[LEXINGTON, Ky.] – Designed through decades of practical application to unlock the genetic potential of livestock and support the animal throughout all phases of production, Alltech is proud to launch the premium Blueprint® beef nutrition program for the CRYSTALYX® and Hubbard Feeds brands.

Farmers and ranchers can learn about the product at the following upcoming launch tour trade events:

· 2017 Angus Convention: Nov.4–6, 2017, Fort Worth Convention Center, Fort Worth, Texas

· Range Beef Cow Symposium XXV: Nov. 28–30, 2017, Little American Hotel & Resort, Cheyenne, Wyoming

· Montana Stockgrowers Association Annual Convention and Trade Show: Dec. 13–14, 2017, Doubletree Hotel, Billings, Montana

Blueprint is formulated with Alltech’s Total Replacement Technology™, organic trace minerals that support absorption, retention and utilization in beef cattle. Blueprint is designed to work synergistically to help beef cattle reach their full genetic potential, resulting in rapid growth, maximum reproductive performance and optimal animal health while reducing mineral excretion into the environment.

The CRYSTALYX and Hubbard Feeds Blueprint products include:

· CRYSTALYX Blueprint 6% PHOS

· CRYSTALYX Blueprint 20% AN

· Blueprint Cattle Mineral

· Blueprint Calving Mineral

· Blueprint Co-Product Calving Mineral

· Blueprint Brown Grass Mineral

The Blueprint beef nutrition program strengthens CRYSTALYX and Hubbard Feeds’ commitment to helping producers identify ways to improve efficiency and maximize genetic performance. Blueprint has been scientifically formulated to target animal health and performance at the cellular level and build upon the genetic potential at each stage of an animal’s lifecycle.

Blueprint will be available at participating Hubbard Feeds and CRYSTALYX dealer locations.

Fumonisin is commonly found in corn at levels of 2 parts per million (ppm) or less, but in recent years, testing has confirmed levels well above 30 ppm, and some even above 100 ppm. Livestock producers should be aware of the fumonisin contamination when purchasing grain because, when consumed by animals, fumonisin toxicity affects several of their biological systems, leading to reduced feed intake and efficiency and liver damage. Understanding the effects of these mycotoxins in cattle feed is key to maintaining animal health and productivity.

Mycotoxins in contaminated feeds have differing effects on animals. 

Mycotoxins are secondary metabolites of molds and fungi that infect plants. More than 500 mycotoxins have been identified, and most animal feedstuffs are likely to be contaminated with multiple mycotoxins. The effects of mycotoxins vary, as each mycotoxin has its own specific impact on the animals consuming the contaminated feeds.

The Fusarium species are the predominant types of mold that contaminate crops and, eventually, animal feed. Ranging from white to pink or red in color, these molds are associated with wet conditions and moderate temperatures, especially following insect or hail damage. They are found worldwide, largely in corn. Fusarium molds produce several mycotoxins, including fumonisin, deoxynivalenol (vomitoxin) and zearalenone, with higher concentrations in the stalks and cobs than in the grain.

Signs of fumonisin in cattle

While cattle are generally resistant to many of the negative effects of mycotoxins, thanks to the degradation of the compounds by rumen microbes, high levels of mycotoxins in feeds can significantly impact animals. Fumonisin, in addition to not being significantly degraded in the rumen, is also not well-absorbed. The majority of fumonisins consumed by cattle are passed out in the feces. However, fumonisins can overwhelm the gut and cause significant issues in cattle.

The presence of fumonisin in the feed reduces palatability and, as a result, slows intake. Cattle may stand off a bunk contaminated with high levels of fumonisin. Calves without fully developed rumens and animals that are dealing with stressful situations, such as weaning or transportation, have an increased sensitivity to fumonisin due to reduced rumen fermentation and weakened immune functions.

Fumonisin can negatively impact animal health:

Even low levels of fumonisin affect gut health.

The gastrointestinal tract is impaired when cattle consume mycotoxins. Gut epithelial cells need protection from direct interaction with microbes and the gut environment. Specialized cells in the epithelium provide this protection. One example of these specialized cells is goblet cells, which produce mucus, coating the epithelial cells to lubricate and protect them from the contents of the gut. Intestinal cells also have specialized structures to form tight junctions, limiting the passage of molecules between cells. These mechanisms and others work in concert to prevent pathogen colonization and systemic access by toxins and pathogens.

Although fumonisin is poorly absorbed and metabolized by cattle, it induces disturbances in the gastrointestinal tract. Rumen motility can slow down, resulting in the increased exposure of the intestinal epithelium to the effects of fumonisin and other mycotoxins. Even low amounts of mycotoxins in cattle feed can impair intestinal health and immune function, resulting in altered host-pathogen interactions and an increased susceptibility to disease. The epithelial cells in the gastrointestinal tract are damaged by fumonisins, reducing the mucin layer thickness, tight junction strength and cell proliferation and, ultimately, increasing the opportunity for pathogen invasion.

Fumonisin has toxic effects on the liver and kidneys.

An analysis of tissues from cattle fed Fusarium in high doses indicated that the majority of fumonisin absorbed is retained in the liver, with lesser amounts retained in the muscles and kidneys. This accumulation is concerning, as fumonisin is toxic to the liver and kidneys and causes apoptosis, followed by the proliferation of regenerative cells in the affected tissues. Fumonisin also reduces the antioxidant levels in the liver, decreasing the animal’s defense mechanisms. This leads to liver lesions and elevated enzymes that are indicative of liver damage.

Fumonisins interrupt sphingolipid synthesis and metabolism.

The disruption of sphingolipid metabolism is the mechanism underlying much of fumonisin’s negative impact in the body. Sphingolipids are specific types of fats that protect cells from environmental damage by forming a stable, chemically resistant layer on the cell membrane. Fumonisins disrupt cell signaling by inhibiting ceramide synthase, interrupting sphingolipid synthesis and metabolism, and can alter the morphology of affected cells. This reduces cellular stability and protection, leading to cell death and significant alterations to cellular metabolism and cell-to-cell communication. 

