The following is an edited transcript of Tom Martin's interview with Ryan Martin (no relation) of the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation. Click below to hear the full interview:

Tom:                I'm talking with Martin Ryan, technical support manager at Glanbia Agribusiness in County Tipperary, Ireland. Mr. Ryan is an award-winning pedigree cattle breeder and exhibitor, a past president of the Irish Charolais Cattle Society and is a current board member of the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation. He joins us to talk about what can be accomplished when various interests work together toward a common goal. We thank you for joining us, Martin.

Martin:            Thank you very much.

Tom:                Tell us about the centralized database that's been created by the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation. What's it called?

 Martin:           ICBF is the short acronym we use for it. It's the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation. I think it goes back to 1998 when a lot of small-breed societies were all doing various genetic improvement programs and trying to do their own thing. We had a vision to create our centralized database, which would bring economies of scale, first of all, and actually improve the reliability by getting everybody to work together. And we envisaged bringing together not just the breeders, but also the processors, the livestock markets, the processing factories — right through the chain — artificial insemination (AI) organizations, milk recording, you name it. We wanted to get them all involved.

Tom:                So, this actually began in the 90s?

Martin:            In 1998, the idea took hold, and by the year 2000, we had a federation put together and created, basically, a co-op where all the interested parties took a shareholding, and that’s how they are represented today.

Tom:                And, since then, there's been quite a revolution in digital technology — must have changed things considerably.

Martin:            Absolutely, but fundamentally, I think at the start, we had at least five decades of good registration information from birth. Every calf was tagged at birth. We had quite a lot of their ancestry information, so that formed the basis of the database. What we didn’t have was the processes for pulling together all the issues like milk recording, linear scoring, weight records from animals being slaughtered, confirmation scores, fat scores, daily live weight gain — all that good information. So that's really what we set out to achieve: put all that information together in one place.

Tom:                Is that what makes the system unique, or are there more attributes that do that?

Martin:            I think that was how it set itself apart from everything else, beginning from day one. So, every time an animal moves in Ireland, it is captured in the database. If it goes to a livestock market, its weight on that day is transferred back to the database, along with the price it brought. If it's an animal that's slaughtered in a processing plant, on that day, its carcass weight, its carcass confirmation and its fat score are all transferred back into the database. Of course, we have the sires of those animals as well. So, all that information — or, indeed, on the dairy side, if it’s milk recording — all that comes back into the database, which gives us a very simple model. We have the data coming from everywhere, then you have a lot of on-farm recording programs as well, which transfers back-data into the database. It gives us a powerful tool for creating genetic evaluations.

Tom:                And how many users are there?

Martin:            We have at least 70,000 people that are working in the system between dairy and beef farmers. You could say about 80 percent of all active farmers are very involved in the database. Everybody gets their evaluations from there. We have, on breed society level, six dairy breeds and fourteen beef breeds completely involved. Every processor is involved — every milk processor, as well as beef processors. Every livestock market is involved. So, it's a very complete, comprehensive system that captures data at every level.

Tom:                There can be competitive considerations to sharing data, but I understand there's a great deal of collaboration in this system. Is competitiveness an issue?

Martin:            Oh, absolutely. It’s not the case today, but I think at the very outset there would have been a lot of concern by individual breed societies that they were putting information into a central repository and wondered, "How safe is that? Can I get it back and have it become my own again? What responsibilities do I have, and are we safe to share that information? Are we allowed to share it?”

                        So, there was a lot of concern initially, and that's why it probably took two years to become incorporated and get to where we are now. But, today, people don’t see any alternative.

Tom:                A great deal of data comes in, and then it’s analyzed and reshared back with the users?

Martin:            Yes, the system is completely open, so any individual farmer can go on and look at his own herd. He'll get reports every week, if he wishes. Every week, the database shares all the registration data and AI information that came in, so you can see how many cows are milk-recorded or how many cows were inseminated during the week, for example. So, it's completely open in that regard. You can check any animal.

                        If you're a farmer looking for stock bull, you can go into the bull search, which has a lot of parameters. You can set your parameters, even including the distance from where you live, as well as calving years, et cetera, and select a bull accordingly.

Tom:                Is any training required to use the system?

Martin:            We provide a lot of webinars both to the breed societies and to individual farmers for using the system, but it's very intuitive because people understand the terminology quite well.

Tom:                “Data reliability” is a term that might seem obvious, but what is it and why is it important?

Martin:            Well, at the very outset, I think data reliability would have been considered relatively poor because you didn’t have a lot of information. To improve that data reliability, I suppose, the first thing is we had to increase the usage. As soon as more and more people submitted data, that completed it.

                        We also introduced the system among beef farmers whereby there is some benefit to putting in the data themselves. Out of the 50,000 beef producers, over 50 percent of them — and particularly the larger ones — joined up immediately. That gave us a big volume of data going into the system to improve that reliability. Then, along came things like genomics, where we're sampling up to 35,000 cattle every week genomically, and that has improved the reliability substantially as well. On the AI side, we have over 50 billion SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) in the system, which gives us enormous reliability.

Tom:                Is this a global model?

Martin:            I think it's a global model. I suppose every country doesn’t necessarily work the same. It's highly unique to have every piece of the industry sharing information together. That sharing has benefited dairy farmers to the tune of €150 million per year. It's about a hundred and seventy million dollars in today's language. In a small country, it's nothing to sneeze at.

                        On the beef side, the average beef carcass has gained at least €70 per head, so that's quite significant. On the replacement index side, things have been quite a bit slower because people focus initially on the slaughter part, but today, that is increasing as well. In the last year alone, [it] has increased by about €15 per animal.

Tom:                Is the system continuing to be developed, and what is yet to be achieved?

Martin:            I think the main part that will give us further momentum in the future is the genomics component. We use 54K SNP, which is a very high level of intensity of data. From that, we can pick up quite a lot of other issues in the genome, including genetic defects and so on. I think, down the road, we'll get to gene editing, ultimately.

Tom:                Martin Ryan is technical support manager at Glanbia Agribusiness. We thank you so much for being with us.

Martin:            Thank you very much. Pleasure.

Ryan Martin spoke at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference. Don't miss another game-changing idea from the beef industry. Join the world's thought-leaders and experts at ONE19. Learn more here. 

The following is an edited transcript of Tom Martin's interview with Dr. Richard Murphy and Dr. Roger Scaletti. Click below to hear the complete audio:

Tom:            Why are we still using inorganic minerals? Why do nutritionists continue to overfeed nutrients and waste money? How can a mineral management program improve the health of the herd? Here to discuss these questions, among others, about the role of minerals in animal nutrition are Dr. Richard Murphy, research director at the Alltech European Bioscience Center in Dunboyne, Ireland, and Dr. Roger Scaletti, who focuses on the technical sales and support of the Alltech® Mineral Management program. Thank you both for being with us.

                    There may be some confusion and contention around the issue of organic versus inorganic minerals and the effectiveness of one over the other. First, Dr. Murphy, a brief primer, if you would, on the difference between organic versus inorganic?

Richard:        That's a great way to start this conversation. I guess it's going to be a fun conversation over the next while! Effectively, when we talk about organic minerals, all we've done is taken the mineral source, we've reacted it with an amino acid or a peptide or some other organic bonding group, and we basically make that mineral protected. Rather than thinking about an inorganic mineral as just being straight mineral, with the organic mineral, we've protected the mineral, and that protection offers us a lot of benefits. Particularly in the intestinal tract, it offers us stability — changing the pH that we would see in the gastrointestinal tract.

                    For instance, at the start of the intestinal tract, the pH is neutral. When it gets into the gastric environment — or the stomach — it becomes very acidic. Those changes in pH can impact amino acid. With the organic mineral, what we're doing is we're bonding it to either an amino acid or a peptide or some other organic molecule, and that protects us as it moves through the GI tract and makes it much more stable.

Tom:            Dr. Scaletti, just to be clear, is the use of organic versus inorganic specific to the production method? In other words, are organic minerals only for organic farms?

Roger:          Another great question. No, organic minerals would be beneficial for any farm. In a typical presentation, I would start off by saying when I mention organic minerals — I'm not talking about not using pesticides or herbicides — I'm talking about the chemistry of carbon, just like Dr. Murphy mentioned. Remember, there is no real requirement for inorganic trace minerals.  Animals need zinc, copper, manganese, selenium, etc. every day, but the source of that trace mineral is not dictated, so organic minerals are suitable for all different production systems.

Tom:            Okay, for either of you, has research proven that an organic mineral is more bioavailable and usable by the animal?

Richard:        Absolutely. I think Roger would agree. We've got an absolute wealth of information that we've built up over the last 20 years or so showing that the organic minerals are a far superior source of mineral to use in all diets.

Roger:          Yes, like Dr. Murphy mentioned, the bioavailability part, I think, is what gets people's attention initially. But then, at the end of the day, the farmer, no matter what species, is looking for a production response. So, we also have research covering production responses that you would see as you change your mineral supplementation from inorganic to organic.

Tom:            What is it about organic minerals that makes them more beneficial?

Richard:        For me — my background is in biochemistry — it's trying to understand how minerals interact, not just in terms of how the animal responds to it, but how those minerals would interact with feed and materials, for instance. Certainly, with the organic minerals, you have benefits beyond just health and just performance in that we change the way in which we can impact or influence the nutrients in the diet.

                    With the organic minerals, we know it will have less of an impact on vitamin stability, less of an impact on antioxidant function. Even with some of the enzymes that are part of the gastrointestinal and digestion process — they won't be as impacted by organic minerals as they would by inorganics.

Roger:          Then, to follow a little bit with Dr. Murphy's comment, some of the, for example, enzyme interaction work that we've done in vitro has been done in dairy cows as well, showing that, when you're only supplementing with organic minerals — in our case, Bioplex® and Sel-Plex® — you have a more effective rumen fermentation. So, you're producing more total volatile fatty acids and more butyrate, which is kind of the business of the rumen: to produce those volatile fatty acids. Whether it's a case of the organic minerals enhancing that or leading to accelerated rumen organism replication, it's one possible pathway, but I think another possible pathway would be that you're removing rumen microorganism inhabitation when you take out the inorganic minerals.

Tom:            Which trace minerals are key to improving livestock performance? Is there a shortlist?

