The tightening of global protein supplies is creating uncertainty for producers and the feed industry alike as to where this year’s protein supply will come from. Add to that the ever-increasing pressure on producers to meet the growing global demand for milk and meat while also reducing their environmental impact and remaining financially viable. While striking a balance between these seemingly conflicting goals may seem impossible, Alltech has released data from a new meta-analysis for ruminants that proves otherwise.

The results showed that Optigen®, a non-protein nitrogen ingredient, can replace vegetable protein sources and enable dairy and beef producers to simultaneously improve animal performance, reduce their carbon footprint and increase profitability. The new data from the meta-analysis examining the effects of Optigen supplementation in dairy cows is based on the results of 17 studies carried out in six different countries, while the beef study was based on the results of 17 studies carried out in nine different countries.

“The responsible sourcing of protein for animal feeds is a crucial global issue in the livestock supply chain, and the use of plant protein sources in animal diets can be restricted based on availability, price volatility and associated environmental impact,” said Dr. Saheed Salami, research fellow at Alltech. “These meta-analysis studies have confirmed that Optigen is a viable substitute for plant protein sources in ruminant rations, resulting in improved feed efficiency, profitability and environmental sustainability for dairy and beef production.”

Dairy research key findings:

• The use of Optigen in dairy diets resulted in a carbon savings of around 54 g of CO2-eq/kg milk.
  • When extrapolated to the annual milk output of the Dutch dairy sector, for example, this would be equivalent to a carbon emission reduction of 574,004 tonnes of CO2-eq. Such a carbon saving represents 10% of the entire reduction target for agriculture and land use sectors required by the Dutch government by 2030.
• Optigen partially replaced approximately 21% of soybean meal across all diets. 
• Dry matter intake (DMI), protein intake and nitrogen intake decreased through space “saving” in the diet
• Milk yield increased, and feed efficiency was improved by 3% in Optigen diets.
• Nitrogen utilization efficiency in dairy cows increased by 4%, thanks to improved nitrogen capture in the rumen. This translates to a reduction of the manure nitrogen excretion by 12 to 13 g of nitrogen/cow/day.
  • This data suggests, for example, that the use of Optigen could reduce the annual manure nitrogen excretion from Germany’s dairy sector by an average of 17,028 tonnes of nitrogen based on the annual milk output.
•  The environmental benefits Optigen brings are through the substitution of soybean and other high protein concentrates in combination with improved production efficiency.

Beef research key findings:

• The meta-analysis highlighted how the partial replacement of vegetable protein with Optigen exhibited a consistent improvement in the liveweight gains and feed efficiency of beef cattle.
• There was an 8% average increase in liveweight gain and an 8% improvement in feed efficiency with the inclusion of corn silage, enhancing the effects of Optigen.
• A simulation analysis based on these benefits indicated that feeding Optigen to 1,000 head of cattle with the goal of each animal gaining 440 pounds would:
  • Reduce time to slaughter by nine days.
  • Lower feed costs by $18,000.
  • Decrease the carbon footprint of the beef unit by 111.5 tonnes of CO2-eq, contributing to a nearly 2.2% reduction in the carbon footprint of beef production.

“Vegetable protein sources are volatile; they fluctuate in price and their nutritional composition is incredibly variable, while Optigen is the opposite and provides consistency in the rumen-degradable protein supply that is critical for rumen function,” said Dr. Vaughn Holder, ruminant research group director at Alltech. “These new meta-analyses on both beef and dairy animals show the depth of our research in both areas, as well as the versatility of the product across dietary raw materials and global geographies.”  

As a concentrated nitrogen source, Optigen takes up less space in the diet compared to other nitrogen sources, such as soybean meal and rapeseed meal, leaving room for more rumen-friendly materials, such as homegrown forages. This additional space can also aid in allowing more energy into the diet. In some cases, dietary crude protein levels can also be decreased, thereby increasing efficiency and reducing the risk of nutrient wastage. These studies reaffirm that feeding Optigen offers unique economic and environmental benefits to dairy and beef production and positively impacts our food supply chain.

For more information on Optigen and the meta-analysis data, visit alltech.com/optigen.

Minette Batters represents the interests of 47,000 members of the National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales (NFU) as the organization’s president. She joined the podcast to discuss protecting farmers through agricultural policy, farm innovations that will lead to more sustainable food production and why she is hopeful about the future for farmers.

The following is an edited transcript of the Ag Future podcast episode with Minette Batters 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 joining us from her farm near Salisbury, Wiltshire, for our Agri-Food Outlook series is Minette Batters, president of the National Farmers Union of England and Wales. Her organization represents the interests of 47,000 members.

                                    Greetings, Minette.

Minette:                      Hello.

Tom:                          So, let’s begin with a little bit of background. You grew up on a farm and were discouraged from becoming a farmer yourself. You went on to catering for a time, but as they say, you can take the woman away from the farm, but you can’t take the farm out of the woman. So, you returned to farming a couple of decades ago and you haven’t looked back. Can you tell us about that personal connection with working the land?

Minette:                      Well, I’ll try to sort of sum it out, really. I mean, I was brought up on the farm that I now farm on and live on. But my father was, as you say, quite opposed to women going into farming. But it was definitely something that I always wanted to come back to. And so, two decades ago, I did manage to get the chance to come back here.

We don’t own this farm here, which is quite common in the United Kingdom; we have a lot of tenant farmers, which are basically long-term farm business tenancies. And so, I was able to negotiate a new deal with my landlords, and that was basically about doing up some cottages in return for the land that went with it. So, that’s what we started with 20 years ago — very little stock on the place, no fences, no farm buildings, a lot of modernization needed.

                                    And I guess my background — I trained in London as a chef — it came in really useful because I was able to keep that business going, and that very much helped us reinvest in what was needed in the farm. And now, we have a herd of pedigree Herefords and pedigree Aberdeen-Angus, which will be a breed that’s well-known to you.

                                    And we have wedding venues as well, so it’s pretty busy here on the farm — and it’s a very different farm to the one that I took on all those years ago, and I’ve never regretted it; I never looked back. And (I’m), you know, living the dream, effectively, as they say.

Tom:                          And so, you bring to your role with the National Farmers Union experience on both ends of the supply chain: from farm to kitchen, to your work as a chef.

Minette:                      Exactly, a lot of experience. And I think those come in very useful now, really, for us as farmers and as a farmers’ union. We’ve very much been trying to make the case for farming policy here through the lens of food, through the lens of what we eat.

                                    We have a lot of people here in the U.K. — nearly 70 million people on a relatively small island nation — so it’s a very important food market, and my job, I guess, as the president of National Farmers Union, is to keep our farmers and growers here the sort of number-one supplier of choice to the U.K. market, both at retail and at home.

                                    So, it’s worked well, I think, for me to have a background, you know, (in) both ends of the value chain, really.

Tom:                          What are your priorities in your work with the National Farmers Union?

Minette:                      For us, it’s a very different time right now. We’re obviously leaving the European Union. We’ve left, effectively, and much of (our) trade with them has been important. We now are setting out on a very different pathway for agriculture.

                                    So, we’ve just had legislation passed here. The last agricultural act was in 1947, and then, in 2020, we had the second, effectively, agricultural act. So, that will create a lot of change for the farmers I represent.

And, of course, you know, leaving the EU was all about wider trade opportunities. So, the U.K. and the U.S., the U.K. and Australia, all the Commonwealth countries, obviously, those trade discussions are ongoing. So, for us, it’s very much looking to the future, the role of farmers in delivering on climate change.

I do think it’s an exciting time, actually, to be a farmer. The challenge of continually mining things, effectively, out of the interest in agriculture, where we can grow things in a sustainable way on the earth, not only in what we eat but how we live our lives, is a massive opportunity for farmers across the world. So, I’m hopeful.

We host the cup here in November (and) the most important (UN) climate change discussions, and President Biden is coming in. Obviously, the U.S. is back at the table. So, for us, it’s all about future policies for trade, for how we produce our food, and really making sure that our farmers are seen as the solution in climate change.

Tom:                          2020 was quite a tumultuous year, and all of that has remained with us as we begin 2021. And so, let’s begin with Brexit. I think you touched on a couple of these things, but the United Kingdom formally withdrew from membership in the European Union at the end of January 2020. And there were to have been negotiations on the terms of the future relationship between Britain and the EU, including trade and economic relations.

So, if you could, bring us up to speed on any agreements in areas that impact agriculture and food production and marketing.

Minette:                      So, trade with EU was always a really important thing to get agreed and to make sure that it is tariff- and quota-free, which it is. So, that has happened, but the EU has always been about the single market.

                                    So, what I mean by that is a comprehensive set of standards that are all agreed by member states on how we trade. So, we were our part of single-market and the customs union, which allowed us to trade, effectively, tariff-free.

                                    This is a very different trading relationship. It is a sort of traditional FTA agreement. There will be friction, (and) friction equals cost, so we do anticipate (that), and there is a level of friction and that level of cost. But what has been ratified here in the U.K. is being called the trade cooperation agreement between the U.K. and the EU.

                                    I think that will be, to a certain extent, an iterative approach. It is without a doubt going to change, and it’s the start of a new relationship. But, for us, it’s 500 million consumers on our doorstep. It remains our key export market — 95% of our goods go into the EU. And, of course, 40% of our import is coming from the EU.

                                    So, it was vital for both sides, really, that we agree (about) that new trading relationship. And as I say, we are now having trade discussions with other countries, the U.S. included. So, it’s a very different road that we’re on.

Tom:                          Climate change is on everybody’s mind right now. The EU Green Deal is a very ambitious plan to become the first continent in the world to become carbon neutral by 2050. Will Britain be a party to the Green Deal, and if so, what are the implications for farming and food production in the U.K.?

Minette:                      Well, Britain won’t be a part of the Green Deal, but it has set its own ambition and, indeed, legislated on that ambition with the Climate Change Act to achieve net zero by 2050. And for us at National Farmers Union, we see this as a real opportunity and, indeed, we set the marker down, if you like, to achieve carbon-neutral food production by 2040.

                                    Now, that was primarily because agriculture is a source of emissions — currently, 10% here in the U.K. — but it is also a sink. So, it has the unique capability that other industries don’t have of being able to do something about it.

So, we don’t believe we need to downsize livestock farming to lower methane. We believe that, with the right policies, we can farm smarter — (we can be) smart, farm more efficiently, decrease our food production footprint, but still be producing the same amount, or potentially more.

                                    So, we see climate change, for farming, as a huge opportunity to drive forward. So, that has been our focus. My focus, in particular, is making sure that my farmer members are not taxed in all of these.

So, I don’t think we’ll necessarily be in competition with the EU, but we share the same vision, and I know — you know, many farmers I speak to in the U.S., you know, they’re doing a lot on climate change. And I think the world’s consumers expect us to be able to get to a carbon-neutral position, but this is, I think, the exciting thing for agriculture: that we can produce things only in a sustainable way, whether biodegradable latex or whether massively reducing our methane. But, you know, we can do it in a way that others — other sectors, other industries — can’t.

Tom:                          I’m wondering if that imperative to become carbon neutral often drives a lot of innovation? I’m wondering what cool things you’re seeing happening right now in farming in service to meeting that goal?

Minette:                      Oh, you know, you’re so right. It does drive a huge amount of innovation. And we’re seeing now, here, the ability — tomato growers that are producing tomatoes are able to make all of their packaging out of the tomato vines, so you create a totally secular economy. So, the cardboard packaging is made out of the vine, and the film that goes over the top of it is made of the vine. And the good thing about that is, when you throw it away, the whole thing biodegrades.