Mycotoxins can increase susceptibility to diseases.

Calves that consume fumonisin experience decreased immune function, due in part to the impairment of lymphocyte development. Sphingolipid metabolism in immune cells is involved in the signaling pathways that control lymphocyte development, differentiation, activation and proliferation. Lymphocytes are the white blood cells that are important for maintaining a strong antigen response. These lymphocyte-related problems mean that consuming Fusarium molds can increase an animal’s susceptibility to diseases and reduce vaccine efficacy.

Handling contaminated feed in your beef cattle operation

Unfortunately, once mycotoxins are formed in the plant, there is no commercial method of removing them from contaminated feeds. Harvesting and storing contaminated crops at low moisture levels (i.e., less than 15%), along with the separation of highly contaminated feeds, is important in order to reduce the risk of mold growth and mycotoxin production in uncontaminated grain.

While the European Commission recommends that adult cattle can tolerate fumonisin levels of up to 50 ppm in diets, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s guidance for fumonisins recommends a maximum concentration of 30 ppm in the diet of feedlot cattle, 15 ppm for breeding stock and 10 ppm for calves. Furthermore, contaminated corn or corn byproducts should contribute no more than 50% of the diet. It is crucial to check the level of fumonisin in the complete diet, as it can be three times more concentrated in corn byproducts, such as distillers grains and corn gluten feed, and 10 times more concentrated in corn screenings.

If contaminated feeds must be used to feed cattle, elevators may blend the corn to reduce the fumonisin concentration to acceptable levels, or producers can include feed additives to mitigate the risk of mycotoxins. As fumonisin is associated with reduced feed consumption, there is a concern that low levels of fumonisin can interact with other mycotoxins, reducing the growth of calves and slowing the weight gain of feedlot cattle. Fumonisin contamination can be especially detrimental to newly received cattle and calves, preventing them from getting off to a healthy start.

Testing services like Alltech® 37+ and Alltech® RAPIREAD® can help producers and feed mills assess their mycotoxin risk so that the appropriate management and nutritional measures can be put in place.

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

Documenting trends is the closest thing in business to peering into a crystal ball. When it comes to consumer food trends, a dizzying variety of surveys from around the world readily fill pages upon pages of a Google search.

But which trends are long-term and which are just passing fads? What are shoppers really thinking? What’s influencing or impacting their behaviors? And what’s driving their purchases?

A particular pair of studies stands out for depth of insight for those along the food chain whose job it is to tweak strategic consumer marketing plans.

PERIscope 2017 is a biennial, large-scale quantitative study launched in 2001 by Bord Bia, the Irish Food Board. Based on interviews with 1,000 consumers in each of eight countries, the study identifies major shifts in consumer attitudes over time. The eight markets include Ireland and Great Britain, four continental European Union markets, as well as the U.S. and China. The study explores consumer attitudes about eating at home, cooking, local food, the environment, and health and well-being.

A second survey taps into the consumer food trend perceptions of more than 1,700 registered dietitians (RDs). What’s Trending in Nutrition, an annual survey produced in partnership between Pollock Communications and Today’s Dietitian magazine, covers bases ranging from shifting attitudes to favored resources and much in between.

Here are some of the highlights featured in each.

A source of tension

Among the standout trends of 2017 illuminated in the eight-nation PERIscope survey is a tension between the desire for “new” versus the comfort of tradition.

“We know that across all markets, consumers are placing more importance on spending time as a family over meals, enjoying cooking more and increasingly hosting dinner parties, all indicating people’s desire to balance modern life with tradition,” said David Deeley, a member of Bord Bia’s consumer and market insight team.

Among the countries surveyed for PERIscope, China, followed by Spain, leads in striving to balance modernization and tradition. The U.K. is ranked 7th and the Netherlands dead last in this category.

This finding is supported by the Today’s Dietitian survey, which attributes the latest shift in consumer food perceptions to a slower and more thoughtful approach to eating.

Keep it real

When it comes to authenticity, noted PERIscope’s Deeley, “consumers are tired of uniform, impersonal, throw-away products and the invisible nature of global supply chains. They crave stronger connections with the brands they buy, increasingly seeking out authentic and storied products that tell their brand story in an interesting and resonating way.”

What’s the story behind the story?

The demand for transparency is as strong as ever. The PERIscope survey finds consumers continuing to challenge producers to provide the full details about their food products. Labeling and quality symbols are a major point of interest for many countries, especially in China, where many people have lost faith in the safety of produce.

Provenance and quality matter. In Ireland, 78 percent of food shoppers check for country of origin, while checking for quality symbols stands at 75 percent, up by 20 percent since 2001. In the U.S., almost 7 in 10 people claim to check for country of origin, while 67 percent of consumers check for a symbol or certificate that guarantees the quality of the produce, according to the survey.

Registered dietitians responding to the Today’s Dietitian poll indicate that GMO-free and sustainable foods have experienced on average a 20 percent decrease in terms of what concerns consumers.

“Dietitians attribute this decline to food label transparency and more food companies changing their ingredient deck,” the report said.

And 59 percent of dietitians said consumers are choosing to "eat clean,” selecting foods that are less processed as well as more whole foods, such as veggies, fruits, ancient grains and green tea. Plant-based proteins like nuts and seeds also figure more prominently in diets.

Make it lasting and environmentally friendly

Smart devices deliver a mind-boggling amount of information about brand practices, processes and procedures. The result?

“Consumers are calling out inappropriate, bland or opaque brand behavior and are sharing it with their peers,” observed Deeley.

The PERIscope study finds that consumers prefer to buy from companies that are aware of environmental issues and the value of sustainability.

“We also know that they’re increasingly more aware of terms like ‘food waste’ and ‘sustainably produced' in countries like Spain, Germany and the Netherlands, where awareness of both tops 90 percent,” he said.

Across all eight markets, the survey shows that consumers are adopting a greener mindset and are increasingly drawn to eco-friendly businesses and practices.

Deeley’s suggestion to food producers and processors: “Recycling, upcycling, downcycling, zero waste — it doesn’t matter what you call it. Just be sure that you adopt a green mindset and eliminate any negative environmental impact your products and services may directly or indirectly cause before, during and after production — this includes the entire consumption cycle, too.”

