With finite fish meal supplies and fish oil resources, can aquaculture still produce a high-quality product? Frits Berkers, manager of the Alltech Coppens Aqua Centre details why quality won’t be compromised thanks to innovations to feed in aquaculture.

The following is an edited transcript of Tom Martin’s interview with Frits Berkers, manager of the Alltech Coppens Aqua Centre. Click below to hear the full audio. 

Tom:              Here with us to discuss innovative ideas in feed development is Frits Berkers, manager of the Alltech Coppens Aqua Centre (ACAC) in the Netherlands. In vivo trials are conducted at this Alltech bioscience center to study the performance of new aquafeed formulas and to study the digestibility of new raw materials. Thanks for joining us, Frits.

Frits:               Thank you, Tom.

Tom:              Tell us, if you will, first, about the role of the Alltech Coppens Aqua Centre.

Frits:               The role of the Alltech Coppens Aqua Centre actually lies in the fact that we support the formulation, feed formulation, in Alltech Coppens with experimental data that we create. We are actually the department that performs the R&D.

Tom:              It may seem obvious, because it's for fish, but what makes fish feed special?

Frits:               Fish feed is special. In a sense, it's a compound feed, so this is the only thing that the fish eats. Every different pellet should exactly match the nutrition that a fish needs that's unique for fish. Furthermore, fish live in water, so that means the feed also needs specific physical characteristics that make it possible to feed it to animals that are in water.

Tom:              Okay. As the aquaculture industry is striving to manage finite fish meal supplies and fish oil resources, can we still produce a high-quality product?

Frits:               Yeah, we still can. Yeah, it's true what you say; the fish meal resources and fish oil, they're not endless, although some sources are sustainable, so I think, in the future, we can still maintain using those sources in the best way, the most efficient way. Some fish meals originate from fish offal, so maybe carcasses that are left after processing marine fish that is caught for human consumption, so about 50%, in general, from the fish is left. It's also a good source that will remain available, I think, in the future.

Tom:              Besides Neogreen, which is a revolutionary trout diet from Alltech Coppens, what alternatives are out there?

Frits:               There are many alternatives, actually, in the ingredients. Neogreen is actually a very extreme example in the sense that we completely replace fish meal in this diet. We use microalgae to do so, amongst other things, but there are a lot of alternatives that can also partially replace fish meal, and that's what we're doing, actually, in all our fish feeds that we're producing.

Tom:              What about marine phytoplankton and seaweed? Can these be used instead of fish meal and marine fish feed?

Frits:               Yeah, definitely, but it's a bit dependent on scale at the moment, since these ingredients are not available in great abundance and, usually, at a price that is pretty high and, at the moment, not price-competitive with fish feed, but I think we can. A high potential of these ingredients lies in the fact that the fatty acids that we think are really healthy from fish, like DPA and DHA, they originate actually from marine phytoplankton, so it's really smart to look in that corner to see if we can take sources straightaway, from one trophic level down.

Tom:              What is the importance of enzymes in fish feed development?

Frits:               It's very important. The reason for that is that there's a lot of carnivorous fish — most farmed fish are carnivorous fish — so they used to feed on animal-originating materials. Part of the ingredients that we use as replacements are plant-originating materials, so the fish that are used to digesting animal feeds, they're not always used to digesting plant-originating materials, and that's where the enzymes come in.

Tom:              Is it possible to manipulate the flavor, the taste and the texture of salmon and other finfish by determining what the ingredients will do in those areas?

Frits:               Yeah.

Tom:              Flavor and texture?

Frits:               Yeah, definitely — especially the flavor, because a fish can take flavor from those ingredients, so it's really important. It's also something we test at the ACAC if we test for novel ingredients. We also test if it doesn’t change the flavor of the product, which is essential because you're making a product that is, in the end, for the customer.

Tom:              What's the best and the cheapest way of achieving the correct vitamin, of mineral additives, in fish feeds?

Frits:               They can go through premixes, for example — premixes that Alltech supplies, especially in minerals. It's really important to look at the bioavailability of these products. You can have straight mineral supplements for certain minerals, as salt itself, but it might be not as bioavailable as you wish.

