metabolites do?

There are a multitude of microbial species that can help plant growth and productivity, most of which are still unknown. Some examples of the beneficial bacteria and fungi that have already been discovered include:

• Bacillus subtilis: With more than 200,000 identified strains, this microbe family casts a wide net to fight against pathogens such as Fusarium, Pythium, Rhizoctonia and others. 
• Bacillus licheniformis: This bacterium is excellent in its ability to break down especially tough proteins in plant residues, and research has found that it is also effective at nematode suppression and the synthesis of plant hormones.
• Bacillus thuringiensis: Metabolites from these bacteria have insecticidal properties.
• Lactobacillus plantarum: Various compounds, including lactic acid, create a hostile environment for competing microorganisms.
• Trichoderma harzianum: This fungus builds a mutually beneficial relationship with a plant’s roots and can help protect against pathogens such as Pythium and Fusarium.
• Trichoderma longibrachiatum: Research has found that not only does this fungal strain act as an antagonist against nematodes and other disease-causing fungi, but it may also have a positive influence on plant nutrient uptake and the production of plant hormones.
• Aspergillus spp.: Strains of this mold have been known to produce enzymes that break down plant fibers, which, in turn, improves the soil structure and amount of organic matter and helps release energy and nutrients the plant can use for improved performance and productivity.

How is Alltech Crop Science harnessing the power of these microbes and metabolites?

The Alltech Crop Science mission is to provide unique, reliable and sustainable biological solutions to combat everyday agronomic challenges that occur in the soil, in the environment and in the plant. Alltech Crop Science’s expertise in fermentation technology and research-backed initiatives go hand in hand to create solutions that build on the characteristics of the microbes and their metabolites, as well as taking into account the relationship between plants and their environment.

“What sets Alltech Crop Science apart is our technology,” said Dr. Steven Borst, general manager of Alltech Crop Science. “Particularly, it is our ability to utilize fermentation media and metabolites to our advantage, and having an understanding of how to incorporate these technologies into management strategies.” 

Beginning in the soil rhizosphere, microbial diversity is constantly in a state of change, depending on variables such as soil characteristics and plant developmental stages. In turn, the types of metabolites that are being produced change as well. Being able to manage the changes and deficiencies caused by the changing conditions that influence metabolite production and sources is key to maintaining plant health. 

Many products on the market today tout the use of live microbials. Their claim is that the introduction of these live microbes will aid in soil and plant improvement and development. However, researchers have found that some products claiming to include live microbials sometimes have difficulties meeting their guarantees. 

“Microbes are notoriously difficult to keep alive, and even small changes in temperature, light and moisture levels can kill them during transport and storage,” said Borst. “When the grower uses the product, the live microbials that have survived face other dangers from other chemical applications and even other microbial products.”

In using metabolites instead of live microbes, Alltech Crop Science products provide the benefits of microbes without facing the same challenges. 

If this is the case, should I refrain from using products with live microbial cultures?

Not at all! Live microbial technologies have an important place in sustainable soil and crop management, and those that can maintain their guaranteed populations can be extremely beneficial for crops.

As Alltech Crop Science continues to develop its own microbial line — and applies stringent quality procedures and testing to ensure our live population guarantees — we will provide growers with options that bring a more natural approach into the management process and promote sustainable and balanced solutions.

Growers will see the same consistent results every time, whether they choose the Alltech Crop Science metabolite or live population products. Effectiveness is not diminished due to transport times or temperature differences between regions. The compatibility of Alltech Crop Science products with commonly used fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides and other products used on-farm also make them a reliable recommendation that meet their guarantees as well as grower expectations.

Have a question or comment?

If we learned anything from 2020, it is that we cannot control everything. For instance, we can’t control the weather, but we can work to control the mycotoxin risk it presents. Weather is the main influencing factor when it comes to mycotoxin risk, leading to a variation in risk levels across the U.S. This year is no exception to that trend, with mycotoxin levels having a wide distribution in the U.S. corn harvest. Mycotoxins can be responsible for the loss of production and efficiency in our animals — a duo we are not interested in.

What are mycotoxins?

Molds and fungi on crops naturally produce mycotoxins. Mycotoxins are ever-present on-farm but can vary in severity based on feed sources, storage and growing conditions. The three most common types of mycotoxins include Aspergillus, Fusarium and Penicillium. Aspergillus is responsible for aflatoxin B1, which can be more abundant with increased drought stress and dry field conditions. Trichothecenes and zearalenone are related to Fusarium. Trichothecenes are common field toxins in grain and silage, and swine are particularly impacted by this mycotoxin because they are considered a more sensitive species to deoxynivalenol (DON). T-2/HT-2 toxins and other trichothecenes are the most toxic for most species, while ochratoxins and citrinin are related to Penicillium. When an animal consumes mycotoxin-contaminated feed, there is risk of reduced production, immune suppression and decreased overall efficiency.

Learn more about mycotoxins at knowmycotoxins.com.

2020 Harvest Analysis

Dr. Max Hawkins, Alltech’s mycotoxin and harvest expert, presented his analysis, giving an insider’s view on this year’s crop, during the 2020 U.S. Harvest Analysis.

Crops are influenced by weather as we go through the growing season, leading to regionalized mycotoxin risk based on weather patterns. The Corn Belt had moderate to severe drought conditions throughout the growing season, in addition to wind-storms, which also affected corn crops. The Eastern U.S. saw above-normal rainfall on heat-stressed and dry crops. It should be noted that while the overall risk is normal this year, where the risk is high, it is notably high. These risks can be manageable if we are able to feed the average, which is why we need to do testing to evaluate what the potential maximum levels are.

Mycotoxin risk breakdown by species:

The 120 corn samples that were analyzed by Alltech 37+ contained an average of 5.9 mycotoxins per sample, with 50% of these samples considered moderate- to high-risk and 50% low-risk. While corn in general is relatively low-risk, pockets of high-risk samples could be an increasing concern with lower corn yields. If we are not able to be as selective when feeding corn, we may get into feeding higher-risk corn, or higher-risk feed ingredients may be used to compensate for less corn in the diet.

• Swine

The mycotoxin risk for sows is moderate to high, specifically related to DON and zearalenone, both of which present risks high enough to impact sow reproduction and performance. Grow-finish pigs are also affected by DON, which can impact gains, gut health and feed efficiency.

• Poultry

Overall, the samples showed a low to moderate mycotoxin risk for poultry, with the risk increasing the farther East the samples came from. Compared to swine, poultry are projected to have a lower risk from DON, but the risk presented by mycotoxins is still high enough to impact gains/feed efficiency and gut health.

