As climate change becomes a larger issue, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and finding ways to sequester carbon in farm and food production is more important than ever. Robynne Anderson discusses her experience providing businesses with sustainable solutions as president of Emerging Ag, the international consulting firm for agriculture.

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

David:                Hi, Robynne. How are you today?

Robynne:          Great to see you, David.

David:                Thanks! Tell us a little bit about Emerging Ag and what you do.

Robynne:          Well, it's a company that’s spread out around the globe. There are 22 of us on the team, and we work on agricultural policy, really, at a global level. So, whether that means working with agricultural trade associations or individual companies or farmer groups or agricultural scientists, we try and make sure the voice of agriculture gets heard in the context of the United Nations and other venues where people are talking about how you set agricultural policy.

David:                Okay. That sounds pretty exciting, and you must be doing a pretty good job, because I know that you are in the Canadian Agricultural Hall of Fame.

Robynne:          Oh, thank you. Yes, it was a great honor. Yes, my life is very exciting for a girl who grew up in a small town in Dugald, Manitoba, on a farm. I did not expect to get to see so much of the world, and I find that agriculture is just a great unifying part of a lens with which to see the world because, when you get out on to farms, whether it's in Africa or Asia or any other part of the world, there is something about farming that might be done differently. They might be growing different crops, but there's something about the reality of being from a farm that's kind of the same. It's practical. The weather is still a big factor. It's hard work, and those communities are very welcoming.

David:                Yeah. You mentioned that weather is a big factor, and of course, that's always been true for farming. There are all sorts of uncertainties around the weather and lots of different variables, which make it very challenging, and it seems like, more and more, that's an even bigger problem, with extreme weather events around the globe. What are you seeing that's a serious challenge for farmers?

Robynne:          Well, weather has undoubtedly, as you said, always been one of the toughest parts of farming, and it always seems that the rain never comes when you need it or comes too much. That's been the case in our farm a bit lately, but everybody feels this change from the norm. There used to be patterns; it was always variable, but now, even the sense of the way the seasons work, it really does seem to be changing quite a bit.

                             I was in Kenya for much of the month of March, and their rain season would normally have started about mid-March. I left at the end of the month, and it still had not started. The rains have started to come now, but weeks behind schedule. Really, you get that sense — and for us on our farm in Canada, you see more and more flooding pressure, year on year on year. It's no longer just once every 40 or 50 years that you're feeling that the Red River is going to swallow you up. It's a changing world, and I think this is what is giving extra credence to a discussion that scientists started many years ago, saying something is afoot. We are having too big an impact on our environment.

David:                Yeah, and that certainly seems to be true. Because extreme weather and climate change are becoming a bigger and bigger issue, it's very important to look at what we can do to mitigate our greenhouse gas emissions in every industry, not just agriculture, and you spent some time looking at that. So, what do you see that's promising? What are some opportunities we have to do that?

Robynne:          Well, here at Alltech, there was an awesome panel, and I was really lucky to be on it with a set of others who were working on all very different aspects of that. Part of what I was talking about specifically is that anything that we do in our businesses, we need to measure. We would never go into a sales program and not know what our target was and what our sales figure was and what our cost of delivering that product would be. We wouldn't be in business otherwise.

                             The same applies, really, if we want to take climate change seriously. That means looking at how we are measuring inside our individual businesses. One of the gentlemen on the panel was talking about actually pricing in carbon into their business planning and in terms of their internal budgeting, but what I was talking about also is the need for the sector as a whole to be engaged in measurement. I use a particular example of the Global Dairy Platform, which has helped to set up the Dairy Sustainability Framework. Now, about 30% of the milk sector, total volume of milk, is actually reporting in through this framework, so that's a really big jump forward, and it's not just about climate change.

                             Climate change is incredibly important, but if we're only looking at it from an agricultural perspective on greenhouse gas emissions, I think we're missing the range of things that we need to be involved in, and that includes looking at water and are we drawing down too much or are we polluting it on the way out. These are very concrete, measurable things, and by reporting in together, we can begin to understand what's happening and actually have a conversation about what needs to be done.

                             One thing that we saw that really surprised a lot of people is that the assumption is that greenhouse gas emissions are highest from dairy production in the developed world — an idea that large, intensive farms would be naturally more polluting — but, in fact, the efficiency of those productions shows that OECD countries have been consistently dropping their greenhouse gas emission rates, and they're really quite low. They're not down to zero, but they're really quite low, whereas in developing countries, where animals may go a dry season without being able to be fully productive, all of the emissions-related intensities are actually much higher, because they don’t have that production efficiency.

                             That's really important to understand, but I think it's also very true that, if you consider the emission discussion, it's great that dairy is down 11% in the past ten years in terms of how much carbon we're releasing for every liter of milk we produce, but if you consider that the world still continues to need a total reduction in carbon, you have to be looking, in agriculture, to make use of agriculture's great asset, because agriculture can also do carbon sinks. That is what we do, right? We grow stuff. We put carbon into the soil. We take carbon out of the air for those plants. The opportunity really does exist for all of us to be looking at a net-zero emission intensity, or below, because if we do the right things on our farms, we can get to that level so that we can grow the amount of milk we're producing that's needed in the world but do it in a way that isn't actually helping to destroy the world through releasing too much greenhouse gas.

David:                Yeah. That opportunity that agriculture has is very exciting. Can you talk a little bit about some of the practices that can help sequester carbon?

Robynne:          Absolutely. If you're thinking about a farm as having a land footprint, what kind of things are you growing on that land? Farmers can do concrete things, like plant more trees. A lot of farms actually already have trees around their houses to help protect them from weather, ironically, so what are you doing to put long-term crops? If you're looking at the livestock sector, pasture is a great carbon sink — you managing that pasture well and protecting it. Also, if you think about the dairy sector, for instance, anaerobic digestion, manure management and sequestering that into a facility where you are actually producing renewable energy is an incredibly powerful part of reducing the greenhouse gas footprint of your farm.

                             Farms actually have a lot of lands, so whether your dairy barns have solar energy panels on the top of them; you're using, perhaps, manure management; maybe you're taking local food waste products and putting them in with your manure manager to further that energy production; you can look at a wind turbine on your farm — but farms really can get energy, neutral or renewable energy, sourced. Even some farms are now moving to actually put onto the grid renewable energy, which gives it a double whammy, and that's how you can get to that negative footprint level. There's just such an incredible opportunity of managing well, of using conservation tillage, of really thinking about how you are engineering that system.

                             The great thing is, at the promised end of that is actually the potential to earn some money from that energy you're putting back into the grid, especially if you're working in collaboration with others. There's an opportunity for it not only to be the right thing to do, but to be a really good business decision.

David:                Yeah. When you're talking about earning money, you're talking about selling carbon credits to other businesses?

Robynne:          That is an opportunity, but I am thinking, actually, about putting electricity back onto a grid. You get paid for the electricity you generate, so that's a clearer path to a business.

David:                Okay. I suppose electricity and energy use in general is kind of a small percentage of the carbon footprint from the farm, but a farm has the potential to generate much more electricity than that and offset nearby homes or businesses and balance the equation, right?

Robynne:          Exactly. Whether you're making a compressed natural gas or a conventional electricity product, that is exactly the opportunity that farms have this resource available to them, because they have a land footprint. Now, you need to work collaboratively with your local electricity grid to be part of the renewable sources there. Some farms are working quite well together to achieve that. You see some of the cooperatives, for instance, in the dairy sector working together to get their members having a bulk-buy onto the grid, because getting access onto that grid is the challenge, but energy is actually quite a high input cost in a lot of farms. So, even if you got your electricity cost down in your own operation, that would be a big benefit, and then, to produce a surplus that you could actually use as a revenue stream is just one example of how you can really get to zero, because everybody says that's impossible, but farms really have this unique opportunity — and especially how they manage their carbon sinks on their farms, as well.

David:                It would be fantastic if many more farms were at zero greenhouse gas emissions, because there's so much negative publicity about the amount of greenhouse gasses that are produced on farms. You mentioned a little earlier that it's very important to look at data. You had an example yesterday that shows it's important to look at the data in multiple ways, when you were talking about the carbon output of New Zealand, Ireland, and the different ways you can look at that.

Robynne:          It is a strangely quirky thing that, when you look at a chart about greenhouse gas outputs, New Zealand and Ireland pop higher than countries like China and some other places that you would expect would have much higher greenhouse gas emission implications.

David:                And you're saying from the dairy sector specifically, right?

