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

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

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

Taro:               Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David:            On a large scale —

Taro:               As a method of social change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taro:               Thank you for having me.

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

In this seven-part series, Alltech Crop Science looks at esca and natural-based solutions for the disease.

Esca, a wood disease affecting grapes all over the world, is one of the biggest modern threats to grape production. Esca is a complex disease involving several different fungi. It attacks the main vine of the plant and can destroy it within a few days; there is no questioning the unstoppable pace at which this disease progresses.

Esca is one of the oldest-known diseases to afflict grape vines, having been noted by the Greeks and Romans and damaging vineyards quite heavily in the early 1900s. In twentieth-century France, more than 5% of vines were killed by esca each year. Because the disease grows at a slow but progressive pace, even the larger, well-established vineyards could be totally destroyed by esca in 15 to 20 years.

Esca was first successfully controlled in 1903, when sodium arsenite was used as an insecticide on grapes and quickly proved its ability to limit esca and other wood diseases. In fact, thanks to the use of sodium arsenite, research on the disease effectively stopped in 1920 — only to begin again in 1980, when a potential ban on the product was discussed.

Sodium arsenite, which was noted as being highly toxic and carcinogenic in 1987, was banned in France in 2001 and by the rest of Europe in 2003. Subsequently, grape growers have seen a re-emergence of esca, and, since 2001, 6–7% of vines must be replaced annually. Additionally, along with the traditional form of esca, a new form appeared — an “apoplectic” form that can cause the vine to dry up entirely within the first few hours of showing symptoms.

Today, there are no registered chemical or biological solutions for mitigating this disease. Studying and developing traditional solutions for combatting esca are difficult because of its complexity.

Esca impacts producers economically on multiple levels: the use of prophylactic measures (of debatable efficacy) can increase costs, while pulled-out vines, reduced yields and money spent on replantation can reduce income.

France, for example, estimates that 11% of the nation’s total number of grape vines are non-productive as a result of esca. Between 2003 (when sodium arsenate was prohibited there) and 2007, Spain saw the number of affected vineyards grow from 1.8% to 10.5%. This rate continues its upward trend — and epidemiological studies carried out in Tuscany, Marche, Abruzzi, Apulia and Sicily showed that, in regions like central and southern Italy, among others, the incidence of esca has reached an extreme 60–80% in older vineyards.

Alltech Crop Science explores natural-based solutions for esca

Alltech Crop Science, a global leader in natural-based, innovative solutions, is exploring alternative programs to help farmers protect their vines. Our global research centers and alliances, particularly in Spain, are leading the charge to solve this problem — and have already seen promising initial results.

Click here for more information.

I want to learn more about natural crop solutions.

We are in the midst of some of the most significant scientific breakthroughs since Norman Borlaug's Green Revolution of the 1940s. Just as his innovative approach to crop science saved billions of lives, agriculture now stands poised to feed the rising population. What technology will drive the new era? Dr. Richard Lally joins us to discuss the most promising research from the field.

The following is an edited transcript of Kara Keeton's interview with Dr. Richard Lally, research scientist with Alltech. Click below to hear the full audio. 

Kara:              Alltech research scientist Richard Lally is with me today to discuss new opportunities in the crop science field. Thank you for joining me today.

Richard:         No problem — a pleasure to be here. Thanks for having me.

Kara:              Globally, consumers are demanding more and more plant-based foods and everyday items. How is this demand from consumers impacting Alltech's crop research?

Richard:         Yeah, it's a really interesting trend that we're seeing now in the food industry. The consumer appears to be demanding more and more plant-based products. There are a few different reasons for this. The people are more conscious now about where their food is coming from. They're demanding more sustainability. They're demanding that the foods that they're eating will have a better nutritional impact to them personally. There are also a few companies who are including more plant-based-type of promises on their labels to give a healthier, more natural feel to various types of products.

                        I think, from that standpoint, there's a real opportunity in research for us to definitely help people produce better food, more nutritious food, and also help them produce in a much more sustainable way so every industrial activity out there has some kind of an environmental impact. Really, what we aim to do and strive to do is try and help alleviate and limit some of those environmental impacts of agriculture. That's really what we're trying to do with our Alltech Crop Science research.

Kara:              Along with traditional crop science research in the lab, I know technology is playing a bigger and bigger role every day with research and out in the field. How can technology provide farmers avenues to help meet these demands for more plant-based products?

Richard:         It's such a fascinating, exciting time, at the moment. If you think back to Norman Borlaug's Green Revolution back in the late '30s and early '40s, that was really a transitional moment for agriculture and, particularly, in crop agriculture. We've seen a massive boom in yield, and it was really the ability to see the opportunity to pull all the technologies and the science that was there together in order to help benefit the output for crop production.

                        We are currently now in a period where we have some of the most exciting scientific breakthroughs that are happening. We have some of the most exciting technologies available to us now that we can use in plant breeding, et cetera.

Really, it's when we pull all of these technologies together and we figure out how to use them in a very strategic way and bring them to the farm, implement them on the farm — we're really going to see the acceleration of what we can merely call the second Green Revolution. There's an array of technologies now available to us that the farmers are currently using. They are currently generating data on the farm, and it's when we start figuring out how to decipher all of that information that we can start making real leaps and help feed the world in a very sustainable way.

