Over the next few years, food production must almost double to meet the needs of the world population and the global demand for protein. This has put pressure on the livestock sector to maximize output while reducing the usage of resources, making animal feed the largest and most important component in the industry to provide healthy and sustainable animal protein.

One of the biggest challenges for the feed industry and animal nutrition is the rising cost of feed, which can account for up to 70% of total production expenses. Furthermore, around 25% of the available nutrients cannot be fully utilized by the animal due to anti-nutritional factors in the feed, which could be costly for the global livestock industry.

Today, the greatest challenge for the nutritionist in the feed industry is reducing this indigestible fraction and maximizing feed efficiency based on nutritional and economic factors, which often vary and may be unique to each production system.

Improving animal and feed performance with feed innovation

Scientific innovation is critical for the future of animal nutrition and protein production. Some key areas of focus for the global animal feed industry to improve animal and feed efficiency are:

• Improving animal performance characteristics (e.g., feed-to-weight-gain ratios, smart feed for more nutritious animal products)
• Minimizing costs (e.g., less expensive base ingredients, more efficient utilization of grain for feed)
• Maximizing feed production efficiencies in a sustainable way (e.g., processes and practices)

While traditional feedstuffs continue to be used at high rates, new and novel feedstuffs are now routinely implemented in animal feed formulation. A range of innovative applications are being used to optimize and assess the continued development of efficient and sustainable advances. Advanced technologies, such as nutrigenomics, reveal the relationship between feed nutrients and gene expression. Nutrigenomics allows the industry to identify feeds that can help animals reach their genetic potential by directly impacting the genes responsible for growth rate, meat quality and disease prevention.

Another technology that will allow for the prompt characterization of the nutritional value of raw feed materials is in vitro digestion modeling. These models, which can be used for both poultry and swine, provide real-time decision-making options to maximize feed usage while also improving animal production.

A third area of feed innovation involves providing supplemental feed that contains exogenous enzymes, also known as feed enzymes, which aid digestion by promoting the release of nutrients that are typically unavailable to the animal, improving animal performance in a sustainable way.  

The role of enzymes in the feed industry

Enzymes, which are essential for life, serve a wide range of functions and are especially important to the feed industry, thanks to their ability to break down nutrients. Enzymes are naturally occurring catalysts that speed up the rate of most chemical reactions that take place within cells.

Enzymes play a key role in the animal’s digestive process. Although digestive enzymes are produced by the animal itself — or by naturally occurring microbial organisms in the animal’s digestive system — producers have also used exogenous feed enzymes for many years for nutrient utilization and improved performance in animal feed.

Using poultry nutrition as an example, feed substrates and enzymes can generally be thought of in three ways:

1. Naturally produced endogenous poultry enzymes in the digestive tract of the bird for the liberation of nutrients from feed components, such as starches, proteins and lipids
2. Exogenous enzymes not native to the animal’s digestive system that act on recalcitrant substrates, which are not easily digested but which could potentially be utilized as nutrients, such as the glucose in cellulose in poultry diets (e.g., use of cellulase enzyme in poultry nutrition)
3. Exogenous enzymes not produced by the animal’s digestive system that could act on difficult-to-digest substrates, as well as any anti-nutritive effects, due to compounds such as β-glucans, xylans and phytate (e.g., phytase enzyme in poultry feed)

Performance and profitability are often the primary reasons for utilizing feed enzymes, as they are the direct result of the improved digestibility and the increased availability of nutrients like phosphorous, carbohydrates and amino acids and, in turn, an increase in available energy as well. However, feed enzymes also allow for the use of a broader range of feedstuffs, which can allow for flexibility in the formulation of the diet by using non-conventional sources or alternative raw materials. These alternative sources are a direct result of the growing demand for corn, wheat and soybean meal. The increased demand for grains has also increased their value, leading feed producers and nutritionists to look for alternative feedstuffs to reduce costs. Non-conventional dietary sources, however, might not be as readily digestible, as the animal may lack the necessary endogenous digestive enzymes and, as such, will glean less nutrition from the feed. The utilization of exogenous enzymes to make the feed more digestible increases the nutritional value of these non-conventional feed sources for the animal.

Over the past 20 years, enzyme supplementation in the animal feed sector has grown and developed dramatically. The global feed enzyme market is currently estimated to be more than US$1 billion and is expected to grow by another 8% over the next five years. Right now, phytase holds the largest market share; however, the use of proteases and NSP enzymes, such as xylanase, has accelerated to such an extent that they are being included in over 57% of monogastric diets. Enzymes in poultry feed has been the largest segment, followed by the swine and aquaculture industries.

