The following is an edited transcript of Luther Andal's interview with Randy Lamontagne, general manager of Cowtown, a retail chain aquired by Alltech. 

Luther:                       Alltech is in the animal feed business, crop business, beverage business, and now, Western wear business. Yes, that’s right: When Alltech acquired Masterfeeds in Canada in 2016, a small retail chain called Cowtown was included. Here to tell us his story, and the Cowtown story, is general manager Randy Lamontagne. Welcome.

Randy:                        Thank you.

Luther:                       Tell us more about Cowtown.

Randy:                         I’d start by saying Cowtown is about a 20,000-square-foot retail store in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. We sell Western wear, tack, saddlery, animal health, feed supplies, and pet food and pet supplies.

Luther:                       That’s quite a bit of diversity there. What is the history?

Randy:                         In about 1994, a fellow named Ray Haykel built a feed mill in Regina and started tacking on an office. He decided as he was building the office — he was in construction ­­­­— to expand it a little bit and put in a pet food retail store. Sometime during construction, which I suppose lasted maybe six months or so, he was down in Texas and ran into a big Western wear store. He called home and said, “You know what? Halt the construction. I want to build up a second level and put a Western wear store on top.” He was an entrepreneur with some big dreams, and he just kept dreaming bigger and building as he went. That’s how it started.

Luther:                       Some people may know Cowtown as a Western wear retailer. But, as you’ve pointed out, it didn’t start that way — it’s more diverse than that. Can you give us an idea of products and how they’re used?

Randy:                         I think the biggest thing that makes us successful is the diversity. We’ve got quite a lot of consumables, and when you consider the pet food and the feed for livestock — I use the term “consumables” because it’s something that people need on a frequent basis — and that helps drive Western wear sales. Consumables help drive sales of all the other products that we carry. You might see a typical Western wear customer once every two to three months, for example. But, if they’re buying pet food or feed from you, you can increase the repetition. You increase the frequency of visits to your store, and maybe you’re seeing that same customer two to three times per month instead of once every two to three months. By having that consumable, you also expose them to your clothing lines and some of your other soft-good lines on a more frequent basis. They’ll buy because they see something they like — not so much because they need it, but because they’re buying based on emotion. They may see something they like or see a staff member wearing something they like.

Luther:                       Tell us a little bit about your background — I know it’s an interesting story ­because of where you came from and how you came to be general manager at Cowtown.

Randy:                         It’s a very long story, and I won’t go through it all, but I grew up on a family farm in southeastern Saskatchewan. We had land spread out over two separate areas. We farmed grain, cattle, pigs, chickens and horses. We’re a mixed farming operation.

                                    In the mid-`70s, we bought a service station in our small town — a community of 600 people — right between our two farm areas. We started operating that service station, and my dad decided that we could get more customer traffic if we built onto it. So, we built a grocery store, and then a sporting goods and guns and ammo store was added. Later, we added farm-ag belts and bearings. We just kept building and expanding with opportunities and needs.

                                    So, I kind of grew up in retail. I also worked oil rigs after high school. At one point, I owned a bar and restaurant and a hotel. I’ve sold cars. I took an engineering class and got my power engineering tickets. Just when I was starting a new job in the power engineering career, I happen to meet Ray Haykel in an auto body shop and —  like the old “The Godfather” quote, “I’m going to make you an offer you can’t refuse” — he got me to manage his Western wear store. That was about 21 years ago. I started that, and I found my niche. I really found that what I enjoy is just dealing with people. I find this industry to be down-to-earth. I have a lot of fun with the customers, the staff, everybody. It’s been a great experience.

Luther:                       Let’s bring it back to Cowtown. What’s the breakdown of sales look like with all these different groups?

Randy:                         I would say about 35 percent of the business is on the pet side, about 30 percent is on the Western wear side and the rest is animal health and feed.

Luther:                       Do you tailor the products that you offer in each store based on the location and the community that they’re serving?

Randy:                         Absolutely. You have to get to know your customer and get to know the area you’re in. Any time we start a new store in a new area, we do a little homework, a little research. But then you’re constantly changing and you’re constantly evolving. Your customer, to a certain degree, dictates that. I always ask our staff to keep a notepad by the till. If a customer asks you for something — whether you have it or not is immaterial at that time — write it down. Offer the service or advice. If you don’t have the product that they’re looking for, recommend another option, even if it’s for a competitor. Recommend where they can get it, because you’re still helping that customer. You’re still providing them a service, even if it’s just an answer for where they can get it and even if it’s not from you at the time.

                                    As you make those customer notes on a daily basis, you’ll start to see trends. I’ll pull those notepads from the till every once in a while and check through them myself. When I start seeing the same thing written down two to three times, I think, okay, here’s an opportunity — here’s something our customers are asking for.

Luther:                       It sounds like customer service is a big aspect of Cowtown.

Randy:                         Absolutely. You know what? It’s almost cliché: Everybody says, “Customer service. The customer is number one. The customer is first.” But unless you really believe it and are passionate about it, it’s meaningless. You really have to focus on it. I think in these days, with competition being so fierce for everyone’s hard-earned dollar, shopping to me is almost a form of entertainment.

                                    There are two types of shoppers: There’s the guy that needs something. He knows exactly what he needs. He just wants to get in your store, get his product and get out with no hassle. For the other type of customer, shopping becomes a form of entertainment. They’re looking around, and they’re taking their time. That’s not me. I’m not that guy. I’m more the guy who wants to get in and out and get what I want. But you have to provide an experience for customers.

                                    I’ve always said if you can put a smile on somebody’s face, they’ll remember you. If you can accomplish that, then you get that customer talking about you — talking to his friends and neighbors and recommending you.

Luther:                       It’s becoming increasingly difficult for small businesses to compete against big-box stores. You’ve highlighted the customer service and entertainment aspects. Are those key strategies in competing against the big-box stores? How does Cowtown do it?

Randy:                         In a sense, they are key strategies. You use the term “big-box,” and I like to think outside that box — get outside the box and do things that are creative. I use the term “shock and awe.” I like to look for things that create a little shock and awe. There’s an area in the brain called Broca’s area. It’s about the size of your thumbnail, and it’s kind of the gatekeeper to what makes sense to you or what you’re going to pay attention to or listen to.

                                    I use radio ads heavily. That’s 90 percent of my advertising campaign. It’s intrusive if it’s done right. If you have creative ads that are catchy, and there’s something about the ad that makes you pay attention, that’s shocking the Broca. You can use that in radio ads. You can use that in displays. You can use that all kinds of ways.

                                    For example, a customer asked me one day if I could deliver some product to him. He had bought some Hi-Hog gates — panels for a horse penning he was making. I said, “Sure, I can deliver them. Where do you live?”

                                    He said, “Well, if you’re in west Regina and driving down Highway 11, once you see Exit C, turn right and pull into my lane.” I wasn’t sure where Exit C was. He said, “You live out that way, don’t you?” I did — I lived in Regina Beach at that time. He said, “Well, you’re passing Exit C twice a day, then. There’s a sign: Exit C.”

                                    I drove by that sign every day for probably seven or eight years and never realized there was an Exit C. There’s also an Exit A and an Exit B, but I never paid any attention because I really didn’t care. I had no interest in that. But if I’d seen a deer out in the field, I would take notice of that, and I could tell you where I had seen that deer two days later. That’s shocking the Broca. That deer was not supposed to be there. He’s not there every day.

Luther:                       In terms of bringing that home to maybe a Cowtown ad —  I’m not going to ask you to sing a jingle or anything like that — how do you apply that to a Cowtown ad to make it stand out if it’s a radio ad, for instance?

Randy:                         The biggest thing is that our ad campaign is based on a long-term branding campaign, which is how I like to brand or advertise our products. We don’t advertise sale prices so much — the “our manager is going away” sale or the “Boxing Day” sale — all those phony sales, because that becomes background noise on your radio. It’s no different than the commercial on television when, while you’re watching something you’re interested in, a commercial comes on that doesn’t pique your interest. That’s usually the time you’re taking a washroom break or getting up to grab another beverage, and you just don’t pay attention to it. Radio is no different.

                                    A commercial becomes background noise if it’s like everybody else’s. So, in our campaign, we actually use our mascot —  our spokesperson. It’s a cow. It’s a male. I guess it’s a bull, but his name is actually Cow. He has his own personality, and then there’s a “straight-and-narrow man” that has his own personality. If you’re familiar with hockey in Canada, you know the Don Cherry and Ron MacLean duo, who has one guy who is “out there” and another guy who is more on the straight-and-narrow keeping him in check.

                                    We just have fun with their commercials —  we make people laugh and put a smile on their faces, but all the time you’re branding your business. I always use the example of, if I wanted to put a saddle on sale, I could put an ad in the newspaper and say my saddles are $100 off today. The only guy who is going to see that is the guy who’s actually in the market for a saddle that day. So, I can spend $1,000 on a newspaper ad to try and sell a saddle, but if I’m the customer and I’m flipping through the newspaper, I’ll only stop and look at that ad if I’m interested now. If I’m not interested in it today, I flip right over that page.

                                    Radio is planting the seed on a consistent daily basis with their messages. Consistency is very important — you’re planting the seed for the future so that when that rancher wakes up one morning and decides today is the day to get a new saddle, he says, “I have to go to Cowtown.” That seed has been planted so many times that when he decides he needs a saddle, or a pair of boots, or a pair of jeans, whatever products that we sell, his first thought should be: I have to stop at Cowtown.

Luther:                        So, it sounds to me like what you’re saying with your ads is that you’re entertaining rather than informing.

Randy:                         Yes. Actually, both. I guess you’re informing by entertaining, if that makes sense.

Luther:                       What advice would you give to smaller businesses that are more localized retailers and they’re attempting to compete with the big-box stores out there?

Randy:                         To me, passion is the key. If you’re not passionate about the business, get out of it. Don’t fool yourself. You also need a proper business plan. You need to be committed going into it. We have a bit of a unique store. When people are around it, people come and see our store and they get involved a little bit. There’s a draw and a little bit of a love of the industry. We’ll have people actually come to us and say, “Hey, I’d like to do a Cowtown franchise” or “I’d like to start a store.”

                                    Okay. What’s making them think that? They’ll say, “Well, I see you guys selling lots of stuff at these trade shows.” Or, “I come into your store, and it’s busy, and everybody is happy and things are fun, and you have Western wear.” And, “I know people that have horses. We have friends who have horses, and we’d like to start a store.”

                                    Well, that’s not a real business plan, you know? It’s not that easy. You have to live it, breathe it, eat it, sleep it and think it nonstop. You have those people who are passionate about it in that way.

Luther:                       How is Cowtown responding to the move to digital for many retailers out there? Customers are online, shopping from mobile devices, researching through mobile devices. How is Cowtown responding to that, or do you see your customers moving to digital, or are they still preferring that in-store experience that you offer?