                                    We’re seeing a lot of progress being made in natural fibers — the opportunities of growing milkweed, producing biodegradable latex, focusing on sheep’s wool to make tree guards. We have, in the U.K., often — and I’m sure you have got plastic tree guards that (are) just left lying around forever (and are) totally unsustainable, not biodegradable, and sheep’s wool is fantastic, going back into the soil and providing nutrients, and it biodegrades as well.

                                    So, we’re seeing enormous changes in innovations that are driving these, these new outcomes. And I think we’re only just touching the sides of it at the moment. I think the opportunities are enormous. We’ve got to make sure the value of all of these things goes back to the farm gate. I think, as farmers, we’ve always been very good at creating these massive opportunities, at lowering food prices. And then, of course, we see decrease, decreased value at about (the) farm gate. We’ve got to make sure that the value gets back to the farmer with all of these new opportunities.

                                    We’ve also seen, with methane reduction, we’ve seen enormous benefit with feed additives. So, feeding micro algae and things like that to dairy cows, lowering methane but keeping the same amount of milk yield — again, taking protein is being fed down, but with the right feed additives, keeping the milk yield the same.

                                    So, we see it as an exciting time and a real opportunity to influence (farmers) globally as well.

Tom:                          I guess where there’s a will there’s a way, isn’t there?

Minette:                      Yeah, exactly that, exactly that.

Tom:                          Minette, in an interview that you did for the BBC’s Desert Island Discs — and by the way, we recommend giving that a listen; just Google BBC Desert Island Discs — it’s mentioned in the interview with you that while 70% of British land is agricultural, many British citizens kind of feel estranged from the people who grow and produce their food. Does that mean there’s a need to improve that relationship in some way, and how would you do it?

Minette:                      There is a real need to produce — to increase, I guess, the relationship between producers of food and the people that consume it. And I think, in the U.K., we’ve seen a lot of people leaving the land and going into cities, into urban areas, and that has created many challenges.

                                    You know, we used to, in the summer holidays, which were long, that used to be sort of — people could go out and do the harvest and pick the fruits. And we drove everybody, effectively, into the cities to upscale, to get to university, to go away from those jobs. And of course, then, (we) became very reliant on a workforce that has to come in here. So, in all of that, we’ve created more and more disconnect from the land and from the food that’s produced. So, this is why we continue to talk so much about food rather than farming.

We had a big campaign last year (that) had the sort of best chefs in the country. We had Jamie Oliver, who’d be known to many. We have Raymond Blanc and others who were all talking about provenance, about the need to buy British, to buy local, and that was really successful.

                                    So, I think we need to be doing other solutions toward this, much more of that — really building the connection between provenance and health. I think we tend to talk about food, and we forget that, actually, we are what we eat. And COVID, of course, I think has really brought home to so many of us the importance of a healthy, balanced diet, of getting back, wherever possible, to eating whole food (and), possibly, less processed food, but eating whole foods with all the nutrient values that we need.

Tom:                          You mentioned COVID. In what big and important ways has the coronavirus pandemic impacted agriculture and food production in the U.K.?

Minette:                      COVID has been a massive, massive game-changer. And what happened was 50% of our market, our food market, is retailed by people (who), you know, go and buy their food, come home and cook it. But 50% of our market was out-of-home, so it’s food to go (to) restaurants, hotels, hospitality (and) sporting events. That would be a big part of the market.

                                    And of course, when we had lockdown in March last year, that market just stopped overnight. All our garden centers were shut, so for the growers that rely on Easter as a massive part of what the season is growing for — people plant their gardens up at Easter — they lost all of those opportunities.

                                    So, we saw some sectors (that were) really, completely obliterated. And the big challenge, I think, (that) we faced as farmers was the fact that we couldn’t furlough — in this country, we’ve been furloughing our workers, or paying for people to be out of work, and you know, big businesses (have) been able to lock their doors and leave them. You know, we had a perishable supply chain (and) couldn’t furlough our cows, couldn’t furlough our workers. And there were big losses, but it’s incredible how things have changed, and now, people are buying at retail very much how they would have eaten out (to cook) at home.

So, it is almost balancing out, and prices, at the moment here, across most sectors, are holding up, whereas in the beginning, we just saw enormous turbulence. We saw people panic-buying, so we saw a lot of empty shelves, and that created more panic. So, every time we go into a bit of a lockdown, then you see people panic-buying, and of course, that is disaster because the moment that starts, people just panic more.

So, it’s settled down a lot, but I think there’s been a lot of lessons learned on the back of COVID, and not the least that, you know, we shouldn’t take our food or our farmers for granted.

Tom:                          What about disruption at the border due to COVID-19 restriction? Does that remain a concern?

Minette:                      It’s created quite a lot of concerns and quite a lot of challenges with Europe, because we work on a sort of “just-in-time” sourcing, and trucks come in here, they load up and they go back out again. And there is, as I said at the beginning, the restriction there, so that’s not working quite as well.

                                    And, you know, when we get problems at the border — and we’re seeing, now, restrictions on people traveling in. That side of it seems to be working okay, but I think it just depends how things go as far as goods go and imports go. It just depends, really, what happens. I mean, there are problems, but they are not nearly as bad as they were. And hopefully, things can, you know, return to a level of normality. We’re seeing, now, the vaccination program getting rolled out. And I hope, by the summer, that we can have a sort of new normal for us to return to.

Tom:                          More than a million people signed a petition that demanded assurances that British standards will not be undercut in any future trade deals. What’s the larger story behind this outpouring of sentiment? What is the message?

Minette:                      This is a difficult one, really. We had to — as farmers, all of us produce to very high standards of regulation, whether that’s animal welfare, whether that’s environmental protection or food safety.

                                    And this is very, very different in America, where you have huge differences. You know, in California, you probably have higher standards than you have in many parts of Europe. But in the U.K. — that is, a smaller country — the laws on how we produce our food are very strict. And so, we’ve driven these high standards of animal welfare, which limits, you know, how many birds, say, you can keep in a shed, (or in a) pig cage, that you have to have windows in that shed. (The law) dictates that you have to have high security measures in place.

And so, our line was, you know, in trade, we are absolutely out for trading with the rest of the world, but we’ve got to try and have a common approach here that is basically fair. You know, it’s fair to farmers in other countries and fair to farmers here.

So, that was the whole reasoning behind it — because, of course, we had, in the run-up to Brexit, a lot of politicians saying the big cost of Brexit is (that) we’re going to get cheaper food. And our line was, actually, that job was being done. You know, we are very close to the U.S. — I think it’s the U.S. first, Singapore second, and U.K. third in (terms of the) affordability of food.

So, I think, for all of us as farmers, whether we farm in the U.S. or here or, indeed, in Europe as well, you know, we want to make sure that farmers stay in business and that we have fair approach to trade. And trade is a good thing for farmers across the world and, you know, just the farm in Africa and breaking to help African farmers trade.

So, we want to be trading tariff-free, without a doubt, but we want to try and have a common (and) fair approach to how we trade, and that really is what the petition was about. It was just really saying, “Do not undercut our farmers by tying their hands to the highest rung of the ladder and allowing imports in that don’t eat meat, the bottom rung of the ladder, which would just put our farmers out of business.”

That — that was really the driver behind that petition, and as I say, we had a million people, and so, that’s really just one in 60 people in this country saying that was what we wanted to see. So, it was one of the largest petitions ever, and it was really powerful.

Tom:                          Minette, you are quoted in an article for Southwest Farmer as saying, “The new year sees the government implement its own agriculture policy for the first time in 70 years. It will see a seismic shift in the way farming is supported with renewed focus on sustainable farming.”

So, I have a couple of questions around that. First of all, tell us about that shift in support.

Minette:                      So, this is very, very different to what we had before. Before, under European policy, the CAP — the Common Agricultural Policy — it was so much focused on an area-based payment, on a land-based payment. And that was really to keep food affordable to make sure that, you know, there was an investment in food production that stopped this thing (of) price spikes.

                                    Now, the future view is very much to invest in the environment, and it’s called the Public Money for Public Good. So, not investing in food production, but investing in environmental delivery. And this is a global first.

You know, agriculture bills don’t come along every day of the week. This is, as you say, the second one in 70 years. And it is really important to begin it right. Now, we’ve got very little detail on the table at the moment, but also, because it’s been developing what sustainable farming can look like and making sure that the investment is actually tied to food production, as well for what the market isn’t paying for.

                                    So, this is a very unusual and a time of enormous change for farmers over here, because, you know, in living memory, they haven’t seen this approach, and it’s a global first; I don’t believe there’s any other country in the world that has done what we are embarking on. So, it will be interesting to see how it works out. But we set an ambition with that “zero (emissions)” approach, and we really do want to be world leaders in climate-friendly farming.

Tom:                          In your mind, what does sustainable farming look like?

Minette:                      Well, what we wanted to do was very much focused in the field, into the soil. So, before, it’s been very much focusing on trees and hedges around the edges of fields or just being paid to have land. And our proposal is very much actually saying, “No,” you know, “we’ve got to look at right into the business, right into the soil.” A lot of farmers here now really recognizing that soil health is so important.

                                    And there are many different things that are needed in all of these, but I’d sort of pick out, you know, one area in particular, which has been around lowering our use of antibiotics in animal medicines to deal with antimicrobial resistance. And that’s been enormously successful, and we’ve done that by driving better awareness in farmers (about) more responsible use of antibiotics but also improving genetics and improving health status. So, if you have a healthier animal, you need less antibiotics for it.

And that, of course, is all very much part of delivering on sustainable farming that decreases the food production footprint. So, for us, it’s about really getting into the business of farming and producing food and the policies that we need rather than just focusing on paying people, which — our government was very clear (that) it was not just going to pay people to produce food; they wanted to know exactly what that return on the investment looks like.

And we’ve got a massive driver here of environmentalists who believe money should be spent on the environment. So, we really wanted to create this shared synergy (of) producing food, caring for the environment and doing more for biodiversity at the same time.

Tom:                          Well, Minette Batters, I’m very curious about you and your work and your excitement around it. What gets you up and ready for another day?

Minette:                      Well, representing 47,000 businesses means that you’re always on your toes. And it’s such a time of change over here now. It’s really hard to put it into words just how different this road that we’re on is.

                                    So, I feel enormous responsibility, I guess, for what I would call setting the foundation for the future and getting them right, so that my sectors, the farming (sector), can really have a thriving profitable future.

                                    So that, I guess, gets me up every morning. I also have two teenage children who like I have to say I can spend forever trying to get them up. So, that keeps me on my toes as well. And, of course, my farming business. So, I make sure that — we have, obviously, the beef herd here, and I do all the feeding and all the stock work at the weekend so that I get my hands dirty and I keep my feet well on the ground.

So, it’s a whole mix of things at the moment. And I enjoy traveling a lot all around the U.K., and of course, not — many people, you know, are being at home (right now), which is sad. You know, (there’s) a lot of process to it, but you’re not in front of the farmers that you represent. So, I’m looking forward — hopefully, this spring, this summer — to getting back out on the road again, too.

Tom:                          Minette Batters, president of the National Farmers Union of England and Wales, with us from her farm in Wiltshire.

                                    Thanks so much, Minette.

Minette:                      Thank you so much

We all know that 2020 proved to be a roller-coaster year for commodity markets, and as we have seen over the past number of weeks, 2021 appears to be following a similar track. Grain markets rallied through the end of last year, and due to the poor availability of supplies globally, prices are continuing to skyrocket. This is happening against a backdrop of a macro-environment impacted by a weakening U.S. dollar and China ramping up its soybean imports. Considering these factors, how do we address the key challenges of mitigating risk and remaining financially and environmentally sustainable while optimizing cattle performance?