Kara:              Do you have research out in the field right now, on farms or at Alltech, that can talk a little bit more about how that technology plays out day to day, both in analyzing the data as well as the production on the farm?

Richard:         Yes. Our focus as researchers in Crop Science is, we really tap into looking at the overall plant health and what exactly we can do to help benefit that. We work from every aspect of the plant or plant production, from the soil to the roots to the stem to the leaves, all the way up to the fruits and the grains. Alltech Crop Science has been around now for 25 years, and we have years and years of wonderful results from the field, so what we're really trying to do now is understand some of the mechanisms behind these programs that we're using with our applications and our materials.

A really, really neat technology that we can use is RNA sequencing, more of would be referred to as the “-omic”-based technologies. These are technologies that can give us a lot of information about the cellular metabolism of a plant, and we can decipher that by looking at things like RNA, looking at protein interactions, looking at the mineral status, looking at the metabolites of plants. By understanding that and understanding where our applications have a role within those technologies — understanding how our applications are impacting some of those subcellular molecular processes — we can help basically guide strategies and guide programs for growers to help them produce more foods and help them protect their crops from stresses, be they biotic or abiotic stresses.

Kara:              What are some of the mechanisms in Crop Science that are not only helping growers — that you're using out in the field right now to produce a better product — but that are also helping the growers see a profit on that bottom line?

Richard:         Again, we work with growers. We work with our partners who help growers, and we try and develop a strategy for a grower. We offer a program and, again, we work with the soil. We work with the plant health. Really, what we're looking at doing — are there any mechanisms within the plant that the plant can naturally call on to help it boost its growth on its own? For example, we could be looking at a defense mechanism. Is there anything we can do to help upregulate some of those benefits in the plant, which can then lead to a reduction in the need for things like the harsh or harder chemistries that would be generally overused in some systems? From a soil health angle, we might look at how we can benefit the soil by using some of our applications. Is there anything we can do to stimulate some of the microbial communities around the roots? This will help us boost better root growth, which will improve the overall health of the plant.

Kara:              Now, Richard, I know that, in 2016, you won the Alltech Young Scientist Graduate Award. What was that experience like for you? How did that impact your research that you're doing today and inspire you to continue down this road of researching crop production?

Richard:         Yes. That was a really, really special moment for me in my life. I was working with some soil microorganisms at the time I submitted. I was advised by my professor at the time to submit a paper, and lo and behold, I ended up winning the competition. I think the real benefit to that experience was experiencing ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference. I think it's a fabulous opportunity for the industry to come together and talk in a very down-to-earth way about the challenges in the industry — and we see, year after year, that there's constantly action, and it comes from this meeting that is having a huge impact in the industry.

                        I think the other thing, really — having worked with Alltech now for a number of years — it's actually using that technology that we work with and bringing it to a commercial setting. When I was a researcher doing my graduate program, I didn't really see that opportunity, and it's because I'm a scientist — and maybe I'm not as entrepreneurial as I should be — but the wonderful thing about Alltech was, they identify these mechanisms. They've identified these benefits from these fermentation applications, and they bring them out to the field, and they provide them for growers to actually have a real impact in the industry. So that, to me, was probably the most exciting part.

Kara:              I think it's always exciting when you see something you imagine or you see on paper put into action, and that's what you're saying you see on these farm trials and with farmers.

Richard:         Yeah, absolutely. It's been a pleasure working with the Alltech Crop Science products because, when I start introducing them into experiments, you get these really strong responses, so there are mechanisms that have existed and that we've loosely known about for years and years and years, but now, we've really taken out the magnifying glass and are having a look at what's happening. So, it's really interesting and fascinating to work with these applications for the better good of agriculture. It's really exciting to be a scientist working in this area.

Kara:              As a scientist in this area, I know that you have seen many things develop, since you've been working in this field the past several years, but I'm sure that you have visions of what will come down the road as you continue your research. Where you do hope to see crop sciences in five or ten years? Is there anything on the horizon that is really exciting to you or you see potential for?

Richard:         Well, I think crop science — the industry and the developments that are happening — I think we're going to see crazy changes over the next decade from the digital technology that's available on the farm. I was recently on an almond grove, and there were people measuring how trees are shrinking and expanding in response to water stress and, then, guiding water or strategies based on these technologies, which were leading to a reduction in water use, et cetera. There are other technologies now, like CRISPR; it's being used broadly. Actually, the European Union have blocked some of the regulations around CRISPR at the moment, but other places are embracing it — like Russia have announced that they're going to be investing in it. North America: We see it's allowed to be used here as well. So, I think, using the technologies that are there, we're going to see some really, really interesting breakthroughs.

                        More of what I'm working with, the gene expression and other things: We have worked with Alltech on nutrigenomics, which is just the study of the gene expression. I think, using these technologies and really starting to understand the biochemistry behind some of the pathways that we're looking at, that we're really going to have a major impact. We're going to be able to produce healthier fruits, vegetables. We're going to be much more sustainable in our production through nutrient use, the reduction of pesticides, things like that. I think the future looks really bright, in my eyes.

Kara:              It sounds like there's a lot of new opportunities out there for you in the future, and I wish you luck in your research.

Richard:         Thank you very much. Thanks for having me today.

