According to the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate change is widespread, rapid and intensifying. As the agriculture industry takes a leadership role in reducing its carbon footprint, are there additional opportunities within the report? David Butler, head of sustainability at Alltech, joins the Ag Future podcast to unpack the implications of the IPCC's findings, explain how it may be used to guide policies, and explore the key takeaways for the agri-food sector. 

The following is an edited transcript of the Ag Future podcast episode with David Butler hosted by Tom Martin. Click below to hear the full audio or listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Tom Martin:            Welcome to Ag Future, presented by Alltech. Join us as we explore the challenges and opportunities facing the global food supply chain and speak with experts working to support a Planet of Plenty^TM.

                                 I’m Tom Martin, and I’m joined by David Butler, head of sustainability at Alltech. David helps set the company’s commitments and goals to be more sustainable across the more than 120 countries in which the company operates.

                                 A global business must be on top of global dynamics, and among them, of course, is climate change. And recently, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raised the alarm to a new and higher level with a report titled, “Climate Change: Widespread, Rapid and Intensifying”. And that’s our focus.

                                Welcome, David.

David Butler:           Thanks, Tom. It’s great to be here.

Tom Martin:            And so, basics first, David. What is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

David Butler:            Well, it’s an international organization that was set up by the United Nations way back in 1988. And it’s made up of representatives from 195 nations. And it’s their job to keep policymakers up to date on the science related to climate change so they have the information they need to make effective policies.

                                And the IPCC does not conduct climate science; they — the representatives enlist hundreds of scientists in the field who volunteer their time to review all of the existing scientific papers and produce these assessments.

Tom Martin:            Well, if you would, bring us up to speed on those assessment reports. What do they cover?

David Butler:            Well, the reports are designed to provide, you know, the scientific basis for governments to develop their policies, as I mentioned. And they’re also the foundation for negotiations at the U.N. Climate Conference. So, this will be central to the next conference, which is coming up in Glasgow in the fall. And they provide the information that the policymakers need, but they don’t tell policymakers what policies they need to put in place to accomplish the goals.

                                 So, the assessments have three parts, and the report that just came out a couple of weeks ago is the first of those three parts. It’s focused on the current science of climate change, which has advanced quite a bit since the last report came out.

                                 And then, the next two reports will be out early next year. The second one will deal with impacts, adaptation and vulnerability to climate change. And the third report will deal with mitigation, or how to combat climate change.

Tom Martin:            This most recent report that we’re talking about now notes changes in the earth’s climate in every region and across the whole climate system. How does this report differ from others that have come before it?

David Butler:            Well, first, I want to mention how amazing it is to me that they’re even able to produce this report, because there are hundreds of scientists that work on it, and they have to come to an agreement on all of the language in the report. And then, they have to agree with 195 representatives from the member countries. And so, that — it’s amazing that they can, you know, agree on such a massive document and all of the statements that come out in the report.

And I think, in the past, you know, that — the fact that they, they all had to be in agreement meant that the language in the report was very, very cautious. And so, you know, if there was a 90% likelihood of something happening, they would use words like “likely” or, you know, “somewhat certain”. They would use very cautious language. But in this report, they used words like “unequivocal”; you know, it is an established fact. They say things like that.

So, the science is much more defined than it was, and there’s really no doubt anymore that climate change is here, it’s happening now, (and) it’s caused by humans, primarily from burning fossil fuels.

Tom Martin:            What does this report tell us about our climate situation now (and) where we’re headed in the short term?

David Butler:           Well, let me read you the very first point in the summary. It kind of says it all:

                               “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.”

                                So, basically that’s saying there is no time left to wait, unless — and they go on to say, “unless there are immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting warming to close to 1.5 degrees (Celsius) or even 2 degrees (Celsius) will be beyond reach.”

Tom Martin:            What, according to the scientists who’ve contributed to the IPCC report, needs to happen in agriculture to help put the brakes on these climate changes?

David Butler:            Well, certainly, agriculture, like every other industry, has its own environmental footprint. The thing about agriculture is that a lot of our footprint is related to methane emissions. And the report goes into great detail about the impact of methane. And that’s really the first time that one of these reports has taken such a close look at methane.

                                 Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO₂. And it’s also very short-lived in the atmosphere; it only lasts about ten years, as opposed to potentially thousands of years for CO₂. So, that means that, if we reduce it, then we can get a pretty quick impact on climate change. So, it’s a big problem, because it’s a very big greenhouse gas, but it’s also a part of the solution.

                                 And although the report doesn’t make specific recommendations and it doesn’t tell agriculture what to do, it does highlight the importance of dealing with methane as soon as possible.

Tom Martin:            Well, agriculture has been taking a lot of the blame as a significant source of methane. I think the IPCC report found that atmospheric concentrations of methane are at their highest level in 800,000 years and that lowering methane emissions is the best option to fight climate change. But how do you see that influencing ag policy?

David Butler:            That’s a great question, Tom. And right now, in Congress, they’re working on budget reconciliation, and in the proposal, there are a lot of climate policies. And there is possibly a methane polluter fee. And as far as I can tell, that is focused on leakage from the natural gas industry and should not affect agriculture.

But certainly, agriculture is a source of methane, and we need to think about what happens down the road at some point — if there are methane policies that impact agriculture, what would those be, how would that affect the industry, and would they work or not?

Tom Martin:            Speaking, David, of legislation before Congress, earlier this summer, the U.S. Senate passed the Growing Climate Solutions Act. And it’s now before the House, where it’s been since about June; (it) seems to be kind of stalled there at the moment. But the bill is supposed to make it easier for farmers, ranchers and other rural landowners to generate carbon credits by reducing their carbon footprint and, then, to sell those credits to companies interested in offsetting their emissions.

And this ag carbon credit market is kind of in its beginnings and is in its developmental stages, but as we await some clarity there, for things to shake out, for it to form fully, what are some of the ways that agriculture could reduce emissions and sequester carbon?

David Butler:            You know, like all industries, agriculture needs to start out by reducing our own emissions. And so, at the most basic level, that means that we need to switch over to renewable energy and get off of fossil fuels. And every industry needs to do that.

                                 But we also have an opportunity to reduce methane emissions from livestock, and we can go into more detail about the possible methods for doing that, but there is a lot of research going on there, there is a lot of potential for doing that. I think that’s very exciting.

                                 And then, some methane emissions come from manure, so we can put into place technologies to help with manure management. There are different ways to store manure, separate it and run it through anaerobic digestion, a big — sometimes they’re called biogas reactor methane digesters. And those allow you to produce as much methane as possible and then take that methane and use it as renewable natural gas or, in fact, burn it to generate electricity. So, that’s much better than releasing the methane into the atmosphere.

And then, we also need to explore agri-voltaics. And that’s simply just putting solar panels on agricultural land in such a way that it can still be useful farmlands. So, if you — if you put the panels on racks that are high enough, you can grow crops or graze animals underneath them, and they might be a little more spaced out than they would be if you have a solar farm, but you’re still getting the agricultural value out of that land instead of converting it into a solar farm. And I think that’s really important, especially as we need to feed more people.

Tom Martin:            So, this implies a lot of gearing up, a lot of retrofitting — changes that will have to be made to accommodate carbon sequestration and, as you say, renewable energy. All that costs money. What might be some sources of funding for all these changes?

David Butler:            Well, as you mentioned, you know, carbon markets are going to mature, probably over the next decade. And that could certainly be a big source of income, because there are industries — like the fossil fuel industry and the airline industry and some heavy-manufacturing industries — where it’s going to be really hard and take a very long time for them to come up with technologies to reduce their emissions. And in fact, the fossil fuel industry, they can never reduce the emissions of their products. You know, they’re going to have to reinvent themselves.

                                So, in the meantime, those industries will need to buy carbon offsets so that they can reduce the impact of what they’re doing. So, a lot of money will be flowing out of those industries, and hopefully, a lot of that money will go into agriculture to help farmers be part of the solution for climate change.

Tom Martin:            I don’t know that this is necessarily on the horizon in this country — maybe it is — but what, David, is likely to happen if governments take actions to reduce livestock numbers to reduce methane emissions?

David Butler:           That is an excellent question. I think it’s kind of, you know, that’s what’s on everybody’s minds: Will we come up with caps for livestock?

                                I don’t think that that would work. And the reason is that, you know, it would have to be on a country-by-country basis if there were limits on livestock. We don’t have a world government, so nobody can say, “This is how many livestock are going to be produced in the world.”

                                So, let’s say that the U.S. put a limit on the number of cattle. Well, that’s not going to change the demand for beef or dairy, so you would have to import those animals, and they would most likely come from Brazil, which could involve further deforestation of the Amazon or conversion of other ecosystems in Brazil. And that, combined with the transportation, could actually create a bigger carbon footprint than you had before.

Tom Martin:            Lots of complications in this issue. Is there already evidence that the agriculture industry is taking on a leadership role on climate change?

David Butler:            Absolutely. The U.S. dairy industry has a net-zero initiative with the goal of achieving that, zero emissions, by 2050. And there are many companies that are signed up to support that.

                                 And the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association recently came out with the carbon neutrality announcement, also for 2050. So, more and more companies are working in this direction, and the industry, as a whole, is moving in that direction.

Tom Martin:            Well, David, as I mentioned in the introduction, you are the head of sustainability at Alltech, and so you must have a very large plate (of responsibilities), I would imagine. And I’m just wondering: What sorts of projects related to climate change are currently on that plate?

David Butler:            Well, I work with several teams across the company. So, I want to mention a couple of their projects first.

Alltech E-CO₂ is a subsidiary that Alltech has that works with farmers to help measure and reduce their carbon footprint. And so, they’re growing and getting projects all over the world. There’s more and more demand for that. And they help farmers, in a lot of different ways, identify how they can reduce that carbon footprint. So, that’s really important.

                                 And then, our research and technical teams are working on a lot of exciting projects right now to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts from livestock production in general, but especially from ruminants. And some of those other environmental impacts include nutrient pollution, like nitrogen and phosphorus runoff in water or mineral contamination in soil and water. And so, I think that’s really exciting.

                                 But my team’s main focus, right at the moment, is working on our transition to renewable energy. And we began installing solar at some of our facilities. The first facility to have a solar ray is our plant in Serdán, Mexico. And those panels will be operating very soon.

                                 And we’re looking at energy efficiency improvements in our facilities, and we’re looking at purchasing renewable energy from solar developers through power purchase agreements as well.

Tom Martin:           What are some various ways to reduce the carbon footprint of cattle?

David Butler:             As you probably know, the big problem with cattle is that they produce methane when they digest grass and other kinds of fiber. And that happens because in their rumen, there are a number of different types of microbes that help to break down the cellulose in that plant matter. And some of those microbes produce methane. And interestingly, the same thing happens when termites eat wood.

So, that methane, when it’s produced by cattle, that’s not a good thing for the farmer. It’s actually kind of a waste product; it’s lost energy. It would be better if the cow was not producing methane and if the rest of that energy from, from the carbon and hydrogen bonds went into helping the cow grow.

                                So, agriculture is working on a lot of different ways to try to combat this problem. And it can help farmers be more profitable at the same time that it reduces the amount of methane that we produce. So, one way to do that is (to) improve the efficiency of ruminants by making them — making them healthier and giving them better nutrition. And, you know, the more milk that they produce from the same number of cattle, or the more meat they produce, then you have less methane per gallon of milk or per pound of meat.

Many of our products do just that. They improve the performance and productivity of livestock, which means it takes fewer animals to produce the same amount of food. So, that reduces the overall environmental footprint of livestock, including greenhouse gas emissions.

And beyond that, there’s a lot of work being done on feed additives and ingredients that show promise for reducing methane emissions from cattle and other ruminants. And people are looking into breeding cattle that can produce less methane.

                                So, at Alltech, we’re doing all kinds of research in this area and making great progress on finding solutions. And I think that it’s probably comforting for people to know that this is a problem for agriculture, too, just from a productivity standpoint, and that we want to solve that, and there are a lot of people working on that.

Tom Martin:            You’ve touched on solutions that are in discussion, research and development, and in practice at Alltech. What else could agriculture do, in general, to combat climate change?

David Butler:            Well, you know, farmers have been recycling biomass for thousands of years, right? Nothing is wasted on the farm. Manure is used as fertilizer and, you know, crop waste, like corn stalks, (is) used as food for animals.

So, farmers are kind of like recyclers within the carbon cycle, right? They — everything they do revolves around the carbon cycle. I would like to see the agriculture industry take leadership of that and kind of help to transition us to a circular carbon economy.

And right now, an incredible amount of biomass goes into landfills or gets incinerated every year, and that’s a huge waste of nutrients and carbon. So, I’m talking about food waste, yard waste, wood waste and sewage sludge that all end up in landfills or are incinerated.

                                 And if you can imagine, we could take all of that organic matter, that biomass, and reuse it or recycle it in some way. Some things can become animal feed, some things can become compost, and other things can go into anaerobic digesters to produce natural gas or renewable electricity.

                                 And then, at the end of that cycle, everything else can go into biochar. And that’s a big topic, maybe for another day: What is biochar? We could talk about that for two hours.

Tom Martin:            Can you just give us a quick definition of that?

David Butler:            Yeah, sure. So, if you take organic matter — it could be wood chips, it could be straw, it could be manure — and you heat it without oxygen, you’re essentially baking it. It’s called paralysis. And (if) you drive off almost all the hydrogen and the oxygen, and you’re just left with this kind of crystalline carbon. And if you put that carbon in the soil, or if you use it in manufacturing of some other product, like roadways or plastics or concrete, then you’re pulling that carbon out of the carbon cycle, and so, you’re sequestering it. And it can last in the soil for hundreds and thousands of years. And that’s a great way to draw down carbon from the atmosphere.

Tom Martin:            It’s all so interesting, and we’ll revisit (this topic) over time. David Butler, head of sustainability at Alltech. We thank you so much, David.

David Butler:           Yeah. Thank you, Tom.

Tom Martin:            I’m Tom Martin. Thanks for listening. This has been Ag Future, presented by Alltech.

