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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download a free poster!

The following is an edited transcript of Nicole Erwin's interview with Kathryn Britton. Click below to hear to the full audio. 

Nicole:         I'm talking with Kathryn Britton, senior director of operations and marketing for Where Food Comes From, an independent third-party food verification company. Kathryn joins me to talk about value-added programs and how beef cattle operations can qualify for them, leading to larger profit margins. Kathryn, thank you for joining us.

Kathryn:        Absolutely. I'm very happy to be here.

Nicole:         We've all heard about the explosion of natural, antibiotic-free beef programs in Europe, but where would you say this effort turns into real profit for producers?

Kathryn:        I think the key for producers is really identifying what that market means for them. Each of the markets, whether you're talking about antibiotic restrictions or hormone restrictions — for example, the Non-Hormone Treated Cattle program (NHTC) for the EU — are driven by something, and they have parameters that come along with them. Generally speaking, if you're looking for value in those marketplaces, you need to look for a third-party verification system that qualifies you as meeting those program requirements. Without a certificate in hand — without an approval process that you've gone through to validate those claims — there really isn't a lot of value for producers. So, third-party verification and auditing systems are going to get you access to markets like that.

Nicole:         So, this all seems to really hinder on traceability. Where do producers start in their path toward this kind of transparency?

Kathryn:        Traceability is everything. We can't tell any story about beef production without first being able to track an animal through the system. That's where we gather all of the information that we need to tell the story about how that animal was produced.

                    It’s best to start small. These systems don't need to be overwhelming for a beef producer. You start with your own records. Are you maintaining calving records? Do you know when your first calf hit the ground? Do you know when every calf hits the ground? You don't need to know it to that detail, but at least having an understanding of when your calving season starts and when it ends and having those records available is your first step to success.

                    The second step is identifying the animals. Use a unique EID (electronic identification) tag that helps you electronically tie those records of calving information to that individual animal so you can pass that along to the buyer. That's where you start having value opportunities tied to traceability.

Nicole:         Where is this happening right now? Where is this kind of system being used, and who can we mimic?

Kathryn:        Well, if you look domestically in the U.S., source and age is our longest-standing verification system. When we lost access to our export market partners in 2003 with "the cow that stole Christmas" — our BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) case — we couldn't export a single pound of meat. The only way we got back into the export market was by developing a source- and age-verification system through the process-verified programs, which allowed third-party verifiers to validate the source — so, traceability — and the age of those animals. The restriction was 20 months. That's related to BSE; the younger the animal, the less likely they're going to carry that disease.

                    So, we've been well-versed as a domestic industry in the source and age system for some time. When we look at our international trading partners and competitors, it's a little bit of a different landscape. We're the last developed country to not have a national ID system. That's something that our international competitors try to use against us when they're trying to get beef into the markets we’re in. We've been able to combat that with progressive producers who are participating in third-party verification systems. They’re making claims on their animals and validating them to meet the requirements of those markets without, at this point, having a national ID system.

Nicole:         To say that we're the last to adopt this system doesn't seem like something that Americans would like to hear. What challenges do producers face when they get started with verification, and why is this taking so long?

Kathryn:        Well, the beef industry in the U.S. is diverse. It's very independent. I think, for our beef producers, that's a point of pride for all of us as cattlemen and cattlewomen in the U.S. We also need that model in some ways just because of how diverse our production system is. Every region is different. Every breed type is different. What you do to manage your cattle in Florida is a lot different than what you do to manage your cattle in Montana.

                    The reality is that, for a producer to engage, they really have to take a step back and look at their operation. What are they having success with? What have they focused on? What kind of animal are they raising and why? And then, what market opportunities are out there and available to them? Everyone can capitalize on a source and age verification model. It's the things above and beyond that — the NHTC (non-hormone treated cattle program) that you mentioned, the verified natural program, many of these other kinds of value-added systems — that's where they really need to start looking. They should ask, “Is that the right fit for me and my operation?”

Nicole:         What do you see producers investing the most when implementing value-added programs? Is it time, money or updating technology? When do you see the return for some of these investments?

Kathryn:        I think the surprising part is that the investment from a time perspective can seem overwhelming. They’re thinking through the records they have to maintain — or, if they're using antibiotics, what animal that antibiotic went into or didn't go into. What we see time and time again is that, for the most part, they're already doing all of those things; in their operation, they're already tracking and they're maintaining records that are unbelievably detailed because that's what they use to manage their operation.

                    I think, at face value, oftentimes, it can be intimidating because they think they need to do so much more. It ends up not being that much more work than what they are already doing, or it’s just a matter of validating the pieces that they already have in place.

                    There is a cost to participating in third-party verification, but the programs are built to get a return. If you can't get value out of participating, then it's not working. For us as a third-party verifier, it's got to be able to pay for itself and more in order to work for you. So, there is a cost, but I wouldn't say that the investment is overwhelming.

Nicole:         China has recently opened its beef market to U.S. producers. How do verification programs vary in value in a market like China compared to here in the U.S.?

Kathryn:        China has been big for the U.S. beef market. It's the biggest opportunity our beef industry has ever seen. Just from a per-capita consumption of beef standpoint, the amount of people who are looking to consume beef in China — the growing middle-class population that they bring to the table — that's the type of person who eats a lot of beef. U.S.-produced, grain-fed, high-quality beef is in very high demand in that region. Just from an opportunity perspective, it's tremendous.

                    When we're looking at the requirements of the program, the agreement that we have with China today is source and age verification at a base level. The animal has to be traceable to the ranch of origin. An EID tag needs to be in an animal at the ranch of origin before it leaves, and age needs to be documented. That will carry with that animal all the way through the supply chain. Inevitably, we're going to process that product and send it over.

                    The one unique aspect to the Chinese market in our agreement with them is that they have a zero-tolerance policy for hormones. It is illegal in China to use hormones in beef production. Although it's not a written part of our EV (export verification) agreement with them, it's an absolute and understood requirement. And because of that, the industry has been very focused on the type of product that we're sending right now — verified natural beef or NHTC, at the least — just to make sure that we're not violating that part of the understanding and that we can maintain access to that market. As long as we can maintain access to it, we have the opportunity to continue to grow it.

Nicole:         It's my understanding that roughly 3 percent of U.S. beef producers are hormone-free. Do you feel like these groups are the early adopters of programs like this?

Kathryn:        Yes, we tend to see the progressive cattlemen be the first to engage. It's the individual exploring new market opportunities. For the most part, today — in comparison to maybe 10 or 15 years ago — there aren’t a huge number of cow-calf producers implanting cows. We might see that happening once cows are shipped off the ranch and received at different locations. There are some who are implanting, but the cow-calf producer is looking for a value-add. They may not have the ability or the desire to implant every single animal. What is the other market opportunity for them? Well, if they are not using hormones and they have no hormones on-site, then it's very easy for them to engage in a program like NHTC.

                    It's a similar case when we look at antibiotics in the industry. If a producer is pairing the verified natural program with the NHTC program, it just gives them marketability. On a year when they do well — maybe they don't have a bad case of pink eye come through, for example — they haven't had to treat much illness and they can market those calves as verified natural.