                        The smart thing for some Alltech products is that they make the trace minerals very bioavailable, so you know exactly how much of the stuff you put in is available to the animal. You don’t have to over-supplement them, because over-supplementing has more costs and it might pollute your environment more than you wish and more than what would be necessary.

Tom:              I'd like to talk about biomagnification, if we could, which is responsible for the risk of poisoning — like mercury poisoning, in particular — by human consumption of large fish. Can the magnitude of biomagnification of mercury levels be quantified so that it might be possible to know before consumption which fish will have detrimental effects on human health?

Frits:               Yeah, definitely, and it's also something that is continuously monitored. It is a subject that plays a major role in wild-capture fisheries, especially, like you said, of the big species, like swordfish, tunas. That's an advantage, actually, from farmed fish, because in farmed fish, you know exactly what is going into the animal beforehand, if you're having too high levels of mercury, for example. It can be other things, because we continuously check on the suppliers, on the raw materials that we get in — if they met the standards, for example, on increasing levels of mercury, or it could be any other pollutants.

Tom:              Has the capacity for the development of global aquaculture reached a point of saturation, or is there still much room for growth?

Frits:               I think that there's a lot of room to grow, and I think it has to grow — but how it grows, I think that is something that should change and is already changing. So, you see a shift towards more land-based farms, so that's RAS farms, recirculating aquaculture systems, and they allow a more efficient use of natural resources without polluting or putting a higher pressure on the nature where you're working.

Tom:              There's a lot more control by land-based fish farming, correct?

Frits:               Yeah, there's a lot more control, so that's pollution escapees, fish disease —

Tom:              Escapees has been a big problem.

Frits:               Yeah, definitely.

Tom:              With sea lice and so forth.

Frits:               Yeah, with sea lice. Also, diluting genetics of wild stock fishes — like, if they get in contact with farmed fish, they might be also genetically selected for a certain purpose. You don’t want them to mix because, again, that will have an influence on your natural populations.

Tom:              Has there been a significant shift for land-based farming of salmon?

Frits:               Yeah. In some industries, it's something you see because of the effects of pollution getting higher, so the places where the fish were traditionally farmed in cages. For example, in the fjords in Norway or Chile, they're saturated, so you can find this amount of fish but not do more, I think. That's pollution-wise. There are more and more problems with sea lice — so, parasitic infestation on a salmon, which comes from the wild. So, when you're farming in cages, it's more vulnerable. In land-based, you can control it, so it's not a problem. Moreover, in Chile, there are detrimental effects of diseases on the salmon population, like the farm salmon population. That's also a reason that you see a bigger shift towards land-based farming of salmon. There's a lot of investment going on, since one or two years.

Tom:              From a consumer perspective, is it possible to tell the difference between wild-caught and farmed?

Frits:               I think, in taste, it isn't. If you've always consumed wild salmon, for example, or always consumed farm salmon, I think you'll notice the difference, especially in wild-caught fish, which also is of real high quality, but the quality is not always the same. The fish feed that is done on this fish might result in catching them a little bit out of season and out of condition, depending on the weather and behavior and that kind of stuff. So, you have a product that is both of real high quality, but in farmed fish, it's easier to maintain a constant high quality.

Tom:              What sort of trends and innovation and technology are you really watching right now, keeping an eye on?

Frits:               My work, especially with alternative protein sources, that's, I think, really important.

Tom:              Frits Berkers is the manager of the Alltech Coppens Aqua Centre in the Netherlands. Thank you so much, Frits.

Frits:               Thank you, Tom.

I want to learn more about improving nutrition in fish production.

The following is an edited transcript of Tom Martin’s interview with Patrick Sullivan, partnership manager at AgVend. Click below to hear the full audio.

Tom:            Trying something new doesn't have to be scary; fresh digital platforms open up a world of possibilities. How can new digital platforms empower farmers and help retailers extend their reach? We take that question to Patrick Sullivan.