                                Thank you for joining us. Be sure to subscribe to Ag Future wherever you listen to podcasts.

As a fifth-generation rancher, BEEF blogger and speaker, Amanda Radke has dedicated her career to serving as a voice for beef producers in the United States. Amanda joined our expert panel during Alltech's affiliated session at the UN Food Systems Pre-Summit to provide a beef producer's perspective on the future of protein security. Today, she joins us on the Ag Future podcast to discuss a range of topics, including consumer misconceptions, ag literacy and beef's role in feeding our planet while conserving the Earth's natural resources.

The following is an edited transcript of the Ag Future podcast episode with Amanda Radke hosted by Tom Martin. Click below to hear the full audio or listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Tom:                        Welcome to AgFuture, presented by Alltech. Join us as we explore the challenges and opportunities facing the global food supply chain and speak with experts working to support a Planet of Plenty.

                                 I’m Tom Martin, and with me is Amanda Radke, a fifth-generation cattle rancher from Mitchell, South Dakota, who has dedicated her career to serving as a voice for the nation’s beef producers. She travels the country speaking to agricultural groups about hot industry topics — (and was) included the (lineup for the) 2020 Alltech ONE Ideas Conference, as a matter of fact.

                                 Amanda also is a blogger for Beef Magazine, providing timely industry news week by week, and she joins us to talk about a recent experience as a panelist at an Alltech-sponsored conference leading up to the U.N. Food System Summit, where she brought a producer’s perspective to an important discussion about the efficient use of resources.

                                Welcome to AgFuture, Amanda.

Amanda:                  Well, thanks for having me.

Tom:                        The panel that you participated in looked at the future of protein security and how to maximize the efficiency of production resources without unintended social, cultural and environmental consequences. You were the only producer on that panel. And, first of all, I’m wondering if you went into the discussion anticipating having to defend production practices.

Amanda:                  Yeah. I kind of chuckled because I felt, “Oh, I’m missing the ‘Ph.D.’ behind my name. I’m not sure if I’m qualified to speak on this.” And, you know, the Alltech folks assured me, “No, no, we want someone that’s actually, you know, managing the land and taking care of the cattle and can offer that perspective.”

                                 And so, I was really proud to be able to represent beef producers from here and around the world and highlight some of the things that we already do very well in regards to managing our land and responsibly taking care of our natural resources and creating a product that is not only nutritious but that is a sustainable part of a healthy diet.

Tom:                        Well, as a matter of fact, I know that you did do your homework. Prior to the panel discussion, you asked federal ranchers, through your blog, what they would tell the U.N. about beef production. Could you share some of the more useful feedback that you got from that?

Amanda:                  Absolutely. I definitely wanted to crowdsource on this as I prepared for the presentation, because producers know best. And, really, what I wanted to highlight — and what seemed to be a common theme from the responses — was (that) ranchers uniquely match, you know, their production practices to their environmental landscape that they’re working with.

                                 And so, for example, what I can grow here in South Dakota might be different than someone could grow in, you know, California or Africa or somewhere else entirely. And that’s really the beauty of beef cattle, is that they fit into this mix when we’re talking about environmental management and production practices, because they can utilize land that would otherwise, you know, sit barren and go to waste.

Tom:                        The pre-summit event featured a lot of talk around things like greenhouse gas emissions, (which are) certainly top of mind these days, with the latest U.N. report telling us that the situation maybe more pronounced and maybe even more dire than we thought. But you chose to focus on real-world ranching applications that folks should know about. And from your perspective, is there a disconnect between what producers know and what the rest of the world perceives about beef production?

Amanda:                  Yes. (For) the producers, it’s rather frustrating to see the beef cow take the brunt of the discussion on climate change, because the fact of the matter is is that, you know, here in the United States, the U.S. beef industry contributes 3.4% of total greenhouse gas emissions, according to the EPA. And Frank Mitloehner, who we know very well as an expert in greenhouse gas emissions from UC Davis, he has said if every American were to go meatless on Mondays, as suggested, to help save the planet, it would only reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 0.26%.

                                 And so, the reality is is that we can’t eat our way out of climate change, and simply giving up a burger isn’t going to move the needle in any significant direction. And just on the food side of things, one thing I’d like to tell people is, if they truly want to make a dietary change to help the planet, we need to be focusing on food waste and respecting our harvest, because 40% of what we grow in the United States ends up in landfills.

                                 And so, if we can respect the harvest, reduce waste and focus on waste (so) that we can redistribute some of this abundance and get it to people who need it the most, that’s truly what I would like to focus on — outside of, you know, what I’m doing on the ranch and raising beef cattle.

Tom:                        You mentioned diet. How is our world diet changing with respect to protein?

Amanda:                  You know, I see this huge push for us to go to, you know, plant-based proteins or eating cricket protein powder or cicadas and other, maybe, things that we’re not used to having on our plates here in the United States. But yet, the global consumer is saying, “We want something else,” and what they want is more animal protein.

So, global meat consumption is expected to increase 1% in 2021, which is really exciting stuff, because producers, I think, are up to the challenge and the task of feeding a hungry planet. And as the middle class is growing around the world and people have more disposable income to spend on food, the first thing that they’re wanting to do is update their — their bean-and-rice diet and add some meat to their plates.

                                 And so, again, I think we are up for the challenge. We can produce more beef today using pure and natural resources than ever before, and so, it’s an exciting time. And I think, as long as we can curtail some of the regulatory burdens and media campaigns that seek to paint meat in a bad light, the sky is the limit for livestock producers in what they’re going to be able to achieve in the coming years.

Tom:                        In a synopsis of the panel discussion, Alltech suggested that calls for reductions in animal agriculture could actually create a protein deficit that, due to the limitations of available arable land and water, can’t be overcome by growing crops. Are the implications of this trend not fully understood or recognized by consumers, do you think?

Amanda:                  Absolutely. You know, looking at my pastures here in South Dakota, they are steep and they’re hilly, and we get dry, and we absolutely could not plow up these lands and grow anything else. But what we can do is put ruminant animals like beef cattle on the ranch, and they can graze the grass, and when they do that, they’re doing a lot of important things. They are aerating the soil with their hooves. They are naturally fertilizing it with their manure. They are protecting the landscapes, which keeps a cover on it with those native grasses that have grown here for a hundred-plus years. And those grasses have roots that extend down tens of feet into the soil, so they’re capturing carbon by maintaining that grass.

                                 They’re also protecting wildlife habitats as well, because when you (cover) that up, the deer and the rabbits and the other little wildlife pastures are suddenly misplaced. And then, ultimately, they can take this grass, these grasses, and they can convert it into nutrient-dense beef. And on top of that, they’re reducing the spread of wildfires because they are eating the brush and eliminating that dead brush and promoting new growth.

And I could go on and on. But this phenomenon that we see — that cattle do with this grass one — is an important piece, because we simply think that we can replace it and do something else, but truly, that beef cow does something very unique and very important to managing our natural resources and producing enough to adequately provide for humanity.

Tom:                        Well, from your perspective as a producer, what do you wish consumers understood about the difference between protein derived from meat versus that derived from plants?

Amanda:                  I’m really proud to raise beef that is jam-packed full of nutrients. And so, the nutrients found in beef are very bioavailable, meaning they are readily absorbed by the body. Beef includes ten central nutrients, including zinc, iron and protein.

                                 And what’s really cool about beef is a 3-ounce serving provides 180 calories. And in that 180-calorie serving, you get 25 grams of protein. Now, to get that same amount of protein from a plant-based source, like broccoli or peanut butter or quinoa, you’d have to eat several cups or 600-plus calories of these feed item or food items to get that same 25 grams of protein.

                                 And so, calorie for calorie, (beef) is truly a super food, and that’s where it gets really frustrating when we talk about eliminating meat from the equation, because it simply ignores the fact that it is a nutritious, wholesome food product that benefits people here and around the world as far as providing, you know, adequate protein to meet their needs.

Tom:                        In a synopsis of the panel discussion, Alltech suggested that calls for reduction in animal agriculture could create a protein deficit that due to the limitations of available arable land and water cannot be overcome by growing crops. Are the implications of this trend not fully understood or recognized by consumers?

Amanda:                  Yeah. I think that is a big misconception that people have, that we can simply replace animal agriculture and, you know, plow the land and plant something entirely different. And the reality is that there’s a large percentage of land around the world that is too steep, hilly or rocky for modernizing or farming. And so, what my cattle can do — and cattle around the world can do — is they can go into these steep and rocky and hilly landscapes — for example, like the rolling hills outside my back window here in South Dakota that are home to native grasses that have been growing here for hundreds of years — and they can go into that landscape, and they can graze the brush, which reduces the spread of wildfires and promote new growth. They aerate the soil with their hooves. They naturally fertilize these lands with their manure. And they protect the wildlife habitat simply by maintaining that grassland. And on top of that, they can upcycle the cellulosic material that is grass, and they can convert it into that nutrient-dense beef.

                                 And so, cattle and ruminant animals really play a critical role in utilizing these lands that would otherwise go wasted. And so, it is truly a beautiful thing to see, and I wish every consumer had the opportunity to visit a cattle ranch and see cattle in action on the ranch amidst the wildlife and the rolling hills and see what they can do to really, really make the most out of the landscape.

Tom:                        That’s what the animals can do. In what ways have cattle ranchers excelled in conserving resources?

Amanda:                  There are so many principles of soil health that we follow that aren’t celebrated or aren’t greatly understood or even acknowledged as being not just sustainable but truly improving the landscape, year after year.

                                 And so, some of these principles of soil health that we follow is, you know, trying to mimic nature and keeping a cover on the soil as much as we can. And so, not only by maintaining grasslands do we do that, but on our crop fields, where we might plant corn, in between the corn rows, we’re planting what’s called cover crops, which includes a variety of plants, like radishes, turnips, alfalfa, etc. And then, after the fall harvest, when we’ve harvested that corn, our cattle can go in and graze the cover crops, as well as the corn stalks, and it becomes a really great cycle where we’re adding nitrogen back to the soil and we’re creating feed for our cattle, and then, our cattle are then fertilizing our cornfields as well.

                                 We plant — we not only do those kinds of things, but we practice things like rotational grazing, where we create smaller paddocks in our pastures, and we’ll move the cows from paddock to paddock in order to avoid overgrazing and to stimulate new growth and allow for some of that, (for) those plants to recover after the cattle have come through and grazed.

                                 Farther out West, where pastures are large and it’s a little bit tougher to practice rotational grazing, producers will do a lot of things, like piping water so that cattle can move to different places in their pastures and utilize those grasslands even more than they normally would.

                                 And then, we’re very conscious of the wildlife that live here, and so, understanding that we’re providing a home for these wildlife — and on a given day, we can see anything from hawks to fish to bumble bees and everything in between. It truly is a beautiful thing to see. And like I said, the production practices that ranchers already employ on their farms are really worth celebrating and taking a closer look at.

Tom:                        You know, it seems as though we can’t talk about anything these days without COVID-19 coming up somehow. And I’m wondering: What are some important ways that the pandemic has impacted ranching and beef production?

Amanda:                 You know, 2020 was pretty difficult for animal agriculture. I had friends in the pork industry that had to euthanize their animals because the processing plants had slowed down their lines or shut down entirely. Folks had nowhere to go with their animals. This was a true tragedy, not only from the producers’ standpoint and the financial loss and the loss of life without, you know, being able to respectfully utilize these animals, but on the other side, it also just was a waste to (not be able to) provide that meat for consumers.

                                 We also saw shortages in the grocery store, you know, whether it was toilet paper or meat and dairy products. All of a sudden, consumers were seeing — maybe for the first time — that their favorite products or brands weren’t always available, because of, you know, COVID supply chain disruptions.

                                 And so, I truly think, while it was a difficult time and has been and continues to be challenging in a lot of ways, (it is) also a unique opportunity for ranchers and farmers to connect with consumers in brand new ways. For example, I’ve seen a lot of producers find great success selling their beef direct to consumers and educating them for the first time, you know, (or people buying) a quarter or half of beef and buying bulk and filling their freezers to stockpile, you know, for the year so that they’re good during an emergency, when the grocery stores might be short.

                                 And so — not only that, but consumers are suddenly wanting to ask more questions, and they’re wanting to go directly to the producer to ask those questions. And so, I think, in agriculture, we can continue to be a transparent and authentic resource that’s readily available to answer their questions. We can not only grow those relationships, but we can also start earning a premium for our products and start taking control of our markets and our ability to make money, even during difficult times.

Tom:                        (This question is) not related to the panel discussion that we’ve been talking about, but I know that this subject is important to you, Amanda, and that is ag literacy, especially among future generations of producers. Tell us about this concern.

Amanda:                  Yeah. You know, ten years ago, I started noticing that there weren’t a lot of agriculturally accurate books on the shelves. And what I mean by that is there’s plenty of farm books out there, and there’s plenty of movies, too, for kids, but they usually characterize the animal and give them the full range of motion and, you know, maybe the farmer or the rancher is the bad guy or the side character. And I really wanted to flip the narrative on that and highlight the farmer and the rancher and the animal caretaker and show their role in, you know, providing the essentials for these animals and taking care of the land and getting food to the table.

                                 And so, ten years ago, I wrote my first children’s book, titled “Levi’s Lost Calf,” and since then, I’ve had three more released, and I have two more in the works that will come out in 2021. And truly, the focus of these books is to counter the misconceptions that are out there and teach kids about where their food comes from and, ultimately, help to empower the next generation of consumers so that they truly understand and know about agriculture when they go to the grocery store to make purchasing decisions.

Tom:                        How can farm moms and dads out there find these books?

Amanda:                  They can visit Amazon; all my titles are (available) there. And they can also check out AmandaRadke.com — and I’d be delighted to work with farm groups or schools to also get books purchased in bulk to try to get to as many young people as we can in elementary schools as well.

                                So, feel free to reach out to me, and I’ll help you connect the right book to the right classroom. One story at a time, we will teach kids about where their food comes from.