Feed enzymes over the years

Early research studying the role of enzymes in poultry nutrition was already taking place in the 1920s. The R&D evolution continued through the 50s and 60s, when barley diets were commonly fed, and research showed that enzymes improved poultry performance. During the 80s and 90s, a better understanding of NSPs in fiber and their impact on animal performance became a focus of the research, and the use of xylanase also became prevalent. During the late 90s, the use of phytase became standard practice. Currently, in terms of the feed penetration of phytase and carbohydrase enzymes such as xylanase, the feed enzyme sector is a mature market. The benefits of providing exogenous enzymes in the feed include the reduction of anti-nutritional factors in the animal feed, the use of lower-cost feed ingredients and an improvement in feed conversion and animal performance — but in order to get the most out of your animal nutrition, it is important that you choose the right feed enzyme to meet your needs.

A unique process development

The majority of feed enzyme production originates by using both bacterial and fungal microorganisms produced either from the submerged fermentation (SmF) or solid-state fermentation (SSF) processes. 

Naturally occurring microbial strains for the production of enzymes are of great value and continue to be utilized, but the use of recombinant versions accounts for the majority of industrial enzyme production today. 

Solid-state fermentation systems can be tailored to address specific needs based on the substrate and microbial selection. For example, Aspergillus niger produces a cocktail of enzymes that contain multi-enzymes such as phytase, xylanase, cellulase, protease and β-glucanase. These enzymes, both as individual applications or as a concoction of enzymes, have a broad spectrum of industrial applications.

Early assessments characterized SSF as being a simplistic process, less technologically advanced than the SmF process, but that assessment was later shown to be erroneous and based on a poor understanding of SSF process requirements. Recent rigorous studies have shown that, with the proper design, the technical and economic advantages of SSF far outweigh those of SmF. The many economic advantages of SSF over SmF include a lower capital investment, lower energy requirements, a lower environmental impact based on water consumption and waste generation, and lower costs for downstream processing. Additional studies are needed to continue identifying opportunities for agro-industrial residues as substrates and to match the appropriate microbes to cultivation conditions. Tray fermentation has become the proven leader in large-scale SSF applications, and much work has been completed on the control of key parameters to optimize growth at a commercial scale. Innovations in engineering to allow for large-scale SSF processes offer a major opportunity for growth in the commercial enzyme industry.

Maximizing feed efficiency with enzyme technologies

Enzymes are well-known to be an effective solution for optimizing feed efficiency. Enzyme supplementation in animal diets increases nutrient digestion by breaking down anti-nutritive components, such as phytate and NSPs, into forms that are more readily absorbed by the animal, reducing the environmental impact as well, while saving on costs for producers. 

Feed efficiency starts with an accurate knowledge of raw materials and their quality, allowing for the precise adjustment of the feed formulation. How well an enzyme performs, in many cases, is determined before it even reaches the animal. Feed processing methods — whether milling, grinding or, particularly, pelleting — can have a major impact on enzyme stability. Furthermore, digestive tract conditions, particularly pH changes and substrate availability, can also influence enzyme efficiency.

Enzyme characteristics can vary widely depending on the source. Solid-state fermentation has the potential to offer competitive advantages based on cost and efficacy.

Click here for more information about the Alltech Enzyme Management Program.

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. 

Calf scours is responsible for about 61% of all sickness in cattle and can affect farmers’ profitability. How can farmers improve the health of their calves? Dr. Shelby Roberts, researcher at Alltech, shares what causes this common disease and best practices for preventing calf scours in the future.

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

Kara:              Alltech researcher Dr. Shelby Roberts is joining me today to talk about health issues in the beef cattle industry. Thank you for joining me.

Shelby:          Thank you for having me.

Kara:              Well, I know that you have a long history and interest in beef cattle because you grew up in Texas. Tell me a little bit about your background and why the beef cattle industry is so important to you.

Shelby:          I grew up on about a 400-head commercial cow operation in West Texas, so it's in my blood. I've grown up doing it, so it's just something that is a part of my tradition and something that I enjoy and like to do with my family as well.

Kara:              So, you've definitely worked with beef cattle your whole life, and you understand, like so many individuals in the cattle industry do, that scours is a problem for cattle. How big of an issue, though, is it, for those that might not be as familiar with the beef cattle industry? Is it something that all beef producers are concerned about?

Shelby:          I would say that is probably something that all beef producers are concerned about. The USDA has reported that about 61% of calf sickness is actually due to scours, so I'm going to say that probably every farmer or rancher is worried about scours in their herd.

Kara:              Scours is a concern, then, because, if you have health issues with your calves, that equates to losing money. So, how big of an economic impact does it have on farmers?

Shelby:          It's kind of hard to put down a specific number for those farmers, but it's going to be due to losses in the performance not only of that calf, but maybe that dam as well. So, if that calf is sick, they're not going to be eating and gaining weight, so those are just some losses that you're not going to be able to maybe pick up, but, in the long run, you're not going to get the full growth of that animal when you wean them. It's also a loss of time. You're going to have to spend that time doctoring because, once you get one calf with scours, you're probably going to have two or three, maybe 10 to 20, that get scours, so you're going to have to spend the time treating those animals and also making sure that you care and maintain those animals.