                     Patrick is a partnership manager at AgVend, where he's responsible for helping many of the top ag retailers in the U.S. grow their e-commerce businesses on the AgVend Marketplace and on their own digital storefronts. Prior to AgVend, Sullivan worked for Alltech Crop Science as the territory sales manager for the northeastern and mid-Atlantic U.S. He received a bachelor's degree in plant sciences from Cornell University and a master's in agriculture from Western Kentucky University. Thanks for joining us, Patrick.

Patrick:         Yeah, happy to be here.

Tom:            So, tell us a little bit about AgVend. How does it help farmers?

Patrick:         AgVend is working to power digital commerce in agriculture. We're working to do that constructively through the existing ag retail channel, and we partner, as you alluded to, with agricultural retailers, selling through our marketplace, which is agvend.com, where they can come buy from a number of different retailers, shop their options and make their purchases, all in one spot. We also help those retailers with digital storefronts — so, building their own e-commerce presence and bringing them closer to their customers. We help farmers save both time and money. They're empowered with more knowledge. They're easy to look up, what products they want, what the pricing is, what different options are available, so they're able to quickly go make those decisions whenever they want. The e-commerce is open 24/7. There's no cost, there's no membership, so it's easily accessible information for them.

Tom:            And these are all critical purchases. Do you find farmers reluctant to make these kinds of purchases online?

Patrick:         Farmers are more accustomed to making purchases online in their personal lives. That was one of the foundations of our company, is talking to farmers and saying, "Hey, we buy a lot of our home goods online, but these aren't available there." Now, especially connecting with the retailers, once they know that there's a retailer behind it, they're a lot more comfortable. There are some guys that have taken a little time and made calls five or six times before they make a couple-hundred-dollar order, and guys that place a half-a-million-dollar order just by coming and clicking, so it can all vary.

Tom:            How do you go about assuring them of the quality of what they're finding online?

Patrick:         We're working with the top retailers in the industry, so many of the CropLife 100, the biggest retailers, many of their top ones. And these are coming from the approved channels, from the manufacturers that come with the warranties, the rebates, the financing programs that they're all used to. We also back all of our purchases, and we'll close it with the retailer if there ever was an issue for them.

Tom:            So, the retailer is kept hidden until the purchase is made. Why is that?

Patrick:         On our marketplace, they're kept hidden until the purchase is made. That's to protect their pricing power, so it allows them to list all of their products and services at different segments so they can target a more transactional, low-service customer and a full-service customer and not have to worry about explaining the differences out there in the marketplace.

Tom:            And then, at what point in the process do they find out who the vendor is?

Patrick:         On our marketplace, they find out immediately at purchase. So, you click "checkout," and the retailer is shown to you there on the confirmation page. We also send it to you in an email and our retailers contact you within one business day to arrange the pickup or delivery of that product.

Tom:            Okay. Let's talk a little bit about that fear factor and the uncertainty of trying something new. Are there significant numbers of farmers — and retailers, for that matter — out there who still have not warmed up to digital platforms as a means to grow their markets and their reach?

Patrick:         I think that's less and less. In terms of farmers, there were 8 to 10%, in 2018, that were purchasing online; that's expected to be closer to 15% this coming year. Additionally, there are more farmers — I think it's about 45% — saying that they would purchase online. Again, that's in part because they purchase there and because of other components of their lives previously. Additionally, if you look at the purchasing process as more than just that transaction, click and buy, farmers want more of that online interaction. They want to be able to browse at their own convenience, evaluate their options. We are finding that the retailers are quickly warming up to this because there's this demand from their growers for this more convenient experience. Some of our partners in our marketplace decided to create a storefront for their own customers because they were finding that about 10% of their purchases on the marketplace were from their own customers already, so that's quickly changing.

                     We worked with about 40 retailers in our first year at AgVend. I expect, over the next year, there'll probably be three times as many, as we expand into new geographies and into Canada as well.

Tom:            And as you're working with these retailers, what would you say are the most outstanding challenges that you encounter or have to overcome?

Patrick:         It's changing the perception of e-commerce within the organization. Previously, e-commerce was thought of as separate and somewhat as a threat, and this is showing them that it can be an advantage — not just to the leadership of that company, but throughout their entire sales organization.

