The following is an edited transcript of Nicole Erwin's interview with Bill Northey, the USDA under secretary of agriculture. Click below to hear the full interview: 

Nicole:         I'm speaking with Bill Northey, under secretary of agriculture for the Farm Production and Conservation mission area. Bill, thank you so much for joining us.

Bill:               Great to be with you.

Nicole:         Your role at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is still fairly new, but your history with agriculture is quite extensive. Can you talk a little bit about the role the USDA played as a partner for you over the years — as a farmer, and as Iowa Secretary of Agriculture?

Bill:               Sure. I farm up in Northwest Iowa and have always participated in the farm programs. Farmers in the audience will know Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) — lots of acronyms in government agencies — but these are programs that help support farmers when prices break significantly lower.

                    I've been a participant in the crop insurance program, which is a program that is offered by the USDA through private insurers. I have always had crop insurance on our farm. Most events don’t trigger a loss, but when we do have one — and we've had a couple disaster years — it was critically important to allow me to have enough resources to be able to farm again the next year.

                    The conservation side of the USDA has been important as well. We do some cost-share programs, whether it's incentives for cover crops or other kinds of programs. I had the 10-year Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) on a grass waterway that goes through one of our fields.

                    So, there are several different pieces that I've been able to use. The last 11 years that I was secretary of agriculture in Iowa, we partnered extensively with the USDA. Half of the Department of Agriculture in Iowa is focused on conservation programs — soil conservation and water quality programs. We have 99 counties in Iowa, and we have offices in each county. Those county offices were shared with Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), with our state conservation folks and with local conservation folks.

                    We partnered well, and as technology changes, we talk about the kinds of things that will work on the new water quality programs. In fact, we changed the title of our Division of Soil Conservation to the Division of Soil Conservation and Water Quality as we increased efforts to look at reducing nitrate and phosphorous in our water, both in urban and rural areas. So, there are lots of opportunities to partner with USDA programs, and now we get the chance to look at some of those programs from the USDA point of view.

Nicole:         Right. Where do you hope to take this new department as a future partner for farmers in the ag industry?

Bill:               Well, certainly our charge from the secretary is a very customer-oriented USDA. My piece is the (USDA) Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service and Risk Management Agency. Those are the most customer-facing parts of the USDA. So, that's where farm programs, conservation programs and crop insurance are.

                    The secretary charged us with finding out what is working for producers out there or what needs to change. How do we be efficient, effective and customer-focused in what we're doing? We're going to be measuring customers’ attitudes toward the things that are happening at the office. We are already measuring workload analysis as we look to place people around the country in the 4,500 offices so that we understand the right places to put people.

                    We're looking at technology. We have a website called farmers.gov where we offer information. As time goes on, that will become a portal where users will be able to apply for or check up on programs as well. There are opportunities for folks to use our county office, but if they're sitting in a tractor waiting for a truck to come and pick up a load, they can also possibly report on the program activities or check out activities with USDA programs.

                    There are lots of opportunities to be more customer-focused — to be more customer-oriented. We've got to discover what that means, and that's going to be different between Maine and New Mexico, between Mississippi and Montana. We have to understand the most needed services and how we're doing.

Nicole:         The customer experience feels like a new concept with the ag department. Did you ever feel, as a farmer, like a customer? How do you tie those two together?

Bill:               You always do, somewhat. I think the engagement, to the degree that there is now, is certainly a step up. I'd argue, as you look at our county offices, those are the folks that people think of when they think of the USDA. They don't think of some under secretary who’s a thousand miles away.

                    They think of the folks in their county office. They know the operation. They know which programs work for them. Maybe we didn't define or measure customer service at that time, but everybody knew that you could depend on your staff there in those county offices.

                    As time has gone on, we burdened them with a lot of paperwork as we “dumped” new programs on them and have given them lots of opportunities to find other programs that will help people. It creates a complexity that takes them away from some of that customer service.

                    We're trying to understand the approach that business has taken toward customer service. A lot of folks say that banks, a long time ago, understood that there was a customer service aspect, and then some lost that. Now they're refocusing. Government hasn't always focused on it, either. Certainly, that's a desire of United States Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue and especially for the mission area that I have responsibilities for.

Nicole:         Innovation and being wirelessly connected is also critical to this industry. How do rural farmers fare with staying connected, and what are some of their barriers? Any idea how the U.S. compares to other countries in this arena?

Bill:               Certainly, we have some areas with a lot of connectivity, and folks are able to use their GPS on their tractors and have high-speed internet at their farms. We have a lot of areas that don't. Others have better numbers of exactly how we sort out what those speeds are and how we compare to some other places, but we can drive across this country and you can be in a fairly populated area where your cell phone coverage drops off — where there isn’t good high-speed internet.

                    That is, as you say, increasingly important because so much of the technology we use now needs to be able to connect. We have livestock buildings that constantly report to farmers via their phones what the temperature is, whether the feeders are full, whether the water is working or the fans are working.

                    I just had somebody send me a Snapchat last night of him on his planter. Seven monitors in that planter cab are all doing different things. Of course, his feet were up because the tractor was driving itself across the field. He was able to Snapchat me in his field, planting soybeans — he has to have a signal to do that, and that information is likely being constantly uploaded to a computer back home, or maybe even to a report showing his planting progress to his crop insurance agent or, eventually, to his Farm Service Agency (FSA) office as well.

                    We have some real needs in broadband. That's a focus of some parts of the USDA. The secretary has been very engaged in that. Rural development is the arm of the USDA that probably focuses the most on that, but it's going to be increasingly important, and we have a long way to go to catch up to where we need to be.

Nicole:         Crop insurance is also a vital safety net. You mentioned that, using it as a farmer yourself and operating in an increasingly unpredictable environment. From what I hear during my interviews with farmers, current payouts don't account for conservation practices and risk management. How does the lack of data and ability to connect with Wi-Fi and be wirelessly connected affect the ability for insurance to account for the effectiveness of risk reduction?

Bill:               It's a challenge to rate risks appropriately. If you have a large amount of crops and they're all treated the same way, it's pretty easy to do it. For the most part, we're able to do that with our larger crops very easily. When you have smaller acreages, when you have a lot of variability in value, particularly with specialty crops — you look at an apple crop, and some of it goes to a fresh market and some of it goes to a processed market, and the production techniques vary — to make sure folks are doing things that raise a crop appropriately and not trying to abuse the crop insurance program, you've got to be able to have some oversight in what's going on. You've got to be able to rate it all properly.

                    With the technology changes in conservation right now — cover crops or other kinds of good conservation practices — if not done right, can actually put the crop production at risk. For example, can cover crops increase yields? I believe they can. I use cover crops on my farm, and I know a lot of folks that do. It can also add risk if you use cover crops in a dry production area and you don't get them terminated in time before that next crop; you take moisture away. How crop insurance is able to get the information that best represents what's happening and can show that good practices were used — to say, “Yes, there was a loss, but good practices were used” — and able to test all those practices over time is a challenge.

                    I believe technology is going to help us as we report more of those practices and we're able to rate those to a greater degree and compare those with yields as well. It's a challenging time, but we have more and more tools to address those challenges as well.

Nicole:         Do you feel like cover crops became less of a conventional method in agriculture, and is that kind of coming back now?

Bill:               There probably was a time, certainly before we had some of the tools we have today, that cover crops were generally used. We went away from that, and we do see it coming back. In Iowa, we encourage cover crops to a large degree because of water quality, and there's a significant improvement to water quality. You don't lose as much soil to erosion — phosphorous issues.

                    Also, nitrate is held in the soil longer during that time when the crop is not growing in the spring. Farmers are really adapting them because of control in erosion — being able to build soil health, feel of tilth, and being able to build organic matter as well. In Iowa, we have grown in the last six or seven years from about 50,000 acres of cover crops to over 600,000 acres of cover crops. We do see some real advancement of cover crops in some areas, certainly in the Midwest and in places that were previously low on cover crops.

                    We see it in lots of other areas as well. People are innovative. We're getting some new genetics in some of those cover crops — letting them grow a little bit better in cold weather, which allows them to not be so competitive against the crop but very competitive against the weeds. There are a lot of opportunities to increase the amount of cover crops with all the benefits that creates, not only for production, but the off-site benefits as well.

Nicole:         Where do you see public-private partnerships playing a role in programs like the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)?

Bill:               It's a great program. Not only as the (former) Iowa secretary of ag, but also within USDA as well, we look at it as the only way we're really going to scale up the amount of conservation that is needed is not with a larger amount of new public dollars. It is by engaging folks the right way so that we can bring those private partners into the mix as well.