Overcoming the protein challenge

To sustain profitability, dairy and beef producers need to examine their feed management and nutritional applications. By using good-quality forage, supporting rumen health and using a tailored ration formulation, producers can cut back on their losses and keep their operations running more efficiently — thereby resulting in potential cost savings. This organizational agility is of paramount importance to overcoming the protein challenge.

Forage quality

With the continual rise of corn and soybean prices, producers should make the most of cheaper high-fiber feeds, especially forages. Plan to make the highest-quality forage possible, since this is a major component of the slowly digestible part of ruminant diets. Forage is the most variable feed ingredient in terms of its digestibility and nutrient composition, and it comprises a greater proportion of the ration than any other feedstuff. High-quality forage is more digestible, so you will be able to feed more of it. Rumen health and productivity will improve with the use of high-quality forages, and as such, forages can influence feed efficiency in dairy and beef cattle through the maintenance of a desirable rumen environment.

Support the rumen

There are several elements to increasing feed efficiency in ruminants, but one of the most important is to use the rumen to its full potential by supporting the activity and growth of rumen microflora. This enables dietary nutrients to be extracted from the diet as efficiently as possible. The nutrients provided to the rumen microflora must be well-balanced in terms of their fermentable energy and protein supply. Fermentable protein nutrition must be specifically adapted to maximize rumen microbial population activity and growth, as different populations have different requirements in term of how nitrogen is supplied.

Wasted energy means wasted profits

For years, nutritionists have overfed crude protein to meet the amino acid requirements for their desired milk yield or daily liveweight gains. Besides the significant increase in input costs, this also results in poor nitrogen efficiency and, subsequently, higher nitrogen excretion, which is detrimental to both the environment and the producer’s profits. The dairy cow inherently suffers as a result of poor nitrogen efficiency, since excessive nitrogen is converted first into ammonia and then into urea — which is partially recycled, but the vast majority is excreted. Ultimately, there is an energy loss associated with this process due to the detoxification of ammonia into urea. This energy cost comes at the expense of productivity and biological functions. The energy required to excrete excess nitrogen in a dairy cow is equivalent to up to 2 kg (4.4 lbs.) of milk and can lead to:

• Body condition loss
• Increased blood and milk urea levels
• Issues with reproductive performance

Lower protein doesn’t have to mean lower performance

With the tightening of global protein supplies, producers may face a shortage later this year and will need to stretch their existing stocks. But what if lower-protein diets could be fed while still maintaining performance? The possibility to increase nitrogen efficiency using Optigen®, a non-protein nitrogen technology from Alltech®, pushes the boundaries of protein nutrition.

Nitrogen from Optigen is more efficiently captured by rumen bacteria and is transformed into additional microbial biomass — so, why couldn’t the total dietary nitrogen supply be reduced? Researchers from Penn State University1 have looked at dairy cattle ration formulation and decreasing the crude protein supply from 16.5% to 15.5% while increasing the forage quantity fed to cows through the introduction of Optigen.

In this study, Optigen partially replaced heat-treated soybean meal and canola meal. This resulted in:

• Better nitrogen efficiency (from 28.8% to 30.8%, respectively, in the control and Optigen groups)
• Greater milk production in the Optigen group (41.6 vs. 40.5 kg/day)

This resulted in an elevated income over feed cost of $0.16/cow/day.

When it comes to beef cattle feed rations, a recent meta-analysis2 highlighted how the partial replacement of vegetable protein with Optigen exhibited a consistent improvement in the liveweight gain and feed efficiency of beef cattle. The many positive effects included an average higher liveweight gain (by 8%) and better feed efficiency (by 8%), with the inclusion of corn silage enhancing the effects of Optigen. A simulation analysis based on these benefits indicated that feeding Optigen to gain 440 lbs. in 1,000 cattle would:

• Reduce the time to slaughter by 9 days
• Reduce feed costs by $18,000
• Support a reduction in the carbon footprint of the beef unit by 111 tons of CO2 equivalents

These studies clearly demonstrate how innovations like Optigen can make improved animal performance, reduced environmental impact and financial gains not only possible but compatible.

Optigen delivers consistency when you need it most

In a world of quickly evolving change and disruption, consistency can seem idealistic. However, for a high-producing dairy cow or feedlot animal, consistency in how we feed and manage them is crucial for them to reach their optimal performance and profitability. At Alltech, we have identified “the 7 Ps of consistency” that we associate with Optigen. Over the last 15 years, these “Ps” have evolved, and several of them have been reinforced during the global pandemic — for example, the importance of securing a robust supply chain for proteins and the ability to continue supplying producers and feed companies around the world in the face of adverse conditions. There was also a question: Would Covid-19 diminish the sense of urgency around climate-friendly food production? Recent policy announcements around the world reiterated the point that food systems cannot be resilient to crises such as the current global pandemic if they are not sustainable.

With radical increases in vegetable protein costs, global attention will focus on the inherent nutrient variability between consignment and place of origin. Optigen is a solution that provides consistency when we need it most — from helping producers reduce their reliance on protein sources that fluctuate in price or that simply aren’t in supply to ensuring consistent animal performance and overall production profitability.

In summary, there are ways to lower feed costs and sustain the profitability of your dairy or beef enterprise during the current protein challenge and beyond.

Here are six tips to help you:

1. Increasing prices and demand for proteins mean that close attention should be paid to the nutritional composition of vegetable protein stocks, which could vary in their consignment and place of origin and, as a result, put animal performance at risk.
2. Make the most of cheaper high-fiber feeds, especially forages, but ensure that those forages are high-quality.
3. Support the rumen and ensure that it is being used to its full potential. This will enable nutrients to be extracted from the diet as efficiently as possible.
4. Consider feeding balanced, lower-protein diets to stretch your protein supplies, which may be necessary in case of a shortage later this year.
5. Include Optigen in your dairy and beef cattle rations as a nutritional solution for lowering your dietary protein while increasing efficiency. The partial replacement of bulky vegetable protein sources with Optigen, a concentrated nitrogen source, also creates more space in the diet to increase the inclusion of cheaper home-grown forages.
6. Take this opportunity to look at how environmentally friendly the feedstuffs you use are, as protein sources can carry a high carbon burden if they are not sourced from responsible production, ultimately impacting the long-term sustainability of the operation.

References

1. Varga et al. (2009). Effects of Optigen® on milk production, N balance and diet cost in high producing cows. Unpublished, Department of Dairy and Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
2. Salami, S.A.; Moran, C.A.; Warren, H.E.; Taylor-Pickard, J. A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Slow-Release Urea Supplementation on the Performance of Beef Cattle. Animals 2020, 10, 657.

I want to learn more about how I can overcome the current protein challenge and sustain profitability on my dairy or beef operation.

Marianne Smith Edge is a food, agriculture and consumer insight strategist and founder of Agri NutritionEdge where she serves as a translator between the consumer and the ag space to bring more food transparency to the food chain and improve food perception with consumers. She shares her insights on building trust with consumers by providing the security of safe and healthy food. 

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

Tom:                          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.

                                    I’m Tom Martin with the latest in our agri-food outlook series: a visit with food agriculture and consumer insight strategist Marianne Smith Edge.

                                    Marianne is a sixth-generation farm owner in Owensboro, Kentucky. She also is a registered dietician and founder of The AgriNutrition Edge, a food and agriculture communications consulting firm. Marianne advances science and nutrition thought leadership on her firm’s website, AgriNutritionEdge.com. And she joins us from Owensboro.

                                    Greetings, Marianne.

Marianne:                  Well, greetings and good morning to you.

Tom:                          Marianne, first, if you would, just tell us about your work as both a farmer and one who advises the ag community on matters of communication.

Marianne:                  Well, I grew up on a dairy farm in Northern Kentucky, so I definitely have strong roots in the dairy industry. And at this point, I don’t do day-to-day work in farming, but in the Owensboro area, my husband and I do own farmland, where soybean and corn are grown. So, I have definitely a vested interest and (am) very involved in the agricultural area.

I think, with that background, along with my (being) professionally trained as a registered dietician and having worked in consumer insights over the years, it really does allow me to interact across the food value chain on communications. And especially in the ag community, it’s so important to really remind and work with the ag community on understanding the need to communicate what is being done and has been done over the years on moving forward and preserving land and sustainability.

You know, to too many non-farm individuals, the perception of sustainability is almost viewed as a new concept, and even though we look at it in different lenses today, we know that, ultimately, we are where we are today because farming has always looked at the preservation of farmland for future generations.

Tom:                          Well, Marianne, this pandemic — it seems like we can’t talk about anything without talking about the pandemic. And, of course, it’s been with us long enough now for us as consumers to settle into some health and food consumption trends and habits. And I wonder: What’s your perspective on trends that have emerged from the conditions of the pandemic in 2020?

Marianne:                  Well, definitely, the emergence of returning to one’s own kitchen as a necessity, of course, has emerged. We saw, by the end of the last year, that over 80% of individuals said that they were cooking at home.

                                    But the good news is that we see that individuals say that, even though there is some cooking fatigue, is that they are continuing. And even though we were hearing about the “COVID 15” — somewhat like the college “freshman 15” game — is that over a third of consumers basically said that they were cooking more healthfully.

                                    From that, we saw that online shopping, of course, (which many people decided) to do through necessity, jumped at an all-time rate, at a much higher rate than any retail had ever anticipated. And as well as — when you’re looking at trends from food, we see that individuals definitely want to connect to more local sources — and many times, especially in produce, we saw a considerable jump in looking at organics.

Tom:                          Has this opened up opportunities or expanded the market for small farms, and particularly those that are involved in CSAs, in community-supported agriculture and, you know, the weekly order of greens and so forth that we’re able to get? Have you seen any increase in that area?

Marianne:                  Yes. We definitely have seen an increase in this particular area. And I can use a friend and a farm-to-consumer meat processing business in this area as an F1 example, and have written about it in some of my blogs, is that even though he had gained a good audience through farmer’s markets over the last few years, suddenly, that increase for wanting a locally produced and processed meat grew rapidly — especially in that April and May (period), when meat, all our meat consumption seemed to increase and availability wasn’t as prevalent. And the good news is that trend has continued.

So, again, folks really want to be able to connect to food and know where food comes from. And I think there’s also that sense of security and overall safety appeal — that if they know where their food comes from, there is an assurance that, one, it will always be there, and that it’s safe and I, you know, trust the person who is producing it.

Tom:                          Any other particular current active trends that are influencing food production?

Marianne:                  Well, the trend of sustainability will continue to increase — and sustainability, of course, can mean so many different things to individuals, but connecting the planet and personal health has continued to evolve, and it should. So, I think, many times, individuals are also seeing that, “If I eat locally, if I support my local producers, then I’m eating more sustainably.”

So, in that case, looking (at), as we move forward, on a global standpoint, sustainability and looking at food systems — even though it was an active trend, this whole global pandemic has really promoted more conversation. In fact, in September, there will be a UN Food Systems Summit in New York where, really, we’re looking at the whole concept of trends and regionalization, as well as global food systems. So, that will definitely continue the conversation.

Tom:                          Have transparency and the trust that it can engender, have those things taken on more importance among consumers these days?

Marianne:                  They have. And I think we have to recognize — and especially the agriculture community — is the importance of trust and transparency. The good news is that consumers do trust farmers, but sometimes, at the same time, there is a disconnect of communication and in transparency.

                                    We always have to realize that less than 2% of the population really has a direct connection to agriculture in these days. And so, therefore, it becomes imperative that the agriculture community really communicates what’s being done — you know, why are we doing what we are doing? Whether it’s using or not using antibiotics or how plants and animals are grown or whether or not we’re using gene editing or are genetically modifying individuals, explaining what it means to the farmer but also to the consumer is really important.