Randy:                         I think there’s probably some of both (preference for digital and in-store experiences) going on in the industry, and there’s room for both. I think customers are getting more savvy as far as researching products online, but I feel like they still want the experience of coming into the store and dealing with a person — not a website or someone on the phone. They like the personal contact.

                                    If you’re coming in to buy a saddle or a pair of boots, you want to make sure they fit. Yes, you can order them over the internet, but there’s a good chance that they’re not going fit properly when you get them and then you’re going to send them back. Or, you can come into our store and get personal attention and have someone fit a boot to your foot properly.

                                    So, I think there’s room for both (digital and in-store experiences) in our industry. We’re starting to use Facebook, Twitter and our website for more interaction with the customer. It still boils down to interaction with the customer. Ultimately, we hope that (digital) leads the customer to visit our store because that’s where we can make the biggest impression: one-on-one with the customer.

Luther:                        How many locations is Cowtown in currently?

Randy:                         We’re in seven right now. We’ve been growing in the last few years. We started with the one store in Regina when Masterfeeds bought us in 2001. We weren’t part of the core business for Masterfeeds. They were a 75-year-old feed company at the time of the acquisition. I don’t think it was originally in the plans for Masterfeeds to have a retail store. So, we needed to prove ourselves, and they gave us that opportunity and that chance. When I first came to Cowtown, I remember looking at that business, and to me, it was like seeing opportunity in blinking Vegas lights. That’s how I see this business —  there was so much opportunity to grow this. We got a couple years under our belts with Masterfeeds, and they gave us that chance to grow, and now we’re seven stores and growing. Now with Alltech behind us, I see huge opportunity for growth again.

Luther:                       Well, speaking of growth, what other things do you think the future holds for Cowtown? Is it just growth? Is it different products? Is it digital?

Randy:                         Yeah. I suppose all of the above. I really do see opportunities for everything there.

                                    Just in our own area, we have plans for stores in other markets where we think we can really serve the markets we know well. Overseas, I think there’s huge opportunity for growth in stores. We’ve sold overseas for a number of years now. We’ve sold to people in Australia, for example. And usually, it starts with, again, that personal contact. You get some young guys visiting from Australia on the rodeo circuit. At some point, they get to our store and they buy jeans or boots. When they get home, they start telling people in Australia about us, about our store. Then we get calls and we end up shipping stuff to Australia. Again, it was from that original personal contact — making that first impression with the customer. So, I think there’s opportunity to grow overseas, possibly down here in the States and definitely back home in Canada. The website will, of course, become a bigger tool. Digital media is going to become bigger for us in the future. This is my first kick at a podcast. I’ve heard about them but never knew what one was until today.

Luther:                        Well, welcome to the podcast.

Randy:                         There you go. Yeah!

Luther:                        What’s something that you wish customers knew about Cowtown?

Randy:                         I just hope to instill in every customer who comes in the door that we’re passionate about our business and we’re passionate about our customers. We look to make relationships with our customers — relational sales versus transactional sales. There’s always going be that transactional sale for the customer who comes in and just buys a pair of jeans because they happen to be there. But long-term relationships are what keep customers coming back and what keeps customers coming to your store rather than the next store.

                                    If I look at our pet food category — that’s one that everybody is in. You can buy pet food from a big-box pet store, from a grocery store, service station, Walmart, Costco or Canadian Tire. Everybody is in that market, yet it’s our fastest-growing sector of the business at Cowtown. I firmly believe it’s because we go the extra mile, we pay attention to our customers and we try to get to know our customers to the point of getting to know their dogs or their cats. When that customer walks in and he’s got Sparky on a leash and you acknowledge the dog and give the dog a treat, it’s like picking their kid up and giving them a hug. That pet is part of the family, and it really becomes personal.

Luther:                        Randy Lamontagne is the general manager of Cowtown, a retailer with seven locations in southern Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, Canada.

Have you recently welcomed a new four-legged family member into your home?

One of the best ways to give your puppy the right start to a long and happy life with you is by feeding it healthy, nutritious food. But with so many options (there are literally thousands of choices on the market), you may be feeling overwhelmed or simply unsure of the best selection for your pet. Or, if you own multiple dogs, you may be wondering if the answer is as simple as feeding them all the same food (it’s not).

The great news is that through extensive scientific-based research and modern technology, we have achieved greater comprehension of the specific needs of growing dogs. We understand now more than ever that properly balanced nutrition is essential to the appropriate development of both mind and body. Unfortunately, there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to nutrition since needs may vary depending on specific breeds, traits and life stages, but there are some general guidelines that can be followed to get you and your pup on the right path to spending many years together.

Nutrition for healthy, happy puppies

1. Puppy nutrition versus adult dog nutrition: Puppies mature rapidly and have twice the daily nutritional requirements of adult dogs. Their muscles, joints, bones, internal organs and immune system are just a few of the major components that are developing in their first one to two years of life. Therefore, they require a high-fat/high-energy, 30 percent protein diet with increased levels of many essential vitamins, minerals and amino acids. A complete and balanced puppy food will contain specific nutrients tailored to meet these critical needs. Your puppy should be fed three times per day until it reaches 6 months of age. You can then reduce meals to twice daily. You can read more about the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) recommendations for growing puppies here.

     a. Large breed puppies have unique needs: Owners of large breed puppies should take additional heed when selecting food because orthopedic diseases can arise if appropriate nutrition is not applied. Large breed dogs that grow too fast can suffer from hip dysplasia, knee problems or other comparable concerns. It is imperative that a large breed puppy formula is fed, which should contain a lower fat content and reduced caloric density than food intended for small to medium breed dogs.

2. High-quality puppy food: Choose food based on high-quality ingredients, backed by proven research, that meets or exceeds AAFCO and National Research Council guidelines. Your veterinarian, breeder or trainer may also be able to guide you in the right direction.

3. Moist, semi-moist or dry food and how much to feed: Dry food is generally considered to be the best option because it contains more meat protein, is more efficient, is easily digested and is better at keeping teeth clean. Regarding how much to feed, it is generally recommended to follow the label guidelines based on your dog’s age. Do not overfeed.

4. How long to feed puppy food: Generally, dogs are considered puppies until they reach their anticipated adult size. Most dogs are about a year old and at 80 percent of their expected size when the transition is made from puppy to adult food. Speak with your veterinarian if you are unsure of when to make the change.

5. Switching food: Luckily, dogs are generally not considered very picky eaters. Transitioning from an old food to a new food should be a fairly straightforward experience but should be done gradually to avoid digestive upset. Mix small amounts of the new food in with the old food, gradually increasing the new and decreasing the old over the course of at least seven days.

Last, but certainly not least, it is critical to avoid overfeeding your pet. Like the human obesity crisis, pet obesity in the U.S. has reached epidemic levels. The Association for Pet Obesity Prevention estimates that 54 percent of dogs in the United States are overweight or obese. This is entirely in your control as a responsible owner. Even a few extra pounds can lead to chronic health issues and a shortened lifespan. Follow recommended guidelines for feeding, even for treats, and provide ample exercise to keep your pet (and possibly you, too) at a healthy weight level.

Eating our way to improved intestinal balance and health

Unless you are suffering from an intestinal upset or are cleaning up the mess associated with an intestinal upset in your pets, you probably don’t often think about the health of the microbial population that inhabits your or your pet’s gastrointestinal tract (GI tract). However, over the last decade, it has become increasingly clear that the complex community of microorganisms residing in the GI tract not only influences digestive processes but also significantly impacts long-term and short-term health.

For optimum well-being, it is important to maintain an appropriate balance in the intestinal microflora. But what is that balance, and how we do we support it?

Nutrition strategies for a balanced GI tract

With the realization of the importance of microflora have come new nutritional strategies that influence microbial balance. Many are based on simple supplementation or diet changes, but their effects can be profound. These approaches are revolutionizing not only the way we view our gastrointestinal health, but also that of our animal companions.

Digestive aids that include specific feed ingredients, exogenous enzymes, probiotics, organic acids and plant-derived oils can be coupled with nutritional management practices to beneficially manipulate intestinal microbial populations. One of the most successful documented uses has been supplementation with small doses of yeast-based polysaccharides (prebiotic fibers) to influence the composition of the gastrointestinal microbial population.

We know that these supplementation strategies not only limit the proliferation of detrimental bacteria and pathogens, but are also associated with improved immune function and nutrient absorption. These approaches allow us to eat our way to improved health, but how exactly they work had not been understood…until recently.

Feeding the good microbes: The science behind the nutrition revolution

A nutritional revolution is at hand, with new tools for reliably demonstrating and predicting how dietary and supplementation approaches can influence the intestinal microflora and gastrointestinal health.

Detailed nucleic acid sequencing techniques now allow for an in-depth description of the composition, profile and function of the most beneficial microbial populations in the intestinal tract. It is now possible to clearly pinpoint the effects of nutrition on the critical components of these complex populations and to determine the most effective balance of intestinal gut microbes. Rather than focusing on individual types of microorganisms, these techniques allow us to identify the optimal microbial populations that promote good intestinal health. This clarity takes the guess work out of diet formulation and can strategically improve health, from the most minuscule gut microbes to overall well-being.

I want to learn more about pet nutrition.

Precise nutrition, personalized nutrition, targeted medicine, precision medicine, targeted cancer therapies, targeted gene nutrition and cell nutrition: These are some of the emerging technologies that are rapidly moving us into new frontiers of medical and nutritional innovation.

These innovative technologies have the potential to change the way we (and our animals) live and cope with illnesses and devastating diseases such as cancer.

Recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a new cancer treatment called CAR T cell therapy. CAR T stands for “chimeric antigen receptor T cell.” T cells harness the body’s immune system to fight cancer cells. The thought behind CAR T is to use a patient's own immune system T cells and engineer them in such a way that the T cells can better recognize cancer cells and neutralize them without damaging organs or causing harm to the individual.

The National Cancer Institute website provides excellent information on targeted cancer therapies. Most of these therapies focus on drugs (ones that are already approved to treat specific types of cancer or are in development) that utilize an individual’s unique genes to treat the disease.

Would it be possible to use the information on a person’s or animal’s genes to identify whether the individual may be predisposed to develop a devastating disease such as cancer? And would it be possible to use such information to prevent the onset of such a disease?

Last year alone, it was estimated that some 1.6 million Americans would be diagnosed with cancer. The key is to understand what drives cancer and its different forms, what genes are involved and how we can downregulate (“turn off”) their expression.

There are already several studies taking place, and research is ongoing in the field of animal nutrition, demonstrating the impact that nutrients have on gene expression and how such expression affects performance and health. As work continues to expand in this field and into human and companion animal nutrition, we may be able to design diets based on the genetic makeup of a person or animal.