• Ruminants

The 273 samples of corn with a high moisture content (HMC) included an average of 6.1 mycotoxins per sample, creating a distribution of 60% low-risk and 40% moderate- to high-risk samples. On average, there is a low risk for beef and cattle; while the presence of mycotoxins has the potential to affect performance, overall, this risk is very manageable. Producers in the East and upper Midwest are projected to have the highest risk due to dry conditions followed by heavy rainfall.

The data from 2020 suggests much more prevalent and higher levels of aflatoxin B1, which should be of particular interest to dairymen. Dairy producers should monitor and test for mycotoxins in corn silage, especially if their operations are located in high-risk areas. Additionally, aflatoxin B1 can convert to aflatoxin M1, which can be excreted in the milk, leading to food safety concerns.

Managing mycotoxins

There will always be mycotoxins in feed, but knowing what they are and what risk level they pose is critical to mycotoxin management. The Alltech 37+ mycotoxin analysis test provides a realistic picture of the mycotoxins in feed ingredients or TMRs. This comprehensive test allows for quick diagnosis, effective remediation and planning for future control measures. To learn more about having a 37+ test completed on your farm, please visit the Alltech 37+ mycotoxin page.

Dr. Hawkins recommends testing each time you change your feed or introduce a new feed ingredient in order to properly measure your mycotoxin risk. Going forward, risk levels can change based on fermentation, and we need to watch out for “storage mycotoxins.” There have been forecasts of a dry spring, but the mycotoxin risk is fluid and always changing.

To watch the complete 2020 U.S. Harvest Analysis, click here.

Have a question or comment?

Minette Batters represents the interests of 47,000 members of the National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales (NFU) as the organization’s president. She joined the podcast to discuss protecting farmers through agricultural policy, farm innovations that will lead to more sustainable food production and why she is hopeful about the future for farmers.

The following is an edited transcript of the Ag Future podcast episode with Minette Batters hosted by Tom Martin. Click below to hear the full audio or listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Tom:                          I’m Tom Martin, and joining us from her farm near Salisbury, Wiltshire, for our Agri-Food Outlook series is Minette Batters, president of the National Farmers Union of England and Wales. Her organization represents the interests of 47,000 members.

                                    Greetings, Minette.

Minette:                      Hello.

Tom:                          So, let’s begin with a little bit of background. You grew up on a farm and were discouraged from becoming a farmer yourself. You went on to catering for a time, but as they say, you can take the woman away from the farm, but you can’t take the farm out of the woman. So, you returned to farming a couple of decades ago and you haven’t looked back. Can you tell us about that personal connection with working the land?

Minette:                      Well, I’ll try to sort of sum it out, really. I mean, I was brought up on the farm that I now farm on and live on. But my father was, as you say, quite opposed to women going into farming. But it was definitely something that I always wanted to come back to. And so, two decades ago, I did manage to get the chance to come back here.

We don’t own this farm here, which is quite common in the United Kingdom; we have a lot of tenant farmers, which are basically long-term farm business tenancies. And so, I was able to negotiate a new deal with my landlords, and that was basically about doing up some cottages in return for the land that went with it. So, that’s what we started with 20 years ago — very little stock on the place, no fences, no farm buildings, a lot of modernization needed.

                                    And I guess my background — I trained in London as a chef — it came in really useful because I was able to keep that business going, and that very much helped us reinvest in what was needed in the farm. And now, we have a herd of pedigree Herefords and pedigree Aberdeen-Angus, which will be a breed that’s well-known to you.

                                    And we have wedding venues as well, so it’s pretty busy here on the farm — and it’s a very different farm to the one that I took on all those years ago, and I’ve never regretted it; I never looked back. And (I’m), you know, living the dream, effectively, as they say.

Tom:                          And so, you bring to your role with the National Farmers Union experience on both ends of the supply chain: from farm to kitchen, to your work as a chef.

Minette:                      Exactly, a lot of experience. And I think those come in very useful now, really, for us as farmers and as a farmers’ union. We’ve very much been trying to make the case for farming policy here through the lens of food, through the lens of what we eat.

                                    We have a lot of people here in the U.K. — nearly 70 million people on a relatively small island nation — so it’s a very important food market, and my job, I guess, as the president of National Farmers Union, is to keep our farmers and growers here the sort of number-one supplier of choice to the U.K. market, both at retail and at home.

                                    So, it’s worked well, I think, for me to have a background, you know, (in) both ends of the value chain, really.

Tom:                          What are your priorities in your work with the National Farmers Union?

Minette:                      For us, it’s a very different time right now. We’re obviously leaving the European Union. We’ve left, effectively, and much of (our) trade with them has been important. We now are setting out on a very different pathway for agriculture.

                                    So, we’ve just had legislation passed here. The last agricultural act was in 1947, and then, in 2020, we had the second, effectively, agricultural act. So, that will create a lot of change for the farmers I represent.

And, of course, you know, leaving the EU was all about wider trade opportunities. So, the U.K. and the U.S., the U.K. and Australia, all the Commonwealth countries, obviously, those trade discussions are ongoing. So, for us, it’s very much looking to the future, the role of farmers in delivering on climate change.

I do think it’s an exciting time, actually, to be a farmer. The challenge of continually mining things, effectively, out of the interest in agriculture, where we can grow things in a sustainable way on the earth, not only in what we eat but how we live our lives, is a massive opportunity for farmers across the world. So, I’m hopeful.

We host the cup here in November (and) the most important (UN) climate change discussions, and President Biden is coming in. Obviously, the U.S. is back at the table. So, for us, it’s all about future policies for trade, for how we produce our food, and really making sure that our farmers are seen as the solution in climate change.

Tom:                          2020 was quite a tumultuous year, and all of that has remained with us as we begin 2021. And so, let’s begin with Brexit. I think you touched on a couple of these things, but the United Kingdom formally withdrew from membership in the European Union at the end of January 2020. And there were to have been negotiations on the terms of the future relationship between Britain and the EU, including trade and economic relations.

So, if you could, bring us up to speed on any agreements in areas that impact agriculture and food production and marketing.

Minette:                      So, trade with EU was always a really important thing to get agreed and to make sure that it is tariff- and quota-free, which it is. So, that has happened, but the EU has always been about the single market.

                                    So, what I mean by that is a comprehensive set of standards that are all agreed by member states on how we trade. So, we were our part of single-market and the customs union, which allowed us to trade, effectively, tariff-free.

                                    This is a very different trading relationship. It is a sort of traditional FTA agreement. There will be friction, (and) friction equals cost, so we do anticipate (that), and there is a level of friction and that level of cost. But what has been ratified here in the U.K. is being called the trade cooperation agreement between the U.K. and the EU.