                                    And so, and we know the fact that if we’re not transparent (on our own), ultimately, we will be transparent, because of the amount of information that’s available on all levels. And so, it’s really important that you, (that) those who know, actually provide the information and open the area for those who don’t know to talk about it.

Tom:                          Well, perception can be everything in a lot of situations. And I noticed on your blog that you write about trust — and specifically, you cite a national poll conducted by the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future that finds that most people just don’t like industrial agriculture, but as you just mentioned, if just farmers are listed, the trust goes up. What are the dynamics behind these distinctions?

Marianne:                  Well, I do think, in many cases — and some of it is perceptions and what you hear, as well as in surveys — is that in some individuals’ minds, people imagine that farmers should be small, always small. And (they) give that illusion of kind of the “mom-and-pop” type of farmer.

                                    And so, unfortunately, sometimes, the label of industrial farm or factory farms are given to really large agriculture production (that) is still family-owned. And so, it is a misconception and (is) easily used by individuals who want to kind of frame that conversation, that big is not always good. And it seems like big food, big ag, gets a negative connotation, but at the same time, as consumers, we readily accept big technology and big food distribution systems.

                                    So, it is, it is a challenge. I think we constantly have to be able to distill the distinction and really talk about the percentage of (large) farms that are (family) owned and that farms, regardless of their size, you know, they have to be profitable if they’re going to be sustainable. And you know, larger — the larger the farm, sometimes, can actually be much more innovative in technology as well as sustainable practices. So, this is an area that we all need to continue to work on to break down some of those perceptions.

Tom:                          Well, continuing that perception thought, I wonder if it’s generally understood that to be a successful farmer, you have to be, in essence, a scientist. I mean, it can amaze the non-farmer to hear and read about what actually goes into the work of producing our sources of food. Do you think this “brain power” aspect could use a boost in the public dialogue?

Marianne:                  I do. I think, for some, the mental picture of farming is, many times — and, I, like anybody, love farmer’s markets, but you know, (with) the farmer’s markets, you get that close connection of food and individuals, and you — sometimes, you don’t always understand what goes into it, how much prep time and science has gone into it.

                                    I would say today, you know — and I can’t quote the exact numbers — but most in farming today definitely have a college education or (have) been involved in constant training.

                                    You know, my father was a dairy farmer over 51 years. And even though he was a World War II vet who did not go to college, you know, farming still — it was about his understanding the science. And so, I do think we forget that it’s very scientific, and if we really realize the technology and the science that has gone into farming over the last 50, 60 years, where we are able to only use the amount of, if needed, pesticides or chemicals or etc., based on a particular small area of the land, that we can really have an integrated pest management — we’re so much better at being able to control these inputs than, you know, than when I was growing up. And the amount of technology (and) computerization that goes into farming — to the average individual, I don’t think they do understand that, how much science goes into it. And especially as we continue to look at sustainability practices of reducing animal production or reducing greenhouse gas inputs, you know, we’re moving forward.

Looking at carbon farming, all the different technologies, it really does — it is about science and in knowing technology.         It’s a highly sophisticated profession that some, sometimes, individuals don’t regard it as such.

Tom:                          You’ve mentioned sustainability a couple of times. We hear so much about it now — even more so as the new Biden administration in Washington is rolling out its agenda. Where do you think agriculture will fit into that picture?

Marianne:                  I think agriculture is really the foundation of this picture. But the important thing — it’s going to be so important for agriculture to be at the table. I have been involved in some webinars, listening (as a) participant or discussing over the last couple of months, and globally as well as in the U.S.  And sometimes, during that conversation, people will say, “Well, yes, we need to have farmers involved.” And I am thinking, “Well, why aren’t they at the table?”

                                    So, I think it’s going to be really important that, you know, the basis of the whole concept of climate change and sustainability is that agriculture needs to make sure that we are inserted into the conversation early on. But it’s also important that we don’t keep just talking to ourselves. You know, we need to make sure that there’s an integration of conversations across the board, so those who might be making policy truly understand the unintended consequences, or also understand the positive solutions; either way.

                                    And so, agriculture, to me, is at the core of where we’re going — it’s just that we really need to be in the middle of the conversation now, not (only) when decisions are made.

Tom:                          I know that you’re involved in another conversation. You were named to the board of directors of the Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky a couple of years ago. And I know that your background includes owning a strategic nutrition consulting firm for the food and healthcare industries. Why is it important that that insight and perspective about farming and food production have a seat at that particular table?

Marianne:                  Well, it’s — earlier this week, we actually had a discussion of really bringing a group of partners across healthcare and the workforce to really look at how we can start drilling in on particular focus areas within Kentucky, to really start turning around (and) making Kentucky a healthier population.

                                    The reality (is that) we are at the bottom — not at the total bottom, but definitely at the, at the lower percentage of being healthful. During COVID, it really, it has exposed an issue we already knew: that the issues of health equity and inequity and how COVID has affected those with the higher percentage of culpability, such as diabetes, heart disease, etc.

                                    So, with my background, I do lead the strategic planning evaluation committee, and so, you know, we have to think broad-base. What are the factors that are, really, have created this, you know? At the core, it really is food, as well as access to healthcare.

                                    So, I feel like my very background, as well as my work in strategic planning over the years, can really work side by side with all the other colleagues in the health and (food) workforce to be very focused on the fact that there’s never been a better time, and it’s really important that we move forward and really identify what’s at the core and how we can reverse our health status in Kentucky.

Tom:                          Marianne, an article on your blog is titled, “Antibiotics: Cure or Curse?” And you cite concerns about antibiotic overuse, resistance, and how the two may be intertwined and how, for some, the blame is on animal agriculture, while for others, it’s on human medicine.

                                    Do you anticipate movement toward more antibiotic-free and organic production in 2021?

Marianne:                  Yes, even though I do think we will see more of it. What’s interesting — in a recent survey that was just recently released by the International Food Information Council Foundation in Washington, D.C., which I have previously worked (for) — what was interesting is they were really looking at influences on animal protein and plant protein decision-making. And about 25% of the individuals said that if a product was labeled “no antibiotic,” that really influences their decision, more so than “organic.”

                                    And so, we see that that’s typically with those that might be under the age of 45 and (with a) higher income. But, again, individuals are connecting that as a safety issue, and with COVID, there’s also been concern that, “Okay, what’s in my food or what’s being given to animal protein that, you know, is there any” — even though we know it’s not really been, that’s not necessarily true — but there is some thought within the public of, “Is there connection of how my food is raised, especially animal protein, as related to disease states or future disease states?”

                                    So, I do think we will continue to see consumer influence on looking for products that have no antibiotics. I think there’s a lot of discussion out there (about) whether, does that — is it as good for human health as (it) is for animal welfare? But antibiotics — third shift is so important across the human and animal continuum.

                                    I served on one health board a few years ago when I worked with the International Food Information, and so this is one area that really, as a human and animal health connection, that needs to continue to be looked at over the way. And with organic, even though it’s still a small piece of the total purchases, what was interesting is, last year, to your point, with COVID, we saw a much more significant increase of individuals who (are) buying especially organic produce.

Tom:                          Hmm. Well, what is on your shortlist of things you hope to see happen in agriculture and food production this year, in 2021?

Marianne:                  Oh, my shortlist. So, world peace. [Laughs] I think, in the shortlist, I keep bringing back to it, but (on my) shortlist is really bringing this whole discussion around sustainable food systems, what does that look like? And that’s a really large topic, but I think, in 2021, is that my shortlist is: what have we learned about the food value chain, the whole distribution system, during 2020? How can we use these learnings to really start looking at what needs to change? You know, what have we learned, and how can we use those learnings to really improve not only the safety (of) the distribution system but also improve trust and transparency and take that and learn what we can do better?

                                    So, really, even though it’s a very large shortlist, I think taking those where — this should give us an opportunity to really put the consumer and the farmer, along the whole other food value chain, (to put these) individuals together to really realize that, if we are going to be able to continue with having the availability of food that we have been so fortunate (to have), that we all need to come together to create transparency and trust among each of us.

Tom:                          That’s food, agriculture and consumer insight strategist Marianne Smith Edge, talking with us from Owensboro, Kentucky. Thanks, Marianne.

Marianne:                  Thank you.

Tom:                          Coming up next in our agri-food outlook series: Minette Batters, president of the National Farmers Union of England and Wales. We’ll get her views on building a more sustainable agri-food industry, working with governments on ag and trade policies and what she expects from the industry after a tumultuous year.

                                    I’m Tom Martin. Thanks for listening.

                                    Join us for the rest of the series as we reflect on how the agriculture industry adapted in 2020 and speak with experts on what’s in store for agri-food in 2021.

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

The European Union Green Deal is an ambitious plan to help Europe become the first carbon-neutral continent by the year 2050. Ciaran Black, an independent strategy and innovation consultant, discusses how farmers are adapting to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, what new business opportunities are arising as a result of the consumer demand for product sustainability and what the implications are globally for more sustainable food production.

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

Tom:                          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.

                                    I’m Tom Martin, and I’m joined from Dublin, Ireland, by Ciaran Black, an independent strategy and business innovation consultant.

                                    Ciaran’s expertise is in leading new growth programs, creating new value propositions and challenging existing business models in large corporations as well as startups. And we want to get his take on the European Union Green Deal and what it means for food production and farming in the EU, as well as the implications for the global food chain in 2021 and beyond.

                                    Welcome to Ag Future, Ciaran.

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

Tom:                          And if you would, first, refresh us on the goals of the EU Green Deal.

Ciaran:                       Yes. The EU Green Deal is a very ambitious plan to become the first continent in the world to become carbon neutral by 2050. And, really, what it tries to do is decouple economic growth with a move toward greater sustainability and, really, the target of change recently to a much higher level — this 2050 target of carbon neutrality.

                                    And what we’re seeing is that, in the last 20 years or 25 years or so, we’ve seen a 25% reduction in emissions in Europe. But along that period of time was also about 60% growth in the economy, so the view is that economic prosperity and sustainability can go hand in hand. But the change here, really, is that the ambition of the target is much higher. So, in the next ten years to 2030, we’re looking to move from the position of around of a 25% reduction up to 55% reduction and then on toward full neutrality by 2050.

So, we’re really seeing a radical transformation of the economy and society in Europe.

Tom:                          What would be the consequences of inaction? Is there a sense of urgency?

Ciaran:                       Yes, there certainly is. I mean, I think, you know, most people and most countries recognize that climate change, you know, is a huge challenge for the planet, and it must be addressed. So, it’s not only Europe that’s pushing toward this level of ambition. We’ve seen China recently commit to climate neutrality by 2060, and I think, you know, President Biden already has signed back up to the Paris Agreement. So, I think we’ll see new targets on the way from the U.S. as well.

                                    And also, you know, in the private sector, companies like Microsoft and Amazon and Unilever are all setting themselves big targets in this regard. So, I think that the consequences of inaction are, on the one hand, trying to address really important questions for the planet, but also, there’s a competitive situation, whereby, if it’s inevitable that countries are going to be going in this direction, then delaying is not a good strategy. And also, that there are huge opportunities — if you take the first move and then start to develop new technologies and new approaches that will help meet those targets, then you’re in a much stronger position.

Tom:                          So, a goal of no net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050. Is this viewed as a realistic goal by the European agricultural and food production sectors?

Ciaran:                       Well, I think there’s a little doubt about the direction of travel. You know, agriculture and food production, we want to become more sustainable and more innovative and produce more with less resources. You know, that’s good business, after all, so there is real interest in moving that direction.

                                    I think there is some skepticism around how fast the sector can move, and can it do these, kind of, levels of changes within a short timeframe. But I don’t see anyone that is necessarily opposing the goals; it’s more — it’s more the phase of change. And I think the real debate is around how much can be done voluntarily within the sector, and how much the legislation or regulation (will) push the phase.