Robynne:          That is the calculation — is because both of them are very effective dairy producers — that this is counting very high in what the proportion of their greenhouse gas emissions are. Does that mean that two countries that have a very moderate climate, perfectly adapted to dairying, that have beautiful grasslands, that are easily maintained through natural rainfall, aren't the best place to produce milk? Really, what's counting against them is they are such a good producer that they are exporting milk and serving the rest of the world, but because that production happens in their country, they carry 100% of those emissions, but if you went off and set up a dairy — and I'm going to pick an arbitrary country here — in Amman or in the middle of a desert somewhere, it is not going to be, probably, a more greenhouse gas-efficient or more environmentally sustainable solution because it's happening in that other country, because you're going to have to irrigate that land. You're not going to have the same natural cycles. You might, potentially, have to provide cooling to those dairy cows to be productive, because they're not used to that kind of heat.

                             The result will be, actually, potentially, a bad outcome if we don’t find ways to recognize where we produce things efficiently. The current discussions about climate change actually really hone in on a country's responsibility for what they're producing, and that makes a certain amount of sense, but when you're talking about global trade — especially in food — it's really important that we also find a way to make the right decisions globally, that we're not turning over lands that are inappropriate for some things and making them into lands that are, therefore, being used. Because, as a Canadian farmer, I don’t think we're going to be growing mangoes in Canada. We will have gone a long way down the climate change path if, suddenly, banana trees and tropical plants or mangoes are growing in the middle of Canada. We grow some other things really, really effectively, and I think you can see that paradigm potentially going in the wrong direction.

                             If I might just add one more thing to that, it's really important to consider that, as we're having more extreme weather, that trade becomes even more important. You just don’t know what's going to hit where, who's going to have a drought and who's going to have a cyclone and who's going to have a flood.

                             One of the things that the FAO produced recently was to talk about just how important global trade is going to be in food. It's always been important, but it becomes our backup system to food security, and so, it is really important that we think about how to manage this in a way that the trade is actually encouraged and that the best, most ecologically sound producers are being encouraged to use it.

David:                Yeah. I'm sure it's incredibly difficult to write global agreements or treaties on things like greenhouse gas emissions, and there's certainly a potential for some inadvertent mistakes. When you're looking at greenhouse gas emissions on an industry per-capita for a small country that excels in that industry, the number looks horrible, but if you look at it per liter or gallon of milk, it's a completely different picture, right? So how do we tell that message and make sure that those decisions are being made in a sensible way that makes good policy for everybody?

Robynne:          Well, it is really challenging. I've had the opportunity to go to some of the UN climate change meetings or very large meetings. There's a lot on the agenda. It's a really complicated process. One thing they deserve a lot of credit for is that the climate change negotiations have really heard from NGOs and businesses and scientists alike, so it's a space where having a serious conversation is possible. As we've moved to getting serious about national emissions, the inequities of this position become more clear, and it is possible to then say, “Okay, now we understand that. In a way, we didn’t understand it before,” and the agricultural sector has to be doing those numbers, has to be doing those measurements, so you can explain that the efficiency level on this is very high.

                             There are some dairy farms in America that are getting to zero, so it's not impossible; it is actually really happening. You want to make sure that the discussions to advance our goals of cutting greenhouse gas emissions don’t create perverse subsidies for the wrong sorts of actions. For instance, strangely, if you were to till under all that pasture and grassland in New Zealand or Ireland, you might argue that once they went back to pastureland, they would get a carbon credit for creating a carbon sink, but they would've done something that actually caused more release of carbon so that they could get the credits for doing it. So, we really want to find ways to talk about agricultural production that have the practical voice of farmers there and don’t lead countries to make decisions to hit numbers that actually lead to the wrong outcomes.

                             It is a complex piece of work to navigate that, but we didn’t get to climate change without doing a lot of complex things, so it's going to take a fair amount of concerted effort to find a path forward.

David:                Yeah, good point. There's certainly a lot of accounting and measurement that we need to do to make sure that we're mitigating climate change, but it's very important to get that right. If we think we're doing everything we need to and we're not making the right decisions, we're in a lot of trouble.

Robynne:          We've just discussed the weather lately. I think we're in some trouble, and now, it is really about the path to get out, but you don’t want to make the path to get out worse. Like anyone finding their way out of a forest, we'll probably make a few wrong turns, but we want to at least be headed towards the edge of the forest, not going deeper in the other way.

David:                Are there things going on right now in the industry to try to help reduce emissions for low- and middle-income countries that have, traditionally, low productivity?

Robynne:          Some, but not remotely enough. It is a strange thing that agriculture receives very little of the global development budget. Only about 5% a year of all of the money that's going into development assistance goes into agriculture, even though 80% of the people living in multidimensional poverty — which means that they live below $1.25 a day — they don’t have access to schools. They don’t have access to hospitals. They live in rural areas, so they're farmers.

                             Eighty percent of the world's most needy are in a rural context, and yet, only 5% of development money going to agriculture is already wrongheaded, and then, on top of that, if you consider that, of that 5%, only 4% goes to livestock. We're talking about minute amounts of the development budgets going to important factors where they're needed, and many communities in these areas actually have a very strong livestock tradition.

                             So, it's really important that more gets done, but there are some things happening. There's the International Livestock Research Institute, which is based in Kenya but operates quite globally in the developing country context. I have the good fortune to work with them on a number of things, but there are some really innovative things that they've been part of the leadership on. One of them is Indexed Livestock Insurance. If you're in a situation where there's a drought, there's extreme weather, rather than doing what we've traditionally done — which is to say, "Here's livestock insurance. We're going to wait until that animal dies," so your herd is wiped out and an entire community that might be based on that herd has had their lifestyle devastated; they're perhaps nomadic, they're in a situation that they have completely destabilized the population — instead of taking a look at overall weather trends, seeing that clearly there is a drought. The Indexed Livestock Insurance actually is meant to buy feed for those animals so that they are in a position to make sure that those animals don’t die. So, rather than waiting until a terrible outcome and suggesting that you can just buy back your loved one — if you were to use a hospital analogy right, you don’t treat them at all while they're starving to death, but afterwards, you give a big payout for their death — you should do the opposite. You should get that assistance in.

                             It's a really simple, concrete thing that, if you're in agriculture, of course you should send in feed, but we've really struggled to get that kind of practical agricultural lens onto a lot of the interventions.

David:                That's a really good analogy. It needs to be more like health insurance and less like car insurance, right?

Robynne:          Yes.

David:                All right. Well, thank you so much for your time today, Robynne. It was great talking to you.

Robynne:          Pleasure.

Robynne Anderson spoke at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference. Sign up to hear other presentations from ONE19. 

While farmers spend billions of dollars each year in crop inputs, many are missing biomarkers that can cost them up to 30% in total value. The ag-tech startup Biome Makers is using new technologies like DNA sequencing and artificial intelligence in agriculture to improve soil health and crop production on-farm. How healthy is the microbial activity of your soil?

The following is an edited transcript of Kara Keeton’s interview with Adrián Ferrero. Click below to hear the full audio.

Kara:              I'm here today with Adrián Ferrero, co-founder and CEO of Biome Makers, one of the Pearse Lyons Accelerators presenting at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference in 2019. Thank you for coming today, Adrián.

Adrián:           My pleasure to be here.

Kara:              Adrián, I wanted to know a little bit more about Biome Makers and how your company was founded.

Adrián:           Biome Makers is a company that started in San Francisco in May 2015, founded by two Spanish guys: Alberto Acedo and myself. We traveled from Spain with a partner, Illumina. We were the first non-American company selected by the Illumina Accelerator Program. In that moment, we started developing our technology. That gave us, also, the chance to test it in the real field with clients all around California.

Kara:              The technology you speak of is an artificial intelligence system to measure soil health using the microbiome as a biomarker. Explain this to me.

Adrián:           Well, we grew up in vineyards in Spain, so agriculture is very important. It was very important in our vineyards. We were fully aware that the farmers were missing biomarkers to really understand what is happening. Nobody was telling them, so the information, the data, accessible for them was very limited and did not provide a full picture.

                        So, by looking at the community of microbes that impacts everything that is happening in the field — not just in the soil, because the soil has living organisms that take an active role in agriculture, and that's something that we haven't been able to take a look at in the past years, but now, because we have DNA sequencing to profile the whole spectrum of microbes, and then, artificial intelligence to process this amount of information, this amount of data and benefits from other kinds of data sources — we can provide that functional interpretation of the microbes. That means that we can look at the microbes and know what is happening in the field in order to make better decisions related to, mainly, inputs. That means crop protection and fertilization.

Kara:              So, this technology allows you to work with farmers to look at their soil productivity and implement new procedures to help improve production on the farm, correct?