Roger:          The shortlist would be zinc, manganese, copper, cobalt and selenium. Depending on where you are in the world, or even within a given country, one of those may be more important than another one. In North America, our most important mineral for supplementation and consideration would be selenium, just based on the background selenium in soil, which is going to dictate the selenium in forages and grains. Those five would be the main ones. On the monogastric animal, we would add iron to that. We have six minerals we'd be talking about.

Tom:            We may have touched on this a little bit before, but what is known about the utilization of the minerals by the animal — or animals, I should say?

Richard:        Well, minerals themselves are used in many different ways. Predominantly, when you look at their role in cellular systems, they're essential co-factors for many different enzymes, for instance. You won't get cellular processes working optimally or working efficiently if you don't have the necessary mineral required for the enzyme to carry out its function, or for the enzyme that's necessary for those biological functions.

                    They're wide-ranging. If you look at copper, for instance, it's involved in many different enzymes that are involved in the antioxidant response. Selenium is a particularly important one in terms of its ability to modulate, not just in antioxidant response, but in many other enzymes that are involved in many other processes as well. So, really, they're essential and critical for the most basic of cellular functions.

Tom:            Are there differences in animal chemistry species to species, or even within species, that cause mineral forms to perform differently?

Roger:          My answer — and this would be more in Richard’s wheelhouse — but just in a ruminant, we have to deal with the rumen, the rumen environment, the rumen microorganisms. In other species, you wouldn't have the rumen part. In equine or in horses, they would have a hindgut fermentation. There’s a difference in terms of how each animal is set up, but for the most part, you're seeing the similar benefits from organic minerals across the species.

Richard:        There is one common factor across all species — we touched on this at the start — which is that change in pH along the length of the GI tract. That's one of the most critical parameters that is involved in defining how good or how poor a mineral source is. If that mineral source is enabled to withstand those constant changes in pH, you won't get it to the sites of absorption in the intestine. You really need to look at having a stable mineral molecule. Obviously, organic minerals are the most stable of those. But even within the different types of organic mineral products that are out there, you'll see distinct differences in terms of the stabilities of individual products, and that will have an impact on how individual products will function in the animal.

Tom:            Why do organic trace minerals mean less inclusion, less waste and better meat quality?

Roger:          Well, to me the starting point would be that you don't need as much mineral to get the job done. Corollary to that, you're getting a more effective job done with organic minerals. I think, over the years, in the industry side of things, it's kind of been a race to the top. One company was using however many PPM [parts per million] — or milligrams — of a mineral, and the next company would add a little more to it, operating under the old adage of more is better.

                    Well, that's really not the case. We found, and have the research to show, that you're getting a more effective response with less mineral use, probably through a lot of the pathways Dr. Murphy mentioned, but it's not always an apples-to- apples comparison. Zinc oxide, at a given parts-per-million, is not going to perform the same as a zinc proteinate, or Bioplex zinc, at a much lower concentration inclusion in the diet.

Richard:        It's actually of interest on the regulatory side — and I think Dr. Scaletti would probably agree with this as well — when you look at changes in legislation over the last number of years, in particular in the EU, there have been changes in the maximum permissible limits that are allowed in feed. I think the zinc — this is just back to Roger's mention of zinc oxide there — I think the zinc area is one in which we can demonstrate that quite nicely. There's a lot of talk in the EU about how they're going to ban zinc oxide use as a prophylactic and prevent scouring in piglets and calves, for instance.

                    One of the reasons for that that they've quoted is that the regulators are concerned about the impact that zinc oxide can have on co-selection for antimicrobial resistance. But when you look at the permissible limits that they have of zinc in feed, they make reference to the use of phytase, for instance, as being a way to perhaps enhance the effectiveness of the zinc source that's added to the diet or enhance the background level of zinc that's in the feed.

                    All in all, I think there's a move by the regulators. Now, the regulators, if they want to change those limits again, will have to come back and revisit the delineation between inorganic and organic minerals and the differences in terms of the bioavailabilities of those. I think, in the future, we may even see regulators like the EU body — which would be the EFSA (the European Food Safety Authority) — would say, “Okay, we'll need to examine this in more detail.”

                    Certainly, the Brazilian authorities have already done that. They've made a clear delineation between the availability of inorganic and organic mineral sources. The more recent documents that have been published by authorities in Brazil basically delineate clearly between what levels of inorganic you should feed in a diet and what levels of organic you should feed in the diet, and they're distinctly different.

Tom:            As you have observed improvements in performance, are there any lessons? Any takeaways from that experience that have informed what you do going forward?

Roger:          I would say: more isn't better. I think a lot of people are accustomed to looking at a tag or a ration report, and they're looking for a certain number or level of mineral supplementation. That's only so useful if you, then, don't read the ingredient list and see, is it coming from oxide, sulfate, organic proteinate — whatever the case may be. I think the source of mineral is more important than the amount. So again, it's about making sure it's an apples-to-apples comparison, and less doesn't mean less performance. I think a lot of times, at least in the United States, our industry would be looking for high levels of supplementation, and they equate high level with being good or what is essential, and that's not really the case.

Richard:        Just to add to that as well, Dr. Scaletti, I think it's important that the industry really looks at organic minerals and says they're not all the same. There is a misconception, I think, within the industry. You have all these different brand names and different types of organic mineral products. I guess the natural inclination is to say, “Well, it's an organic mineral. One product must be the same as the other.” There are very distinct differences between them.

                    Again, this is back to that concept of how that mineral source interacts or how stable it is as it moves through the GI tract. Certainly, in some of the work that we've seen from the team at our European Biocenter in Ireland, we've basically shown there are very distinct differences in terms of the stabilities of different organic trace mineral products, and that can have distinct impacts, not just on the bioavailability, but also in which [of] those different products would interact with different premix and different feed components.

Tom:            There are some misperceptions out there about minerals. What beliefs are most prominent and how do you address them?

Richard:        I think the biggest misconception is with regard to size. That's probably the biggest industry misconception that's there, and that's a historical one. Originally, when organic minerals first became available, they were simply complexes between amino acids, like methionine or lysine, with copper and with zinc. Certainly, people thought, “Well, if you have a small bonding group, then absorption of it is much better or delivery of it is much easier.” That's not the case. What we've seen is that it's the type of bonding group that's used — so, the type of amino acid. But, particularly when you get into peptide-based technologies like we see in Bioplex, it's the actual amino acid sequence in those peptides. So, it's even more fundamental than we would have thought in the past. The configuration and the type of amino acids present in the peptide would very significantly influence the stability.

                    I think the biggest misconception in the industry about organic trace minerals is that size is important. I can absolutely say with certainty size is not an issue. It's the type of bonding group that's used. And more importantly, when you look at peptides, it's the configuration and the sequence of amino acids that are in the peptide that are of more importance.

Roger:          I would just maybe follow up with that in regard to organic selenium. The battle is typically, “What is the content of selenomethionine in a selenium yeast product?” Dr. Murphy would have research showing it's not only an effect of how much selenomethionine you have present; it's how much of that can be digested and released. So, again, just coming back to that concept of “more isn't always better,” especially if what you're supplementing isn't released — or isn't available — to the animal.

Richard:        Yeah, that's actually a great point, Dr. Scaletti, just on the organic selenium side. Certainly, in the EU, we've seen newer forms of, again, so-called organic selenium sources being produced and available for sale, and these are actually chemically synthesized selenomethionine and selenomethionine derivatives that are distinctly different and have a distinctly different offering than you would see with selenium yeast products, such as Sel-Plex, for instance.

                    Again, it's back to the concept of stability. Free selenomethionine molecule is not necessarily the most stable one when you look at again the influences of those processes in the GI tract. So, certainly, even within organic selenium sources, [it’s a] much, much different proposition now with the availability of these newer chemically synthesized molecules.

Tom:            Livestock in many parts of the world have been overfed inorganic forms of trace minerals, such as copper, manganese and zinc, to offset their inefficient digestibility. The excess ends up in manure, and levels of these trace minerals have gotten so high that it's actually illegal to spread that manure out in the fields to support growth forages or grain. So, what happens to all of that excess manure? We're stuck with it?

Richard:        Well, I guess if we can't spread it, we've got to do something with it, and it looks like we could be. I know from some of the newer technologies that are coming out — some great startup companies that are basically looking at detoxifying heavy metal in soils using microbial-based solutions. So, perhaps, this is one way in which we can look at remediating those heavily contaminated lagoons, if you like.

                    Other options may be stripping-based technologies. These are basically looking at removing minerals, and this will be costly, Tom, I would have to say, removing mineral with EDTA-based chelation. But, certainly, something has to be done, and I think organic minerals are, without a doubt, one of the solutions to the problem. You can look at adding less mineral, having less runoff and then, obviously, less contamination in those lagoons. Certainly, the drive toward reducing environmental contamination will definitely be driven and solved, without a doubt, by the increased use of organic minerals over the next couple of years.

Tom:            In some places, regulation is beginning to force the issue. A number of countries around the world have already passed legislation restricting the use of trace minerals because this overfortification has led to pollution. Do you see this type of legal action as a continuing trend?

Richard:        I guess it goes back to the comment I made earlier about the regulations around zinc and zinc usage in feed, but also, then, the impending ban in the EU on zinc oxide as a prophylactic. I think the regulators will take a greater look at the issue, and I think they will certainly have to start making decisions on whether they promote organic minerals as a way in which we can reduce this or not. It's not the job of a regulator to promote a brand of products, but certainly, I think, when you look at the proposition that organic minerals give in terms of being a solution to the problem, they'll have to start promoting the use of organic minerals as a way in which you can add less, not impacting performance, and have much less of an environmental impact.

Roger:          I would just say that I think the path forward is just going to depend [on] where you are in the world. I don't know that the United States is looking at any of these zinc, manganese or copper regulations any time soon. Our only regulations in terms of trace minerals would be selenium and the mineral we haven't talked about today: iodine. If you're using iodine in the EDDI (ethylenediamine dihydroiodide) form, there are limits on how much you're allowed to feed. Other than that, selenium would be our only regulated mineral, and today, we could go out and supplement as much zinc as we want in any animal in the United States without a problem.

Tom:            Are you seeing growth in the organic minerals market?

Roger:          We're seeing tremendous growth, both globally and regionally. In North America, I think, as people realize, again, that it's not an apples-to-apples comparison or you're not just looking at a level of mineral — that you need to pay attention to the form — that people are realizing that organic minerals have an important role. I also think we're getting a little bit closer on the cost difference; inorganic minerals are still cheaper, but their price keeps going up. I don't know that cost is as prohibitive as it used to be, from a practical farm level.