Tom:            So, Patrick, what trends or innovations are you keeping an eye on now?

Patrick:         I think there's just a host of more digital tools coming to the grower. Being at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference last year, (I learned that) agriculture is one of the least digitized industries, and that's quickly changing from the transaction part, but also through all of the tools. We'll be seeing more of those interacting together to bring a better experience to farmers.

Tom:            And, when you see that, you must see enormous growth potential.

Patrick:         Oh yeah, it's a tremendous opportunity for both farmers and retailers.

Tom:            Patrick Sullivan is a partnership manager at AgVend. Thank you so much, Patrick.

Patrick Sullivan spoke at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference. Click here for more talks from industry leaders who appeared at ONE19.

Consumers are growing more and more environmentally conscious, and many have started to experiment with meat-free options. From plant-based burgers to burgers made entirely of tissue-cultured meat, are these really the "alternative meats of the future?" What does this mean for the beef industry, and which option is actually better for the environment?

The following is an edited transcript of David Butler's interview with Amanda Radke, beef blogger. Click below to hear the full audio. 

David:            I'm here with Amanda Radke, who's a South Dakota cattle rancher and a blogger with Beef Magazine. How are you doing, Amanda?

Amanda:        I'm doing great. How about yourself?

David:            Good! Thanks so much for being on the show.

Amanda:        Yeah, you bet.

David:            Let's talk a little bit about alternative proteins. You've been looking into that some lately and done some research on it, right?

Amanda:        Yeah. I think one of the biggest things that I wanted to emphasize in my message today was that I'm not anti-technology, and anything that we can come up with as far as food-science goes to feed the hungry planet is wonderful. So, I didn't want to pit traditional beef production against anything else, and I'm not against consumer choice. However, some of these Petri dish protein companies are really touting themselves as environmentally and ethically superior to traditionally raised beef, and so I wanted to highlight why the beef cow is incredible in providing a safe and nourishing beef product for us to consume — and, also, life-enriching byproducts, and that simply can't be replicated in a Petri dish.

David:            So, let's compare beef to some of the different alternative protein options out there — and I know there are a bunch of them, so maybe the first thing would be to say, what are all the different alternatives?

Amanda:        Sure. Well, we're seeing plant-based protein patties, like Beyond and Impossible, hitting the marketplace and receiving a lot of traction and attention from retailers carrying those options — and not just marketing them to your vegetarian and vegan crowd but marketing them to meat lovers as a direct replacement to a traditional cheeseburger. We also may see Petri-dish proteins enter the marketplace as soon as the end of the year, and so a lot of what we know about these products is conjecture right now, because these companies aren't really forthcoming with any information on their manufacturing processes. However, what I do know is that the modern beef producer of today has a lot of great advantages as far as efficiently producing beef and doing it in a way that is not just sustainable to our natural resources, but it's regenerative, too, and so that's really what I wanted to celebrate today in my message.

David:            Go into some more specifics on how beef production is regenerative. What do you mean when you say that?

Amanda:        When I say regenerative, I want to look specifically at rangelands and grasslands. A lot of times, consumers will say, “Well, we could just plow up that land and use it to grow crops or cereal grains or whatever to feed people,” but the fact of the matter is that most of this land is unsuitable for modernizing or farming and can only be used by ruminant animals — and if it were not, it would become a desert or a barren wasteland. So, cattle, with each bite of grass they take, with each step of their hooves, they aerate the soil. They reduce fuel for wildfires. They provide habitat for everything from bees to rabbits and mice to deer and foxes, so they're a critical component to our ecosystem, and they're just part of the balance. Not only that, but they can upcycle this poor, marginal, inedible, cellulosic material that is grass and they can convert it into a nutrient-packed superfood like beef.