Adrián:           Yeah. Every year, U.S. farmers spend around $40 billion, which is a huge amount of money, in crop inputs. And still, around 30% of the crop value is wasted because of different problems. That means that the products they are using are not working pretty well. If they can optimize their inputs that they put in the soil, and those inputs support the productivity of the agriculture or the farm and also sustain and boost the life of the soil, that is going to be very good because, in the end, soil is the most valuable asset they have for their economic activity. That's what we're helping them with. First, they know or they unveil what the soil needs, and then, what they want to know is which is the right product for them. This is something we are doing with companies: delivering solutions into the market.

Kara:              So, you currently have field studies going on and research trials with the system, correct?

Adrián:           Right. We have over 250 growers already working with us, monitoring their soil status, knowing what their soil needs, how alive the soil is. On the other hand, we are working, and we started last year with our input producers — so that means Alltech or Bayer Crop Science or small bio-fertilizing companies. Those are the kinds of trials we're doing, because that was another dimension; nobody knew the real effect of the products that they are using in the soil. It's like we're taking pills and drugs and we don't know what's going to happen in our body. Our technology can help bring transparency to this, and that's what we're doing.

Kara:              Are these trials taking place just in the United States, or are they around the world?

Adrián:           Yeah. We are running trials right now mainly in California, but also here in Kentucky, also in Spain, in France, and in Mexico. Those are the six (places) where we're developing pilots, but what is more interesting is which kind of crops we're working with, because we started working in vineyards in the wine industry. It's amazing. It's huge, the lack of data to really deliver better products and different wines in the market. By knowing what is happening in the vineyard, this is very useful for them. So, in vineyards, we started, and we started to expand to other crops. Right now, we are working with almonds, strawberries, potatoes, corn, soy and apples.

Kara:              That is amazing. Working with a variety of crops allows you to look at different types of production. What benefit can this system bring to the different types of crops and to the different areas of the world when you're looking at the biomarkers?

Adrián:           Let me just give you an example of what we're experiencing now with sugarcane in Mexico. There are different regions with different productivity. The deal between two regions were extremely different — so, around 30% difference. After looking at the microbiome in the soil, we identified the pattern that linked to their productivity. Now, what we are doing with this client is working with different solutions to see if we can get up to 5% increase, which is going to have a huge impact on the productivity and the revenues that this grower is going to get at the end of the season.

We can impact, first, in the cost, in the expenses that the growers are having in their different inputs. So, depending on the crops, they might be spending over $2,000 per acre in different inputs. That's a lot of money, and you want that money to be meaningful. Then, on the crop protection side, you want to use target solutions for the risk on diseases that you have. You don't want to spray fungicide in a vineyard, for instance, killing all the fungal species, including the yeast doing something unique during the wine-making process that is going to leave some flavor or taste in that way.

Kara:              Biome Makers was the first startup chosen to join a new agricultural innovation space in California. What impact did this move have on your research, and how did working with Bayer Crop Sciences in this initiative impact your company?

Adrián:           For us, there was a demonstration. There was a growing interest by the solution providers in knowing what are the impacts of their products in the soil. As I mentioned before, there is a new wave of biological products landing into the market, so the growers don't have enough information; they're not going to know which product is the right one for them. By working with companies such as Bayer or Alltech or others, we are able to really know what are the specific effects of the products so we can match specific soil needs related to crop needs, and also location needs, for a specific crop in a specific location. This is the right product.

                        That's what we're working with a lot, and this has a huge impact. If companies like Bayer Crop Science are relying on our technology to really know what is happening with the solutions that they are delivering to the market, for us as a startup, this is very important.

Kara:              Your company was selected for the Pearse Lyons Accelerator Program. What has this experience been like for you and your company, and how did you come across this opportunity?

Adrián:           Well, right now, the information just flows very easily, so it was very easy to know where the opportunity was. Having the chance to partner or to connect with Alltech team through the Pearse Lyons Accelerator, that was very interesting for us because, right now, we are working with 14 different solution providers, and we wanted the most innovative companies to also start working with us. With the Pearse Lyons Accelerator, we have started running, in the last hundred days, different trials, different pilots, testing their products differently in different crops, and this is very successful.

                        On top of that, the work done by Dogpatch Labs in Ireland to improve and to fine-tune the pitch and the market strategy, and some advice from their leaders, the Alltech leaders, on the commercialization, distribution of how to manage the team and grow the company, it has been very useful for me as a founder who has the responsibility to really bring Biome Makers to the next level.

Kara:              Well, now I understand that your interest in microbiology is not limited to just agricultural production. You are also co-founder of AC-Gen Reading Life, a biotech company with a biomedical focus. Can you tell me a little bit about this company?

Adrián:           Yeah. Biome Makers is our second successful startup. The first experience that Alberto Acedo and myself had was in Spain, also using the same technology of DNA sequencing, but in this case, instead of using it to profile the microbes in the soil, we are looking at the different mutations that humans have in order to help doctors to really know what was the real, better solution. This is the personalized medicine. We built, in 2012, the first genetic diagnostic center specializing in DNA sequencing in Spain, and with that company, we won a lot of awards and recognition from the Spanish government, the European Commission. Even the MIT Technology Review also awarded us as best entrepreneurs/innovators.

Kara:              So, helping plants and animals with your research, where do you see the future of Biome Makers in the next five to ten years?

Adrián:           Well, right now, we need to receive the samples in our labs. We have dual locations, one in Europe, another one in California, in West Sacramento. What we see in the future is that digitalization of biology probably is not going to happen in our lab; it's going to happen on-site. So, the different machines, the robots, all the devices that are available for farmers, they're going to definitely digitalize the biology, but there will be some apps and systems to process the data and deliver the meaningful information on to take action. That's where we're working very hard on understanding all the connections between the different microbes in this network of living beings, all the patterns, and also the predictive power of this system. That's what we are focusing on.

Kara:              Well, thank you for joining us today, Adrián.

Adrián:           That's my pleasure. Thank you very much for inviting us.

Kara:              This was Adrián Ferrero, co-founder and CEO of Biome Makers.

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

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

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

Taro:               Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David:            On a large scale —

Taro:               As a method of social change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taro:               Thank you for having me.

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

[LEXINGTON, Ky.] – Alltech has taken a significant step toward its sustainability goals and its vision for a Planet of Plenty™. Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech, signed a letter to the secretary-general of the United Nations committing Alltech to the U.N. Global Compact focused on positive advancements in human rights, labor, the environment and anti-corruption.

In addition, Alltech has committed to nine of the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In 2015, all United Nations member states adopted the SDGs, which are an urgent call to action by all countries. Each SDG has specific, actionable targets that contribute to the overall goal.

The U.N. Global Compact, the world's largest corporate sustainability initiative, allows the U.N. to work with companies to help move the SDGs forward. Companies that join the Global Compact are asked to select the targets they feel are most closely aligned with their core business and are therefore actionable by the company.

“We believe that by adopting new technologies, improving business practices and embracing innovation, the agri-food sector can support a  Planet of Plenty™,” said Dr. Lyons, who was joined by Mrs. Deirdre Lyons, co-founder of Alltech, and colleagues at the company’s global headquarters. “Today, we join the growing number of organizations around the world united by a passionate commitment to building a more sustainable future.”   

Alltech chose nine SDGs that align directly with its core business and its vision for a Planet of Plenty™:

Zero hunger

The definitive purpose of agriculture is to provide people with food. The ultimate goal would be to entirely alleviate world hunger and ensure that everyone on the planet has access to plentiful and nutritious food. Alltech’s nutritional solutions for soil, crops and animal feed places it at the beginning of the food chain, and its global presence positions the company to work with others toward this goal and, indeed, to achieve the mission of creating a Planet of Plenty. 

Good health and well-being

The research being conducted by Alltech Life Sciences applies the company’s 40 years of innovation in animal nutrition to human health. Alltech is achieving advancements in gut health and brain health, and it is making breakthroughs in alternatives to one of the most expensive medications in the U.S. — insulin. Further, Alltech feed technologies support producers in reducing antibiotic use as antimicrobial resistance becomes a growing concern. The Lyons Family Life Foundation, established by the family of Alltech’s founder, Dr. Pearse Lyons, aims to support patient care and medication safety.

Quality education

As the cornerstone of success, education should be a top priority for every company and country, but the challenges facing progress are many, including a lack of resources. Alltech encourages its team members to continue education through career development opportunities and by providing internal avenues for learning and training. The company has also created initiatives to educate children and young people by funding and designing school laboratories, providing scholarship opportunities through the Alltech Young Scientist competition and forming alliances with universities to support scientific bachelor’s and doctorate degrees.