                                    I think that will be, to a certain extent, an iterative approach. It is without a doubt going to change, and it’s the start of a new relationship. But, for us, it’s 500 million consumers on our doorstep. It remains our key export market — 95% of our goods go into the EU. And, of course, 40% of our import is coming from the EU.

                                    So, it was vital for both sides, really, that we agree (about) that new trading relationship. And as I say, we are now having trade discussions with other countries, the U.S. included. So, it’s a very different road that we’re on.

Tom:                          Climate change is on everybody’s mind right now. The EU Green Deal is a very ambitious plan to become the first continent in the world to become carbon neutral by 2050. Will Britain be a party to the Green Deal, and if so, what are the implications for farming and food production in the U.K.?

Minette:                      Well, Britain won’t be a part of the Green Deal, but it has set its own ambition and, indeed, legislated on that ambition with the Climate Change Act to achieve net zero by 2050. And for us at National Farmers Union, we see this as a real opportunity and, indeed, we set the marker down, if you like, to achieve carbon-neutral food production by 2040.

                                    Now, that was primarily because agriculture is a source of emissions — currently, 10% here in the U.K. — but it is also a sink. So, it has the unique capability that other industries don’t have of being able to do something about it.

So, we don’t believe we need to downsize livestock farming to lower methane. We believe that, with the right policies, we can farm smarter — (we can be) smart, farm more efficiently, decrease our food production footprint, but still be producing the same amount, or potentially more.

                                    So, we see climate change, for farming, as a huge opportunity to drive forward. So, that has been our focus. My focus, in particular, is making sure that my farmer members are not taxed in all of these.

So, I don’t think we’ll necessarily be in competition with the EU, but we share the same vision, and I know — you know, many farmers I speak to in the U.S., you know, they’re doing a lot on climate change. And I think the world’s consumers expect us to be able to get to a carbon-neutral position, but this is, I think, the exciting thing for agriculture: that we can produce things only in a sustainable way, whether biodegradable latex or whether massively reducing our methane. But, you know, we can do it in a way that others — other sectors, other industries — can’t.

Tom:                          I’m wondering if that imperative to become carbon neutral often drives a lot of innovation? I’m wondering what cool things you’re seeing happening right now in farming in service to meeting that goal?

Minette:                      Oh, you know, you’re so right. It does drive a huge amount of innovation. And we’re seeing now, here, the ability — tomato growers that are producing tomatoes are able to make all of their packaging out of the tomato vines, so you create a totally secular economy. So, the cardboard packaging is made out of the vine, and the film that goes over the top of it is made of the vine. And the good thing about that is, when you throw it away, the whole thing biodegrades.

                                    We’re seeing a lot of progress being made in natural fibers — the opportunities of growing milkweed, producing biodegradable latex, focusing on sheep’s wool to make tree guards. We have, in the U.K., often — and I’m sure you have got plastic tree guards that (are) just left lying around forever (and are) totally unsustainable, not biodegradable, and sheep’s wool is fantastic, going back into the soil and providing nutrients, and it biodegrades as well.

                                    So, we’re seeing enormous changes in innovations that are driving these, these new outcomes. And I think we’re only just touching the sides of it at the moment. I think the opportunities are enormous. We’ve got to make sure the value of all of these things goes back to the farm gate. I think, as farmers, we’ve always been very good at creating these massive opportunities, at lowering food prices. And then, of course, we see decrease, decreased value at about (the) farm gate. We’ve got to make sure that the value gets back to the farmer with all of these new opportunities.

                                    We’ve also seen, with methane reduction, we’ve seen enormous benefit with feed additives. So, feeding micro algae and things like that to dairy cows, lowering methane but keeping the same amount of milk yield — again, taking protein is being fed down, but with the right feed additives, keeping the milk yield the same.

                                    So, we see it as an exciting time and a real opportunity to influence (farmers) globally as well.

Tom:                          I guess where there’s a will there’s a way, isn’t there?

Minette:                      Yeah, exactly that, exactly that.

Tom:                          Minette, in an interview that you did for the BBC’s Desert Island Discs — and by the way, we recommend giving that a listen; just Google BBC Desert Island Discs — it’s mentioned in the interview with you that while 70% of British land is agricultural, many British citizens kind of feel estranged from the people who grow and produce their food. Does that mean there’s a need to improve that relationship in some way, and how would you do it?

Minette:                      There is a real need to produce — to increase, I guess, the relationship between producers of food and the people that consume it. And I think, in the U.K., we’ve seen a lot of people leaving the land and going into cities, into urban areas, and that has created many challenges.

                                    You know, we used to, in the summer holidays, which were long, that used to be sort of — people could go out and do the harvest and pick the fruits. And we drove everybody, effectively, into the cities to upscale, to get to university, to go away from those jobs. And of course, then, (we) became very reliant on a workforce that has to come in here. So, in all of that, we’ve created more and more disconnect from the land and from the food that’s produced. So, this is why we continue to talk so much about food rather than farming.

We had a big campaign last year (that) had the sort of best chefs in the country. We had Jamie Oliver, who’d be known to many. We have Raymond Blanc and others who were all talking about provenance, about the need to buy British, to buy local, and that was really successful.

                                    So, I think we need to be doing other solutions toward this, much more of that — really building the connection between provenance and health. I think we tend to talk about food, and we forget that, actually, we are what we eat. And COVID, of course, I think has really brought home to so many of us the importance of a healthy, balanced diet, of getting back, wherever possible, to eating whole food (and), possibly, less processed food, but eating whole foods with all the nutrient values that we need.

Tom:                          You mentioned COVID. In what big and important ways has the coronavirus pandemic impacted agriculture and food production in the U.K.?

Minette:                      COVID has been a massive, massive game-changer. And what happened was 50% of our market, our food market, is retailed by people (who), you know, go and buy their food, come home and cook it. But 50% of our market was out-of-home, so it’s food to go (to) restaurants, hotels, hospitality (and) sporting events. That would be a big part of the market.

                                    And of course, when we had lockdown in March last year, that market just stopped overnight. All our garden centers were shut, so for the growers that rely on Easter as a massive part of what the season is growing for — people plant their gardens up at Easter — they lost all of those opportunities.

                                    So, we saw some sectors (that were) really, completely obliterated. And the big challenge, I think, (that) we faced as farmers was the fact that we couldn’t furlough — in this country, we’ve been furloughing our workers, or paying for people to be out of work, and you know, big businesses (have) been able to lock their doors and leave them. You know, we had a perishable supply chain (and) couldn’t furlough our cows, couldn’t furlough our workers. And there were big losses, but it’s incredible how things have changed, and now, people are buying at retail very much how they would have eaten out (to cook) at home.