David:            And it's not just grass, right? What other kinds of cellulose materials do they —

Amanda:        Sure. Well, it depends on the part of the country. They can eat everything from potato byproducts in Idaho to distillers grains in the corn belt, and so they can take byproducts of other crop production and other foods and can convert that into beef as well. I think, a lot of times, our consumers misplace the information or misplace the blame on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions because they've been told, if they skip eating meat one day out of the week, they'll save the planet — but, ultimately, I guess I really want to stress that Mother Nature wasn't wrong and the beef cow is incredible, and so we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and that she can play a critical part in taking care of our natural resources and feeding a hungry planet.

David:            That's good to know. You've got some kinds of problems that you've outlined, where alternative proteins don't stack up to beef. Do you want to talk through some of those with us?

Amanda:        Sure. The first problem — and maybe it's just the advantage of the beef cow — but these companies haven't really proven their environmental impact. So, when they talk about the natural resources used in beef production, they also fail to acknowledge the energy use, the crops that are needed, the fact that there are still fetal cells that will be used in this production practice, the waste produced, as far as what's being grown in the laboratory.

                        This all has an environmental footprint as well, and so I think there's some burden of proof there for them to show us what their environmental footprint actually is, and can it compete if it goes to scale.

                        The next problem, as we discussed, is that this lab meat can't regenerate and build topsoil quite like cattle can, and so, anytime we plow up rangeland and pastures to be used for monoculture and crop production, we're losing that carbon capture of having that soil covered by grass. So just by having the grasslands maintained and not going into barren wasteland or trying to grow cereal grains or an alternative on this marginal land is something these Petri dish proteins can't do.

                        The next, and it's one I love talking about, is byproducts. When we think of beef cattle, we think of steaks and cheeseburgers, but it's so much more than that. It's things like insulin for diabetics, crayons, deodorants, leather goods like boots and belts and furniture, and everything in between. There are hundreds of byproducts that enrich our everyday lives that come from beef cattle — even organic fertilizer for vegetable production; that comes from cows, too. So, byproducts are a huge thing, and if we're going to try to replace the all-in-one machine that is the beef cow with synthetic or alternative options for all these byproducts, that's going to have an environmental footprint as well.

                        Then, another problem, a lot of these companies are promising that they're antibiotic-free and pathogen-free. I think it's unfair for any food company to claim that there aren't vulnerabilities as far as food safety goes, and we need more transparency as far as their antibiotic usage —  where are they vulnerable, where are points of contamination — and I'm thankful that the FDA and USDA are going to jointly regulate and oversee these production practices, but yet, I think there's a lot more they need to prove before they enter the marketplace.

                        Finally, someone told me, "Don't you feel bad eating cattle? Your diet leads to death," and I think it's important to note that, once again, every diet, no matter if it's total vegan or total carnivore, there's animal deaths involved. Every time a field is plowed, you're misplacing the wildlife that lived there. It's just a give and take. As a rancher, I understand the circle of life and I value that beef cattle for what she offers to people, to nourish and enrich people's lives. However, I think it's just a convenient thing that the plant-based folks kind of ignore that their diets also cause death and suffering as well, so it's just a matter of where you place your importance, I guess. For me, I can feel pretty confident that I'm utilizing a beef animal and respecting what she has to offer humanity while also respectfully caring for that animal, too, while she is in our care.

David:            Yeah, good point. I'm sure most people haven't even thought of the fact that crops do displace natural habitat. Pasture does, to an extent, too. That certainly is a problem, when deforestation occurs for pasture, but if you're on natural grasslands, that's not quite as big of an issue. You mentioned antibiotics, and I would think that most people would assume the cell-based or Petri dish-based meat wouldn't need any antibiotics, because these are not living animals that are walking around and potentially getting sick, so where would the antibiotics come into that process?

Amanda:        Sure. Well, without actually having seen the manufacturing process take place, I think there are a lot of unknowns there, and I can't speak with authority on how the antibiotics would be used. However, just like any living thing — especially when it's interacting with humans in a lab — there are those points of vulnerability where antibiotics might be applied and used in that setting. So, I appreciate the National Cattlemen's Beef Association coming out and saying strongly that we need more information and clarity on antibiotic usage in these Petri dish proteins' production practices, and that needs to be regulated and overseen by the USDA.