Gender equality

As a science-based, global company, Alltech is positioned to have a positive effect on the development of this goal throughout the more than 120 communities in which it operates. Alltech believes that promoting diversity is essential to shaping a sustainable future. Partnering with efforts such as the Women in Food and Agriculture summit supports the empowerment of women and helps ensure that young people see themselves reflected in agriculture so they can envision a future career in the industry.      

Decent work and economic growth

This goal is focused on reducing the practices of informal employment, child labor, human trafficking and the gender pay gap. The development of decent work and economic growth is essential to companies, the communities in which they conduct business and, indeed, the world. Alltech’s global operations network adheres to stringent employment practices, and its presence in over 120 communities gives the company an opportunity to impart positive change on the regions it serves.  

Climate action

Climate change is one of the SDGs that affects people, animals and plants in all regions, on land and in water. Several Alltech products have been certified by the Carbon Trust to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The company plans to utilize its industry partnerships across the agri-food sectors to further promote nutritional technologies and improved farm management practices that reduce environmental impact.

Life below the water

Fish oil and fish meal are often key components for animal diets. This contributes to overfishing of our oceans, and producers are always striving to identify sustainable solutions. Turning toward alternative feeds such as algae or insects has proved helpful, but there is still much that can be done to improve aquaculture's methods of food production. ​Alltech can contribute to these efforts in several ways, including through the Alltech Coppens Aqua Centre in the Netherlands.

Life on land

This SDG considers challenges such as desertification, land degradation, drought and deforestation. Alltech specializes in natural solutions that maximize performance and yield of animals and crops through nutrition, technology and improved management, which can have a significant positive impact.  

Partnerships for the goals

​This goal seeks to align technology and science, which are central to Alltech’s founding principle of innovation. Alltech shares the belief that the ambitious goals outlined by the U.N. will not be possible without connecting as many companies, organizations and individuals as possible in united action. Alltech’s Planet of Plenty™ vision is a call for collaboration across industry sectors and geographical boundaries.  

Alltech’s commitment was accepted into the U.N. Global Compact, and the company officially joined a network of over 9,500 companies and 3,000 non-business participants committed to building a sustainable future.

Along with the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals, Alltech also committed to the Science Based Targets initiative. These targets are designed to help companies reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and share their progress through transparent documentation and reporting.

Consumers are growing more and more environmentally conscious, and many have started to experiment with meat-free options. From plant-based burgers to burgers made entirely of tissue-cultured meat, are these really the "alternative meats of the future?" What does this mean for the beef industry, and which option is actually better for the environment?

The following is an edited transcript of David Butler's interview with Amanda Radke, beef blogger. Click below to hear the full audio. 

David:            I'm here with Amanda Radke, who's a South Dakota cattle rancher and a blogger with Beef Magazine. How are you doing, Amanda?

Amanda:        I'm doing great. How about yourself?

David:            Good! Thanks so much for being on the show.

Amanda:        Yeah, you bet.

David:            Let's talk a little bit about alternative proteins. You've been looking into that some lately and done some research on it, right?

Amanda:        Yeah. I think one of the biggest things that I wanted to emphasize in my message today was that I'm not anti-technology, and anything that we can come up with as far as food-science goes to feed the hungry planet is wonderful. So, I didn't want to pit traditional beef production against anything else, and I'm not against consumer choice. However, some of these Petri dish protein companies are really touting themselves as environmentally and ethically superior to traditionally raised beef, and so I wanted to highlight why the beef cow is incredible in providing a safe and nourishing beef product for us to consume — and, also, life-enriching byproducts, and that simply can't be replicated in a Petri dish.

David:            So, let's compare beef to some of the different alternative protein options out there — and I know there are a bunch of them, so maybe the first thing would be to say, what are all the different alternatives?

Amanda:        Sure. Well, we're seeing plant-based protein patties, like Beyond and Impossible, hitting the marketplace and receiving a lot of traction and attention from retailers carrying those options — and not just marketing them to your vegetarian and vegan crowd but marketing them to meat lovers as a direct replacement to a traditional cheeseburger. We also may see Petri-dish proteins enter the marketplace as soon as the end of the year, and so a lot of what we know about these products is conjecture right now, because these companies aren't really forthcoming with any information on their manufacturing processes. However, what I do know is that the modern beef producer of today has a lot of great advantages as far as efficiently producing beef and doing it in a way that is not just sustainable to our natural resources, but it's regenerative, too, and so that's really what I wanted to celebrate today in my message.

David:            Go into some more specifics on how beef production is regenerative. What do you mean when you say that?

Amanda:        When I say regenerative, I want to look specifically at rangelands and grasslands. A lot of times, consumers will say, “Well, we could just plow up that land and use it to grow crops or cereal grains or whatever to feed people,” but the fact of the matter is that most of this land is unsuitable for modernizing or farming and can only be used by ruminant animals — and if it were not, it would become a desert or a barren wasteland. So, cattle, with each bite of grass they take, with each step of their hooves, they aerate the soil. They reduce fuel for wildfires. They provide habitat for everything from bees to rabbits and mice to deer and foxes, so they're a critical component to our ecosystem, and they're just part of the balance. Not only that, but they can upcycle this poor, marginal, inedible, cellulosic material that is grass and they can convert it into a nutrient-packed superfood like beef.

David:            And it's not just grass, right? What other kinds of cellulose materials do they —

Amanda:        Sure. Well, it depends on the part of the country. They can eat everything from potato byproducts in Idaho to distillers grains in the corn belt, and so they can take byproducts of other crop production and other foods and can convert that into beef as well. I think, a lot of times, our consumers misplace the information or misplace the blame on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions because they've been told, if they skip eating meat one day out of the week, they'll save the planet — but, ultimately, I guess I really want to stress that Mother Nature wasn't wrong and the beef cow is incredible, and so we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and that she can play a critical part in taking care of our natural resources and feeding a hungry planet.

David:            That's good to know. You've got some kinds of problems that you've outlined, where alternative proteins don't stack up to beef. Do you want to talk through some of those with us?

Amanda:        Sure. The first problem — and maybe it's just the advantage of the beef cow — but these companies haven't really proven their environmental impact. So, when they talk about the natural resources used in beef production, they also fail to acknowledge the energy use, the crops that are needed, the fact that there are still fetal cells that will be used in this production practice, the waste produced, as far as what's being grown in the laboratory.

                        This all has an environmental footprint as well, and so I think there's some burden of proof there for them to show us what their environmental footprint actually is, and can it compete if it goes to scale.

                        The next problem, as we discussed, is that this lab meat can't regenerate and build topsoil quite like cattle can, and so, anytime we plow up rangeland and pastures to be used for monoculture and crop production, we're losing that carbon capture of having that soil covered by grass. So just by having the grasslands maintained and not going into barren wasteland or trying to grow cereal grains or an alternative on this marginal land is something these Petri dish proteins can't do.

                        The next, and it's one I love talking about, is byproducts. When we think of beef cattle, we think of steaks and cheeseburgers, but it's so much more than that. It's things like insulin for diabetics, crayons, deodorants, leather goods like boots and belts and furniture, and everything in between. There are hundreds of byproducts that enrich our everyday lives that come from beef cattle — even organic fertilizer for vegetable production; that comes from cows, too. So, byproducts are a huge thing, and if we're going to try to replace the all-in-one machine that is the beef cow with synthetic or alternative options for all these byproducts, that's going to have an environmental footprint as well.

                        Then, another problem, a lot of these companies are promising that they're antibiotic-free and pathogen-free. I think it's unfair for any food company to claim that there aren't vulnerabilities as far as food safety goes, and we need more transparency as far as their antibiotic usage —  where are they vulnerable, where are points of contamination — and I'm thankful that the FDA and USDA are going to jointly regulate and oversee these production practices, but yet, I think there's a lot more they need to prove before they enter the marketplace.

                        Finally, someone told me, "Don't you feel bad eating cattle? Your diet leads to death," and I think it's important to note that, once again, every diet, no matter if it's total vegan or total carnivore, there's animal deaths involved. Every time a field is plowed, you're misplacing the wildlife that lived there. It's just a give and take. As a rancher, I understand the circle of life and I value that beef cattle for what she offers to people, to nourish and enrich people's lives. However, I think it's just a convenient thing that the plant-based folks kind of ignore that their diets also cause death and suffering as well, so it's just a matter of where you place your importance, I guess. For me, I can feel pretty confident that I'm utilizing a beef animal and respecting what she has to offer humanity while also respectfully caring for that animal, too, while she is in our care.