Localism lives on

With a growing number of adults turning toward the local and the familiar, the emergence of the “locavore” is becoming ever more pervasive, according to the PERIscope 2017 survey.

“Local food for consumers means food that is better quality and is transparent in its production processes,” said Deeley. “A growing number are looking closer to home for groceries, and more and more are seeing the importance of purchasing from their local communities. This trend holds true across most countries, with the French placing the most importance on buying local foods (79 percent).”

China (76 percent) and Spain (75 percent), Ireland (67 percent), Germany (64 percent) and the U.S. (60 percent) are warming to the concept. Consumers in Great Britain (55 percent) and the Netherlands (35 percent) are the least interested in seeking out specifically local food sources.

Make it quick — but good

Demand for foods that are quick to prepare has been on the rise. Pre-portioned meal delivery services such as Blue Apron, HelloFresh and FreshDirect have skyrocketed, with 45 percent of consumers now turning to these and similar healthy meal or weight loss menu delivery programs in order to eat healthier, according to the Today’s Dietitian survey.

“In Ireland, this figure rose from 56 percent in 2001 to almost 7 in 10 (69 percent) in 2017,” according to PERIscope’s Deeley. “The majority of Americans have a tendency to pick foods that are easy to prepare (91 percent) and quick to cook (85 percent). More than 7 in 10 people claim to eat convenience or ready-prepared meals regularly.”

In an observation worthy of the attention of food labelers, Deeley noted some uncertainty about which foods are healthy, “with close to half of those polled claiming to be confused about the health benefits of particular foods and 60 percent saying nutritional claims and food labels are hard to understand.”

Keep it interesting

More than 7 in 10 consumers in all eight countries of the PERIscope survey claim they like to try new foods. An increasingly wider variety of foods is available in today’s markets, making it is easier for consumers to explore foods from around the world.

And there’s China again, leading this time in adventurous eating, with 96 percent saying they like to try new foods. And once again, the Chinese are trailed closely by Spanish consumers in an open-mindedness about new foods (94 percent), while the French (81 percent) and Irish (74 percent) are more likely to stick with what they know.

There are apps for that

When it comes to technology, Chinese consumers are far ahead of their counterparts in the seven other countries surveyed by PERIscope in 2017.

Asked if they have ever downloaded a food app, 76 percent of Chinese consumers responded that they have. The next closest are Americans at 34 percent, with only 19 percent of Irish and 18 percent of consumers in the U.K. poking at food icons on their smart devices.

What is influencing consumer perception?

The survey of dietitians looked at the sources of consumer nutrition information. Most (73 percent) said consumers rely on blogs and websites, followed by social media (70 percent). Fifty-eight percent turn to television and radio for most of their information.

The survey also reveals a paradox by asking where consumers get the most nutrition misinformation. Seventy-seven percent cited social media, 67 percent pointed to blogs and websites, and 63 percent said celebrities often get it wrong (a change from 2016, when celebrities were believed to be more misleading than social media).

Consumers gauge their health and weight, according to the dietitians, by comparing themselves to people in magazines or on television (72 percent), friends/family members (64 percent) or people on social media (57 percent).

Food consumers in China are far more likely than those in the other seven countries of the PERIscope survey to share recipes via social media — 77 percent of Chinese respondents versus the next highest social media users, Americans at 41 percent.

Where are registered dietitians sourcing their own information? According to the Today’s Dietitian survey, most (80 percent) of RDs have bookmarked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s MyPlate website for nutrition education. Sixty-five percent include the published resources of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics among their tools.

What leaps off the page

“For me, the most interesting story is revealed when we look back at the 2001 report and track the changes over time,” said Deeley. “The world was certainly a very different place, and that is reflected in those reports. Today, we know that health and well-being have changed dramatically over time, with people now making more conscious decisions to enjoy a holistic approach to physical health and emotional well-being.”

Although dietitians say consumer awareness of healthy food has increased and mindful eating is on the rise in 2017, they note that issues of access and cost continue to prevent certain populations from being able to eat and purchase healthy food.

“For low-income consumers, RDs say that cost, above all other factors including physical health, is the largest barrier when making food purchasing decisions,” suggests the Today’s Dietitian study. “This often makes healthy eating options out of reach for low-income families. RDs recommend increasing affordability and availability of nutritious food in low-income areas to help reduce barriers to healthy eating.”

The polling for what’s hot and what’s not in 2018 is underway. It will be interesting to see how these trends persist, shift or change altogether in the coming year.

What does the future hold for farming and the entire food supply chain?

Everything from automated farm implements and nonstop reams of data to consumers’ ability to trace their food to its source and create supply chain reversal, according to a panel of agribusiness experts.

Looking ahead into that near (and already here) future was the basis of a live video panel discussion entitled “Farming the Future.”

What’s changed about what it means to be a food consumer?

“I think we’re in the middle of a food movement,” said Mary Shelman, former director of Harvard Business School’s Agribusiness Program.

She cited the rise of “engaged eating” — taking the consumption of food beyond simply eating to making food choices that are considered nutritious, safe, culturally appropriate and produced in environmentally sustainable ways.

“A big piece of that is the millennial consumer,” she explained. “Technology is all around them. They get information in different ways. They have different values. They’re the biggest demographic group in the U.S., and they’re just at the stage of having families and moving up in their income potential, so they’re very attractive to the food industry.”

Shelman noted that the millennial generation, born between the early 1980s and 1990s, has a much greater understanding of the relationship between health and food.

“What they eat is part of their identity,” she said. “Food actually reflects who they are as a person, as well as their values.”

This presents what, in her view, may be the food industry’s biggest challenge.

“Not only do they want products that meet certain price and safety points, but they also want products that have a purpose,” she said.

Shelman noted that these “prosumers” have a strong belief in their purchasing power’s ability to affect the change they wish to see in the world. They “vote” with their dollars.

What’s changed about what it means to be a farmer?