                    The Regional Conservation Partnership Program is a program that helps encourage partners to work with a program that generates federal dollars and brings partners to the programs. We have them all over the country. I visited several in other places besides the ones that I'm very familiar with in Iowa. It has brought thousands of partners across the country together. It has brought tens, maybe even hundreds, of millions of non-federal government dollars into those partnerships — private dollars. Organizations — farm organizations, non-farm organizations — have been a part of it. Certainly, state governments and local water conservation and water quality agencies have been a part of it. It is a great program.

                    There are some things that Congress is looking to adjust. RCPP came out of a program called the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Because it came out of EQIP, RCPP requires a certain amount of paperwork to make sure that you prove folks are spending the money the right way.

                    We can have more flexibility if it's funded on its own. It will still be oriented toward the right kinds of projects. It will still bring partners, but it will actually allow for more efficient management of those dollars, as the reporting requirement can be better. Congress is trying to address that, and I think that will be very helpful. I think that program will absolutely grow in the future.

Nicole:         There are a lot of people watching the EQIP program.

Bill:               There are, absolutely. It's a great program — our most popular program. RCPP, as a spinoff from that, is probably one of the other most popular programs.

Nicole:         Big data in farming is also growing. I dare say that there isn't a John Deere tractor or any other major distributor with a machine coming off a line that isn't readily connected to the cloud. While the information that can be shared offers greater weather predictability, precision and pesticide and fertilizer application, it also tracks productivity.

                    There have been reports that farmable land is getting sold off in lieu of sprawl. How does value-added information help farmers argue that land is more valuable in production than out, and what scenarios could you see where this might play out in the future?

Bill:               I think we are able to capture some of that transition. We're not always able to capture it, but we can capture it in several different ways. One way is through the technology in tractors. The other way is measuring program sign-up and whether people have crop insurance. Once you convert land to housing, you don't have crop insurance anymore. We're able to look at some of that participation rate in some of these programs.

                    We do have to try to keep good land around our cities. In fact, many of our cities are built on the easiest land to build houses, which is often highly productive farmland. We need to protect that. We have programs at the USDA in which some of our states or private entities will partner. They have easements in which a farmer who is in the path of development will sell off development rights and continue to farm the land. The farmer is paid a portion of the difference between development rights and farming, and the property is guaranteed not to be developed. We keep those areas in open spaces — we keep that agricultural initiative going in that area, and most of the time, the folks that are in the development around that space really appreciate having it. It's important productivity-wise. It's important for the viewscape that folks have. It's important, in many cases, for water quality. Although we have challenges in our ag land, we have more challenges in our urban areas with water quality issues as well. So, the right mix is important to retain.

Nicole:         For a farmer who might be up against something like development, what program would you advise them to look into?

Bill:               The easiest place to start is with their county service center. There is a USDA Service Center in every county. The program is called the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). We offer it out of the USDA, and not every state participates, and every region has the local dollars that are required for matches, but the folks in your county service center would know.

                    There are probably some programs outside the USDA that allow folks to address that ability to keep land in agricultural production, even though they would like to get some of that extra value — sometimes it's because of farm heirs or sometimes it's the transition from one generation to another, or other reasons you need to generate some dollars — you just don't want to lose the fact that it's a farm.

Nicole:         A farmer who has this technology compared to a farmer who doesn't has a significant upper hand when it comes to negotiating sharecropping or renting land. For instance, the farmer who has the tech can go to the landowner and say, "I can produce X amount on this land and for this profit," whereas the farmer who hasn't tapped into the cloud might not be able to argue production rates as well. How do you balance some of these larger farmers who can afford the tech with the owners who aren't tapped into cloud technology?

Bill:               Technology comes at us lots of different ways. Some of it is very size-oriented, so it's much easier to afford on a planter tractor covering 4,000 acres than one covering 400 acres because the cost is nearly the same to put the technology on a tractor. There are some non-size neutral impacts. Now, buying seed that has some technology on it is often just as easy for a smaller producer as it is for a larger producer. Some of our technologies are not as size-sensitive.

                    There are lots of reasons folks decide to rent to different farmers. We have some farmers who are smaller producers. They will talk about their ability to respond much more specifically to the land, to increase organic matter and maybe longer rotations. There are landlords who will say, "I'll take that even over a higher annual return from somebody else because I believe you're going to protect the land and you're going to do some positive things that are not only good for our neighbors that I can be really proud of, but also build the value of the land."

                    There are lots of decisions that go into deciding who you're going to rent to and who you're going to rent from. Technology plays into it. Not all technology is going to make a producer money. There's a lot of whiz-bang kind of technology that’s interesting to see, but does it create value? Boy, a lot of folks have figured out how to create value out of some of that technology.

                    We’re seeing it on smaller and smaller farms now as well — the ability to turn a planter on and off as it goes across point rows and angled fields. That is showing up on farms of 500 or 600 acres instead of just farms of 5,000 or 6,000 acres.

Nicole:         As these farmers are putting this information in the cloud, there's debate on who has access to that and who doesn't, and being able to protect that. But who's to say that ag companies using a compilation of this data won't one day decide to farm themselves?

Bill:               That could happen. There's a lot of tension out there over how much information is accessible. Most farmers are going to say they know some things that are not in that data, which will still limit the ability of somebody else to farm it. When it comes to caring for a farm with livestock or crop operations, there is nothing like the person living on the farm — the person who knows it.

                    They can wake up in the middle of the night and decide, "We're going to get some planting done tomorrow." Some of these farms don't operate really efficiently in a corporate structure where somebody is external or doesn't have the love of that land and grandpa's advice in the back of their head as they care for that land. I'm not sure how that's all going to play out.

                    We see some parts of agriculture that have really gravitated toward larger operations. The bulk of the operations across the country are still family-owned. Some of them are corporations. They'd look to transfer farming operations between generations, but for the families who are operating these farms, the decisions are made around kitchen tables. These are folks who feel that weight of earlier generations — that hope of younger generations and walking with them across that farm.

                    I tell you, they're going to be pretty competitive against any company out there that thinks there's a push-button that can operate from a thousand miles away and farm.

Nicole:         Just to switch gears a little bit here, China has reopened its market to U.S. beef. What direction is the USDA taking toward helping farmers implement traceability and systems that support hormone-free production, which is a requirement for U.S. export beef to China?

Bill:               We see some different criteria. For example, there have been changes in the soybean criteria — the amount of damaged crops that can go along with the soybean seed, or non-crop that can go along with the soybeans that we export. There's a constant effort that really happens in a different part of the USDA — and I'm not up to speed on all the other pieces — but there are constant efforts to come up with ways that help us increase exports. In some cases, there are extra requirements to do that.

                    Now, we also have a piece of the USDA saying the places where those requirements are not necessary will challenge those trade rules as well. We’ve certainly seen some of those from China from time to time or other places. We'll get into our discussions about whether those are fair trade rules or unfair trade rules, and we'll push back on those unfair trade rules.

                    In the meantime, you operate with the rules that you have for us to get more exports into China. There probably needs to be some traceability; certainly, we're seeing some of that finally grow again after not having access into China for way too long.

                    We had a few cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) over 15 years ago, and that kept beef out of the Chinese market for 15 years when everybody else had come back. It took way too long. We need open markets to be able to do it. They’re going to love the beef the U.S. producers produce if they get a taste of it. I think, in the long run, it will play out and we'll have our increases that we should have.

Nicole:         We have just a little bit more time, so I'm going to touch on a couple more things. Let's talk about the dairy crisis, which groups like Farm Aid are saying is a reminder of what happened during the 1980 farm crisis when as many as 2,100 farms closed a week. In Wisconsin, they're saying a farm closes every day and a half because of oversupply and low milk prices.

                    On the flipside, some economists would say that the U.S. open market system has allowed more efficient farms to succeed — those that have grown in size and adopted a more technical approach to the operation. Is that the future? Bigger, better and those that are more innovative will succeed, or can systems like Canada’s supply management offer a market alternative?

Bill:               It's a really challenging time right now in the dairy market. One of the challenges with milk is that you have to move it — cows produce milk two or three times a day and it needs to get on the road to a processing plant, either for milk, cheese, yogurts or other kinds of things. We're seeing some increase in exports, which helps take a little bit of that supply. We have some places where we do not have enough processing capacity right now, and we see some dumping of milk going on. Part of it is our producers of all sizes have gotten more efficient. Our smaller producers are producing more than they used to, and, certainly, our larger ones are as well.