David:            Yeah, good point. I'm sure most people haven't even thought of the fact that crops do displace natural habitat. Pasture does, to an extent, too. That certainly is a problem, when deforestation occurs for pasture, but if you're on natural grasslands, that's not quite as big of an issue. You mentioned antibiotics, and I would think that most people would assume the cell-based or Petri dish-based meat wouldn't need any antibiotics, because these are not living animals that are walking around and potentially getting sick, so where would the antibiotics come into that process?

Amanda:        Sure. Well, without actually having seen the manufacturing process take place, I think there are a lot of unknowns there, and I can't speak with authority on how the antibiotics would be used. However, just like any living thing — especially when it's interacting with humans in a lab — there are those points of vulnerability where antibiotics might be applied and used in that setting. So, I appreciate the National Cattlemen's Beef Association coming out and saying strongly that we need more information and clarity on antibiotic usage in these Petri dish proteins' production practices, and that needs to be regulated and overseen by the USDA.

David:            So, you're talking about some sort of instance where there's contamination in the lab or in the production process.

Amanda:        Perhaps. It could come out the collection phase, too. We're dealing with live animals at that stage as well, as far as the fetal cells, and so, yeah, I think maybe it's — like I said, we're in its infancy right now, where we don't totally know and understand the processes.

I really hate fear-mongering about any products that I don't know or understand, and I'm always very mindful of, no matter what the beef is, whether it's natural, grass-fed, organic or Petri-dish, it's an option for the consumers and we're getting protein on people's plate, and these products could be viable in the marketplace and a solution to giving people around the world that product. However, where I have problems is in this rush to market and in this rush to get a return on investment with these major investors that are actively participating in these production practices. I worry that food safety, transparency, nutritional information might not be as clear as they should be for our consumers.

David:            So, we need to be cautious there, yeah. Talk a little bit about the natural resources, the inputs, that go into cell-based proteins.

Amanda:        Sure. Again, this is conjecture, really, from what I've read and can understand, but you're going to need, obviously, a fetal calf and cells from that calf. They'll grow in a suitable medium, and, from what I understand, it could be soybeans or corn, mushrooms, and could even be cattle-based, just depending on the company. That growth medium will grow the muscle fibers and also the fat fibers; they're grown separately and have to come together. By my understanding, they're kept at 98 degrees Fahrenheit, and these cells, as they duplicate and grow, they produce waste, and so, then, waste has to be taken out of that Petri dish as well.

                        It's a huge process. There might be some opportunities for crop producers, corn and soybean growers, to provide this medium for these cells to grow. I don't want to be shortsighted and think that these products don't have a place in agriculture; however, it's difficult for me, as a beef producer, to see them disparage our industry while also trying to hijack our nomenclature, like beef, and the great reputation that beef has with our beef-loving consumers, and use it to market their product.

David:            Yeah. If you're going to have to grow the cells in a medium that's made out of something — because it's not magic, they have to provide nutrients to the cells — if those are supplied with soybeans or corn or any kind of plant, then it's not necessarily going to have a smaller footprint than a cow.

Amanda:        Exactly, yes.

David:            It might or might not, but it's not going to be drastically — it's not going to be free of inputs, right?

Amanda:        Correct.

David:            And they also will have to maintain this environment at this temperature and keep it in a sterile setting, and that's going to take a lot of energy.

Amanda:        Absolutely, and, yeah, I think they're downplaying that side of their story while really focusing on any negatives they might perceive about traditionally raised beef. And so, I want to compare apples to apples — or apples to oranges, however you might look at it — and as they go to scale in the marketplace, they'll have to prove that burden in the environmental footprint, and then we'll see, but I really think the beef cow can compete and has a great story to tell and is an important part of our environmental stewardship and our sustainability story, as far as a planet and a human race.

David:            You've mentioned that there's a little bit of controversy over the use of the words “meat” and “beef”. Some of these products, when they come to market, they may want to call them burgers or meat or beef, or meatless, whatever — so where does that stand? Is it a regulatory issue? Is it controversial?

Amanda:        There are several states across the country that are fighting to protect the nomenclature of meat and beef, and I've got to give props to Kentucky; the governor just signed a proclamation declaring it Beef Month for May but also signing a labeling law that would prohibit fake meats from calling themselves “meat” or “beef”. I think that's a great first step in setting those precedents on a state level before it can be federally enforced.

                        We're also seeing countries around the world, like Australia, France, the European Union — they're all addressing these meat-labeling rules and what is best and most informative for consumers. To me, it's really misleading to have these alternative products be called “meat” and “beef”.

                        Most importantly, beef producers have invested, through the Beef Checkoff Program, a dollar per animal sold to promote beef. So you have everything from the iconic "Beef: It’s what's for dinner" slogan, to research to create new steaks that would add value to the carcass, to educating our consumers about how best to prepare beef, and that investment has earned us a great reputation with our consumers. Beef is beloved, and it's king of the grill, and now, these companies want to take that nomenclature and use it for themselves, so that's really frustrating, and I think that's why the beef industry in general is really active in this fight: because beef is beef, period, and its name shouldn't be slapped on any other product.

David:            Let's compare sales of alternative or plant-based proteins to beef. Where does that stand right now?

Amanda:        U.S. sales of plant-based meats jumped 42% between March 2016 and March 2019, to a total of $888 million. Meanwhile, traditional meat sales rose just 1% to $85 billion in that same time frame, and that's according to ABC News. Beyond Meat is valued at $5.1 billion, as of today. I just read a story by a guy, and he predicts that that rising star is going to fizz a lot pretty fast, but I think it's a clear indication that retailers and consumers are incredibly excited about, at least, the plant-based protein patties and are willing to try it. I just read a study that one-third of consumers are also willing to try lab proteins, and so it'll be interesting to see what consumer acceptance looks like once they get to try it, if they like it and, again, if beef can hang on to the center of the dinner plate.

David:            So, it's early days, still.

Amanda:        Yes.

David:            We'll see what happens, right?

Amanda:        Yeah. I think the plant-based proteins, if you look at their ingredient list, it's a mile long, and it's essentially just a processed food; it's not a whole, nourishing food like beef is, a complete protein like beef would be. So, for me, it's a little interesting to see what types of consumers are loving this product. Are they the types that are really interested about health and nutrition? Are they buying it out of guilt or fear about the environment or about animal welfare? And, if so, how do we address some of the concerns that they might have about traditional beef and get them back to eating beef as a protein choice in between those hamburger buns.

David:            All right. Well, thank you, Amanda. It was a great conversation and I appreciate your time.

Amanda:        Thanks for having me. I was thrilled to be able to share that Alltech stage with such talented speakers (at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference), and it's just a great event to be a part of.

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

Winner of Inventor program will be honored at Aqua InDepth, a global aqua conference taking place in the Netherlands this September

The journey toward feeding a population of 9.7 billion people by 2050 will require the global protein industry to be better, faster and more efficient than it is today. Alltech Coppens recognizes that aquaculture has a leading role to play, and that increasing production will not only come from giant leaps in new technologies but from small steps forward, enabling farmers to move beyond simple challenges.

“We understand that farmers are inherently inventors. At Alltech Coppens, we want to pay tribute to the small and big innovations happening each day on aqua farms across the world. We want to empower farmers who are contributing to a Planet of Plenty™ by supporting their inventions and bringing them to a global stage,” said Pat Charlton, CEO of Alltech Coppens.

No invention is too simple or complex for the Inventor program. Ideas can come from all aspects of aquaculture: Hatchery, feeding, growing, catching, processing or marketing. Along with having the opportunity to showcase their invention to leaders and peers of the aquaculture industry, the winner of the Inventor program will also win €2,000 worth of Alltech Coppens feed. Additionally, the winner will receive support from the Alltech Innovation team to help them develop their idea and communicate it to the aquaculture industry.

Farmers from around the world are encouraged to enter their inventions by emailing inventor@alltech.com by Thursday, September 5, 2019. For more information log on to alltechcoppens.com/inventor.

Floating islands of plastic waste. Sea turtles with straws lodged in their nostrils. Images abound and emotions are high as the critical problem of single use plastics floats to the surface. At the same time, food waste is as high as 40% in some countries. How do we balance the preservation of our most perishable products with protecting our environment? We explore the complex issues with Karl Deily of Sealed Air and find opportunities for hope. 

The following is an edited transcript of David Butler's interview with Karl Deily, SVP and chief commercial officer of Sealed Air. Click below to hear the full audio:

David:            Hi! I'm here with Karl Deily from Sealed Air. How are you doing today, Karl?

Karl:                Just fine, David. How about yourself?

David:            Good. Well, thanks for joining us. We're going to talk a little bit about the war on plastics versus food waste, right?