Aidan Connolly, chief innovation officer at Alltech, recognized that the rate of change occurring in agriculture is outpacing comprehension of its scope and scale.

“I think that if anybody thinks that agriculture is going to be the same in 20 or 30 years, they’ve got their head in the sand,” he said.

Connolly, who has written about digital disruptions that are currently transforming agriculture, cited those technologies: “…robots and drones, blockchain, nutrigenomics, the internet of things, virtual reality and enhanced reality — these are technologies that can fundamentally change the ways in which we understand what happens when we grow plants or animals.”

Perhaps the most widely felt game-changer in agriculture has been the arrival of “big data.”

“You have a tool here that looks at millions and billions of observations, whether it’s productivity, food intake, the way we grow our crops, how much rain you get — all of this can be integrated into very precise models, and that’s going to be the big change in agriculture,” said Dr. Karl Dawson, chief scientific officer at Alltech. “We’re talking about moving to ‘armchair farming.’ We’re going to be making our decisions from a site, sitting in front of a computer, looking to see what we can predict in the future. That’s a tremendous tool that we’ve never had.”

What does this imply about the knowledge and skills required of the 21st-century farmer?

“I think we’re looking at a fundamental change in what that person is going to look like,” said Connolly. “They won’t necessarily grow up on a farm. They might grow up in a city. They won’t necessarily have the skills of understanding animals or plants. They will understand data, analytics, equipment and decision-making about all the various technologies and which investments should and should not be made. So, dramatically different skills from those used for the last thousands of years will determine who is and who is not a farmer.”

Key among those talents are analytical skills that are tied to data and information, according to Michael Boehlje, distinguished professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University.

“We are going to have to increasingly develop that skill and feel comfortable with looking at numbers, looking at information,” he said.

Boehlje emphasized that this doesn’t mean a farmer has to transform into a number cruncher but will need to understand the stories that the numbers tell.

“It’s not just the story they (data) tell in terms of average yields,” he explained. “It’s the distributions that count. It’s what happens when you are in parts of your field where you have low yields and where you’re getting high yields as well.

“The same is true with animals,” continued Boehlje. “We’re starting to see different animal performance even in the same pen. That’s a function of their genetics and a number of factors. We’re going to get more granular in the data. So, data assessment, data summarization, data visualization, strategic thinking, risk assessment — those increasingly are going to be the skills that we need to have.”

Attracting a new generation of talent to farming

Shelman agreed that new and emerging farm technologies will enable agriculture to be successful in meeting increasing demand, but attracting and retaining that new generation of farmers requires something more.

“Supply and demand economics don’t tend to move in lockstep,” she said. “For instance, in crop farming in the U.S. today, prices are relatively low compared to other times in the last five years. So, there’s a need to maintain an economic viability for farmers to survive — and, in particular, to attract new, younger farmers.”

Shelman pointed out that the average age of the American farmer today is reaching 60 years.

“We need new talent, and they will only come in if there are attractive returns in the sector,” she said.

This new generation is being attracted to farming for very different reasons than their predecessors.

“It’s about being able to understand the market,” said Shelman. “It’s, ‘How do I deliver this differentiated product that has extra value?’ So, it’s not just about producing at the lowest price, but producing what different segments of the market want and being able to sell into those channels.”

The result: supply chain reversal

The industry is seeing the rise of “demand-driven chains with consumers increasingly telling the entire chain ‘what we want, how we want it and how it ought to be done,’” according to Boehlje.

“So, a really important skill that is going to be much, much more important for farmers is going to be understanding and working in an interdependent system, rather than as an independent farmer, that is very focused on relationships, collaboration and interpersonal skills — things that many farmers have historically not liked to do,” he said. “But those are going to be skills that will be essential to being a successful farmer.”

So, how can farmers change the way they sell foods?

Consumers are moving beyond the traditional demand for cheap, accessible, safe food to shopping decisions that align with their values, according to Shelman.

“I think that provides some opportunities at the farm level,” she said. “First, to become much more market-oriented and know what the market is interested in buying rather than what you want to sell.”

Added Boehlje, “We’re increasingly seeing this entire food production and distribution industry move very dramatically from a commodity orientation and a supply chain mentality to a differentiated product orientation and a demand-driven system. And the technology to get that done is increasingly available.”

Shelman cited as examples the rise of brands such as Laura’s Lean Beef or Pete and Gerry’s eggs, items that come with specialty propositions.

“If you look at the Amazon Fresh website, you can buy hamburgers from a single cow,” she said.

She acknowledged that dealing with the market at such a level is not for everyone in farming, but it’s increasingly popular among consumers.

“There’s tremendous resistance in the system to making those kinds of changes because our system has been set up to move big quantities of relatively undifferentiated products,” said Shelman.

Dawson cautioned, however, that there remains a messaging gap in the commercialization chain that has failed to win the buy-in of the middleman.

“Alltech Angus was an example of a succulent meat product that received very good reviews, but, quite frankly, we never could make it go because there was a barrier between us and the consumer,” he explained.

Still, noted Connolly, technologies enabling transparency and traceability are ushering in a new era for the farm-consumer relationship.

“We are seeing very large changes in consumer behavior,” he said. “Apps on phones, websites, the ability to see through cameras what’s actually happening on the farm, to see through blockchain what has occurred in the way your food is processed — these are all tremendous opportunities for farmers to engage directly with consumers of their food, and I think, eventually, that makes for a more profitable farming system.”

Success in farming, said Boehlje, will depend on an ability to move away from the mentality “If I produce it, they will come.” That, increasingly, is not the industry of tomorrow.

The following is an edited transcript of Tom Martin’s interview with Dr. Vaughn Holder, research project manager for beef at Alltech.

Click below to hear the full interview:

Tom: We’re talking with Dr. Vaughn Holder, research project manager at Alltech, where he leads the global nutritional research on beef cattle. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Holder.

Vaughn: Thank you.

Tom: How does a producer take a “head-out-of-the-sand” approach?

Vaughn: The idea behind the “head-out-of-the-sand” approach is that we want producers to identify the opportunities that they have available to them.