Kara:              What is it that causes scours in calves? Is it just one issue? Are there several things that can happen on a farm or ranch that result in calves getting scours?

Shelby:          There are actually several pathogens that can cause scours. Most of the time, if you're diagnosing scours, it's not just one pathogen; it's multiple pathogens. So, it's multifaceted, and there are different aspects that can affect the calf. It's going to be an environmental thing, such as E. coli, salmonella in the soil. Rotavirus is another thing that, if your herds get infected with it, they can get scours as well.

Kara:              The new research is looking at ways to address scours in calves. Can you tell me a little bit about your research and maybe some stories and examples of how you all have been treating scours?

Shelby:          Yes. At Alltech, we've been looking at treating scours as a preventative, so what we have is we have some prebiotic products. It is just the cell wall of a live yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast, and we feed that to the dams. When you feed it to the dam, you're improving her colostrum quality, so when she has that calf and she passes that immunity from herself to that calf when it drinks colostrum, we're improving the health through the colostrum of that animal, and then, you're preparing that calf for any of the pathogens that it's going to encounter in the environment.

Kara:              Are there other Alltech products or other research avenues you're looking at to address preventative methods?

Shelby:          Yes, there are other preventative methods. One would be mineral nutrition, making sure that that dam is having her mineral requirements met, specifically trace minerals. When you think of the immune system, trace minerals actually are a key point in many of either enzymes or other factors in the immune system, so trace mineral status — making sure that that dam has the correct minerals she needs for immunity — is really important as well. That would be another aspect that Alltech is looking at as well.

Kara:              We're looking at researching preventative ways. So, how do farmers approach this on the farm? You're talking about the dam, the mama cow, as most people refer to her. Are there other things that farmers need to look at — biosecurity issues on the farm — to address this problem?

Shelby:          Yes, so, not only can you address it through feeding those mama cows early, but you can also look at it through biosecurity. So, again, we know those pathogens are probably in the soil and that they affect those calves at different ages. So, one, when you get new heifers or new animals to the farm, make sure, for the first two weeks, that they're separated from the main herd. That's mainly just to prevent any bugs that they have brought onto the farm from getting into the main herd.

                        Secondly, we want to wean those animals who are calving. Make sure you keep that calving area clean. I know, this year, especially in the southeast, it's been a problem; we've had lots of rain, so it's been muddy. But those pathogens live in the soil, so, when it gets muddy, it gets harder for those dams who want to stay clean — but also, you're spreading those pathogens around a lot easier, so maintaining a clean-as-possible calving area.

                        I would suggest, if you have multiple herds, in the first week of calves, for a week, you have all the calves, and you put those in a pen. Then you move them to another site, and then you manage your calves in groups. So, the first week or two, those calves stay together, until weaning. And then, when you get the second group, for a week or two, those calves are born — move those into another group. That just prevents those calves, the older calves, from spreading pathogens to those newer-born calves as well. Also, those calves, those new calves, could have some pathogens as well. You bring that into the older group and, then, those calves get sick as well, and then you just have a vicious cycle of animals getting sick and sick and sick.

Kara:              A lot of this is working with farmers and educating farmers on biosecurity issues, as well as addressing the supplement or utilizing trace minerals, correct?

Shelby:          Correct, yes. That's right.

Kara:              We've talked about how identifying scours early on is a preventative approach, but also, it can have an impact on the calf development, nutrition and immunity. You've touched on that briefly. Can you talk a little bit more about how this pathogen can impact the animal once it is already born and in the growth time of a calf?

Shelby:          Right. Once those calves are born, they're naïve, so they don't have any — unlike humans, where, from the mom to the baby, we can pass antibodies. Those are things that are needed to, for specific pathogens, it can take and fight those pathogens. In calves, we don't have that, so getting colostrum in those animals is really important, because that's their source of immunity for the first week or two, until they can get their own immune system fully developed.

                        The problem is, when you get it in those from a day old to two-week calves, where they're naïve, those animals are really susceptible to scours because they don't have any way to fight it, right? They are just naïve, and so, their immune system, since it's not functioning, they're going to get sick a lot quicker, and it's probably going to be a pretty bad sickness, because it's going to take them a while to get over it.

Kara:              A lot of this is, really, herd management, is what it comes down to; it comes back to the farmer being educated on nutritional sources as well as herd management. Now, I know a lot of your research is focused more on the nutritional sources, but when you're out working in a farm and working with a farmer, what have you seen that their approach is to addressing these issues, and can you give us an example of a farmer you've worked with in some of your research trials that really has taken an innovative approach to addressing scours?

Shelby:          Yes. The problem most farmers have, I would say, is they're not doing it preventively; they're doing it as a treatment source. Nutritional sources are going to be needed to be used as preventatives. You're going to have to treat it with an antibiotic or some other treatment to help those calves recover, because they're already sick. When we approach health through nutrition, we want to approach it as, we're setting these animals up to get better.