                    On a year where they've had [illness] come through and they've had to doctor quite a few calves, for whatever reason, then they can still market them as an NHTC. So, it's the flexibility the programs give in those market avenues that add value. That’s why we're starting to see more and more producers engage.

Nicole:         How do you get this kind of information out to the producers? Is it through extension offices? Is it through what we're doing now? You talked earlier about how a lot of producers are already documenting, they just don't realize how to implement it in a verification program. So how do you get that information out there?

Kathryn:        That's a great question. Honestly, the market helps tell the story, specifically the video sale. What's unique about the video sale platform that we see with Superior Livestock, Western Video or Northern Video is you have a public format in which cattle are selling. The audience is very big on those platforms, which is great for a seller because they tend to have a very diverse buyer base that can bid on those cattle.

                    What happens is, as you watch the sale progress, say, in an hour or in a day, the program cattle consistently bring premium prices above and beyond the commodity cattle. Producers start asking questions — when their neighbor is getting a price that they're not getting, why is that? They start exploring. It's an educational opportunity. We try to do everything that we can: attending events, speaking at every single cattleman show in the country; we have reps in the field who are our “boots on the ground” at the ranches. To be honest, though, cattle sales in a public forum like a video sale are the fastest way to build curiosity in why program cattle make a difference.

Nicole:         Kansas State University completed a study recently that looked at the return on investment for source- and age-verified cattle and saw that, most of the time, producers receive a premium for their product. Sometimes, the premium was less than the amount necessary for enrollment in the USDA Process Verified Program. What's going on here, do you think?

Kathryn:        Honestly, I think it depends on how you run your numbers and the factors that you carry over into evaluating that value. As we mentioned before, the cattle industry is diverse, and every set of cattle it sells is different. So, we try to take out all of the factors. What we want to see is like-cattle — so, say, steers to steers, heifers to heifers, weight categories — and that's it. Then, let's see what the commodity cattle in the same sex and same weight categories bring compared to the program cattle in that same sex category and same weight category.

                    When you take out everything else, you're truly able to look at a commodity average versus a program average. Today, we're seeing on the video sale an average of $6 a hundredweight value just for source- and age-verified cattle. Now, does that mean every producer gets $6 a hundredweight premium on their calves? No. But what we're able to see is an average trend of value across the entire herd in the U.S. When you look at value-added versus non-value-added, that's where you really start to tell a story.

Nicole:         Is the end goal for source-verified cattle to have a QR code? Is that kind of the future for most producers?

Kathryn:        A QR code is an interesting tool that the industry can use primarily on finished products. What's challenging, when you think about the complexity of the supply chain, is tying an individual animal to an individual finished product. So, typically, what we see today are claims being made on a package that are verified and validated back through an approved supply chain. The QR code that might show on a package would be tied to that operation — or maybe a set of operations —that are meeting the certain requirements for that claim.

                    I think the end goal is telling the story and having transparency in the story, whether that's through a QR code or a URL or a label on a package. It's being authentic in the way that we're producing animals today and trying to shine a light on the work that's being done on the ranch. It’s reconnecting all of us to what's happening day-in and day-out in beef production and how we're getting beef from the ranch to the consumers' table.

Nicole:         It's really interesting to me that the story is becoming so important, besides just being able to verify that there aren't hormones within the meat product. Why would someone in China care about the story behind Kentucky beef cattle, for example?

Kathryn:        It's unbelievable, the enthusiasm that we see from consumers, domestically and internationally, when you start talking about ranching families. What's funny is the animal starts to be removed from the equation and the story becomes about the people. I think, if you look throughout history and every industry that you can imagine in consumerism, the things that resonate with people are the values that they can connect with, and that starts with the people. When you start to take out these barriers and the questions and really show that there's a face and a name and, oftentimes, a family behind the product that you're eating, it just becomes more comfortable. That's really where we're seeing people get behind these kinds of stories.

Nicole:         Kathryn Britton is senior director of operations and marketing for Where Food Comes From. Thank you so much.

Kathryn:        Absolutely. Thanks for having me.

I want to learn more about improving profitability in beef production. 

Below is an edited transcript of Nicole Erwin's interview with Frank Wooten, CEO of Vence. Click below to hear the full interview:

Nicole:           I'm talking with Frank Wooten, CEO of Vence, a virtual fencing company that hopes to reinvent livestock management. Thanks for joining us.

Frank:             Thank you very much for having me.

Nicole:           Frank, this technology is exciting on so many levels, from land and soil management, to nutrition and conditioning, cost reductions, and time and labor. Admittedly, all I have done is actually watch your promotional video. But all you had to do was say “Savory Institute,” and I got it. It's rotational grazing for the most part. Was this the impetus for this technology in finding a way to get more farmers into this type of management?

Frank:             Our co-founder [Jasper Holdsworth] is a Kiwi — he's from the northern island of New Zealand — and his family was intensifying their property that they've run for three generations. As part of that intensification, they were spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in fencing on an annual basis, and they were looking for alternatives.

                        They don't really label it as Savory or holistic — they were just basically trying to increase their productivity. The reality is, as we've really searched around the world, a lot of people resonate with what Allan Savory is doing in holistic management. But it started, really, from a need at a grassroots level.

Nicole:           What is your connection to marrying this kind of technology with the farm? Were you raised on a farm?

Frank:             I'm the son of an engineer, but my background is in finance. For me, it was immediately this understanding — this sense of optimization — when I looked at what Jasper was describing when we started to talk about the problem. It became clear that we could put something together with technology and artificial intelligence, as well as communications network. I brought the business background to create a business model, and we've done some financial engineering as well to make sure that our customers receive a return in year one — day one.

Nicole:           Even though it didn't start out as kind of a holistic approach, it's developed into that. Can you talk a little bit about the financial side as well as whole management and how that kind of works together?

Frank:             Yeah. I think that holistic management as people are finding out is more profitable as well. We always attacked it from the customer point of view, which was how do we increase productivity and profitability. The other side of the customer is that they had been using fencing for thousands of years. This is a practice that people's parents and grandparents have used and has worked over generations. In order to get somebody to try something new and different in that scenario, you need to have a high bar of return for them and it can't be something that takes for years for them to see.

                        What we've done cost-wise is we've created a service rather than just selling a hardware. We charge our customers $15 a year for this basic service and we assume all the responsibility of the hardware. If the hardware broke or something failed, we need to replace it, we need to go out and fix it. That gives the customers a lot more comfort rather than spending a couple hundred dollars on a piece of hardware to replace something they've used for hundreds of years.

Nicole:           My understanding with rotational grazing and that type of livestock management, it can take many years to understand all the components of that. How does your technology speed that up?

Frank:             What we speed up is a lot of times, it's a huge capital investment for putting in the fencing and then you have to train your labor force in order to do it. We've enabled people to point click basically to create fences. Then we're going to be able to move animals from one place to another without the need for labor.

                        What we enable people to do is test this out without that huge financial barrier. There's obviously needs the ground and the grass itself generates returns over time, and that's not something that we can speed up. But what we can speed up is what the adoption and testing rate is and reduce the barriers for that.

Nicole:           You are mentioning the pointing and clicking. I was wondering, do you kind of bank off a kind of Pavlovian style of conditioning with this technology?