Karl:                Okay, my pleasure.

David:            These are two very big issues — and, probably, plastic pollution, plastic waste, gets a lot more press right now than food waste. How and why are they connected?

Karl:                David, that's a great question, of how and why food waste and plastic waste are connected. Basically, a focus of our technologies and our innovations over the years has been to develop predominantly flexible plastic solutions that protect food, food safety, and extend the shelf life for the food product, allowing them to be shipped from where they're produced to the consumer in a safe and wholesome fashion.

                        Obviously, as everyone knows, there are significant statistics around the amount of food that's wasted — about 33% globally and as high as 40%, even in a country like the United States. Finding ways to reduce that food waste is very much a humanitarian, economic and environmental issue. In the last two years — you're very right — solid plastic waste has become an increasingly discussed issue with sustainability and the war on plastics, and even the plastics in the ocean. So, you have a lot of emotional issues tied up in the need to provide for minimizing food waste and kind of dichotomy of, now, reducing plastic waste.

David:            What's the trade-off there? How can you do both of those things at the same time?

Karl:                And how we can eliminate a trade-off? You don't want a trade-off. We want to continue to advance and to minimize food waste, but we want to do it in a very sustainable fashion. So, from a packaging perspective, what we're looking at doing is making the packaging materials more circular versus the linear process. We used to take raw materials, convert them into a package material, package a product, go to the consumer and then go to the landfill. We now want the products to go through that process but, then, either be recycled back into the product or reused. We've made some significant pledges or commitments to increase the amount of recycled material we use, to make our materials more acceptable for recycling and support all the initiatives around creating a more circular economy. We can further the fight against food waste but do it in a very environmentally friendly manner, because, at the end of the day, they're both resources that are vitally needed by the world we live in.

David:            Can you go into detail on some of the things that you have to do to make more plastics recyclable and make sure they actually get recycled?

Karl:                Yes, David. To make materials more recyclable, we make some very complex materials that are very thin, but because they're complex and they're made of many different resins, that inherently makes them harder to recycle in the recycle streams that are available today. Something like a water bottle, that's made out of a mono-resin, is relatively easy to recycle; you just reprocess it, melt the plastic down, re-pelletize it to a resin form and re-extrude it. If you have a multilayer material, that's not near as easy to do, so our strategy is severalfold: One, to make the materials more receptive to recycling, we reengineer the materials so that they can use recycled content as well as be recycled. We even look at things like bio-derived resins that are made from renewable resources that we can use to make functional materials as well, and we're involved in doing all three.

David:            Go into a little more detail on the bio-derived resins. What are the sources that you use to make those chemicals?

Karl:                We have a partnership with a company named Kuraray, who has a technology that they call “PLANTIC™,” which is made from corn. That immediately excites everybody because they say corn is either used for animal feed or used for human feed and you can't divert that to make plastic materials. Well, this happens to be a very unique corn that has a very high amylose content, and that's typically not used for human feed or animal feed.

                        We can take this product and convert it into a resin that we're able to extrude. What's unique about it is there are other bio-derived resins on the market, but most of them don't have functionality. This particular product has a lot of functionality. It has an oxygen barrier to prevent oxidative rancidity of products. It has an abuse barrier to protect the product through the rigors of distribution. It's a very unique technology that uses a renewable resource to make a packaging product. At the end of life, at the consumer, it's typically made in a lamination, where you have two recyclable materials with this polymer trapped in between. It's easily separate-able. The corn-based product can be dissolved, and the recyclable resins that sandwich it get recycled and used again, so it's a completely renewable product.

David:            That can be recycled in the current recycling streams?

Karl:                Yes, David, and that's the beauty of this — the resins that we're using are the same that you would use to make a water bottle, which has a well-established recycle stream, and we can even use recycled resins in the product.

David:            I have seen a lot of controversy recently about biodegradable plastics not biodegrading. What's behind that issue?

Karl:                Yeah, and that's been the issue with biodegradable materials since the inception of them. For years, there have been a lot of studies where biodegradable materials have gone to landfill, they dig them up years later and they haven't degraded at all because they're not in the presence of either the right organisms, oxygen, moisture or what have you to propagate the degradation. There's also the second argument that, if you put a product in the landfill, you don't really want it degrading because, depending on what it's made of, it could potentially get in the water stream. We haven't necessarily focused a lot on biodegradable materials. We looked at solving it with a variety of other options but, at the end of the day, having some level of biodegradable product is probably part of the solution. It's just what that technology will be, but yes, it has a history of not being an acceptable technology.

David:            How far out do you think we are from truly biodegradable plastics?

Karl:                It's not only biodegradable products but a number of these other solutions that we have to really look at and what they are being used for. If they're just a carrier for a product, they can be used in a broader level of applications. If they're trying to protect the product, especially a food product, then they have to have functionality; they have to have properties like an oxygen barrier and a moisture barrier.

                        In this day and age, with merchandising, they have to be printable, so there's a lot of functionality that materials have to have. We see biodegradable materials being a component of the solution — maybe not a total part of the solution — but that's where we're seeing that marrying or coupling multiple technologies together, to minimize the amount of non-recyclable kind of linear products to a minimum and maximizing the amount of either recyclable products or things like bio-derived or even biodegradable products, in combination with the highly functional materials.

David:            Okay. I have seen a lot of stories recently about various countries banning particular single-use plastics. Maybe it's most often shopping bags. Can you give us a little tour of regulatory requirements that you see popping up over the world?

Karl:                Right. There are a lot of regulatory things that are occurring around the world. I think, if you take a look at the domino effect, some of the first issues started in China, where they had a National Sword regulation where they stopped importing or stopped receiving scrap plastic from around the world. They were the largest importer of scrap plastic produced in the world, and they typically reprocessed it. They decided that that wasn't in their best interest, so they stopped doing it.

India also imports a significant amount of scrap plastic. They soon followed suit, so you saw a lot of this plastic backing up around the world if they didn't have the infrastructure to address it. What you're seeing is a lot of subsequent regulations trying to help address the issue, and one of the proposed regulations that you see a lot of is banning single-use plastics, or banning certain packaging items that they think may be harder to process or what is maybe perceived as more of an environmental issue.

                        Straws are made out of polyethylene. Straws are very recyclable because they're made out of a single material — if you can collect them, you can recycle them —  but they've been at the epicenter. You mentioned grocery bags as well. They're made out of a single resin. A lot of those products can be easily recycled, but they get the focus in that they don't provide a higher level of functionality, so they're easy to get rid of. When you see something like McDonald's, that uses 95 million straws a day, you can say, “Hey, you don't really need a straw. You don't really need a disposable bag. You can use a reusable bag. Let's just ban them.”

                        The reality is, some of the reusable bags, you'd have to use them 3,000 times to basically neutralize the carbon footprint of the disposable bag that’s produced today, so there's a huge amount of emotion in it right now. It's where we need to get to, David, where we get beyond emotion and start solving this issue with good scientific innovation and investment.

David:            That sounds good. You've touched on greenhouse gas emissions, and that's a very important thing. It's a different issue than plastic waste in the oceans, which, of course, is a gigantic problem and we need to find a solution for that. On the other hand, we have this greenhouse gas problem, and plastics kind of help reduce greenhouse gasses, in some ways. In other ways, of course, since they're petroleum-based, many of them take energy. They contribute to greenhouses gasses. Can you go into some depth on this?

Karl:                David, what you described in saying you have plastic waste, you have greenhouse gas emissions produced by both the food product as well as the packaging material, or at least the production of it, I think you really have to look end-to-end, from where food is produced to where food is finally consumed and any of the packaging material disposed of, whether it's recycled or reprocessed.

                        Look, there are multiple steps in there that have some level of environmental impact on the resources we use. First and foremost, the food: It can produce a significant amount of greenhouse gas if it's wasted and disposed of in the landfill, but prior to that, it's the most significant use of freshwater. It's obviously a significant use of arable land, as well as energy, so there are a lot of resources that go into producing food and getting it to the consumer. The worst thing you want to do is throw it away before the consumer can gain the nutritional benefit of that food product. That's where packaging can play a role, and you get a significant return on investment. There is a much smaller carbon footprint — by about 370-fold — compared to the food product that it's protecting, so it does provide a real benefit on greenhouse gas. It also provides a benefit from the humanitarian standpoint and economic standpoint to minimizing food waste, but it also has an environmental viewpoint as well.

                        I think we just have to address it in the collaborative manner, and that's why I really applaud Alltech for some of the programs and processes that it's looking at. You have to start from food production all the way through consumption and, at every step of that chain, look for how you can make it in the most efficient, effective and renewable manner possible.