So, it is almost balancing out, and prices, at the moment here, across most sectors, are holding up, whereas in the beginning, we just saw enormous turbulence. We saw people panic-buying, so we saw a lot of empty shelves, and that created more panic. So, every time we go into a bit of a lockdown, then you see people panic-buying, and of course, that is disaster because the moment that starts, people just panic more.

So, it’s settled down a lot, but I think there’s been a lot of lessons learned on the back of COVID, and not the least that, you know, we shouldn’t take our food or our farmers for granted.

Tom:                          What about disruption at the border due to COVID-19 restriction? Does that remain a concern?

Minette:                      It’s created quite a lot of concerns and quite a lot of challenges with Europe, because we work on a sort of “just-in-time” sourcing, and trucks come in here, they load up and they go back out again. And there is, as I said at the beginning, the restriction there, so that’s not working quite as well.

                                    And, you know, when we get problems at the border — and we’re seeing, now, restrictions on people traveling in. That side of it seems to be working okay, but I think it just depends how things go as far as goods go and imports go. It just depends, really, what happens. I mean, there are problems, but they are not nearly as bad as they were. And hopefully, things can, you know, return to a level of normality. We’re seeing, now, the vaccination program getting rolled out. And I hope, by the summer, that we can have a sort of new normal for us to return to.

Tom:                          More than a million people signed a petition that demanded assurances that British standards will not be undercut in any future trade deals. What’s the larger story behind this outpouring of sentiment? What is the message?

Minette:                      This is a difficult one, really. We had to — as farmers, all of us produce to very high standards of regulation, whether that’s animal welfare, whether that’s environmental protection or food safety.

                                    And this is very, very different in America, where you have huge differences. You know, in California, you probably have higher standards than you have in many parts of Europe. But in the U.K. — that is, a smaller country — the laws on how we produce our food are very strict. And so, we’ve driven these high standards of animal welfare, which limits, you know, how many birds, say, you can keep in a shed, (or in a) pig cage, that you have to have windows in that shed. (The law) dictates that you have to have high security measures in place.

And so, our line was, you know, in trade, we are absolutely out for trading with the rest of the world, but we’ve got to try and have a common approach here that is basically fair. You know, it’s fair to farmers in other countries and fair to farmers here.

So, that was the whole reasoning behind it — because, of course, we had, in the run-up to Brexit, a lot of politicians saying the big cost of Brexit is (that) we’re going to get cheaper food. And our line was, actually, that job was being done. You know, we are very close to the U.S. — I think it’s the U.S. first, Singapore second, and U.K. third in (terms of the) affordability of food.

So, I think, for all of us as farmers, whether we farm in the U.S. or here or, indeed, in Europe as well, you know, we want to make sure that farmers stay in business and that we have fair approach to trade. And trade is a good thing for farmers across the world and, you know, just the farm in Africa and breaking to help African farmers trade.

So, we want to be trading tariff-free, without a doubt, but we want to try and have a common (and) fair approach to how we trade, and that really is what the petition was about. It was just really saying, “Do not undercut our farmers by tying their hands to the highest rung of the ladder and allowing imports in that don’t eat meat, the bottom rung of the ladder, which would just put our farmers out of business.”

That — that was really the driver behind that petition, and as I say, we had a million people, and so, that’s really just one in 60 people in this country saying that was what we wanted to see. So, it was one of the largest petitions ever, and it was really powerful.

Tom:                          Minette, you are quoted in an article for Southwest Farmer as saying, “The new year sees the government implement its own agriculture policy for the first time in 70 years. It will see a seismic shift in the way farming is supported with renewed focus on sustainable farming.”

So, I have a couple of questions around that. First of all, tell us about that shift in support.

Minette:                      So, this is very, very different to what we had before. Before, under European policy, the CAP — the Common Agricultural Policy — it was so much focused on an area-based payment, on a land-based payment. And that was really to keep food affordable to make sure that, you know, there was an investment in food production that stopped this thing (of) price spikes.

                                    Now, the future view is very much to invest in the environment, and it’s called the Public Money for Public Good. So, not investing in food production, but investing in environmental delivery. And this is a global first.

You know, agriculture bills don’t come along every day of the week. This is, as you say, the second one in 70 years. And it is really important to begin it right. Now, we’ve got very little detail on the table at the moment, but also, because it’s been developing what sustainable farming can look like and making sure that the investment is actually tied to food production, as well for what the market isn’t paying for.

                                    So, this is a very unusual and a time of enormous change for farmers over here, because, you know, in living memory, they haven’t seen this approach, and it’s a global first; I don’t believe there’s any other country in the world that has done what we are embarking on. So, it will be interesting to see how it works out. But we set an ambition with that “zero (emissions)” approach, and we really do want to be world leaders in climate-friendly farming.

Tom:                          In your mind, what does sustainable farming look like?

Minette:                      Well, what we wanted to do was very much focused in the field, into the soil. So, before, it’s been very much focusing on trees and hedges around the edges of fields or just being paid to have land. And our proposal is very much actually saying, “No,” you know, “we’ve got to look at right into the business, right into the soil.” A lot of farmers here now really recognizing that soil health is so important.

                                    And there are many different things that are needed in all of these, but I’d sort of pick out, you know, one area in particular, which has been around lowering our use of antibiotics in animal medicines to deal with antimicrobial resistance. And that’s been enormously successful, and we’ve done that by driving better awareness in farmers (about) more responsible use of antibiotics but also improving genetics and improving health status. So, if you have a healthier animal, you need less antibiotics for it.

And that, of course, is all very much part of delivering on sustainable farming that decreases the food production footprint. So, for us, it’s about really getting into the business of farming and producing food and the policies that we need rather than just focusing on paying people, which — our government was very clear (that) it was not just going to pay people to produce food; they wanted to know exactly what that return on the investment looks like.

And we’ve got a massive driver here of environmentalists who believe money should be spent on the environment. So, we really wanted to create this shared synergy (of) producing food, caring for the environment and doing more for biodiversity at the same time.

Tom:                          Well, Minette Batters, I’m very curious about you and your work and your excitement around it. What gets you up and ready for another day?

Minette:                      Well, representing 47,000 businesses means that you’re always on your toes. And it’s such a time of change over here now. It’s really hard to put it into words just how different this road that we’re on is.

                                    So, I feel enormous responsibility, I guess, for what I would call setting the foundation for the future and getting them right, so that my sectors, the farming (sector), can really have a thriving profitable future.

                                    So that, I guess, gets me up every morning. I also have two teenage children who like I have to say I can spend forever trying to get them up. So, that keeps me on my toes as well. And, of course, my farming business. So, I make sure that — we have, obviously, the beef herd here, and I do all the feeding and all the stock work at the weekend so that I get my hands dirty and I keep my feet well on the ground.