                        One farm, for example, would be farms that use low-stress management and, then, they're feeding the dams to feed the calves. We have a farm that uses Bio-Mos. They put it out into a tub, a mineral tub, for their dams a month before those calves are supposed to be born, so they're preparing those dams. They're getting those antibodies built up in that mama cow before she calves. Those mama cows stay on that until about a month after the last calf is born. So, again, we're just setting those calves up. Then, when we wean those calves, that farmer puts Bio-Mos into the supplement that is available to those calves because, one, Bio-Mos tastes good, so those animals are going to want to eat it. So, if you can get calves to — especially during weaning — get them on feed faster, you're going to have less stress, and they're going to have less weight loss, because they're actually getting up on feed and recovering faster.

                        Bio-Mos, it's really a management tool, like you said. We want to use management but also use nutrition to help improve those calves, because we know that the beef system is stressful, right? We have cow-calf, we have stockers or feedlot entry. Those are three very stressful periods in the calf's life, so if we know that those three periods exist, we need to prepare that animal to go in so that they're healthier when they get to the feedlot.

Kara:              And healthier cows bring more money for the farmer, which is what they're looking for.

Shelby:          That's right.

Kara:              Where do you see the future of your research in the beef cattle industry? Is there anything specific you're excited about or looking forward to diving into in the near future?

Shelby:          Yes. I'm really looking forward to looking at those management systems, at the stressors, so looking at those periods of how, at those stressors, if we're doing it preventively, how can we influence the management of those herds to provide healthier calves so that they can produce more money for those producers? If you have heavier weaning rates, that means you're going to get paid more for those calves.

                        Secondly, I think nutrition receiving at the feedlot is also another interesting avenue of research, because we know most of those calves going into the feedlot are going to be highly stressed, just because of the system. They're going to be transported somewhere new, maybe calming all those other animals. So, maybe, ways through nutrition, instead of having — especially with the reduction of antibiotics that is being pushed down from the consumers — so, how can we maybe use some nutritional approaches to help alleviate that stress and help those animals perform better in the feedlot?

Kara:              Well, best of luck to your future research, and thank you for joining me today, Shelby.

Shelby:          Thank you.

Kara:              That was Alltech researcher Dr. Shelby Roberts.  

I want to learn more about improving health for my beef cattle

Transportation stress is an unavoidable factor for any beef operation. Treating transportation stress in cattle is a challenge, however, the negative health effects incurred by transporting animals can be limited by implementing a number of good management practices. These key steps are simple and can be easily adopted by your operation today.

Step 1: Identify your specific risk-factors

Some common factors that will increase the effects of transportation stress in calves include animal cramming, excessive trailer movement, heat stress, dehydration, introduction to new pathogens and inadequate receiving protocols. Even though this list may seem long and broad in focus, there are simple steps you can take to drastically decrease each of these risk-factors.

Step 2: Incorporate Beef Quality Assurance certifications

Once animals are loaded onto a trailer, it is paramount that the truck driver is intentional about how the animals are treated in order to reduce stress. Ensuring that the driver has a Beef Quality Assurance: Transportation Program certification can provide peace of mind that the animals will be handled adequately. Through these programs, drivers learn to avoid common pitfalls like fast starts/stops/turns, become aware of cold and hot temperature concerns, and focus on cattle handling during loading and unloading. Avoiding these stressful behaviors improves your chances of receiving healthy cattle.

Step 3: Develop a receiving protocol

The risk of transportation stress does not end when the animal is received. While you have less control over managing stress during transport, the risks still remain in the hands of feedlot personnel. The solution starts with implementing a proper receiving protocol that is based on low-stress handling. The calmer and quieter the employees are, the calmer and quieter the animals will be. This can be accomplished by avoiding hot-shot use, not yelling around animals and removing loud equipment (e.g., hydraulic pumps) from the chute area. A Beef Quality Assurance: Stockmanship Program is also available for employees and is highly valuable for training proposes.

Step 4: Pay attention to what you cannot see: Internal health

While you can limit external stressors such as noises, excessive movement and stressful animal experiences, an often-forgotten risk factor is the internal heath of the animal. The stress of transportation and the introduction to a new environment, new feedstuff and new pathogens will often result in some level of digestive distress. A decrease in feed intake, feed conversion and weight gain may be observed, and the culprit is almost always due to an immune response in the animal’s digestive tract. The digestive system is very complex and can be damaged easily when health is neglected. The cause of this damage can range from temperature changes to new feedstuffs — even to new bacterial populations. Most of these stressors are unavoidable due to the nature of the uncontrollable environment, and thus, preventative measures must be taken.