Kara:              Thanks for coming in. That was Alltech research scientist Dr. Richard Lally.

I want to learn more about improving crop efficiency and yield. 

CEO Dr. Mark Lyons invites collaboration across industries, geographies for new technologies and practices that will improve the well-being of our world and all of its inhabitants

[LEXINGTON, Ky.] – In closing ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference, Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech, shared his new vision for the company and invited the ONE conference’s more than 3,500 attendees to join in “Working Together for a Planet of Plenty™.”

Thirty years ago, his father, Alltech’s founder Dr. Pearse Lyons, took the stage at the same conference. He had committed Alltech to a guiding ACE principle, emphasizing the importance of delivering benefit to animals, consumers and the environment. He fervently believed that the well-being of each depended on maintaining harmony between all three. It was a radical idea at the time — so radical, that some customers walked out of the conference.

Yet, against a backdrop of diminishing natural resources, a changing climate and a growing population, sustainability is quickly becoming a non-negotiable for businesses and for agriculture. Every business and individual has a role to play, moving us closer to a planet of peril or of plenty.

“With the adoption of new technologies and management practices, and, most of all, human ingenuity, we believe a Planet of Plenty is possible,” said Lyons. “Our Planet of Plenty vision propels our founding ACE principle into a new world of possibility, where anyone and everyone can make a positive impact on our shared planet.”

Agriculture has frequently become the scapegoat for climate change. Yet, no other industry has the potential to have a more positive impact on the Earth than the original stewards of the land.

“Agriculture is the only industry that can sequester carbon through its primary mission,” said David Butler, Alltech sustainability manager. “There are several low-tech management practices and high-tech innovations that can put carbon back into soils and forests and produce more food in the process.”

A new website, PlanetofPlenty.com, provides examples of agricultural methods that can improve the environment as well as inspiring stories of the people and technologies making a planet of plenty possible.

“From the Israeli lawyer who is using CRISPR to solve one of poultry’s biggest challenges to the Irish entrepreneur reducing spray drift through magnetic technology, there are compelling stories of people who are discovering new approaches and developing technologies that shape a more positive future,” said Orla McAleer, chief marketing officer for Alltech. “As we tell their stories, we want to encourage greater adoption of sustainable practices, but, most of all, we hope to inspire more ingenuity and a collaborative spirit.”

Stories can be shared on the Planet of Plenty website or on social media with the hashtag #PlanetofPlenty. Alltech will also be recognizing farmers, students, entrepreneurs, businesses, nonprofits and communities that are putting the power of agriculture to work to create a Planet of Plenty.

“To create a more abundant world, we must collaborate across industries and geographies, and discover, test and apply new ideas,” said Dr. Lyons. “Our personal journeys will be unique and diverse, but if we work together, our destination can be the same: a Planet of Plenty in which there is enough nutritious food for all, the world’s resources are responsibly managed for future generations and the environment is safe for people, animals and plants to thrive in harmony.”

-Ends-

Contact: Susanna Elliott, Alltech PR

press@alltech.com; +1-859-47-2696

About Alltech:

Founded in 1980 by Irish entrepreneur and scientist Dr. Pearse Lyons, Alltech is a cutting-edge technology company in a traditional industry, agriculture. Our products improve the health and nutrition of our plants and animals, resulting in more nutritious products for people as well as less impact on the environment. 

With expertise in yeast fermentation, solid state fermentation and the sciences of nutrigenomics and metabolomics, Alltech is a leading producer of yeast additives, organic trace minerals, feed ingredients, premix and feed.

Together, with our more than 5,000 talented team members worldwide, we believe in “Working Together for a Planet of Plenty™.” With the adoption of new technologies, the adaption of better farm management practices and the ingenuity inherent in the human spirit, we believe a world of abundance could be ours.

Alltech is a private, family-owned company, which allows us to adapt quickly to our customers’ needs and stay focused on advanced innovation. Headquartered just outside of Lexington, Kentucky, USA, Alltech has a strong presence in all regions of the world. For further information, visit www.alltech.com/news. Join us in conversation on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.                

ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (#ONE19) has some big name keynote speakers but the biggest is Dr. Mark Lyons, President and CEO, Alltech. I spoke with Mark to get a preview of this year’s conference. I’ve been attending this annual event since 2007 and it has continued to grow with an expectation of a record attendance this year according to him.

Click here to read the full AgWired article.

Despite the conditions we may currently see when we look outside, spring is here! As temperatures begin to rise and snow begins to melt, we need to keep watch for changes in our stored forages. As many will remember, the corn silage harvest last fall brought with it plenty of challenges. Most dairies have not yet experienced any of the issues that are expected to arise in their silage piles thanks to those harvest challenges — but spring will change that. As temperatures increase, wild yeast will begin to awaken in silages, leading to a decrease in forage stability, as well as the potential for issues with the total mixed ration (TMR) fed to livestock.

Last fall, high yeast levels were found in the fresh corn silage samples collected for the Alltech Harvest Analysis – North America (HANA). I have not seen many stability issues for silages yet, but they will manifest. As the warmer weather awakens the wild yeast, we will start to notice activity in our silages that was not present during the long, cold winter. When wild yeast is active in silage piles, it begins to feed on the energy from the corn silage, decreasing the energy available to livestock. Wild yeast can create many issues for a dairy, from decreasing forage stability to causing rumen upset at feeding. Additionally, the silage will begin to warm, leading to an increased pH and spoilage on the silage face, top and sides of the pile or bunker. This is especially true when Mucor and Penicillium molds are present.