So, it’s a whole mix of things at the moment. And I enjoy traveling a lot all around the U.K., and of course, not — many people, you know, are being at home (right now), which is sad. You know, (there’s) a lot of process to it, but you’re not in front of the farmers that you represent. So, I’m looking forward — hopefully, this spring, this summer — to getting back out on the road again, too.

Tom:                          Minette Batters, president of the National Farmers Union of England and Wales, with us from her farm in Wiltshire.

                                    Thanks so much, Minette.

Minette:                      Thank you so much

Marianne Smith Edge is a food, agriculture and consumer insight strategist and founder of Agri NutritionEdge where she serves as a translator between the consumer and the ag space to bring more food transparency to the food chain and improve food perception with consumers. She shares her insights on building trust with consumers by providing the security of safe and healthy food. 

The following is an edited transcript of the Ag Future podcast episode with Marianne Smith Edge hosted by Tom Martin. Click below to hear the full audio or listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Tom:                          Welcome to Ag Future, presented by Alltech. Join us as we explore the challenges and opportunities facing the global food supply chain and speak with experts working to support a planet of plenty.

                                    I’m Tom Martin with the latest in our agri-food outlook series: a visit with food agriculture and consumer insight strategist Marianne Smith Edge.

                                    Marianne is a sixth-generation farm owner in Owensboro, Kentucky. She also is a registered dietician and founder of The AgriNutrition Edge, a food and agriculture communications consulting firm. Marianne advances science and nutrition thought leadership on her firm’s website, AgriNutritionEdge.com. And she joins us from Owensboro.

                                    Greetings, Marianne.

Marianne:                  Well, greetings and good morning to you.

Tom:                          Marianne, first, if you would, just tell us about your work as both a farmer and one who advises the ag community on matters of communication.

Marianne:                  Well, I grew up on a dairy farm in Northern Kentucky, so I definitely have strong roots in the dairy industry. And at this point, I don’t do day-to-day work in farming, but in the Owensboro area, my husband and I do own farmland, where soybean and corn are grown. So, I have definitely a vested interest and (am) very involved in the agricultural area.

I think, with that background, along with my (being) professionally trained as a registered dietician and having worked in consumer insights over the years, it really does allow me to interact across the food value chain on communications. And especially in the ag community, it’s so important to really remind and work with the ag community on understanding the need to communicate what is being done and has been done over the years on moving forward and preserving land and sustainability.

You know, to too many non-farm individuals, the perception of sustainability is almost viewed as a new concept, and even though we look at it in different lenses today, we know that, ultimately, we are where we are today because farming has always looked at the preservation of farmland for future generations.

Tom:                          Well, Marianne, this pandemic — it seems like we can’t talk about anything without talking about the pandemic. And, of course, it’s been with us long enough now for us as consumers to settle into some health and food consumption trends and habits. And I wonder: What’s your perspective on trends that have emerged from the conditions of the pandemic in 2020?

Marianne:                  Well, definitely, the emergence of returning to one’s own kitchen as a necessity, of course, has emerged. We saw, by the end of the last year, that over 80% of individuals said that they were cooking at home.

                                    But the good news is that we see that individuals say that, even though there is some cooking fatigue, is that they are continuing. And even though we were hearing about the “COVID 15” — somewhat like the college “freshman 15” game — is that over a third of consumers basically said that they were cooking more healthfully.

                                    From that, we saw that online shopping, of course, (which many people decided) to do through necessity, jumped at an all-time rate, at a much higher rate than any retail had ever anticipated. And as well as — when you’re looking at trends from food, we see that individuals definitely want to connect to more local sources — and many times, especially in produce, we saw a considerable jump in looking at organics.

Tom:                          Has this opened up opportunities or expanded the market for small farms, and particularly those that are involved in CSAs, in community-supported agriculture and, you know, the weekly order of greens and so forth that we’re able to get? Have you seen any increase in that area?

Marianne:                  Yes. We definitely have seen an increase in this particular area. And I can use a friend and a farm-to-consumer meat processing business in this area as an F1 example, and have written about it in some of my blogs, is that even though he had gained a good audience through farmer’s markets over the last few years, suddenly, that increase for wanting a locally produced and processed meat grew rapidly — especially in that April and May (period), when meat, all our meat consumption seemed to increase and availability wasn’t as prevalent. And the good news is that trend has continued.

So, again, folks really want to be able to connect to food and know where food comes from. And I think there’s also that sense of security and overall safety appeal — that if they know where their food comes from, there is an assurance that, one, it will always be there, and that it’s safe and I, you know, trust the person who is producing it.

Tom:                          Any other particular current active trends that are influencing food production?

Marianne:                  Well, the trend of sustainability will continue to increase — and sustainability, of course, can mean so many different things to individuals, but connecting the planet and personal health has continued to evolve, and it should. So, I think, many times, individuals are also seeing that, “If I eat locally, if I support my local producers, then I’m eating more sustainably.”

So, in that case, looking (at), as we move forward, on a global standpoint, sustainability and looking at food systems — even though it was an active trend, this whole global pandemic has really promoted more conversation. In fact, in September, there will be a UN Food Systems Summit in New York where, really, we’re looking at the whole concept of trends and regionalization, as well as global food systems. So, that will definitely continue the conversation.

Tom:                          Have transparency and the trust that it can engender, have those things taken on more importance among consumers these days?

Marianne:                  They have. And I think we have to recognize — and especially the agriculture community — is the importance of trust and transparency. The good news is that consumers do trust farmers, but sometimes, at the same time, there is a disconnect of communication and in transparency.

                                    We always have to realize that less than 2% of the population really has a direct connection to agriculture in these days. And so, therefore, it becomes imperative that the agriculture community really communicates what’s being done — you know, why are we doing what we are doing? Whether it’s using or not using antibiotics or how plants and animals are grown or whether or not we’re using gene editing or are genetically modifying individuals, explaining what it means to the farmer but also to the consumer is really important.

                                    And so, and we know the fact that if we’re not transparent (on our own), ultimately, we will be transparent, because of the amount of information that’s available on all levels. And so, it’s really important that you, (that) those who know, actually provide the information and open the area for those who don’t know to talk about it.

Tom:                          Well, perception can be everything in a lot of situations. And I noticed on your blog that you write about trust — and specifically, you cite a national poll conducted by the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future that finds that most people just don’t like industrial agriculture, but as you just mentioned, if just farmers are listed, the trust goes up. What are the dynamics behind these distinctions?