                    That's probably the only reason people aren't using organic minerals as their only source. It's a cost thing. Now, when you start looking at the response and, then, the return over investment opportunity, well, it's not a cost: it's a profit-maker. So, I think it's just a slow change.

                    When you look at trace minerals, for 60-70 years, we used inorganic minerals; for the past 20, we've used organic. So, it's still pretty new in terms of what's going on in the general supplementation industry. When you look at some of the different documents out there — for example, National Research Council or NRC Guidelines — they really don't get into a discussion on form. As Dr. Murphy mentioned, the Brazilian government recognizes that there are form differences, and some other countries around the world are starting to do so as well. I still think it’s left to feed companies, nutritionists and, ultimately, the farmer or end user to make a decision of, “Do I want to make an investment? If so, how much?” That's kind of where the decision is today.

Tom:            As you continue working toward better performance in animals, are you exploring new ideas for delivering nutrition more efficiently? Is that just an ongoing process?

Richard:        Yeah, it's an ongoing evolution. I think we've moved, over the last number of years, more toward, rather than thinking about nutrition as just being an individual component, we've really focused on the benefits of multicomponent packs. Certainly, there are a lot of different synergies you can get from different products present in a pack and the many ways you can get, I guess, good synergism between those components. Certainly, with some of the Blueprint® products that we have in Alltech, we've seen tremendous increases in health or performance and, again, these are multicomponent impacts. Rather than thinking about nutrition as being individual components added together, we tend to think about the synergism that we can get from multiple components out of them. That's something that we'll focus on more and more over the next couple of years.

Tom:            This has been really enjoyable. I have one final question: what new developments in minerals or mineral feeding strategies do you think we might see within the next five years or so?

Roger:          I don't know if I see a new development as much as just people embracing organic minerals more than they currently do. I'd say, currently, most of the industry would be at some sort of a partial supplementation, where the bulk of the mineral that's being supplemented is inorganic sulfate or oxide, and then they try to come up with how much organic to put in. They want to get all the benefits of organic, but they don't want all the price.

                    I see more of the bigger advancement being, as people just progress through that decision in their head, from partial replacement to more of the full replacement or total replacement, and realizing that organic minerals are what's doing the heavy lifting – that there really isn't a big need for those inorganic minerals that, for maybe just historical purposes, they just can't seem to kick out of the ration.

Tom:            Do you see something in the near future, Dr. Murphy?

Richard:        I'd agree with Dr. Scaletti in that. We’re going to see increased awareness in the benefits of organic minerals and how you can use less of those organic minerals and not have a negative impact on health and performance. That, obviously, is going to feed into an environmental benefit. I think we'll also see changes, perhaps, in the way in which we apply these minerals. I think people are looking more and more toward technology as a driver of agriculture.

                    I think we'll see differences in the next few years in the way in which feed delivery is made, in the way in which you can actually begin to look at delivering feed on farms. I do think we'll see more and more digital-based technologies that will influence feeding strategies, and then, it will obviously influence how we formally feed.

Tom:            Dr. Richard Murphy, research director at the Alltech European Bioscience Center in Dunboyne, Ireland, and Dr. Roger Scaletti, who focuses on the technical sales and support of the Alltech Mineral Management program. Thank you both for joining us.

Richard:        Thank you very much.

Roger:          Thank you.  

Drs. Scaletti and Murphy presented their insights during ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE18). Don't miss the chance to hear the latest in animal health and nutrition at ONE19. Click here to learn more. 

Since man hunted and got a taste for the meat of the Auroch, later domesticated into the ancestors of modern cattle breeds, the market for beef has grown steadily. The last 10 years, however, have not been so kind, with plummeting beef consumption and higher prices. There is some light, as meat intense diets like paleo and keto have turned some consumers back to beef, but just at the moment when the cattle industry has become more consolidated, sophisticated and consumer-focused, it is ironically facing some of the greatest existential threats to its 10,000-year existence.

There are three new primary threats to the beef industry:

1. Lab-grown meat

Touted as sustainable and welfare-friendly or, conversely, dismissed as “fake meat,” the clear intent of growing meat in petri dishes is to displace the consumption of meat from beef cattle. Despite concerns about just how “friendly” the technology really is, meat producers — such as Cargill and Tyson — have invested in startups in this market.

2. Environmentalism

Environmentalists advocating for ““Meatless Mondays’ and other initiatives at the consumer level have been unremitting in their attacks on the meat industry. These action groups have sometimes used dubious data to support their contention that cattle — specifically, beef — use more water and more resources and emit more greenhouse gases than other protein options. Their relentless attack appears to be having an effect on red meat consumption in the U.S. and Europe.

3. Other meats

Chicken consumption continues to grow at 2 percent per year. Not only is it cheaply priced, neutral in flavor, easy to cook and unrestricted by religious constraints, it is also predicted to become the world’s favorite meat, taking the place of pork at number one. At the same time, fish has been positioned at the premium end of the market, touting human health benefits such as DHA and Omega-3. Both meats are stealing market share from beef.

The resulting trend from this triple threat is clear: beef consumption has stagnated for the last ten years and, despite projections for growth in markets like China, new ways of thinking will be required.

So how to respond?

Can we manage the individual animal to maximize performance? Cattle are still one of the most efficient means of converting grasses and fiber into food. Can we learn to preserve natural resources and invest in sustainable decisions that boost soil health? How can technology help us better manage pastures and forage production better?

What about the consumer? Can we improve the product — and, thereby, improve the experience — to create more consistent flavors, cooking and dining while also meeting their questions about welfare and the environment?

More than most other protein-producing industries, beef production needs an injection of new ideas and technologies. Smart precision farming requires digital technologies to develop better management practices, accuracy and methods. Using an eight-technology framework can help us understand the opportunities for improvement that the industry must embrace in order to rise to this triple threat.

1. Sensors

Through the use of sensors, cattle producers are capable of tracking virtually anything within their herd. They are expected to monitor an animal’s health and comfort, which can prove costly and time-consuming if done manually. With the implementation of wearable sensors, such as collar, ear or leg tags, ranchers are able to detect diseases and monitor everything more efficiently, from rumination to general animal health.

For example, several companies offer calving sensors that notify the farmer when a cow is expected to give birth. Moocall’s calving sensor does this by monitoring tail movement patterns triggered by labor contractions. When the tail movement patterns reach a certain level of intensity, the Moocall sensor sends a text message to the farmer’s cell phone. JMB North America offers a sensor that alerts farmers when a cow’s water breaks. Other calving sensor options include the AfiAct 11 Leg Tag, Cow Call, and Vel’Phone. This technology can greatly improve calf survivability and allows farmers to be more effective in their time and energy efficiency.

The University of Calgary is testing how accelerometers can be used to detect diseases within a beef cattle herd. The accelerometers are attached to the identification tags in the cow’s ears, because the movement in this area can show how much time is being spent eating, chewing cud, moving and resting. CowManager, a temperature sensor, also records movement related to eating, ruminating, walking and estrus activity. Similar sensors include TekVet, FeverTag Quantified Ag Allflex, and Precision Animal Solutions. These clips can measure changes in body temperature to help detect illness, reducing the chances of further infection to other cattle and significantly lowering costs while simultaneously increasing animal welfare.

Craig Carter, the director of the University of Kentucky’s Veterinarian Diagnostic Lab, has performed research on an algorithm that can differentiate healthy from sick cattle and will generate alerts when specific animals need to be treated. Micro Technologies AmerisourceBergen has partnered with the Geissler Corporation to market, install and service the Whisper* Digital Stethoscope, the first tool developed to score severity of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) in cattle.

Vital Herd’s e-pill sensor is ingested by the cow and sits in the rumen, where it collects data on body temperature, heart rate, respiration rate, pH levels and other parameters. Another rumen bolus sensor, Moow, can measure CO2 and NH3 concentration, temperature levels and pH balances for up to three years, and all data is sent to local or cloud storage. Other rumen acidosis sensors include eBolus and VetAsyst.

Heat detection in beef breeding can be crucial, and sensors like Heatime HR LD, Heatime Pro, Qwes HR-LD, RumiWatch, SenseTime Beef, and Cow Scout help to accurately identify the best insemination time. Each of these also watches changes in rumination patterns to try and catch potential health problems.

Locating specific animals has been made easy with CowView and Smartbow. These neck and ear sensors localize every cow in real time to easily find which ones need to be checked, inseminated, treated or moved.

The GrowSafe platform uses biometric sensors and data sources to continuously track and monitor sick and poorly performing animals. It also can measure an individual animal’s gain and current market value, which helps maximize profits.

Vence, a virtual fence system, can eliminate the cost of traditional fencing and make it simple to rotate cattle and keep them within specific boundaries through the use of a neck collar. Animals learn to avoid certain areas by receiving low voltage shocks or uncomfortable sounds.

ClicRTechnologies has also made strides in the beef industry by creating the ClicRweight system, which replaces the traditional gravity weighing system. This new scanning station system is placed where the animal would normally eat and can gather statistics quickly and accurately on each animal as it steps on to the scale without any human intervention, thereby reducing costs and allowing for better analysis.

On the consumer side, food safety is of growing concern. When the quality and freshness of hamburger meat is in question, it is often tossed out, simply because people don’t want to take the risk. Safe Food Scientific has developed a biometric sensor that allows consumers to know if the beef in their fridges is safe to eat. Different forms of bacteria in beef reproduce in different conditions; access to nutrients, water and temperature can all affect how and the rate at which bacteria grow. Beef-Fresh Check tabs use biosensors to detect bacterial contaminants and help consumers determine if meat is safe to eat.

2. Drones

These small aircraft are finding more uses in the cattle industry by allowing producers to easily manage feedlots and ranches. Farmers are using drones to check fence lines, spot holes or pockets that might need to be fixed and check water troughs and gates in remote locations through aerial images and video. Some models can run on their own after being flown through the route just one time, like the DJI Mavic Air, DJI Mavic Pro, and Phantom 4 Pro. After manually showing the drone where to fly, it will subsequently follow the same path for routine checks without extra assistance.

When measuring pastures, the traditional strategies include use plate meters, pasture probes and tow-behind devices, but cameras on drones are becoming capable of performing the same task. Ranchers can also estimate the amounts of feed on-farm, particularly where there are areas of different growth.