If these changes go unnoticed in the forage storage unit and the silage is fed, symptoms will begin to appear in the barn. Common symptoms of active wild yeast being fed in silage include inconsistent and loose manure, decreased dry matter intake (DMI), a downturn in the farm’s butterfat test and, of course, reduced milk production.

Wild yeast has a negative impact on rumen function and cow performance. When this happens, I am often asked, “What can we do about this?”

Common symptoms of active wild yeast in dairy:

• Loose, inconsistent manure
• Decreased butterfat
• Decreased milk production
• Decreased dry matter intake

TEST THE FEED

First, evaluate and address the issues and concerns at the silage face. Whether your corn silage is stored in a silo, a bag, a bunker or a drive-over pile doesn’t matter; if the environmental conditions allow for it, wild yeast and spoilage can occur in any storage unit. If you think wild yeast is present, my first suggestion is to test the feed through a local lab, as this will give you clear answers about the levels and the specific types of contamination you are facing.

MANAGE YOUR STORAGE UNIT PROPERLY

The next step is to evaluate the silage face, looking specifically for any visible signs of heating or spoilage. This can be done by the producer and nutritionist, but an Alltech on-farm representative can also help identify any potentially concerning signs by using a thermal imaging camera. If any heating or spoilage is detected, an improvement in face management will be necessary. This can be accomplished by increasing removal rates from the face and keeping the face smooth and clean by using a facer. I have personally seen many producers not using their facer daily in the winter months due to the extreme cold, and while this is understandable, when the weather warms and becomes more spring-like, using a facer will be critical to minimizing the effects of wild yeast and spoilage.

DISCARD SPOILED FEED

Next, do not be afraid to discard suspicious forage and spoiled feed. I understand that producers do not want to be wasteful by throwing away feed every day, but if poor-quality forage is fed to our livestock, their performance will be negatively impacted.

FEED A LIVE YEAST

Lastly, feeding a quality live yeast like YEA-SACC® can help livestock overcome the adverse effects of wild yeast. Yea-Sacc bolsters the rumen by modulating the pH, scavenging oxygen, eliminating stress brought on by the wild yeast strains and enhancing overall rumen function. These benefits keep livestock performance on track and allow the animal to utilize the forages efficiently.

I want to learn more about improving nutrition on my dairy.

The devastating flooding in the Midwest has led not only to human loss but has also destroyed infrastructure, homes and farm buildings — not to mention the additional financial loss due to flooded grain facilities. The images of ruptured grain bins and flooded grain show only a portion of the destruction caused by this disastrous event.

Grain that has been subjected to flood damage is considered contaminated for food and feed use. Grain that was stored in the same facility but did not come in contact with floodwaters can be utilized as normal, but precautions should be taken. Grain from the upper portion of the bin must be removed from the side or the top; due to potential contamination, it cannot be removed through the bottom of the bin. Make sure the electricity is disconnected, as there will be a greater risk of potential shorts and damaged electric motors. Once removed, grain can be handled in various ways, including flat storing and bins.

Flat-stored corn should be closely monitored for temperature and moisture, as moist grain can sometimes flare up in “hot spots” and warm temperatures. When the temperature inside the grain pile reaches 150° F, the grain begins to compost, so it should be mixed or stirred. If the temperature reaches 170° F, the grain may begin to smolder and has the potential to catch fire. Monitor pile temperatures with deep probes or by driving pointed pipes into the pile, followed by lowering in a thermometer. Since this grain could be subjected to rainfall, it is important to continue monitoring it until the grain can be moved or covered.

Grain that is moved to bins will also need to be monitored. Aim for the recommended grain moisture level of 14 percent moisture for storage. Some producers utilize standard natural air bin drying systems with perforated floors and high-capacity fans. Supplemental heat can also help speed up drying time, but take caution not to raise the air temperature more than 10°–15°F.

Along with moisture, grain must also be monitored for mold and mycotoxins. Molds may or may not be visible and, as such, the grain should be analyzed. Mold can produce mycotoxins that impair animal performance and health while also reducing the grain’s nutritional value by lowering its energy level. Propionic acid can help control and maintain mold levels in stored grains, but application rates will vary based on the grain’s moisture level and the percent of propionic acid used in the product.

If it has not been contaminated by floodwaters, grain from flood-damaged facilities can be salvaged and properly removed, monitored for health and moisture in a new storage facility, and analyzed for mold and mycotoxins.

The recent flooding speaks to a larger concern for grain producers in the Midwest, where some areas experienced the wettest 12 months (April 2018 to April 2019) in 127 years. Overall, corn planting in the United States is 6 percent behind the five-year average — but some Midwestern states are even further behind than that. Of the top 18 corn-producing states, five had not begun planting by April 21. Topsoil moisture is at a 29 percent surplus for the entire U.S., with subsoil at a 26 percent surplus. A wet, delayed spring planting can put crops in jeopardy of pollinating and maturing in a more challenging environment. These trials could also subject the plant to mold and mycotoxin infestation.