Marianne:                  Well, I do think, in many cases — and some of it is perceptions and what you hear, as well as in surveys — is that in some individuals’ minds, people imagine that farmers should be small, always small. And (they) give that illusion of kind of the “mom-and-pop” type of farmer.

                                    And so, unfortunately, sometimes, the label of industrial farm or factory farms are given to really large agriculture production (that) is still family-owned. And so, it is a misconception and (is) easily used by individuals who want to kind of frame that conversation, that big is not always good. And it seems like big food, big ag, gets a negative connotation, but at the same time, as consumers, we readily accept big technology and big food distribution systems.

                                    So, it is, it is a challenge. I think we constantly have to be able to distill the distinction and really talk about the percentage of (large) farms that are (family) owned and that farms, regardless of their size, you know, they have to be profitable if they’re going to be sustainable. And you know, larger — the larger the farm, sometimes, can actually be much more innovative in technology as well as sustainable practices. So, this is an area that we all need to continue to work on to break down some of those perceptions.

Tom:                          Well, continuing that perception thought, I wonder if it’s generally understood that to be a successful farmer, you have to be, in essence, a scientist. I mean, it can amaze the non-farmer to hear and read about what actually goes into the work of producing our sources of food. Do you think this “brain power” aspect could use a boost in the public dialogue?

Marianne:                  I do. I think, for some, the mental picture of farming is, many times — and, I, like anybody, love farmer’s markets, but you know, (with) the farmer’s markets, you get that close connection of food and individuals, and you — sometimes, you don’t always understand what goes into it, how much prep time and science has gone into it.

                                    I would say today, you know — and I can’t quote the exact numbers — but most in farming today definitely have a college education or (have) been involved in constant training.

                                    You know, my father was a dairy farmer over 51 years. And even though he was a World War II vet who did not go to college, you know, farming still — it was about his understanding the science. And so, I do think we forget that it’s very scientific, and if we really realize the technology and the science that has gone into farming over the last 50, 60 years, where we are able to only use the amount of, if needed, pesticides or chemicals or etc., based on a particular small area of the land, that we can really have an integrated pest management — we’re so much better at being able to control these inputs than, you know, than when I was growing up. And the amount of technology (and) computerization that goes into farming — to the average individual, I don’t think they do understand that, how much science goes into it. And especially as we continue to look at sustainability practices of reducing animal production or reducing greenhouse gas inputs, you know, we’re moving forward.

Looking at carbon farming, all the different technologies, it really does — it is about science and in knowing technology.         It’s a highly sophisticated profession that some, sometimes, individuals don’t regard it as such.

Tom:                          You’ve mentioned sustainability a couple of times. We hear so much about it now — even more so as the new Biden administration in Washington is rolling out its agenda. Where do you think agriculture will fit into that picture?

Marianne:                  I think agriculture is really the foundation of this picture. But the important thing — it’s going to be so important for agriculture to be at the table. I have been involved in some webinars, listening (as a) participant or discussing over the last couple of months, and globally as well as in the U.S.  And sometimes, during that conversation, people will say, “Well, yes, we need to have farmers involved.” And I am thinking, “Well, why aren’t they at the table?”

                                    So, I think it’s going to be really important that, you know, the basis of the whole concept of climate change and sustainability is that agriculture needs to make sure that we are inserted into the conversation early on. But it’s also important that we don’t keep just talking to ourselves. You know, we need to make sure that there’s an integration of conversations across the board, so those who might be making policy truly understand the unintended consequences, or also understand the positive solutions; either way.

                                    And so, agriculture, to me, is at the core of where we’re going — it’s just that we really need to be in the middle of the conversation now, not (only) when decisions are made.

Tom:                          I know that you’re involved in another conversation. You were named to the board of directors of the Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky a couple of years ago. And I know that your background includes owning a strategic nutrition consulting firm for the food and healthcare industries. Why is it important that that insight and perspective about farming and food production have a seat at that particular table?

Marianne:                  Well, it’s — earlier this week, we actually had a discussion of really bringing a group of partners across healthcare and the workforce to really look at how we can start drilling in on particular focus areas within Kentucky, to really start turning around (and) making Kentucky a healthier population.

                                    The reality (is that) we are at the bottom — not at the total bottom, but definitely at the, at the lower percentage of being healthful. During COVID, it really, it has exposed an issue we already knew: that the issues of health equity and inequity and how COVID has affected those with the higher percentage of culpability, such as diabetes, heart disease, etc.

                                    So, with my background, I do lead the strategic planning evaluation committee, and so, you know, we have to think broad-base. What are the factors that are, really, have created this, you know? At the core, it really is food, as well as access to healthcare.

                                    So, I feel like my very background, as well as my work in strategic planning over the years, can really work side by side with all the other colleagues in the health and (food) workforce to be very focused on the fact that there’s never been a better time, and it’s really important that we move forward and really identify what’s at the core and how we can reverse our health status in Kentucky.

Tom:                          Marianne, an article on your blog is titled, “Antibiotics: Cure or Curse?” And you cite concerns about antibiotic overuse, resistance, and how the two may be intertwined and how, for some, the blame is on animal agriculture, while for others, it’s on human medicine.

                                    Do you anticipate movement toward more antibiotic-free and organic production in 2021?

Marianne:                  Yes, even though I do think we will see more of it. What’s interesting — in a recent survey that was just recently released by the International Food Information Council Foundation in Washington, D.C., which I have previously worked (for) — what was interesting is they were really looking at influences on animal protein and plant protein decision-making. And about 25% of the individuals said that if a product was labeled “no antibiotic,” that really influences their decision, more so than “organic.”

                                    And so, we see that that’s typically with those that might be under the age of 45 and (with a) higher income. But, again, individuals are connecting that as a safety issue, and with COVID, there’s also been concern that, “Okay, what’s in my food or what’s being given to animal protein that, you know, is there any” — even though we know it’s not really been, that’s not necessarily true — but there is some thought within the public of, “Is there connection of how my food is raised, especially animal protein, as related to disease states or future disease states?”

                                    So, I do think we will continue to see consumer influence on looking for products that have no antibiotics. I think there’s a lot of discussion out there (about) whether, does that — is it as good for human health as (it) is for animal welfare? But antibiotics — third shift is so important across the human and animal continuum.

                                    I served on one health board a few years ago when I worked with the International Food Information, and so this is one area that really, as a human and animal health connection, that needs to continue to be looked at over the way. And with organic, even though it’s still a small piece of the total purchases, what was interesting is, last year, to your point, with COVID, we saw a much more significant increase of individuals who (are) buying especially organic produce.

Tom:                          Hmm. Well, what is on your shortlist of things you hope to see happen in agriculture and food production this year, in 2021?