The wireless camera can assist with precision livestock by notifying a beef producer that a cow has calved or when locating a lost animal. Thermal cameras like the DJI Zenmuse XT can distinguish cows from other heat sources and spot animals underneath canopies or trees. Other popular drones used for scouting cattle include the Honeycomb Agdrone, DJI Matrice 100, DJI T600 Inspire 1, DJI Phantom 3 Advanced, eBee SQ drone and the Lancaster Hawkeye Mark 111.

Looking ahead, drones may eventually become advanced enough to be able to spray pest deterrents directly onto herds, instead of farmers needing to manually spray by hand. From a teaching perspective, drones can be used to instruct veterinary students and ranchers how to move livestock using low-stress handling techniques.

3. Robots

On a beef operation, robots can perform small, common tasks, such as daily feeding. Hanson Silo Company has partnered with Trioliet to manufacture just such a robotic feeding system. This self-automated robot will fill itself with feed and mix and deliver the food to animals in the barn. As long as the feed bins are kept full, the robot can run on its own and feed about 700 head of cattle up to 12 times a day. Additional feeding times are even better for the animal, since it ruminates better when eating more frequently. Other companies that produce automated feeding robots include Rovibec, KUHN System TKS, TKS Agri, Lucas G, Jeantil, Valmetal, Wasserbauer, Pellon, WIC System and Hetwin.

The Swagbot is a robot that can move groups of cattle, tow heavy trailers and navigate around ditches, waterways and other rugged terrain. The University of Australia is trying to teach this robot to identify sick or ill animals by fitting it with temperature and motion sensors.

One of the largest meat-packing plants in the world, JBS, has invested in Scott Technology, a New Zealand-based robotics firm. The meatpacking company is looking at ways to possibly incorporate automated machines as they attempt to turn a whole cow into certain cuts, like steaks and roasts. Even though these robots can use visual technology to cut into a carcass, a beef carcass requires the robot to feel instead of seeing — that is, it must be able to feel how deep a bone is to remove certain cuts of meat. This type of skilled cutting hasn’t been mastered by a robot yet, but investments are being made to meet this goal.

4. 3D Printing

A new world of food processing is becoming a reality with 3D printing, and a lot of research is being done by Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA). This technology allows for the opportunity to use low-value meat cuts to create new types of food. According to MLA, at least one-third of each carcass ends up as hamburger trimmings for fast food chains. This new technology would give typically lower valued meats, such as offal, a new avenue for consumption, thereby creating a new opportunity to increase value for each carcass. This could potentially put more money in the pockets of farmers and ranchers.

Where else are 3D printers making their way into consumer lives? Nursing homes! Because printed beef is easy to chew and swallow, Germany has incorporated 3D printers in 1,000 nursing homes and is considered more appetizing than the pureed food that was previously served.

5. Blockchain

Now, more than ever, consumers are demanding complete transparency when it comes to purchasing meat products. Lack of knowledge about origin and concern over foodborne illness has left 75 percent of consumers distrustful of food labels, according to a study by Label Insights. Blockchain could be used to restore consumer confidence through its ability to trace products along the entire supply chain, from the producer to feedlot, feedlot to processor, processor to wholesaler and wholesaler to retailer.

Grass Roots Farmers’ Cooperative were the first suppliers in the U.S. to use this technology. Their products now contain a QR code that can be scanned to see a “digital history” of where the beef came from and how the animals were raised. This information includes stories from the farmer and butcher who contributed to the final product now in stores. In China, InterAgri uses blockchain to allow consumers to trace the cow’s breed, when it was slaughtered and what bacteria testing it went through.

Wyoming beef producers have combined efforts to create BeefChain, which allows consumers to have pasture-to-table traceability. Each animal receives an RFID tag that is linked via blockchain, and the assigned number follows the animal throughout the production process. Consumers can help shape this service online by submitting areas of interest or specific questions they have about the process. The organization promises to send information and to adapt its service to meet future interest.

6. Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Livestock producers are now faced with the challenge of growing animals to conditions that match market and consumer specifications and timing. Even ranchers who have been working with cattle for generations can struggle to predict an animal’s yield potential prior to sale. However, AI technologies can be used to accurately predict an individual animal’s potential, as well as fat content, at any point in time by using cameras to analyze the herd.

Researchers at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) have developed this technology by using off-the-shelf cameras on purebred Angus cattle farms. These cameras operate at 30 frames per second and can capture contours that reflect fat and muscle depth and size. That information is then converted to 3D images that are processed through artificial intelligence algorithms to provide an accurate condition score for each animal. Different shapes, such as muscling, are given a mathematical description and assigned a value, which can then be used to estimate a cow’s condition based on the 3D shape the machine “sees.” This type of technology allows farmers to see, at any given point, where each individual animal is in terms of maturity and can select animals with superior measured traits for breeding the next generation. When a rancher can make decisions based on high-quality, real-time information in low-stress environments, they will see better quality beef product — and results that match consumer preferences.

Cainthus has developed algorithms for facial recognition of dairy cows to monitor the cow’s activity. This technology is also being developed for beef cattle, to replace of tracking devices, and this software may eliminate the need for wearables altogether, particularly for animals raised indoors. Using cameras stationed throughout the feedlot, the software alerts farmers when their cows show early signs of lameness. Cainthus’ goal is to have “machine vision,” allowing AI to supplant many sensor systems.

Not only are ranchers trying to meet market specifications, they are also are constantly trying to manage their large herds effectively. Cattle Watch has developed a remote monitoring system by using AI, deep learning and mass data algorithms to monitor large cattle herds on a wide spectrum. This system can prevent animal theft through GPS satellite tracking and can use geofencing to stop animals from straying outside of the designated lot. It also has an automated animal-counting technology that can count large herds of cattle in a short amount of time and can also monitor the health of each individual cow.

7. Augmented Reality (AR)

The cattle industry is now attempting to mix the real world with the virtual world by using only a pair of glasses or a cell phone. AR displays a virtual image on top of what can be see naturally through the viewer (i.e. reality) in real time, allowing new insights to come to light. Farm VR has created a farming technology that projects images of 3D objects from architectural drawings. If ranchers are interested in buying cattle lots, they can use VR to project renderings of their future lot on top of the lot as it currently looks, allowing them to see what their new lot would look like before actually building it.

University classrooms are even using projected images to teach bovine anatomy. For instance, Harper Adams allows users to take a full look at an intact cow — including its skeleton, blood flow and the udder, in detail — by looking through the Bovine HoloLens. Students are then able to perform dissections of the udder, since they now know what to expect and can similarly walk their classmates through the process to help them learn the same procedure.

8. Virtual Reality (VR)

Virtual reality is fairly similar to augmented reality because it also is a 3D, computer-generated environment. When using a VR headset, these environments move as you move, and the images appear life-size to each individual. Saskatchewan Cattlemen’s Association is using virtual reality technology to demonstrate life on a farm to the public. People don’t have to physically be on the farm to hear and see from a producer how they take care of their animals and what the animals’ life cycles are, giving producers a new way to engage and educate their consumers. Not only does this address common misconceptions, it also allows consumers to directly relate to the farmer. LiveCorp also offers a similar opportunity for consumers to experience the transportation side of an animal’s life, as their technology takes the user visually from a quarantine facility to a loading vessel. These efforts have all been made with the intent of improving consumers’ understanding of how the production process works.

Pre-sale auction inspection is also set to enter the virtual reality realm, with Elders preparing to become one of the first livestock agencies to offer 360-degree selling to customers. (Check out the video.) Partnering with Tim Gentle has allowed Elders to record 360-degree picture and video experiences so that potential buyers can view animals at all possible angles. Viewers can move the environment in any direction desired when looking through the VR headset. Buyers can project auctions from any desktop or phone through the headset and view auctions in their own living room.

The Internet of Things (IOT)

All eight of these technologies have the capability to work together through the Internet of Things (IOT) — or “internet of cows,” as it has been called in this case. It is IOT that connects sensors, drones, robots and the like to computers and iPhones for data analysis and interpretation. Sensors — such as MOOnitor, a cattle monitoring system that measures and collects daily activity as well as estrus cycles — uses IOT to transfer data and keep real-time information at the fingertips of the farmer or rancher. Because the health of a beef cow directly affects the number of weaned calves each season, a technology such as this, with the ability to detect both sickness and estrus in cows, can improve calf yields, an important metric for beef producers. MOOnitor suggests that it can potentially increase a herd’s calving rate by 30 percent.

A similar IOT system, BovControl, uses a cow’s information — including its birth date, medication, vaccinations and weight — to determine when it is ready to be sold. Farmers can also track an animal’s temperature or location through an ear tag or smart collar.

AgriWebb is an app that can be used on your phone or tablet to track and keep up with all farm records, whether you are walking around your farm or are further from home. At any given time, a farmer has access to feed inventory, financial reports, grazing movements, task management options, individual animal data and biosecurity plans, allowing for better compliance with external certification and monitoring organizations.

KEENAN InTouch provides the farmer with constant herd performance advice and information by way of data collection and analysis. Through this system, a team of nutritionists is available to assist farmers with herd health management, ration formulation, weight gains/yield and costs, with the goal of helping improve cash flow. This technology allows producers to monitor and control all feed usage and waste, which helps control costs and feed budgets and can speed up finishing times for cattle.

The nutrigenomics piece

The last piece of the puzzle is nutrigenomics, the study of nutrition in the genome. It has been determined that, just like for humans, what a cow eats directly affects its microbiome and, therefore, its growth and productivity. Previously, it was believed that cattle should be fed minerals and supplements freely. But, at Alltech, we have seen that supplementing animals with specific levels of nutrients at specific times encourages the body to use those nutrients more efficiently. Those nutrients should come in the form of organic trace minerals and not just any mineral or supplement combination. A targeted nutritional approach such as EPNIX® should be implemented to truly get the most out of production cattle. 

The cost/benefit conundrum

These technologies can allow producers to maximize their management practices, increase productivity and efficiency and remain competitive. Interestingly, these benefits will also act as answers to prosumer concerns about such issues as animal welfare, environmental footprint and consistency of the final product.

Can beef farming become “smart”? By measuring feed and water intake in real time and comparing it with the productivity of the animal, we can gain new insights. We can only manage what we can measure, and as such, beef producers should embrace technology to take advantage of genomic advances and use data to access the potential that is unlocked with a better understanding of the animal genome. Big data says a lot, but individual data tells a whole other story.