Frank:             Absolutely. Most people view it in the same way as the invisible fence for dogs. The difference is being that with an invisible fence for dogs, you have to put a wire into the ground, and when a dog approaches the wire, a sound is emitted. They learn that if they don't change direction, they will receive a shock.

                        We use the same training, except we have vibration involved as well. There's an intermediate step — a sort of sound vibration — and then a small shock. It's much less electricity than what you get it in a traditional electric fence. They learn within 48 hours that the sound is correlated to shock, and the response is very effective.

Nicole:           I've been to parts of New Zealand, and having Wi-Fi isn't always an option. How important is having rural broadband connections for this type of technology?

Frank:             We'll use whatever version of backhaul, as it were, to take the information up to The Cloud. The way that the device works is that you set up a tower on your farm — generally, we will set it up on a high point on your farm. From those high points, we can either get satellite connectivity or we can get cellular connectivity.

                        Even in places where people don't normally get service on their handsets, if we put up posts 40 feet in the air, you can get some version of cellular connectivity. If they do happen to have rural broadband, it's even better for us. But our device actually creates another network over the farm, which is the equivalent of an AM radio station. One pole can cover 10 plus kilometers — or six miles of land — in either direction.

Nicole:           How is it powered? What's the energy source? Can you solar or—?

Frank:             Yes, we'll use solar — I assume we're talking at the post level, right?

Nicole:           I guess all of it.

Frank:             We looked at solar on the individual device level. We found some challenges — there are always edge cases, as we call them. In the middle of the winter in Wyoming, there is really not much solar “juice” to get, and so we're looking at having the device on the animal powered by a battery. The reasoning for that is reliability — it's so crucial for our customers. On the backhaul — or the tower side — of things, we do have a solar component and we just adjust that for the region in which it’s located. We have solar and a battery.

Nicole:           The first question I could see with equipment like this is that it is exposed to the elements. What is it made of, and what have you done with the design to withstand wind, rain, mud — all the “fun” things?

Frank:             We have industrial designers who basically take devices and put them through the ringer, whether it's urine from the animals — which is actually one of the more difficult challenges. For the sun, wind and water, there are a lot of different products that protect against those elements. It's the animal elements that add an extra degree of complexity. We've been testing against those and have a team that actually tests those in the field to make sure that it's going to continue to work.

Nicole:           Okay. My experience with this type of livestock management is that it's not really talked about in school that much. Why do you think that is?

Frank:             That's a good question. I don't know why that is. I think that, from what we see in the U.S., these farms are largely a family-run business. Livestock management is something that's been handed down from one generation to the next. Some people don't view it as the most glamorous profession when you're doing really hard physical labor, but it has an amazing return. You're providing food for the country. But I don't know necessarily why it's not discussed more in schools or viewed as a profession that people would desire. I'd like to spend more time in the hills of Montana managing cattle.

Nicole:           Do you feel like you have to educate a bit though, if we're looking at who your target market would be with this? Already established farms would have X number of miles of fencing. How do you convince them to get rid of all that —what they've already invested in?

Frank:             Just to be clear, the farmer doesn't have to get rid of their fencing.

Nicole:           Okay.

Frank:             A lot of times, what we're looking at is the intensification. We don't think that people will ever take away their external fences. We think it's largely something that's part of the psyche of owning a piece of property — you know where your land is demarcated.

                        Secondly, we're creating a fence which an animal can run through. If a bear is chasing a cow, it's going to run through that fence and it's going to get a couple of different shocks, which gives the cow a reprieve. We’re not a hard barrier fence. We do think that there is an element of physical fencing that is still necessary.

                        We allow somebody who has a 10,000-acre farm or a 20,000-acre piece of property to subdivide that land without any additional infrastructure. The sales process for that person is about understanding what his land could do and could produce for him if it was intensified with this fencing.

                        A lot of times, that's a really big uptake. We have customers in Wyoming who have 500 head and they could be carrying 1,500 if they had additional labor and additional fencing. Instead of spending a couple hundred thousand dollars in fencing, they spend $15,000 and have it done in one day. It's really about educating them along those lines.

Nicole:           Say that maybe a cow does run off because it's been chased by a coyote or something — do you have the GPS technology to track it?

Frank:             Yes. That's a part and parcel with what we're providing our customers. It's not simply fencing, but it's real-time analytics. You have the ability to see a “heat map,” as we call it. Your animal is grazing on your land over a period of time. You can see where that animal is now, but you can also see where they've been over the last month. You could see that your whole herd is avoiding some part of your land. You could put them in that part of your land to have it grazed. You could force them into it without the need for additional fencing.

Nicole:           How did you find your way to The Pearse Lyons Accelerator, and what was it like pitching to the audience [at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference]?

Frank:             I spend a decent amount of time looking at different companies in the accelerator space and understanding what people are doing. I had seen a Pearse Lyons Accelerator — I had done a Google search on something — two years ago when we first started. We just weren't at a point then where we were even close to commercialization, so it just didn't make sense for us at that point in time. Luckily enough, we were accepted this year, and it’s been a really wonderful experience.

                        To anybody out there listening, as ag-tech startup, I would highly suggest applying. These guys are amazing. In terms of pitching to the audience, it's pretty nerve-wracking. These guys at Alltech have really helped us a lot in terms of understanding the way to construct a pitch and the way to construct a go-to-market strategy. With that knowledge, it becomes a bit easier, you just get a lot more comfortable with what it is that you're selling versus where we were a year ago.

Nicole:           How do you see the relationship with Alltech taking Vence to the next level and what is that exactly?

Frank:             The next level [for Vence] is tags on hundreds of thousands and millions of animals. We have products which co-exist right now. They have a nutritional product for animals, or they have hardware that they sell to help with silage and other items. We are trying to enhance the way that farms are managed. Their products will always be necessary in our use cases.

                        At some point, in the future, the way that I would love to see it evolve is that we can make a recommendation to our customers for Alltech products.

Nicole:           Frank Wooten, CEO of Vence. Thank you so much.

Frank:             Thank you.

Alltech continues its commitment to improving the health and performance of animals and protecting the environment through scientific innovation

[DUNBOYNE, Ireland] – Alltech’s flagship brand, Yea-Sacc®, has been validated by the Carbon Trust to reduce cattle methane emissions and nitrogen excretion rates. Yea-Sacc is the only yeast culture designed for use in ruminant diets that has been awarded this certificate. The Carbon Trust, a global organization that provides independent advice to businesses, governments and institutions on reducing carbon emissions, formed an opinion based on evidence from public research and on-farm trials demonstrating the efficacy of Yea-Sacc in ruminant diets.

The Carbon Trust’s findings on Yea-Sacc highlighted that reduced emissions do not need to come at the expense of improved animal performance; Yea-Sacc was shown to increase milk yield, milk fat and protein content, and nitrogen uptake via improved ruminal bacteria.

“This recognition from the Carbon Trust is another hugely exciting milestone for Yea-Sacc, the product that put Alltech on the map in the early 1980s,” said Matthew Smith, Alltech vice president.

In dairy and beef animals, methane is an indicator of waste not only for the animal, but also in terms of farm profitability. Increasing animal efficiency helps the animal retain more of that potential energy. This allows for both more environmentally sustainable production as well as increased profitability for the farm.