                    It's a real challenge trying to get that right. For folks to quit that business, it has to be very unprofitable. They work so hard — you think it'd be a lot easier to drive them out of business — but these are folks who plan to be in this business, have the commitment to it, and take some real losses before they'll get out. It's a real challenge to not have so much pain for everybody out here.

                    I do believe they will continue to get more efficient at all sizes. We see technology helping some of our smaller producers where they're using robotic milkers and other kinds of things that allow them to be competitive against the labor cost of larger producers.

                    We have a margin protection program that was used a little bit by producers previously that just wasn't working, and Congress changed it. We're in the process of sign-up right now for those producers of a newer, improved margin protection program. Is that going to be the answer to all the problems? It is not. It's going to take a little bit of the edge off, but we do have to look at rebalancing the production and the demand.

                    It’s really up to Congress and others, but I doubt that we'll see a supply management program like Canada’s — although their producers might feel very good about it right now — they're abusing that program and dumping milk into markets that we used to have and that we would be competitive in if they weren't subsidizing that by charging their consumers a higher rate.

                    That's one of the issues out there in the trade discussions between the U.S. and Canada. Certainly, that has created some problems. If you're going to expand in Canada, you've got to buy quota. That means it's going to cost you more to buy quota than it will to buy the cows and build the barn. That's not a painless system, especially as young people try to get involved in the business.

                    There hasn’t been a magic solution. It's hard. Hopefully, more demand will be a part of that solution and then we won't have to lose many more producers, but some producers are at the place where it's just been too much too long. They don't have another generation coming in, and it's really hard to see. In some cases, some of those cows are going down the road and not going to another dairy.

Nicole:         You're talking about technology helping with some of these things, and gene editing — we’re hearing so much about that and the future of CRISPR technology in ag, from the Arctic apple to gene editing pigs for disease resistance. Did you ever imagine as a young boy on the farm that this would be the future of agriculture? Does this kind of science excite you or remind you of the precautionary principle?

Bill:               It excites me. I did not imagine it, not at all. When you look at some of the conversation around CRISPR — and I'm sure most of the listeners understand we’re talking about biotechnology. Being transgenic — actually taking a gene from another species and putting it into this species — is a different kind of technology than CRISPR, which is actually editing genes that are already there so that you can prevent an apple from browning, or allow an animal to be healthier, to avoid a disease or food safety issues.

                    It's almost mind-blowing to think of all the possibilities here, but an awful lot of those possibilities are ways that will make food safer, ways that we can care for our animals, our land and our plants to a better degree. We will be more productive with all the challenges that that brings as we talk about productivity. In a world that's growing and a world that expects us to care for our land and our animals in a better way, this technology is going to be very important to address some of those concerns.

                    It's also very democratic. It doesn't take a billion-dollar or million-dollar operation to make changes that will create improvements. So, rather than just being for our big crops, it will be available for smaller crops. It's kind of mind-blowing, again, to think about how it can all be used, but it certainly is a technology that we want to figure out how to use appropriately because it's going to be an important part of our future.

Nicole:         We've covered a lot, but nowhere near all the areas that ag touches. To wrap things up, what would you say you're most interested in seeing develop with the future of ag, from biofuels to biostimulant technology? What is the priority for you in your new role?

Bill:               The priority in my role is the customer orientation that we need to take the USDA in my farm production and conservation area — the ability to respond in a way that works for each producer no matter what their crop or livestock is; we need to be relevant. We need to be able to be responsive, but we also need to be efficient with taxpayer dollars when we do that.

                    I'm excited about the time that we're in, the opportunity for innovation, the entrepreneurship that there is in agriculture. Yes, we see growth in some of our larger farms, but we see brand new operations that are smaller: vegetable, specialty cheese operations, mushroom operations — there are just so many creative activities out there. They have always had challenges, and still do, but there are opportunities because we're able to market those products across a wider area – to produce those in a way that adds technology and uniqueness.

                    So, the specialty side of agriculture continues to grow with lots of opportunities for farms of all different sizes, different places, different families and different jobs, and whether they're part-time or full-time farming to find their place in agriculture. That also, hopefully, allows us to tell that story of how food gets to the plate and have folks appreciate agriculture and all the folks who help make it happen to be able to feed everybody every day.

Nicole:         Bill Northey is the under secretary of agriculture for the Farm Production and Conservation mission area. Thank you so much.

Bill:               Thank you. I appreciate it.

Bill Northey spoke at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference(ONE18). All presentations from ONE18 are now LIVE on the Alltech Idea Lab! Click the button below to view presentations for FREE after sign-up. 

As temperatures get warmer, our thoughts quickly turn to spending time outside, walking barefoot on the grass and enjoying lazy days on lawn chairs, sipping lemonade. Those daydreams are always colored by perfectly green grass.

How can you bring those dreams of a lush lawn to life this year? We have four tips for invigorating your lawnscape, many of them taken directly from a page in agriculture’s book.

It all starts underground

Farmers know the importance of soil testing to ensure that the soil and plants are getting the right nutrients to help their crops. While this practice is not widespread in the home lawn area, running a soil test in early spring can be a great tool to create a strong basis for a healthier lawn. Knowing what type of soil is in your lawn will guide you to plant a type of grass that is hearty for your geographical location, alert you to possible watering concerns due to your soil type and notify you what nutrients may be lacking in your soil.   

You should also aerate your soil to allow for oxygen to circulate around roots and break up any compaction. The type of soil in your lawn will dictate how often you should aerate.  Clay soils should be aerated at least once a year because they are prone to compaction.  Sandier soils can be aerated less often. 

Nutrition, inside and out

Once you know what kind of nutrients should be supplemented and have planted the appropriate turf mix for your lawn, you can choose what kind of fertilizer to apply. A good place to start is usually an NPK fertilizer, which is made up of nitrogen to encourage growth, phosphorus to aid in expanding the root system and potassium for plant vigor, like Alltech Crop Science’s amino acid-based Nature’s Basics®. By providing the soil and grass with essential nutrients that improve organic matter, stimulate growth and promote a healthier, more balanced plant, a home user can experience results similar to what growers around the world see in their crops. 

Trimming the verge

To maintain grass health and decrease competition from weeds, the rule of thumb is to not mow more than one-third the length of your grass blade. Cutting the grass too short can weaken the root system and leave the grass more susceptible to stress from drought and increased temperatures. Shorter grass also exposes areas in the ground where seeds can easily take root and thrive. Taller grass, on the other hand, will have a deeper, more developed root system with wider and thicker blades that help shade the soil and minimize water evaporation during times of high temperature. 

Dressing for the weather

In the late fall, it’s time to prepare your lawn for falling temperatures and provide a good starting point for the following spring. Apply a top dressing, spreading it in a thin layer over your lawn and working some of the material into your aeration holes. This will help encourage the decomposition of thatch and help keep the area from drying out due to winter weather.

These four simple steps can go a long way in transforming your lawn from simply average to a lush landscape that you can enjoy long after the fireflies have gone for the year. 

I want to learn more about how I can improve the look and quality of my lawn and garden with Nature's Basics^®

Almería in southern Spain is known as the “sea of plastic” due to the numerous greenhouse structures that cover the area. In fact, the agricultural area under plastic continues to grow in the province, currently reaching over 64,000 acres according to the latest report from Spain’s Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Food and Environment. 

The vast number of greenhouse acres in AlmerÍa enables agriculture to remain one of the fundamental pillars of the province’s economy. Its central location provides the additional benefit of being able to supply fresh produce to markets throughout Europe year-round.

The importance of healthy soil to maintain the viability of a greenhouse is evident in the care that growers in AlmerÍa have taken to increase organic matter and nutrient availability through the incorporation of manure and naturally based products.

Raquel Martinez, Alltech Crop Science sales representative, recently conducted a trial in one of the greenhouses in the region that routinely incorporates soil management practices. The customer was looking to maximize yield and profitability, while enhancing crop quality and plant health.  

“By incorporating the Alltech Crop Science products, an improvement in soil and plant health and nutrition was observed,” said Martinez, “which resulted in greater yield and improved fruit quality in terms of weight and color.

“The grower harvested more first-class fruit and noticed a decrease in second-class and rejected fruit,” she continued. “This translates into higher profitability for the grower.”

I want to learn more about the health of my soil. 

Having been in business for 42 years, the history of Yoshida & Hirata, a distributor of agricultural inputs, mirrors the path of the fruit and vegetable market in Brazil. The company, which services vegetable producers who supply big cities in the state of São Paulo, focuses on sustainability, transparency and professionalism. 

Founded by Makoto Yoshida and headquartered in Biritiba-Mirim in the state of São Paulo, the distributor is already being led by the second generation, with Yoshida’s three children included among the partners.