Tom:                          What is happening? How is farming adapting to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions?

Ciaran:                       Well, in Europe — and the way it works is vast — the European Commission assessed these lofty ambitions for 2030 and for 2050, and then, each country, each member state, has to develop its own strategic plan in relation to agriculture. It’s called the CAP, the Common Agricultural Policy. It develops its own strategic plan about how it will transition to that objective. So, it means that each country will have its own individual and tailored plan for how the nation will meet those overall targets. So, it means that the agriculture companies within each country will have different sets of targets, but all toward this common goal.

                                    And I think there’s a growing awareness of, you know, how seriously Europe is moving toward this target and how they have to adapt their business toward that. So, I think every company in Europe that’s involved in the agriculture and food industry really understands that they need to adapt and are already progressing a long way toward being ready for that.

Tom:                          Well, a big, ambitious initiative like this, with targeted goals, can have a way of influencing the development of innovative new businesses. Are you seeing that happen at this stage?

Ciaran:                       Yeah, absolutely. I think what’s — as I mentioned with each of these strategic plans for each country, those start to have specific targets, and those specific targets drive specific innovation. So, we’re already seeing lots of activity around those, those areas.

                                    And another EU-wide basis and a huge amount of funding is going to go into incentives to increase the level of research and development and innovation across all of those sectors. So, we’re seeing a huge impact, but it’s very much driven around the specifics of what the targets are.

Tom:                          Ciaran, can you give us some examples of some of the new businesses that are emerging in response to the Green Deal?

Ciaran:                       Well, I mean, I think we’re still in the early stages, but in general, virtually all the new startups in the sector all have some kind of sustainability play. And it is right across the crops and livestock sectors, so we’re seeing that right across the board.

                                    And I think, really, what we’re seeing is that there’s a real mindset shift toward including sustainability in every decision that companies are making. So, that means that they’re really stitching sustainability into the value propositions that they’re developing. And I think we’re seeing the phase of that really gathering now, is people be can clearer and clearer about what they need to do to be able to meet these targets.

Tom:                          You mentioned earlier that a key goal of this strategy is to decouple economic growth from resource use. So, does that require a wholesale transition to renewable energy?

Ciaran:                       Well, the energy sector is a huge part of the emissions profile in Europe. So, about 75% of emissions all come from the energy sector, so it is key to the target, and this will mean much more renewable down the system, so a lot more green energy. And we’re also seeing a lot more electrification to move us away from fossil fuels as an energy source. So, things like, you know, electric vehicles moving away from fossil fuel as the source.

We’re also seeing that where electrification is not possible, a big drive for clean fuel, such as hydrogen, is every important. And overall, I think the energy sector itself has to really increase its efficiency (and strive for) a greater level of interconnection, integration and digitization of that. But it has been very clear that this sector was going to be the focal point for many years. So, I think there’s a huge amount of progress that’s already been made in relation to energy.

Tom:                          But we don’t get change of this scale and scope without debate, without controversy, without a lot of anxiety. Are you seeing those things emerge as the EU moves toward these goals?

Ciaran:                       Yes. So, certainly, yeah, you’re right, I mean, controversy is always going to be there with the level of transformation that’s there. I see the two levels. One is, you know, on the big picture, which is really to do with international trade, you know, I think (is) where the most controversial things would be — what’s called the border carbon adjustment, which is, you know, how much you can influence adding tariffs to imports that are coming into Europe that are of a lesser standard, in terms of environmental sustainability, than others. I think that would be very controversial and will have a real impact in terms of trade negotiation.

                                    Within the agriculture and food sector themselves, I think what we’re seeing is some discussion around initiatives like the increase in organic farming. There’s an objective to have 25% of farmland be organic by 2030. And (there’s) also a movement toward what’s called carbon farming, whereby the produce coming from farming is not milk and meat and crops; it’s about sequestering carbon. And, actually, how that works in practice is going to be quite controversial, and the degree to which the sector can make a transformation in that kind of fundamental sense, I think, is going to be quite difficult.

                                    And, also, I mean, I think there’s a push toward changing diets to more plant-based over meat-based diets, and I think that will be quite controversial, too.

Tom:                          Hmm. Interesting. The strategy calls for action to reduce the use and risk of chemical and more hazardous pesticides by 50%. How is this imperative, spurring innovation in pest control?

Ciaran:                       I think we’ll see a lot more innovation around integrated pest management. So, it’s not just the innovation around the pesticides themselves but, also, around the new innovative agricultural services that will, you know, monitor the growth of pathogens and, you know, help find exactly the right time when different pesticides should be used and how they’re applied.

                                    So, I think we’re going to see a much more integrated approach, which, rather than just one product, will hit a whole range of different pathogens. It will be a much more selective and intelligent use of those interventions. So, I think it’s going to be very interesting, but that obviously means that the use of data and services becomes much, much more important in the sector.

Tom:                          The plan also calls for reducing nutrient losses by at least 50% while ensuring no deterioration of soil fertility. But the plan also calls for reducing fertilizer use by at least 20%. What are the implications of this?

Ciaran:                       Yeah, those are pretty ambitious targets, but nutrient losses are bad for everyone, really — that, you know, the farmer loses, and the environments (do), too.

So, this is primarily around nitrogen efficiency, and this is quite a complex system, especially in relation to livestock farming. So, the implications are that we need to take a more holistic view; it’s not just about fertilizer itself. So, we need to have improved efficiency in areas like feed intake, make sure that that’s of high quality, and how the animal processes that feed internally is another area where we can innovate and improve efficiency. And then, also, how we manage manure and how we spread fertilizer on the land are also other areas that are important.

So, this gives, you know, a really significant scope to innovate across all the sub-systems, and the key, really, (is) to coordinate and integrate those approaches so that the sum of all those interventions delivers a really significant impact.

Tom:                          The strategy includes something called the “Just Transition Mechanism,” and between this year and 2027, this program is to pump billions in financial support and technical assistance to help those who are most affected by the move toward the green economy. Are farming and food production or elements of the sector eligible for this kind of assistance?

Ciaran:                       Yeah. I mean, the intention is that all sectors that are negatively impacted are eligible for this transition mechanism.

                                    So, in the case of agriculture, initiatives like I mentioned, around carbon farming, may help ease that transition. So, this will be a case where maybe a farmer who had traditionally been a dairy producer or a beef producer or going crops will find that situation where, because of the change toward a more sustainable future, might mean that it’s difficult for them to have an economic business in their traditional farming. So, they might migrate to things like carbon farming, which might be forestry, or different initiatives that will increase either biodiversity or the sequestration of carbon into their soils.

                                    So, mechanisms that will support that shift and that transition are certainly areas that are going to be very applicable to agriculture and food production. But there’s a lot of detail that’s still required to work out for that to work in practice. And I think this will take, you know, some quite considerable time before that becomes clear. But the intention is that the sector will be eligible for these mechanisms.

Tom:                          I saw that in detailing its Green Deal proposal on its website, the European Commission says the plan for making the EU economy sustainable involves turning climate and environmental challenges into opportunities. In what important ways can this be achieved by the food production industry?

Ciaran:                       Well, sustainability is a product attribute that customers want more and more. I mean, I think there’s a growing awareness of the importance of it, and customers are interested in that, so that’s nothing exclusive to the food and agriculture sector. So, the better companies are able to provide sustainability, the better it is for their businesses, so that’s where — that’s where the opportunity arises.

                                    Now, whether this means a widespread willingness to pay higher prices for food and produce remains to be seen, or whether there’ll be different mechanisms to support that. But I think the consumer preference is certainly there, and this creates an opportunity for producers to differentiate themselves in how they meet that. So, things like local sourcing of food and produce, you know, may increase opportunities for those local producers, etc.

                                    So, I think it’s not all about restricting practices; it’s also an opportunity to be able to differentiate and hold yourself up above competition, so there’s certainly lots of opportunities there.

                                    And also, on a more global basis, I think the global food industry will be demanding more and more sustainable produce, so if Europe is able to produce the products that fall into that category, well, then that’s good business for EU producers.

Tom:                          Is it relevant or important to the success of the EU Green Deal that, under President Biden, the United States has now re-entered the Paris Climate Accord?

Ciaran:                       Yes. I think it’s very important. You know, a broader coalition between major political powers and continents is going to be a very important aspect of meeting the global challenge of climate change.

                                    And in fact, a key component of the Green Deal strategy is what they call Green Deal Diplomacy, which is to try and get all major powers to help and support the drive toward greater sustainability, so that we can, we can meet those targets. And, you know, a key ally — having the U.S. be part of the Paris Climate Accord is going to be essential for Europe, so that they can move forward together to meet the targets, rather than having a more risky situation of playing this alone.

Tom:                          And how is this for you, Ciaran, in your line of work, of independent strategy business innovation consulting? This must be an exciting time.

Ciaran:                       Yeah, it certainly is. I mean, I think I focus on strategy, and especially around business model — and companies really need to reevaluate, actually, how they do business today and recognize that, in the future, this is going to be a pretty big transformation.

And I often think of it as, in 10 or 15 years’ time, we’ll look back, in the same as we’re looking back now — on “How did we ever do business before, without cellular phones or the internet?” — and we’ll be thinking around, “How did we ever make decisions on the business basis without building in sustainability into our overall evaluation?”

So, it’s very exciting, from my perspective, to be able to help companies advance those new opportunities or those new business models to avail of those opportunities.

Tom:                          That’s going to be fascinating to follow. And maybe we’ll check back with you down the road a little bit to see how things have progressed.

Ciaran:                       That will be great, Tom. I really enjoyed our chat.

Tom:                          Yes. Ciaran Black, an independent strategy and business innovation consultant based in Dunboyne, Ireland. We spoke with him from Dublin, and we thank you for joining us, Ciaran.

Ciaran:                       Thanks, Tom.

Tom:                          Join us for the rest of the series as we reflect on how the agriculture industry adapted in 2020 and speak with experts on what’s in store for agri-food in 2021.

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

The January session of the Alltech ONE Virtual Experience  launched on Tuesday with the 2021 Agri-Food Outlook, featuring insights supported by data from Alltech’s industry-leading surveys. The presentation, which is available on demand, highlights results from the 10th annual Alltech Global Feed Survey and the second annual Women in Food & Agriculture Survey. During the virtual session, Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech, speaks with global industry experts to go beyond the numbers and explore the trends shaping the future of agri-food.

The discussion focuses on five emerging trends and includes:

“China’s Rebound” with Jonathan Forrest Wilson, President of Asia, Alltech; and Winnie Wei Jia, Director of Customer Experience, Alltech China

“A Reshaping of the Supply Chain” with Eric Glenn, Global Purchasing and Supply Chain Director, Alltech; and Kathryn Britton, Senior Director of IMI Global Operations, Where Food Comes From, Inc.

“The Inexorable Rise of E-Commerce" with Anand Ramakrishnan Iyer, Digital Marketing Manager, Alltech

“Health-Conscious Consumers” with Nikki Putnam Badding, Director, Acutia and Human Nutrition Initiatives, Alltech

“Innovation Through Empathy and Inclusion” with Bianca Martins, General Manager, Alltech Mexico

“This has been an exceptional time for the agri-food industry,” said Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech. “Agriculture stood strong in the face of adversity, and the global food supply chain continues to provide one of the most basic needs for human survival. The data and insights we have gathered reflect challenges, successes and extraordinary opportunities as we chart a course for the future.”

Results from the Alltech Global Feed Survey and the Women in Food & Agriculture Survey, including graphs and maps, are available on the Alltech ONE Virtual Experience platform in conjunction with the virtual session.  