This is a game changer. Imagine providing diets that will feed the unique genes, provide a healthy life, and reduce or delay the onset of disease. Once we understand what an individual’s gene requirement is for certain nutrients such as selenium, zinc or a fatty acid, precise nutrition could provide an optimized diet that’s just right for their body’s needs.

Want to learn more?

In the U.S., pet food safety is overseen by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). These organizations each have different roles but are closely linked. The FDA is charged by federal laws to ensure that pet food is safe and truthfully labeled.

Misbranded pet food labels are prohibited under state and federal law. According to the FDA, a truthfully labeled pet food product contains:

1. An ingredients list: everything used to make the pet food product must be listed as an ingredient and must be deemed by the FDA as safe for use.
2. Appropriate identification of the product: for example, puppy food must be formulated for the nutritional requirements of a puppy.  
3. Quantity: how much product is contained in the packaging.
4. The manufacturer’s or distributor’s name and address: to ensure traceability of the pet food product and its ingredients.

Safety and quality starts with ingredient sourcing

The pet food ingredient panel may list cereal grains such as corn, barley, rice and also seeds, legumes and fruits, ingredients that are susceptible to mold growth. If mold is present, the risk for mycotoxin presence increases significantly, and certain types of mycotoxins cause a health threat to pets through acute toxicity and chronic health issues.

Trace minerals are also listed in the ingredient panel, but the form of the trace mineral used is very important. Are they sulfates, oxides or proteinates? Inorganic trace minerals (sulfates and oxides) may be contaminated with heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium and lead, as well as environmental pollutants like PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and dioxins, carcinogenic substances that pose a health risk to pets.

Peace of mind: When it comes to safety, a step forward is better

Ingredient contamination throughout the supply chain is always possible, and avoidance and minimization of risk is achieved by checks, verifications and validation processes. These processes are all part of a food safety system designed to ensure high standards of ingredients used and total transparency from suppliers to pet food manufacturers.

Manufacturers should ensure pet food safety by sourcing ingredients from approved suppliers — those who have passed rigorous quality and food safety audits and are able to demonstrate a thorough traceability system.

Know your supplier inside out

Quality assurance control programs such as the Alltech Q+™ (Quality Plus) program and the Alltech 37+^® mycotoxin analysis are examples of programs developed by Alltech.

Alltech 37+ is designed to reduce the risk of mycotoxin contamination and improve food safety. It tests for more than 40 types of mycotoxins in one sample.

Alltech Q+ is a quality control system unique to Alltech Bioplex^® and Sel-Plex^® trace minerals. It guarantees that all incoming raw material ingredients (and final products) are tested for heavy metals, dioxins and PCBs and are rejected if they do not comply with Alltech’s standards.

When it comes to our beloved pets’ food, traceably sourced ingredients matter.

Want to learn more?

The following is an edited transcript of Tom Martin’s discussion with a panel of experts on the future of farming. Click below to hear the full discussion:

Tom:                I'm Tom Martin, and with us to share their perspectives on what the future holds for agriculture and food production and consumption are Dr. Karl Dawson, vice president and chief scientific officer at Alltech — Dr. Dawson directs activities at the company's bioscience centers around the world — and Dr. Michael Boehlje, who will be joining us shortly. Dr. Boehlje is a distinguished professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University, where he conducts research and teaches in the areas of farm and agribusiness management and finance.

                        Mary Shelman is also with us. Mary is former director of Harvard Business School's Agribusiness Program and an internationally recognized thought leader on the future of the global agrifood industry. And Aidan Connolly, chief innovation officer and vice president of corporate accounts at Alltech. Aidan has been with Alltech for 25 years. I appreciate you all joining us this morning.

                        I'm going to pose questions to each of you. Once you've offered your views, your fellow panelists will have an opportunity to comment on those views. But let's begin with a very broad, very big question that could itself consume an hour — we also have some questions that have come in from media, and we'll try to get them in as well.

 Beginning with you, Dr. Dawson, are you optimistic about the future of farming, and if so, why?

Karl:                 You know, it depends a little bit on what you call “farming” right now and the definition of farming, but I would say that I'm not very optimistic if we continue thinking about farming as we did a decade ago — as a typical family farm. The farm has changed a lot, and it's undergoing a revolution — or evolution — with more technology being in the farm, all the time.

                        To put this into context, I was thinking about a visit I had with my nephew, who runs a farm in northern Montana. He and his neighbors think about farming, using agricultural units, as thousands of acres. That acreage was inconceivable many years ago. We never even thought about using that much land or that many resources, so it's changed considerably.

Even just two decades ago, a 100-acre farm was considered a large farm. These farmers are ready to move to the next level and quadruple in size in the next five years. That's their goal. When they do that, they need the support of technology. 

Even just two decades ago, a 100-acre farm was considered a large farm. These farmers are ready to move to the next level and quadruple in size in the next five years. That's their goal. When they do that, they need the support of technology. Whether it's data from the machines they drive, the harvest or crop materials, the seed stock used for animals or in plants — that support has to come from technology. Farmers are really a technology group now.

Tom:                Mary Shelman, are you optimistic, otherwise?

Mary:              I have to be optimistic. As a farm owner in Kentucky, I have to be optimistic about the future. I do think it's actually a great time. I'm a little more optimistic than Karl. It’s not just about the scale that we can achieve — and a lot of that through technology — it’s also about the ability to achieve more differentiations, to be able to address more consumer needs, and we see now that there are louder voices impacting the food system.

  But if I look around the world — and we go back to those tremendous figures that the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) provides regarding the change in population and income growth —  with the demand for agricultural products, the output of farms is only going to increase and will increase by maybe 60 percent or 70 percent in the next 35 years. That's a great time and a great need that needs to be fulfilled, and I completely agree with Karl that technology will help us do that.

 On the other hand, I do think there's this issue of economic viability that we also need to be aware of: the dynamics of how pricing works at the farm level — the typical supply-and-demand economics — those don't tend to move in lockstep. At times — for example, crop farming in the U.S. today — prices are relatively low compared to other times within the last five years. So, we need to maintain that economic viability for farmers to survive and, in particular, to attract new, younger farmers to the system. As we all know, the average age of farmers in the U.S. is increasing. We're approaching the 60-year-old mark. We need new talent, and they will only come in if there are attractive returns in the agriculture sector.

Tom:                Aidan Connolly, you work within the areas of innovation and ideas. What do you see in the future?

Aidan:              I have the chance to meet the United Nations FAO group every year, and they, of course, have been quite pessimistic about the future of agriculture. We consider the numbers that Mary mentioned of 70 percent increase in food production over the next 35 years, but if you actually compound that out, Tom, you're really only looking at a figure of 1.7 percent improvement in productivity per year — and agriculture has actually exceeded that. I would be extremely optimistic about our potential for increasing and improving the amount of food we produce. I think farming is going to be very much part of feeding this population we've spoken about by 2050.

 When you look at the gaps we have from the nutritional perspective in feeding animals, nutritional perspective in feeding crops — these factors that are holding back agriculture — productivity losses, the amount of food that we lose, the amount of fertilizer we waste and where food is lost, even within the food chain. I would be extremely optimistic about our potential for increasing and improving the amount of food we produce. I think farming is going to be very much part of feeding this population we've spoken about by 2050.

Tom:                Okay, let's move into our questions and we'll begin with Mary Shelman. Consumers are being described as millennials, “prosumers” and “super consumers.” Do you think we're facing fundamentally new groups of consumers, and do you think this reflects a real change in the marketplace? And, if so, what are their needs?

Mary:              Tom, I do think we are facing a fundamental change. We're in the midst of a fundamental change, and that's a very good thing, and I think it's very positive for the food industry and the ag industry. I think people overall — not just millennials — are asking more questions about where their food comes from and how it's produced. And it's not just in the U.S. or in first world countries. This is true around the world in areas, whether it's driven by food safety or whether it's driven by greater awareness because technology — the new digital media — has made information so available. So, I do think we're in the middle of a food movement. I think that this idea of engaged eating is a really attractive thought to get your arms around. A big piece of that, though, is this new millennial consumer that we talk about.

Tom:                What is that?

Mary:              “Engaged eating” is this idea that someone born between 1980 and 2000 has grown up at a time when technology is all around them — they get information in different ways, they have different values, they've grown up being fed products like Annie's Organic Mac & Cheese compared to Kraft. And now this group — the biggest demographic group with 83 million in the U.S. compared to 75 million baby boomers — are at the stage of having families and moving up in their income potential. So, they are very attractive to the food industry.

                        First, millennials have a much greater understanding of the link between what they eat and their health, and that's a very positive change. The second thing is that what they eat is part of their identity. It actually reflects who they are as a person. They enjoy taking pictures of their food and posting them on Instagram, sharing a meal with their friends and going out and seeking information about food in different ways — not just from mom or from an advertisement.

...not only do consumers want products that meet a certain price point and a certain safety point, they want products that have a purpose.

                        Food also reflects our values. This is the thing that perhaps poses the biggest challenge to the traditional food industry because not only do consumers want products that meet a certain price point and a certain safety point, they want products that have a purpose. They want products from an industry that has the same values that they do, and they're often willing to pay more for these products. As a matter of fact, I was at a meeting last week in New Zealand, and someone was presenting the results of a worldwide survey that was asking this millennial group how they thought they had more influence and whether it was through their vote for a political candidate. They say, “No, it's our vote with our dollars.” So, millennials believe that they “vote” for these types of products, and they’re willing to pay for this.

                        We’re actually at a time that there's kind of a bifurcation in the food system. The majority of consumers need safe, affordable food and accessible food, but yet this group that's a premium category is really growing in their needs and growing in their demands, and they like the stories, they want transparency, they need traceability. I think that’s putting a very interesting twist on the system right now.

Tom:                Aidan, any thoughts on this?

Aidan:              I would say that, as a father of two millennials, I question whether millennials are really that much different than prior generations. They are compared to the immediate generation before them. We consider whether their values and their beliefs are similar to those that we saw in people from the 1950s and 1960s, who were also very aspirational in changing the world.  “Prosumer” is a word I like a lot because I think it grasps a little bit more the fact that they're people proactively making food choices based on their ethics and their desires, what they believe and what they would like to support. And that part, Mary, I think, has been described extremely clearly. That is definitely something that we have not seen before. We certainly haven't seen in the last 20 or 30 years. We provide food which is affordable, which is available, which is safe. Consumers or prosumers are looking for something more, and that's a fundamental change in our food system.

Tom:                Dr. Dawson, do you want to add anything? I don't want to exclude anybody here.

Karl:                 I agree with the comments that have come out. I think you are looking at a different marketplace, and I think that that's something that will drive the overall agricultural system completely. So, as time goes on, it will be interesting how that evolves, but I think it's going to be a simple adjustment in the way markets look at the consumer.