Visit knowmycotoxins.com for more information on mycotoxin risks and solutions, such as the Alltech 37+® mycotoxin analysis test.

Download a free poster!

The following is an edited transcript of Tom Martin's interview with Dr. Richard Lally. Click below to hear the full audio:

Tom:              How can we communicate scientific discovery in such a way that we foster consumer understanding, excitement and even hope? Joining us to shed some light on these discussions is Dr. Richard Lally, a postdoctoral researcher currently working on a variety of Alltech Crop Science projects. Thank you for being with us, Dr. Lally.

Richard:         No problem. Thanks for having me.

Tom:              Let's dig in to the question. Talk to us a little bit about these emerging technologies in your field. Let's begin with CRISPR, an exciting one.

Richard:         Yes. There's a lot of excitement surrounding CRISPR at the moment. CRISPR is this, I suppose, emerging technology. The first paper was published describing the mechanism in 2012. Since then, there's been just an explosion in its use in all forms of gene modification, gene editing. It's really a revolutionary technology, and it's going to change the way we do medicine, it's going to change the way we do research, and it's going to change what we do in agriculture.

Tom:              I imagine many people are confused about CRISPR and GMO and what's the difference. Can you differentiate them for us?

Richard:         Yes. There are more applications for CRISPR than just the conventional genetic modification that we would traditionally associate with the GMO-produced genetic alterations. CRISPR can do a variety of things that the traditional methods couldn't achieve. Some of these things include directly editing a genome in a very precise way, down to the deletion of mutations that can cause diseases.

Tom:              For example, we have the case of citrus greening in Florida, which is a susceptibility, I suppose, that's built into the citrus. Is it possible to apply CRISPR to citrus in a way that would prevent that in the future?

Richard:         Absolutely. I think in terms of research, in particular, CRISPR is going to bring on a lot of knowledge surrounding disease and biochemical mechanisms within crops and plants. Citrus greening is a particularly problematic disease — probably the worst disease that has ever hit citrus. As a result, production is down about 70 percent in Florida. The ability to edit the genome by removing a gene or changing base pairs in a gene is going to really speed up how we investigate the disease. It's really going to bring us forward. It's going to advance us years in comparison to the traditional mechanism that we have been able to use.

Tom:              There's been a study for the National Institutes of Health that found that those who are more unfamiliar with GMOs tend to be more resistant to the technology, while those with higher scientific knowledge tend to have more positive attitudes about GMOs. Is there a disconnect between consumer GMO familiarity and scientific understanding, do you think?

Richard:         I think there is. My opinion of it is, I suppose, would be that I don't see any flaws in the use of GMOs. I think that, for a growing global population, it's definitely something we're going to have to incorporate into the food chain. Using CRISPR as well, we'll have to do that. But I think a lot of the initial disconnect between the actual technology and the fear surrounding it probably came from the commercial benefits that some of the larger producers of these technologies — that they were benefitting, and there was not necessarily a benefit being translated throughout the food chain. So, I think consumers are probably more opposed to these technologies as a result of, probably, miscommunication. GMOs have been used now for, say, 40 years plus. To date, there's been absolutely no association and no evidence that they're harmful in any way to humans and for consumption.

Tom:              Genetic engineering has faced regulatory limits and even sort of a Frankenfood reputation, even though there have not been any cases of any problems, because it introduces genes of one species into another. Do you anticipate that CRISPR might run into the same sort of backlash?

Richard:         I do, and I don't. I suppose CRISPR can do many things that we couldn't achieve in the past. With CRISPR technology, we actually have the ability to change a genome without adding in any foreign DNA — let's put it that way — from another species. You can replace a gene in a plant or in an organism, and you can also do single mutations of nucleotides within a genome. It's those applications that are going to really change how people perceive this technology because, in some cases, you're not actually going to be changing the genome of an organism; you're going to be maybe modifying it slightly.

Tom:              I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that there is enormous excitement around the development of CRISPR technology. Many experts in the field say that it is capable of saving the planet from starvation. Is that an overstatement, or do you agree?

Richard:         I don't think it's an overstatement. I think it's really going to bring on our knowledge of food production. If we can make changes in the genetics of plants by this gene-editing technique, really, your imagination is the limit to what you can do. If there is a trace in a plant that prevents it growing, say, two foot taller, if we could change one nucleotide in that trace or remove that trace, that could help us boost the production of certain crops. This will help us, in the future, provide more food to the world.

Tom:              Okay. Let's change the subject just a little bit, over to another field that I know you're interested in: nutrigenomics. This is also a big Alltech field, the study of how nutrition naturally influences gene expression. How does that play in public perception? Have you come up against public perceptions about nutrigenomics? Is it understood?

Richard:         Yes, nutrigenomics is essentially the study of the influence of nutrients on gene performance. Sometimes you get a question of, "Well, is this GMO? Is this editing?" et cetera, et cetera, and it's very quickly clarified that it's not. Nutrigenomics is literally transcriptomics; it's the study of gene expression. What we typically do is we take a material or a product and we look at how it influences a plant's response, or, in our animal science, we look at how it influences the genetic response of animal genetics. In our crop science, now, we're studying nutrigenomics as a way of helping alleviate diseases, helping boost the performance of crops and helping understand more about some of the problems that drought, flooding, various environmental stresses are putting on agronomic systems.