There is significant social pressure these days. People want certain agricultural species to change the way they’re doing things. I think oftentimes consumers don’t necessarily understand the way producers are operating or that they’re already doing those things.

A “head-out-of-the-sand” approach is a way of saying to the producers, “Let’s take the good in what you do and let’s get you paid for it.”

Tom: How can a producer bring unique, traceable and healthy beef to the world marketplace?

Vaughn: Beef producers are actually very good environmental stewards. We’ve been producing beef from the land for several hundred years, and beef is still a viable product today.

What traceability does — or what verification does ­— is allows producers to market it as a part of their programs. This all starts with age and source verification, which is easy for most farmers who take records. It’s just being able to tell when the animal was born and where it comes from.

Tom: What are the key industry resources that allow a producer to, as you say, "steak" their claim?

Vaughn: “Steak" their claim — that’s great. You need two things: First, you need to have someone who can verify what you’re doing and that it fits into a certain program. Whether we’re talking about age and source verification or non-hormone treated cattle, you need somebody to come in and verify or certify that that’s what you’re doing.

Secondly, you may need to use some technologies if you are looking at replacing either antibiotics or hormones, or whatever it might be. There may be some minor modifications that you must make in your production system, and you may need some technologies to help you do that. That’s where Alltech comes in.

Tom: Why is there a need to rethink the process of taking beef products to the marketplace?

Vaughn: Most of this has been driven by social pressures — by consumer pressures — or by retail pressures. Basically, what happens is there are requirements from our consumers for certain types of production processes — or for the absence of certain production processes. When we are in business, we need to satisfy our customers’ needs, and that’s where most of this is coming from.

Tom: In your view, how could the disruptive technology CRISPR impact beef production?

Vaughn: The impacts of CRISPR are probably beyond what someone could tell you. To give you an example, if we look at polled dairy cows — “polled” meaning dairy cows without horns — if we had to go through the process of using breeding technologies to remove the horns from dairy cattle, it would probably take a process of about 10 years. It would take another 10 years to get the milk production of the dairy cows back to where they were. CRISPR would allow us to do that in a single generation.

Essentially, what CRISPR does is it allows you to edit genetics on the fly; to edit the gene sequence of the animal on the fly. That has connotations well beyond even what we can imagine in agriculture. You can imagine the consequences for medicine, for example.

Tom: You were involved in the 2016 launch of EPNIX®, Alltech’s program designed to improve the health and profitability of beef feedlot cattle independent of the use of antibiotics or other pharmaceutical technologies. Though, it does work both with and without antibiotics. Can you provide a bit more detail on the program?

Vaughn: Sure. EPNIX was a program that was developed through our nutrigenomics and epigenetics laboratory at Alltech. We have those programs in multiple species. However, the nutrition program in beef has probably seen the most progress commercially.

The culmination of that research — probably about 11 years’ worth of research — has resulted in EPNIX, which is essentially just a program designed to improve the health and performance of feedlot cattle, regardless of the use of other technologies. And that’s important; we are not replacing those technologies. We’re not talking about another antibiotic or another hormone. EPNIX products work by a completely different mechanism than those technologies. So, they do work in every situation.

Tom: How is EPNIX being received in the industry?

Vaughn: We’ve had a lot of good response from this. Agriculture is a very conservative industry. It’s actually very difficult to gain ground with folks in that industry because they are naturally suspicious of people trying to sell them all the latest and greatest technology. However, we partnered with one of the preeminent feeding groups in the industry and one of the most trusted research institutions in the industry: Cactus Feeders. They perform their own internal research for their own purposes. They are wholly owned by themselves and do not consult for anyone else. The research is taken very seriously.

We chose the right partner, and that’s why we chose to do the endpoint commercial research on the program. We had validated it in the laboratory, but we needed a place that could be trusted to show what the program can do commercially. That’s what has led to EPNIX being broadly accepted by the industry.

Tom: Are you seeing significant results?

Vaughn: Yes. In fact, from the two experiments that we have completed at Cactus Feeders thus far, we were able to improve the production of the cattle above and beyond what they are already doing. That’s important because I think it can be easy to set up a control group to fail otherwise. You need to compare new results to their current best. You need to be able to show that you can do better if you want any kind of mainstream adoption. In successive trials at Cactus Feeders, whether antibiotics were used or not, this program has improved the bottom line of those cattle.

Tom: What important future challenges does the industry face?

Vaughn: There are several. I think most of them pertain to the massive use of many technologies that the industry has grown accustomed to or has grown to rely on. The use of in-feed antibiotics is under a lot of scrutiny right now. I think it scares a lot of people — the thought that they might lose the use of those antibiotics, or as a worst-case scenario, that we might lose antibiotics altogether. I think it’s very bad if we end up in a situation where we can’t treat sick animals. That will not be good for the industry.

Tom: How does your work affect the average consumer in their kitchen table?

Vaughn: That is a very good question. The initial work that was done on the nutrition program was an effort to improve the quality of the meat. Now, it is quite difficult to implement when the beef industry is segmented. You have different entities involved in different parts of the production of meat. It becomes difficult to get one partner to pay for something that another partner will benefit from.

It has always been difficult to implement technologies that improve the quality of meat. However, because this program was based on improving quality initially, and now that we also have the health and performance aspect attached to it, we’ve seen that we can carry that benefit through. The main point of that is getting meat that has a longer shelf life and enriched micronutrient concentrations. You also get meat that is juicier and retains water better.

Tom: What do you enjoy most about your work?

Vaughn: I enjoy the act of taking something from a theoretical standpoint — from the laboratory standpoint — and coming up with an idea and seeing it applied out in the world one day. That’s the most satisfying part of the job for me. I think it can be frustrating to many scientists that you sit in the laboratory and do this amazing work, but if it doesn’t have an actual impact on the world, at the end of the day, it can become quite frustrating. So, to see this fed to real animals in real life and end up on people’s tables is quite satisfying.

Tom: Dr. Vaughn Holder, research project manager at Alltech. Thank you for joining us.

Vaughn: Thanks.