Tom:                        And Amanda, I have to ask you this. I took a look at your itinerary. I know you’re the mother of three kids, I believe, right?

Amanda:                 Yes. Well, more, as foster parents, so, yeah, we have extras all the time on the farm.

Tom:                        And a rancher and a blogger. Do you ever get any sleep?

Amanda:                  [laughs] Not much sleep — and a lot of coffee.

Tom:                       [laughs] Amanda Radke, fifth-generation cattle rancher in South Dakota and a prolific voice for the nation’s beef producers. Thanks so much, Amanda.

Amanda:                 Yeah. Thanks so much for having me.

Tom:                       This episode of AgFuture has featured a discussion from the U.N. Food Systems Pre-Summit around ensuring food security for a rising population while protecting the earth’s natural resources. The pre-summit event was hosted by Alltech.

                                 Be sure to subscribe to AgFuture wherever you listen to podcasts.

                                 I’m Tom Martin. Thanks for listening.

In this episode of Ag Future, we revisit Alltech's affiliated session at the UN Food Systems Pre-Summit. Led by Dr. Vaughn Holder, ruminant research director at Alltech, the expert panel discussed ensuring food security for a rising population while protecting the earth's natural resources.

The following is an edited transcript of Alltech's affiliated session at the UN Food Systems Pre-Summit. Click below to hear the full audio or listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts or Spotify

Tom:                      Welcome to AgFuture, presented by Alltech. Join us as we explore the challenges and opportunities facing the global food supply chain and speak with experts working to support a Planet of Plenty.

                               The food we eat brings us together as families, communities and nations. It underpins our cultures, our economies and our relationships with the natural world. The U.N. Food Systems Pre-Summit was recently held to unleash the power of food to deliver progress on all 17 of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals.

                               Alltech was selected to host a session during the Pre-Summit event, which featured a robust panel discussion around ensuring food security for a rising population while protecting the earth's natural resources. The following is the audio recording of their conversation, which was led by Dr. Vaughn Holder, ruminant research director at Alltech.

Dr. Holder:             Well, welcome folks. It's 1:30 (p.m.) here Kentucky time, from sunny Kentucky, and welcome to you, whenever you are and from wherever you are. I guess there’s some “Good afternoons” and “Good evenings” at least, that I know of, but probably a few “Good mornings,” as well.

                               So, I really appreciate folks getting onto this call. It's probably a pretty important topic that we’re discussing today as a part of this United Nations Food Systems Summit. This is the Pre-Summit, and we're talking about pretty important conversations that affect the future of food production in this world. So, I very much appreciate (that) everyone is here because they want to contribute to this conversation.

                               So, I'm going to give you a couple of ground rules for the discussion today. There's going to be a completely open discussion in the chat. That's a place where we can have conversations about the topic today. Let's keep it kind and let's keep it civil in the chat. We’re all here for the same reason, although we may sometimes have opposing viewpoints. So, bear that in mind. If you do have specific questions for the speakers, please post those in the Q&A section. We will try to get to some of those at the end of the webinar today, but if not, certainly, those conversations can be carried on offline as well.

                               Finally, there will be a recording of this webinar available. We’ll probably send that out tomorrow morning, early Wednesday morning, so that will be available as well.

                               So, I’m Vaughn Holder. I'm the ruminant research director here at Alltech. We submitted these series of questions or this topic to the United Nations for consideration. I’m very happy to be discussing this here today.

                               So, this is the U.N. Food Systems Summit, obviously. And what’s the point of this whole thing? Well, we're talking about the future of food systems to deliver progress on all 17 of the Sustainable Development Goals, and those will (all) need to be considered for all factors of this conversation, but we will be focusing very much on the Zero Hunger goal as we talk about protein security, as well as good health and well-being and responsible production.

                               We’re all looking to make healthier and more sustainable and equitable food systems — and very importantly, this all has to be evidence-based and (can only be accomplished by) taking scientific approaches to these transformations. This is what we're trying to do: We’re trying to ensure that we can provide for the nearly 10 billion people that we expect to have on this planet in 2050. So, (that’s) no small task at hand for us. (These are) really important discussions, and it's taken seriously.

                               So, just to break down, very briefly, what the topic covers here, we’re talking about global resource use efficiency for protein production systems. We're talking, really, about using what we have available to us to create protein in the world. Right? We're talking about the fact that we only have one planet, we have limited resources on that planet, and how shall we be distributing the resources that we have available to us to best serve the food security of the future? That’s what it’s all about.

I’ve gathered a panel of people that are much more qualified than I to address this topic. We will go through them one by one. Sara Place, chief sustainability officer at Elanco Animal Health — welcome and thank you, Dr. Place. Dr. Tryon Wickersham from Texas A&M has studied protein metabolism almost all his life, I imagine. Welcome, Dr. Wickersham, and thank you. (Next), Amanda Radke — we wanted to have some representation from the producer side of things, (which is) very important, with so many people all over our planet being involved directly in production agriculture. But she’s also a very busy lady. She’s an author of materials online, of blogs, but is also a children’s author of very good children’s books. So, Amanda, thank you and welcome. And finally, Dr. Jude Capper, chair in sustainable beef production at Harper Adams (University) and a sustainability consultant. Again, welcome and thank you, Dr. Capper.

                               So, the point of this is to have a discussion and not a slideshow. So, I am going to discontinue those right now and will start the discussion. I think we talk a lot about that 9 or 10 billion people (who will be on the planet) in 2030, but I think it serves us well to start the conversation with where we actually are right now and understanding what protein security actually looks like in the world right now. It’s very important we start there before we start to decide how we want to change our production system.

                               So, Dr. Capper, if you would come off mute and start this discussion for us, please. Where do we sit as far as protein security? Do we have a false sense of security right now?

Dr. Capper:             That’s a really good question. Thank you. And it’s a real pleasure to be here and involved in this discussion today. Yeah. We’re at quite a crossroads now in terms of what we do, what we choose to eat. And from the start, I think it’s very clear that there is no one-size-fits-all (approach), whether we’re talking about global diet, starch-free choices or even production systems. Frankly, we’ve got as many livestock production systems in the world as, almost, we do producers. So, to assume that we’re just talking from a U.S. perspective, a European perspective, as I am at the moment, (that) is untrue. We have to think globally but act locally, as it were.

                               We certainly know, to be fair, that ruminant livestock do have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions. According to data from the FAO, for example, approximately 14.5% of our global greenhouse gas emissions come from ruminant livestock. But we’ve got to think a little bit more deeply than that and think about the nuances. So, for example, it’s important to recognize that a sizeable number of our global population rely on livestock absolutely for their income, for their health, for their education. So, we have billions of small holder farmers across the globe who absolutely rely on livestock. And livestock give us more than just food. So, obviously, they provide us with protein and energy and essential fatty acids and minerals, but they always, also, have huge roles in terms of byproducts, in terms of pharmaceuticals, manure, leather, etc., etc.

                               So, at the moment, we know that we have a sort of dichotomy going on. We have wealthier nations who could be considered to be consuming too much protein per person per day, whether animal or plant-based — just an overconsumption of food. And then we have a huge portion of the globe who have less food available, whether protein or not. And I guess what I would really like to see, going forward, is a recognition of two things. One — and I think Dr. Place is going to talk about this later — is the best use of land on a global basis, and livestock have a huge role to play in that, but also the recognition that the reason that we have livestock is to produce protein. And frankly, it makes me really angry when I see quotes all the time saying, “Livestock use X amount, but they only give us 12% of our calories,” or 20% of our calories, or 5% of our calories, depending who's quoting it. We need livestock for that high-quality, affordable protein — affordable, I should say, to many of us in the developed world. So, we’ve got to think about strategies and innovations across the globe that are appropriate and applicable to all livestock systems so that we can improve.

Dr. Holder:             Yeah. So, (there are some) really important conversations in there, and that’s usually the right metric, Dr. Capper, to measure these things, right? Because we often talk about producing a certain amount of food per amount of land or per amount of greenhouse gas or whatever it might be, but the amount of food is not necessarily what matters — the kilograms of food that’s produced. It’s about limiting nutrients, right?

                               And we’re focusing very much on protein right now. And when we correct — some of the papers that have recently come out (are) showing that when we correct for poor digestibility and poor amino acid composition in some of our plant proteins, we go from having a world that is mostly protein-secure to having 105 out of 190-something countries being protein-insecure at the current moment. So, I think these are important conversations: what metrics we use to discuss our food systems of the future. It's not necessarily how many kilos of a certain thing we can produce. We’re chasing nutrients. I think that’s important to discuss.

                               Dr. Place, something that Jude mentioned about this idea of humans and animals competing for the same food sources, obviously — because we do get the discussion coming on a lot of the time that, “Well, if we just repurpose the food that we’re giving to the animals, we could feed a lot more people with that.” You’ve looked at this pretty closely in some of your research and some of your work. Do you want to talk us through that a little bit, Dr. Place?

Dr. Place:                Yeah. Yeah. Thanks, Vaughn. And again, thanks for having me this afternoon, this evening. So, yeah, I think that’s a really great question and a fair critique that folks put forward, of “Hey, you know, let's think about this from a resource competition perspective and really dig into this idea of: Is there competition directly between animal feed and human food.” Right? This idea — could we nourish more people if we fed some of these plant sources that we’re feeding to animals to humans?

                               And so, if we take a step back and we look at that from a very large macro perspective — there's a nice analysis that was done by the U.N. FAO looking at this, (a study) of all domesticated terrestrial species, right, everything from poultry to sheep to cattle around the world, and analyzing: What is the actual global total amount of feed that these animals are consuming? It’s around 6 billion tons of dry matter every year. What they also found is that 86% of this is actually not directly in competition with human food. And so, there’s some interesting nuances there. One is that it varies depending on where you are. I think what you just mentioned is really, really important, right? We talk about these things at an aggregate level sometimes, and at a global level, and that’s good — it’s good to ground ourselves — but also, on the ground, realities can vary.

                               And the other thing is (that) this changes depending on what species we’re talking about, right? So, cattle, sheep and goats, the ruminant animals that tend to emit methane gas and tend to get more of the attention with regard to climate change, are actually also the animals that compete far less directly with human food. Right? (And) that's just because of their unique digestive system. The animals that tend to not emit methane, right, because of their digestive system — poultry species and swine — are the ones that compete more directly with human food just because they’re monogastric omnivores, simple-stomach omnivores, just like we are, right? And so, they tend to eat more high-quality protein sources directly that, potentially, could be competing with human food.

                               So, I think that's just that important nuance: that there is competition, but it's probably not (at) as high a degree as some folks think. And there is this variation across species. And I think the other part of that is when we think about that global amount of food, a lot of it is actually byproducts or coproducts of human food production. Right? There are so many examples all over the world.

                               If we were — just to think of an example, here in the United States, where we have a lot of dairy production, in the U.S., (in the) state of California, we also have a whole lot of crop agriculture that takes place in that state. So, everything from orange production to almond production and dairy production is happening right there. And what's interesting is all those industries are really tied together, right, where we have oranges that are going for orange juice and making citrus pulp as a byproduct, (and) that ends up in the diets of dairy cows. Or things like almond hulls, right? When we're processing almonds, whether people are eating them directly or producing almond milk, quite frankly. So, I think that's a great example of — I mean, sometimes, in our minds, (we) formulate these things as “either/or” when, really, they’re all connected, if that makes sense.

                               So, if we think about it from a sustainability perspective, it’s saying, “How (can) we strengthen those ties where it makes sense?” Because that is essentially cycling nutrients through the system. And that’s really one of those key benefits of having livestock in our food systems: They’re able to take the parts of plants that we cannot consume, that are human-inedible, and essentially upcycle them to higher-quality products, as was mentioned earlier — nutrient-dense foods — and extract more nutrients from those. And hopefully, we're able to tighten those nutrient cycles and minimize pollution, because that's what we're also concerned about as well.

Dr. Holder:             Yeah. It's a really good point on connecting these systems together. Sara, do you think that — you know, we’re sort of talking, as an industry, in terms of, “It’s plant ag versus animal agriculture,” and I think that we need to look at the fact that there's a place for both. We can get a significant proportion of our protein coming from plants directly, which is a very efficient way of doing it. I think animal protein can fill in some of those gaps in terms of nutrients that might be missing from a plant-based diet. And these things are compatible, I would say, rather than saying, “It's one or the other.”

                               But certainly, in terms of those raw materials that we’re utilizing — like, (if) we take all those raw materials off of the food production stage, we are going to end up being in a nutrient deficit as a planet, as a people. And (if) you take all that protein production off the table, I wonder what we might think of the consequences of some of those — where did those raw materials go, if we're not putting them into animal production? I wonder if you have any thoughts on that.

Dr. Place:                Yeah. So, I think that is a very good point, Vaughn, as we think about all these choices we can make, the consequences of different choices. So, my mind always goes to (the fact that) it's a mass balance. We're creating this certain amount of material, again, from the plants. Roughly, a global average ratio is for every 100 kilos of human food we get from crops, we generate 37 kilos of byproducts. So, the question is: What happens to those byproducts? Does it make sense to, in many cases, feed them to livestock and, again, essentially extract more energy and nutrients from that plant material (and) also generate manure that can then be used to cycle those nutrients back to crops? Or does it make sense to you to combust them or put them in a landfill or whatever the choices are?

                               So, I think it's all about those choices, and the right answers are going to be the same anywhere. But I think it's just good to ground ourselves in (the fact that) natural ecosystems don't typically just have plants; they have a whole bunch of trophic levels. The same is true in our agro ecosystems. That's why we have these things working together, quite frankly. And again, that nutrient density piece that you mentioned is super important. The proteins are not all equivalent across the board. I know we have more of an expert here that could speak on that in Dr. Wickersham than myself.

Dr. Holder:             Yeah. That’s a good transition, Sara, to Dr. Wickersham. Dr. Wickersham, you’ve studied protein metabolism quite intensely. And I've followed your career for a while, but (some) recent research you've been working on this concept of protein upcycling that ruminants do. Can you comment for us a little bit on looking at ruminants’ contribution to protein production and the unique way in which they do it? And perhaps also comment a little bit on what types of things do actually contribute to protein supply in our world and what types of things don’t.