Producers evaluating these eight technologies may struggle to identify which ones to use and how to invest for greatest return. Clearly, the prices for all of these vary, as will the benefits based on the particulars of a beef operation.

Generally, in beef, sensors are the most likely to offer clear and immediate cost benefits. Machine vision is the most exciting technology and promises a lot. Blockchain might eventually do this as well, but the technology is still being rolled out; augmented and virtual reality aren’t there yet either. The cost-benefits that producers need to evaluate are the fixed cost investment (what equipment is required) and, then, the variable cost (what ongoing costs are required to run the system). I always recommend that producers or farmers evaluate technology by scrutinizing one feature or benefit of particular value to their production and, subsequently, making their purchasing decision based on that one criteria. Traditionally, we look for a 3:1 return, but the transformative nature of these technologies might allow purchasing even at lower initial returns.

On a final note, if you ask ag-tech companies what question they fear most, they’ll tell you it is, “Please give me the name and phone number of a successful customer using your technology.” Tremendous technology is emerging within the beef industry, but some tech is further along the “tried-and-tested” path than others.

I want to learn more about technology for my beef cattle. 

The world-class research capabilities of the Alltech Coppens Aqua Centre (ACAC) and its capacity to provide a practical platform for product development and solutions for the aquaculture industry have been recognized today with the announcement that the ACAC is to become an Alltech bioscience center.

For more than 15 years, the ACAC has carried out practical and applicable research within the field of aquaculture. In 2017, Alltech invested heavily in the facility, which will now become its fourth bioscience center. This center will be home to an expanded team of aqua researchers dedicated to quality, innovation and the development of new applications in aqua feed.

As part of the ACAC’s progression to a bioscience center, Alltech Coppens is delighted to announce that Dr. Philip Lyons will be taking on a new role as a global aquaculture research manager to help coordinate research activities at the new center with Alltech’s ever-expanding global research programs.

“Alltech’s bioscience centers are laboratories that maintain close ties to nearby universities to maximize interaction with academic researchers, share equipment and allow students in Master of Science and Ph.D. programs to work in an industry lab setting,” explained Dr. Karl Dawson, vice president and chief scientific officer at Alltech. “There are more than 120 scientists working in our bioscience centers around the world. By becoming a bioscience center, the ACAC allows for Alltech to address, research and solve aquaculture industry issues. The center will interact directly with many of our 28 research alliances and will focus on activities with the six alliances who directly work in aquaculture.”

Research and development represent the cornerstone of business at Alltech Coppens. In the ever-changing world of the aquaculture industry, being adaptable to market trends and pursuing innovation in research positions Alltech Coppens to be ready with diets to fit every farming situation.

“Key aquaculture research areas include developing novel tools for evaluating nutritional responses and defining strategies for utilizing alternative feed ingredients and nutrients,” explained Dr. Dawson. “We are also carrying out research into nutritional approaches for enhancing disease resistance and health as well as optimizing mineral nutrition and enhancing fat digestibility. We are also responding to market demand for new strategies for improving product quality and minimizing the environmental impact of aquaculture in general.”

In addition to supporting and evaluating Alltech Coppens feed formulation initiatives, the new bioscience center will actively focus on beneficially altering fat digestion, optimizing mineral nutrition, and developing novel nutritional approaches for reinforcing gut health and preserving product quality while minimizing the environmental impacts of aquaculture.  It is expected that this center will be the site for both basic and applied research as well as serving as a site for graduate student and intern training activities.

“My father saw great potential in Alltech Coppens,” said Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech and son of Alltech’s founder, Dr. Pearse Lyons. “Since the acquisition in 2016, our goal has been to establish Alltech Coppens as the cornerstone of Alltech’s global aquaculture business. By making the ACAC a bioscience center, we are following through with Dr. Pearse Lyons’ commitment to Alltech Coppens and the aquaculture industry.”

As Alltech’s newest bioscience center, the ACAC joins the ranks of the Alltech European Bioscience Centre in Dunboyne, Ireland, the Alltech Center for Animal Nutrigenomics and Applied Animal Nutrition in the U.S. and the Alliance Laboratory in Beijing, China.

-Ends-

Contact: press@alltech.com

Maria Daly, Communications Manager

mdaly@altech.com; +353 86 466 9554

Note to the Editor:

Photo Caption: https://photos.alltech.com/pf.tlx/J9xJlOJ9K2Hpp

 (copy link to browser to download image)

Alltech Coppens has announced that Dr. Philip Lyons will be taking on a new role as a global aquaculture research manager to help coordinate research activities at the Alltech Coppens Aquaculture Centre, now Alltech’s fourth bioscience center.

The following is an edited transcript of Tom Martin's interview with Wolfgang Auer, CEO of ag-tech startup Smartbow. Click below to hear the full audio:

Tom:              I'm talking with Wolfgang Auer, CEO of the Austria-based startup Smartbow, one of the startups in the 2018 Pearse Lyons Accelerator program. He is here to talk to us about his company's center technology designed to help the farmer stay well ahead of problems and make reliable decisions. We thank you for being with us, Wolfgang.

Wolfgang:      Thank you very much.

Tom:              What problem does Smartbow intend to solve?

Wolfgang:      Smartbow is addressing the problem of early detection when animals get sick. With our technology — ear tags, real-time positioning and artificial intelligence — we can watch over each animal, like my grandmother did with 10 dairy cows on our farm. We can detect if the animal feels sick earlier. We detect illness in the animal days before they are really sick.

Tom:              What is the technology? How does it work?

Wolfgang:      We have an ear tag on the animal, and that ear tag is measuring the movement of the animal's ear. We know exactly if the animal is eating, resting or ruminating. With our positioning system, we know, every second, where the animal is with an accuracy of three feet. We combine all of that data so we can detect any minor changes in behavior.

Tom:              I was going to ask you: why the ear? You've partially answered that. But do the ears move in a way that can tell you things?

Wolfgang:      Yes. It's very accurate. Our accuracy is about 99 percent because the ear is the most accurate place we can measure everything that the animal is doing.

Tom:              The Smartbow technology detects changes up to five days before the farmer or the veterinarian can see it. How does that early detection impact a farmer's operation and success?

Wolfgang:      The farmer can take the animal out of the herd and can bring it to a separate place, like a hospital. Then the animal can get back into the operation sooner, so the farmers aren't losing as much money. A sick cow doesn't produce milk.

Tom:              So, the farmer has all this data coming into them. Are they trained in how to analyze it, how to make sense of it?

Wolfgang:      The data is analyzed by artificial intelligence. We train this artificial intelligence and the farmer gets only an alert. With the positioning system, he knows in real time where the animal is and can identify the animal very quickly.

Tom:              Tell us about your business model.

Wolfgang:      The business model is very simple: Smartbow is a service business model, and we have an initial payment for the hardware. This is very low; it's about €25 per ear tag. Then we charge the farmer a monthly fee per cow.

Tom:              Have you received funding?

Wolfgang:      We have received funding. I'm also financed by my family. We make plastic products.

Tom:              And have you taken the product to market?

Wolfgang:      Yes. So far, we have sold more than 100,000 ear tags in 40 countries on four continents. We have about 400 clients, who have anywhere from eight dairy cows to 5,000.

Tom:              And how about expansion plans?

Wolfgang:      The plan is to expand into the USA and China.

Tom:              Tell us about the Pearse Lyons Accelerator Program and how it's influenced your business.

Wolfgang:      We work together with nutrition companies, and we are doing some trials with their internal accelerators. We can see that our technology is leveraging their technology. If we combine both, we can save a lot of money.

Tom:              Wolfgang Auer, CEO of the Austria-based startup Smartbow. Thank you for being with us. We appreciate it.

Wolfgang:      Thank you.

Smartbow was one of 10 startup companies participating in the 2018 Pearse Lyons Accelerator program, which provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for disruptive ag-tech startups. The program takes leading innovators from around the world to Dogpatch Labs, a startup hub in Dunboyne, Ireland, for a three-month accelerator that offers workspace, mentorship, networking and potential investment. The experience culminates at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference in Lexington, Kentucky, U.S.A., where startups are selected to pitch to an international crowd of 4,000 potential investors, journalists and influencers from the agribusiness industry.

Watch the 2018 Pearse Lyons Accelerators pitch at ONE18. Sign up for the Alltech Idea Lab below:

Farming is hard work, and most of the time, there is no one available to pick up the slack in a farm owner’s absence. This inability to get away creates challenges for these operations as they attempt to discover ways to stay competitive in a mostly commodity-driven business. If you’re reading this and nodding along in agreement, you are certainly not alone.

Alltech’s Chief Innovation Officer Aidan Connolly recently published a blog suggesting that growth in beef demand may be at risk. He recognized low-cost competing meats, environmental concerns and fake meats as a “triple threat” and discussed modern technologies that could potentially address these concerns. He went on to say, “What about the consumer? Can we improve the product — and, thereby, improve the experience — to create more consistent flavors, cooking and dining while also meeting their questions about welfare and the environment?” 

To some, these questions may seem perfectly straightforward, but to those who work day-in and day-out on their families’ operations, it may not be easy to consider the concerns of a consumer they don’t know. While that farm gate has maintained their herd, their traditions and their way of life, it may have also inadvertently kept farmers from becoming interested in who their customer ultimately is.

A 2015 article in the Journal of Extension by Gunn and Loy asked producers in Iowa what opportunities and challenges they recognized for the beef industry and the family businesses therein. They identified eight “mega issues”:

1. Land access
2. Farm transition
3. Production efficiency
4. Marketing
5. Genetics
6. Data management
7. Feedstuffs
8. Animal health

As someone who makes a living as both a cattle producer and beef nutrition consultant, it is very easy for me to agree with this list. However, if you take a second look, you will realize there is something missing: a direct recognition of consumer demand.

In Connolly’s article, he evaluates eight innovative technologies within the beef industry. Just like Gunn and Loy found to be true, Connolly speculates that, while the clear majority of these technologies help address production and labor efficiencies, they lack innovation when it comes to the consumer. In only two of the cases is the consumer even addressed: blockchain and 3D printing.

For beef nutrition providers, the farm gate creates a tremendous dilemma. The research conducted in Iowa paints a clear picture of what our beef-producing clients want — to keep their animals healthy and gaining efficiently, along with finding a way for their children to someday do the same. Making the sale means meeting one or more of these customer wants, limiting our ability to move to consumer-centric products that may or may not have an immediate economic return.