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

Fall is here, and that means calving season is starting up again for some producers. Dr. Shelby Roberts, postdoctoral research fellow in Alltech’s beef nutrition research department, shares her tips on scours prevention in your calves this season.

1. Stop calf scours early

Early detection of scours is essential so that fluids and electrolytes can be restored in order to correct dehydration as soon as possible. Some common symptoms associated with scours include depression, weak suckling reflex, dehydration (sunken eyes) and abnormal breathing.

2. Manage your herd to minimize risk

Manage your cow herd to minimize calf exposure to pathogens and stress. For example, try to keep calving areas as clean as possible to reduce the calves’ pathogen exposure. If possible, isolate sick calves and their dams from the cow herd to prevent the spread of the pathogen. 

3. Manage nutrient requirements for mother cows

Make sure the dams’ nutritional requirements are being met. Colostrum quality and quantity can be negatively affected by inadequate dam nutrition. Remember, when managing your fall calving herd: Fall calving cows will be lactating throughout the winter, so they will have higher nutritional requirements compared to spring calvers.

4. Use the fecal scoring guide

Check your fecal score using the guide below. If you have a fecal score of less than 2.5 for more than five days, your calves have a problem.

% diarrhea = Total number of calves with a fecal score of “4” x 100 / Number of calves in pen

Duration of diarrhea = Total days from weaning in which calves exhibit a fecal score of “4”

Have a question or comment?

Tom:                            Steve Elliott is the global director of the mineral management team at Alltech. He has 25 years of experience in the feed industry, 20 of them with Alltech. He joins us to talk about advances in the nutrition of farm animals that figure into our food chain. Thank you for being with us.

Steve:                          Absolutely.

Tom:                            Your present focus is on how organic trace minerals can improve the health and performance of livestock. What have you found?

Steve:                          Trace minerals are essential nutrients. In other words, animals must receive them every day in their diet. We found that by providing them in an organic form, we can meet the requirements and do so with much lower fortification levels in the diet. We can have a lower mineral concentration, less mineral excretion into the environment and less interaction with other components in the diet. There are a lot of advantages to looking at the natural way of providing trace elements.

Tom:                            Which trace minerals are key to improve livestock performance?

Steve:                          Most people will be familiar with zinc, copper and manganese, but there has been a lot of work on selenium over the last 15 years. Many parts of the United States are selenium deficient. By utilizing an organic form of selenium, we can raise the selenium status in the animals, thus improving their immunity, reproductive efficiency, etc.

                                    We can also fortify consumer diets with selenium by fortifying meat, milk and eggs, transferring selenium from the animal’s diet into the protein.

Tom:                            And just out of curiosity, where do you find selenium?

Steve:                          Selenium is one of those essential trace elements. It’s mined out of the earth. But at Alltech, we found a natural way of producing selenium: We take yeast and add selenium to the fermentation, and we can get the yeast to take it up and store it in an organic form. It’s much safer for the animal, safer for the people mixing the feeds and safer for the environment.

Tom:                            And which, in your opinion, is best: inorganic or organic minerals? Does it matter?

Steve:                          Yes, I believe it does matter. In nature, animals get all their minerals organically. We’ve supplemented with inorganic trace minerals for 50 or 60 years because they were an inexpensive alternative. Obviously, organic is a safer way of improving trace mineral status in the animals. We can do it in a form with fewer contaminants such as heavy metals, dioxins and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) — things we’re concerned about passing into the food chain. We can avoid that by using organic trace minerals.

Tom:                            You’ve noted that research from around the world is influencing regional regulatory decision-making with the goal of improving the agrifood sector. Can you elaborate on that, and is this goal being achieved?

Steve:                          Yes, particularly on the mineral side. For example, the European Union reduced the acceptable amount of minerals fed to animals because of water pollution concerns. Japan has recently moved legislation on lowered levels of zinc and copper to address pollution concerns as well. Korea has done the same. One of the main initiatives in China is lowering levels of trace minerals in the feed. There is almost no potable water left in China due to pollution, particularly from pig farms.

                                    I think there are a lot of initiatives driving producers to look at alternatives to trace mineral fortification. That’s where Alltech is ahead of the game. We’ve been looking at organic alternatives for over 20 years. I think we have a very good understanding of the mineral requirements of animals and the optimum levels at which we can meet them. 

Tom:                            Let’s talk about the Brazilian Food Guide, which appears to be quite disruptive. What is it, and why is it noteworthy?

Steve:                         Brazil reestablished levels in what they call their Table 4. Table 4 was a system set up by the government to ensure that farmers put adequate fortification in their livestock’s diets. The government does not want feed companies to cheat producers by not providing enough nutrition in the diet. The initial acceptable mineral levels put into that guideline were exceedingly high. We can achieve lower levels by feeding organic trace minerals.

                                    So Alltech, in coordination with major universities in Brazil and professors on the regulatory board, conducted research over the last several years showing that, when you feed the organic form of trace minerals, you can feed or fortify the diets at a much lower mineral level.

                                    The Brazilian government has incorporated these levels in the new guidelines, which now say that if you’re going to use organic forms, you can go well below the old Table 4 levels, thus allowing producers to improve the performance of their animals while lessening environmental contamination.

Tom:                            The guide blatantly warns people about food advertisements, noting that the purpose of these ads is to increase sales, not to improve public health. How is that advice being received in the industry?

Steve:                          There’s a lot of misinformation that goes out in some of these ads. From a food quality standpoint or fortification standpoint, we’ve done a lot of work with the Brazilian government on fortification or enrichment of milk, for example, particularly with selenium. You feed selenium to the animal, it passes into the milk, and you then raise the selenium status of the people consuming that milk. We’ve done that with Brazilian school children, and we found that as we improve their selenium status, their cognitive ability, or their ability to pay attention in school, was improved as well as their immune status.

                                    There are a lot of good things we can do with fortifying foods, but there’s a lot of misinformation out there as well. I think the public should be careful and really look at the science behind some of these claims.

Tom:                            And how can the Brazilian guide serve as a model in the agrifood industry?