“For many years, Alltech has been working with farmers to help them determine exactly where their operations fit into the emissions picture and to reduce their carbon footprint,” continued Smith. “The Carbon Trust certification is a significant development for Alltech and for our customers, who are equally as committed to reducing farming’s impact on the environment.”

Alltech continues to enhance its portfolio of solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on farms as it contributes toward sustaining and nourishing the world’s plants, animals and people. Additional announcements will be shared at the Alltech European Technical Summit held in Dublin, Ireland, from March 13–15, 2019, and at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference from May 19–21, 2019, in Lexington, Kentucky, USA.

-Ends-

Contact: Maria Daly

• Communications Manager, Europe
• mdaly@alltech.com; +353 86 466 9554

About Alltech:

Founded in 1980 by Irish entrepreneur and scientist Dr. Pearse Lyons, Alltech discovers and delivers solutions for the sustainable nutrition of plants, animals and people. With expertise in yeast fermentation, solid state fermentation and the science of nutrigenomics, Alltech is a leading producer and processor of yeast additives, organic trace minerals, feed ingredients, premix and feed.

Our guiding ACE principle seeks to develop solutions that are safe for the Animal, Consumer and the Environment. Our more than 6,000 talented team members worldwide put this purpose to work every day for our customers.

Alltech is a family-owned company, which allows us to adapt quickly to emerging customer needs and to 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.

About the Carbon Trust:

Established in 2001, the Carbon Trust works with businesses, governments and institutions around the world, helping them contribute to, and benefit from, a more sustainable future through carbon reduction, resource efficiency strategies and commercializing low-carbon businesses, systems and technologies.

The Carbon Trust:

* Works with corporates and governments, helping them to align their strategies with climate science and meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.

* Provides expert advice and assurance, giving investors and financial institutions the confidence that green finance will have genuinely green outcomes.

* Supports the development of low-carbon technologies and solutions, building the foundations for the energy system of the future.

Headquartered in London, England, the Carbon Trust has a global team of over 30 nationalities based across five continents. For more information, visit; www.carbontrust.com.

Traditionally, meat has been considered a commodity — that is, a mass-produced good with a low level of differentiation. One of the most important characteristics of commodities is the high volatility of their price because, by their nature, they are very sensitive to changes in production and demand. In the search for better prices for meat, some brands are trying to differentiate and add value to their products.

Globally, consumers are increasingly more aware that better nutrition represents one of the main pillars of good health — which has led to a trend of new lifestyle choices in recent years. This new way of understanding what we choose for our tables brings with it greater expectations regarding the food supply.

Therefore, the challenge for producers — and the food industry in general — is to have tools on hand to help them cope with and anticipate the new eating habits of consumers seeking a better quality of life.

Inspired by this new global trend, the Wong supermarket chain in Peru — owned by the multinational business consortium Cencosud — saw the opportunity to serve a segment of the Peruvian market that seeks a healthy, balanced and natural diet. In addition, they understood that it was necessary to find and become allies with a national producer who raised top-quality cattle that would meet the needs of this new market.

The Finca Nueva Farm, located south of Lima, is a family business, established almost half a century ago. Since its founding, its vision has been to produce high-quality cattle to satisfy a demanding market. For Ricardo Heredia, son of the founder of the business, being passionate about livestock is essential in order to innovate and grow. Heredia knows that animal welfare is key, since it is reflected in the quality of the meat. Therefore, he does not neglect the important aspects of livestock care, such as offering comfort to animals — by providing good feeders, drinking troughs with clean and fresh water and adequate shade areas for the animals' rest, as well as a well-balanced diet.

Heredia is aware that consumers are passionate about nutrition, sustainability and traceability, so he continually seeks to adapt and develop new products, while meeting the international certification standards. When he and his farm decided to focus on producing premium-quality meat, to achieve certification of good livestock practices, they looked for hormone-free solutions that would leave no residues of antibiotics in the meat, and they were also interested in implementing a good traceability system.

The Wong supermarkets and the Finca Nueva Farm were also interested in feeding an organic form of selenium. Including selenium in an animal’s diet can be beneficial in that it contributes to:

• Maintenance of animal health by supporting the animal’s natural defenses
• Superior meat quality, with differentiated parameters such as better color, texture and juiciness
• Perhaps most importantly, the meat on carcasses supplemented with organic selenium will contain that antioxidant. Thus, the consumer who buys, cooks and consumes this meat will benefit not only from the nutrients of the meat, but also from the benefits of selenium.

Functional food

In the field of nutrition, functional foods are those foods or food products that, in addition to their inherent nutritive substances (i.e., proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins or minerals), also contain a specific substance added for health benefits. Thus, a processed food such as milk will become functional if it is enriched with some type of additional vitamin, such as Complex B. Besides having its traditional characteristics of proteins, calcium and more, the milk now also has the added benefits that come from Complex B, making it a functional food.

Selenium is an essential nutrient for both animals and humans as it plays an important role in metabolism, supports growth, helps improve reproductive functions, improves the body's defense mechanism against infections and neutralizes free radicals, given its antioxidant function.

Alliance in favor of the consumer Alltech Sel-Plex® is the only organic selenium in the form of selenium yeast that has been reviewed by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Wong, in alliance with the Finca Nueva Farm, decided to feed Sel-Plex® to their Fleckvieh cattle, a breed of European origin. Subsequently, they carried out tests in the slaughterhouse, where they made the cuts and packed the meat vacuum. These cuts, which matured for more than 10 days, showed results that helped differentiate this meat from the other meats on the supermarket shelf, thus allowing for decommoditization.

I would like to receive more information on beef nutrition.

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

Nicole:         I'm talking with Deborah Wilson, senior vice president of BIXSco Inc and Viewtrak Technologies, which operates the Beef InfoXchange System (known as BIXS) based in Alberta, Canada. Deborah is a project manager of the Canadian Beef Sustainability Acceleration Pilot project, which aims to track animals through a certified sustainable supply chain. Deborah, thank you for joining us.

Deborah:      Well, thank you for asking me to come.

Nicole:         Can you tell us a little bit about how this pilot project got started and how BIXSco plays a role in this new tracking process?

Deborah:      I sit on the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (CRSB), and we started, about four years ago, trying to define beef sustainability production in Canada. We have about 170 different stakeholders at the table right now, from bankers to animal rights activists, from environmental activists to groups like Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, as well as retailers — major grocery retailers, restaurant chains, processors and producer groups, feedlot groups, the cow-calf groups — were all at the table. There's been a desire to define sustainability, and so, when you put that diverse group of people together, if you are going to take on an initiative this big, everybody's voice has to be heard. So, there was no point in creating a program that didn't have the animal rights activists at the table, that didn't have the environmental groups at the table. They need to understand what we do, and we need to understand what their goals are in order to deliver.

                    It’s been a very unique learning experience for me because I came from a producer background and, in the beginning, I honestly went to my first meeting and thought, "This will never work." But three years later — if you lock enough people in a boardroom for close to 11 hours a day and feed them one meal and say, "This is what you need to get through today and what you need to try to find the definition of or to agree on" — it's amazing what we can do when we work together!

Nicole:         Three years. That's a commitment.