Tom:              So, by using this tool, the producer can fine-tune feeds or fertilizer, whatever it is, being given to the plant or the animal to have a desired result?

Richard:         Absolutely. I suppose the way we usually summarize it is that we look at the genetic potential of a particular organism. Let's say we're looking at carrots. The carrot, in its normal agronomic environment, is going to be subjected to many stresses. Some of these stresses include drought; it could be overload of fertilizer; it could be disease. What we aim to do with our technology, with our transcriptomic capabilities, is assess the genetic performance of that carrot, in this case, and see what we can do to help bring optimal performance to those genetic mechanisms that help bring it back up, to help recover that yield for a producer.

Tom:              Okay. Earlier, we talked on citrus greening, which has hit Florida pretty hard. Another one that I know that you have touched on is black sigatoka, which has been plaguing banana producers in Costa Rica. If you could first describe what that disease is and the implications for producers.

Richard:         Yes. Black sigatoka is a problematic fungal disease. Because bananas are monocultures as well, they're farmed using asexual means. They tend to be genetically bottlenecked. They don't have a diverse kind of crossbred genetic repertoire to help them adapt very quickly to diseases. Diseases like black sigatoka are particularly problematic for banana-producing regions. So, black sigatoka, as I mentioned, is a fungal disease. It infects the leaf tissue of bananas and eventually makes its way to the rest of the plant. If it's untreated or uncontrolled, essentially, what happens is it can wipe out hectares of bananas, in a severe instance of that particular disease pressure.

Tom:              The approach to fighting it has been to apply lots of chemicals, perhaps several times each month, at a pretty high cost to producers. Are you investigating natural alternatives to chemicals?

Richard:         We have a team currently working in Costa Rica: Patrick Becker and Kyle Mckinney. They’ve been introducing a program using some of our agri-solutions. They've been swapping out fungal pesticides with one of our products.

                        What they have found is that they're able to maintain plant growth with reduced pesticide application. In some cases, this can be reported to be up to a 20–30 percent reduction. We're currently working on pushing it past that. So, I started working with Kyle and Patrick in the last six months or so, and what we are attempting to do now is to look at what underlying mechanisms the plant is utilizing to help it battle back against the black sigatoka. We were tasked, as well, last year by Dr. Pearse Lyons to build a banana [gene] chip, which we've done within our research department. This gene chip can help us assess the activity of the banana genome under the treatment of our applications.

Tom:              As a scientist, how can we communicate scientific discovery in a way that fosters consumer understanding? We talked about that disconnect earlier and, again, even excitement and hope.

Richard:         It's such an exciting area. These technologies, whether we like to admit it or not, are already here; they're already being produced. Gene-edited crops are going to be rolled out across the world. Some of the other technologies, they're going to do incredible things for agriculture and for food production.

                        We think probably the biggest downfall for scientists is they're very insulated — they're stuck in their own bubble, in their own worlds — and how should I say it? We tend to dissect all of our own information and share it amongst ourselves. When we do share it, we probably make the mistake of overcomplicating the information.

                        So, I think the main thing scientists could do to try and bring further knowledge to the public surrounding these applications is address them in a friendly manner, in a non-technical manner, and break it down in the simplest form. That's not to say people are stupid or anything; it's just that the technical understanding might not be there. But to slowly break down the different aspects of these technologies and just show them that there is no real risk to these things — and any of the risks that people have, we can assess them, and we can show that they're not true issues to worry about.

Tom:              Before we close, I'd like to touch on something interesting about you, Dr. Lally. I understand that you joined Alltech through the Alltech Young Scientist program after winning the event's global prize in 2016. Correct? Two questions for you: What was your work that was recognized by the award of this prize, and what's your message to next crop of Alltech Young Scientists?

Richard:         Thanks very much, Tom, for those questions. I joined Alltech following the Young Scientist competition. It was my first time in the United States. Actually, I came to Kentucky as a finalist for the global competition. At the time, I was studying in the Institute of Technology Carlow. I was looking at a group of microorganisms called plant growth promoting bacteria. The particular isolates I was working with were Pseudomonas fluorescens. These organisms, they exist naturally in nature. They co-evolved with plants over millennia. The organisms have the ability to do wonderful things to help benefit plants the same way that the human growth or the animal growth organisms would symbiotically benefit from one another.

                        So, my project was looking at the application of these microorganisms in agronomic settings. We did some work with comparative genomics, and we looked to some of the traits that these microorganisms used to help promote plant growth. I suppose, fundamentally, these organisms in these applications have the ability — or definitely have the potential — to reduce the agricultural import of synthetic chemical fertilizers, which we would hope would help reduce the environmental impact of crop agriculture.

Tom:              And your message to young scientists?

Richard:         I suppose, to the young scientists this year — I had the pleasure of meeting them all just yesterday — be clear, present the data, back up the data with further evidence and tell some kind of story. Make your message interesting. Again, it's all about that communication to the wider audience, how can you get that technical information across without confusing everybody in the room.

Tom:              Dr. Richard Lally, thank you so much for your time.

Richard:         Thank you very much. It's a pleasure.