Alberto Yoshida presents during a crop science breakout session at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference

“Working with family is challenging,” explains Alberto Yoshida, Makoto’s son and partner in the company. “Currently, we are finalizing our corporate governance for the business, because we try to treat the history of Yoshida with professionalism.”

These values and the company’s positioning have been reflected in its numbers. Yoshida & Hirata already has branches in Mogi das Cruzes (São Paulo) and Ibiúna (São Paulo), representing a growth of more than 20 percent of its business.

“In the beginning, we only had one small store,” says Yoshida. “Currently, we have two branches and approximately 80 employees.”

Grocery store chains are investing more and more in the fruits and vegetables sectors, increasing demand and requiring growers to be able to answer questions on certification, origin and traceability.  With these points in mind, Yoshida emphasizes the use of biological products on crop production. The company has seen a large increase in the demand of products like those found in the Alltech Crop Science line.  

“It is clear that the use of alternative products is a growing sector, which shows a greater interest in the microbiology of the plant,” he says.

Yoshida also highlights that this type of crop care contributes to food safety.

“The final consumer is able to access information through the products’ traceability,” he adds. “Therefore, we try to produce vegetables in a very conscientious way.”

Have a question or comment?

Below is an edited transcript of Tom Martin's interview with Dr. Steven Borst, general manager of Alltech Crop Science. Click below to hear the full interview:

Tom:                            There are many interesting innovations, trends and developments happening in the world of crop science. And joining us for an update is Dr. Steven Borst, general manager of Alltech Crop Science. Thanks for joining us, Steven.

Steven:                        Thank you very much for having me.

Tom:                            Let’s begin with something everybody likes to talk about: the weather. Weather-wise, 2017 was devastating for a lot of the world. Are we going to continue to see a lingering impact on crop producers in 2018?

Steven:                        If we look at it from a global perspective, I would say we’d have to pick out a couple areas, or a couple climates, particularly. Yes, we saw major shifts and some major extremes with regard to tropical storms, tropical depressions and places experiencing drought. I believe I saw in the news the other day that  Cape Town, South Africa is going to run out of water — it’s the first major city to run out of water — this upcoming March. So, seeing those majorly impacted areas, absolutely that will resonate into other cropping systems.

                                    I think there's also a positive outlook, too, with regard to what we've seen in other areas. For example, particularly here in Kentucky, we had a very good cropping weather cycle pattern. We've seen some very good harvest yields with regard to specific crops in specific areas. In those impacted areas, particularly if we're talking about California, or if we’re talking about Florida, yes, there will be some carryover.

                                    Picking Florida just in general, we're going to see the impact from the hurricane (Irma) there. We’re going to see its impact, and we're going to see it, quite possibly, all the way through the supply chain with regard to orange juice and what that cost is going be to the consumer because of the impact that that hurricane had on citrus yields. So, I'd say, Tom, from our perspective, depending upon where specifically we would be looking, we’d be treating those impacted areas a little bit differently. But, nobody is more prepared than a farmer for what's going to occur. They're going to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

                                    I would say for 2018, that's exactly how we have to handle it. You have to handle each year that way. So, carryover effects versus what we produced last year, but the hope for this year is that it's going to be the year that we have a perfect weather pattern. It’s tough to predict the weather, as we all know, but there is going to be carryover in particular regions and areas that we've worked in, but we’re very hopeful for 2018. Very hopeful.

Tom:                            Let's go back and focus on Florida for a moment. I think we're referring to Hurricane Irma.

Steven:                        Yes. Hurricane Irma.

Tom:                            It rolled right up the peninsula, and it hit at a time when Florida citrus was already undergoing a disaster: “greening,” I think it's called. And you're engaged in some way with mitigating that issue. Can you talk about that a bit?

Steven:                        Sure. We’ll explain it in two parts: Citrus greening is caused by the Asian citrus psyllid. Liberibacter is the bacteria that is injected through the vector of the psyllid — the psyllid itself is a vector — and it has been impacting Florida citrus since it was first identified in 2004 or 2005. That disease has yet to have a specific cure identified for it.  I wait to see it on the nightly news quite often, but it's just kind of one of those issues you don’t hear about often, but that we probably should, since a lot of us eat and drink citrus or orange juice.

                                    From an Alltech perspective, we are focused on the growers down there. One of the longest-standing areas that we have worked in from a crop science perspective has been the state of Florida. We have been providing them with our solutions to increase their yields, increase productivity and increase quality. We’ve been witness to what those declines have been, particularly with regard to the yields that we see there. One of our Florida salesmen happens to be a citrus grower himself. So, it hits home — particularly when we see our longstanding customers impacted.

                                    With regard to the greening problem, we're continuing as a collective group, whether it’s a government agency or private companies such as ours, to try to come up with a solution for these farmers and for these citrus growers. To date, we don't have the “silver bullet” to combat this disease.

                                    The Liberibacter bacteria is currently unculturable. So, therefore, we can't work on areas to try to essentially get rid of it or mitigate it. Mitigation through proper nutrition and technology, such as what we're offering, is one of the areas that we're focused on. That ties into some of our research — the nutrigenomic research — that we conduct at Alltech. We’re looking at applying our technologies and solutions to the crop and seeing how that impacts the plant metabolically. We have seen some very favorable results by looking at it as a way to help the plant defend itself.

                                    So, that's been an area that's been a big focus for us from a research perspective. I was down in Florida last week with one of our close customers at their grower meetings and going through our research, sharing exactly what we're trying to do in trying to come up with a solution there. So, Tom, it’s a big area of focus for us, and that stems from (Alltech founder and president) Dr. Lyons essentially challenging us to come up with a solution. Regardless of what that challenge is, he's always trying to come up with a solution or a “recipe” for us to provide to our customers. So, it’s been a challenge. Our efforts are still ongoing. We’ve seen some very positive results with our technologies.

                                    Back to your question on Irma: What has happened is that we have a serious disease, and that has really impacted the citrus industry. I had heard last week that, actually, prior to Irma, citrus production was actually going to be above what it was the previous year. That would have been the first time since the identification of citrus greening. Then they were impacted by a hurricane —  Hurricane Irma — and they've lost product, in some areas, more than 50–75 percent of their crops.

                                    So, that's one of those areas where we were talking about seeing a residual impact. It's going to be detrimental. There’s a lot of work going into it from the government aspect, too, on proposals being offered and put together to combat things from a financial loss perspective. So, that’s an area that we're really monitoring. We’re really hoping that 2018 is the turnaround for us and that we can come up with something even more effective so that our producers can get through this tough time.

Tom:                            Even taking into account the challenges that the weather brought on last year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture says that farmers have harvested record crops, including soybeans, peanuts, canola, rapeseed and hops. As a global leader in crop technologies, what other causes for optimism are you seeing in the U.S. and around the world, for that matter?

Steven:                        Absolutely. I would say it's, again, those extremes in specific areas that will impact us. Overall, though, it was a very good year with regard to cropping systems. From our standpoint, from a technology standpoint, it's very exciting for us to see that, because a lot of the technologies and a lot of the groups that we work with and the advancement in technology — and that's not just to say technologies from crop inputs, but whether it’s computer systems or digital mapping — those advancements are really providing the farmer the opportunity to make very calculated decisions.

                                    Farmers are probably the world's greatest scientists, and they're always continuing to identify areas for improvement — if they can get one more bushel, get one more orange, increase production just one-tenth or one one-hundredth of a percent over the previous year’s production. So, technologies, and advancements in technologies, have really permitted those farmers to “play around” a lot more and to come up with solutions specifically tailored to individual challenges. 

                                    If we go back to citrus greening,  “Okay, how can I, even with this disease, increase the opportunity for us to increase quality or yield?” So, they're continuing to pick and play with programs, with technology, and to work with different companies and organizations in order to do that.

                                    It’s exciting because, when you see that openness to try new things, it permits us the opportunity to provide new things. And if we can provide new tools, and the farmer has more willingness to try those new technologies or be open to those new tools, we’re better able to assist them with those challenges.

                                    The larger and greater the crop from the previous year, the better. There's no complacency with regard to farming. It's always “How do I increase? How do I get better? Just because we have a record year this year doesn't mean that we're not going to try even harder next year.” It’s very exciting for us.

Tom:                            Many parts of the world are enjoying an era of economic growth at the moment. Would you say the biological crop industry is benefiting?