Deborah:      Yeah.

Nicole:         Did you see any of those stakeholders drop out along the process, or did everybody pretty much —

Deborah:      No, it's grown.

Nicole:         Wow.

Deborah:      Everybody has wanted to come to the table. So, we defined the indicators. We started with that — what indicates that an operation is sustainable? Then we went from there to the verification process — how do we have a third-party audit done, which really puts the “teeth” on the program? Then, what is the auditing cycle? How long are these, and how do we create that cycle? From there, we needed to determine how we track the chain of custody of the animal through all these operations, because the beef industry is not a one-trick pony. Our cattle go everywhere and anywhere. Some of them are finished on grass, some are finished as shortkeep feeders, some go directly from the cow-calf to the feedlot, so we needed a way to conduct that chain of custody. And so, that's where my company comes in. We provide that chain of custody to the whole process.

Nicole:         And in coming from the producer side — you've been a livestock producer for 30 years — how does it pay off to add the paperwork that a system like this might require?

Deborah:      We're not adding paperwork; we're trying to do it all electronically. If you look at Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL), which governs the sustainability programs or makes recommendations as to how to run a sustainability program, they advocate that you do as much electronically as possible or we'll all be buried under paperwork.

                    How has the industry changed since I first started? Well, the paperwork has escalated; the complications have escalated. What are we looking at? The people who are buying our end-product, the beef. We have a more informed and more educated consumer than we've ever had in history. They have instant access to information via the internet. Is that information right or is it wrong? They're taking it as right, some of which we know is misleading or wrong. So, this is our opportunity to build the right message. This is our opportunity to have a conversation. This is our opportunity to say that we are worried about our environmental impact, that we are trying to be socially responsible, that we are trying to be good stewards of our animals and of the land. So, that's the changes I see.

                    I have grandchildren that I think will be in the industry, ultimately. They're passionate about the cattle industry already, they're in 4-H, they're part of environmental stewardship programs, they're aware of all these issues, and I want them to have a future in this industry.

Nicole:         In a past interview, you gave an example of a farmer with 200 head of cattle fully utilizing a sustainable change management system and adding approximately $1,200 to his profit margin. How does that work?

Deborah:      Oh, you've done your homework.

Nicole:         I read a little bit.

Deborah:      Okay. That was a conversation that I had initially with some of the retailers. We did the first McDonald's Pilot project, and we sold it on the basis of, "You should do this because it's the right thing." McDonald's spearheaded that project and had a project manager come in [who] I worked very closely with. We also had a couple of major packers onboard with that, so we logged miles and miles on the road talking to producer groups. They all agreed that it was the right thing to do, but the motivation wasn’t there. So, once that pilot project wrapped, there was a group of us who came together that have been involved in the first pilot project and are involved in the CRSB, and we said, "How are we going to test the framework? How are we going to make the framework have credibility to the industry at large?" It was over dinner one night, and one of the industry people said to me, "How can I get producers involved in this?" And I said, "Cash is good. Cash always works." I said, "We're not greedy people. It doesn't have to be a large amount of cash. But you're asking them to change some of their practices; you're asking them to pay for a third-party audit, which they are already a little scared of. If you could offer them some kind of incentive, like enough to help pay for that audit, maybe put a little extra cash in their pockets for doing the right thing, I think you'll be surprised at the uptake."

Nicole:         And, so, that's where the return is.

Deborah:      That's where the return is. There's a concern within the industry of, "Yeah, yeah, so they are paying us this now…” It’s not a premium; it's a financial credit, a financial incentive to get involved to build this program. So, what I hear is, "Yeah, but then it's going to become a program and it's going to then become demanded by the industry, and then it's going to be the norm, and then we won't get this financial credit." And I said, "So, once we build this system and it becomes a norm and we maintain our market share and we keep having consumers that want to eat our product — tell me why that's a bad thing again?"

Nicole:         Yeah. And what did they say?

Deborah:      They're usually pretty quiet.

Nicole:         Yeah.

Deborah:      There's not much they can say. Because, I don't know about you, but my purpose in being involved in this is to create longevity and a sustainable beef industry. I don't mean just that our beef is sustainable, but how about a cattle industry that's sustainable?

Nicole:         Since you started this pilot, have you been able to successfully track an animal from farm to table?

Deborah:      We've done thousands of head.

Nicole:         Can you tell me a little bit about what that looks like?

Deborah:      Visually, when you look at tracking chain of custody, it looks like a three-year-old's crayon drawing of scribbles. Our cattle don't follow any specific path. One year, a person may sell his calves in the fall, and in the next year, he's got extra feeds, so he keeps them until they're yearlings. One year, they may go to grass, they may go directly to a feedlot, they could go to an audited operation and then they may get sold, and they may go to a non-audited operation; then, they fall out of the sustainability framework. We can still track those animals, but they went through an operation that wasn't audited, so it looks like a huge puzzle. When we talk to the retailers about it, they say, "Well, it's simple: just show us that they went here, went there, that you slaughtered them, we cut them up, we sold them." Then you get to show them that drawing. I have about three different visuals. When they look at the visuals, they go, "Oh." They don't have any idea of what they're asking — but it's up to us to show them that this is how complicated it is, but we're willing to try and work with you to do it.

                    It’s pretty exciting that we've been able to say we tracked this meat — or this animal — through all these verified operations. We send that off to the rest of the project management team, [and] they analyze it, they show it to the retailers. The retailers are committed to pay so many cents per pound for sustainable meat — we use industry averages to calculate the number of sustainable pounds — and then they come back and say, "Okay, you track this many head. That works out to $10 a head in the first quarter, $20 per head in the second quarter." In six months, we've tracked over a million pounds of sustainable beef.

Nicole:         Wow. And are you using, like, a tag, or how are you keeping track of the beef?

Deborah:      An EID (electronic identification) tag.

Nicole:         Okay.

Deborah:      Yeah.

Nicole:         China has recently opened its beef market to the U.S. after a nearly 15-year ban. This new market opportunity also comes with new demands: all beef must be hormone-free. Is this blockchain technology what China is looking for to confirm a product?

Deborah:      Well, the biggest thing the Chinese want, first and foremost — before hormone-free — is full traceability. Then you deal with the hormone-free issue, and I think that's something, as an industry, we really need to start having conversations about. Because the next big hurdle I see on the horizon for the beef industry is our carbon footprint. It's already there. The noise is already in the background. When I talk to retailers sitting in those boardrooms at the CRSB and the U.S.’s roundtable as well, it's such an opportunity to say, "I know you think your consumers want hormone-free, and I know they think that's what they want, but the problem is, you're taking away an efficiency in the beef production cycle that minimizes our carbon footprint."

                    If you compare the difference between a serving of beef — which is four ounces — that's raised with hormones and one without, there's a 1–2 nanogram difference. I mean, you can look it up on the internet: how many nanograms of estrogen in a head of cabbage? And we'll eat a big serving of coleslaw and not think anything of it. But it's a kind of fearmongering that's been put in people's minds.

                    I recently was at a European meeting — and, again, they have the no hormones, no antibiotics policy. That's been in place for a number of years in Europe. We have all these trade agreements that everybody is all excited about, but the trade agreements are not fitting with our current production practices. So, it's a question of, “Can we visit with these other countries to change some of their expectations and have a good conversation, or do we actually have to change our protocols here?” Then, what does that set us up for when we start talking about carbon footprint?