Steve:                          I think in the United States and globally, many people rely on the NRC, which is the National Research Council. The NRC reviews research every five or six years and then establishes guidelines on nutrient fortification levels for production species. Most guidelines were established using old ingredients. For example, inorganic trace minerals.

                                    Brazil and other countries are starting to accept that there is a better way of doing things by using organic minerals. By doing so, it’s going to help the environment and we can fortify diets at a significantly lower mineral level. I think because of the revised Brazilian tables that were recently published, Canada is now talking about revising their tables as well.  

                                    We’re hopeful that the next time the NRC reviews production species in the United States, they will take a closer look at organic forms of nutrients, particularly those that Alltech makes.

Tom:                            So, to bring this all the way down to the food chain, how does the adoption of the Brazilian guide affect the average consumer’s dinner table?

Steve:                          I don’t know that there is much effect on a consumer’s dinner table. Consumers should rest assured that the Brazilian government is taking a step forward by looking at natural alternatives — not just using the old standards that were used for many years — and not be concerned because the mineral levels have decreased. There’s good science for decreasing those levels: We can clean up the environment, and animals perform better at lower mineral levels in the right form. The consumer can rest assured that Brazil is taking a leading-edge approach by looking at natural feed additives.

Tom:                            Steve, what do you enjoy most about your work?

Steve:                          I’ve had the opportunity to travel the world; I’ve been to over 100 countries. I get to deal with the best food producers, the best producers of animal protein in the world. And I get to learn something new every day.

Tom:                            Steve Elliott, the global director of the mineral management team at Alltech. We thank you for your time.

Steve:                          Thank you.

I would like more information on organic trace minerals. 

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) helps ensure food safety by focusing on preventing contamination rather than simply responding to it. All feed manufacturers who manufacture, process, pack or hold animal food for consumption in the United States must comply with the FSMA.

In general, this includes those who register under Section 415 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (also known as the Bioterrorism Act). It’s important to note that not complying is considered a prohibited act.

Recently, Hubbard Feeds hosted a series of meetings for its customers to help them prepare for the FSMA. Keith Epperson of Epperson Consulting & Associates, LLC, led the discussion by giving attendees an overview of the FSMA and how it affects their businesses. Below are the key takeaways from Keith’s presentation.

Deadlines for larger businesses to comply with the FSMA went into effect in 2016. The current compliance date for many feed dealers is September 2017 for Current Good Manufacturing Practices. A more detailed outline of compliance dates is shown in the chart below, provided by the American Feed Industry Association.

Compliance dates for FSMA

Business Size

Subpart B

Current Good Manufacturing Practice

Subpart C

Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls

All Others

Sept. 19, 2016

Sept. 18, 2017

Small Businesses

(< 500 FTE) *

*full time employees

Sept. 18, 2017

Sept. 17, 2018

Very Small Businesses

(< $2.5 million/year)

Sept. 17, 2018

Sept. 17, 2019

Critical prevention efforts

The first of several topics discussed at the meetings was the importance of training employees on their job responsibilities. Having qualified individuals who understand what they do and the consequences of not performing those tasks correctly is a key aspect of food safety. Documenting when training sessions occur is an important part of FSMA compliance, because if it’s not written down, it’s assumed it didn’t happen.

Housekeeping and maintenance of equipment and facilities was also discussed frequently. When inspectors walk through a facility, it’s easy to see what type of housekeeping is being done. A regular maintenance schedule can prevent breakdowns or improper manufacturing and processing of feeds.

Biosecurity was another topic heavily emphasized throughout the meetings. Examples of this include documenting and visually inspecting incoming ingredient trailers to record what was on a previous load, trucking of finished feed, and even keeping brooms and equipment separate depending on where they are used.

Planning ahead

Another aspect of the FSMA that feed manufacturers will be required to complete is a food safety plan. Every feed manufacturer must conduct a hazard analysis to identify and evaluate — based on experience, illness data, scientific reports and other information — known or reasonably foreseeable hazards for each type of animal food manufactured, processed, packed or held at their facility to determine whether there are any hazards requiring a preventive control. The hazard analysis must be written regardless of its outcome.

Some examples of hazards in animal food are:

• Biological hazards:

  • Salmonella spp.
  • Listeria monocytogenes

• Chemical hazards:

  • Mycotoxins
  • Pesticides and process-related or industrial chemicals
  • Drug carryover
  • Nutrient deficiencies or toxicities

• Physical hazards:

  • Stones
  • Glass
  • Metal

Moving forward

The compliance date for small businesses with less than 500 full-time employees is September 17, 2018, which gives feed manufacturers time to do their hazard analysis. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced they will delay inspections for the hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls portion of the FSMA until Sept. 2018. However, while the inspections may have been delayed, feed manufacturers will still be required to meet compliance deadlines.

The FDA has launched a food safety plan builder to help owners create a food safety plan for their businesses. You can find more information on the FDA website.

Every producer knows that when a beef cow is healthy, her calf has a much better chance of being healthy, too. Trace mineral nutrition is key for maintaining healthy cattle at all life stages. Colostrum quality, calf weight and immune function are among the many benefits from supplementing organic trace minerals in cattle. A study done in 2017 at the University of Florida and published in The Professional Animal Scientist evaluated the response of 160 Angus (AN) and Brangus (BN) cows and their calves to inorganic (ING) or organic (ORG) trace mineral sources.

About the study

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the difference in performance and benefits provided by feeding organic trace minerals versus inorganic trace minerals to cattle on pasture. Beef cows supplemented with organic trace minerals received cobalt, copper, manganese and zinc in the form of Bioplex^® and selenium in the form of Sel-Plex^®. Beef cows supplemented with inorganic trace mineral products received them as sulfates and sodium selenite, respectively.

The level of mineral supplementation also varied between treatment groups:

• In the pelleted feed, the organic trace mineral treatment included 25% less copper, 13% less manganese and 29% less zinc compared to the inorganic trace mineral treatment.
• In the free-choice mineral, the organic trace mineral treatment included 45% less copper, 32% less manganese and 46% less zinc than the inorganic trace mineral treatment.