Tom:                Okay, Dr. Dawson, next question is for you and Mary, if you would respond. It appears that nutrition has not changed for decades, and we may be at the limits of what we can do given the ways in which nutrition is researched. Are there new tools that allow farmers to understand better how to feed their animals and be more precise in nutrition?

Karl:                 Absolutely, there are new tools, but I guess I would take a little bit of a different view on this. I really don't see that nutrition has been a stagnant science over the last two decades, or even the last century. We've had a lot of advancements that have really been responsible for a lot of the changes in livestock production we've seen. Particularly in underdeveloped countries, we're using lots of new technology with amino acid balances. Nutrient balances are new things that have come out of that.From our point of view, working at the very molecular level, we can see what effect food and food ingredients have on the basic physiology of an animal by looking at gene expression.

 But we do have a lot of new tools that are coming out that are really going to change the way we've looked at this. Some of this comes from the ability to collect data and process that data, to integrate it into a very precise model. We've never had the capability to do that before. From our point of view, working at the very molecular level, we can see what effect food and food ingredients have on the basic physiology of an animal by looking at gene expression. This is a new tool that's progressing. We could probably talk a lot about this, but it's a very precise tool that tells you exactly what's happening and it has really allowed us to uncover a lot of the “hidden secrets” with nutrition.

So, as those new tools are becoming available, they’re going to allow for diagnostic tests. They're going to look at new ways of managing and looking at the way we train our animals to eat.

Tom:                There are many tangential areas we could go off to here, and we're only two questions into this conversation. But let's go off on one: big data, because we know that it's having an overwhelming impact and is something of a latecomer to the agricultural world. Does anybody want to offer some thoughts on how big data is changing things and what the future holds in that area?

Karl:                 I would start off by saying you have a tool here to take millions and billions of observations, whether it's productivity, food intake, the way we grow our crops, how much rain we get — all of this can be integrated into very precise models, and that's going to be the big change in agriculture. If you would like, we're talking about moving to “armchair” farming. We're going to be making our decisions while sitting in front of the computer, looking to see what we can predict in the future. That's a tremendous tool we've never had before.

Big data — whether it be used in terms of diseases, performance of animals or crops, or whether it be used in the realms of a lot of these sensors and new digital technologies — can capture a lot of information we've never been able to capture before.

Aidan:              I think, in particular, we've seen some of the bigger questions such as food safety — something which is extremely difficult to measure on-farm — and what can influence it, what causes it to increase or decrease. We at Alltech have been working with other programs where big data allows us to capture the factors that we have underlined — why that occurs — which we've never been able to analyze before.

 We're starting to understand things in a very fundamental way, and I think that big data — whether it be used in terms of diseases, performance of animals or crops, or whether it be used in the realms of a lot of these sensors and new digital technologies — can capture a lot of information we've never been able to capture before. We can now interpret that information because we're able to use larger algorithms, larger systems to be able to understand what exactly we're looking at.

Michael:          Okay, sorry for the problems here in terms of getting engaged, but I'm here now. To comment on big data: It seems to me that, specifically, we have had significant advances in this area, and the advances may be as much along the entire value chain as they are at the production sector. In fact, the production sector may be lacking and just starting to catch up. The whole issue of the opportunity we have here, in terms of both capturing the payoff of big data not only at the farm production level but also throughout the entire value chain, is really critical. We can now accurately receive the message from consumers of what they want in terms of physical characteristics of their food or their eating experiences and also get more feedback in terms of those credence attributes, which are really important but difficult to measure. Now we can get them more accurately with traceability through that value chain. So, that’s a big advancement.

Tom:                Okay. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Boehlje. Let's dig a little more deeply into technology and the next question is for you, Aidan and Dr. Dawson. Let's look at the range of primary technologies that are transforming agriculture beyond big data. What else is happening out there?

Aidan:              There's an awful lot happening, and it's very hard, I think, for somebody to capture the degree of change which is occurring. I think if anybody thinks that agriculture is going to be the same way in 20 to 30 years' time, they've got their head in sand. We've written a certain number of papers on the digital technologies and the rate that digital technologies are transforming agriculture at the moment. This includes robots, drones, blockchain, the internet of things, virtual reality and enhanced reality. These are technologies which, either from a hardware or software perspective, can fundamentally change the ways in which we understand what happens when we grow plants or grow animals.

There are other technologies, such as nutrigenomics. That's one that Alltech is invested in very heavily. We're the only ones in animal agriculture to do so. We are big believers that understanding how nutrients impact gene expression in animals and in organisms is going to be very important for maximizing their productivity. I wouldn't forget gene editing, either. This is an area — described as CRISPR — that is dramatically transforming what we can do, again, with the ability of plants and animals to resist disease, enhance productivity, achieve certain characteristics we're looking at from the food perspective.

I don't know how to capture it all in such a short way, Tom, but I'd certainly say the digital technologies, nutrigenomics and gene editing are the three major areas that are going to transform the way we think about how food is produced.

Tom:                Karl Dawson, anything to add to that?

There are things that are happening in the area of biochemistry — findings that are really changing the way we think about processing feeds, handling feeds, the way we think about using feed additives. 

Karl:                 I think I'd add a few other things: There are things that are happening in the area of biochemistry — findings that are really changing the way we think about processing feeds, handling feeds, the way we think about using feed additives. All of those are coming from very basic biochemical evaluation of what's going on in the animal systems and the way they eat. We're doing the same thing in plants today.

                        One of the things that comes up when you start thinking a little bit about this is that we always think about what we're going to do on the nutrition side and how we're going to change the nutrition. We can do that, and we're starting to home in on the gap between genetic potential and what the animal can do.

  The other side of that issue that comes up is that we can start thinking about selecting our animals for specific nutrition. We talked a little bit about gene editing and the capabilities there. We have the capability of doing that and changing what those animals look like coming into the system, and we have the same capability on the plant side. That’s a very important thought process to keep in mind: that those two things are going to come together someday, and we have to be able to go forward with those in the future.

Tom:                Okay, an open question to all of you: This comes to us form Irish Farmers Monthly, and it dovetails nicely with what you've just been talking about. From both the environmental and the productivity perspectives, how important will electric and autonomous vehicles be on the future farm? Will such machinery become more important in light of the increased need for sustainability as the world population increases? Any thoughts?

Aidan:              Look, we're facing a world where we're talking about having planes fly themselves, cars drive themselves. It's perfectly logical that we would see the same thing on the farm. And anybody who's seen some of the injuries that can occur on a tractor and cause somebody to lose an arm or a limb understands that there are all sorts of safety issues that could be addressed by no longer having the potential for operator error.

                        From my perspective, I think it is difficult to find labor on-farm. When you find labor, you want labor to be well-trained and well-prepared. You have safety opportunities, also. I think there's just going to be a lot of factors that are going to drive for these autonomously driven tractors and harvesters to become part of our future.

Automation and robotics are going to be, I think, much more common and more rapidly adopted than many people think.

Michael:          Automation and robotics are going to be, I think, much more common and more rapidly adopted than many people think. We have a debate here on the Purdue campus of how quickly we're going to see those happening in the field. The discussion is related to whether it's going to be five years or 10 years before we're going to see an adoption of automated tractors and other systems within crop production agriculture. We already see it in the dairy industry in terms of robotic milking. We're seeing it happen particularly in terms of harvesting, especially crops. It’s going to happen much more rapidly than we realize, and it has the opportunity to profoundly change the agricultural sector. It’s a really, really important development.

Tom:                Anybody else?

Karl:                 I think that's true, and, quite frankly, it's not that far off. Some of it is already here. I've been on combines that essentially drive themselves down the row. You need a driver there to turn the combine around, but in the big fields, these 18-, 19-, 20-foot stalls can be driving themselves, and they're controlled by GPS. It's amazing to see how little manpower it really takes to run those.

Michael:          And now they’re able to turn themselves around. So that's even changed.

Karl:                 They didn't the day I was there.

Michael:          Oh, I understand, but that's how fast this technology is coming. It's coming very rapidly. My belief is we'll see this in the fields in five years — not 10 years — and rapidly adopted.

Tom:                Aidan?

Aidan:              I was just going to say I was with an ag-tech startup that obviously made too much money because the owner had just bought himself a Tesla. He just took his hands off the steering wheel and let the car drive itself, which gave me a little bit of heart palpitations as I watched it maneuvering its way through the city. But it shows you what's possible. In the fields, we've got a much more controlled environment — we have much less risk of things such as car doors opening or bicycles. It’s an inevitable part of our future, and we have the perfect opportunity to use this technology.

Mary:              I just want to add an even finer detail around it: What happens when we get in the field and we have the sensors on and the sprayers operating and you're actually sensing which weed to spray or which bloom doesn't have enough pollen on it so you can provide supplemental pollination? We have this micro-level influence. Technology can help us get closer to achieving that potential.

Tom:                We're talking about 9 billion people by 2050. Do these innovations get us to where we need to go to be able to feed the world?

The technology is developing fast and it will continue to keep up with the demand for the foreseeable future.

Karl:                 I think there's no doubt about that. I think the technology is developing fast and it will continue to keep up with the demand for the foreseeable future.

Aidan:              I had the opportunity to talk to a cooperative this week that was asking for some ideas about 2050, and I said that 2050, for me, has become unimaginable in terms of what could potentially happen. I often wonder whether 2050 is the right number to use. Maybe we should just be focusing, as Dr. Boehlje mentioned, on the next five to 10 years, where we can concretely comprehend what will change. But if you say the number is 9 billion and Mary says the number is 10 billion and somebody else says, “Well, what happens if we start being capable of changing life itself and really extending life spans?” maybe the number we're looking at is 15 billion. Maybe we're looking at a much greater number of people that we're going to have to feed.

                        I think we need to be really cognizant of the fact that this technological thing is moving so quickly. Don't stretch yourself too far in predicting. Look concretely at what should be used and how it should be used in the foreseeable future, which is probably more like 10 years than 35 years.

Tom:                These things are changing so much more rapidly these days. You mentioned nutrigenomics earlier, and I wanted to touch on that with Dr. Dawson. What are the main benefits that you see from a nutrigenomics perspective for farmers, and how will that change the way that they farm?

Karl:                 Well, if you think we're going to have a diagnostic kit tomorrow that solves all the nutritional problem of animals, nutrigenomics isn't going to deliver that right now. However, it is redefining nutrition. When we think about the value weight of feed material or feed product, the supplementation strategy, management practices, the way we feed calves or young chickens — all of those things are starting to change now because we have a tool that allows us to actually measure what happens when we make a nutritional change. That's a very powerful thing, and it's not only allowing us to look at productivity. We can now measure immunity in a bird and change that by nutritionally altering the young chick's diet. Same thing with calves: We can pass material information from one generation to the next using a nutritional strategy, but we can actually measure that and see how it's done.