The building blocks of plant health and yield don’t start at the ground level; they actually begin underground, in the very material that ends up becoming soil. All healthy soils have three essential components: optimal nutrient availability; good biodiversity; and a balanced structure, with higher levels of organic content.

Plentiful and available nutrients

Healthy soils have a plentiful supply of minerals and other essential nutrients, as well as a balanced pH, making them readily available for uptake by the plant and offsetting mineral depletion by returning minerals to the soil though fertilization and decomposition. Factors like temperature and pH can greatly vary and reduce nutrient availability. In highly acidic soils, for example, phosphorus and calcium availability is poor, while nutrients like iron and copper are less available in soils with high alkaline levels. 

Maintaining biodiversity and building a strong biome

High-performing soils have a vibrant population of insects, worms and microbes. A strong microbiome is a miniature environment that harbors little to no pathogens and, instead, is rich in beneficial organisms that promote root and plant growth. Certain crop practices — such as heavy tilling, depending on soil needs — can have a harmful effect on soil biodiversity, resulting in the loss of these organisms and their myriad benefits and potentially allowing pathogens to get a foothold. 

Balanced soil profile

Balanced, silty soils with high organic content combine good aeration with excellent nutrient and water retention, requiring fewer costly inputs. Sandy soils may be well-aerated but can find it more difficult to retain water or nutrients. Clay soils, on the other hand, may be able to store more water and nutrients but are poorly aerated. Generally, a low organic content means that the soil is, overall, less fertile.

Healthy soils are beneficial to growers and lead to more efficiently grown crops. During the growing season, plants are susceptible to disease pressure and encounter various environmental stressors, such as heat, frost and drought — all of which could reduce plant potential and yield. Healthy soils, however, can minimize the effects of these stresses and mitigate potential stress-induced losses. These well-balanced soils are rich in organic matter and can provide much of the nutrition the plant needs, limiting inputs and their associated costs while increasing sustainability and profitability for the grower. 

Healthy soils are more environmentally sustainable, and they also represent a valuable revenue-generating asset — not only for current growers, but also for their successors. 

If your soil isn’t meeting this criteria for optimization, learn more about improving your soil health at www.alltech.com/crop-science.

I want to learn more about improving my crops and soil health.

The following is an edited transcript of Nicole Erwin's interview with Dr. David Magana. Click below to hear the full audio:

Nicole:           They’re among the biggest issues facing fruit and vegetable production in the 21^st century — how are the most innovative producers tackling challenges like disease and consumer demand? We have those questions and more for Dr. David Magaña, vice president and senior analyst with the Rabobank RaboResearch Food and Agribusiness Group. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Magaña.

David:             Thank you for having me.

Nicole:           The good news for fruit and vegetable producers is that the rise in global income — and the growing middle class in developing countries — is leading to increased produce consumption. However, you have identified a complex convergence of challenges with sustaining year-round growing demand. Can you elaborate on those challenges?

David:             Yes. As many people know, one of the main challenges for the global food system is to feed the world — which has a growing population. By 2050, we're going to be above nine billion people. What’s more important is that the global middle class is growing; recent projections by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) show that, by 2030, more than five billion people are going to be classified as middle-class. That has an even bigger impact on the food system, as food perception and food purchases are to be modified not only by increasing population, but also by increasing price. We are faced with a challenge to be a better fit in the world. We also need to take care of the largest resources, such as water. People are asked to allocate perhaps less water to agriculture in some regions. They also want producers to deliver perfect quality in food but, at the same time, use less chemicals and less pesticides.

                        They want us to have perfect quality year-round. At the same time, they want more local product, and that is difficult to offer in some regions. We need trade to diversify the growing regions and to have year-round supplies. They want convenient products, but they want also less packaging, less garbage and less plastic in the oceans. They want to keep prices reasonable in the face of increasing labor costs and increasing regulations. That is one of the main challenges for the food system: to have more to offer the world but, at the same time, meet all these expectations.

Nicole:           There’s this really interesting, ironic twist going on here; that rising middle class in the developing world would seem like a great thing — and it is — but at the same time, it's applying pressure to the ability to meet rising demand.

David:             Yes, it is. We see this increase in [the] middle class particularly in Asia. By 2030, it’s projected that the two-thirds of the global middle class will live in the Asia-Pacific region. An interesting number is that, every year, more than 100 million people leave poverty to become middle-class. That will have a huge impact on food choices and on food perception. They normally demand inexpensive carbohydrates, but they're shifting to more animal protein, dairy and fresh products and even more organic products and functional foods.

Nicole:           People like you understand this, but do you think that the world grasps this change, that's coming fairly quickly?

David:             Well, that's a challenge because, as people increasingly live in more urban settings, many people don't understand where food is coming from. That is also a challenge — just to educate older people to know where that food is coming from and what that represents for the environment, for example.

Nicole:           Dr. Magaña, you have quite a bit of experience in understanding agricultural market integration under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). What does your past research in fresh fruit, vegetable markets and food security tell you about how the global markets respond to free trade?

David:             When we have free trade, we are allowed to better face the year-round demand. For example, in the U.S., a few decades ago, we could only consume fresh strawberries or avocados a few weeks out of the year or, perhaps, only during the summer months. But now, given this advance in trade and logistics, we have year-round supplies because we can rely on supplies from Mexico, for example.