Steven:                        Yes. There is a benefit to the biological arena. I attended the first World Biostimulant Congress in Paris, France, when I first joined Alltech. It must have been almost six years ago. We just had the third congress this past year here in the United States. They’ve seen, quite possibly, one-, two-, three-, fourfold attendance and companies and other groups engaged in this arena. There is no question, from an agriculture perspective, that this new market is the forefront of where we're going to be in the future. Providing a technology to help stimulate the plant to do what it needs to do means looking at it from a more holistic perspective, which is now an area that's really on the radar with regard to a lot of the major companies.

                                    The big four major chemical companies that dominate the agriculture industry are also engaged in this shift, engaged in acquisitions and advancement in those technologies. It’s exciting to see the arena blossom, so to speak, and see other companies engage in that, obviously from a competitive standpoint. It causes all of us to be more competitive, to advance our technology, advance our growth and what we're trying to do for the farmer. I would say that competition breeds more success. I’m excited about that. It doesn't hurt, from an economic standpoint, that farmers have a greater willingness to try out and to experiment with those new things and new technologies.

Tom:                            Let's talk about biostimulants for a moment. For those who are not aware of what they are, if you could explain what they are, and also how they are used in crop development efficiency.

Steven:                        It’s a term that's been batted around a little bit, and it’s being batted around, I'd say, by regulatory bodies. The easiest answer is that it’s a technology that stimulates a biological process – hence, “biostimulant.” It can be misconstrued to some extent because a lot of synthetic chemicals, for example, a glyphosate herbicide, are developed to stimulate a response. That response just happens to be desiccation or death — growth regulators designed to simulate a response. I think the main difference would be that it's taking technologies, hormones, plant metabolites and other naturally occurring functions and then using those to stimulate a response that the plant might already be doing naturally.

                                    If I could use a specific example, when we incorporate a technology like one of our biostimulants and we apply that technology to stimulate that plant to defend itself against an impending attack, what we're doing is essentially priming that plant to be prepared for an attack so that it can then mitigate it.

                                    I think an easy analogy would be taking a vitamin C tablet to try to keep yourself from getting sick. We take that a little bit further with the research capabilities that we have at Alltech and evaluate the process from a metabolic perspective. We look and see “Okay, when you apply X, this is what happens.” By having those technologies — and we've developed those technologies from a longstanding commitment to research and innovation from a fermentation perspective, and even from a disease perspective. We apply that same technology to prime that plant or identify specifically what that hormone is and apply it.

                                    So, if I can come back to your original question: What is a biostimulant? It is a technology that’s more naturally derived and used to stimulate a plant response. It’s more of a holistic approach to that side of the crop business.

Tom:                            Are there any particular regions of the world where this is catching on more than others?

Steven:                        Yes. Latin America is a big area that's really caught on. With the regulatory frameworks and government bodies, a lot of countries — Spain, for example — have biostimulant regulations tailored around specifically what you're trying to achieve. So, regulatory frameworks can be a hindrance in some aspect, but they can be a guidance in others. We’ve been a little bit behind on that in some of the other countries — and I’ll throw the U.S. in that category, for specific purposes — but we're developing and working within those frameworks right now to make sure those guidelines are managed.

                                    If we have an established regulation, it's easy for us to adhere to and make sure that we're providing a technology that should be provided to the customer. Obviously, regulations are there to protect the consumer from companies that maybe don't have quite the ability to take advantage of that. So, it’s an area that, particularly in Latin America — Europe recently is going to have new regulations that are coming here in this upcoming year — permits them to take on that industry and allow us to then tailor our technology specifically to that regulation. I would say, to really indicate the early adopters, it would probably be Brazil. That's one of our most successful markets — Latin America and some of the European-specific countries.

Tom:                            Some of the experts we hear from are now predicting that the global biopesticide market is going to double within the next five years. What are biopesticides, and what's driving that growth?

Steven:                        A biopesticide is of a natural origin, a biological origin. It could be a bacterium. It could be a fungus. It could also be a material that is harvested from one of those specific examples. It is targeted specifically to the pest. That arena has really blossomed, and it is a part of the biological biostimulant arena. It has blossomed as a result of the competition that I was speaking about earlier. It also comes from the demand of the consumer to mitigate pesticide use, synthetic pesticide use, to mitigate what's going onto that crop, what's going into that system. A big driver of that is the consumer, but it also stems from a lot of the major players in the agricultural chemical industry getting involved and specifically making acquisitions or adhering to that call from the consumer and driving the business forward.

                                    At Alltech, we're really excited about that, and we have technologies we’re working on right now specifically for biofungicide applications. It's a longer framework with regard to the regulation, but it's an area that's a definite focus, particularly for the future of agriculture. It’s an area where we're going to continue to increase and continue to blossom with regard to the economic impact. The consumer, especially with social media and with the technology that we have today and everything at our fingertips, wants to know exactly what's going into that lettuce or that strawberry.

                                    So, it's just going to continue to grow from that aspect.

Tom:                            There was some press last year about the Cavendish banana being in trouble, and I know that Alltech has a project underway in Costa Rica. I'm not sure if that involves the Cavendish. Does it?

Steven:                        The Cavendish banana is a monoculture, and the concern there is Panama disease. From the standpoint of the Cavendish bananas, we're a part of research and innovation in the banana in Costa Rica — the banana production area down there. The challenge is that they're experiencing, similar to the citrus industry, a disease that's impacting them for which there isn’t an answer right now.       

                                    We’re continuing to work on a similar disease that impacts production: black sigatoka in Costa Rica. This is another project geared toward developing solutions, which was initiated by Dr. Lyons specifically, and from our customers, to help combat some of these challenges.

                                    We do work in the Philippines as well. It’s an area we’re trying to expand in and where they're seeing this disease that you're referencing there from the Cavendish side.

                                    So, we're continuing to look at ways that we can mitigate and, if possible, come up with the “silver bullet” through the research programs that we have going on there.

                                    Specifically, in Costa Rica, the banana production and the work we're doing down there has been a big focus for the Alltech Crop Science research program. It’s been an area where we're really trying to help producers to not only combat a disease, but mitigate their chemical use within a banana production portfolio.

Tom:                            What other developments and trends in crop science and farming appear to be especially promising right now?

Steven:                        I would say the digital aspect. We couldn't not identify the digital aspect: precision farming; the ability for tractors to specifically pinpoint how much individual plants need of a nutrient application; disease identification platforms; we were looking recently at being able to identify a disease before it's even present. I would say the digital area and digital computer technology side is an area that has really continually compounded over the years.       

                                    Precision farming, in general, the technology where we're identifying X amount of nutrients for X amount of plant is — to be honest with you — mindboggling to me. If you can go to a cornfield and individually treat a corn plant because of its own soil microclimate within and around its roots, that's the way that you're going to continue to grow yields and production. So that’s one particular area to keep an eye on.

                                    I would say on the regulation side, too, you're going to see a lot of different types of regulations. I think you're going to see a lot of different chemistries that we’re very comfortable with and have proven to be effective be eliminated as a result of regulations. We, as a company, have to make sure that we’re ahead of that and are able to come up with new solutions for when the farmer is going to need a replacement for a lot of those chemicals.

                                    So, I would say new chemistries, new technologies from that arena and technology in general, from a computer aspect, and precision agriculture.

                                    Water, that's another area that we need to be looking out for. As I referenced in the beginning, a major city is going to run out of water. Water-use efficiency: How do we use water more effectively, and can we provide technologies that can better enable that water-use efficiency? That’s an area that's going to be a very important area specifically for us to focus on and an area that we need to be continuing to watch. If we run out of water — I can’t imagine. It was not imaginable to me until I saw a news clip and I was blown away by it. But if you don't have water-use efficiency, then we lose a lot of the ability for the farmer to do what he needs to do.

                                    So, that's probably an area to really focus on.

Tom:                            One technology that you mentioned early in your response that really caught my ear is the ability, through digital technology, I assume, to anticipate disease. What is that?

Steven:                        The ability to identify a pathogen before it becomes a nuisance to the crop. A lot of diseases that we experience in cropping systems are already there. When they become a pathogen depends upon its growth cycle. So, being able to identify if I have a presence of a Rhizoctonia, for example, if I know that it’s there and I know the best way to mitigate that turning into a pathogen that’s going to impact my crop yields, that’s what I was referencing — being able to look at DNA, RNA or take a soil sample and identify specifically what's there and what groups of pathogens are prevalent, could provide the opportunity to take care of a challenge before it even arises.

                                    That’s one focus area – identifying specifically what’s in the soil. I believe the statistic is that we know about two percent of what's in the soil. We have the other 98 percent to identify with regard to the microbiome perspective, but we need more advancement in that arena. Being able to identify a pathogen, and when we should be concerned with the pathogen being present, is an area for a lot of focus and a lot of research with universities across the globe.