Step 5: Rely on supplements during the transition period

At Alltech, we are passionate about improving animal health through digestive and immune protection, correction and optimization. In our beef division, we focus heavily on reducing animal stress to improve overall growth and health, which simultaneously improves your bottom line. This is demonstrated in Select TC, our feedlot product, which aims to relieve digestive stress during the arrival of a newly introduced animal. The gut has a major impact on the rest of the animal, but because we are unable to see it, we often overlook this factor when considering an animal’s potential. When a gut becomes agitated and inflamed from poor feed quality, new bacteria or stress, you will see animal performance suffer greatly. This decrease in performance is due to the level of energy the immune system requires to fight off pathogens, heal the damaged tissues and produce an overall immune response. Utilizing a supplement to help the immune system protect the animal and negate the effects of the pathogens can help the animal transition into a feedlot more effectively. A more effective transition will, in turn, allow cattle to consume more feed and gain more weight without wasting energy on immune functions, increasing your profitability.

Select TC is a well-rounded receiving-period supplement with benefits ranging from gut-cell health support to decreasing the repercussions of bacteria and mold in the animal’s body. This product can be fed in many different forms and at various dosage levels depending on your specific operation.

Protect your herd from these common pitfalls, which can lead to low-performing animals. Contact your local Alltech salesperson or beef@alltech.com to learn more about what Select TC can do to help limit your fallout from transportation stress and get your cattle on feed faster.

I would like a FREE transportation stress poster.

Meeting the protein requirements and improving nitrogen efficiency in cows under different physiological conditions can become more precise with the use of this additional  tool for diet formulation

[DUNBOYNE, Ireland and ESPOO, Finland] – An innovative laboratory fermentation method for assessing the ruminal breakdown of dietary protein ingredients has been created by Alltech and Alimetrics Research. The novel technique was developed to evaluate feed protein sources and involves measuring the proportion of certain amino acids that is converted to specific end products over 24 hours.

Scientists from Alltech and Alimetrics collaborated on the study, which has been published in the scientific journal Frontiers in Veterinary Science and compares the rumen degradability and effects on rumen fermentation of three protein sources: whey protein, soybean meal and yeast-derived microbial protein.

The assessment of protein degradation in the rumen of live animals has historically proven difficult, and although analysis of overall protein can be done, tracking the origin of protein from a specific feed component cannot be done with great certainty. In addition, ruminants have a low overall efficiency of nitrogen utilisation, with between 70– 95% of the nitrogen in diets excreted in dung and urine, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The use of this novel in vitro technique can help to overcome such challenges as it allows protein sources to be ranked according to their degradability by rumen bacteria.

“When it comes to comparing protein sources, we believe this tool is particularly useful when some known and commonly used benchmark products, such as soybean meal, are included in a study,” said Dr. Juha Apajalahti, managing director at Alimetrics.

Data from the study indicate that the yeast-derived microbial protein was the most resistant of all three protein sources to being degraded in the rumen, with less than 15% of the amino acids of interest being converted to end products measured. Additionally, the study showed that the level of the protein breakdown product, ammonia, from yeast-derived microbial protein was able to be taken up by the rumen bacteria, reducing excess rumen ammonia accumulation. Evaluation of other parameters demonstrated that the yeast-derived microbial protein was able to extensively stimulate rumen fermentation to the same extent as soybean meal.

These data not only suggest that this novel method is suitable for assessing ruminal breakdown of protein feeds, but also that yeast-derived microbial protein could potentially provide a more sustainable, and equally suitable, alternative to products such as soybean meal.     

“In terms of research methodology, this provides us with a robust model for screening products, both for fermentation effects and the ability to bypass protein through the rumen,” said Matthew Smith, vice president at Alltech. “The findings from this study clearly demonstrate the value of our yeast-derived microbial protein in stimulating rumen fermentation and volatile fatty acid and microbial biomass production. The tool itself is one we can use in our own in vitro fermentation model, Alltech IFM™, to aid future development.”

Click here to view the research article.

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.

Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is the number-one cause of feedlot cattle death in North America and represents more than 70% of all feedlot death and sickness. BRD is the single-largest source of morbidity and mortality in feedlots, causing an estimated $2–3 billion in losses annually (Fulton 2009; Irsik 2006). So how do you treat BRD?

First, you need to know that the phrase “treating BRD profitably” is nearly an oxymoron. Once an animal gets BRD — or shipping fever, as it’s sometimes called — four separate economic factors are negatively impacted: treatment costs increase, productivity decreases, labor costs increase and the likelihood of a BRD re-treat, chronic re-treats and/or death increases as well. Especially in a tight beef cattle market, relying on being able to treat BRD while staying profitable is practically impossible.

What is BRD and how do you spot it?

BRD is the general term for any disease of the upper respiratory tracts (e.g., bronchitis, rhinitis, tracheitis) or lower respiratory tracts (e.g., pneumonia). It is known as a “disease complex,” stemming from three factors usually working in combination: stress, a viral infection and a bacterial infection. BRD normally impacts cattle in the first four weeks after weaning, and it can be fatal.