One very simple example of this is the palatability component, otherwise known as tenderness. Not only is tenderness relatively easy to identify post-harvest, but it also makes superior genetics readily identifiable. While we know the consumer values tenderness, the industry has never found a way to reward beef that excels in this characteristic.

Until there is a full understanding of the value of the consumers’ wants by producers, innovation will slow in areas that build demand for our end product. In addition to understanding this value for consumers, it must subsequently be monetized to create new opportunities for the producer.

I will admit that I am slow to accept these points myself. I can’t imagine why we would need to do anything different with beef; it is as perfect as my children in my eyes — but the world is constantly changing. Competition continues to mount and opportunities for young producers are becoming scarcer. However, despite this realization, creating that link to the consumer still seems elusive.

True opportunity lies in the hands of producers who are willing to make a dramatic change, betting on the future and potentially sacrificing short-term returns. It requires that they move beyond the farm gate, or at the very least that they be willing to let new ideas come through it. This is extraordinarily challenging, especially with over a century of tradition impacting decision-making in many cases.

Allowing ideas to flow in and out of the farm gate will be critical for the long-term future of the beef business — thus securing this way of life for future generations.

I would like to learn more about beef-related topics.

Dietary trace minerals like copper, zinc and manganese are nutrients critical to animal health, performance and welfare. Immunity, reproduction, growth and even meat and milk quality hinge on optimal trace mineral nutrition.

Everything we know about trace mineral nutrition, from inclusion levels to effects on performance, has come from studies using inorganic trace mineral salts. Trace mineral salts are made from a trace mineral loosely bound to a charged ion and have been the basis of trace mineral supplementation and research since the 1930s. Recent studies, however, are using a different form of trace mineral, and the results of those studies are challenging ideas once considered fundamental to livestock nutrition.

In the early 1990s, organic trace minerals were first developed to reflect the way trace minerals naturally occur in plants. These supplements have a protein-like or carbohydrate ring structure that attaches to the trace mineral at multiple sites. The protein or carbohydrate component serves as a protective, stable delivery system, increasing the likelihood of mineral absorption.

The last 20 years of research confirm that the difference between a mineral salt and a trace mineral bound to a stable organic ring are substantial. The evidence points to organics as a superior source of trace minerals, but beyond that, we see unprecedented effects in the animal when they receive optimally formulated minerals. Organic trace minerals are changing the way we look at livestock nutrition overall.

Below are seven major changes to nutritional dogma instigated by studies looking at organic trace minerals. While many nutritionists still cling to the low-priced, traditional inorganics, organic trace minerals are fostering a revolution in animal feeding.   

1. Not all trace mineral forms are created equal

Historically, inorganic trace minerals have been the primary form of mineral supplementation. Their inexpensive synthesis, however, produces a supplement that quickly dissociates and reacts within the feed and digestive tract.

Dr. Richard Murphy is a biochemist and research director in Dunboyne, Ireland, who has focused much of his work on characterizing, comparing and optimizing trace mineral supplements.

"When comparing mineral products — both inorganic and organic — the key differentiation point is to understand their stability through the GI tract," said Murphy. "Stability at the acidic pH found in the gastric environment is critical to ensuring maximal delivery of mineral to sites of mineral absorption in the intestine."

Dr. Murphy's work has repeatedly shown that organic trace minerals are far superior to traditional inorganic trace minerals in both stability and overall bioavailability. They are, in fact, so much more efficient that countless animal trials have shown that organic trace minerals can be fed at significantly lower levels than their inorganic counterpart without disrupting health and performance. 

Surprisingly, Dr. Murphy's research has also found that not all organic trace minerals are created equal.

"Ultimately, the type and position of the amino acids used in organic trace minerals are critical for stability," said Dr. Murphy.

Different brands of organic trace minerals use different amino acid and peptide strands, some with far weaker associations and lower stability than others.

Dr. Murphy and his research associates have developed a peptide-trace mineral configuration for use in organic trace minerals that provides optimal stability. It is, in fact, his work in differentiating organic and inorganic trace minerals that has laid the foundation for the six other breakthroughs in mineral nutrition.

2. Inorganics: Not required

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) publishes livestock requirements for all essential nutrients, among which it lists inorganic trace minerals. New research, however, proves that, while trace minerals are essential, there is no absolute requirement for inorganic trace minerals. In fact, eliminating inorganics altogether and replacing them with organic trace minerals appears to enhance performance. 

In beef cattle, a total replacement of inorganic trace minerals with lower levels (60 percent) of organic trace minerals improved health and performance and generated a $50/head advantage (Holder et al., 2016). Total replacement with organic trace minerals in pigs improved average daily gain, increased slaughter weight by 2 kg and improved slaughter efficiency to generate a savings of $1.80 per pig.

Inorganics may prevent deficiency, but there are far more effective supplement options. Even operations feeding a combination of inorganic and organic trace minerals stand to benefit from converting to 100 percent organic trace minerals. The total replacement of inorganics offers the best results in achieving animal genetic potential.

3. Organic trace mineral bioavailability: using less to do more

Studies routinely feed organic trace minerals at levels 30-50 percent lower than inorganics because the superior delivery system of organics allows them to be more efficiently absorbed. Poultry scientists at the University of Kentucky asked, "Just how much more efficiently?"

In their study, broilers were fed organic trace minerals at levels 75 percent lower than commercial levels for inorganics. These birds reached a desirable market weight in the standard six-week period and showed no signs of deficiency or disease, even though they were fed only one-quarter the mineral ration of their inorganic-fed counterparts (Ao et al., 2009). These relative concentrations are below those traditionally recognized as needed for meeting the birds’ requirements.

Organic trace minerals are more effectively absorbed and deposited in the intended tissues, so small amounts can have a greater impact. The inefficiency of inorganics requires producers to significantly overfeed them. Organic trace minerals offer a way for producers to maximize resources. This research also gives us a clearer picture of what an animal's true trace mineral requirements might be.

4. Organic trace minerals contribute to significant improvements in animal health

Trace minerals have a lock-and-key effect on certain antioxidant enzymes that are critical to immune function. A sufficient supply of trace minerals can be described as the sustaining fuel of the immune system. Recent feeding trials and nutrigenomic studies showcase organic minerals taking on some of agriculture’s most costly diseases.

In feedlot cattle, a total replacement of inorganic trace minerals with lower levels of organic trace minerals (60 percent of commercial levels for inorganics) was able to reduce mortality by 57 percent and mortality due to bovine respiratory disease (BRD) by 69 percent. Even in the cattle contracting BRD, the number of retreats was significantly reduced with organic trace minerals (Holder et al., 2016). Too good to be true? A separate study conducted on a different continent confirmed the effects: organic trace mineral groups showed a 7.7 percent decrease in even the incidence of BRD (Sgoifo Rossi et al., 2018).

"BRD costs the U.S. beef industry upwards of $800 million and is the greatest concern and cause of loss at the feed yard,” said Dr. Vaughn Holder, lead beef researcher at Alltech. “Organic trace minerals provide a new reinforcement to the animals’ first line of defense and add tremendously to the producer’s peace of mind."

In poultry, necrotic enteritis (NE) brings devastating costs, approaching $6 billion annually with mortality rates of 1 percent per day. Organic trace minerals eliminated bird death due to NE, reducing mortality by 12 percent compared to inorganics (He et al., 2017; Bortoluzzi et al., 2017). Birds on organic trace minerals also showed significant positive changes to the expression of genes related to improved disease resistance.

From gene expression to disease markers and mortality, there is mounting evidence that the bioavailability of organic minerals better equips animals to take on and survive disease challenges.

5. Organic trace minerals lead to extended shelf life and improved meat quality

The impact of organic trace minerals spans the entire food chain, all the way to our own refrigerators. Animal nutrition directly affects meat quality, as feeding organic trace minerals results in meat that lasts longer and tastes juicier.

"Trace minerals are essential to antioxidant enzymes in the meat," said Dr. Rebecca Delles, an Alltech meat scientist. "By providing a trace mineral source that is more bioavailable, those antioxidants have a better mineral supply to sustain their activity."

Proving her point, beef from steers that were fed organic trace minerals showed increased antioxidant activity, which led to extended shelf life (Sgoifo Rossi et al., 2018). That same meat also showed increased water retention, which improves profitability and texture. Dr. Delles found that organic trace minerals had the same effect in pork loin and chicken breast, beneficially improving both sensory experience and the producer’s bottom line (Delles et al., 2014; Delles et al., 2016).

"The average amount of time it takes a consumer to recover from a bad meat purchase is three months,” said Dr. Delles. “If the appearance, flavor or texture is perceived as being low quality, it will be another three months before the customer reconsiders purchasing that meat product. In fresh pork, if only 5 percent of U.S. consumers have a bad meat experience, that could still bring a projected loss of 3 percent — or $181,938,556.80 — over the course of 12 weeks due to what might seem like 'just color or texture.'"

6. More efficient organic trace minerals decrease the environmental impact of livestock

Bioavailable organic trace minerals are the exclusive method of sustaining animal performance while simultaneously lowering environmental impact.

The instability of inorganic minerals makes them difficult for the animal to absorb. This often leads to overfeeding of trace minerals and, therefore, excretion of large quantities of minerals back into the environment. These excreted minerals alter what is known as a “mineral footprint” and contribute to soil and water contamination.

The improved bioavailability allowing lower inclusion rates of organic trace minerals has been found to directly reduce the mineral footprint of livestock.

A series of trials conducted by agriculture institutions across China in 2017 found that in swine, poultry and ruminants, organic trace minerals could be fed at substantially lower quantities than inorganics and yield the same performance — but return much lower mineral excretion. The same was not true for inorganics: while low levels of inorganics also reduced mineral excretion, they were detrimental to animal health and reduced performance (Guo et al., 2017; Ma et al., 2018; Qui et al., 2018).

"This type of research changes the way we study animal nutrition,” said Dr. Karl Dawson, ruminant microbiologist and chief scientific officer at Alltech. “These are the solutions we need to sustainably feed our growing populations — benefitting all stakeholders while decreasing the environmental impact of intensive animal production systems."

7. Optimal organic trace mineral nutrition improves herd health, reproduction and performance for multiple generations

Trace minerals have a multigenerational effect. Like other nutrients, trace minerals change gene expression, effectively turning genes on or off, up or down. Those changes in gene expression are heritable — meaning the effects of a mother's nutrition, good or bad, are passed on to her offspring before they even take their first bite of feed. This phenomenon, known as epigenetics, gives producers and nutritionists the power to use nutrition to build their future herd. 