Marianne:                  Oh, my shortlist. So, world peace. [Laughs] I think, in the shortlist, I keep bringing back to it, but (on my) shortlist is really bringing this whole discussion around sustainable food systems, what does that look like? And that’s a really large topic, but I think, in 2021, is that my shortlist is: what have we learned about the food value chain, the whole distribution system, during 2020? How can we use these learnings to really start looking at what needs to change? You know, what have we learned, and how can we use those learnings to really improve not only the safety (of) the distribution system but also improve trust and transparency and take that and learn what we can do better?

                                    So, really, even though it’s a very large shortlist, I think taking those where — this should give us an opportunity to really put the consumer and the farmer, along the whole other food value chain, (to put these) individuals together to really realize that, if we are going to be able to continue with having the availability of food that we have been so fortunate (to have), that we all need to come together to create transparency and trust among each of us.

Tom:                          That’s food, agriculture and consumer insight strategist Marianne Smith Edge, talking with us from Owensboro, Kentucky. Thanks, Marianne.

Marianne:                  Thank you.

Tom:                          Coming up next in our agri-food outlook series: Minette Batters, president of the National Farmers Union of England and Wales. We’ll get her views on building a more sustainable agri-food industry, working with governments on ag and trade policies and what she expects from the industry after a tumultuous year.

                                    I’m Tom Martin. Thanks for listening.

                                    Join us for the rest of the series as we reflect on how the agriculture industry adapted in 2020 and speak with experts on what’s in store for agri-food in 2021.

                                    Thank you for joining us. Be sure to subscribe to Ag Future wherever you listen to podcasts.

Five months ago, we spoke with Jack Bobo, CEO and founder of Futurity, about the rapidly changing food supply chain and what trends he believed would influence the future of food production and consumer habits. We recently spoke to Jack again about how consumer trends in the food industry and the food supply chain adapted through the rest of 2020.

The following is an edited transcript of the Ag Future podcast episode with Jack Bobo hosted by Tom Martin. Click below to hear the full audio.

Tom:              Welcome to Ag Future, presented by Alltech. Join us as we explore the challenges and opportunities facing the global food supply chain and speak with experts working to support a Planet of Plenty.

                        Futurist and Futurity CEO Jack Bobo was with us back in June of 2020, when we were only beginning to come to grips with the meaning of the term “pandemic”. We wanted to know then what sorts of behaviors and trends peculiar to the COVID-19 crisis he was observing, and so much has happened since then. Jack is back to update us on trends in food and farming. Welcome to Ag Future, Jack.

Jack:               Thank you for having me.

Tom:              When we spoke with you in June, you were noticing an acceleration in online purchases of foods and other goods. Let's start with that. What has happened in that sector since June?

Jack:               Well, a lot is happening. One thing is just (that) the numbers continue to go up. We've got about a 200% increase in shopping over that time. One thing that's interesting is that we're not nearly seeing as much loyalty, though, in the online shopping as we do to the brick-and-mortar store, so I think that's a bit of a surprise — that consumers are much more willing to try two or three or four different online stores, whereas normally, we have sort of one store that we go back to time and again, our local store.

Tom:              I've heard that there is a problem now with returns through the mail and through FedEx and UPS — a phenomenon that wasn't happening before, because people were taking them back to brick-and-mortars. Are you hearing about that?

Jack:               Yes. I think that's definitely an issue. There are a few issues, though. That's one, and that's an important one, and it can contribute to waste — but of course, all of this home delivery is just adding to the package waste that's becoming just an enormous problem. One thing that's a bit of a distinction is that companies like Instacart, where they're actually making local purchases and bringing it to the home, have gotten about a 50% increase (in) consumer loyalty over those that are purely online, and I think that addresses a little bit of that issue. When somebody is actually going to your local grocery store and picking it out, that's one thing, but when somebody's sending it across the internet, that feels like somebody didn't really take as much care to get it to you.

Tom:              Right, and we're learning a new etiquette, a new discipline, in working with our Instacart shoppers. It's been kind of interesting.

Jack:               It is. People are learning lots of lessons that they didn't expect to at this age.

Tom:              Well, at the time back in June when we spoke with you, you noted that due to the pandemic, we had just compressed five to ten years of growth in online food purchases into just a couple of months. At that time, you predicted that this would have a long-term impact. Would you say that online food shopping is here to stay?

Jack:               Well, the numbers are pretty good. (In) surveys that have asked people (who) are currently doing online shopping whether it's something they intend to stick with, about 90% of online shoppers today think that they will continue to make those purchases online long after the pandemic has passed.

Tom:              There's been a big shift from most people dining outside of the home to most everybody now eating their food at home, and this is going to continue for some time. What are the implications?

Jack:               Well, some people today are getting a little bit tired of eating the same thing over and over again and are finally accepting that they might need to learn to cook as well. So, one thing that I've noticed is an explosion in online cooking classes. People are trying to either learn some new skills or learn those skills for the very first time. I think that's going to be a good thing long after this, because people feel more comfortable in the kitchen, but other things that are coming out of this are that restaurants are trying to get in on the game as well — because people aren't coming into the restaurant, but they want to be able to connect with people at home.

                        This has led to a lot of restaurants creating sort of that dining experience in the home, so they're packaging up their products in a way that can then be served at home so you feel a little bit more like you're getting that dining experience than you would from just getting a meal kit. What I think that's interesting is that if COVID hadn't happened, most restaurants would not be getting out of the box. They would not be trying to explore new paths and new models to reach the consumer. They would have just continued to do things the way they had been doing it forever.

                        This has really shaken up the restaurant world, and those are changes that are going to stick — or some of them will. I think that we're going to find that some of them that are able to do it better are going to thrive because of this. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the smaller players, it's just going to be very challenging for them, and I think we'll continue to see a lot of small restaurants going out of business.

Tom:              It's going to be interesting to see what business model emerges from this pandemic and has staying power after that happens. Earlier this year, you were talking to people about panic buying and retail therapy and then food production squeezes and shortages. So, looking forward, what are the long-term implications to our food supply and how we produce food that are going to come out of this pandemic experience?

Jack:               Well, I think the first thing is just to be proud of the fact that our supply chain responded as well as it did to the pandemic. There were a lot of predictions that we were going to run out of food, that animal protein was going to be in short supply, that people were going to be rationing, and none of those things really came to pass. I think that that is to the credit of the companies in the supply chain, the food companies, the farmers and others, who all stepped up to avoid the really serious disruptions that could have taken place.