Nutrigenomics is really going to redefine things. It's already redefined mineral nutrition. Trace mineral nutrition will never be the same...

                        Nutrigenomics is really going to redefine things. It's already redefined mineral nutrition. Trace mineral nutrition will never be the same as we view it from now on. We know that we can use less minerals. We can change and have less impact on the environment by using these tools. This tool allowed us to very rapidly understand that and change our nutritional practices.

Tom:                Dr. Boehlje, I want to give you an opportunity to jump in here.

Michael:          Let me just comment quickly. I'm not a scientist at the same level as Dr. Dawson, so I don't have that understanding at a granular level. But, we sometimes describe the technologies as moving agriculture from “growing stuff” to biological manufacturing. This biological manufacturing is very much in the context of what we've already been talking about: it's understanding the science and nutrigenomics. It's understanding biotechnologies and everything that has the potential to significantly impact the growth process of plants and animals at a much more scientific level. We’re getting sciences and technologies that are developing because of the interconnectivity between science bases previously kept in silos: nutrition, nutrigenomics and biology. We see some universities that have said, just as an illustration, that science is not only important, but is also essential. In fact, the required science increasingly in many universities is you have to take biology. You have to take biology to get an understanding because biology is increasingly driving the world.

Mary:              You know, can I come back to that, Mike? I agree with you and Dr. Dawson that science and nutrigenomics is giving us amazing tools. But, Mike, you used that term “biological manufacturing,” and I put on my consumer hat, and I just think that that's a terrible term. Today’s consumers don't want their food manufactured in any kind of factory, and that's just kind of the picture that comes to mind (with the term “biological manufacturing”). We were talking about how we can be more responsive to consumers, have differentiation, we can give this credence attributes, yet you're proposing or using this term that's actually far from that.

Michael:          I understand your perspective and I absolutely agree with that perspective. We aren't going to promote or advertise, we're not going to be saying to consumers, “This is a biological manufacturing process.” In fact, the word “processing,” generally, is not something consumers really want to hear relative to food.

It's interesting, though, that consumers are more than happy to hear the term “processing” relative to health issues or other things they buy, but they really are, in many cases, very negative about the term as it relates to food.

                        I'm not going to promote “biological manufacturing” to consumers, but it’s certainly a concept we in the industry, at the production level, must be increasingly mindful of. This allows us to adopt and facilitate the process of growing and producing food more scientifically and better than we have in the past.

Tom:                Dr. Boehlje, a topic that we were discussing before you were able to join us is big data — or farming data — in the future. Actually, it's happening now. How does that affect the types of people who will choose farming as a profession in the future? Do you think it will change the attractiveness of agriculture in some way?

Michael:          I think that, increasingly, what we're going to find in this industry is that those people who are going to be successful have some skills that maybe they need to enhance to be successful. Particularly, what we're interested in is analytical skills — analytical skills that are tied to data and information.

                        We see this particularly in the financial area, which is the area I work in. Some farmers abhor recordkeeping. They abhor this idea of having to keep financial information to provide to their lender, to understand their own business, to get the financial performance assessment that they need. We need to, increasingly, develop that skill and feel comfortable with that skill of looking at numbers, looking at information, trying to understand what the numbers say and the story they tell — not just crunching those numbers. Data assessment, data summarization, data visualization — those are going to be skills that we need to have more and more of our producers understand, and they will be the skills that might be very important differentiators.

                        And it's not just the stories that we need to have in terms of average yields. We see that, as we go across the fields with our yield monitors today, it's the distributions that count. It's what happens when you are in parts of that field where you have low yields as a function of a number of things that happened — whether they be weather or whether they be agronomic-oriented — and where you get those high yields as well. The same is true with animals. We're starting to see different animal performance even in the same pen in the same group as a function of their genetics, as a function of a number of things. We're going to get more granular in the data, and we need to understand the story there.

                        Data assessment, data summarization, data visualization — those are going to be skills that we need to have more and more of our producers understand, and they will be the skills that might be very important differentiators. Certainly, strategic thinking is another one of those skills, risk assessment, a lot of other skills. But the one specifically related to big data is this willingness to work with data and understand "the story" it tells.

Tom:                Aidan, do you have thoughts on that?

Aidan:              Yes, from a historical perspective, I think of what our system was for deciding who would become farmers. I suppose, originally, everyone is a farmer, and then gradually we decided that there would be land and that land would be passed from a farm owner to their eldest son. And over time, then, it seems, — at least in Ireland — it was divided amongst as many children as you had. Each one got a parcel of land, which created its own issues. Gradually, we seem to have moved toward a system where those who don't want to stay on the land go to cities or go and find other jobs, and we've been left with the people who really want to be farmers. Only in the last 20 or 30 years did we start to understand that being a farmer involves education as well. So, obviously, all the educational systems were set up through land grants and other systems around the world to try to create farming as a profession.

                        I think what we're looking at now is a fundamental change in what that farmer will look like. They won't necessarily grow up on a farm. They might grow up in the city. They won't necessarily have the skills of understanding animals or understanding plants. They'll understand data, they'll understand analytics, equipment, decision-making between all the various technologies, and what they should buy and what they shouldn't invest in.

 I think what we're looking at now is a fundamental change in what that farmer will look like.

                        So, those are dramatically different skills and skills that were used for the last, I'd say, thousand years — you might say a hundred years — to select or to decide who is it that's a farmer, who is not a farmer, and that's very fundamental. And back to the same numbers we're talking about, I think those influence not who is going to be a farmer in 10 or 20 or 30 years' time. Probably even in the next five years, we're going to see dramatic differences in terms of who are the right people, who are the successful people who are going to take over stewardship of the land.

Tom:                It seems to have broad implications for the entire culture. Are we talking about these attributes appearing mostly in large farming operations, or all the way down the chain to small family farmers?

Mary:              I think they have to go all the way down to small family farmers. I would come back to this and say to both of you, to Mike and to Aidan, that you gave a great description. I agree completely. It's about understanding the data to use the data. But, again, what's missing is the typical production push, and we now have consumers controlling more of the acres.

It’s not just about producing at the lowest price, but producing what the market wants...

                        I would add to this list — and this is whether it's maybe more appropriate even for a small family farmer or the new generation that is very attracted to farming for different reasons — is being able to understand the market. It's about being able to understand how to deliver this differentiated product that has extra value. It’s not just about producing at the lowest price, but producing what the market wants — or different segments that the market wants — and being able to sell into those channels, connect with those channels.

                        This is a very big basket now — a very big ask — which is a great thing for family farming enterprises because, typically, you don't have just one person doing all the decision-making — you have a whole set of people. The whole family is around the table, and it's the husband and the spouse, even the children as they come into the family business. I see these enterprises, and they have different specializations within, and that's fantastic because everybody can bring their strength to the table.

Michael:          Let me just completely agree with what Mary said. That's a really important issue. We have a tendency in agriculture to talk about supply chains. That's true in almost all industries and is reflective of the “push” mentality that we've had in a lot of industries, including agriculture: how we're pushing through the supply chain to the consumer. Increasingly, we're talking about “chain reversal,” and that's the whole idea: demand-driven change. We have consumers increasingly telling the entire chain what they want, how they want it and how it ought to be done.

 An important skill that's going to be much more important for farmers is going to be this whole idea of understanding and a willingness to work in an interdependent system — rather than being independent — and be very focused on relationships, collaboration and interpersonal skills. Those are things that many farmers haven’t historically — if I take my own father, for example — liked to do. He wanted to be in his farming operation. He didn't want to do farm records, and he didn't want to have a whole lot of relationships with other people. And, increasingly, those skills will be essential to be a successful farmer in the future.

Tom:                I have a question here from media that I think is appropriate at the moment. Let's just open it up for everybody. I think each of you can bring a perspective to this. This is from Owen Roberts. He's with the University of Guelph and is president of the International Federation of Agricultural Journalists, and he asks a very appropriate question because of what happened yesterday in Switzerland — the country renowned for its food supply. They held a national referendum yesterday designed to anchor food security in their constitution. It initially won approval by about 77 percent of the electorate. Globally, this was quite a groundbreaking exercise on their part, reflecting the growing interest by people everywhere in the production of the foods they consume, as you mentioned, Mary. He asks that we touch on some reasons why precision nutrition can give them confidence about the future of food supply and how they get that message to consuming public. If you'd like to begin with that, Mary?

Do we have the water? Do we have the land? How is climate variability affecting things? This precision nutrition piece is an important data tool that will enable us to do as much as we can with the resources that we have.

Mary:              Wow, that's a tough one. I think this issue about food security is really important for everybody in the world, right? And you're talking about Switzerland here. The challenge is that in some countries you don't have the resources to do that. I don't know enough about this referendum or the backend pieces of it. But, I'd say that precision nutrition will be incredibly important to meet this global demand. At the country level — we have talked so much about the fact that we can enhance productivity, but we have to do it in a time of decreasing resources, decreasing natural resources. Do we have the water? Do we have the land? How is climate variability affecting things? This precision nutrition piece is an important data tool that will enable us to do as much as we can with the resources that we have. I think country by country you're not going to get the same answer.

Tom:                Wheels are turning here, I guess.

Aidan:              I think that we talk all the time about the need for countries to produce all of their own food, and in essence, that sounds like motherhood and apple pie — you have to agree with it. I don't feel that old, but I can remember days, or growing up, when there weren't oranges in the supermarket, when you couldn't find bananas all year round, when things were much more seasonal. We've all gotten used to the idea that there's an abundance of food. It's available relatively inexpensively. Its carbon footprint, even if it comes from Colombia or Kenya, is actually quite low because the systems of distribution have become extremely efficient. I'll even look at countries like China that want to be sufficient in food yet increasingly are consuming corn from Brazil and soybeans from the United States, and they are purchasing pork and chicken. These are countries that have said they want to produce everything themselves. It's clear that that isn't always that easy.

..the fact is that we have this increasingly interconnected global system, and consumers have an expectation of being able to have food available at a relatively cheap cost and all the foods they want all year round.

                        Mary and I have had this debate in the past about people storing food in cans in their houses. Is that what we should be doing? We imagine people would start to do that again. I struggle with that idea. I think the world has become increasingly global. It requires, of course, free trade and requires us to trust that other countries won't declare war on us — which maybe is a big thing to wonder about. But the fact is that we have this increasingly interconnected global system, and consumers have an expectation of being able to have food available at a relatively cheap cost and all the foods they want all year round.

Tom:                Dr. Dawson, do you have thoughts on this?

Karl:                 I agree with the direction that Aidan is going, but the important things that are coming out today with agriculture boil down, oftentimes, to resource limitations — what do we have to work with? Whether it be the environment, land, water — those are the things that are going to drive the way we look at efficiency as we move forward. I don't know the initiative that they're talking about in Europe, but the idea that these are things that we can control right now is probably not right. We're going to have a limited amount of resources.