Dairy scientists at Pennsylvania State University studied a herd over three generations and found that heifer calves experienced 10 fewer days of sickness and came into estrus 26 days sooner when their dams were fed organic trace minerals (Gelsinger et al., 2016; Pino et al., 2018). This was true even for heifer calves who didn't consume organic trace minerals themselves, confirming that the effect was solely due to maternal nutrition. Fewer days of sickness are correlated to increased milk production later in life and reaching reproductive maturity almost one month sooner, which is worth approximately $100/head in management costs and a 2-3 percent decrease in carbon footprint.

In beef cattle, calves born to cows fed organic trace minerals showed improved body weight through weaning and again at 205 days, regardless of their own diet (Price et al., 2017). Weaning is one of the most critical stress points in the beef life cycle — but organic trace minerals in utero allowed weaning and young calves to thrive despite their circumstances. While trace minerals can have an incredible impact on a single animal, results like these show potential for strategized feeding for the future herd.

The advent of precision feeding

From feed to fork, trace mineral source makes all the difference. Organic trace minerals provide livestock with an essential nutrient in an optimized form, and the effects of such precision reverberate throughout the entire food chain. With effects on animal health and welfare, producer livelihood, consumer preference and environmental protection, no stakeholder is overlooked. This is the advent of a revolution in precision feeding. Well-timed, optimally designed nutrients can reveal to us an animal's real requirements and allow them to achieve their true genetic potential, so that we can build better herds and feed a growing population.

Click here to learn more about solutions through the Alltech Mineral Management program. 

Citations

Holder, V. B., Jennings, J. S., Covey, T. L. (2016). Effect of total replacement of trace minerals with Bioplex® proteinated minerals on the health and performance of lightweight, high-risk feedlot cattle, Journal of Animal Science, 94 (5), 120

Taylor-Pickard, J., Nollet, L., and Geers, R. (2013). Performance, carcass characteristics and economic benefits of total replacement of inorganic minerals by organic forms in growing pig diets, J. Appl. Anim. Nutr. 2 (e3): 1-3

T Ao, JL Pierce, AJ Pescatore, AC Cantor, KA Dawson & MJ Ford. (2009). Effects of feeding reduced levels of organic minerals (Bioplex) on the development of white layer pullets, Poult. Sci. 88 (Suppl. 1), 197

Sgoifo Rossi, C.A., Ripamonti, G., and Compiani, R. (2018, May). Not all mineral supplements for beef cattle bring same results. Feedstuffs, 90 (5).

He, B., King, W., Graugnard, D., Dawson, K.A., Bortoluzzi, C., Applegate, T. (2017). Zinc source influences the gene expression of zinc transporters in the jejunum and cecal tonsils of broilers challenged with coccidia and Clostridium perfringens., Poultry Science Association Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, USA, 17-23 July, 2017

Bortoluzzi, C., Lumpkins, B., Mathis, G., King, W.D., Graugnard, D., Dawson, K.A., Applegate, T. Comparative efficacy of dietary zinc sources for the mitigation of the impact of necrotic enteritis in coccidial challenged broiler chickens, Poultry Science Association Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, USA, 17-23 July, 2017

Delles, R.M., Xiong, Y.L., True, A.D., Ao, T., Dawson, K.A. (2014) Dietary antioxidant supplementation enhances lipid and protein oxidative stability of chicken broiler meat through promotion of antioxidant enzyme activity, Poult. Sci. 93:1561-1570

Delles, R.M.,  Naylor, A., Kocher, A., Dawson, K.A., Samuel, R.S. (2016). Diets with organic trace minerals (Bioplex®) and yeast protein (NuPro®) improved the water-holding capacity of pork loin meat, Midwest Animal Science Meetings, March; J. Animal Sci. 94 (Supple. 2): 65

Guo, Y., Liu, B., Xiong, P., He, J., Gang, L., Xue, Y.,Koontz, A.F., Yu, D. (2017). Effect of Cu Provided As Bioplex® Cu or TBCC for Weaned Pigs, Growth Performance, Tissue Mineral Retention, and Fecal Mineral Excretion, ASAS-CSAS Annual Meeting, 17-20 July, Baltimore, MD, USA, 2017

LX Ma, JN He, CC Hou, JL Qiu, XT Lu, B Liu, G Lin, Y Xue, AF Koontz, DY Yu. (2018). Effect of compound organic trace minerals on growth performance, serum indices and micromineral excretion in fattening pigs, ASAS-CSAS Annual Meeting, 5-8 July, Vancouver, Canada

JL Qui, XT Lu, LX Ma, CC Hou, JN He, B Liu, G Lin, T Ao, DY Yu (2018). Effect of low dose complex organic trace minerals on productive performance, egg quality and fecal mineral excretion of laying hens, Poult. Sci. 97 (e-Suppl. 1): 202

Price, D.M., Arellano, K.K., Irsik, M., Rae, D.O., Yelich, J.V., Mjoun, K., Hersom, M.J., (2017) Professional Animal Scientist 33: 194–204

Gelsinger et al., 2016 Maternal and early life nutrition and calf health

Pino et al., 2017 Maternal and early life nutrition and offspring first lactation

Harvest time is here. During this busy time, remember to not only monitor what’s coming in from the field, but also to think about what could be happening in other regions from which you may be purchasing feed ingredients.

Molds and yeasts can grow very rapidly as the weather warms in the spring and in the heat of the early summer months. But what about the end of summer and early fall? The weather across North America was extremely variable this summer — from extremely hot temperatures to drought to floods, week after week. How do these weather patterns affect the crops, and what should you be looking for in your feed this fall?

It is commonly understood that drought-stressed fields do not yield well. Digestibility and overall quality will be poor from feed grown in drought-stressed areas. Can living organisms like molds grow during a drought? The answer is yes: many species of molds will still grow during a drought, or they become dormant and wait for the right growing environment to return. One example of a drought-tolerant mold is Aspergillus. Many times, Aspergillus molds will appear olive green to yellowish in color on infected plants. Aflatoxins come from the mold species Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus. Aflatoxins are carcinogenic and thrive in hot conditions. Aflatoxin B1 can convert into M1 and can be found in milk. If this toxin is found over a set limit, the milk must be discarded. When fed to livestock, aflatoxins cause liver damage, suppress the immune system and reduce protein synthesis.

What about areas under heavy rain?

Several molds are typically found during summers of heavy rain, including Fusarium, Penicillium, Mucor, Rhizopus, etc. Fusarium is commonly found in both normal growing conditions and during wetter months. Many times, this mold first appears white and will change to a reddish-pink color. Under stress, both in the field and during storage, this mold can form many mycotoxins, including the trichothecenes family (DON or Vomitoxin, T-2, etc.), fusaric acid, fumonisins, and zearalenones. Clinical signs that these are present include immune suppression, bowel hemorrhaging, reduced intakes, poor milk production, reduced weight gains, abortions, conception challenges, vasodilation and even mortality.

The Penicillium molds will typically show blue to greenish in color, or potentially white, depending on the host crop. Penicillium molds will typically infect feed during storage, but abnormal weather patterns — such as heavy rains or, sometimes, cooler temperatures — can cause more mold to form. Certain tillage practices can also influence mold growth. When stressed, Penicillium molds can form patulin, Penicillic acid and ochratoxin. Clinical signs that these are present include edema, rumen upsets, loose manure, bowel hemorrhaging and increased rates of mortality.

This is a minute sampling of the mycotoxin challenges that can exist during harvest in your fields. Remember: the commodities or other purchased feedstuffs that are shipped in by boat, train or truck may present their own mold and mycotoxin challenges. Check the origin of purchased feed to determine what stress or abnormal weather was experienced in that region. Your local dealers, nutritionists or Alltech representatives can put together information on mycotoxin results from other regions. If you want to be especially diligent in lessening mycotoxin challenges, an on-farm RAPIREAD® mycotoxin test or Alltech 37+® mycotoxin test will check your feeds for any concerns. Remember, more information on mycotoxins is always available online at knowmycotoxins.com.

I want to learn more about protecting my feed from mycotoxins.

The following is an edited transcript of Nicole Erwin's interview with Dr. T.G. Nagaraja. Click below to hear the full interview:

Nicole:         I'm talking with Dr. T.G. Nagaraja, University Distinguished Professor of Microbiology in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Kansas State University. Dr. Nagaraja joins me to talk about a major issue in feedlot cattle: liver abscesses — a problem that can bear significant economic cost to the producer, packer and even the consumer. Dr. Nagaraja, thank you for joining us.

T.G.:            You're welcome.

Nicole:         Can you tell us a little bit about how you've come to specialize in the gut microbiology of cattle, specifically the rumen microbes? For those of us who understand that cows have a unique system for digestion but might not have the full capacity to appreciate it, what is it about rumen microbes that you've come to appreciate most?

T.G.:            I've been working in the area of rumen microbiology for the past 30 to 35 years. Rumen, as you know, is the first compartment of the four-compartment stomach in cattle. Rumen has a lot of microorganisms. In fact, when we feed cattle, we are feeding the microbes, not the animal. What microbes do is break down the feed into nutrients that the animal can then use. The microbial activity in the rumen provides both energy and protein to the animal.

                    My research interests have been in beef cattle, particularly cattle fed a high-grain diet. This would be what we call “feedlot cattle,” meant for beef production. When we feed a high-grain diet — because grain is starch, and starch is a highly degradable or digestible carbohydrate — therefore, microbes break it down rapidly and produce a lot of acid. Because of that rapid fermentation, there are a lot of digestive problems in cattle. That has been my area of research: how to minimize those digestive problems.

Nicole:         What happens when the microbial colonies get out of balance? Is there a way for producers to see physically or behaviorally that their cows aren't feeling well?

T.G.:            It's difficult to see unless the production of acid exceeds the capacity for the animal to absorb and utilize nutrients — in which case, the rumen acid concentration increases to a level that reduces animal feed intake. That's when producers will notice that cattle are not doing well, because they're eating less than what they are expected to eat. That condition is called acidosis, and that's a very common problem in grain-fed cattle. That increased acid production and increased accumulation of acid in the rumen causes a lot of digestive problems.

Nicole:         With feedlot cattle, are producers able to keep an eye on them as frequently as they would like? I mean, could this kind of go undetected?