Tom:                            Another challenge that's been identified by the Alltech Harvest Analysis the past couple of years: mycotoxins detected in silage. What is going on in that area? What sort of research do you have underway?

Steven:                        Sure. Alltech’s mycotoxin management programs that we have in place are very successful programs in which we’re able to mitigate that from a harvested perspective. One of the areas that we're looking at on a crop science level is how we mitigate that issue on the front end. A healthy plant is better able to withstand a disease impact. One area that dovetails off of what the animal side of the business is doing is that we’re trying to identify specifically how our programs can mitigate that mycotoxin production from the start. As I mentioned, a healthy plant is better able to withstand disease. We look at tailoring our nutrition programs and tailoring our biological biostimulant programs to that specific crop to identify how we can we promote a healthier, more nutritious plant, in turn reducing the mycotoxin.

                                    Our success has been from post-harvest and being able to mitigate those factors. I'd say what's going on now is how we bridge all those facets — looking at it essentially from the seed to the silage. That’s one area that we've been working closely on with our colleagues from the animal side.  

Tom:                            Speaking of the animal side — we've been focused mostly on the crop side — but the majority of businesses in the Alltech family of companies are engaged in animal health and nutrition. Does your work within crop sciences have an impact on animal health and nutrition?

Steven:                        It's an interesting question. Before I joined Alltech, when I considered, for example, alfalfa or corn silage from an agronomic standpoint, I looked at quality and I looked at yield. At Alltech, when we look at alfalfa, we look at it from a milk-per-acre perspective, and that’s an interesting dynamic. Being an agronomic company that’s part of an animal company, we’re able to look at crops from a different paradigm. We’re able to tailor solutions, and we're building programs to provide a more efficient feed through the agronomic sector.

                                    We've looked at it from a dairy production standpoint when we incorporate our technologies in alfalfa grown for silage — for milk production, how we increase production from the field. I think it makes complete sense when you think of it and you hear it for the first time. “Okay, I see more milk by that cow eating better silage.” It’s just being able to go and talk to the animal scientists from a crop scientist perspective and work together on adding benefits through the feed. How do we increase that quality from the crops when that crop is in the field? I guess the short answer is, yes, we have developed nutritional programs or biological programs to increase that milk production, to increase that quality of silage.

                                    It’s an area that I think is fascinating to be a part of because, coming from the agronomic sector, I never would have thought about the animal side, and I would say it's probably the same vice versa. Usually, you stay within the lines with regard to what you're working on, and maybe there’s some overlap, but again, you typically just don’t think of that perspective.

                                    I would say a lot of the best ideas that we have in crop science have come from looking at the animal side and working together as one company. So, it’s been a big success for us.

                                    Also, we have the ability through some of the recent acquisitions made by Alltech and the growth of our animal feed business to provide an all-encompassing toolbox for our customer. We can go to a farm and deliver, not just feed, but crop inputs for that animal. The majority of farmers aren’t just growing corn, and they're not just raising pigs or working just from a dairy perspective — they’re encompassing a lot of different facets. We need to deliver an all-encompassing toolbox. The more we can deliver, the more value it is for the farmer and for the consumer. It’s a neat area to be a part of, and it’s nice to be a part of Alltech to be able to do that.

Tom:                            Steven, anything that we haven’t touched on here that you’d like to mention?

Steven:                        From a crop science perspective, it's been interesting to see the growth —and you reference the market — I think over the next five years, it’s going to be an exciting time —  not just for Alltech or Alltech Crop Science, but for the entire industry — with regard to regulation changes, with technologies that are being cycled through, with acquisitions and with the development of technology.

                                    Agriculture is exciting, and it’s continuing to evolve, and I would say that, from an Alltech Crop Science perspective, we're really excited to see where this goes. Our job as a company is to try to stay ahead of that and try to estimate where we see dips in the road and to try to combat a disease that we’re focusing on and be ahead of that threat.

                                    It’s going to be exciting to see a lot of projects come to fruition here in the next couple years. It’s an exciting time for agriculture and an exciting time for Alltech. I’m really looking forward to the next five years to come.

Tom:                            Dr. Steven Borst, general manager of Alltech Crop Science. Thank you so much.

Steven:                        Thank you.

Have a question or comment?

Companion animals have now become an extension of the family. It should come as no surprise, then, that many pet parents would say their pet’s nutrition is just as important as their own. They pay as much attention to the ingredients in their pet food as they do to the food they put on the dinner table. 

Superfoods make it into the doggie dish

Consumers are gravitating to “superfoods” that tout beneficial effects on the human body, and they want the same for their dogs and cats. Functional foods now starring in the ingredient lists of pet food include: 

• Blueberries: Identified as a source of antioxidants, they can be found in dry dog food. 
• Carrots: Known for having beta-carotene, they can be found as a principle vegetable ingredient in pet food and can be given as a treat to dogs in their raw or cooked form. 
• Pumpkins: In the fall, when we are all inundated with pumpkin and pumpkin spice products, even pet food is not immune. Pumpkin is a good source of soluble fiber with beneficial digestive properties.

Sustainability: Supporting a positive cycle of “good” for pets and the planet

Sustainability is a concept that has become increasingly important to consumers when thinking about their own food. They want to know not only how nutritious their food is, but also what practices were used to grow the vegetables and feed the animals that are nourishing their bodies. 

This concern extends to pet food ingredients and how the grains, vegetables and fruits (and superfoods) were grown.

From this standpoint, the management practices used on the farm are very important to the concept of sustainability.

When a plant is stressed, whether from environmental factors, disease pressure or micronutrient deficiency, it lacks the necessary ingredients to attain its peak performance. This can result in subpar yield, size, flavor and texture. Growers will invariably use synthetic products to try and combat these deficiencies. 

However, a more sustainable approach will incorporate the use of products that are naturally based, with substances such as amino acids that enable micronutrients to be more readily available to plants, increasing their ability to fight stressors. The plant becomes stronger, and, by using these natural products, growers also limit residues that could be left on the fruits and vegetables that go into the pet food. 

The process is cyclical. By using sustainable practices that protect the soil, such as cover crops, crop rotation and precision agriculture, growers create a more active soil microbiome filled with beneficial microorganisms that help provide micronutrients to the plants. These micronutrients, in conjunction with natural plant biostimulant products, improve a plant’s resistance to stressors and help the plant protect itself. This in turn decreases the need for pesticides and other synthetic products that leave residues in the ground, on the field and in the food.

Plants raised on healthy soils with the micronutrients needed for plant health, supplemented with naturally based fertilizer as needed, have increased nutritional value. Meanwhile, these farming practices also improve the environmental footprint of the crop itself so you can be confident that your pets’ food is not only good for them, but for the planet, too. 

By Pinelopi Williams

The ability for a plant to reach its highest genetic potential begins before the seed is even planted. Modern seed technology is providing growers with the best and most advanced options to boost their production potential. Growers who combine sustainable management practices and the use of naturally-based solutions rich in nutrients and amino acids can provide an excellent platform for taking full advantage of these “super seeds,” ensuring seed growth and improving plant health.

Planting deep roots

The amount of water and nutrients present in the soil at planting will help provide the foundation for deeper plant rooting. The availability of water below the soil’s surface offers the new roots the ability to push deeper into the soil and expand more widely, unhindered by compaction. Well-nourished soil that is rich in organic matter also aids in deeper rooting. This increased root volume can help a plant during difficult conditions, such as drought or seasons of rapid temperature changes, and aid in maintaining plant productivity.

A well-established root system is essential because it allows for a better stand in the soil and improved water and nutrient absorption from what is present in the soil. The production of plant hormones that are essential in the development of not only the root system, but the entire plant, is another key benefit of improved rooting. 

Providing plants with the right nutrients at the right time

The application of amino acid-based products and critical nutrients throughout the growing season can help plants better react to stressors during key developmental phases when productive potential is being defined. Providing the plant with the right nutrients at the right time and in an easily accessible form promotes a decrease in the effects of environmental and other stressors, as well as an increase in plant vigor. In turn, more of the plant’s energy is put towards production.

The ultimate objective for any grower is to maximize yield potential. Today’s more natural approach to plant management can achieve this while also benefiting plant health and environmental resistance. 

Have a question or comment?

The following is an edited transcript of Luther Andal’s interview with Dr. Kyle McKinney, development manager for Alltech Crop Science’s Central America and Caribbean regions.