Symptoms of BRD:

• Droopy ears
• Fever
• Lethargic behavior 
• Lack of appetite (going “off-feed”)
• Rapid, shallow breathing
• Coughing
• Bloody or excessive nasal discharge

Four strategies for beating BRD in your feed yard

A common cliché in sports is that “the best defense is a good offense.” The same principle applies to BRD. The best way for you to defend against having to treat for BRD is to have a proactive, offensive-line strategy that prevents BRD in your receiving program. Here are four things you should do to prevent BRD:

1. Reduce stress at all costs

Investing a bit more to ensure the receiving health of your cattle will pay big dividends when it comes to BRD. Remember: cattle have just endured a long, strenuous trip to your yard, so doing everything you can to reduce their stress upon arrival is critical. This begins with providing a good, clean environment with as little overcrowding and dust as possible. Pay special attention if and when adverse weather occurs (e.g., excess heat, cold, rain, etc.) and adjust accordingly to accommodate them. Be sure to provide sufficient bedding as well so the animals can get some much-needed rest. The initial process of co-mingling can introduce countless diseases, even beyond BRD, so giving cattle to have a clean place to rest will allow them to both settle down and fight off any health challenges.

Additionally, having your team trained in low-stress handling practices will help keep cattle calm when they arrive. This means limiting the amount of yelling, excessive noise and the use of electric prods to keep stress to a minimum.

2. Provide good nutrition early and often

There are three keys to preventing BRD via nutrition. Though often overlooked, the first and most important key when cattle are arriving to the feedyard is getting them to drink water. Water is a critical first nutrient. After a long, stressful trip, getting cattle clean water as quickly as possible will help them acclimate and address any dehydration they could have experienced during transportation. The second key to preventing BRD is providing highly palatable, nutrient-dense feed. Especially during the first four to five days, getting cattle to eat much of anything may be a challenge. A good choice to include in your ration would be either a wet or dry distillers grain (depending on what is available in your region). Distillers grains are high in protein, very palatable and are generally cost-effective for a start-up ration.

Sometimes, the smallest ingredients can have the biggest impact on your cattle’s health. Providing the right micronutrients to maximize health and performance is the third and final nutritional key to preventing BRD. Establishing good gut health and mineral status proactively are paramount when attempting to stop BRD before it starts. Feed additive products from Alltech, such as Bio-Mos, can help drive gut health, and Alltech’s Bioplex and Sel-Plex support maximum trace mineral status. Both of these products are backed by peer-reviewed scientific research and have been used by producers as a part of their comprehensive BRD programs.

3. Establish a vaccination program with a vet you trust

Step one in this process may be developing a relationship built on trust with your vet. This goes beyond just “knowing” your vet to actually having full confidence that the vaccinations you are providing will set your animals up for success. A skilled local veterinarian is your best ally to make sure that the vaccines are working most effectively to fight BRD outbreaks. Furthermore, vaccination histories should play an important role in where you source your cattle. For example, finding animals who have been vaccinated as many as 45 days pre-weaning and again before shipping will help boost your ability to prevent BRD in the feed yard.

4. Use your tools wisely: Good pen riders and technology

Remember, cattle are animals of prey — meaning that they will do everything they can not to appear sick or wounded. A skilled pen rider with a keen eye is still your best preventative tool against BRD. Not every case of BRD can be prevented, but putting an end to it before it becomes critical can make all the difference. There can be as much as a three-to-five-day gap between when an animal begins to experience the symptoms of BRD and when those symptoms can be visibly detected. This makes early identification all the more important for a pen rider. The longer BRD goes undetected, the more “catching up” an animal will need to do once treated. That means lost money for your yard. As such, checking animals multiple times a day is good, profitable prevention against BRD.

New technologies continue to aid in the preventative fight against BRD. Many of these technologies still need further development before being profitably introduced, but progress is being made. Early detection swabs, drones, smart ear tags, facial recognition cameras, sensor-based hydronic shoots and much more will help reduce the labor needed to effectively manage cattle and improve overall animal welfare.

Again, your best defense against BRD is a good offense. By putting these preventative strategies in place, you are giving your cattle the best chance to be healthy and profitable. Your ability to combat the number-one feedlot disease can and will make a big difference for your operation today.

References

Fulton, R.W. 2009. Bovine respiratory disease research (1983–2009). Cambridge University Press 2009 Animal Health Research Reviews 10(2); 131–139.

Irsik, M., M. Langemeier, T. Schroeder, M. Spire, J. D. Roder. 2006. Estimating the Effects of Animal Health on the Performance of Feedlot Cattle. The Bovine Practitioner, 40(2); 65-74.