I look at an area where I grew up in southwest Montana. At one time, people died over water rights. For many years, it hasn't been that way, but I received something in the mail the other day that said I had to declare my water rights again on the property that I own there with the idea that that's going to go away pretty soon. It's going to be legislated. Maybe there are some security issues there we need to look at. One of the reasons that it's bad there is mining, which uses a lot of water, but the fact is that it's going to happen around the world. So, security does need to be legislated to some extent.

Tom:                Dr. Boehlje, thoughts on food security?

It’s not just our ability to produce enough to have "food security." It's also our ability to protect the amount of production we get and make sure that it actually gets to consumers and, as a matter of fact, to be more efficient and effective in terms of consuming it...

Michael:          Yes, I think the other dimension here is what kind of losses we have in the food chain, particularly in different economies in different countries. It’s not just our ability to produce enough to have "food security." It's also our ability to protect the amount of production we get and make sure that it actually gets to consumers and, as a matter of fact, to be more efficient and effective in terms of consuming it and not having such waste as we frequently have, particularly in the developed countries and developed world.

                        This whole issue of trying to reduce the amount of losses — the wastage — the amount impacted by storage losses, waste in the field, by not getting harvested adequately, by not getting transported adequately — particularly in many countries in the developing world. At the same time, in countries like the U.S., we have a lot of food wastage that occurs just out of our own refrigerators, out of our own food systems, where we buy food products, we don't consume them, we don't take care of them, we don't refrigerate them — and if we do refrigerate them, we lose track of them — we throw it out the back of the restaurant, we may try to donate it, but sometimes it's already expired in terms of its ability to be able to be consumed. There's a lot of waste in the system, and there actually are some major initiatives underway on the part of both corporate and university organizations to try to reduce the losses in the food chain, and that's an important part of this discussion.

Tom:                Dr. Boehlje, I want to stay with you for this next question, and Mary, if you would consider this as well: Economically, the U.S. has been the best place to farm, as you have written, based on its strong infrastructure and on its open markets. Do you think that that will continue to be the case in the future or should farmers be seeking new places to conduct business?

Michael:          We already see that occurring. We have significant expansion of production in agriculture, as everyone knows, in South America, Brazil, Argentina being particularly the case — significant expansion of agricultural production in Ukraine, and they are major competitors now to the U.S. We see it occurring in China, we see it occurring in Africa. So, we do see opportunities much more broadly in terms of farming than we used to. I can name a farming family here who has both a U.S. operation and a Brazilian operation. I actually know three families that have that kind of situation.

So, we are expanding agricultural production more globally. If you go back 30 years or longer, a crew chef from the former Soviet Union came to the U.S. to buy wheat to feed his people. Here we are in the middle of a cold war and he comes to the U.S. — his archenemy — to buy food. This has to be the ultimate indication of the failure of the system. Why did he come to the U.S.? Well, in a way, we were the only store in town. We were the only place where you had the opportunity to get the amount of wheat that he needed to feed his people. Now you can get that in a much broader base of geographies, in addition to corn, soybeans and other products.

 Now, the interesting dimension is that we're going to see farmers who are more geographically diversified in their production systems. We already see it in the specialty crops, where farmers in California have Mexican production as well because they can't grow what they need there. We see it happening in terms of other parts of the U.S., where farmers are in different geographic regions even across the U.S. I've got a potato grower friend who grows potatoes in nine states, 15 locations.

 We see it already happening in the U.S. We think it’s going to go into a more global perspective, and that's really an interesting question and issue because it has profound implications: If we geographically diversify production agriculture, how will the potential weather variability impact total supplies? Will we get diversification benefits? We don't know. But one would logically think that we do. So, will there be farming opportunities in other parts of the world that farmers — whether they be U.S., whether they be European, whether they be South American — ought to be seriously thinking about? The answer is yes.

Tom:                Mary Shelman, thoughts on this?

Land probably isn't the unit of natural resource that we should be looking at. I think water is, in the future, the way that we're going to frame farming operations.

Mary:              Well, I absolutely agree there are opportunities all over the world. Mike didn't mention Africa. I think that's the next frontier for farming, and they need a lot of strong technology and value chain development there to make that work. However, to come back to the opportunities in the U.S., I think they're still very strong, although it's a bit of a transition from the typical push mentality into one that's more based on getting the most value per acre, per animal, per unit of natural resource. Land probably isn't the unit of natural resource that we should be looking at. I think water is, in the future, the way that we're going to frame farming operations. You think about what happens with the tremendous growth of the Brazilian soybean industry — it's basically shipping water from Brazil to China. That's really how I think about agriculture in the world: removing water from one place to the other. There is also the New Zealand dairy industry, selling water basically through milk powders to China, to India, to other places in the world.

                        I think here that there are tremendous opportunities, but our farmers have to be much smarter in terms of all these technologies we were talking about, the different ways that they think about their business, and connecting to markets and figuring out where to get the most value from that water, from that land, and how to factor in the risks.

Tom:                Karl? Aidan? Thoughts?

Karl:                 One of the things that we haven't touched on much here is the efficiency of animal protein production. If you start looking at things that are going on around the world right now, aquaculture is one that will really get your interest. The development of recirculating aquaculture systems is full-steam right now. More of them are going into Norway — their production of fish. These recirculating systems are going to grow tenfold in the next five years.

Tom:                And those are land-based, correct?

Karl:                 Those are land-based systems, but they're very intensive when looking at protein production. We're talking about a system that's probably three to four times more efficient than any of the terrestrial animals we're used to working with. They're better than chickens, they're better than pork, they're better than beef by a long way. So those kinds of impacts are going to be tremendous when it actually comes to looking at animal protein and the way they're being developed. For us in the feed industry, the implications are gigantic.

Tom:                Thoughts, Aidan?

Aidan:              No.

Tom:                Nope. Okay. I do have one that I think you might like to address: Blockchain. This, by the way, comes to us from Simon Duke of Feedinfo.

Aidan:              You can thank him personally from me.

Tom:                What’s your opinion of blockchain and its potential for the animal nutrition industry?

Aidan:              Blockchain is one of the most exciting of the digital technologies. It's also one of the most difficult to get your head around. I suppose the bitcoin example is the one that most people are most familiar with, and it's the one that probably makes it easiest for people to understand: You have something which is this digital ledger where you can understand what's happening in the chain, but not see the individual actors or the individual people who are involved in the chain. I think that has tremendous implications for agriculture. Typically, as farmers, we have not liked people knowing exactly where our cattle come from. At the same time, when there's a disease, we want to be able to trace it back. We've not liked knowing who the people are who transform our food from when it's grown on the land to when we consume it. And, yes, again, if there's an E. coli outbreak and a child dies, we want to know where it occurred and how it happened.

Traceability is a fundamental part of our future. Recapturing the confidence of consumers is extremely important, and I think blockchain is the technology that allows us to do so in a manner that keeps us comfortable.

                        I think when you see companies like Walmart getting behind blockchain and using it in countries like China and being so impressed by its potential — and then they start taking it to the United States and elsewhere — I think you can see what the possibilities are. Traceability is a fundamental part of our future. Recapturing the confidence of consumers is extremely important, and I think blockchain is the technology that allows us to do so in a manner that keeps us comfortable. We're not giving away all of our secrets and, therefore, perhaps not trading our margins to the end food retailer, but at the same time making sure that something does occur. How fortunate that is that we can actually find out where that occurred, what it is that we need to do to stop it happening again.

Michael:          I think this issue of blockchain is a really important issue — sorry for interrupting — but let me just leverage those comments on food safety and traceability just a little bit further. A lot of people, when they talk about blockchain, think about it in terms of the financial markets and some other breaches we've had recently in the financial markets and personal security, et cetera, are really important. So that's where a lot of the common perspective is. But it's interesting how some industries are actually quite ahead of us in terms of using blockchain traceability. For example, the diamond industry is using it as a mechanism to try to trace and make sure that those diamonds that they're sourcing not only are true and accurate diamonds, their location and — back to Mary's points — are with the right credence attributes — that they are mined in the right way with the right work pros, with the right people. So, I think that this whole issue of traceability and food safety will be probably the biggest impact that blockchains have on the agricultural sector.

Tom:                Okay. We have time for one more question before we wrap things up, and let's begin with Mary, if you would. What are the opportunities for farmers to change the way they sell food? Are there specific ways in which farmers can view this as an opportunity to be more profitable or to gain even new markets?

Mary:              We talked about this growing fragmentation on the consumer end of it, that it's moving beyond just wanting cheap and accessible and safe food into things that align with values and other things around the specialty side. I think that does provide some opportunities at the farm level, first of all, just to be much more market-oriented and know where that profit potential is and basically growing what the market is interested in buying rather than what you want to sell. But not everybody can be direct-to-consumer. There are opportunities with technology now. We see the rise of some brands from the farm level. It starts out like a Laura's Lean Beef or Creekstone Farms or Pete and Gerry's Organic Eggs — things that come with some specialty proposition — that actually move all the way to the brand level. When I was in New Zealand last week, McDonald's had big banners in their stores saying, “We sell 100% free-range eggs.”

                        These types of changes are coming. If you look at the AmazonFresh website, you can buy hamburgers from a single cow. When you think about the implications of the supply chain for that and that differentiation, not everybody, clearly, is going to be able to deal with the market at the consumer level. But even at the customer level, the processor level that's buying in, the sustainability pushes inside of these companies, and also better understanding. Again, if you don't satisfy their consumer needs, it will be more about providing these products that have the exact kind of value or attributes that market wants.

                        I think, though, the challenge is that there's tremendous resistance to making those kinds of changes because our system has been set up to move big quantities of relatively undifferentiated products. I was speaking with a buyer of U.S. soybeans in a Southeast Asian country. He said, "We want to buy soybeans based on their oil content because we know how that breaks down in the value proposition." But the big processing companies want to sell soybeans based on whether it's, basically, color and size and the fact that it's this kind of bean and they really don't want to tell. So, it's finding these unique opportunities that are able to match that scale and finding those buyers that are willing to pay.

Tom:                Aidan, what do you see out there?

Apps on phones, websites, digital technologies, the ability to be able to see through cameras what's actually happening on the farm, to be able to see through blockchain what has actually occurred in terms of the way your food is processed — these are all just tremendous opportunities for farmers to engage directly with the end consumers of their food...

Aidan:              Well, Mary summarized it extremely well, which makes it difficult, but I'll maybe take a slightly different approach. I think that we are seeing very large changes in consumer behavior. You see that when they go to the grocery stores or supermarkets and they’re not going to the so-called “center aisles” anymore. They're not choosing to purchase the cornflakes, they're not buying food that, traditionally, was perhaps the macaroni and cheese that was extremely processed, for example, and they're looking for the “mom and pop” — as I call them — brands. These companies may not even have commonly recognized names. Consumers are looking for these companies they perceive as being more organic, more local and fitting with their ideals for food and the way they “vote,” as you put it earlier, Mary.