Dr. Wickersham:      Thank you. Thanks for having me. When we look at ruminants, the real value they bring — and Dr. Place talked about this already, to some extent — is they can be low-quality sources of amino acids, so amino acids that don't necessarily meet human protein requirements for essential amino acids, or what are more recently being called digestible indispensable amino acids. And those cattle — or ruminants, to be specific — through their relationship with the microbes, can take nonessential amino acids, or even non-protein nitrogen, and the microbes in the rumen can convert that, and the animal can use that to synthesize meat protein or milk protein that we, as humans, can then consume. And those sources of protein are highly digestible and do a great job of meeting our amino acid requirements.

                               If you look at the FAO’s homework on amino acids and the Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Scoring System, you look at some cropping systems — like corn will be the primary example. They do a very poor job of less than 50 on the DIAAS score. Whereas, (when) you look at animal sources of proteins, they’re all in excess of 100, meaning they really positively contribute to our amino acid supply.

                               The other real big advantage about the production system is they can utilize grasslands as well as all the coproducts that Dr. Place talked to you about. Particularly in the United States, one of those will be distiller’s grains. So, whether you think (it’s) right or wrong, (the United States) creates a lot of fuel from corn, and a tremendous byproduct that we (would) have to eat a lot of would be distiller’s grains. (If) we're not feeding to ruminant animals, the other alternatives incur a large environmental cost in terms of burning them or using them for fuel or depositing them in landfills, so feeding them to ruminant systems really provides a lot of benefit.

                               The other thing to kind of think about is, when we think of protein supply, if you look — at least to my knowledge, most ecosystems are not nitrogen-limited, in general. And so, it's kind of fitting that when we look at human food supply, one of the challenges we have is deficient amino acids in our diet and meeting those amino acid requirements. So, really, any food source that can take low-value sources of nitrogen or can take nitrogen out of the air and convert that into something that humans can consume is a real benefit.

                               Consuming a mixture of plant and animal proteins probably provides the best way forward. And a diet that blends those two together well would be best for meeting people's amino acid requirements.

Dr. Holder:             Yeah. I'd say that's pretty important — and that metric, I think, applies to everything. We have to look at what is being used to produce the protein and whether it’s creating new protein or not. I think fermentation is one of the big ones, (and the fact that) this fermentation that occurs in the animals, which ruminants are able to harness very nicely, but there's also fermentation that we can harness the power of outside of animals to convert non-protein nitrogen to edible protein. So, those types of things are contributing to protein supply.

                               Obviously, nitrogen fixation is the big one in plants. The fact that plants can convert atmospheric nitrogen — with the help of some friends — to things that we can eat is, really, the source of most of our protein that we have available to us, whether it goes through an animal or not.

                               But I think that when we do consider the future of food production, I think these are the things we have to step back and say, “When we’re looking at the future of food production, do the things that we are proposing contribute to the protein supply that we have available to us on the planet, or are they repackaging existing protein from existing sources into another form?” Because that's fine, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. We do that in meal preparation all the time. But we need to not confound if that's not supplying additional protein.

Dr. Wickersham:      In the United States, we're probably one of the most dependent on human-edible sources of protein in our beef production system, for sure, anyway. When we look at the value of those systems, even in the United States, to contribute protein and non-protein contributions — remember, we use to measure that — and we generally get about three times as much protein out of that system — human-edible protein that’s a high-valuable source — than we put into it. So, basically, we’re going to return it 3:1, and that seems to be a real positive improvement.

                               In my opinion, the other thing is — the result of those feeding systems is (that) we decrease the amount of methane produced per kilo of product to your formulation (of a) better diet. That’s not to say every system needs to go to that, because not everybody has the resources, but it's something to keep in mind, is that repackaging you mentioned.

Dr. Holder:             No, that’s a great point. I want to shift gears for just a second and bring in a little bit of a human element into this. Amanda, you’re a rancher. You’re a beef producer. I want to get a little bit of your perspective, honestly. Dr. Place was saying 1.3 billion people in the world rely on agriculture either directly for nutrients or income. So, we're talking about a large human burden, if we're talking about removing animal production from our food systems. Can you talk a little bit about what sustainability means to you as a rancher and as a producer and the types of things you're doing to address and to look at your sustainability?

Amanda:                 Sure. Well, it’s a pleasure to be here representing the independent cattle-ranching community. I'm also a mom of four beautiful children who benefit from the nutrient-dense products that we raise here on our ranch. What sustainability means to me is, I guess, to be truly sustainable on the land. I think farmers and ranchers strive to be much more than that. We strive to utilize our natural resources to the best of our abilities. And one of the things that I hear from the ranching community is that they wish the naysayers could see it from our perspective. So, we can talk all day from the 30,000-foot view of what the future of food really looks like, but I think a better testimony would be if you could see what's outside my dining room window right here in South Dakota.

                               So, there's no-one-size-fits-all approach to producing food. There's not a one-size-fits-all approach to the best diet on the planet. And there’s certainly not a one-size-fits-all way to manage the land, because so much of the landscape is vastly different. So, what I can grow here on the rolling hills in South Dakota varies greatly from what can be grown on the California coast or somewhere all the way around the world.

And so, right here in South Dakota, like I said, we have rolling pasture hills with native grasslands that have been growing here for hundreds of years. The roots of these plants go down hundreds of feet, (and) that's capturing carbon; that's keeping cover on the soil. When cattle graze on my pastures here in South Dakota, they’re aerating the soil with their hooves. They're naturally fertilizing that landscape. They are part of that water cycle. They’re upcycling that cellulose material that would otherwise sit and be underutilized, and they are upcycling it into nutrient-dense beef and hundreds of life-enriching byproducts, as well, that would have a great environmental footprint if we were to replace these items with synthetic options.

Not only that, but any landowner understands that there are principles to maintaining soil health that we need to follow to maintain our landscapes. That includes maintaining soil covers. So, the fact that my pastures stay covered year-round, like I said, does capture that carbon, but it also protects wildlife habitats. (There is) limited disturbance, so minimizing tillage and trying to keep cover on that soil by planting cover crops — I can tell you it's an amazing thing to see, in between rows of corn, when you plant cover crops, which might be turnips and radishes, to see a cow go in and pick up a big turnip and eat it in the fall and know that they're adding nutrients to that cropland, as well, when they are eating some of these cover crops that are going in our fields.

                               Also, we believe in maintaining the diversity of the soil and mimicking nature as much as we can. So, that means cool- and warm-season grasses, broadleaf plants — again, those cover crops. And then we practice things like rotational grazing, where we try not to overgraze, so we will move cattle from paddock to paddock to promote new growth. And one thing that's not talked about enough is the fact that when there are ruminant animals on the landscape, they are reducing the dead brush, promoting new growth and, ultimately, reducing the spread of wildfires. And so, often, we make the mistake of thinking, if we leave the land alone and don't touch it, it would be better off environmentally. But when we can utilize the landscape by putting ruminant animals on these lands that are too steep, hilly or rocky for modernizing our farming, we can create and produce a nutrient-dense product that's packed full of protein and help to enhance human life around the world.

                               And so, the final note I want to share is that we're being told constantly that we can live without animal proteins, and yet, consumers around the world are expected to increase their meat consumption by 1%. And one thing I'm really mindful of, as a producer in the United States, is that around the world, where the growing middle class continues to expand to different places for the first time ever, what's the first thing people do when they have a little extra disposable income? They add animal fats and proteins to their rice-and-beans diets. Now, why is that? Because this is a rich source of protein.

                               So, I think, at the end of the day, farmers and ranchers are trying to serve people in the best way possible. And for us to maintain our freedoms to make the best dietary choices as individual, sovereign beings, we need to continue to have a wide variety of production practices, including beef production, to feed a hungry planet and meet the nutritional needs of people here and around the world.

Dr. Holder:             Yeah. Amanda, that's a great point that you make about nations, when they become more wealthy, is the fact that they start to look toward getting more animal-type proteins into their diets. And it makes a really good point, is that we’ve got to be really careful, because we’re typically discussing these types of topics — the U.N. Food Security Summit is looking at the future of food from the first-world countries’ perspective. I think we’re in a lot of danger of applying things that we might want to apply on first-world countries and the knock-on effects that they might have in some poorer countries.

                               I'm not going to put this to a specific person on our panel, but I'd be really interested in hearing (your) thoughts of how we take a summit like this and look at it more granularly. Jude, you spoke about thinking globally and applying it granularly on the ground. I mean, that’s obviously pretty important, because none of this stuff applies universally across these systems. The objectives are different across these systems. If I wanted to go vegetarian, I could afford to probably figure out what amino acids I might be missing and what macronutrients I might be missing and be able to balance the diet, but a lot of people don't have the means to do that in a lot of places. So, certainly, (I want to) open up this question to the panel and see (your thoughts on) how do we think about this in terms of — from an international perspective, from the U.N.'s perspective?

Dr. Capper:             If I can jump in here, I think that's a really, really good point. As we’ve seen from the chat, there are a lot of global languages (along the lines of) “Everybody knows this happens” and “Everybody knows that happens,” and it’s really, really important to do more research to understand (that) a livestock farmer in Kenya with two cows is absolutely not the same as a rancher with 1,000 cows. They’ve got different challenges. They’ve got different infrastructure. They’ve got different soils, different climate, different levels of income. Yeah. They’re all of these things.

                               I've done some work with some of the NGOs or charities that supply livestock and information tools and technologies to some of the smallholder farmers in the world, and the difference that a single cow can make is absolutely astounding. There's a quote that I often use that always makes, sort of, tears come to my eyes, to a certain degree, which is from a lady who was helped by the charity Send a Cow, and she's now about same age as me, and she’s a bank manager in Africa, but she says that she couldn't have become a bank manager, she couldn’t have got that job, she couldn’t have had that education, except for the fact that her family was given a dairy cow unit 20-odd years ago. So, just the income, the food, the improved health, the ability for those kids to go to school and get that education is absolutely huge. And we can’t ignore that based on the rhetoric that we apply to larger farms in more industrialized areas of the world.

                               And so, there is no one size fits all. There is no, “Oh, if you just do this, if you just feed this, if you just hole your soil like this, it will apply on every farm across the world.” It’s simply not possible. And so, one of the things that I would really like to see out of this summit — well, two things — one is the recognition that there are almost as many livestock farming systems in the world as there are livestock farms. You know, no two farms are the same. And therefore, we've got to find solutions, tools, technologies (and) management practices that can be applied across the globe with due regard for the culture, the region, the challenges, the climate, and then to have better outreach to apply them. Because if you're a farmer who doesn't have internet in Kenya, let's say, you can't just Google the best cows to have or the best way to apply my fertilizers. So, I think almost all of us on this are talking from a fairly privileged point of view, but we’ve got to think about it globally and then, as I say, act locally, have applicable appropriate solutions for every local farm in the world.

Dr. Place:                I would definitely agree with what you said. I think that’s what’s really key, is (that), sometimes, these discussions, they kind of devolve into the same talking points, and at the end of the day, it's like we forget that we share a tremendous amount in common. Everybody wants to, hopefully, have better development outcomes for people. At the end of the day, if we look at the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and think about what's really at heart in each one of those, there's a lot of agreement. And so, I think it's more of realizing there is no one answer, but also, livestock will be a part of the food system in 10 years, in 20 years and in 30 years. It is reality. So, how do we keep improving that system and hit on all those points that Jude just made, that the challenges in each area — everything from: How do you improve productivity in certain spaces? How do you improve people's incomes and livelihoods so they're not forced to make decisions that potentially lead to environmental degradation to take care of their family? The on-the-ground realities that some people are concerned about — that's not going to be solved just by, unfortunately, most likely, changing somebody's diet. It's going to be: How do you improve people's livelihoods where they’re at in all these different ways? And that is a bear of a challenge.

                               So, I think, coming out of this Pre-Summit, (one outcome), hopefully, is that recognition that, “Hey, there isn't going to be one solution. We agree on these high-level goals and recognize that how we're going to get there is going to be a whole bunch of different ways” — because what works for Amanda in South Dakota doesn't even work for a different rancher in the United States, because it's incredibly varied depending on what climate you have, what resources you have, etc., etc. So, that’s what’s really key here: it’s just recognizing the complexity of this and that it's just chock-full of value judgments. There is no single right answer in a lot of this.

Dr. Holder:             That's good point, Sara. And let’s, perhaps, change gears a little bit. You haven’t talked about the things that we can do. Obviously, you just indicated that those (options) are very wide and broad and varied. And as the agriculture animal science community are looking at, probably, a lot of these things that are applied differently in poorer countries than they do in (first-world countries) — maybe we should start there, Sara. Just to talk about the opportunities that we have for improving efficiency in the emerging markets and what that can actually do for the global efficiency and, also, the environmental credentials of livestock production.

Dr. Place:                Yeah. Right. There’s so many issues that fall under this really wide umbrella of sustainability. If we were to just narrowly focus, though, on greenhouse gas emissions for now — and as per the discussion, you know, what we know from the FAO, from their 2013 report tackling climate change through livestock, is that if we were able to take, essentially, the top tenth-percentile production practices and get those applied across the board (and) have that become the new global average of how we’re producing meat, milk and eggs around the world, we could actually lower greenhouse gas emissions (by) 30% and keep output constant.

                               So, what does that really mean in practical terms? It just means there's a big opportunity gap of just getting the things that we know how to do well to those folks on the ground and understanding: What are the real barriers? Because folks are just not doing these things voluntarily. There's barriers for why, but it's everything from how we make sure that we're delivering the right kind of feed to animals, improving their nutrition, their nutritional status — essentially, their welfare, because oftentimes, that's a hindrance for productivity of animals, and that is something that leads to more human nutrition but also (has) fewer environmental impacts per unit of milk, meat and eggs that we produce.