Nicole:         How difficult would it be for a producer to try to meet the export market's demands on their own? Would you have to choose to produce for either domestic or export? Can you do both at the same time?

Deborah:      Well, I guess you could. Yes. I mean, you're going to have to be able to if you're going hormone-free. They're going to demand some level of credibility, some level of third-party audit, I would imagine, or some verification process, and we can't do it with paper. Can you imagine if, at every stage of the game, an animal had paperwork? We saw that in the Irish Federation presentation yesterday [at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference] in the Beef Forum, and so, I know they do a lot with paper and they do it manually, but they have 16,000 producers in Ireland, both beef and dairy, in very small herds. So, when we look at the Canadian herd, which is somewhere around 13 million, and when you look at the number of head totally in the U.S., you are looking about 90 million head. We'd be buried in a sea of paperwork. So, we need to start implementing these data management systems, these state-of-the-art systems, that can then integrate with blockchain so that you can track the exact product. Then, the product comes through with a validation and a credibility behind it.

                    So, it will be the choice of the producers who want to raise those cattle without those growth hormones. China is a huge market; it's a wealthy market. We’re going to have to demand a higher price to produce beef that way, because it's going to cost us more to produce it.

Nicole:         Can the Chinese afford it?

Deborah:      Fastest-growing upper/middle class in the world? The president of BIXS is Hubert Lau. He’s Canadian, born and raised, but his parents came from China. We do a lot of business in China through Viewtrak with another one of our products. He said, "You have to understand the Chinese market." Here, we have an expression: "Keeping up with the Joneses." I get a better job, I make more money, I buy a bigger house, I buy another car, I'm farming by a bigger tractor, I buy two of those bigger tractors, I get a bigger combine. Keeping up with the Joneses [means] you're proud of what you own and have.

                    In China, they're very limited as to what they can own. You can only wear so many Rolex watches. You can only carry so many Louis Vuitton purses. You typically can't buy a bigger apartment. You're lucky if you have a vehicle. If you are going to be that wealthy and have a vehicle, you’re probably going to try to buy a Bentley. The biggest market for Bentley in the world is in China. So, can they pay for a premium product? You bet they can. And the desire for beef? It keeps increasing there.

                    I just had that conversation with some guys that live in China and speak the language. They said beef is just a hot commodity there, whether it's in a hot pot — which uses cheaper cuts of meat — or the ability to go out one night and have a $150 T-bone steak with a $300 bottle of red wine that came from Canada or France.

                    All of this has to come with a validation. I also talked yesterday in my presentation about the problem of food fraud globally. Beef is the fourth most black-marketed product or mis-marketed product or sold with the wrong claims. So, having that validation and that credibility is huge.

Nicole:         What I'm hearing is [that] buyers want a story about where their food is coming from, connecting it to the farmer. Can you explain how some of these sustainable practices get translated into the supply management system? How can the consumer see that it is more sustainable, or someone who is buying from China?

Deborah:      The goal of the CRSB, ultimately, is to have a label on the pack that would say "Sustainably Raised." CRSB will be able to give consumers a website if they want that additional information. I mean, there are other kinds of marketing techniques that you can use to go with that, but it's all a level of insurance. If I'm tracked in a data management system as having a third-party audit, that means that an outside party came on my farm and looked at what I did for 26 or 24 different indicators. So, that adds to the story.

                    Then, within our system, you can verify that you are a grass-only operation, or that you're hormone-free, if that's the route you choose to go; you can include the antibiotic treatments, you can verify that the animal's gone past its withdrawal periods for whatever you've given it, that it's had a good health protocol, good vaccination program, that it's Angus-only. Consumers can track genetics, if they choose. They can say, "I'd really like to eat meat from an animal with three ears," and if that's what producers want us to put in the system, we'll put in a category or a field for an animal with three ears. The reality of it is, we've gone from a one-size-fits-all program in the beef industry to one-size-fits-many. How does the consumer like their product today? They like their beef with a large side order of adjectives.

                    I have a son [who] grew up on a ranch, and he’s now a lawyer in the city. He goes to a niche market store. I asked him, "Why would you do that? You know how the industry functions." He said, "Because I like the story." And he has right to do that. He has the extra funds to pay for that story. So, we can leverage all of these techniques and tools we have to increase the value of our product. Why not?

Nicole:         Your passion is clearly for beef, but how can something like this translate or be replicated by other markets, like pork?

Deborah:      Oh, we've been asked by a number of different commodity groups to supply that verification in the background. We're also getting significant calls from other countries. We've been asked about tracking fish, sheep, goats, hogs — so, you're going to see our company evolve from the Beef InfoXchange System to the Business InfoXchange System, and we are going public with the company.

Nicole:         When do you expect that to happen?

Deborah:      We've done all the paperwork. We're just researching names. We want to stick with that BIXS logo. We've been accepted by the Toronto Stock Exchange, so the IPO will probably happen at the end of September.

Nicole:         Wow! Are we hearing it first on the AgFuture Podcast?

Deborah:      We announced it at the Livestock Markets Association convention in Canada, and other than that, I don't know if I said it in my presentation, but you're pretty darn close to the top of the heap right now!

Nicole:         I guess one of the questions I should have asked earlier is, through the three years of discussions and understanding what it means to have a sustainable beef product, is that what you'll have to figure out with the other industries too — how to define what sustainable pork is?

Deborah:      I say this all the time about our system: I don't want to tell you your business model, I want to hear what your business model is today and where you aspire to go — what your wish list is — because we can build a system that can deliver almost anything. I mean, you can do anything at a cost. What's your vision, how do you want to communicate that vision, and how do we validate that, and how do we be the support behind you to deliver what you want to deliver? I've had a number of meetings where I've been hearing about exactly that topic.

Nicole:         Deborah Wilson, senior vice president of BIXSco Inc. Thank you so much.

Deborah:      Well, thanks for having me.

I want to learn more about improving the health and productivity of beef cattle on my farm. 

[LEXINGTON, Ky.] – The 2019 Alltech Global Feed Survey, released today, estimates that international feed tonnage has increased by a strong 3 percent to 1.103 billion metric tons of feed produced in 2018, exceeding 1 billion metric tons for the third consecutive year. The eighth edition of the annual survey includes data from 144 countries and nearly 30,000 feed mills. The feed industry has seen 14.6 percent growth over the past five years, equating to an average of 2.76 percent per annum. As the population grows, so does the middle class, which is well reflected in an increase in overall protein consumption.  

The top eight countries are China, the U.S., Brazil, Russia, India, Mexico, Spain and Turkey. Together, they produce 55 percent of the world’s feed production and contain 59 percent of the world’s feed mills, and they can be viewed as an indicator of the trends in agriculture. Predominant growth came from the layer, broiler and dairy feed sectors.  

“Alltech works together with feed mills, industry and government entities around the world to compile data and insights to provide an assessment of feed production each year,” said Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech. “We are proud to present the eighth annual Alltech Global Feed Survey and share the results publicly to demonstrate the importance of the animal feed industry as we strive to provide for a planet of plenty.”  