T.G.:            In a feedlot, where you have hundreds of animals in a pen, it's very difficult to detect acidosis unless the animal is extremely sick, in which case you will see the animal standing by itself, away from the feed bunk. Usually, the pen riders who keep an eye on the cattle can spot those animals and maybe pull those animals out of the pen to treat them.

Nicole:         Can we determine rumen community composition by how we feed and raise the calf or heifer?

T.G.:            It's a lot more complicated to understand all the microbial changes that take place with different feedstuffs. One unique aspect of microbes in the rumen, in microbiology, are called anaerobic organisms, which means they live and grow without using oxygen. Therefore, if you want to study them, you have to have special techniques to grow them outside the rumen in the lab. These are what we call “anaerobic techniques.” Rumen is a very complex ecosystem — there are bacteria, there are protozoa, there are fungi — and it's not easy to understand all the changes that take place in the rumen when you, for example, change the diet of an animal.

Nicole:         The new veterinary feed directive has sent a message that traditional antibiotics approved for the prevention of liver abscesses should be a last resort instead of a preventive method. Because of that, we're hearing more about the use of ionophores, for instance. How are these safer than tylosin or other antibiotics used to prevent abscess?

T.G.:            Tylosin is the antibiotic of choice to prevent liver abscess. That seems to be the best one. Whenever we feed antibiotics to animals, there is always a chance that we may be creating some resistance in bacteria — which may end up in humans and could be a public health concern. Tylosin is not used in human medicine. This is a drug used only in animals, but it belongs to a class of antibiotic called macrolide. The same class includes another antibiotic that is commonly used in humans, and that is erythromycin. In fact, tylosin and erythromycin are very similar. So, if bacteria becomes resistant to tylosin, it could also be resistant to erythromycin. That is the reason why we are concerned about feeding tylosin.

                    With the new veterinary feed directive, the intent there is that we cannot use antibiotics for growth promotion. Tylosin is used to prevent infection in cattle. That's why the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has allowed tylosin to be used, as long as it is under veterinary supervision, until the industry comes up with a different method to control liver abscesses.

Nicole:         Other methods are also being explored, like the use of certain essential oils, yeast fermentation and product consumption. What are your thoughts on these as a method of prevention in treatment?

T.G.:            I will say we should be able to develop other methods that do not involve use of antibiotics. One of them is probiotics. Probiotics are beneficial bacteria, but some of them do produce substances that could kill other bacteria. For example, we know that probiotics can reduce Salmonella in chickens, swine and cattle, or reduce Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, which is a major food-borne pathogen. Similarly, there could be a probiotic that could be used to kill the bacterium that causes liver abscess, which is called Fusobacterium necrophorum. As of now, we don't have any probiotic identifier, but there are people, including in my lab, looking at those probiotics.

                    The one that has shown some promise is essential oil. These are products of plants. That means they are natural products. But many of the essential oils behave almost like antibiotics in the sense that they do kill bacteria. We have looked at a few essential oils and have shown in a lab, in a test tube, that some of the essential oils can kill bacteria that cause liver abscess. The question is if we can feed those to cattle and, thereby, reduce liver abscess prevalence. That work has not been done yet.

Nicole:         What kind of restrictions might there be in making those more available? Do you have to go through the FDA?

T.G.:            Essentials oil are considered what we call “generally recognized as safe products,” or GRAS status. This means they would not require FDA approval, because these are natural products, naturally safe. As long as the industry can show that the product is effective in reducing liver abscess, it should be commercialized. It would be a lot easier to commercialize essential oils than antibiotics, for example.

Nicole:         How would you provide the essential oils to the cattle? Would it be in a capsule? Would it be on the feed?

T.G.:            This would probably be mixed with the feed. It could either be a liquid product or it could be dry powder, because some of the essential oils are available as powder. It could be mixed with the feed, so it would be easy to administer to cattle.

Nicole:         Certain breeds of cattle seem to be affected by liver abscesses more than others. For example, I've read that Holsteins have the greatest incident rate, followed by dairy cows and then fed-beef steers. Why is that?

T.G.:            I think the reason why Holsteins have a higher prevalence of liver abscesses is simply because they are on a high-grain diet for extended periods of time. Typically, Holsteins used for beef production are Holstein calves. What producers do is start the calves on a grain diet right after they are weaned off of milk. Typically, a Holstein steer, before they go to slaughter, would have been on a grain diet for 300 to 350 days, as opposed to beef cattle meant for beef production. Those are typically on a grain-fed diet for 3 to 5 months, or 120 to 150 days. I think the duration of grain-feeding, we believe, is the major reason why Holsteins have higher liver abscess.

Nicole:         I think I saw a number around $64 million annually for the beef industry in the United States for losses associated with liver abscesses. How does abscess extensively affect an entire industry?

T.G.:            If you look at the average prevalence of liver abscess in feedlot cattle in this country, it would be anywhere from 10 percent to 20 or 25 percent, even with feeding tylosin. Tylosin is effective in reducing liver abscess but does not eliminate the problem. Liver abscesses could cost the producers as well as the packers. It affects producers because cattle with liver abscesses — particularly those that have what we call in the industry “A+ liver abscess,” which would be a liver with a large abscess or multiple small abscesses — when they have those A+ liver abscesses, the animals don't eat as much, they don't gain as much and they become less efficient in converting feed into gain. That costs money for the producer. Once the cattle go to the slaughterhouse, obviously even a minor liver abscess could be condemned. So that's a loss of liver for the packer.

                    Plus, many times when we see livers with abscesses, they adhere to the adjacent organs, like diaphragm and lungs. So that leads to a lot of trimming of the meat, so there is a reduction in carcass yield because of liver abscess, and that costs money for the packer. The cost of the retail price I was told is about $5-6 per liver, so that's the minimum loss. In terms of carcass yield reduction, that could be anywhere from $25 to $75, depending on the extent of trim they have to make.

Nicole:         You mentioned that there is still a lot to learn about the essential oils and probiotics. How far do you think we are from getting probiotic strains to persist in the rumen and in the industry?

T.G.:            We still have not identified the probiotic product that does affect the bacterium that causes liver abscess. We know some essential oils do. The question is whether the effect it shows in the lab — does that translate in the field? That's where we need to do more studies. There is always the question of whether the bacteria may get adapted to essential oils. So, if you feed it for three to five months, they may lose the efficacy. Those are the types of studies we need to do.

                    If I could mention, one other way we could control liver abscess would be to have a vaccine against the bacteria. Just like there are a number of vaccines to treat bacterial diseases, liver abscess is a bacterial infection, and we know which bacterium causes liver abscess. One of the approaches we have taken in my lab is: could we develop a vaccine? We are targeting two different structures or products for the bacteria. One is a protein that's on the surface of the bacteria, and we have evidence to believe that the protein is the one that attaches the bacteria to the cells in the animal. That attachment is a prerequisite for infection. If it prevents that attachment, we may be able to prevent the infection. That's one approach.

                    The other approach that we have been working on is when the bacterium goes to the liver — the liver is a very well-defended organ — there are a lot of mechanisms to combat foreign bacteria. So, when Fusobacterium necrophorum — the one that causes liver abscess — goes to the liver, the reason why it can survive is because it produces a toxin that kills white blood cells. Normally, white blood cells would be the first line of defense in the animal. When bacteria go into the organ, white blood cells engulf the bacteria and destroy them. This organism (Fusobacterium necrophorum) produces a toxin that kills those white blood cells.

                    What we're trying to do is have a vaccine containing the leukotoxin as well as a protein that mediates attachment, to see if the animal has antibodies against those. Then, a vaccinated animal may be able to prevent attachment, then prevent the survival of the bacteria in the liver. We think this may be the way to prevent the infection.

Nicole:         Well, which one do you think would come first: the vaccination as a solution, or probiotics? Where are you furthest in your research?

T.G.:            I think, with vaccines, we are working on it. Again, a vaccine has to go through a lot of regulatory approval. That may be at least another 2 to 3 years in the making, whereas probiotics or essential oils would be a lot faster to bring to the market. In fact, there could be probiotics already being used that could have an effect, but nobody has tested those.

Nicole:         Dr. Nagaraja is a distinguished professor of microbiology in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Kansas State University. Thanks for joining us.

T.G.:            Thank you.

I want to learn more about improving the rumen health of my beef cattle. 

Tall fescue (Lolium arundinaceum) is a cool season, perennial bunch grass native to Europe. Since its introduction in the early 1800s, it has spread widely throughout the southeastern and lower midwestern United States. Due in large part to its tolerance for heat and low-quality soils, and its adaptability to a wide range of conditions, tall fescue is now grown on more than 37 million acres of land in the U.S. (Thompson et al., 1993), and it is estimated that more than half of these fields are infected with the fungal endophyte Epichloë coenophiala (Jones et al., 2004). This endophyte provides positive characteristics to the plant, but the secondary metabolites (ergot alkaloids) produced by the endophyte have negative consequences to animals grazing on infected fescue.

The positives and negatives of fescue utilization

Symptoms of tall fescue toxicosis in cattle

The pathology of cattle consuming infected tall fescue can vary greatly depending on the weather and alkaloid concentration. The signs most readily apparent to producers include reduced feed intake (up to 50 percent) and weight gain, decreased milk production, reduced reproductive efficiency, tissue necrosis and a rough hair coat. Collectively, this range of conditions is known as “fescue toxicosis.” The decrease in productivity caused by fescue toxicosis has been estimated to cost U.S. beef producers more than $2 billion per year due to reduced growth, diminished reproductive efficiency and market discrimination because of unthrifty appearance (Kallenboch, 2015). 

Consumption of the ergot alkaloids in endophyte-infected tall fescue results in widespread vasoconstriction in cattle. This reduces the ability of the animal to dissipate heat, resulting in a variety of physiological symptoms, including increased respiration rate and elevated core temperature. This reduction in tolerance to heat leads to less time spent grazing and reduced weight gains, generally called “summer slump.” In colder months, the vasoconstriction from fescue can combine with natural vasoconstriction related to thermoregulation, resulting in tissue death in extremities such as ear tips, tails and feet, commonly known as “fescue foot.”

The vasoconstriction also reduces blood flow to the rumen, decreasing volatile fatty acidy (VFA) absorption. Consumption of ergot alkaloids also reduces passage rates of digesta from the rumen, likely by reducing rumen motility. These alterations work together to reduce nutrient availability, contributing to the reduced growth rate frequently observed in cattle grazing fescue. 

I would like more information on fescue and Alltech solutions for beef cattle.