                               So, for example, there’s estimates that you lose essentially 20% of animal production around the world because of disease. So, everything from vaccinations, prevention and having that good nutritional health status, for example, is really, really important. (There are) so, so many examples there (of studies focused on this topic) — a lot of great work. I would tip my hat to the folks at, like, the Livestock Lab at University of Florida. They've done a lot of great work there just showing some simple ways of applying stuff that we kind of take for granted here in developed countries — technologies and innovations that we have readily available to us. How do we make sure that we can adapt that to other places in the world and improve their productivity, again, (and) hopefully have that whole benefit of livelihoods, nutrition and reducing environmental impacts all at the same time?

                               So, I think that's just one example. There's tremendous opportunity for us to lower environmental impacts and produce more high-quality nutrition for more people in the future.

Dr. Holder:             We share that, Dr. Place. Very well-said. Dr. Wickersham, do you want to talk about a little bit of the things — I know your program has focused somewhat on trying to reduce some of these emissions outputs. (Can you talk about) what's practical and what we've done, what we've accomplished, over the last few years? Any thoughts?

Dr. Wickersham:      So, I think it builds a lot on what Sara said. When you look at — even in the developing world, there's probably a greater response surface for improving sustainability or reducing methane emissions through some of the technologies we talked about, (such as) vaccination, improved reproduction.

                               One thing I’d like to address real quickly is whether or not the research is biased. And I guess, in my opinion — and it’s an opinion, as we’re offering opinions now — when I set about asking questions about the sustainability of beef cattle production systems in the United States, my goal is to — and sometimes, because I'm a rancher as well; we have a small cow-calf operation in Texas — my goal is to find out the actual answer. And then, when I know the answer, whether the answer is what I want it to be or not, I’ve shared that answer, and then I hope that we can improve. The goal is continuous improvement and mitigation strategies to try and help make animal-source proteins a more sustainable source of protein to meet human demands. And I think, if the answer wasn't favorable or is so unfavorable that we need to look at something different, I think it would be practical to go and look at something different and move to other things and move to other sources of food. Just because I'm a beef cattle nutritionist does not mean that I necessarily approach all things as though beef is superior. I recognize our weaknesses.

                               And the other thing is (that an) inherent problem with beef cattle, or an inherent challenge — challenge is a bit better word — is (that) ruminant fermentation is going to produce methane. And so, there's been some comments that (we) are working on ways to reduce methane. And I think that's been a continual challenge in all ruminant production systems for at least the last 50 years, because not only is it an environmental cost, but it represents a cost to producing, because that methane lost energy — energy that the cow can use to grow, can use to produce milk, to produce protein.

So, I forgot the original question, which isn’t uncommon with me, but yeah, I think a lot of people around the globe — I think New Zealand and Australia are really leading the way in doing genetic selection for animals that have reduced methane. We’re looking at some of the new techniques in ruminal metagenomics and the microbe and how we can select for different microbes to reduce methane production. I think those are all things the scientific community is trying to do in order to help make livestock production systems more sustainable.

Dr. Holder:             Thank you, Dr. Wickersham. Dr. Capper, again, I guess the same question for everyone: What are we doing — and what should we be doing — to make these protein production systems better as we look forward to accepting the U.N. Food Systems challenge of making better food systems? What do we have to do?

Dr. Capper:             So, to echo what both Dr. Place and Dr. Wickersham have said, it is about doing everything better. And that isn’t a cool, sexy, high-tech answer where, if you just use Magical Protein Powder A, you know, everything is solved. We do have to do absolutely everything better on every single farm.

                               But also, just to come back to a comment that was made in the chat, there’s an awful lot of research on this worldwide, particularly with ruminants, in terms of cutting methane emissions. So, we know that there are certain feeds that can be used. For example, I just read a paper today that showed that if we use oats as opposed to barley in dairy cow diets, we can cut methane emissions by 5%. There are vaccines that will target the actual bugs in the rumen that produce methane. There are various different companies producing feed supplements to cut methane while maintaining productivity. And there are even some sort of cow gas masks out there, which are leading to some really interesting innovations in terms of cutting methane.

                               And to come back to a comment earlier about the metrics — and there’s also some new research from Oxford University looking at using the best metric, and there’s a new one called GWP (Global Warming Potential), which looks at the fact that methane actually breaks down in the atmosphere over time. So, if this is adopted on a global basis, this is [inaudible] beef, for example, by about 50–60% overnight.

                               Now, that doesn't mean that anyone's done anything better in terms of farming, which is accounting for it in a different way, but we’ve got to use the best science. And I don’t say that because I'm a beef professor. I want the best science, whether it's good or bad for the beef production. I think we had the most clear, accurate, transparent science. And there's always a tendency for those who are opposed to animal ag to say, “Well, you’re biased. You would say that.” We all work in beef on this panel. Of course we are going to be pro-cutting greenhouse gas emissions, but not at the expense of livestock. We've got to have that balance, though, I think.

Dr. Holder:             Yeah. That’s so critical. And we would probably need another hour and a half, Dr. Capper, if we’re going to discuss that one. But having clear metrics is absolutely critical. Understanding the effect of ruminant methane on warming is absolutely critical, and that’s an ongoing discussion amongst scientists — and it’s not a settled discussion, to be quite fair. And that does make what we are setting out to do here quite challenging. Even looking at the process of sequestration of carbon and soils, this is something that we don’t often hear about from the animal ag side. We do know that animal agriculture can increase sequestration of carbon, (but that is) very, very difficult to measure and to measure accurately onsite. And so, that's a whole part of carbon cycle that you talk about, that methane is a part of that carbon cycle. And we don't treat it that way in our current calculations. And I'm going to leave it there, Dr. Capper, because as I said, that is a can of worms that needs another hour and a half.

                               Amanda, I want to leave it with you. We’re running out of time, but we do have a few minutes. From the producer perspective, what do we need to do to ensure a food-secure future?

Amanda:                 Yeah. I would like to share just some boots-on-the-ground thoughts from my role not only as a rancher but as a mom who has benefited from beef significantly in my own life.

                               So, I think, just to start, if we're going to reduce (how we choose) our diets to simply looking at the carbon emissions, then we need to truly compare apples to apples, and so, calorie for calorie, what beef has to offer is an incredible, nutrient-dense product. To get the same amount of protein that you could get from 180 calories in a three-ounce serving of beef, you would have to eat about 600 calories of broccoli or quinoa or peanut butter. And so, we need to really start comparing the water use, the natural resources used and those kinds of things to get that nutrient density that we get from beef.

                               Another thing, I think, that's largely ignored in the equation is (the fact that) there are lots of things that we do in our daily lives that maybe wouldn’t be essential to us surviving. So, whether that's having a companion pet that — also, emissions are (coming from) using things in our lives that are highly consumable and tossed. And even just the foods — not what we eat, but how much goes wasted. So, if we are truly going to eat our way out of climate change, I think the biggest two things that we can focus on are, number one, the fact that here in the United States, 40% of the food we grow here, meat or not, ends up in landfills. And so, if we want to focus on reducing our waste and respecting the harvest, I think that's critical. And the second part or piece of that that we need to focus on is distributing that food that would otherwise go wasted and getting it to parts of the world where food is more scarce. And so, those are two big things I would challenge the U.N. and any stakeholders in food production to really focus on.

                               On the flip side, like I said, as a mom — and I see in the comments here, there's a lot of folks commenting that we don't need animal fats and proteins in our diets at all, that we can subsist on plant-based diets, and I would again reiterate the fact that there's no one-size-fits-all dietary approach to achieving optimal health and nutrition.

                               As an example, here in the United States, our dietary guidelines for Americans pushed to reduce our consumption of animal fats and proteins like meat and dairy and have really pushed for an increase in consumption in grains, fruits, and vegetables. Now, even I, myself, as a rancher, really bought into that. And for years, I followed the dietary guidelines. I almost felt guilty about eating the beef that we were raising on our ranch. I tried to fill my plate with all the things the government was telling me to. I was overweight, infertile, depressed, and was trying my hardest to be as healthy as I could be. I did, like, what so many hundreds of thousands of people that I (know and) am a part of in some meat-centered communities have done, and I focused on a nutrient-rich diet that focused on meat. Within a few months, I had regained my fertility. I had three back-to-back healthy pregnancies and beautiful babies after years of infertility. And I'm living proof that just because someone else can thrive on a plant-based diet doesn't mean that everyone can.

                               And so, ultimately, every stakeholder in the food production system should be focusing on serving the needs of their customers, whether that’s raising almonds and broccoli or raising nutrient-dense beef. There is a customer that needs these products. And to truly be secure and to be free and to be able to make choices that best fit the needs of our families is incredibly important to having a happy, healthy food system and population, here and around the world.

Dr. Holder:             That's well-said, Amanda, and that’s really a theme of this entire discussion. There is never one-size-fits-all situation for everything. And to be honest, the science is never settled, and even the science of what (is believed to be) the ideal human diet is certainly not settled and is an ongoing social experiment. So, we follow that.

                               I think, from my perspective, I want to stop here. We are up against the time. I want to thank all of our speakers for being on here today. (This was) a really important discussion — a discussion that's just starting. I think that all options are on the table. Any time I have to address this topic, internally or externally, I keep saying all options are on the table. This is a challenge. We have over 50% of the country and the world (who) are currently protein-insecure. This is something that we can’t ignore, and the discussion needs to focus on how we feed this planet now, as well as moving forward into the future.

                               So, I think this is a good start. Really, it's all about choice. It's about maintaining the choice of all our people in the face of a very, very difficult challenge that we’ll get through together. So, I appreciate, again, (and want to say) thank you for the speakers. Thank you for the robust discussion in the chat. We’ll be addressing some of those as the days go past. Everyone, we appreciate (you for) getting on. Thank you so much for the attention. Thanks. Bye.

Amanda:                Thank you.

Dr. Place:               Thank you everybody.

Dr. Capper:            Thank you all.

Tom:                      This episode of AgFuture has featured a discussion from the U.N. Food Systems Pre-Summit around ensuring food security for a rising population while protecting the earth's natural resources. The Pre-Summit event was hosted by Alltech. I'm Tom Martin. Thanks for listening. This has been AgFuture, presented by Alltech. Thank you for joining us. Be sure to subscribe to AgFuture wherever you listen to podcasts.

No matter the segment of the beef system, stress is a natural and unavoidable hurdle that the beef industry must learn to manage. Ironically, it is often the segmentation of the beef system that results in periods of stress. These stressful times often fall around transition intervals, when cattle move from one phase of production to the next. Weaning and feedlot receiving are two transition periods during which calves will experience multiple stressors. Prolonged exposure to stress has negative impacts on calf performance, and these negative effects can result in long-term issues.

When you consider the long history of the beef sector, stress is a relatively new issue being examined and discussed by those in the industry. In recent years, scientists and producers have begun to realize the impact that stress can have on calf performance. Fortunately, however, there are solutions for mitigating stress for your cattle during transitions. First, it is important to understand what can cause stress, as well as the consequences of that stress.

Stressors that can occur during weaning and receiving include:

• Separation from the dam

The social stress of being removed from the mother can be significant. One management practice that gradually weans calves is fence-line weaning. This technique involves placing weaned calves and dams in adjacent pastures that allow calves to be able see their mothers while being physically separated. Make sure you have sturdy fences with no gaps to prevent calves from crawling through to the other side.

• Transportation

It’s inevitable: At some point, cattle will need to be moved. There are many ways that producers can work to reduce stress during transportation — but similarly to humans travelling to new locations or making a big move, this major transition will likely lead to schedule changes and disruptions, changes in eating patterns, etc.

• Commingling

When groups of cattle are mingled together, they can expose each other to new pathogens. Even if the animals are on the same ranch but are from different pastures, producers need to consider a commingling strategy.

• Unfamiliar diets

Going from their mothers’ milk to feed might feel like a stark transition to some calves. The tips later in this article explain how to get calves to the bunk and help them transition to a new, healthy, nutrient-dense diet.

Stress can have consequences on production, including:

• Impaired growth. Stress causes muscle breakdown and can slow the growth of your cattle.
• Suppression of immune functions, which can lead to a decreased ability to resist infection and an increased susceptibility to getting sick.
• Altered behavior, like reduced feed intake.

A wholistic view of beef production is necessary to identify where leverage points exist within the production system. Recognizing leverage points allows for a more effective application of management practices to minimize stress and improve performance. In beef production, the most effective approach to minimizing stress is a preventative one. Implement practices that will help you foster and maintain a resilient herd. Resilient calves are going to be able to handle the periods of stress that are inherent within the beef system. The key to building resilient calves is implementing proactive management practices.

Outlined below are five easy and practical management tips that will help you produce resilient cattle.

1. Vaccinate prior to shipping.

Work with your veterinarian to establish a vaccination program prior to your animals being commingled and shipped. A vaccination program is essential to building a healthy immune system prior to animals being exposed to novel pathogens in a new place and when surrounded by other animals.

2. Castrate animals as early as possible.

Castration is a stressful but generally necessary management practice. Research has shown that animals experience less stress when they are castrated at a younger age. Some producers will castrate at birth, when they tag or maybe when they take cattle out to grass. Whatever fits into your management schedule, getting your animals castrated early will allow them to recoup before other stressors manifest throughout the following transition stages.

3. Minimize commingling.

Just like with humans, anytime you bring animals from different sources together, you run the risk of exposing them to pathogens. You can reduce this risk of exposure for calves by being strategic about minimizing mixing between sources of cattle. There is also an element of social stress as the newly commingled animals work to establish a pecking order.

4. Expose calves to feed bunks and water troughs.

Familiarize your animals with feed bunks and water troughs prior to shipping. This can help reduce stress during feedlot arrival, as getting calves to feed bunks prior to shipping will help them get onto feed quicker. The sooner they get on feed and start consuming water, the better they will bounce back from transportation stress.

5. Proper nutrition is essential.

When transitioning cattle, it is important to make sure that their nutritional requirements are being met. Meeting the cattle’s protein, energy and trace mineral requirements is essential for their immune function and growth. During periods of stress, it is common for animals to reduce their feed intake. In these cases, providing diets that are more nutrient-dense to compensate for reduced intake is recommended.