The Alltech Global Feed Survey assesses compound feed production and prices through information collected by Alltech’s global sales team and in partnership with local feed associations in the last quarter of 2018. It is an estimate and is intended to serve as an information resource for policymakers, decision-makers and industry stakeholders. 

Regional results from the 2019 Alltech Global Feed Survey 

• North America: North America saw steady growth of 2 percent over last year due to an increase in the major species, with beef and broilers leading the growth at 3 percent each. The U.S. remained the second-largest feed-producing country globally, behind China. Feed prices in North America are the lowest globally across all species, and with the availability of land, water and other resources, the region is expected to remain a primary contributor to feed production.  

• Latin America: As a region, Latin America was relatively stagnant this year. Brazil remained the leader in feed production for the region and third overall globally. Brazil, Mexico and Argentina continue to produce the majority of feed in Latin America, with 76 percent of regional feed production. Brazil stayed flat, while Mexico and Argentina saw growth of 1 percent and 4 percent, respectively. Colombia’s feed production grew by approximately 8 percent, primarily due to an increase in pork and egg production. Several countries saw a decline in feed production, such as Venezuela (-27 percent), El Salvador (-16 percent) and Chile (-8 percent).  

• Europe: Europe saw an overall growth of about 4 percent over last year, making it the second-fastest-growing region in the survey, resulting from feed production increases in layer (7 percent), broiler (5 percent), aquaculture (5 percent), dairy (4 percent) and pig (3 percent). Beef was the only primary protein species to decline, though it was less than 1 percent.  

Much of the region’s growth can be attributed to smaller countries, such as Turkmenistan, Macedonia, Azerbaijan, Montenegro, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, which all saw increases in overall production estimates of 20 percent or more. Additionally, larger-producing countries like Russia, Spain and Turkey saw strong increases in feed production estimates, which added to the overall production growth.  

• Asia-Pacific: The Asia-Pacific region is home to several of the top 10 feed-producing countries, including China, India and Japan, and accounted for more than 36 percent of the world’s feed tonnage. China maintained status as the top feed-producing country in the world with 187.89 million metric tons, with 10 million metric tons more than the U.S. Increased production for Asia-Pacific came from India with 13 percent due to growth in dairy, layer and broiler feeds. Other countries that demonstrated higher growth variance included Pakistan, Myanmar and Laos. Southeast Asia’s feed production represented over 20 percent of the Asia-Pacific region’s feed production, with Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Thailand contributing to 93 percent of Southeast Asia’s feed production.  

• Africa: Africa continued strong growth with a 5 percent increase in overall feed production, and no country in the region saw a decline. Morocco demonstrated strong growth across dairy, beef, layers, broilers and turkeys. The areas that declined for feed production were equine (-4 percent) and pets (-14 percent). These two areas represent a very small proportion of Africa’s overall production, so the impact is very minimal. Most of the major animal production species in ruminant and poultry contributed to the overall growth of the region. 

Notable species results from the 2019 Alltech Global Feed Survey  

• In the poultry industry, major growth areas for layer feed included Europe, Latin America and Asia-Pacific. In Europe, Poland and Uzbekistan each saw growth of around 200,000 metric tons. Latin America had increases in Colombia, Peru, Brazil and Mexico. In the Asia-Pacific region, South Korea, India and Indonesia all saw growth of several hundred metric tons. North America experienced overall growth of 2 percent, in which both the U.S. and Canada saw increased production. Africa saw a small decrease in layer production due to declines in both Egypt and Seychelles. 

Globally, broiler production increased by approximately 3 percent in 2018. There was growth in all regions, except for Latin America, in which a very small decline was observed. Africa showed 9 percent growth, demonstrating an overall trend that as populations grow and become wealthier, interest in protein — particularly in palatable chicken — does as well.  

• Pig feed production saw an increase of nearly 1 percent in 2018. The primary producing region for pig feed is Asia-Pacific, but this was also the only region that saw a decline in pig feed production as Mongolia, Vietnam, China, New Zealand and Japan experienced decreases. From a tonnage standpoint, Europe saw the largest growth at approximately 2.2 million metric tons. Russia and Spain accounted for the majority, while Finland, Denmark, France and Poland also contributed. Latin America saw the greatest growth in pig feed as a percentage at 5 percent, with the largest growth seen in Mexico and Argentina. 

• Global dairy feed production saw growth in North American, Europe and Africa, while Latin America remained flat. Europe, a global leader in dairy production, grew on average by approximately 4 percent. The largest increase was in Turkey with 10 percent, while Ireland, Russia and the U.K. also contributed to the region’s growth. Africa’s growth was primarily due to a significant increase in both Morocco and Nigeria.    

• North America has always led beef feed production and continues to do so with an increase of 3 percent in 2018. Europe saw a small decline at barely 1 percent and remained in second place. Latin America saw strong growth of approximately 8 percent, with Mexico and Argentina as the primary contributors. As a result, the Latin American region has taken third place in beef feed production, moving ahead of the Asia-Pacific region.  China and Australia both saw growth in the Asia-Pacific region but could not offset the overall decline in countries such as Bangladesh, Mongolia, Indonesia, Taiwan, Vietnam and Pakistan. 

• Overall, aquaculture feeds showed growth of 4 percent over last year. This was primarily attributed to strong increases in the Asia-Pacific and European regions. The traditional Asia-Pacific leaders in aquaculture, Vietnam, India and Indonesia, combined for an additional 1.58 million metric tons of feed in the region. China, the region’s leader, also saw an increase of 1 percent over last year. The primary European leaders either experienced strong growth or remained relatively flat. Those that did grow included Norway and Turkey, both at 7 percent, and Spain at a substantial 31 percent. The other regions remained relatively flat or saw only a 1 percent increase or decrease in feed production, demonstrating the continuity of the industry as a whole.  

• The pet food sector saw growth of approximately 1 percent, primarily attributed to an increase in the Asia-Pacific region, which was offset by a decrease in the Latin American and African regions. North America and the Middle East both remained relatively flat. In previous surveys, Europe had been the top-producing region for pet food production, but after a reassessment of 2017 numbers and despite growth of 2 percent, it ranks just behind North America. Europe is estimated in 2018 to have produced 8.6 million metric tons in total, approximately 200,000 behind North America. Africa saw a small decrease in production, but the actual tonnage is quite small compared to many of the other regions. The Latin American region experienced a decrease of about 5 percent, which was spread across several countries, including Chile, Venezuela, El Salvador, Colombia, Argentina and Ecuador. 

To access more data and insights from the 2019 Alltech Global Feed Survey, including the results booklet, an interactive global map and a pre-recorded video presentation of the results by Dr. Mark Lyons, visit alltechfeedsurvey.com.

Alltech now collects data from 144 countries and nearly 30,000 feed mills to compile its annual Alltech Global Feed Survey. This data collection is a major undertaking, made possible only through Alltech’s global reach.

However, the real work (and fun!) begins when all the data is received, and we have the opportunity to dig deep for insights and trends. We seek to answer the following questions:

Which countries are growing the fastest? Which species saw declines in production? Are any major players slowing down? What are the surprises?