David:            So, you're talking about some sort of instance where there's contamination in the lab or in the production process.

Amanda:        Perhaps. It could come out the collection phase, too. We're dealing with live animals at that stage as well, as far as the fetal cells, and so, yeah, I think maybe it's — like I said, we're in its infancy right now, where we don't totally know and understand the processes.

I really hate fear-mongering about any products that I don't know or understand, and I'm always very mindful of, no matter what the beef is, whether it's natural, grass-fed, organic or Petri-dish, it's an option for the consumers and we're getting protein on people's plate, and these products could be viable in the marketplace and a solution to giving people around the world that product. However, where I have problems is in this rush to market and in this rush to get a return on investment with these major investors that are actively participating in these production practices. I worry that food safety, transparency, nutritional information might not be as clear as they should be for our consumers.

David:            So, we need to be cautious there, yeah. Talk a little bit about the natural resources, the inputs, that go into cell-based proteins.

Amanda:        Sure. Again, this is conjecture, really, from what I've read and can understand, but you're going to need, obviously, a fetal calf and cells from that calf. They'll grow in a suitable medium, and, from what I understand, it could be soybeans or corn, mushrooms, and could even be cattle-based, just depending on the company. That growth medium will grow the muscle fibers and also the fat fibers; they're grown separately and have to come together. By my understanding, they're kept at 98 degrees Fahrenheit, and these cells, as they duplicate and grow, they produce waste, and so, then, waste has to be taken out of that Petri dish as well.

                        It's a huge process. There might be some opportunities for crop producers, corn and soybean growers, to provide this medium for these cells to grow. I don't want to be shortsighted and think that these products don't have a place in agriculture; however, it's difficult for me, as a beef producer, to see them disparage our industry while also trying to hijack our nomenclature, like beef, and the great reputation that beef has with our beef-loving consumers, and use it to market their product.

David:            Yeah. If you're going to have to grow the cells in a medium that's made out of something — because it's not magic, they have to provide nutrients to the cells — if those are supplied with soybeans or corn or any kind of plant, then it's not necessarily going to have a smaller footprint than a cow.

Amanda:        Exactly, yes.

David:            It might or might not, but it's not going to be drastically — it's not going to be free of inputs, right?

Amanda:        Correct.

David:            And they also will have to maintain this environment at this temperature and keep it in a sterile setting, and that's going to take a lot of energy.

Amanda:        Absolutely, and, yeah, I think they're downplaying that side of their story while really focusing on any negatives they might perceive about traditionally raised beef. And so, I want to compare apples to apples — or apples to oranges, however you might look at it — and as they go to scale in the marketplace, they'll have to prove that burden in the environmental footprint, and then we'll see, but I really think the beef cow can compete and has a great story to tell and is an important part of our environmental stewardship and our sustainability story, as far as a planet and a human race.

David:            You've mentioned that there's a little bit of controversy over the use of the words “meat” and “beef”. Some of these products, when they come to market, they may want to call them burgers or meat or beef, or meatless, whatever — so where does that stand? Is it a regulatory issue? Is it controversial?

Amanda:        There are several states across the country that are fighting to protect the nomenclature of meat and beef, and I've got to give props to Kentucky; the governor just signed a proclamation declaring it Beef Month for May but also signing a labeling law that would prohibit fake meats from calling themselves “meat” or “beef”. I think that's a great first step in setting those precedents on a state level before it can be federally enforced.

                        We're also seeing countries around the world, like Australia, France, the European Union — they're all addressing these meat-labeling rules and what is best and most informative for consumers. To me, it's really misleading to have these alternative products be called “meat” and “beef”.

                        Most importantly, beef producers have invested, through the Beef Checkoff Program, a dollar per animal sold to promote beef. So you have everything from the iconic "Beef: It’s what's for dinner" slogan, to research to create new steaks that would add value to the carcass, to educating our consumers about how best to prepare beef, and that investment has earned us a great reputation with our consumers. Beef is beloved, and it's king of the grill, and now, these companies want to take that nomenclature and use it for themselves, so that's really frustrating, and I think that's why the beef industry in general is really active in this fight: because beef is beef, period, and its name shouldn't be slapped on any other product.