It is unrealistic to think that we can eliminate all stress from the production system, but we can minimize the duration and severity of the stress that animals experience. When utilizing these management techniques, consider a schedule that exposes calves to stressors gradually, rather than all at once. When calves feel high levels of stress and no mitigation strategies are used, they can experience critical setbacks. The most important reason to help calves through periods of stress is to set them up for success for the rest of their life — ultimately leaving you with healthy animals, a healthy reputation and a healthy bottom line.  

Download a free poster!

Alltech and the International Federation of Agricultural Journalists (IFAJ) are pleased to announce Kallee Buchanan of Australia and Craig Lester of Canada as the recipients of the 2021 IFAJ–Alltech International Award for Leadership in Agricultural Journalism. The award recognizes excellence and leadership by young agricultural journalists and was presented today during the Alltech ONE Ideas Conference.

“IFAJ shares our commitment to supporting journalists who give a voice to the farmers and producers, the innovators and change-makers, the scientists and scholars all working toward a Planet of Plenty,” said Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech. “On behalf of Alltech, I congratulate Kallee Buchanan and Craig Lester as the well-deserving recipients of the 2021 IFAJ–Alltech International Award for Leadership in Agricultural Journalism.”

This recognition honors Alltech’s late founder, Dr. Pearse Lyons, who was a passionate storyteller with a great respect for agricultural journalists. The award complements the Young Leader program that Alltech co-founded with IFAJ in 2005 in support of the mentorship and education of leaders who connect agriculture to a global audience. It’s also an endeavor that aligns with Alltech’s vision of Working Together for a Planet of Plenty^TM, in which a world of abundance is made possible through the adoption of new technologies, better farm management practices and human ingenuity within agriculture.

“As producers throughout the food supply chain are implementing more sustainable solutions, we are in the midst of a new era in agriculture led by science, data-driven decision-making and a passionate dedication to farming with the future in mind,” said Dr. Mark Lyons. “Agricultural journalists have the ability to share these stories, and through our continued partnership with the IFAJ, we are proud to support these future leaders, who are passionate about connecting our industry to a global audience.”

Kallee Buchanan started her career at a regional newspaper in 2008 before joining the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in 2009, where she has worked as a radio and digital journalist, presenter and producer, covering rural and regional issues. In 2010, she won a Queensland Media Award (Clarion) for Best Radio News Report, and in 2017 she won the radio and digital categories at the Queensland Rural Media Awards and was named the overall journalism winner. She went on to win both the Australian and the International Star Prize for Digital Media, and she won the Queensland radio category again in 2018. In 2019, she was highly commended in the Emergency Media and Public Affairs Awards for her coverage of the 2018 Central Queensland bushfires.

Buchanan joined the committee of the Rural Press Club of Queensland in 2016 and became its representative on the Australian Council of Agricultural Journalists (ACAJ) in 2018, eventually becoming the secretary of the ACAJ in 2019 and its president in 2020. She is passionate about elevating the issues and industries of regional and rural people and supporting agricultural media communicators in that work. She is committed to developing and retaining new voices that reflect the true diversity of communities outside of the major city centers, as well as the contributions they make to a productive world. 

Craig Lester loves connecting people, ideas and resources, and he believes that there is no better place to do that than in agriculture. As president of the Alberta Farm Writers’ Association, part of the Canadian Farm Writers’ Federation, Lester serves in two key professional roles that are dedicated to sharing information and educating the community with local and industry information. He is a managing editor of 660 NEWS, an all-news radio station in Calgary, Alberta, and is the co-owner of Rural Roots Canada, an agriculture media production and distribution company. In his free time, he works on the family farm in Rolling Hills, Alberta.

Lester is also very active as a volunteer in the community, contributing his time to the Calgary Stampede, Alberta Young Speakers for Agriculture and Ronald McDonald House. He is also on the planning committee for the 2023 IFAJ World Congress, which will be held in Alberta.

With a passion for successful succession and empowering the next generation, Lester established an agricultural scholarship and travel bursary at his alma mater, Brooks Composite High School, to support a student pursuing either agricultural-related post-secondary education or an international in-person learning experience. He is an award-winning broadcast journalist and received a diploma in broadcast news from the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology.

“In challenging times like these, reliable journalism and information is vital for farmers,” said IFAJ president Lena Johansson of Sweden. “Alltech’s commitment to professional development for agricultural journalists to promote eminent leaders within our organization is much-appreciated and contributes to enhancing the quality of agricultural journalism — which, in the long run, benefits the entire agricultural sector.”

For more information about the IFAJ-Alltech International Award for Leadership in Agricultural Journalism, contact press@alltech.com.

-Ends-

Contact: press@alltech.com

Jenn Norrie

Communications Manager, North America and Europe

jnorrie@alltech.com; (403) 863-8547

Video download: Kallee Buchanan, Australia https://bcove.video/2R77y8V

Image download: https://photos.alltech.com/pf.tlx/baJbmZbnmi1n

Image caption: Kallee Buchanan of Australia is a recipient of the 2021 IFAJ-Alltech International Award for Leadership in Agricultural Journalism.

Video download: Craig Lester, Canada https://bcove.video/3okZPQD

Image download: https://photos.alltech.com/pf.tlx/DZhDIiD4RGHM

Image Caption: Craig Lester of Canada is a recipient of the 2021 IFAJ-Alltech International Award for Leadership in Agricultural Journalism.

Image download: https://photos.alltech.com/pf.tlx/vwvZcvXIhnod

Image Caption: Alltech is proud to partner with the International Federation of Agricultural Journalists (IFAJ) to recognize excellence and leadership by young journalists with the IFAJ-Alltech International Award for Leadership in Agricultural Journalism.

About Alltech:

Founded in 1980 by Irish entrepreneur and scientist Dr. Pearse Lyons, Alltech delivers smarter, more sustainable solutions for agriculture. Our products improve the health and performance of plants and animals, resulting in better nutrition for consumers and a decreased environmental impact.

We are a global leader in the animal health industry, producing additives, premix supplements, feed and complete feed. Strengthened by more than 40 years of scientific research, we carry forward a legacy of innovation and a unique culture that views challenges through an entrepreneurial lens.

Our more than 5,000 talented team members worldwide share our vision for a Planet of Plenty™. We believe agriculture has the greatest potential to shape the future of our planet, but it will take all of us working together, led by science, technology and a shared will to make a difference.

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

About the International Federation of Agricultural Journalists:

The International Federation of Agricultural Journalists, founded in 1956, is comprised of 5,000 members in 53 countries. It is the only organization in the world dedicated to global agricultural journalism. Its three pillars are professional development, youth development and global outreach. IFAJ members embrace freedom of the press. http://www.ifaj.org

The Alltech ONE Ideas Conference launched virtually today to unite thought-leaders and changemakers for an exploration of the power of science, sustainability and storytelling. Now in its 37th year, Alltech’s flagship event continues to be an invaluable industry resource, with unmatched content and innovative ideas, inspiration and motivation from world-class speakers. Registrants from 99 countries have access to a virtual platform that includes on-demand tracks, streaming keynote presentations, live workshops and an interactive networking experience, allowing attendees to connect around the world. 

“We are on the brink of a new beginning, and I don’t believe that is just a new beginning for Alltech. I think it’s a new beginning and a new golden era for agri-food, and it’s led by what we believe is a bold vision,” said Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech, in his opening remarks. “We want to deliver smarter, more sustainable solutions for our customers and for all of agri-food.”

Anna Rosling Rönnlund, vice president and head of design and user experience at Gapminder and co-author of “Factfulness,” was one of the opening keynote speakers on Tuesday, June 22. Rönnlund designed the user interface of the famous animated bubble-chart tool Trendalyzer, which helps people better understand global development trends. The tool was eventually acquired by Google and is now used by millions of students across the world. Along with her Gapminder co-founders, Rönnlund co-wrote the book “Factfulness,” sharing insights on the ten instincts that distort our perspective of the world and prevent us from seeing the truth.

“A lot of things are actually improving, but we’re very bad at seeing these slow trends on a global level,” said Rönnlund. “We need to have a fact-based worldview, and we need to remember that we need to keep upgrading our worldview, because the world changes, and so has our facts about it.”

As a professional photographer, filmmaker and former photojournalist for National Geographic, Dewitt Jones has made a career of storytelling through images and has traveled the world on a mission to find the extraordinary in the ordinary. Through his compelling stories and captivating photography, Jones shared how changing your lens can change your life.

“These are turbulent times, and the waves of change seem to threaten our very survival. So, what will your vision allow you to see?” Jones asked during his keynote presentation. “Will you look out at a dim, half-colored world where dreams disappear in the distance — a world where goals don't even seem worth striving for? Or will your vision allow you to see a world still full of beauty and joy and possibility?”

The Alltech ONE Ideas Conference keynote sessions, on-demand tracks and Planet of Plenty live workshops launching this week include:

Tuesday, June 22

8:30 a.m. ET: Keynote Session

• Dr. Mark Lyons, President and CEO, Alltech
• Anna Rosling Rönnlund, Vice President and Head of Design and User Experience, Gapminder; Co-Author, "Factfulness"
• Dewitt Jones, Professional Photographer, Filmmaker and Former Photojournalist for National Geographic

10:30 a.m. ET

• All tracks on-demand content available

11:00 a.m. ET: Planet of Plenty Live Workshops

• The Inaccuracy of “Seaspiracy”
• Awarding Sustainability
• Food for Thought
• Where’s the Beef?

Wednesday, June 23

9:00 a.m. ET: Keynote Session

• David McWilliams, Economist and Professor, Trinity College Dublin
• Dr. Ruth Oniang’o, Board Chair, Sasakawa Africa Association; Professor of Nutrition; Former Member of Parliament in Kenya

11:00 a.m. ET: Planet of Plenty Live Workshops

• Minding Your Cognitive Health
• Let’s Not Waste It
• Find Your Story

Thursday, June 24

9:00 a.m. ET: Keynote Session

• Shirzad Chamine, CEO, Positive Intelligence, Inc.
• Dr. Mark Lyons, President and CEO, Alltech

11:00 a.m. ET: Planet of Plenty Live Workshops

• Innovation from the Inside
• Farm-to-Fork Sustainability
• A Tale of Two Climate Policies

1:00 p.m. ET: Planet of Plenty Workshop with Shirzad Chamine

• Explore Your Positive Intelligence

Over the course of the Alltech ONE Ideas Conference, more than 70 on-demand presentations will explore challenges and opportunities in aquaculture, beef, business, crop science, dairy, equine, health and wellness, pet, pig, and poultry sectors. Registration for the Alltech ONE Ideas Conference will remain open, offering attendees 24/7 access to all on-demand content, including keynote presentations and tracks, until April 2022.  

Registrants can engage virtually in many ways during the Alltech ONE Ideas Conference, including the ONE FUNdraising Run, the Alltech Ideas Hub and expert-led mixology sessions. All are encouraged to share their experiences on social media with the hashtag #ONEbigidea. To learn more and to register for the Alltech ONE Ideas Conference, visit one.alltech.com.  

As a research scientist at Alltech, Dr. Anne Koontz lives out her passion for science communication, outreach and international collaboration by helping farmers become more sustainable and efficient. She joined the Ag Future podcast to discuss how to support farmers by effectively communicating to those outside of the agri-food industry the realities of the environmental impact of animal production and how farmers have worked for more sustainable operations through science and research.

The following is an edited transcript of the Ag Future podcast episode with Dr. Anne Koontz hosted by Tom Martin. Click below to hear the full audio or listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Tom:                          I'm Tom Martin. Dr. Anne Koontz is a research scientist for Alltech with a strong interest in science communication, outreach, and international collaboration. We thank you for joining us, Dr. Koontz.

Dr. Koontz:                Thank you for having me, Tom.

Tom:                          So, do people today understand the realities of scientific inquiry? Can science kind of be boiled down to recognizing that the more we know, the more we know we don't know?

Dr. Koontz:                That is a fairly accurate statement. The important thing to remember about science and one of the things that's really hard for people who don't work in a scientific field is that science is constantly changing and updating itself whether we're finding new ways to ask a question, new ways to measure response. We're adding to that knowledge base constantly and reevaluating what we know. I have a very good friend who’s a brilliant scientist in her own right, Elizabeth Culprice, who wrote on Facebook not long ago. I have to quote this because it was just so perfect for this conversation. She said, “Perhaps the greatest utterance of the scientist is I don't know. Scientists never know. But upon seeing what we don't know, our next thought is how can I figure it out? How can I get closer to knowing? Formatting the known, creating a testable guess to what we think it could be and testing it, and moving closer to one step of knowing is what we do.” And I couldn't say it any better than she did of what scientists do and how important is to understand that science is all about not knowing and wanting to know what we don't know.

Tom:                          So, I guess we should filter through that: when we hear that there has been a scientific discovery or finding that, ‘yeah, that's true, but it could change in the future as more scientific inquiry is conducted.’

Dr. Koontz:                That's absolutely correct, Tom. And I think the other aspect of that that’s important when we have these kind of conversations and we talk about science communication and science outreach is the idea that we often have to simplify things. The way that I would explain gravity to, you know, my 8-year-old niece is very different than the way that I would discuss gravity with another scientist. So, it is a new onset of understanding that come as we increase things. I'm a big fan of— You’ll see probably through the rest of this conversation as well. But one of my favorite things comes out of The Science of Discworld by Terry Pratchett. And he said that these sorts of simplification are simply lies we tell children and they’re okay types of lies because it's the only way that people at that age can understand that concept, but we need to be— When we’re teaching those simplifications that are constantly reminding people that as you get older, as you have more knowledge and more understanding, those concepts become more and more complex.

Tom:                          Well, Anne, I know that you think a lot about science communication and I’d like to turn to that with regard to the farm and I’m wondering how have digital media, and broader connection, and social media changed the way farmers communicate what they're doing.