As a matter of fact, Mexico has become the biggest exporter of fresh vegetables in the world. The main market is obviously the U.S. So, trade is an important trend in fresh fruits and vegetables, and proximity is key, since we are dealing with perishable products.

Nicole:           What could be the consequences to agriculture of the U.S. pulling out of NAFTA?

David:             Well, that's an interesting question. We just released a piece of research in the RaboResearch group that addresses that question. NAFTA has been in place for the last 24 years, and they have been trying to reach a new agreement for the last eight months. Just remember that one of the objectives of renegotiating NAFTA was to have a more equilibrated trade between the U.S. and, especially, with Mexico. If the U.S. will settle NAFTA, we could see fewer imports from Mexico, especially in durable goods. That decrease in the level of trade would have a significant economic impact in the Mexican economy. Our macroeconomic research team expects that, if the U.S. pulls out of NAFTA, the Mexican peso could depreciate up to 20 percent.

Nicole:           Wow.

David:             With that depreciation rate, the U.S. would be charging a Most Favored Nation tariff — or MFN — that is quite low for fruits and vegetables. The U.S. market for fresh fruits and vegetables relies heavily on supplies from Mexico. The U.S. has a low MFN — just one digit.

                        Just to give an example, avocados are about 4 percent the MFN tariff that the U.S. would be imposing if NAFTA is no longer in place. For strawberries and blackberries, the tariff is close to zero. Tomatoes and peppers, cucumbers, are around 5 percent. So, we could see that the expected Mexican peso depreciation could more than compensate for that MFN tariff. In that scenario, we could actually see higher U.S. imports of fresh produce from Mexico.

                        On the other hand, U.S. exports to Mexico and Canada would be facing a double hurdle: one is the stronger dollar, since a Canadian dollar depreciation is also expected, and two, Mexican MFNs are quite high. Mexican charges to countries without a free trade agreement would be two digits. For example, for apples and pears, the MFN is 20 percent; for potatoes, up to 75 percent.

                        In the case of a NAFTA breakup, we could see an increased level of U.S. imports from Mexico and Canada — and a decreased level of exports, which would lead to even more imbalanced trade. This is kind of counterintuitive, due to the currency depreciation. Contrary to what many people expect under this scenario, we could see that big winners of this could be U.S. consumers of fresh fruits and vegetables and, also, packers and shippers that rely heavily on supplies from Mexico. Among the losers would be U.S. producers that compete seasonally with Mexico and Canada, as well as packers and shippers that rely solely on domestic supplies.

Nicole:           Jobs could be lost.

David:             Probably.

Nicole:           The U.S. has had a history of ups and downs in immigration and labor. We won’t go into the political issues, but is technology stepping in to alleviate this challenge in some ways? We hear a lot about robotics on the farm, that kind of thing.

David:             That is an increasingly challenging aspect of production, especially in the produce subsector, since they’re more labor-intensive than other crops — corn or soy beans, for example. As some players in the industry say they have made some progress in mechanizing harvesting, others say that there is still a long way to go. When we meet with our clients in Mexico, they say that one of the biggest constraints they have is with labor. If that happens in Mexico, imagine what that means in the U.S. Remember that Mexico is still a developing country. As more opportunities arise, we will see less labor availability.

                        The growth rate of the population of Mexico is expected to decrease in the next few years. For example, a few decades ago, families [there] had six or eight children; now, they have just two, similar to families in the U.S. So, we certainly expect that labor is going to continue to be an important constraint for the produce sector, and mechanization is a necessity.

Nicole:           Regarding per-capita consumption, data shows that Americans are eating more fresh produce in the fresh-cut sector of the produce industry — now the fastest-growing segment. It's not unusual to hear of outbreaks of food-borne illness associated with the consumption of fresh produce. As this market continues to grow, our processors face increased challenges of meeting demand for variety and volume while also holding to the expectation that their produce is safe to consume.

David:             Yes. That's an important challenge. One way to solve this issue is to diversify the growing regions. For example, the recent outbreak in romaine lettuce in Yuma, Arizona, had a significant impact on the consumer perception of [the] food safety of fresh products. Another important factor is where that lettuce is produced. For example, this outbreak occurred when Yuma production was already in the final stage and production was moved to the coast — to the Salinas and Watsonville area. One way to meet the challenge is to diversify the growing regions and communicate the information of where the food was produced. Also, we obviously need to have better control and make improvements in technical aspects as well as food safety.

Nicole:           It becomes a communications issue, as you mentioned. In the case of, for example, Panera Bread Company, they had to make sure their consumers understood that the romaine lettuce in their Caesar salads, for example, came from Salinas.

David:             Yes.

Nicole:           That was a big communications undertaking. I don't know how successful it was, because I imagine a lot of people just said, “Okay, I'm going to have a different kind of salad right now.” What are the most innovative producers out there doing to tackle these kinds of challenges?

David:             Well, one way to do this is to continually improve barriers that they are using and also improve all kinds of technical aspects to make sure that we have proper food security.

Nicole:           Dr. David Magaña, vice president and senior analyst with Rabobank RaboResearch Food and Agribusiness Group. Thank you so much for joining us.

David:             Thank you for the opportunity.

I would like to learn more about improving sustainability and efficiency in my crop production!