I would like a free BRD poster

Foot rot is defined as a contagious disease in cloven-hoofed mammals that causes inflammation of the foot and subsequent lameness (Blood and Radositis, 1989). Lameness in all sectors of the beef industry can lead to decreased performance. It is estimated that approximately 20% of lameness in all cattle — dairy and beef — is attributed to foot rot (Step, et al., 2016). However, in the beef industry alone, it is estimated that closer to 75% of all diagnosed lameness in cattle is attributed to foot rot (Currin et al., 2009). Cattle in the feedlot have been reported to have close to half a pound lower average daily gains while they are combating foot rot (Brazzle, 1993). Therefore, foot rot represents a significant economic loss to the industry due to decreased performance.

What causes foot rot?

Bacteria are responsible for the cause of foot rot. The main foot rot-causing bacteria in cattle is Fusobacterium necrophorum, a ubiquitous bacterium found in the environment. Researchers have isolated it on the surface of healthy feet, in the rumen and in the feces of beef cattle. Other bacteria that are present on healthy feet can increase the virulence of F. necrophorum and, therefore, increase the incidence of foot rot (Currin et al., 2009). It is not until there is an injury to the foot — caused by walking on rough surfaces or standing in wet, damp and/or muddy conditions, resulting in a weakening of the foot tissues — that the bacteria sets in and wreaks havoc on the foot. Another common cause of foot rot is when cattle quickly go from wet conditions to dry conditions. This can cause the skin to become chapped and cracked, giving F. necrophorum a chance to enter the tissues of the hoof. Mineral deficiencies in zinc, selenium and copper are also known causes of foot rot (NRC, 2017). Because foot rot can be caused by a ubiquitous bacterium, it is not considered contagious.

Symptoms of foot rot

Clinical foot rot will present with the following symptoms:

1. Extreme pain, leading to the sudden onset of lameness
2. Elevated body temperature
3. Bilateral swelling of the interdigital tissues, around the hairline and coronary band of the hoof. The swelling may lead to greater-than-normal separation of the claws
4. Necrotic lesions in the interdigital space, with a foul odor
5. Decreased feed intake

These symptoms can be similar to the symptoms of other foot issues that are common in beef cattle. For example, digital dermatitis, commonly referred to as hairy heel wart, is often mistaken for foot rot when cattle become lame (Step et al., 2016). However, digital dermatitis only affects the skin in the heel bulb area and up to the area of the dew-claw. Digital dermatitis also does not produce a foul odor, is more centralized and is contagious.

How to treat foot rot

Once the proper diagnosis is made, foot rot can be treated. Treatment for foot rot is most successful when completed early, toward the beginning of its onset. The most common method of treatment is via tetracycline antibiotics (Currin et al., 2016). It is crucial to consult a local veterinarian for recommendations about antibiotics and the proper dosage levels. Other common treatments include rubbing a sterilized rope or twine between the animal’s toes to remove the necrotic tissue, followed by applying a topical antimicrobial and simply keeping the foot clean and dry while antibiotic treatment is given.

There are practices that can help reduce the risk of foot rot in a herd. For example, if caused by wet and muddy conditions, ensure proper drainage and the sloping of pastures or barns, such that moisture doesn’t collect in locations where cattle often congregate. Additionally, smoothing rough areas and ensuring that pastures and pens are kept clear of sharp debris that can cause abrasions or scratches to the hooves can help keep foot rot at bay. Simply ensuring that cattle are fed proper levels of minerals has shown to reduce the incidence of foot rot. Zinc is known to be critical for maintaining the integrity of the skin and hoof (NRC, 2016); thus, zinc should be fed at proper levels — and even elevated levels, if foot rot is known to be a common issue (Kellems and Church, 2010). Organic complexes of zinc are commonly included in beef diets at normal levels. However, with the increased bioavailibity of zinc in its organic form, it is wise to ensure the proper zinc status of the herd to reduce the incidence of foot rot. Although iodine is not known to be a mineral involved directly in foot integrity, dietary EDDI, a common source of iodine used in mineral supplements and premixes, has shown to be beneficial in the prevention of foot rot.

Foot rot is a significant cause of lameness in beef cattle and can result in a major economic and production loss in some herds. Although foot rot-causing bacteria can be found everywhere and are sometimes unavoidable, quick treatment early on and practicing proper pasture and pen maintenance can help to reduce the chances of clinical foot rot in beef cattle. Also, making sure the zinc and iodine levels are properly maintained during all stages of production in forms such as EDDI and organic complexes such as Alltech’s Bioplex Zinc can maximize protection against foot rot.

Download a free poster!

[LEXINGTON, Ky.] – Alltech and Archbold Biological Station’s Buck Island Ranch recently formed a strategic research alliance to jointly develop beef management approaches, specifically to increase the quality and quantity of beef produced in subtropical regions while maintaining and enhancing the environment. The Archbold–Alltech Alliance brings together scientists from two different disciplines — ecologists from Archbold and ruminant nutritionists from Alltech — to understand the impact that cattle production has on an ecosystem.