David:            Tell me a little bit about what Sealed Air does, just very briefly, and then, I'll ask you about that later, at the end.

Karl:                Okay. We're a global corporation and, basically, our history is that we work in two areas. We're in protective packaging — so things like bubble wrap, void fill, e-commerce, heavy automotive, things of that nature — where we're protecting products from where they're made to either where they're going to be used or the consumer. A lot of that is secondary or tertiary packaging.

                        Then, about two-thirds of our business is in food packaging — predominantly perishable foods, whether they're fresh or frozen foods.

David:            Tell me a little bit about efforts that the plastic industry, the packaging industry or consumer goods industries are taking to reduce plastic waste in the ocean.

Karl:                What the industry is doing to reduce the amount of plastics that are going into the ocean — and, first and foremost, a lot of the plastics that are in the ocean don't come from food packaging; they come from things like fishing nets and all sorts of other sources. They're general garbage. I saw a statistic on even how many toothbrushes are part of this plastic waste in the ocean, but that doesn't alleviate us from having to help address the topic. Again, basically, the plastics industry is focusing on making our products much more renewable, so one would just be reducing the amount of materials we use to provide the same protection. In the last 20 to 25 years, we've reduced, through technologies, the amount of plastic that's actually used by a significant amount, so we're more productive with less initial product. That's kind of step one.

                        Step two is in being able to utilize materials that can be easily recycled into multiple products, whether they go back into food packaging or they go back into other forms of packaging. We need to be able to sort, segregate and reprocess those plastics. A very efficient use of the plastics is to incinerate them and get the original energy out of them. Even though that can be done in a very environmentally-friendly manner, it's not broadly considered a very acceptable thing to do, so we're not using that as a solution. We're looking at how we can take those products and then reprocess them.

                        We're also looking at how you design package styles to minimize the amount of plastic and using a variety of different sources of material — whether it’s more paper goods or more bio-derived products — to complement the plastic material so that they're separate-able, so you can separate those that should be recycled and separate those that go into other waste streams. We’re looking at it from a very comprehensive manner.

                        Our suppliers, the resin companies, the large producers of our raw material products are heavily engaged as well. We're engaged with our customers. David, that's the type of collaboration that it’s going to take to make a significant impact on addressing the amount of plastic waste that ends up in the environment, whether it's in the ocean or in landfill.

David:            What do you see as a solution to the challenge, with China and maybe other markets ceasing taking recyclables?

Karl:                The biggest challenge the rest of the world is going to have with China and Russia taking less of the plastic waste and reprocessing it is having the infrastructure to reprocess. Closer to home, in America, water bottles are commonly recycled. They're the most recyclable products on the market because they're made of a resin that we call PET, and there are many resources for recycling water bottles. However, many other products are made of a single resin and, in America, there are no recycle streams for those. Although the products could be recycled — I mentioned straws earlier — they're made of a different resin, a polyethylene, that's easily recyclable if the streams are set up. There is a level of investment that is going to need to be made, and you see a lot of entrepreneurs in Europe getting involved and getting involved in either mechanical or chemical reprocessing that will allow the circular economy to be developed. It’s mainly infrastructure that is the biggest inhibitor to doing it tomorrow.

David:            Do you think that business will be able to close the loop on the circular economy? Will there be enough money in recycling to do that, or is it going to take initiatives from governments to make that happen?

Karl:                I think you're going to see that the investment is going to come from the private industries. You're going to see joint ventures set up and collaboration set up between multiple companies to invest into infrastructure. I think you will also see governments putting tariffs on virgin resin to make it more economical to recycle because there's no argument today, David, that recycled resin is more expensive than virgin resin.

                        If you think about it, the processes have been there for 40 to 50 years to turn petroleum products into resins, and they've gotten very good at it. Now, to recycle a resin, you've got to sort it. You've got to claim it. You've got to clean it. You have to reprocess it, and then you have to ship it to where it's going to be used, and all of that has infrastructure that has to be put in place to get there. It will become economical over time, but I think you'll see taxes and some things levied to take the cost, the disadvantage, out of doing the right thing.

David:            Okay. Are there any countries that are levying those taxes right now?

Karl:                Yeah. There are some that are proposed in the U.K., as well as in continental Europe. It's interesting. Europe is going even one step further in that they're going to tax virgin resins — and they're going to also tax to a significant quantity, by the way, maybe €1 to €2 per kilogram, so a pretty high tariff when you consider the cost of the base resin product — but they're also going to tax recycled resins if they come from outside of the European Union. So, they not only want you to recycle the products, they want you to recycle the products that are used within their geography, because they're trying to solve their problem and minimize this waste. For instance, if North America or even China were to get significantly into reprocessing scrap back into resin, they don't want it coming from offshore; they're wanting it to come from their geography. I think it will get quite interesting before we get to the final solution.

David:            Yeah, that sounds exciting. Are there any last points that you'd like to leave us with, something you see on the horizon that you think is really going to be good?

Karl:                Yes, David. The last points I'd like to make are that we understand it's a very emotional topic, anytime you see a sea creature that's disadvantaged by pollution that's in the ocean, especially if it's plastic waste. It's obviously a very emotional issue because you have a belief you can prevent it, and we can. So, what we've been talking about are various things the industry can do to minimize product that either goes to landfill or gets discarded and may end up causing an environmental issue.

                        The industry is committed. The industry is investing a lot of money in it, but it will take time to get to where we need to go. The thing I really like is, in a very conservative industry, there are people signing up for pledges to make significant strides by 2025 and 2030 to address this issue without even knowing exactly how we're going to get there. We just know we need to get there, and if we don't make these commitments and we don't make these investments, we'll never get there. That's probably my last comment. We know it's emotional. Just rest assured that there's a level of awareness, acceptance and investment in innovation going on in this area.

David:            Thanks so much, Karl. It was great talking to you, and I'm glad to learn a little more about that topic.

Karl:                Well, thank you very much, David, and I appreciate all that Alltech is doing for the industry. This is a great conference and you have a lot to be proud of, so thank you.

Agriculture has the power to solve some of our most challenging environmental problems. We can put carbon back in the soil and forests. We can recycle nutrients and keep them out of our rivers, lakes and oceans. We can generate renewable energy. And, together, we can build a more sustainable world. Learn more about Working Together for a Planet of Plenty^TM.

Every year when the calendar flips to May 5, the world joins in Mexico's "Cinco de Mayo" celebration of its historic victory over the mighty French forces. In a David and Goliath battle against an army nearly three times its size, soldiers outside the city of Puebla vanquished the invaders in 1862, turning the tide on a military machine that had been undefeated for nearly 50 years.

France may have looked better on paper, but Mexico had a secret weapon that was far more powerful: sheer determination. Outnumbered but not outmaneuvered, Mexico showed the world that with the proper mindset, ambition can trump ammunition.

While the military victory it commemorates took place over 150 years ago, the spirit of the battle of Puebla lives on. Nowhere is that more evident than in Serdan, located in the same state just an hour’s drive from the battleground site. There sits a beacon of hope that reflects the nation's unflagging resolve to advance economically, technologically and societally: Alltech Serdan.

Alltech's Serdan facility is located about 120 miles southeast of Mexico City. The plant produces two main products: Allzyme ® SSF (a natural enzyme complex that maximizes nutrient release) and De-Odorase® (made from yucca extract, which reduces ammonia from animal waste). The state-of-the-art production facility, which has about 200 employees, is one of the largest facilities of its kind in the world. Construction of a new De-Odorase production facility is underway and is expected to more than double production capacity.

Paul Kilgallen has seen Alltech's investment in Serdan grow exponentially in recent years. The resultant benefits to the community – indeed, to the world – show in the faces of those whose lives they have touched, he said.

"You can't imagine what it feels like to see a young person who never even dreamed of having such an opportunity actually succeed," said Kilgallen, who manages Alltech's plant in Serdan. He has seen that happen many times over through Alltech's internship program, which has resulted in permanent employment for numerous candidates. "You see people here wearing 10-year pins, even 20- and some are close to 25-year. People are seeing that you can build a future at Alltech Serdan," he said.

Because Serdan is largely rural, in the past residents seeking education and employment usually had to move to urban areas, such as Mexico City, to seek career opportunities. Now, more and more residents of Serdan and the surrounding Puebla region are able to stay there after graduation, said Josefina Garcia, who manages Alltech’s community projects in Serdan.

"I'm a local girl, and it means a lot to me to see graduates be able to stay and have a successful career in their own community," she said. "Before, the only stable employment you could find was in the big cities."