Alltech Global Feed Survey:

Now in its 10th year, the Alltech Global Feed Survey serves as an invaluable barometer for the state of animal feed production. Fortified by a decade of documentation and research, it is the strongest evaluation of compound feed production and prices in the industry and is the most complete data source of its kind. 

The 2021 Alltech Global Feed Survey estimates that international feed tonnage increased by 1%, to 1,187.7 million metric tons (MMT) of feed produced last year. China saw 5% growth and reclaimed its position as the top feed-producing country, with 240 MMT. Rounding out the top 10 feed-producing countries, including tonnage and growth percentage, are the U.S. (215.9 MMT, +1%), Brazil (77.6 MMT, +10%), India (39.3 MMT, -5%), Mexico (37.9 MMT, +4%), Spain (34.8 MMT, 0%), Russia (31.3 MMT, +3%), Japan (25.2 MMT, 0%), Germany (24.9 MMT, 0%) and Argentina (22.5, +7%). Altogether, these countries account for 63% of the world’s feed production and can be viewed as an indicator of the overall trends in agriculture.

The global data, collected from more than 140 countries and more than 28,000 feed mills, indicates feed production by species as follows: broilers, 28%; pigs, 24%; layers, 14%; dairy, 11%; beef, 10%; other species, 7%; aquaculture, 4%; and pets, 2%. The predominant growth came from the broiler, pig, aqua and pet feed sectors.

Going beyond the numbers for a holistic look at the state of the industry, the survey also incorporates qualitative questions to uncover trends such as COVID-19, sustainability and antibiotic reduction.

The 2021 Alltech Global Feed Survey results, including species-specific feed production numbers, interactive graphs and maps, are available at one.alltech.com/2021-global-feed-survey.

Women in Food & Agriculture Survey:

Alltech believes that inclusion cultivates creativity and drives innovation. Gender equality is not only a fundamental human right — it is also essential to advancing society and the global agri-food industry. To gather real-world insights into the professional landscape for women in agriculture, Alltech supported the second annual Women in Food & Agriculture (WFA) Survey in partnership with AgriBriefing and the WFA Summit. Launched in October 2020, the survey aimed to collect feedback that empowers the agri-food industry to create a more equitable workplace environment.

For meaningful change to be possible, the conversation itself must be inclusive, so the survey gathered insights from men as well as women. Responses from more than 3,200 participants representing more than 80 countries and all sectors of agriculture shed light on the current workplace environment, barriers to success and the outlook for the future. As 2020 ushered in unprecedented challenges, questions related to COVID-19 reveal its impact on the workforce specifically.

In the survey, more than a fourth (26%) of female respondents indicated that they are the primary caretakers for children or aging parents while working from home. Additionally, 21% of women working within the agri-food industry indicated that they are concerned that working from home will negatively impact their careers. Conversely, 13% of male respondents shared the same concern for their career.  

With the majority (62%) of all respondents agreeing that the industry is becoming more inclusive, there is reason to be optimistic.

To access speaker insights from the 2021 Agri-Food Outlook and explore full data results from the Alltech Global Feed Survey and the Women in Food & Agriculture Survey, visit one.alltech.com/2021-agri-food-outlook.

[DUNBOYNE, Ireland] – As the agriculture industry is moving towards more sustainable solutions and ingredients, Alltech E-CO2 has developed the Feeds EA™ model to help feed manufacturers and producers globally measure and lower the carbon footprint of their feed. Feeds EA™ measures the environmental impact of feed production at the feed mill level by assessing the impact of existing compounds or blends. This is determined by calculating greenhouse gas emissions from production, cultivation, processing, energy utilisation and transportation in the manufacturing of the feed. Feeds EA™ can calculate emissions from a database of more than 300 ingredients, including raw materials, soya products, byproducts and additives.  

“Optimising the sustainability of feed production provides a huge opportunity for the whole supply chain,” said Ben Braou, business general manager for Alltech E-CO2. “By utilising Feeds EA™, feed manufacturers are provided with the means to further enhance their product range and sustainability credentials through supplying feed with a lower environmental impact.”

Feed has the potential to influence up to 80% of a farm’s carbon footprint, considering the direct emissions from production, as well as the transportation of feed and indirect emissions that arise from the impact of that feed on the animal. However, the true impact depends on the species and the system of production. The Feeds EA™ model provides an opportunity to optimise a ration by demonstrating how formulation changes could reduce the carbon footprint of the feed. Some ingredients carry a higher carbon weight than others, so the substitution or replacement of specific ingredients with more sustainable options can have a major impact.

“At Alltech E-CO2, we are able to work with feed mills and producers to take those specific feed emissions and apply them at a farm level through our certified livestock assessments,” said Braou. “This greatly increases the accuracy and opportunity for carbon footprint measurement and mitigation across the feed and food chain.”

Feeds EA™ allows feed manufacturers to produce and market more sustainable feed, thereby enabling producers to choose diets with a lower environmental impact. This is particularly relevant in markets that have an environmental focus and where farm gate prices are linked to sustainability metrics.

For feed manufacturers or producers using Feeds EA™, a summary report is provided following the calculation of the feeds’ carbon footprint, allowing for a comparison of different compounds or blends. The report includes the number of ingredients involved in the feed, their inclusion percentage in the feed, their carbon footprint percentage and the percentage of kilograms of CO2e per tonne, which is derived from the disaggregated feed emissions of the different sourced categories.

For more information, visit alltech-e-co2.com.

Five months ago, we spoke with Jack Bobo, CEO and founder of Futurity, about the rapidly changing food supply chain and what trends he believed would influence the future of food production and consumer habits. We recently spoke to Jack again about how consumer trends in the food industry and the food supply chain adapted through the rest of 2020.

The following is an edited transcript of the Ag Future podcast episode with Jack Bobo hosted by Tom Martin. Click below to hear the full audio.

Tom:              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.

                        Futurist and Futurity CEO Jack Bobo was with us back in June of 2020, when we were only beginning to come to grips with the meaning of the term “pandemic”. We wanted to know then what sorts of behaviors and trends peculiar to the COVID-19 crisis he was observing, and so much has happened since then. Jack is back to update us on trends in food and farming. Welcome to Ag Future, Jack.

Jack:               Thank you for having me.

Tom:              When we spoke with you in June, you were noticing an acceleration in online purchases of foods and other goods. Let's start with that. What has happened in that sector since June?

Jack:               Well, a lot is happening. One thing is just (that) the numbers continue to go up. We've got about a 200% increase in shopping over that time. One thing that's interesting is that we're not nearly seeing as much loyalty, though, in the online shopping as we do to the brick-and-mortar store, so I think that's a bit of a surprise — that consumers are much more willing to try two or three or four different online stores, whereas normally, we have sort of one store that we go back to time and again, our local store.

Tom:              I've heard that there is a problem now with returns through the mail and through FedEx and UPS — a phenomenon that wasn't happening before, because people were taking them back to brick-and-mortars. Are you hearing about that?

Jack:               Yes. I think that's definitely an issue. There are a few issues, though. That's one, and that's an important one, and it can contribute to waste — but of course, all of this home delivery is just adding to the package waste that's becoming just an enormous problem. One thing that's a bit of a distinction is that companies like Instacart, where they're actually making local purchases and bringing it to the home, have gotten about a 50% increase (in) consumer loyalty over those that are purely online, and I think that addresses a little bit of that issue. When somebody is actually going to your local grocery store and picking it out, that's one thing, but when somebody's sending it across the internet, that feels like somebody didn't really take as much care to get it to you.

Tom:              Right, and we're learning a new etiquette, a new discipline, in working with our Instacart shoppers. It's been kind of interesting.

Jack:               It is. People are learning lots of lessons that they didn't expect to at this age.

Tom:              Well, at the time back in June when we spoke with you, you noted that due to the pandemic, we had just compressed five to ten years of growth in online food purchases into just a couple of months. At that time, you predicted that this would have a long-term impact. Would you say that online food shopping is here to stay?

Jack:               Well, the numbers are pretty good. (In) surveys that have asked people (who) are currently doing online shopping whether it's something they intend to stick with, about 90% of online shoppers today think that they will continue to make those purchases online long after the pandemic has passed.

Tom:              There's been a big shift from most people dining outside of the home to most everybody now eating their food at home, and this is going to continue for some time. What are the implications?

Jack:               Well, some people today are getting a little bit tired of eating the same thing over and over again and are finally accepting that they might need to learn to cook as well. So, one thing that I've noticed is an explosion in online cooking classes. People are trying to either learn some new skills or learn those skills for the very first time. I think that's going to be a good thing long after this, because people feel more comfortable in the kitchen, but other things that are coming out of this are that restaurants are trying to get in on the game as well — because people aren't coming into the restaurant, but they want to be able to connect with people at home.

                        This has led to a lot of restaurants creating sort of that dining experience in the home, so they're packaging up their products in a way that can then be served at home so you feel a little bit more like you're getting that dining experience than you would from just getting a meal kit. What I think that's interesting is that if COVID hadn't happened, most restaurants would not be getting out of the box. They would not be trying to explore new paths and new models to reach the consumer. They would have just continued to do things the way they had been doing it forever.

                        This has really shaken up the restaurant world, and those are changes that are going to stick — or some of them will. I think that we're going to find that some of them that are able to do it better are going to thrive because of this. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the smaller players, it's just going to be very challenging for them, and I think we'll continue to see a lot of small restaurants going out of business.

Tom:              It's going to be interesting to see what business model emerges from this pandemic and has staying power after that happens. Earlier this year, you were talking to people about panic buying and retail therapy and then food production squeezes and shortages. So, looking forward, what are the long-term implications to our food supply and how we produce food that are going to come out of this pandemic experience?

Jack:               Well, I think the first thing is just to be proud of the fact that our supply chain responded as well as it did to the pandemic. There were a lot of predictions that we were going to run out of food, that animal protein was going to be in short supply, that people were going to be rationing, and none of those things really came to pass. I think that that is to the credit of the companies in the supply chain, the food companies, the farmers and others, who all stepped up to avoid the really serious disruptions that could have taken place.

                        Now, absolutely, there were some disruptions of the supply chain, but given the magnitude of the problem that we faced, things certainly went better than they might have. Other things, though, to think about is that the United States is gearing up for a stimulus package that is about $900 billion, nearly $1 trillion. This is going to provide a lifeline to many people in the near term, but in the longer term, that money is going to run out as well. There are a lot of people that are in a very precarious situation today, a lot of renters who have not been paying their rent. Mortgage owners have not been paying, and at some point, those bills are going to come due. So, as well as things have worked so far, I think we're going to see people being squeezed far more on the consumer side than on the food production side, but when people don't have any money, that tends to have an impact on the entire supply chain.

Tom:              How is the consumer mindset being changed, and where do you think it's going in regards to food trends? Is the way people think about food actually changing?

Jack:               Well, I believe (that) last time we talked, I talked about how uncertainty over jobs, uncertainty over the pandemic, all of those things tend to make people more cautious. When people become more cautious, they become more frugal, more careful in how they spend their money. I think we're definitely seeing a lot of that. I think that those kinds of trends are not things that people get over quickly. They tend to be lasting effects. One, people are going to be short of cash for a long time, but the mental repercussions of that are going to last much, much longer.

Tom:              Again, when we talked earlier in the year, it was, then, way too early in this crisis to make any definitive statements about how it would impact people across the demographic spectrum, but let's look at Generation Z: 18-to-23-year-olds (who) are coming into life with possibility before them, a lot of hope, and suddenly, that's all gone on hold. What does the future have in store for that age group?

Jack:               Yeah. Well, this is definitely the group that is going to be hit the hardest and where the impacts are going to last a lifetime. My daughter started college this fall, but she started from her bedroom. I can tell you, she much would have preferred to have been on a college campus. But more than that, the students that are graduating last year and over the next few years, they'll be graduating into the worst economic climate since the Great Depression.