Dr. Koontz:                I think it has fundamentally changed the way farmers communicate with the greater audience around them. The ability to go direct to the world and say “look, this is my farm; this is what I'm doing today; here, let me walk you through my barn or take a ride on my tractor together” and show both the good and the bad of farming is really important. These farmers that are willing to do this, this type of communication, are really letting everyone into their everyday lives and showing the good, showing the bad, showing the frustrations and the excitement that come with farming, and making an industry that a very small percentage of our population work in— making that industry much more relatable to those who don't have access to a farm.

Tom:                          How can scientists like you in the agrifood industry support those narratives that farmers are sharing with consumers through TikTok or Instagram?

Dr. Koontz:                That’s a really great question, Tom. And I love this. The most important thing is to like what they're doing, share them with your platform, share them with your followers so you keep getting their message out there. And if you're willing to dive into the conversations— Now, sometimes they can get a bit heated and touchy when you get into the comments on a lot of those farmer’s pages. And I applaud every single one of the farmers who are willing to take that on and be on social media in that way, but the things that we can do as scientists especially is to backup what the farmers are saying. So, show that the farmers aren’t unique cases and link to other farmers who are saying and doing the same thing. And when people start asking, you know, why do they do it this way, why are you making this particular decision, to then link and discuss the science and the research that goes into those decisions that farmers are making and so that it's not just an arbitrary, we've always done it this way or I think this is right for me, but there is actually a huge knowledge base of science and research that is guiding all of these to allow farmers to be both sustainable and productive.

Tom:                          Climate change and the greenhouse gases contributing to it have never been under as much scrutiny as they are today. And agriculture is often singled out as a culprit, ruminants and cattle in particular. As one whose work focuses on understanding impacts of animal production on the environment, how do you respond to that?

Dr. Koontz:                My first answer is always going to be carefully. The most important thing to me is don’t deny and don’t get angry. Absolutely agriculture and cattle in particular contribute to greenhouse gases and global climate change. I like to start with whatever resource or citation the person that I'm talking to is pulling from. So, say someone has said, you know, cows are responsible for 14% of greenhouse gas emission. Let's work with that number. That number comes from the FAO. It's not wrong, but it’s actually the easy global figure for all of animal agriculture. So, if we put that in the context for most of the conversations lately have been in the U.S., so in the United States, the EPA gives the number of greenhouse gas emissions of 10% for all of agriculture with about 35% of that being animal agriculture and ruminant in particular. Now, that 34% sounds like a lot, but 34% of 10%, which means it’s 3.9% of the total U.S. greenhouse gas emission. Now, if we compare that back to other sectors, which I think is absolutely critical, the same EPA says that 29% of greenhouse gases come from transportation sector and 25% are related to energy production. When you put that 3.9% or 3.4% of emissions from ruminants in that context, the 29% for transportation and 25% for electricity, it doesn't seem quite important. But if all you see is that, you know, 34% of agriculture is ruminants or 14.5% of global greenhouse gases are agriculture, those numbers seem scary and big. So, it's really important to have the context and the comparisons for these conversations. And like I said, don’t deny. Do we contribute? Absolutely. Are we constantly working to contribute less? Yes.

Tom:                          Is it accurate to equate the climate impact of methane emissions with the impact of carbon dioxide? In other words, are there important differences in the nature of these emissions?

Dr. Koontz:                So, this is one of those questions where I have to refer back to the beginning of our conversation and say I'm not an expert in this particular thing. And this is a topic that is rapidly evolving in the science community. So, to hit on some of the high points, there's a difference between the carbon dioxide and methane in how they react within the atmosphere. So, carbon dioxide is considered a stock gas, which means it hangs around in the atmosphere once it's produced for a very long time. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 years. Methane on the other hand is considered a slow gas, which means that it only hangs out in the atmosphere for about 10 years and then it's broken down through a process called hydroxyl oxidation. So, putting that in the context of a big picture and why this has become a hot topic within agriculture in particular is that plants take up carbon dioxide and carbon sources from the environment. That's something we all learned in school generally. And those plants store that carbon and complex types of molecules. Carbohydrates, etc. So, when these plants then are consumed by animals in agriculture, those carbon-based molecules are broken down. And in a cow, some of that is converted to methane and release them again into the atmosphere. But if that methane is then broken down in 10 years into carbon dioxide, some portion of our carbon dioxide is taken up by plant. And this cycle just continues again and again. So, if we’re not significantly increasing the amount of methane we’re putting back into the atmosphere in comparison to the amount we're taking out, then perhaps we're a little more carbon neutral than we thought we were at least in that particular aspect of our carbon footprint. Now, there's a lot more to that discussion than in my very simplified overview right there. It is very much a current topic of debate and discussion within agriculture, within climate science. And it is one that I'll be keeping an eye on for sure for the next few years.

Tom:                          Well, you're right. I'm wondering if there's a danger that this increasing clamor for a reduction in livestock emissions might upstage the effort to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Dr. Koontz:                I think that's a very good conversation to have and it's a touchy topic, Tom. I mean in true scientific fashion, again, I'm going to say it depends. So, as I said before, does agriculture contribute?

                                    Absolutely. Do we need to reduce that contribution? If we can, yes. Do fossil fuels contribute? Again, absolutely. Do they need to reduce their contribution? Certainly. But when we start equating those things by simply saying they're both contributors, that’s where it gets difficult because, as I said before, the contribution coming from livestock and agriculture is significantly less than the contribution that’s coming from transportation and energy sectors that are largely fossil fuel based. But when you put that to someone as far as what they can do in their everyday life to reduce their personal impact, it's much easier to say “well, I'm just not going to eat meat one day a week” than it is to say “well, I’m gonna stop using my car one day a week.” Those are two very different lifestyle changes and one is going to be far more approachable to most people.

Tom:                          Pollution from the really large farm operations runs off into streams that feed into major waterways like the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico. And that contributes to algal blooms, dead zones that impact drinking water supplies, aquatic ecosystems, recreation, people's livelihoods. What's your perspective on these large scale operations?

Dr. Koontz:                I think this is another one of those areas, Tom, that is a touchy subject, but an incredibly important subject. There is no doubt that agricultural runoffs contribute to all of these dead zones and issues with our water quality throughout the world But it is one of those places where it is very important, again, to look at contribution. And unfortunately, I don’t have those numbers right in front of me because I’ve not seen them. This is not an area that I’ve spent a lot of time looking into as a scientist, but I do know that, well, agricultural runoff is significant. There is the more recent research coming out of especially Duke University in North Carolina that's looking at dead zones in urban streams and what they're finding is that those exist there as well. And so, we have to really start examining not only agriculture's contribution to these issues, but also our urban footprint, you know. One thing I paid attention to for years and tried to look at on my own property is the use of salt and ice melt ‘cause I could use salt as a weed killer. But when I use salt as an ice melt in the winter, that salt is staying in the environment, contributing to my grass not growing or contamination of my soil around my own property. And when we think about that scaled up to a global issue of how much salt and other ice melt type products we put on to roadways and where does that ultimately end up and what is it affecting as far as the environmental around us, again, I don’t wanna downplay agricultural contribution because we absolutely do have an agricultural contribution. But there are other factors that come into this issue of dead zones, water quality, and soil loss. And I know that within agriculture, farmers are constantly looking at adding buffer zones, changing the way they plant, changing the way they kill, using precision farming to really only get the nutrients where they need to be when they need to be there so that we are minimizing that loss or leaching. And I think they’re doing everything they can as the information and technology becomes available. And that’s really all we can ask.

Tom:                          Well, how do you think agriculture can improve not just the perception, but the reality of its environmental sustainability?

Dr. Koontz:                Those are two very different questions. I think the reality about environmental sustainability is very much already there. I've never met a farmer who didn't absolutely love the land they worked with and care about it and want it be there for multiple generations down the road. And because of that, they're generally very aware of what they're doing and how it affects the world around them. Now, whether or not that's been accurately communicated, that's an issue, but I think as we mentioned before, getting access directly to consumers and the rest of the world, your social media and other interaction capabilities is really changing. The ability to know that a farmer is person and not just someone who is, you know, essentially looking at the land like it’s a factory floor and trying to get more and more out of it as best they can, but genuinely cares and wants to do the best they can to produce safe healthy food while also taking care of the land they work with is really critical. And so, I think it's a balance. I think the reality is already there and we are continuing to push that reality forward with the science that’s done by researchers like myself and then the implementation of that science by the farmers and ranchers around the world. It's really a focus on that perception through communications that is critical.

Tom:                          Okay. Big change of subject here, but this is a question I’ve been looking forward to asking. Are doors opening to women in the agrisciences?

Dr. Koontz:                You know, Tom, that's not a terrible question. But at the same time, I want to rephrase it and look at it— You know, I'm a woman who's been in agriscience in some way, shape, or form my entire life. I grew up with access to farm through my grandparents, knew I wanted to be in agriculture fairly early on in my life, knew I wanted to be a scientist fairly early on in life. And I honestly personally never had a lot of pushback to being a woman in science. You always run into the odd person that proves you wrong. But you know, they're manageable. And so, I think not only are doors opening, but they are open. And I see that because more and more of the scientists I collaborate with around the world are women. And more and more of the farmers I talk to are women. And women are no doubt a driving force in agriscience. And we're going to hear more and more of us out there talking, and communicating, and showing you what our lives are like, and why you should also be in agriscience.

Tom:                          Okay. Let's talk about Alltech’s Planet of Plenty mission, and tell me how science informs or plays a role in that mission.

Dr. Koontz:                Absolutely. So, the three leaves that are in the Planet of Plenty logo are really critical. And we’ve given meaning to each of those 3 leaves. Science, sustainability, and storytelling. So, from that, you obviously can see that science is very much at the core of Planet of Plenty. Science is guiding the development of sustainability solutions. The science is guiding the changes we’re making and supporting farmers in farming options and ranching management. And science underpins all of the stories that are being showcased in the Planet of Plenty ongoing activities. And so, it’s really all about making that science applicable and communicating it very well to the world.

Tom:                          Why would you say it's important not just to the ag industry, but to consumers as well, that events such as the ONE Ideas Conference are held annually?

Dr. Koontz:                And here, we're right back to the beginning, aren’t we, Tom? Knowledge is constantly growing and everything else is changing. And honestly, I don't think the speed of change is going to slow down. If anything, it's just going to continue to increase. Because that change has been so rapidly, there's so much technology, and knowledge, and ideas that are generated every year, and so having these kinds of ability to get together, and talk, and discuss, and see what's new around the world on an annual basis really just gives you that one-stop shop for new ideas and new concepts. The other aspect that is absolutely one of my favorite things about Alltech’s One Conference is the international diversity. Well, in non-COVID times, I get to travel a fair bit for my job and see how things are done in a lot of different places and that gives me so many connections because, you know, someone encounters a problem— the same problem in different places. But because of their available resources, and cultural differences, and climate, and everything else, they solve that problem in a different way. And so, when you can start bringing those different solutions to the same problem and in discussing those things on an international level, you really start to find some of the key things that tie together and you can make those solutions stronger in each different location.

Tom:                          You know, it's been several years now, but I remember when we discussed CRISPR technology at the ONE Ideas Conference. And at that time, it seemed novel. It seemed exotic, but here we are today with evidently a breakthrough in CRISPR technology that might lead to restoring the vision of the blind.

Dr. Koontz:                It is absolutely amazing. I have so many stunning scientist friends who work in cutting-edge technology. And if I could just communicate what they're doing to the public on a daily basis, I would be overwhelmed. Science is moving so fast. We're seeing new things every day. And there's no doubt that Alltech has made it and absolutely key point to be on the forefront of that change in technology and knowledge and make sure that we're presenting the best of those changes and knowledge update to the people that come to our conferences and that’s just fun.

Tom:                          I tend to agree with you. That’s Alltech research scientist, Anne Koontz. Thanks for talking with us, Dr. Koontz.

Dr. Koontz:                Thank you for having me.

Tom:                          And I'm Tom Martin. Thanks for listening.

[GUELPH, Canada] – Alltech believes that agriculture has the greatest potential to positively shape the future of our planet, but it will take all of us working together. As part of their commitment to this vision, Alltech created the Planet of Plenty™ Awards to reward those who are furthering a world of abundance through nutritional and digital technologies, innovation and sustainable management practices in the agri-food sector. In the inaugural year of the Alltech Canada Planet of Plenty Awards, Alltech is pleased to announce that the recipients of the award for 2021 are Burnbrae Farms of Lyn, Ontario, and Shipwheel Cattle Feeders of Taber, Alberta.

“Through partnerships and storytelling, we hope to elevate the agri-food sector so it is recognized for its ability to address several of the most significant issues that our planet faces: nutrition, human and animal well-being and the preservation of natural resources,” said Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech. “It is our privilege to honour Burnbrae Farms and Shipwheel Cattle Feeders as role models in sustainable agriculture.”

Burnbrae Farms are among Canada's leading egg producers and thriving participants in the agriculture, and local, communities they serve. Their vision is to provide nutritious food for Canadians while respecting their employees, the animals entrusted in their care and the environment. Sustainability, community engagement and social responsibility have been a part of the Burnbrae Farms’ culture for generations. Their commitment to innovation and the environment has allowed the company to achieve significant milestones on its mission to reduce the environmental impact of its operations and goal of continuously reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The business also has strong community foundations and provides support in the areas in which they do business, including egg and food donations and Earth Day roadside clean-ups. Six generations of the Hudson family have been involved in Burnbrae Farms for over 130 years.

Over several generations, Shipwheel Cattle Feeders have maintained an unwavering dedication to their goal of continually improving their land base, the animals entrusted to their care and the community around them. All management decisions are made through the lens of their holistic goal: any actions must be congruent with their purpose while also building their future resource base and improving quality of life. Shipwheel is a place of continual learning, where curiosity and innovation are tempered with thoughtfulness and proper planning, thereby setting the stage for expanding our understanding of regenerative agriculture practices.