                        Now, absolutely, there were some disruptions of the supply chain, but given the magnitude of the problem that we faced, things certainly went better than they might have. Other things, though, to think about is that the United States is gearing up for a stimulus package that is about $900 billion, nearly $1 trillion. This is going to provide a lifeline to many people in the near term, but in the longer term, that money is going to run out as well. There are a lot of people that are in a very precarious situation today, a lot of renters who have not been paying their rent. Mortgage owners have not been paying, and at some point, those bills are going to come due. So, as well as things have worked so far, I think we're going to see people being squeezed far more on the consumer side than on the food production side, but when people don't have any money, that tends to have an impact on the entire supply chain.

Tom:              How is the consumer mindset being changed, and where do you think it's going in regards to food trends? Is the way people think about food actually changing?

Jack:               Well, I believe (that) last time we talked, I talked about how uncertainty over jobs, uncertainty over the pandemic, all of those things tend to make people more cautious. When people become more cautious, they become more frugal, more careful in how they spend their money. I think we're definitely seeing a lot of that. I think that those kinds of trends are not things that people get over quickly. They tend to be lasting effects. One, people are going to be short of cash for a long time, but the mental repercussions of that are going to last much, much longer.

Tom:              Again, when we talked earlier in the year, it was, then, way too early in this crisis to make any definitive statements about how it would impact people across the demographic spectrum, but let's look at Generation Z: 18-to-23-year-olds (who) are coming into life with possibility before them, a lot of hope, and suddenly, that's all gone on hold. What does the future have in store for that age group?

Jack:               Yeah. Well, this is definitely the group that is going to be hit the hardest and where the impacts are going to last a lifetime. My daughter started college this fall, but she started from her bedroom. I can tell you, she much would have preferred to have been on a college campus. But more than that, the students that are graduating last year and over the next few years, they'll be graduating into the worst economic climate since the Great Depression.

                        We know that (for) people (who) lived through the Great Depression, that impacted how they think about money, how they think about food, how they think about expenses for their entire lives. So, I think we know for sure that those (who) are in that age group that you mentioned will have really lasting effects on how they think about everything. So, we shouldn't be surprised if they come out of this being more cautious, more careful, more prudent in how they spend their money, but it's also going to have an impact on their earning potential for their entire lives, because the first few jobs you have puts you on a trajectory for retirement.

                        So, they're going to be starting, really, several years behind, and those are things you really just can't make up.

Tom:              What would you say has COVID-19 revealed about the ways that we get the right food to the right people at the right price? What have these disruptions shown us about our food systems?

Jack:               Well, on one hand, our food system is resilient, but it can be disrupted. These disruptions can have broad, even global repercussions. Some of those are going to be in the short term, but some of those will ripple throughout the years. I think the system is better if countries resist the urge to limit exports and to protect their citizens, because we have seen little where countries have been blocking exports, but where we do, those really (have the) potential to disrupt global trade, and it makes everybody nervous.

                        Unfortunately, the few times that that happened over the last six months have not grown and (have) become a global problem. In many ways, that was the problem we saw back in the 2008 and 2009 global recession. This is not a short-term problem. We'll probably lose a decade of progress towards things like reducing global hunger. That's very unfortunate. We had been making decades of progress at reducing hunger and poverty. Those trends are going to continue or (are) going to be reversed for years to come.

                        One of the challenges in 2021 is that we're going to have tens of millions of new people who are going to fall into poverty and hunger, some of them for the very first time. So, at a moment where many governments are struggling to take care of their own people, we're going to have people all around the world that are going to be in greater need, and so it's going to be a challenge to see whether or not countries can take care of their own but also recognize that there's a global need that needs to be addressed as well.

Tom:              Jack, you touched on this a little bit earlier, but I'd like to expand on it, if I could. Again, in June, I asked who you saw coming out of the pandemic as winners and losers, and you singled out online purchasing as a big winner but (said that) restaurants and small businesses (are) in real trouble. What is your assessment now of sectors that will emerge strong versus those that will either not survive or will come out of this, somehow, transformed?

Jack:               Well, one thing I think is interesting is that the importance of farming and food production has never been clearer. I think that's really important because I think, for too long, many consumers had taken food production for granted. Now, this is both a blessing and a curse, for our consumers to care about what it is that you do, because when people care about things, they begin to want policy changes in order to make things better. Sometimes those policy changes do, in fact, improve the situation, but there's also a risk that they'll make things worse.

I don't think we quite know how that's going to play out. But just one example is — I've heard a lot of people talking about how we need to go back to a time when there's greater inventory so that we don't run into the shortages we did at the beginning of the pandemic. I think people forget that by cutting down on inventory, what we did was we reduced cost. Now, the cost of not having inventory is that you're more at risk, but eliminating inventory also reduces cost and the price to the consumer. There are trade-offs. If we have inventory, we're better prepared for a pandemic, but those who are worried about the cost of their food may be disadvantaged. So, I think one of the challenges we're going to have is: How do we balance the need to fix some of the problems that we identified without creating new problems that we'll have to live with?

                        Now, in terms of winners and losers, we've already talked about online purchasing as a winner. We've talked about restaurants; many of them are going to come out of this much, much weaker. There will likely be some that benefit from it, but I think there's going to be a reassessment of the role of dining out in our lives. That's something that restaurants are going to have to figure out: how they can play a more intimate role in the lives of consumers. I think that food companies also are going to have to evaluate where they are and what their relationship is to the consumer.

                        Some of the winners are the larger, big food companies that had been really struggling, to be honest, over the last couple of decades to get the attention of the consumer. These days, consumers are more interested in that comfort and are turning back to the brands that they grew up with. So, I think that they're going to come out of this much stronger, and that's going to be a benefit to them for a long time to come.

Tom:              Well, change is a given. It's like background noise; it's always there. It's always occurring. But right now, we're going through some monumental changes. I wonder about your thoughts, if it's possible to form some thoughts, about the market implications of the changes that are underway in Washington.

Jack:               Yes. Well, I think that we're seeing a lot of changes taking place. I think that there were some that were worried about what the market implications would be of changing from a Republican to a Democratic administration. I think the stock market, at least, has not been concerned about the change, so I think there will be a continuation of positive growth there. But I expect that there will be some changes in terms of how a new administration looks at things like climate change, environmental issues, sustainability, and health and nutrition.

                        I think we'll see a change in focus on priorities, but I don't think that we'll see such dramatic impacts that it's something that people or companies or industries would need to be worried about. Hopefully, there's an opportunity for companies that are already interested in addressing sustainability issues to partner with the new administration in order to accelerate some of the things they're trying to do.

Tom:              Futurist and Futurity CEO Jack Bobo. Thanks so much for the conversation, Jack.

Jack:               It's been great. Thanks for having me.

Tom:              Thank you for listening. To hear other conversations with many of the featured speakers at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference, visit ideas.alltech.com. Access is free after signing up.