David:            Let's compare sales of alternative or plant-based proteins to beef. Where does that stand right now?

Amanda:        U.S. sales of plant-based meats jumped 42% between March 2016 and March 2019, to a total of $888 million. Meanwhile, traditional meat sales rose just 1% to $85 billion in that same time frame, and that's according to ABC News. Beyond Meat is valued at $5.1 billion, as of today. I just read a story by a guy, and he predicts that that rising star is going to fizz a lot pretty fast, but I think it's a clear indication that retailers and consumers are incredibly excited about, at least, the plant-based protein patties and are willing to try it. I just read a study that one-third of consumers are also willing to try lab proteins, and so it'll be interesting to see what consumer acceptance looks like once they get to try it, if they like it and, again, if beef can hang on to the center of the dinner plate.

David:            So, it's early days, still.

Amanda:        Yes.

David:            We'll see what happens, right?

Amanda:        Yeah. I think the plant-based proteins, if you look at their ingredient list, it's a mile long, and it's essentially just a processed food; it's not a whole, nourishing food like beef is, a complete protein like beef would be. So, for me, it's a little interesting to see what types of consumers are loving this product. Are they the types that are really interested about health and nutrition? Are they buying it out of guilt or fear about the environment or about animal welfare? And, if so, how do we address some of the concerns that they might have about traditional beef and get them back to eating beef as a protein choice in between those hamburger buns.

David:            All right. Well, thank you, Amanda. It was a great conversation and I appreciate your time.

Amanda:        Thanks for having me. I was thrilled to be able to share that Alltech stage with such talented speakers (at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference), and it's just a great event to be a part of.

Amanda Radke spoke at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE). Click here to learn about ONE and how you can access innovation on demand.

How do you attract and retain dairy farm employees? Jorge Delgado, dairy advisor with Alltech, highlights how the labor force in dairy is changing and the importance of creating a culture of respect on farms.

The following is an edited transcript of Kara Keeton's interview with Jorge Delgado. Click below to hear the full interview. 

Kara:              I'm here today with Jorge Delgado, one of Alltech's elite dairy advisors. Jorge, tell me what that title means.

Jorge:             The elite advisors are all the on-farm advisors for dairy. We have a group that is called the On-Farm Team and, under that team, we have several consultants with different roles. Some specialize in forage management; some specialize in analytical housing. My role is specializing in assisting dairy producers with managing labor — so, human resources.

Kara:              Well, labor is one of the most important aspects of any dairy, as we all know. How is the labor force on today's dairy changing?

Jorge:             I think the supply is changing. There are less and less people looking for jobs, first, in agriculture, and second, the supply is just short. Before — if we go back 10 years or 50 years, back in time — there was a lot of supply coming from mainly Mexico and Central America. That supply is short now based mainly in immigration rules, and second, these people are filling spaces that people here in America are not doing, especially related to labor — so, hands-on jobs. Those jobs are being filled with labor from Latin America, so agriculture is competing with the rules put in place now with immigration and, also, with all the other companies where people are not able to do jobs by hand. Those are the two main things.

Kara:              And not everyone is interested in working on the farm with our hands as much as there used to be, I think.

Jorge:             Yes. It's really hard, so that's the first thing that we have to take for this conversation. If you ask individuals in America what they want to do for the future, nobody is going to answer that they want to milk a cow. Even if you ask people that are coming to America to look for a job, they don't want to do that either. We all have dreams, and they only want to do a better job, find a better job, find a better place where they're close to community, where they're close to the cities. Nobody likes, or very few want, to work in agriculture — not only in dairy, but agriculture as well. That's why it's very hard to keep people and retain people working in agriculture.

Kara:              Now, this is not a new challenge though for the dairy industry. Labor has always been a challenge. As you were talking about immigration and so forth, that is really probably one of the bigger changes than previous generations. Is that correct?