                        We know that (for) people (who) lived through the Great Depression, that impacted how they think about money, how they think about food, how they think about expenses for their entire lives. So, I think we know for sure that those (who) are in that age group that you mentioned will have really lasting effects on how they think about everything. So, we shouldn't be surprised if they come out of this being more cautious, more careful, more prudent in how they spend their money, but it's also going to have an impact on their earning potential for their entire lives, because the first few jobs you have puts you on a trajectory for retirement.

                        So, they're going to be starting, really, several years behind, and those are things you really just can't make up.

Tom:              What would you say has COVID-19 revealed about the ways that we get the right food to the right people at the right price? What have these disruptions shown us about our food systems?

Jack:               Well, on one hand, our food system is resilient, but it can be disrupted. These disruptions can have broad, even global repercussions. Some of those are going to be in the short term, but some of those will ripple throughout the years. I think the system is better if countries resist the urge to limit exports and to protect their citizens, because we have seen little where countries have been blocking exports, but where we do, those really (have the) potential to disrupt global trade, and it makes everybody nervous.

                        Unfortunately, the few times that that happened over the last six months have not grown and (have) become a global problem. In many ways, that was the problem we saw back in the 2008 and 2009 global recession. This is not a short-term problem. We'll probably lose a decade of progress towards things like reducing global hunger. That's very unfortunate. We had been making decades of progress at reducing hunger and poverty. Those trends are going to continue or (are) going to be reversed for years to come.

                        One of the challenges in 2021 is that we're going to have tens of millions of new people who are going to fall into poverty and hunger, some of them for the very first time. So, at a moment where many governments are struggling to take care of their own people, we're going to have people all around the world that are going to be in greater need, and so it's going to be a challenge to see whether or not countries can take care of their own but also recognize that there's a global need that needs to be addressed as well.

Tom:              Jack, you touched on this a little bit earlier, but I'd like to expand on it, if I could. Again, in June, I asked who you saw coming out of the pandemic as winners and losers, and you singled out online purchasing as a big winner but (said that) restaurants and small businesses (are) in real trouble. What is your assessment now of sectors that will emerge strong versus those that will either not survive or will come out of this, somehow, transformed?

Jack:               Well, one thing I think is interesting is that the importance of farming and food production has never been clearer. I think that's really important because I think, for too long, many consumers had taken food production for granted. Now, this is both a blessing and a curse, for our consumers to care about what it is that you do, because when people care about things, they begin to want policy changes in order to make things better. Sometimes those policy changes do, in fact, improve the situation, but there's also a risk that they'll make things worse.

I don't think we quite know how that's going to play out. But just one example is — I've heard a lot of people talking about how we need to go back to a time when there's greater inventory so that we don't run into the shortages we did at the beginning of the pandemic. I think people forget that by cutting down on inventory, what we did was we reduced cost. Now, the cost of not having inventory is that you're more at risk, but eliminating inventory also reduces cost and the price to the consumer. There are trade-offs. If we have inventory, we're better prepared for a pandemic, but those who are worried about the cost of their food may be disadvantaged. So, I think one of the challenges we're going to have is: How do we balance the need to fix some of the problems that we identified without creating new problems that we'll have to live with?

                        Now, in terms of winners and losers, we've already talked about online purchasing as a winner. We've talked about restaurants; many of them are going to come out of this much, much weaker. There will likely be some that benefit from it, but I think there's going to be a reassessment of the role of dining out in our lives. That's something that restaurants are going to have to figure out: how they can play a more intimate role in the lives of consumers. I think that food companies also are going to have to evaluate where they are and what their relationship is to the consumer.

                        Some of the winners are the larger, big food companies that had been really struggling, to be honest, over the last couple of decades to get the attention of the consumer. These days, consumers are more interested in that comfort and are turning back to the brands that they grew up with. So, I think that they're going to come out of this much stronger, and that's going to be a benefit to them for a long time to come.

Tom:              Well, change is a given. It's like background noise; it's always there. It's always occurring. But right now, we're going through some monumental changes. I wonder about your thoughts, if it's possible to form some thoughts, about the market implications of the changes that are underway in Washington.

Jack:               Yes. Well, I think that we're seeing a lot of changes taking place. I think that there were some that were worried about what the market implications would be of changing from a Republican to a Democratic administration. I think the stock market, at least, has not been concerned about the change, so I think there will be a continuation of positive growth there. But I expect that there will be some changes in terms of how a new administration looks at things like climate change, environmental issues, sustainability, and health and nutrition.

                        I think we'll see a change in focus on priorities, but I don't think that we'll see such dramatic impacts that it's something that people or companies or industries would need to be worried about. Hopefully, there's an opportunity for companies that are already interested in addressing sustainability issues to partner with the new administration in order to accelerate some of the things they're trying to do.

Tom:              Futurist and Futurity CEO Jack Bobo. Thanks so much for the conversation, Jack.

Jack:               It's been great. Thanks for having me.

Tom:              Thank you for listening. To hear other conversations with many of the featured speakers at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference, visit ideas.alltech.com. Access is free after signing up.

How do the top farms achieve and maintain exceptional performance? Valerie Duttlinger, chief analytics officer at Summit SmartFarms, explains how a positive workplace culture that focuses on the people and processes on the farm can lead to greater agricultural production.

The following is an edited transcript of the Ag Future podcast episode with Valerie Duttlinger hosted by Tom Martin. Click below to hear the full audio.

Tom:                          I'm Tom Martin with Valerie Duttlinger, chief analytics officer at Summit SmartFarms, and she joins us to talk about her session at (the Alltech ONE Virtual Experience), “Achieving top performance: What does it really take to be the best?” In this session, Valerie covered how top pig farms achieve and maintain elevated performance through focusing on people and processes. Greetings, Valerie.

Valerie:                      Hi.

Tom:                          So, first, a bit of background. Tell us about Summit SmartFarms.

Valerie:                      Well, we’re a startup company based in Remington, Indiana, and we’re focused on equipping people to optimize performance through labor and technology.

Tom:                          The title of your presentation at this year's virtual ONE (Alltech) Ideas Conference, as I said, was “Achieving top performance: What does it really take to be the best?” And I'm wondering: What criteria have to be met to be considered the best?

Valerie:                      Well, you know, it's really a combination of a number of things, but it’s ultimately driven by a company's business model. The best for a producer selling weaned pigs is different than what a producer finishing their pigs would be looking for. It's a combination of animal performance, employee engagement and, ultimately, profitability.

Tom:                          And can you give us some examples of “bests” that everybody would be familiar with?

Valerie:                      Yeah. So, for a sow farm, you know, 30 pigs weaned per mated female per year is certainly one that is thrown out there a lot. But again, that's not right for everyone. Low mortality is certainly a driver of “best,” both on the sow unit and on the finishing side. But I think having low turnover and highly engaged team members are often not considered in that definition but really should be.

Tom:                          So, Valerie, if you were called in to diagnose the health of an organization, what would you be looking for?

Valerie:                      You know, there's really four buckets that I would be looking at. One would be: Do they put people first? And second, are they coaching, or are they just bosses? Third, does the team have the tools they need to win and be successful? And fourth, have they really created an irresistible culture?

Tom:                          Okay. Let's take those four points one by one. First, people. What needs to be recognized and understood about the people of an organization?

Valerie:                      You know, everybody is different, but ultimately, people are looking for the same things. And our teams really aren’t any different than those that are working in factories or in offices. They want to be known individually and appreciated for their contributions to the team.

Tom:                          And “be a coach, not a boss” — what does this mean?

Valerie:                      You know, for me, great coaches do three things really well: they advocate for their team; they congratulate and celebrate a job well done; and they provide timely guidance when they don't do their jobs correctly.

Tom:                          “Deploy tools to win” — does this have to do with the quality and the effectiveness of the tools employees are provided to work with?

Valerie:                      Yeah. It's not just enough to provide tools; they have to have the right tools, like quality and user-friendly SOPs. Other tools could include personality assessments and tools to help team members understand each other in a much better way.

Tom:                          What are the things that make a workplace culture irresistible?

Valerie:                      An irresistible culture has a waiting line instead of a revolving door of people, and it's a place where people want to come to work instead of having to come to work. It’s a place where they’re supported and are valued and are known for the difference that they're making in the organization.

Tom:                          And within that culture, what kinds of generational differences should employees be aware of?

Valerie:                      Yeah. There are a lot of generational differences, but there certainly has been a big shift in the way that millennials and Generation-Z’s view work. They’re looking for more than just a job that provides a paycheck. They really want their job to provide a purpose that allows them to use their strengths and not focus on weaknesses.

Tom:                          Do you find that the generations offer different perspectives when they're asked to rate their job satisfaction?

Valerie:                      Yeah. In 2019, we conducted a labor intelligence study with just over 100 team members in 12 different farms, and the millennials were the least satisfied while making up 50% of the respondents in that study. And that's been a trend that is seen across many different industries, across a number of different surveys and engagement.

Tom:                          Some of us, we work too hard. We just throw ourselves into our work. And if the job becomes your life, what becomes of your life outside of the work?

Valerie:                      Well, we do spend more waking hours at work than we do at home. So, a job should really be an extension of your life. It should be working for something that you're passionate about and with people you enjoy being around so that it does add to the value of your life.

Tom:                          This pandemic that we're in is causing us to kind of step back from overworking. Are you seeing that, and do you think that's going to make a difference going forward?

Valerie:                      Yeah. It's certainly impacted the way that people are working and living.

                                    You know, in the ag industry, especially in production agriculture, we don't get to just work from home. The animals, they'll have to be cared for and fed. So, it still means going to work, for many of these people. And so, it has certainly been new concerns and new stresses for people as they're trying to educate their children from home while working full-time, having problems with childcare. It's really had a really big impact. But at the same time, in production agriculture, we’re helping to feed the world. And so, we're playing a really important role for frontline workers, and that's important for our team members to remember: the role that they're playing through this pandemic.

Tom:                          Back to your presentation at the (Alltech) ONE (Virtual Experience). Something I found really interesting (is that) you advocate hiring for fit instead of skills. What is fit, and why is fit more important than skills?

Valerie:                      You know, fit is about culture. Does this person fit in with the core values and the culture of the company? And we can teach people the skills much easier than we can help them fit into our culture.

Tom:                          What are the signs of a toxic work culture?

Valerie:                      Well, I would put at the top of that, gossip, and from — that is generally a result of poor communication. It can be strained interactions, and certainly, high turnover would be a sign of a toxic culture.

Tom:                          What if, Valerie, right this second, we're talking to somebody who is just absolutely miserable in their job. First, what are some signs of this?

Valerie:                      You know, I think one of the signs is feeling like you're replaceable, like you're a cog in a wheel and that you're not really known for who you are personally. If you don't feel a connection to the mission of the company and you don't understand if you're winning in your role, it's really hard to be engaged in your job.

Tom:                          And so, how could this unhappiness be prevented?

Valerie:                      Well, I think it's partly the responsibility of the leadership team to share the messages that come back at, you know, communicating the history of the company, helping each team member understand how they're impacting the success of the company and the impact that they have on the world by being in agriculture and food production, helping to feed those around us.

Tom:                          And what could a manager — and I guess a good manager would notice if somebody is going through this. And so, what could that manager do help to a person feel more positive about their job?

Valerie:                      Well, it may not be just their job that's causing them to be negative. It can be those things that are impacting them outside of (their professional) life. And so, for a manager, to start with having a conversation with them about what really is bothering them is the first place to start. And then, if it dovetails into it being a part of the job and (is) really focused on things that they don't like in the job, it's about how can you adjust the job to allow people to do things that they like. We can't avoid all of the jobs that we like or dislike. But if one person in the farm maybe hates paperwork, and yet they’re responsible for a lot of it, having another person help with that or adjusting those responsibilities can go a long way to helping people be more positive in their outlook on their job.