“The research alliance between Alltech and Archbold’s Buck Island Ranch is an exciting collaboration to advance ranchland environmental and economic sustainability,” said Dr. Betsey Boughton, associate research program director at Archbold. “Combining Archbold’s rich ecological knowledge and long-term data with Alltech’s expertise in cattle nutrition is a unique opportunity to better understand — and, ultimately, may lead to — improved supplemental feed strategies and reducing cattle methane emissions.”

Archbold’s research at Buck Island Ranch has long been focused on the relationships between agricultural production, management and natural resources, including water and soils, as well as biodiversity and addressing threats like invasive species and climate change. There are opportunities to evaluate how forage quality, range management practices and seasonal changes can impact cattle nutrition. Understanding these relationships can help with the development of cattle supplementation strategies to improve cattle production and reduce its environmental impact.

The tools in place at the unique Buck Island Ranch will allow for an unprecedented evaluation of forage quality and range management practices across seasons, as well as an assessment of how nutritional interventions can affect both the cattle and their environment in the long term. The goal is to understand the impact that cattle production has on the environment and to develop supplementation strategies that reduce cattle methane emissions and improve sustainability.

“The coming together of these two groups represents a unique and exciting opportunity,” said Dr. Vaughn Holder, ruminant research director at Alltech. “As animal scientists, we look at these production systems from a very different perspective than an ecologist that is studying an ecosystem. With this alliance, we aim to demonstrate that the maintenance of the ecosystem is a critical factor in sustainable beef production and also to show how cattle can be a critical part of maintaining natural ecosystems.” 

At ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE19), Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech, shared Alltech’s new vision of “Working Together for a Planet of Plenty™.” Collaborations like the Archbold–Alltech Alliance contribute to this vision, as different scientific disciplines work together to mitigate environmental impacts and to improve sustainable beef production practices. For more information on this initiative, visit planetofplenty.com and join the conversation on social media using #PlanetofPlenty.     

-Ends-

Download image:  https://photos.alltech.com/pf.tlx/qRqbaqMu6dD

Caption: The Archbold–Alltech Alliance brings together two scientific disciplines, with ecologists from Archbold and ruminant nutritionists from Alltech, to understand the impact that cattle production can have on an ecosystem.

In the photo: (left to right): Mary-Margaret Hardee, Archbold; Dr. Karl Dawson, Alltech; Dr. Jeffrey Bewley, Alltech; Dr. Shelby Roberts, Alltech; Gene Lollis, Archbold; Dr. Vaughn Holder, Alltech; Dr. Betsey Boughton, Archbold; Dr. Hillary Swain, Archbold; Dr. Gregory Sonnier, Archbold; and Dr. Raoul Boughton, Archbold. Photo Credit: Haoyu Li

Contact: press@alltech.com

Jenn Norrie

Communications Manager, North America

jnorrie@alltech.com; 403-863-8547

About Alltech:

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

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

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

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

[LEXINGTON, Ky.] – Alltech believes that promoting diversity among agricultural leadership is essential for a sustainable future and that supporting organizations such as American National CattleWomen (ANCW) encourages the empowerment of women in the industry. As ANCW is a voice for women who share a passion for the beef community, with a focus on beef promotion, education and legislation, Alltech is proud to partner and support the organization.

“The American National CattleWomen organization aims to educate consumers on the beef industry and the efforts to create sustainable practices that will ensure a safe food supply for years to come,” said Evelyn Greene, president-elect of ANCW. “I’m excited to partner with Alltech, as their vision of Working Together for a Planet of Plenty™ compliments the mission of ANCW.”   

Alltech’s vision for a more sustainable future was announced during ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE19) in May. Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech, called for collaboration across industry sectors and geographical boundaries to create a world in which there is enough nutritious food for all, resources are responsibly managed for future generations and the environment is safe for people, animals and plants.  

Taking a significant step toward its sustainability and Planet of Plenty goals, Alltech recently committed to the U.N. Global Compact and nine of the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including gender equality. In alignment with these commitments and in support of women in agriculture, Alltech will provide financial sponsorship to aid Greene’s campaign as president of ANCW.

“To see the passion Evelyn has for the beef industry and agriculture is inspiring, and we are proud to partner with and support her and ANCW,” said Randi Walden, Alltech regional marketing specialist. “To work toward Alltech’s mission of creating a Planet of Plenty, we need innovative beef producers and leaders in agriculture driving these efforts, and the ANCW is a group doing just that.”

-Ends-

Contact: press@alltech.com

Jenn Norrie

Communications Manager, North America

jnorrie@alltech.com; 403-863-8547

Randi Walden

Alltech Regional Marketing Specialist

rwalden@alltech.com; 859-455-6228

Photo Caption: https://photos.alltech.com/pf.tlx/mi4m3Dm9Zsg.m

Evelyn Greene, president-elect of American National CattleWomen, visits Alltech Global Headquarters in Lexington, Kentucky.

Left to Right: Amanda Stumbo, Alltech; Randi Walden, Alltech; Evelyn Greene, American National CattleWomen; Kevin McBride, Alltech.

About Alltech:

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

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

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

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