Alltech's efforts in Serdan have had a ripple effect worldwide. Kilgallen offered the example of a Haitian student who, while attending the University of Kentucky, met Dr. Pearse Lyons, president and founder of Alltech (which is headquartered in Lexington, Kentucky). Lyons recruited him for a summer internship at Alltech Serdan, where the student was introduced to the company's innovative work with yucca. Afterward the student brought his knowledge and excitement about yucca back to his home country, where it generated interest. Haiti, still recovering from the massive earthquake of 2010, began exploring yucca as a means to improve its agriculture base and economy.

One of the team's most important projects is planting yucca trees throughout the region, which testifies to Alltech's commitment to sustainability. Alltech's operations in Serdan have received numerous awards for sustainability work from the governing authorities in Ciudad Serdan and in the city of Perote in the Veracruz region.

Yucca trees at Alltech Serdan, Mexico. Background: Pico De Orizaba, highest mountain (Volcano) in Mexico

Kilgallen said there are about 60,000-70,000 yucca seedlings at the Serdan facility, which are replanted in the surrounding regions until they reach full growth. About 15 years after planting, the plants are harvested and transported to Serdan, where the yucca logs are used to produce De-Odorase – always with an eye on sustainability. As Kilgallen noted, "For every tree we harvest, we replant three yucca trees."

Alltech's interns, supervised by experienced employees, are currently working on yucca products for an organic certification project. In addition, Alltech's alignment with new yucca suppliers has generated job opportunities, with about 40 new hires by a supplier in Perote.

"You can drive around and see Serdan prospering," said Kilgallen, who over the past several years has witnessed the area bloom into a commercially viable community with a higher standard of living than before.

"We even have Walmart-type stores now,” he added. "You don't see that in towns comparable to Serdan. The improvements on employees' quality of life are clear, even as exemplified by the types of cars now in the facility’s parking lot."

And, their success is paid forward. Some of Alltech's new and ongoing community projects in Serdan include aid to schools for disadvantaged and disabled children, including donations of computers and classroom furniture, as well as upgrades to buildings and play yards. Garcia and her team also help sell products made by students to raise additional funds for the schools. In addition, they make food and clothing donations to the regional prison.

El Cerrito Elementary School, supported by Alltech Serdan

Hundreds of the world's leading dairy and beef producers gathered in Deauville, France, for an industry conference last fall. As they took their seats, they found a surprise on the table: Kit Kat candy bars.

Only a group of dairy industry devotees would get the humor — and the connection. Nestlé, one of the world's 50 largest companies (and producer of Kit Kat, along with baby foods and other milk-based products among its 2,000 brands), was about to announce its new partnership with global animal health and nutrition leader Alltech, organizer of the annual Alltech global conference for dairy and beef producers.

Their mutual endeavor: the Nestlé Dairy Farming Institute (DFI) in Shuangcheng in Heilongjiang province in northeast China. A major investment for both companies, the Institute, launched in October 2014, is helping modernize Chinese dairy farming practices so farmers can meet the population's burgeoning milk demand.

While it has not traditionally been a staple in the Chinese diet, milk is on the move in Asia. China is now one of the fastest growing markets for milk products globally. A 2014 study by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy found that in the past three decades, both dairy production and consumption in China have soared, averaging a 12.8 percent annual growth rate since 2000.The nation's dairy consumption is expected to increase 38 percent by 2022, driven not only by traditional milk, yogurt and cheese products but also the introduction of new product concepts in China such as drinkable yogurts and milk-based juices.

"Milk is becoming a vital part of the Chinese diet," said Hans Joehr, Nestlé's head of Agriculture. "The Institute represents our commitment to helping China move its dairy sector to the next stage of development in a sustainable and efficient manner."

The DFI is geared to help gain consumers' confidence in locally produced milk and their trust in Chinese authorities. "The essence is that DFI will help society so farmers and businesses that use milk can stay in business. It's a very powerful thing to bring to the market. This has never been done before," he said.

Why did Nestlé select Alltech as its partner in this project? "It's a strategic alignment," said Joehr, explaining that Nestlé cannot accomplish its goal in China by itself. "It's like building a car. Even if you have a good chassis — Nestlé — what good is it if you don't have a good engine — Alltech?"

To produce its line of baby foods, he added, Nestlé needs the highest quality milk available. That starts with healthy milking cows. Describing Alltech as the "extra ingredient" needed to help farmers raise healthy cows, Joehr said Alltech understands the nutrition cows need to produce healthy milk for Nestlé's consumer products.

“It's like building a car. Even if you have a good chassis — Nestlé — what good is it if you don't have a good engine —Alltech?” -

Hans Joehr, Nestlé's head of Agriculture

He pointed in particular to the company's widely recognized expertise in the milk industry and in optimal care for production animals. "It's an end-to-end approach. You need a complete competence chain to please your client."

Joehr underscored that Nestlé considers DFI to be a long-term project, "not for just a year or two." That's why its alignment with Alltech is so crucial.

"We chose Alltech because of the attitude and vision of its leaders. They are reflected in the value set of the company. I have known Dr. Pearse Lyons (Alltech founder and president) and his family for many years. He has credibility and trust," he said, adding that Nestlé prefers to work with farmers and suppliers like Alltech that are owner-operated and like-minded.

Nestlé and Alltech share several strengths that are key to DFI's success, among them a commitment to education, which is an integral part of the project. Faculty members at DFI, each of whom brings specialized competences, hail from the University of Wisconsin Madison, Northeast Agricultural University and the Farm Comparison Network (IFCS). Since its opening six months ago, the Institute has held six classes on feed, as well as genetics programs and on-farm training.

Both companies have had boots on the ground in China for more than 20 years. Nestlé established three milk districts in China, in Shuangcheng, Laixi in Qingdao and Hulunbeier in Inner Mongolia. Alltech has a strong presence with an office in Beijing, which is run by Dr. Mark Lyons, global vice president, Alltech and head of Alltech China business operations.

"We are proud to be part of Nestlé's magnificent project in one of the most important regions of the Chinese dairy industry," said Lyons. "I am confident that Alltech's contribution, backed by 35 years of experience, will be significant in helping Chinese farmers sustainably increase their production efficiency and become more profitable."

Partnering with Nestlé is one of numerous projects included in its "China Now" program. China, as a critical player in global agribusiness, is a priority focus for Alltech, and China Now reflects the resources the company has invested to strengthen its local support within the market.

Fundamental to this strategy are partnerships with other businesses as well as universities. Within the last two years, Alltech has finalized formal research alliances with seven Chinese universities and research institutions — the Chinese National Feed Quality Control Center in Beijing; Northwest A&F University; Zhejiang University; South China Agriculture University; Jiangnan University; Ocean University of China; and the Ministry of Agriculture Feed Industry Centre (MAFIC) — to focus on intensive, solution-driven research.

Alltech brings to DFI a feed evaluation laboratory with the In Vitro Fermentation Model (IFM), a diagnostic tool that simulates rumen fermentation and evaluates the nutritive value of total mixed rations. Through IFM diagnostics, Chinese dairy nutritionists and farmers are not only be able to get evaluations and recommendations for dairy rations to maximize feed efficiency and combat ever-rising feed costs, but also obtain estimates of the amount of energy lost as methane and methane emissions per animal. In the rapidly developing Chinese dairy industry, such new technology helps dairy productivity to continue to improve while providing insight into new and more precise ways to evaluate feedstuffs and reduce environmental impact.

“Alltech is our worldwide partner, not just our partner in the DFI.” -

Hans Joehr

Noting Alltech's long-standing relationship with Nestlé, as well as Nestlé's excellence in collaborating and improving the supply chain, Dr. Pearse Lyons, president and founder of Alltech, pointed to the important role of Alltech's new lab at the DFI. The lab provides state-of-the-art feeding technologies to improve the health of dairy cows and increase milk yield, which will assist farmers in making feeding decisions.

What does the future hold for the Alltech-Nestlé alliance? "Alltech is our worldwide partner, not just our partner in the DFI," said Joehr, who recently met with Alltech's crop specialists in Brazil. He said Nestlé and Alltech plan to work together in South America, where Alltech has a strong team, in cocoa research and eventually expand into all cocoa-producing countries. "This will end up with the best milk chocolate in the future!" he said.

The Nestlé Dairy Farming Institute in Shuangcheng, Heilongjiang province, China, features Alltech’s cutting-edge technology feed evaluation laboratory. Dr. Neil Xu, research manager, Alltech China; Dr. Karl Dawson, chief scientific officer, Alltech; Dr. Anne Koontz, research scientist, Alltech China; Shelly Ji, laboratory technician, Alltech China; and Dr. Mark Lyons, global vice president, Alltech, were present at its official opening in October 2014.