                        From my perspective, I think that's a massive opportunity for farmers to engage directly with consumers. Instead of farmers going to big food companies or medium-sized food companies, they can go directly farm-to-consumer. They can have a relationship directly with a consumer of their food. That can allow them, hopefully, to capture more value, so they can charge a higher price or just capture more value within the system and to, hopefully, adapt to what they find consumers are looking for. Maybe consumers are asking for questions that larger systems can't accomplish.

The massive opportunities, particularly, through apps on phones, websites, digital technologies, the ability to be able to see through cameras what's actually happening on the farm, to be able to see through blockchain what has actually occurred in terms of the way your food is processed — these are all just tremendous opportunities for farmers to engage directly with the end consumers of their food, and I think, eventually, that makes potentially a more profitable farming system.

Tom:                Dr. Boehlje?

Michael:          Yes, I think Aidan and Mary have really, really synopsized this issue quite well. Let me just put a broader context on it with some keywords. We're increasingly seeing this entire food production and distribution industry move very dramatically from a commodity orientation and a supply chain mentality to a differentiated product orientation and a demand-driven system. Those are very dramatic shifts in terms of what people have to do and how they do it, and the technology is increasingly available to get that done. Consumers are not buying food products. They want food consumption experiences, and that's a really different perspective on this industry than what we’ve had with the traditional producer commodity and what I sometimes refer to as the “produce and peddle mentality”: If I produce it, they will come. That is not the industry of tomorrow.

Tom:                Karl Dawson, thoughts on this?

Karl:                 Well, I guess I would agree with the whole concept here, but there is still a large change needed. I've been involved with programs for the last 15 years producing high-quality beef products with very specific attributes that we felt were of interest to the consumer and receiving good reviews from the consumer. But from a commercialization point of view, to date, those have been failures. We are not getting the story across in a way that allows us to get the feedback from the consumer and get the middleman to buy into the concepts we're making at the producer level or in the production. Alltech Angus was an example of a meat product: Succulent, very good reviews, and, quite frankly, we never could make that go because there was a barrier there between us and the consumer.

                        I see where that's coming from and the potential for doing that, but there's still a big hole in the middle in that commercialization chain that we have to take advantage of. Believe me, I'd love to see it go, because if you tell me what attributes you want in your beef, we can work on those things with our tools today.

The existing system is set up to be more commodity push, and that includes the processing sector. But we see now the advent of these nontraditional actors here: the investors.

Mary:              I might just come back to that because I think that's the same resistance that I was talking about there: Why we can't sell soybeans based on oil content rather than something else? The existing system is set up to be more commodity push, and that includes the processing sector. But we see now the advent of these nontraditional actors here: the investors. You have Bill Gates basically investing in Beyond Meat — alternate protein sources. You have Sergey Brin, founder of Google, investing in tissue culture beef. You have Jeff Bezos of Amazon now completely disrupting everybody's thought pattern by buying Whole Foods. So, hopefully, Karl, I think we're just at the breakthrough point on getting through. There are people in the system now that look at this and say our traditional food system is broken. Now, that's a rough thing, but they're coming with very innovative ideas, very disruptive ideas, and see a new future. And I think we're talking about what that new future is. Hopefully we're close to getting past that.

Tom:                Okay, we have just a few minutes remaining. What I'd like to do to conclude is to go around the panel and ask you to give us your closing thoughts on what viewers of today's discussion might want to consider their main takeaways from what they have heard. We'll begin with you, Dr. Boehlje.

Michael:          We’re certainly talking about an industry that's in a major transformation. In fact, we do programs called “Disruption” and “Chaos,” and that's where we are in this industry. It's been pretty tradition-bound in many cases. As just indicated in the previous conversation, parts of it are still tradition-bound. But there will be a profound transformation from outside the traditional players in the industry when we start doing more — putting together the pharmaceutical and the health industry within the nutrition industry. Maybe we're going to find that what happens is outside forces are going to be shaping up more than they have. When we put sensing technology out there, when IBM decides, which it has, that agriculture is the space where they ought to be spending some time and energy, not just at production, but across the value chain, that makes a big difference in this industry.

                        We’re going to see a lot of both big and small firms and organizations outside the traditional sources or the traditional players in the industry have a very disruptive impact on this industry.

Tom:                Dr. Dawson.

If I had to sum it up in one sentence: It's not your daddy's farm anymore.

Karl:                 Well, I think it's obvious from the conversation today that technology is going to drive a lot of different things. If you look at how we refer to the farmer today, I would change that to “agricultural technologist” rather than “farmer.” We're going to be bucking tradition, and that's one of the things that is a huge problem for a very conservative industry as we're moving forward. But if I had to sum it up in one sentence: It's not your daddy's farm anymore.

Tom:                Mary Shelman, takeaways?

Mary:             I think it's been a great discussion. In particular, the consumer has a much stronger vote today than ever before about what's happening on the farm. Therefore, you have to be market-oriented, and market-oriented not just in terms of thinking about the price of soybeans or the price of beef, but about the fundamental segments that can meet with the different value propositions around it.

                        So that's one piece, and the talent piece is absolutely essential. There are tremendous challenges, but even more importantly, there are tremendous opportunities in the next few years, and I think it's incredibly exciting time. But you have to be a little bit patient because, as Karl said, you can come up with a great product and a great proposition, but time might not be quite right yet. So how do you navigate this transformation that we're in and actually be able to balance looking toward the future while remaining very grounded today and having a successful business?

Innovators are the ones who are going to be successful — they're the ones who are going to survive and thrive. That's the farming of the future for me — innovation.

Aidan:              I think farmers of the future will be innovators. Until now, farmers have been good at learning from others, embracing technologies that others have, learning what methods they use and doing so successfully. In the future, my recommendation to farmers would be to buy yourself a passport, go travel the world, read as much as you can, learn as much as you can, and when you see innovations within reason, embrace them as quickly as possible. I think innovators are the ones who are going to be successful — they're the ones who are going to survive and thrive. That's the farming of the future for me — innovation.

Tom:                Aidan Connolly, Mary Shelman, Karl Dawson, Dr. Michael Boehlje, thank you all for joining us. It's been a fascinating conversation. We appreciate it very much and thank you for joining us.

Farming the Future was a live video panel discussion. To watch the recorded video and learn more about our panelists, click below:

The quality and stability of animal-derived food products, including pet foods, will depend on the management, diet and genetics of that animal. What an animal is fed can directly impact their antioxidant defense system. Incorporating dietary antioxidants and other functional feed ingredients can minimize oxidative damage, which will impact the end product (and pet food ingredient): meat.

When we are talking about food, whether for people or pets, oxidative deterioration will impact palatability. Oxidative damage to lipids and proteins produces rancid off-flavors and off-odors and decreases textural characteristics. But even more importantly, when proteins are oxidized, there is a loss of important amino acids, which are necessary for pets’ growth, development and overall health.

More to minerals

Minerals are necessary for proper biological function and good health. They are especially important in maintaining the antioxidant and oxidant balance within humans, livestock and pets. Some key players involved in maintaining this balance are antioxidant enzymes, such as glutathione peroxidase, catalase and superoxide dismutase. But, minerals are a double-edged sword. They can be beneficial or detrimental depending on the quantity fed and the form used.

Going full circle

Making sure pets get the right nutrition for optimal health means we need to look at what livestock animals are fed.

Organically complexed minerals are more bioavailable than their inorganic counterparts, which means we don’t need to add as many minerals to the diet of livestock. By replacing and reducing the amount of minerals in the diet, we can restore the oxidative balance in the animal and, in turn, the meat ingredient in pet food. Research has shown that feeding organically complexed forms of selenium, iron, zinc and copper can increase antioxidant enzyme activity in skeletal muscle. Also, by including fat-soluble antioxidants, such as vitamin E and/or carotenoids, we can inhibit lipid oxidation and subsequently protein oxidation in muscle. This will translate to more nutritious, delicious and better-quality ingredients being fed to pets.

I want to learn more about pet nutrition.

The Greek physician Hippocrates, often considered the father of medicine, was the first person recorded to suggest a relationship between nutrition and maintaining good health. In the thousands of years since, the effect of nutrition on health has gained a whole new perspective through a scientific area of study called “nutrigenomics.”

What is nutrigenomics?

Your pet’s genome consists of all of its genetic material, or DNA. It provides the basic information for your pet’s life. You can think of it as a blueprint, providing carefully drawn out plans for your pet’s healthy life. However, outside influences, such as the environment and nutrition, can have a strong impact on the expression of this genetic information, or essentially how that blueprint is read.

The canine and feline genome sequences were first reported in 2005 and 2007, respectively. These breakthroughs opened the door for cutting-edge research approaches to understand the molecular mechanisms behind everyday life. While knowing the DNA sequence of a genome is an essential first step, the real breakthroughs come from understanding how each of the genes in that sequence responds to outside influences and how this relates to health and disease.

By up-regulating (“turning on”) or down-regulating (“turning off”) genes, the body changes the levels of the proteins that make up structures and functions in the cells. This, in turn, alters physiological processes like energy production or immune response. Nutrigenomics is the field of research we use to study if changes in genes occur with changes in the animal’s diet. By understanding nutritional influences on the genome, we can understand how these responses impact animal health. Using DNA microarrays, the basis for nutrigenomic studies, allows researchers to evaluate the activity of thousands of genes at a time. These studies provide us with new tools for understanding how nutrients precisely work, why different forms of nutrients have different effects and how such nutrients can be optimized for health.

Nutrigenomics is disrupting the classical view of animal nutrition, allowing us to look at “you are what you eat” in a whole new light.

How can we use nutrigenomics in pet nutrition?

A vast amount of data is generated from nutrigenomic studies. From a single experiment, we find out how thousands of genes respond to a diet change. This slew of information can help elucidate the complex interactions between nutrition, an individual animal’s genetic code, and the onset or prevention of diseases and disorders. By considering these aspects of nutrient-gene interactions, we can ultimately design diets for the treatment or prevention of specific diseases. For instance, if we can understand the molecular changes that occur prior to the onset of joint inflammation and arthritis, we can potentially use nutrition to diminish these changes and prevent this disorder.

Nutrigenomics can also help us focus on the area of “precision nutrition.” This is especially important when considering the unique nutritional challenges of different breeds and life stages of pets. For instance, if a breed of dog is predisposed to a disease like obesity, researchers can use genomics to determine what changes occur in gene activity with the onset of disease. They can then test different diets to see what nutritional strategies can prevent these changes in gene expression.