Join Margaret Hudson, CEO and president of Burnbrae Farms and Andrea Stroeve-Sawa, manager of Shipwheel Cattle Feeders on May 25 at 11 a.m. ET for the Awarding Sustainability workshop during the Alltech ONE Ideas Conference, a virtual global agri-food event that will be held on May 25–27, 2021. Streaming keynote and on-demand presentations will be released and will focus on the power of science, sustainability and storytelling. To learn more about the Alltech ONE Ideas Conference and to register, visit one.alltech.com. Join the conversation across social media with #ONEbigidea.

David Butler, head of sustainability at Alltech, believes that being a sustainable business means taking care of people, the planet and your profit. He joined Ag Future to discuss Alltech’s vision of Working Together for a Planet of Plenty™, how companies can begin to take action toward sustainability and why he believes in a future where farmers are more profitable and productive because of sustainable agricultural practices.

The following is an edited transcript of the Ag Future podcast episode with David Butler hosted by Tom Martin. Click below to hear the full audio or listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Tom:                        I’m Tom Martin, and with me is David Butler, head of sustainability at Alltech. The brainstorming behind the company’s sustainability commitments and goals takes shape and form in David's office, and it's his job to ensure that Alltech is continually finding innovative ways to be more sustainable in the more than 120 countries where the company operates. Welcome, David.

David:                      Thank you, Tom. It’s great to be here.

Tom:                       That term, “sustainability,” it's a big one. It gets a lot of use these days. So, in your context, how do you define it?

David:                      Yeah. Well, I look at it as a balance of social, environmental and economic factors. So, anything you're doing — whether you're running a business or running a country — you can't neglect any one of those things. You have to look at the whole picture. So, sometimes, it's described as people, planet and profit. And you have to make sure you're not neglecting any of those areas. So, if your company is making a lot of money but you're exploiting people and damaging the environment, then you won't be able to do that forever. And so, you have to think about the long term and not just the next quarter's revenue.

Tom:                        So, how does that definition of sustainability figure into Alltech’s Planet of Plenty mission?

David:                      Well, our sustainability work is an essential foundation for (our) modern business strategy. And it's about doing the right thing, reducing risk, maximizing opportunities and looking at the long term of the company. So, it's just good business sense, really. A Planet of Plenty is something bigger than that. That's our vision statement. It’s Dr. Mark Lyons’ vision for the future of the company and the future of the agriculture industry and, in fact, the world. And it's about building partnerships and trying to do our part to work toward that long-term vision.

Tom:                        Agriculture is often cited as a source of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. How is the industry working to reverse its contribution to increasingly frequent extreme weather events and the overall warming of the planet?

David:                      Yeah. Well, certainly, agriculture is a giant industry. You know, there are over 7 billion people on the planet that we have to feed, and agriculture also produces fiber and all sorts of other products. So, it's not very surprising that we have a big footprint, you know, with greenhouse gases. And the benefit of agriculture — or kind of the good side of things — is that we’re one of the very few industries that also has (the) opportunity to capture carbon and pull it out of the atmosphere and put it into soil. And so, there are a lot of people that are working on different ways to do that through regenerative agriculture methods. There are also a lot of people that are working on ways to reduce the emissions that we produce with machinery or the production of fertilizer and, in fact, emissions from livestock.

Tom:                        In 2019, Alltech committed to the United Nations Global Compact and to work toward nine Sustainable Development Goals. Tell us about those goals.

David:                      Yeah. Well, the goals themselves are pretty amazing, I think — just the fact that they exist, because, in 2015, the United Nations came together, and they launched something called the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. So, it's a blueprint for creating a better world by the year 2030. So, 192 countries joined together on this agreement, on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. And they also agreed on how to measure progress toward them. I think that's amazing, that 192 countries could come together and do that. And the goals are really designed for countries to enact, but companies can help to advance those goals, and companies should focus on the goals that are most closely aligned with their core business. So, we looked at zero hunger, good health and well-being, quality education, gender equality, decent work and economic growth, climate change, life below water, life on land, and partnerships for the goals. And those are the nine that we chose to focus on.

Tom:                        Those are some big ones. Each one of those is pretty enormous.

David:                       Yes.

Tom:                        So, making such a commitment is quite a bold step that I would have to believe must be pretty difficult for a global company that's operating in an ever-changing world of different cultures and different economies and so forth. Why was it decided to make such a commitment?

David:                      Well, actually, Mark Lyons’ vision of a Planet of Plenty came first. We had already kind of mapped that out and decided, you know, “This is a new vision for the company going forward.” So, we started looking at actions that we could take to move that vision along and movements that we should join with other businesses. And the Sustainable Development Goals is one of the best ones around, because it provides a direction for companies and countries to work with each other, and, you know, it provides metrics for measuring progress. And the United Nations Global Compact is the organization that kind of helps companies come together and work toward the SDGs. So, we joined that.

Tom:                        If you think about this as a nine-burner stove, are you cooking on all nine burners? Are there some things that are kind of up on the front and others on the back burner?

David:                      Well, I don't know if anything's on the back burner, but yeah, they're not all on a full boil yet. We've got some work to do, of course. The ones where I see the most progress right now are the environmentally focused ones — and, of course, that's kind of closest to my heart. Climate change is such a big issue, and it's going to impact every single other Sustainable Development Goal, you know. If we can't address climate change, we're not going to succeed in any of these other areas. So, we committed to something called the Science-Based Targets Initiative, which means that a company will figure out what their greenhouse gas emissions are, and then they determine, scientifically, what they have to reduce them to by 2030 to properly address climate change. So, that means that it’s not just a PR exercise, where you wave a magic wand and say, “We're going to reduce our emissions by 10%” or whatever you think it should be. It’s based on calculations by the intergovernmental panel on climate change that say, “Your emissions are going to have to come down by X percent by 2030.”

Tom:                        What advice, David, do you have for companies that are interested in making this move to more sustainable practices and operations but may be feeling tentative about it?

David:                      Well, I think, whether you’re tentative or not, I think the best place to start — the most sensible, business-focused place to start — is by saving money. And if you can reduce your energy use, then you're also reducing your greenhouse gas footprint. And if you can reduce your water use, you're helping the environment. If you can reduce the amount of waste that you output, you're helping the environment. All of those things are very important, and they have to be done across the globe and by all companies. So, why not start there, and then, take a little time and track the amount of money that you save, and then, take that money and reinvest it in some other, more ambitious things? And you know, don't just randomly pick something that you think sounds nice. Look at what your company does — like, what are the areas where you can come up with a benefit that's really closely aligned to your core business, you know? And maybe you can get your customers or your suppliers involved, and you can build partnerships around that and find ways that you can make your business stronger and more resilient and even more profitable while you're making an improvement in the world.

Tom:                        For generations, it seemed as though sustainability on the one hand and profitability on the other hand were working at cross purposes, but do they have to be mutually exclusive?

David:                      Well, I think that perception is based on the fact that a lot of people don't know that sustainability has that economic aspect. So, if you’re running a company and you’re putting so many resources into environmentally beneficial programs or social programs that your company is not profitable, then, by definition, you're not sustainable. And if your business goes belly-up, then you're not going to be making much of an impact in the world, and all the people that depend on your company are going to get left behind. So, you really have to balance all three. So, by definition, they are not mutually exclusive. They depend on each other.

Tom:                        There’s a lot of concern about population growth in coming decades, and I’m wondering: Is it possible to feed a growing number of people without contributing further to climate change and other environmental issues? Can this be done sustainably?

David:                      Well, it can't be done doing the exact same thing that we've been doing over the past many decades, because while agriculture has gotten more and more efficient in many parts of the world, there are other parts of the world where we're still clearing forests for new agricultural land. And you know, if you look at the Amazon rainforest or other rainforests, those are actually really poor soils, once you cut the trees down. So, a farmer might go in and clear land in the Amazon rainforest only to have to clear more land again in two years, because the soils are depleted once they cut the trees.

                                So, we've got to look for ways to produce more food without, you know, damaging the environment further. And there are lots of innovative ways we can do that. I think one of the most important things is to look at all the waste we have in the system. We waste an amazing amount of food; it’s somewhere between 30–40%, depending on whether you're looking at the developed world or the developing world, and that's insane. I mean, all of the resources that went into all that food are wasted. And in addition to that, a lot of that food ends up in a landfill, where it turns into methane. And so, it's like you've shot yourself in both feet there. And we've really got to get a handle on the food waste. And we just waste a lot of organic matter in general, you know, into landfills — material that should be composted and put back into the soil, and instead, it's burned or it's put in a landfill or, maybe, it's dumped at sea.

Tom:                        You know, I had not heard that about the Amazon, about the condition of the soil on the forest floor. And meantime, we have experienced deforestation in this country, in places like Appalachia, due to surface mining and so forth that was on lands that were rich in soil, and we lost that as a result of the clear-cutting. A lot of irony at work here. But looking into the future, how do you see agriculture adapting to more sustainable practices?

David:                      Enthusiastically. And I might not have said that a year ago, but I really think the conversation has changed. You know, there are so many online conferences now where people are talking about real solutions to climate change — how can we start to put carbon into the soil, how can we change some of the practices that we have that are so dependent on too many chemicals, too much chemical fertilizer? You know, how can we protect our water? And I think we’re starting to approach a tipping point where people are realizing, “Hey, we can start to do things differently here. It doesn't have to be the way we've always done it for the last many decades.” And in fact, when you look at a lot of regenerative agriculture practices, they are actually very similar to practices that were done 100 years ago. But when you combine that with science and innovation and a really precise use of technology and modern automation and mechanization, then you can see do those things at scale.

Tom:                        Yeah. I guess the journey to this realization about climate change and about sustainability and so forth has been very halting over the years, but it seems as though — are you sensing that we're “getting it” now?

David:                      Yeah. I really do think we are. I mean, I’ve been on a lot of video conferences and calls with organizations like the USDA and Farm Bureau and pretty conservative legislators, and nobody is saying, “This is not happening.” They're saying, “What's the best way forward? How can we make the changes that we need to make, and how can we do it in a way that doesn't put it on the backs of the farmers?” The farmers can't afford to change everything they're doing out of their own pocket, you know. And the whole world is going to benefit when we start to put carbon back into the soil. So, the farmer should benefit from that as well.

Tom:                        What are some of the more important changes that you’ve been observing in recent times that have to do with that?

David:                      Well, I think there is a lot more talk now about complex multiple crop rotations, about cover crops keeping the soil covered year-round. Soil health is a big, big topic — much bigger than it used to be. And rotational grazing is also very, very important. So, that means that you're taking grazing animals — whether they’re cattle or sheep or even possibly bison — and you're moving them through small paddocks and moving them, maybe, as much as every day. And so, you mimic, kind of, the behavior of a natural herd that is chased by predators and is constantly moving through the environment. And that means that instead of turning them loose on 100 acres and just letting them mow that all year long, you're moving them around these small paddocks and (into) every paddock. It's a very long rest time, and the animals are bunched together, and they trample the grass into the ground, and they fertilize it. And that's how the soils in our grasslands were created, you know: in that symbiotic kind of relationship with herd animals. And those grasslands are some of the most rich — they were some of the most rich carbon sinks on the planet.

Tom:                        Wow. That's really fascinating, and the whole thing is. So, I have to believe that when you get up in the morning, you get ready to go to work, you're pretty excited about it. What excites you most about your work in agricultural sustainability?

David:                      Well, I think the thing that is most exciting to me is that agriculture does have this amazing opportunity to kind of help us rebalance the carbon cycle, pull all the excess carbon back out of the atmosphere. And in the process, we can make farmers more productive, more profitable; make the soil healthier; make our food healthier and our water healthier. And if I can have some little, small part of that, some area where I can help with that, then that's exciting to me.

Tom:                        That’s David Butler. He leads the sustainability team at Alltech. Thank you, David.

David:                      Thank you, Tom.

Alltech has announced the keynote speaker line-up to be featured at the Alltech ONE Ideas Conference (ONE), a virtual event that will be held on May 25–27, 2021. Streaming keynote and on-demand presentations will be released during the global conference and will focus on the power of science, sustainability and storytelling.

Shirzad Chamine, author of the New York Times bestseller "Positive Intelligence," has served as the CEO of the largest coach-training organization in the world and has used his expertise to train the faculty at the business schools at Stanford and Yale. Chamine lectures on the concept of mental fitness at Stanford, where he also works with the university’s student athletes. A preeminent C-suite advisor, Chamine has coached hundreds of CEOs and their executive teams.

A man of many talents, Dewitt Jones is one of America's top professional photographers, as well as a motion-picture director, an author and a former photojournalist for National Geographic. He has also been at the forefront of corporate creative marketing by photographing national advertising campaigns for major brands. Jones is recognized as a world-class lecturer. His knowledge of the creative process, his relaxed and genuine style, and his ability to communicate make his presentations truly outstanding.

Economist, bestselling author, journalist, documentary filmmaker and broadcaster David McWilliams is ranked as one of the top ten most influential economists in the world. He has devoted his entire professional life to the objective of making economics as widely available and easily understandable as possible.

Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech, represents the second generation of the global business founded by his father Dr. Pearse Lyons. Based on Alltech’s belief that agriculture has the greatest potential to positively impact the future of the planet, he launched the company’s vision of Working Together for a Planet of Plenty™ in 2019.  Alltech is driving science-led sustainability within agriculture and calling for collaboration to improve nutrition, human and animal well-being, and the preservation of natural resources.

“This past year has changed the world, and now, more than ever, we need to come together to share insights, inspiration and innovations,” said Lyons. “The Alltech ONE Ideas Conference connects changemakers for conversations that can shape the future of agri-food and our planet.”

A new keynote presentation will be streamed on the Alltech ONE Ideas Conference virtual platform each day. Registrants who miss the scheduled streaming can access the presentations on demand.

More than 40 on-demand presentations will also be released on May 25. These presentations will uncover the challenges and opportunities in the aqua, beef, business, crop science, dairy, equine, health and wellness, pet, pig, and poultry sectors. The Alltech ONE Ideas Conference virtual platform will also host live workshops and an interactive networking experience.

To learn more about the Alltech ONE Ideas Conference, including how to register, visit one.alltech.com. Join the conversation across social media with #ONEbigidea.