Luther:                        Dr. Kyle McKinney joins us for a conversation about new ideas in sustainability. Dr. McKinney is now working in Costa Rica as Alltech Crop Science’s development manager for Central America and the Caribbean. Thank you for joining us.

Kyle:                            Thank you for having me.

Luther:                        Kyle, you moved to Costa Rica recently. Why?

Kyle:                            Yes. I moved nearly two years ago. We had a specific project in mind focused on disease in bananas. Bananas are the number one fruit consumed globally and the number four crop grown globally. And there’s a disease that will wipe out 50 percent of bananas worldwide if left untreated.

                                    So, our approach in our crop science — Alltech Crop Science — is to look at using natural alternatives to pesticides or natural alternatives for plant nutrition. So, we develop technology that would complement synthetic chemicals (fungicides and pesticides), allowing us to reduce those chemicals and slow the disease spread in bananas in Costa Rica.

Luther:                        Can you tell us more about what’s going on in Costa Rica?

Kyle:                            Sure. Costa Rica, in general, is the fourth- or fifth-largest producer of bananas and the number one exporter of pineapples. The climate is perfect for disease: disease in the soil, disease in the air. And Costa Rica gets hit hard sometimes on their use of chemical pesticides. But, due to the disease opportunities, they have to fight these diseases to maintain their fruit production and exports. So, they’re looking for help and they’re reaching out.

                                    One of the great things is that Costa Rica’s producers want to look at alternatives and they want to look into the future. They know the use of chemical pesticides as used today and as used in the past will not be part of our future. Producers in Costa Rica are very interested in new technology, what we have to offer and the idea that a company would send someone to help. In addition to myself, we have another colleague who came from Kentucky to Costa Rica to work on his Ph.D. at the University of Costa Rica. We also built a microbiology laboratory.

So, when we talk about this Costa Rica project, there’s often a joke that I packed my suitcases with fermenters and took those down to Costa Rica, but it’s a unique setup that we have. By having that lab there, we can respond quickly to the producers. They appreciate that, and it’s a good working partnership.

Luther:                        You referenced the disease that is endangering the banana crop there. Can you give us a little more information? What its name is, how does it affect the banana crop? Is it a danger to the bananas around the world?

Kyle:                            Sure. It’s called black sigatoka. It’s a fungal disease. It’s spread in the air. The climate of Costa Rica keeps cultivating this fungus and it spreads. It gets onto the leaves and causes the leaves to rot away — cell death of the leaves. When you buy the banana, a third of that cost is coming from the treatment of this disease. It’s made it difficult for small banana producers to stay in business because of the cost of keeping the disease away. We would lose 50 percent of the plants if we did not have the constant application of these chemicals to keep the disease from spreading.

                                    So, it can be maintained, but the question is: How do we maintain it in a more naturalway using alternatives? That’s really the goal — not just in Costa Rica, but across the world: utilizing more natural resources. Microbes, for example. That’s a big part of what we do in crop science: utilizing microbes in the soil and microbes being applied to plants to stimulate growth, for example.

                                    Costa Rica has been fighting this particular banana disease for 30 to 40 years, and they do the job of maintaining and holding the disease from spreading. They do that by monitoring constant application —

Luther:                        Given the fact that black sigatoka is costly to maintain — meaning, to hold back — because of pesticides, what are you researching that could offer hope for the future?

Kyle:                            We’re looking at some of our technologies that have favorable enzymes produced from a bacteria fermentation. So, these enzymes, once applied to the soil or applied to the leaves, will attack the fungi from the disease and break that fungi cell wall down, and we see a reduction of the disease.

                                    It’s working in the same sense that pesticides work. Pesticides have been engineered to break down the cell wall of the fungi. We also see opportunities to induce this plant to produce its own self-defenses. For example, when the plant has the fungi on it, it’s releasing compounds as it tries to remove the disease. What if we look at ways to cause these compounds to be released prior to this disease arriving or the fungi arriving?

We know we’re not at a point where we can eliminate pesticide usage completely. One day it will happen with technology, and we’re not there yet, but we can reduce it, and we’re showing that currently in Costa Rica.

Luther:                        Given the fact that you are reducing pesticide use through using these new treatments, one of the terms I’ve seen is “induced resistance.” How is that being used, and what is the result of using induced resistance?

Kyle:                            When we induce resistance, for example, we’re causing that plant to produce compounds that fight off disease. These are enzymes, a lot of times. So, when we induce resistance in that plant, we cause the plant to produce these enzymes and begin fighting before the disease hits. It’s really like a vaccine when taken to prevent disease: You create resistance inside your body for when it may hit. So, it’s the same idea in crops as well.

Luther:                        What kind of results are we seeing from the application of induced resistance?

Kyle:                            What we’ve seen so far — and we’re very happy with this — is nearly a 20 percent reduction in the use of pesticides with the producers who were applying our technology.

Luther:                        When you say a 20 percent reduction, do you mean a 20 percent reduction of the disease or 20 percent reduction of pesticides?

Kyle:                            We’re talking 20 percent reduction of the pesticides. So, it’s a big deal, and it’s something we’re happy about. It’s something that the producers are happy about because they’re selling the bananas to people who want a clean, healthy crop, whether it’s a fruit or any other food source. So, we’re all working together to fight this disease using the expertise, from the growers/producers to our people in microbiology on the fermentation side. It’s a partnership that’s come together to solve a problem in bananas.

Luther:                        So, that’s a 20 percent reduction when they’re applying those pesticides sometimes two to three times a month, you said, to be able to hold back the sigatoka disease.

Kyle:                            Correct. Exactly.

Luther:                        Would you say that the biggest challenge for the future of food production is crop protection — or one of the biggest challenges?

Kyle:                            Absolutely, it’s one of the biggest challenges, if not the biggest. It’s what we’ve seen over the years: The application of pesticides, whether that’s a fungicide, herbicide or others, has increased each decade since the `50s, `60s. That’s also allowed us to double food production along with other parameters of agriculture. But, the continued growth of pesticides in our crops is not going to be sustainable.

                                    People don’t want that in their food. No one does. As people become more aware, it puts pressure on growers worldwide to reduce pesticides. It puts pressure on grocery stores not to stock fruits with high chemical levels. So, it’s a major concern. What we’re happy to see is that producers want alternatives, and that has allowed for a nice partnership, to work together and to find solutions to crop protection.

Luther:                        So, we have this kind of dichotomy going on where you have diseases like sigatoka that are decimating the crop if not treated with pesticides two to three times a month. On the other side, we also need to increase the production to meet the world demand — using a term we talked about yesterday: “rising billions.” China, India, Africa and other parts of Asia all coming into a middle class, needing and demanding more food variety. We have this challenge that we’re talking about of protecting a crop but at the same time having to increase that production. So, it sounds like this is a huge need in terms of the future. Would you agree with that, that the crop protection is to protect what we have, but as we increase production, using more and more pesticides is not a viable option?

Kyle:                            You’re correct. Crop protection is number one. We understand more about plant genetics. We understand more about microbials. And as we move forward, we’re going to see combinations of natural solutions, whether it’s microbes or it’s the compounds that microbes produce. Those combinations are going to give us alternatives for crop protection. We’ll see a drastic reduction in the use of pesticides over the next decade. There’s no question. That’s the direction the industry is moving.

Luther:                        Would those then be what we referred to as biopesticides that you’re talking about?

Kyle:                            These would be referred to as biopesticides.

Luther:                        Okay. Can you give us a little more detail on what a “biopesticide” is? I think you probably have talked about it a little bit. But now that we have it, quantify what the term is.

Kyle:                            Sure. “Biopesticide” essentially encompasses this natural solution versus a synthetically produced chemical.

Luther:                        So, sometimes it may be used to make the plant healthier and stronger, and other times to combat the disease itself or the effects of the disease?

Kyle:                            That’s a good question. Our approach is to focus on the plant. Let’s make the plant healthier and the plant can then fight these diseases. Then, let’s also attack the disease as well. When you strengthen the root system of the plant by removing pathogens in the soil, it’s an interesting discussion point.

                                    If you take 1 acre of soil, there are nearly 15 tons of microbes in that soil, and we only understand about 2 percent of those microbes. We have no idea what the other 98 percent will allow us to do to improve plant health, plant nutrition and reduce disease. That’s a big component, a big focus of what we’re doing in Alltech Crop Science.

Luther:                        So, it sounds like there’s a tremendous opportunity as we research the 98 percent to find other biological organisms that can stimulate growth, increase health and combat disease.

Kyle:                            Absolutely. There’s no question the future of crop protection and the future of improving crop plant nutrition will be utilizing microbes in the soil.