Even further, we can use nutrigenomics to identify the unique nutrient requirements of different breeds, life stages or activity levels of pets. We can then use the information gathered to design appropriate and precise diets to these specific aspects, which will help ensure our pets experience optimal health and well-being.

Is this the future of nutrition?

The more we understand about nutrition, the more we can use it in the way Hippocrates envisioned, as a tool to fight disease and maintain good health. While the idea of personalized nutrition for pets is still a long way off, research in the field of nutrigenomics makes steps toward this ultimate goal every day. Even more important is that every bit of data generated in this quest helps us feed our pets better and make steps toward optimal health through nutrition.

Want to learn more?

Americans sure do love their pets. With 68 percent of U.S. households owning a pet, we collectively spent $66.75 billion on our best friends in 2016. It goes without saying how much we care about them, and our concerns certainly include their health and the health of our family members who interact with them on a daily basis.

Because we have made our pets a part of our family, we want them to have the best we can offer in food and nutrition, always considering the source of the food, its ingredients and its quality. But the actual safety of their food goes beyond these important considerations.

When we think of pet food safety, there are two sides to this issue: the potential that the food could cause harm to our pets, and the possibility that the food could cause harm to family members who interact with them and their food.

If we consider food safety for the pet, then we could certainly mention the melamine scare of 2007. In that instance, pet foods were produced with vegetable protein tainted with melamine, an industrial chemical not approved as an ingredient in animal or human food in the United States. The tainted food led to renal failure in many cats and dogs, with some unfortunately dying from their illness. More information about this incident can be found at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website.

Another example of contaminants that may sicken our best friends is mycotoxins. These are naturally occurring toxins produced by molds. Mycotoxins can be associated with many plant products as a result of toxigenic molds growing on them. Even though the FDA has regulations and guidelines related to maximum allowed levels for some of these toxins in pet food, once in a while we have issues related to these compounds. One example would be from 2005, when aflatoxin-contaminated dog food was shipped to 22 different states and at least 29 different countries. Nineteen different types of pet foods had to be recalled.

The other aspect related to pet food safety is the safety of family members who interact with pets. In more than one instance, human illnesses have been associated with the handling of contaminated pet food. In one of these situations, in 2012, 49 individuals were infected with Salmonella infantis, and investigations found the source of the bacteria was the dry dog food offered by those individuals to their pets. This outbreak also triggered a recall of 17 product brands, representing more than 30,000 tons of dry dog food.

Lessons learned for better safety

All these incidents have served as painful lessons for the pet food industry, government and pet owners. Much has changed in regard to the implementation of pet food safety management systems by the industry: pet owners have become aware of the potential hazards associated with their pet’s food and guidelines have been promoted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help prevent outbreaks associated with Salmonella. In an effort to further increase the safety of foods for humans and animals, the FDA has also recently implemented a series of rules, known as the Food Safety Modernization Act, related to the processing of foods that will certainly contribute to reducing the occurrence of these incidents in the U.S.

If you would like to learn more about the hazards associated with pet foods, the tools used by the pet food industry to control them, new regulations that will support efforts to produce wholesome and safe pet foods, as well as some guidelines to keep your family safe while feeding your pets, be sure to check back on this blog. Future entries will be dedicated to each of these topics.

I want to learn more about pet nutrition.

A 20th century vision that was ahead of its time remains so today, some 30 years after its conception: The Alltech ACE principle is a corporate “North Star,” serving as a guide to a more sustainable, healthier world.

The “A” in ACE is all about the animal and innovating ways to balance highly efficient and profitable livestock production with the seemingly conflicting imperatives of environmental stewardship and consumer demand.

A focus on precision nutrition

Alltech’s animal health and nutrition business revolves around the science of nutrigenomics — how diet impacts genetics — and a quest for a better understanding of how to feed an animal to its specific genetic potential.

An Alltech researcher reviews markers of gene expression, which provide a better understanding of how changes in the diet affect animals at the genetic level.

“The more efficient that we can make these animals, the better off we are because we can get more meat, milk or eggs per pound of feed,” noted Dr. Kristen Brennan, a research project manager at the Alltech Center for Animal Nutrigenomics and Applied Animal Nutrition. “The focus of the nutrigenomics that we do is to understand how nutrition influences animals on a molecular level and how that can lead to changes that we see in production, health and well-being.”

Good for the animal, producer, environment and us

Intensive livestock operations produce large quantities of animal waste, which can include high levels of ammonia, nitrogen, phosphate and trace minerals. However, proper animal nutrition can minimize the levels and impacts of these pollutants.

Alltech scientists are working to develop products that reduce methane emissions while improving the efficiency of the animal.

“These products must reduce methane emissions from the rumen without negatively impacting rumen fermentation and negatively impacting either the milk production or growth of beef animals,” said Dr. Amanda Gehman, Alltech research project director.

Finding that balance is also a focus at Alltech-owned KEENAN, the Ireland-based manufacturer of advanced diet feeders and software products.

“What we’re all trying to do is to increase feed conversion efficiency (FCE) on the farm,” said Conan Condon, director of KEENAN's InTouch live review and support service. “We want to increase production while decreasing the intake of the animals. By doing that, you will increase your FCE and reduce your carbon footprint.”

For Alltech Chief Scientific Officer Dr. Karl Dawson, a significant and all-encompassing ACE milestone was reached when the company introduced Optigen®, a non-protein nitrogen source for ruminants.

“That had a tremendous impact in terms of what it would do for animal feeds,” said Dawson. “It not only improved animal performance, it changed the way nitrogen is utilized in cattle. It made nitrogen efficiency much greater, and you have less nitrogen in waste.

“Nitrogen in waste is the precursor to one of the major greenhouse gases, nitrous oxide, which is a stronger greenhouse gas than methane,” he continued. “You can reduce greenhouses gases using that technology.”

Healthy animals, healthy humans

Dawson is equally focused on addressing today’s widely held consumer concerns about the use of antibiotics in livestock production as a growth promotant. Alternative solutions are being found in enzyme technologies that are becoming the backbone of Alltech nutritional programs and technologies.

“We have systems that can induce the same types of changes that antimicrobials have induced using these enzymes and manipulating what’s going on in the digestion process,” he said. “As time goes on, that is going to be a real game-changer.”

The potential for using low levels of these enzymes as additions to feed can be as powerful as any of today’s antimicrobials, according to Alltech researchers.

“We’re producing alternatives to antibiotics in the diet that satisfy both the needs of the farmer and the production needs of the animal and also make the consumer happy because those compounds are omitted from the diet,” noted Brennan.

Environment and economics — must they be at odds?

Environmental sustainability has appeared to be at cross purposes with economic growth and development. Achieving high efficiency has been thought to come at the expense of the food-producing animal and the environment.

“In general business, those two things can be at odds, but in cattle — and in animal agriculture, in general — efficiency really is the name of the game as far as producing less waste, less environmental pollutants per unit of milk, beef or eggs,” said Gehman. “But it’s also the same efficiency that can be applied to profitability.

“In cattle, methane is an indicator of waste, not just to the animal but also to profitability, so if that animal is burning off energy as a waste product and we can make the animal more efficient so that she retains more of that energy, that can be environmentally sustainable as well as profitable for the farm,” she continued.

Dr. Amanda Gehman, Alltech research project director, evaluates a total mixed ration using the Alltech® In Vitro Fermentation Model, or IFM. Improving digestibility of the diet can have a significant effect on producer profitability and environmental sustainability.

Gehman is now investigating in vitro testing (using the Alltech® In Vitro Fermentation Model, or IFM) as a means of evaluating the digestibility of various forages.

“We’re making that a regular test in order to fine-tune the rations, to address problems as they come and also address any opportunities to use an undervalued feed,” she said.

Minerally minded

While Gehman and her colleagues study ways to optimize ruminant digestion, other Alltech researchers have been focusing on how producers can feed substantially fewer organic trace minerals than inorganic trace minerals and get similar, if not better, performance.

Dr. Karl Dawson, vice president and chief scientific officer at Alltech, works with ICP-MS, instrumentation used to measure the proportion of minerals in feed or food samples and their distribution in biological matrices, animal tissues or human biological fluids. Methods such as ICP-MS are routinely used by Alltech researchers as they seek to define the true mineral requirements of animals.

The company’s mineral management program, Total Replacement Technology™ (TRT), has been at the forefront of a transition from inorganic trace minerals that are not efficiently digested — and even banned in some countries — to feeding reduced levels of organic minerals that animals can better utilize, reducing environmental pollution.

Steve Elliott, global director of the Alltech® Mineral Management team, said the company’s scientists are also looking at the interaction of trace minerals with other components in the diet, such as enzymes, vitamins and antioxidants.

“We’ve found that trace minerals can have a very negative impact on those other diet components,” said Elliott. “Research has now shown that, by using organic trace minerals, we avoid some of that conflict or interaction, thus allowing those other components to do what they’re put into the diet to do.”

Ending the reliance on fish oil and fish meal

Some methods of aquaculture have a very high environmental impact. A common sustainability problem in animal and aquaculture diets is the nutritional requirement of fish oil or fish meal, which is typically from wild fish.

The problem with fish oil — and this really goes to sustainability and the ACE principle — is that fish oil and fish meal demand have been increasing. Fisheries around the world are at capacity, and fishing more out of them risks collapsing them. The alternative is aquaculture, but in that case, there is not enough algae in the spaces that the fish occupy. You’re feeding the fish, and at this point, the ratio of conversion is that you have to 'squeeze' one fish to get enough fish oil to feed one fish. With demand increasing, that’s not sustainable, long-term.

Dr. Jorge Arias, Alltech’s global director for aquaculture, is optimistic about algae as an answer.

“We believe we have a real solution in our algae that will reduce reliance on fish oil while increasing the amount of DHA available to farmed fish and, ultimately, to consumers,” he said.

Sustainable seafood

To further address issues of fish farming, the Alltech Coppens Aqua Centre recently opened in Valkenswaard, the Netherlands.

“This is a brand-new knowledge hub for the development of innovative fish nutrition solutions to tackle both the present and future challenges facing the aquaculture industry,” said John Sweetman, Alltech's European technical manager for aquaculture.

Those methods include products derived from microalgae that are fully safe, sustainable and traceable, while providing the nutritious DHA previously supplied by fish oils.

ACE-ing animal health and nutrition

Alltech takes a holistic approach to animal health and nutrition, mindful of what is best not only for the producer, but also the ruminant, fowl or fish that feed a growing population and the planet they all call home. This article has touched on but a few of the many products, programs and concepts provided by the global Alltech research and development community to live out its ACE principle commitment

Next in our series will be the “C” in ACE: the consumer. We’ll look at the many ways Alltech strives to respond to the expectations of the information-seeking “prosumer” of the 21st century.

Read ACE-ing sustainability: Part I, the environment.