Tom:                          And what if you have no way, or at least think you have no way, to actually measure progress or success in these areas?

Valerie:                      So, I think it's about getting creative. You know, if you have no way to measure progress or success, it’s tough for people to stay engaged. And we really want to know if we're getting better at what we're doing. And so, get creative — even if it's just the scale of 1 to 10, how well do you feel like you did this week, or having your boss rate you (on) how well did you do this week. It doesn't have to be something that is a hard and fast measurement. It can be an objective measurement.

Tom:                          Okay. And now, this is a “listen up” for management. The question is: What are the key traits of an organization that people want to be a part of?

Valerie:                      Yeah. They want a place that embraces teamwork. They need to have clear goals and objectives so that they really have a clear path to what they're working towards, and they really want to work in their strength areas. You know, a football player, a quarterback, is not out there practicing kicks, because that's not his strength area. So, putting people in the places where they're working in their strength area is really important today.

Tom:                          Earlier, we touched on why it's important to be a coach and not a boss. Let's drill down into that just a bit. What distinguishes a coach from a boss?

Valerie:                      A coach would say things like “we” instead of “I”. They're going to give the credit instead of taking credit, and yet, they're always going to accept the blame instead of placing the blame on others. And I think a really great coach pushes you to do more and be more than you thought you could do or be.

Tom:                          Sometimes, there has to be a difficult, uncomfortable conversation between employee and manager, and you say that these discussions should happen sooner than later. Why is that?

Valerie:                      Well, nothing good ever happens by putting it off. And certainly, if the conversation is about somebody doing a task wrong, and they're doing that task over and over again and then you finally address it, it makes them feel foolish. It also hurts their trust in you as a leader, because if you really cared about them and the company, you would have addressed it in a much quicker manner.

Tom:                          We talked earlier about providing good tools to employees, but what are some important tools that ought to be made available to managers?

Valerie:                      You know, most managers get promoted before they've actually had any leadership training, and that's not just true in agriculture; it’s true across all industry. And so, providing training is so important to help them develop the skills to lead people, because that role of a leader is so different than being an individual contributor. And there are a lot of different tools out there. You know, one of them that we’re utilizing is a personality platform called Cloverleaf that has nine different personality assessments on it. And you can put your team on it to help you see the differences in people's personalities — how they want to be communicated with, what motivates them — so that you can really tailor your role as a manager to best motivate and influence individual team members.

Tom:                          So, these are tools that can help managers better understand their people.

Valerie:                      Yeah. Absolutely. And the Cloverleaf platform has nine different personality assessments — things like DiSC and Myers-Briggs, that are very common for most people. And it puts your team all together so that you can see how individuals fall on those different assessments.

Tom:                          How about conflict? Are there tools available to help managers deal with conflict?

Valerie:                      There are. There's more generic tools out there that help people learn how to have productive conflicts. You know, not all conflict is bad. And then there are other tools on the Cloverleaf platform as well. There's a comparison tool where you can look at two different people and identify where conflict is existing between those (people) and helping them understand each other — that it's not an intentional push of a button to get somebody upset, but just the way that people view things differently.

Tom:                          How can an organization optimize onboarding and training?

Valerie:                      Well, I think it starts with having the right person do the onboarding and training, and that should not be the last person that was hired, which is often the case. Having a teacher's heart is so important, rather than someone who may be annoyed by the same question over and over. It’s going to be really important to optimize that onboarding and training process.

Tom:                          And are there some training tools that you can recommend?

Valerie:                      Yeah. There's a number of production-related training platforms out there today that provide a really good foundation. There are also programs that are done internally within some of these organizations that have been hugely successful, but tools that really focus on improving communication and leadership are important not just for leaders but for everybody in the organization.

Tom:                          Earlier, we touched on culture. Do a company's core values translate into the nature of its culture?

Valerie:                      Not always. So, core values are words on the wall, while culture is the behavior and the actions of the people. And so, they don't necessarily equal each other, unfortunately.

Tom:                          Earlier, we talked about the signs of a toxic workplace culture. How can this be changed?

Valerie:                      It really starts with rebuilding trust, because to get to a toxic workplace, there has been trust that had been broken. And so, communicating transparently that you're making an effort to change the workplace culture, admitting the mistakes that have been made and acknowledging that you want a different outcome in the future (are important steps). It's important to recognize the changes in behaviors as you go through this transition. And one of the big things that happens in toxic workplaces, often, is treating each person — making sure that everybody follows the same rules and that nobody gets preferential treatment. Changing culture is not a fast process, but it may be the most important key to long-term success for operations.

Tom:                          So, these are some ways that an organization's leadership can go about fixing these issues that lead to toxicity in the culture.

Valerie:                      Yeah. I think you've got to start with making a commitment to change and then find somebody to help you through the process who doesn't have other responsibilities pulling them away from the mission. You know, it's great to pick a platform to get to know your people better, and that can be that single assessment, like DiSC or Myers-Briggs, or it could be the Cloverleaf platform that I talked about. And then, finally, it’s integrating those changes and inspecting them regularly to make sure that the changes are taking place and you're seeing the outcome that you desire.

Tom:                          Valerie Duttlinger, chief analytics officer at Summit Farms. We thank you for joining us, Valerie.

Valerie:                      Thank you.

Tom:                          I'm Tom Martin. Thank you for listening.

[DUNBOYNE, Ireland] – Weather patterns have been variable across Europe throughout the 2020 growing season and have had a direct impact on the presence of specific moulds and mycotoxins across different regions. Mycotoxins are produced by certain species of moulds and are a concern for livestock producers due to their ability to influence feed quality and subsequent animal health and performance. Samples collected from across Europe as part of the Alltech European Summer Harvest Survey have been submitted to the Alltech 37+® mycotoxin analytical services laboratory, and analysis is indicating the presence of moderate to high levels of mycotoxin risk.

The results are based on 274 samples of barley, wheat, corn, corn silage, grass silage, alfalfa, haylage, grass, peas, oats, sunflower meal, triticale and soybean. These samples are collected from farms or animal feed production sites from 15 countries across Europe including Russia, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Hungary, Germany, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Estonia, Republic of Lithuania, Morocco, Greece, Belarus, Croatia and Kazakhstan, and offer a representative picture of the contamination risk in all regions, with an overall moderate to high risk. Samples have shown an average of 4.4 mycotoxins, with 99.6% containing at least one mycotoxin and 96.4% containing two or more mycotoxins. Fumonisins were found in 80.7% of the samples, while 74.5% contained type B-trichothecenes.

A noticeable trend in recent years is the growing presence of emerging mycotoxins. More than 75% of samples contained this group, which includes specific mycotoxins such as beauvericin, moniliformin, phomopsin A, alternariol and enniatin A and B. Zearalenone (ZEN), a mycotoxin that can have a significant impact on the fertility of most species groups, was detected in almost 7% of samples. Aflatoxin B1 (AfB1), a member of the Aspergillus species and a particularly harmful toxin, was detected in less than 7% of the samples that have been analysed — a percentage that is potentially lower than expected considering the dryer-than-normal conditions across much of Central and Eastern Europe this year.

''Overall, the current results indicate a moderate to high mycotoxin risk across Europe this year, and producers must remain aware of how the risk and impact will vary between different species and animal groups, with breeding animals and youngstock being more susceptible,” said Dr. Radka Borutova, European technical support manager with the Alltech Mycotoxin Management team. “We know that feeding even low-level contaminated feeds has been shown to impact animal health and performance, so even in lower-risk scenarios, producers should not neglect the need to guard against the threat of mycotoxins.''

Summary of results by region:

• Southern Europe (Portugal, Spain, Greece and Croatia): The results from this region show that 91.3% and 80.4% of all samples were contaminated with fumonisins and emerging mycotoxins, respectively. The average concentration of fumonisins was 1,195.88 ppb, a concentration able to harm the health and performance of pigs. More than 86% of samples contained fusaric acid, which is frequently found in different feedstuffs, mainly in corn. Fusaric acid gets into many mycotoxin interactions and has a synergistic effect with other mycotoxins like fumonisins and moniliformin. AfB1 was detected in less than 6% of the samples, and the maximum concentration of 8 ppb was found in one of the Spanish samples. The maximum concentration of deoxynivalenol (DON) was found in Spain in corn silage, and the concentration was 4,903.3 ppb.

• Central Europe (Germany, Hungary and Czech Republic): Samples show contamination of fumonisins of 86.7% and 73.5% with type B-trichothecenes. The average concentration of type B-trichothecenes was 463.5 ppb, a concentration able to harm the health and performance of pigs. More than 68% contained emerging mycotoxins, a group of with increasing relevance in the past few years. AfB1 was detected in less than 4% of the samples, and the maximum concentration of 3.6 ppb was found in one of the Hungarian samples. The maximum concentration of DON was found in the Czech Republic in corn silage with a concentration of 3,921 ppb.

• The Baltics and Eastern Europe (Estonia, Lithuania, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan): Of the samples analysed, 70.9% were contaminated with type B-trichothecenes, fumonisins and emerging mycotoxins. The average concentration of type B-trichothecenes was 454.9 ppb. None of the samples from Eastern Europe were contaminated with zearalenone, a mycotoxin that can have a significant impact on the fertility of most species groups. AfB1 was detected in more than 10% of the samples, and the maximum concentration of 27 ppb was found in one of the Lithuanian grass silage samples. The maximum concentration of DON was found in the Republic of Lithuania in corn silage, and the concentration was 4,970.5 ppb.

• Northern Europe (Denmark): The results from this region show that 94% and 92% of all samples were contaminated with emerging mycotoxins and type B-trichothecenes, respectively. The average concentration of emerging mycotoxins was 414.4 ppb. Interestingly, 6% of samples contained ergot alkaloids, while the average concentration was 695.4 ppb and the maximum concentration was 2,037 ppb, found in barley. AfB1 was detected in less than 2.5% of the samples, and the maximum concentration of 3 ppb was found in wheat harvested in Denmark. The maximum concentration of DON was found in Denmark in barley, and the concentration was 1,351.8 ppb.

The average levels of mycotoxins identified fall below the EU-recommended levels for each of the mycotoxins when assessed individually. Only 0.36% of samples exceeded EU allowed concentration of AfB1 (20 ppb) in feed ingredients (COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 574/2011. However, the risk level for productive species based on Alltech's risk equivalent quantity (REQ) varies from moderate to high when the multiple-mycotoxin challenge is considered.

• Pig producers should be aware that the risk level based on the average REQ for breeding sows and young piglets is deemed to be high.
• When the mycotoxin contamination levels are applied to poultry, the mycotoxin risk for breeding birds is moderate, while in broiler birds, it is low to moderate.
• In ruminants, the results from the samples analysed so far indicate a low to moderate risk in dairy cows.

There was a notable difference in the mycotoxin contamination levels of large grains (corn) and small grains (wheat, barley, oats). The average number of mycotoxins detected in corn samples was 6.4, while in small grains, it was 3.6. This variance is reflected in the REQ and risk of feeding these ingredients to specific species and animal groups. For instance, in sows and gilts, this year’s corn samples represent a higher risk of mycotoxins, but when small grains are fed to the same animals, the mycotoxin risk is deemed to be lower.

Alltech will host a webinar with Dr. Radka Borutova on Dec. 9, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. CET. Register for the webinar via this link.

For more information and results from the 2020 Alltech Summer Harvest Survey, visit www.alltech.com/en-gb/summer-harvest-survey.