The data presents seemingly endless opportunities for comparison, and we’ve decided to share 18 of the facts we’ve found most interesting from our 2018 data. Perhaps this will serve as “food” for your next dinner conversation!

1. The top eight countries produce 55% of the world’s feed production.
2. Vietnam saw an increase of nearly 1 million metric tons of aquaculture feed, contributing to the estimated 6% growth of the Asia-Pacific region’s aquaculture feed production in 2018.
3. Morocco saw the largest growth of any country in Africa thanks to the addition of two new feed mills as well as an extension to an existing feed mill late last year.
4. Although not typically known for its pig production, India took a big leap in pig feed production in 2018. Why? The industry is trending toward more organized farming in areas like Kerala and Punjab, with new feed millers contributing to this growth.
5. Where’s the beef? Feed production for beef was stagnant this year. Not only that, but the third-largest producing region, Asia-Pacific, dropped enough to let Latin America step up and take the bronze.
6. Southeast Asia’s feed production represents over 20% of the Asia-Pacific region’s feed production. Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Thailand carry most of the weight and contribute to 93% of Southeast Asia’s feed production.
7. Showing 7% growth last year and 13% this year, India is clearly growing its feed production at a rapid clip, not just in one, but in all species! From aquafeed to goat grains, India’s feed production increased across all 13 categories we assess.
8. The European Union (EU) countries contribute to more than 50% of all major species feed production in Europe (with the exception of aquafeed).
9. Norway is Europe’s largest producer of aquafeed, contributing 45% of the region’s total aquafeed production.
10. Layer feed grew by 4% globally, indicating a growing need and continued interest in this efficient protein source.
11. After years battling African swine fever, Estonia is back in the game, showing a more than three-fold increase in pig feed production over last year.
12. Eighty percent of European turkey feed production occurs in the EU.
13. Higher costs of corn and soy reduced Brazil’s broiler feed production by 2%, eating away at the entire region’s total and making Latin America the only region to see a decrease in broiler feed production in 2018.
14. Dairy showed growth in all regions, indicating the ongoing affinity for this protein source.
15. Africa’s feed production grew the most of any region at 5%. Expected to have one of the fastest-growing populations, how will this region farm in the future? Will it embrace conventional farming or leapfrog other methods and embrace Agriculture 4.0?
16. Turkey feed saw a big leap in Spain with an additional 300,000 tons of feed estimated in 2018.
17. Pet feed reassessed: It turns out Europe is not the primary producer as originally thought! North America leads by about 200,000 tons of feed, making it a close race. With a renewed focus on value rather than volume in the pet food sector, who will lead in 2019 and beyond?
18. Insect protein is working its way into aquaculture feed production. It’s possible Alltech will include this new alternative feed source in future surveys!
19. The North American regions continues its steady course of 2% growth; the biggest contributors to this increase were beef and broiler each at 3%.

These quick facts are just a few of the insights we can derive from the Alltech Global Feed Survey. To discover more from the 2019 Alltech Global Feed Survey, including the results booklet, an interactive global map with information from each country and a presentation of the results, visit alltechfeedsurvey.com. 

Download Survey [+]

Watch Recorded Webinar [+]

Winners Tammy Wiedenbeck from Lancaster, Wis.; Rachel Ezzell from Waxhaw, N.C.; Jacob Pierce from Waxhaw, N.C.; and Katie Edmondson from Cortez, Col. were selected by public voting on Facebook

[LEXINGTON, Kentucky] – The Alltech #iamAG online agvocacy photo contest showcased the beauty of American agriculture through the eyes of producers, who submitted and shared photos of their farms for the opportunity to win a trip to ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE19), to be held in Lexington, Kentucky, on May 19–21, 2019. 

The winners of the Alltech #iamAG photo contest are:

• Tammy Wiedenbeck from Lancaster, Wis. (photo)
• Rachel Ezzell from Waxhaw, N.C. (photo)
• Jacob Pierce from Waxhaw, N.C. (photo)  
• Katie Edmondson from Cortez, Col. (photo)

The submitted photos were posted on Alltech’s Facebook page (Facebook.com/AlltechNaturally) for public voting. Winners and a guest each received free registration to ONE19 and $2,000 for travel expenses.

General registration is now open for ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference, held in Lexington, Kentucky, USA, from May 19–21, 2019. The annual international conference draws 4,000 attendees from nearly 80 countries to network and discuss world-changing ideas. For more information or to register, visit one.alltech.com. Join the conversation online with #ONE19.

-Ends-

Contact: press@alltech.com

Jenn Norrie

• Communications Manager, North America
• jnorrie@alltech.com; (403) 863-8547

Photo Caption:

Tammy Wiedenbeck from Lancaster, Wis. has won a trip to ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference in Lexington, Kentucky, USA, for their #iamAG photo.

Photo Caption: 

https://photos.alltech.com/pf.tlx?KvMKg0Kp_XeA

Photo Caption:

https://photos.alltech.com/pf.tlx/7879y7YA833

Jacob Pierce from Waxhaw, N.C has won a trip to ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference in Lexington, Kentucky, USA, for their #iamAG photo.

Photo Caption:

https://photos.alltech.com/pf.tlx/tQyt4otU.iqpGt

About Alltech:

Founded in 1980 by Irish entrepreneur and scientist Dr. Pearse Lyons, Alltech discovers and delivers solutions for the sustainable nutrition of plants, animals and people. With expertise in yeast fermentation, solid state fermentation and the science of nutrigenomics, Alltech is a leading producer and processor of yeast additives, organic trace minerals, feed ingredients, premix and feed.

Our guiding ACE principle seeks to develop solutions that are safe for the Animal, Consumer and the Environment. Our more than 6,000 talented team members worldwide put this purpose to work every day for our customers.

Alltech is a family-owned company, which allows us to adapt quickly to emerging customer needs and to 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.

With cow-calf producers across the U.S. prepare for fall and winter feeding conditions, adding supplemental protein should be considered to help improve forage utilization. CrystalBloxTM, a self-fed block supplement for cattle, is the first supplement of its kind to be brought to the market in nearly 40 years.  

Developed by Ridley Block Operations, part of the Alltech feed division and the makers of CRYSTALYX® Brand Supplements, CrystalBlox is a new hybrid form that combines the economical nutrient delivery and fortification of compressed blocks with the consistent and predictable intake of low moisture block technology. CrystalBlox will fit into a wide variety of feeding situations in which protein delivery is critical. 

“As a beef producer, you want your cattle to maintain good body condition through the fall and winter, when forages are at their lowest quality,” said Mark Robbins, director of research and nutrition services at Ridley Block Operations. “CrystalBlox provides supplemental protein so cattle can utilize those low-quality forages and maintain a good body score condition until calving.” 

CrystalBlox is designed and formulated to provide supplemental protein to help improve forage utilization by promoting increased forage intake and improved fiber digestibility. In situations where forage crude protein levels are low due to drought or with advanced maturity such as fall and winter forages, CrystalBlox can provide supplemental protein that will help cattle extract more energy and nutrients from forage supplies.  

Robbins, along with Alltech Feed Division nutritionist Tyler Melroe, recently appeared on Rural America Live to speak about CrystalBlox. Watch the video here. 

For more information and to find a dealer location, visit CrystalBlox.com.