The best mineral strategy for cattle is one that fits within the producer’s operation, based on their animal requirements and budget and the benefits provided from that mineral product. Organic trace minerals, such as Bioplex and Sel-Plex, are more bioavailable and, as a result, can be added at much lower inclusion rates than the traditional inorganic sources, which not only benefits the environment but, ultimately, the health, well-being, reproductive performance and growth of the animals as well.

Effects of trace mineral source on colostrum

The University of Florida trial revealed that colostrum from lactating cows supplemented with organic trace mineral supplement sources contained 29% more immunoglobulin M (IgM mg/dL) antibodies compared to cows supplemented with inorganic trace minerals (P= 0.07). Cows supplemented with the organic trace mineral sources Bioplex and Sel-Plex also demonstrated significantly higher levels of selenium measured in colostrum —and Angus cows specifically had twice as much selenium compared to their inorganic counterparts (P ≤ 0.001).

The study results also showed that the somatic cell counts (SCC) of the colostrum from Angus cows fed organic trace minerals were 67% lower than the SCC of the colostrum from cows fed inorganic trace minerals. Additionally, Brangus cows fed organic trace minerals had 14.6% lower SCC compared to cows fed inorganic trace minerals.

Effects of maternal mineral nutrition on calf weight and antibody levels

As the study progressed, the researchers at the University of Florida observed that calves from cows fed the organic trace mineral sources (Bioplex and Sel-Plex) showed a statistically significant increase in their average daily gains, weaning weights and 205-day adjusted body weights compared to calves fed inorganic trace mineral sources (P ≤ 0.01).

Calves from cows who were supplemented with Bioplex- and Sel-Plex- had 205-day adjusted body weights that were, on average, 22 pounds heavier compared to the weights of calves from cows that were provided with inorganic sources (P ≤ 0.01). Specifically, Angus calves supplemented with Bioplex and Sel-Plex minerals were 33 pounds heavier (205-day adjusted weaning weights) compared to calves from Angus cows supplemented with inorganic trace mineral sources.

The researchers also measured immunoglobulin levels and found that the immunoglobulin A (IgA mg/dL) antibody measurements for calves from cows supplemented with organic trace minerals Bioplex and Sel-Plex demonstrated a statistically significant (40.5%) increase in calf serum 24 hours after colostrum consumption compared to calves from cows provided with inorganic trace mineral sources (P = 0.04).

Bioplex^® offers a range of trace minerals that provide mineral nutrition in a form as close to nature as possible. Bioplex minerals are trace minerals that are bound to amino acids and a range of peptides. They are easily absorbed and readily metabolized, optimizing animal performance. Bioplex trace minerals (including zinc, manganese, copper, iron and cobalt*) are co-factors in the enzymes that are critical for the animal’s defense system, growth and reproduction. Learn more about Bioplex here.

Sel-Plex^® is Alltech’s proprietary organic form of selenium yeast. It is an excellent dietary source of selenium and is manufactured to mimic the selenium found in nature. The selenium in Sel-Plex is safer and better able to meet the higher requirements of livestock raised for rapid growth, reproductive performance and health. Learn more about Sel-Plex here.

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

New service outlet network underlines KEENAN’s commitment to farmers “Never Missing a Feed”

[LEXINGTON, Ky.] – Noted Irish diet feeder manufacturer KEENAN has been building an impressive presence in North America since it was acquired by global nutrition company Alltech in spring 2016. With a new dealer and service network that includes four retail operations throughout Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Nebraska and South Dakota, its support of U.S. farmers is gaining further strength.

Unique in the rumen friendly mix it produces, KEENAN machines have helped farmers around the globe achieve consistent performance. KEENAN provides technology to increase on-farm productivity and maximize feed efficiency, with global results showing an average increase of 200 grams per head per day in beef live weight gain and a 16 percent increase in milk production, all achieved with less feed.

In addition to the performance benefits of KEENAN feeders, the machines have long been a popular choice with farmers due to their reliability, durability and ease of maintenance.

Working with technology leader Intel, KEENAN has also developed a smart, connected and secure technology called InTouch. Data is fed back from the farm wirelessly to an expert team of nutritionists who can monitor feed efficiency parameters and adjust diets in real time.

“At KEENAN, we endeavor to ensure that our customers ‘Never Miss a Feed,’ and this promise is proven daily on farms throughout the U.S.,” said Dan Gard, KEENAN North America sales manager. “These machines are providing excellent levels of service while producing a consistent ration to maximize livestock performance.”

KEENAN’s new dealer and service network will help to ensure that farmers working with KEENAN have the highest level of access to support, service and the dedicated expertise of the KEENAN team.

“Our new retailers have been chosen for their excellence, their understanding of what sets KEENAN apart and a strong commitment to bringing the performance benefits and reliability of the KEENAN system to farmers in Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin and into Nebraska and South Dakota,” said Gard.

J. P. Scherrman, Inc., Nelson Farm Supply, Post Equipment and Terra Products Co. are now positioned to support farmers in the Midwest.

Approved KEENAN service outlets:

J. P. SCHERRMAN, INC.

Covering Northeastern Iowa, Northwestern Illinois, Southwestern Wisconsin and Southeastern Minnesota

Tel: 1-800-373-0625

Email: pauls@jpscherrman.com

1350 1st Avenue NW

Farley, IA 52046

www.jpscherrman.com

NELSON FARM SUPPLY

Covering Southwestern Iowa

Tel: 1-800-772-6184 or 1-712-755-3115

Email: tberndt@fmctc.com

1410 Hwy 44 East

Harlan, IA 51537

www.nelsonfarmsupply.com

POST EQUIPMENT

Covering Northwestern Iowa, Northeastern Nebraska, Eastern South Dakota and Southwestern Minnesota

Tel: 1-712-476-4500

Email: dkoenen@postequip.com

2553 320th Street

Rock Valley, IA 51247

www.postequip.com

TERRA PRODUCTS CO.

Covering Southeastern Iowa, Northern Missouri and West Central Illinois

Tel: 1-319-723-4234

Email: dbuline@terraproco.com

340 Main Street

Nichols, IA 52766

www.terraproco.com