Luther:                        It sounds like it’s very similar to humans in that we are using our biological antibiotic system to fight disease. So, we’re making ourselves healthy, and at the same time, we also have other biological elements that fight the disease. So, it equates well to a diet for a human being: not necessarily using antibiotics that are artificially created in a lab, but using foods that maybe have natural built-in compounds that fight disease. That’s kind of equivalent to what you’re attempting to do with crop protection.

Kyle:                            Exactly. We’re allowing that plant to fight the disease, which is what it was designed to do. We’re encouraging that plant to start fighting the disease maybe before the disease arrives. But when the disease arrives, it can maintain and sustain itself much better. We’re not changing any genetics. We’re just promoting what that plant has already been designed to be able to do for itself.

Luther:                        There is a lot of discussion on the human use of biostimulants — natural substances that help the development of the human body from birth through adulthood and maintaining healthy bones, vision and mental aptitude. Can you tell us what biostimulants are and how they apply to a plant? It sounds like there are some similarities in what you’re trying to achieve.

Kyle:                            Right.

                                    When we promote using a biostimulant, we’re promoting the plant to grow better and grow faster. A lot of times, we see better quality fruits and we see more uniform fruits. When consumers are buying from a visual standpoint, it’s a benefit for the producer.

Luther:                        I know that you’ve been working with pineapple in Costa Rica, with some biostimulants. What are the results of that?

Kyle:                            Correct. We’re focused on pineapple as well as banana. What we’ve seen in pineapple is a stronger root development. When the root develops in a pineapple, the uptake of nutrients changes, so we see a faster rate of growth and we see more uniformity of the pineapples, which is important for export. We’re quite excited about what we’re seeing in pineapple. We really started in the banana and now we’re shifting to this pineapple area, and we’re seeing some opportunities that make us excited.

Luther:                        What about corn? I believe in Iowa you’ve been working with corn.

Kyle:                            Exactly. So, when we look at our biostimulant work, we’ve really focused on corn as we worked and developed this program. In corn, we see increased root base, and that leads to a faster development, to more uniform corn kernels. The biostimulant aspect in corn is something we’ve been working on for a decade or more.

Luther:                        What do you see on the horizon for biological technologies?

Kyle:                            I think we’re going see a dramatic change over the next five to 10 years in this area of biologicals. Many people are taking notice. Universities are doing research. It’s in a lot of discussions on harnessing the power of microbes.

                                    We’ve seen a dramatic shift over the last five years. The biopesticide biological market is expected to go from about $2 billion in global sales currently to $8 billion in four years. So, you’re going to see a tripling of this market. I think the biopesticide market is currently growing at about 15 percent per year compared to 3 percent for synthetic chemicals. So, you’re seeing this change. As we understand more about soil microbes and how they can be beneficial, you’re going to see a dramatic growth over the next five years to a decade.

Luther:                        That’s substantial. What about for microalgae? What specifically do you see for the future?

Kyle:                            Microalgae are something we’ve taken notice of, and we know that there are biostimulant aspects of microalgae. Seaweed, for example, has been utilized for many years to promote growth as a biostimulant. It’s one of our expertise areas — growing microalgae. So, we’re really going to start pushing into that area for biostimulants.

Luther:                        What about in the area of solid state fermentation? Are some advancements being made there?

Kyle:                            I like solid state fermentation because I did my Ph.D. in that area. Solid state fermentation has been around for a thousand years. You see it often, like when you see fungi growing on a log, for example. What it’s doing is breaking down fibers, releasing nutrients. Solid state fermentation offers the same idea of producing beneficial fungi, which will help break down nutrients, which will help develop the root base and resist disease in the soil. It helps increase water uptake as an extension of the roots. So, solid state fermentation offers a lot of promise moving forward on production of beneficial fungi and bacteria.

Luther:                        Overall, how do you think farmers are doing, and growers, in terms of sustainability?

Kyle:                            I think sustainability is starting to take off. In the past five to 10 years, people started to understand the idea of sustainability. As consumers become aware that crops and animals can be raised without the use of heavy levels of pesticides, chemicals or other inputs, sustainability is going to be the future of crop protection. It’s going come quicker than most people think.

                                    Many farmers want alternatives. They’re excited about the future of alternatives. They seek out companies like Alltech and say, “Hey, can you help us? What can we work on together?” So, the future of sustainable agriculture, and this whole new technology wave we’re seeing in agriculture is really going to change. We have to change in order to produce the food to feed another 2 to 3 billion people over the next 15, 20, 30 years. So, all this technology is going to come together, which includes microbes to produce the food that we require.

Luther:                        So, how does this affect the average consumer’s kitchen table? I’ve heard you talk about how much cost goes into pesticide use, for instance. Beyond that, what other ways will it affect an average consumer?

Kyle:                            Maybe at the moment the idea and the understanding that they’re eating healthy food is more significant than the financial impact on consumers. We can incorporate programs using alternatives such as biopesticides and not impact the cost for the producer. I think when consumers can sit down to eat and not fear that what they’re eating is unhealthy or may have some chemical inputs, I think that this leads to a better understanding and people are more excited about the area of agriculture.

Luther:                        Well, that leads right into what you enjoy most about your job.  

Kyle:                            You know, Alltech, in general, is always changing. There are always new opportunities. There are always new paths to take. If you’re bored in this company, then you’re not seeking out the opportunities that come around the corner.

                                    I’m excited every day to get up and look at the challenges that we’re facing in Costa Rica and work with producers to offer them alternatives. They’re seeking these alternatives, and we have the technologies and expertise to work together and make a difference.

Luther:                        Dr. McKinney is Alltech Crop Science’s development manager for Central America and the Caribbean. Thank you very much for joining us.

Kyle:                            Thank you for having me.

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

When faced with the challenge of quickly showing product efficacy to a new dealer, Alltech Crop Science (ACS) U.S. technical sales manager Brian Springer decided to take an innovative approach. 

“We didn’t have time or space for a traditional demo,” says Springer, who searched for a way that would highlight how ACS products help crops under stressful situations. 

The answer would take the form of a 79-day, head-to-head barrel trial using two control and two separately treated barrels of tender sweet corn. Soil-Set® was applied to both of the treated barrels at planting and resulted in a greater initial take-off during the first week  —  when compared to the two control barrels — and were later treated with Grain-Set® and Liqui-Plex®Zn. 

“The plants in the treated barrels were uniform in size and larger than those in either of the control barrels,” says Springer. “We also saw 100 percent emergence in the ACS barrels, whereas one of the control barrels only reached 67 percent emergence. This is a trend we continued to see throughout the trial.”   

Drought conditions soon set in, with 10 days of no water and temperatures of 100°F (37°C), and the ACS-treated barrels stood out significantly.

“The treated plants stood back up after the drought stress and produced corn,” says Springer.  “We also found that the root systems in the treated plants were significantly larger and resulted in greater yield than the control plants.

“Not only was the dealer surprised, but so were all the customers who visited the dealership everyday to buy feed or other farm needs," continues Springer. "They understand that fields produce differently, but now they see it’s possible to improve their soils in a cost-effective way, to compete with anyone.” 

Barrel trial using two control and two separately treated barrels of tender sweet corn. 

To learn more about what measures you can take to improve your soil, contact cropscience@alltech.com. 

Crops like grapes and peaches are among the most impacted by frost, which can lead to physiological stress and a reduction in plant development. The application of amino acid-based solutions is a first-string approach to mitigating damage caused by dropping temperatures and frost. 

In the town of Farroupilha (in the state of Rio Grande do Sul), Brazil, peach and grape farmer Fabiano Anselmi uses Alltech Crop Science solutions and observed improved crop development.

"The physiological stress was greatly reduced,” said Anselmi. “The plants’ color improved, becoming greener.”

According to agronomist Marcos Revoredo, an Alltech Crop Science technical manager specializing in fruits and vegetables, "When amino acids are supplied to the plant, they promote an activation or an acceleration of the plant’s metabolism. Consequently, there is an increase in the internal temperature of the cellular content and of the freezing point. Thus, it is possible to minimize the impacts of low temperatures and frost.”

However, applications should be performed preventively.

“It is important that the plants are treated weekly during the winter period, before the temperature drops,” said Revoredo.  

The amino acids can be complexed with nutrients such as calcium, magnesium and boron to enhance the results.

Additionally, management practices such as using a plastic cover to avoid abrupt drops in temperature, nocturnal irrigation and other field measures can make the environment more favorable for helping the crops overcome winter challenges.

Have a question or comment?