Jorge:             It is. It is one of the biggest changes. It's always been there. Of course, we want to live in a country that is peaceful and safe and there's plenty for everybody, and we have to protect our borders. That is for sure. Generation through generation, every president worked around rules and regulations about immigration. There have been more ideas generated by this actual government, but those things are not new; they are the same. There are more and more people actually coming from Central America and Mexico, to come here and look for jobs, because the situation in those countries are becoming very hard to live with for those kinds of people. Again, the problem here becomes how we can attract people to work in agriculture, and how can we keep the people in agriculture working for the dairy industry and all the other industries.

Kara:              As you mentioned, retaining those good workers is difficult. As we find the talent we need, what are you seeing as the key to helping retain those individuals on the farm and in our dairy industry?

Jorge:             I think what we've seen today here in ONE (The Alltech Ideas Conference [ONE19]), I think, is a very good example of what are the things that you can do. What I mean by that is that you have to create a culture. You have to create a culture where employees feel that there are values, there's respect. Unfortunately, in the dairy industry, before, when there were plenty of workers, they were not thinking about creating a structure or creating an organization or creating a culture to retain people. Now that those times have changed and they're more difficult, the dairy industry needs to start thinking outside of the box and changing ideas and thinking of ideas or ways to be capable of keeping these people working for dairies.

Kara:              In your role with the Alltech Dairy On-Farm Support program, you're helping farmers to embrace this change and look at the solutions to help retain these people. Can you give me an example of a farm you've worked with or experience you've had in this role to express how farmers are embracing this change?

Jorge:             Yeah. That's a very good question. Again, the dairy industry has grown in the amount of animals and quality of milk and so forth, but they never had a chance to take a look at how to work with human resources, so now is the time, because it's very valuable to work with human resources.

                        What they need to do is to create structures in the organizations about people. That's how we're going to help these guys, or where we're helping these guys. An example of what we do and how we do it is that we want to go to the farm, and we want to create a culture, build a culture based on surveys that we do on the dairies. What we do is we take a survey that is a very simple question, 17 questions, about the culture: how do they feel, if they know who the supervisor is, if they know the culture on the dairy, the team in the dairy, how they get along with the team. We gather all this information and we put a report together for the dairy farmers, so, with this information, we hit the strongest points and the weak points.

                        With the strong points, we're doing a good job already, but what we do is we work based on the information on the weakest points. In those weakest points, what we do is we try to build a structure of employee handbooks, job descriptions, create a culture, create anniversaries, create important dates on the dairy, so, then, people will want to stay working for these guys.

Kara:              So, you're not just doing an operational analysis; you're actually doing a hands-on project with the farm so that they can actually put these new implementations into place in their operation.

Jorge:             Correct. The information that we gather from these surveys is very valuable. They can create new conversations. They can create more feedback. They can improve based on that information, and that's where we help. Usually, what a dairy farmer is looking for is a short training for employees, but we want to offer more than that and go beyond that. We want to create a structure, organize what they want to do about their culture, and then, from that, create all the tools just to keep these guys on the farm, employees on the farm, and for the dairy farm to be successful.

Kara:              If a dairy manager wants to connect with you to learn more about Alltech's On-Farm Support program, what's the best way for them to do that?

Jorge:             We have a website. You can go to Alltech.com and, there, you can find the On-Farm website[ET1] . On the On-Farm website, you will find all the people working on the team, with a lot of the specialties about the roles, like I mentioned before, like forages, and people, so that's the way that you can find and connect with us.

Kara:              What advice would you give a dairy farmer that's struggling with the idea of moving in this direction and enhancing their worker relationship, their operations, on the farm? Is it worth it to their bottom line?

Jorge:             If you think about what happens on a dairy on a daily basis, everything is done by hand. There are a few dairies now that are moving to the robotic side of things, especially with milking cows, but if you think about delivering a calf, feeding a calf, taking care of that cow that just had a baby, feeding those cows, making sure that they're healthy, milking those cows — all those things that happen in a dairy, they are related to people.

                        What is happening now is a lot of people don't want to see human resources as a big investment in their industry. They need to start changing, and they need to start thinking outside the box, and they need to go back to the basics when it comes to people. It's really basic, but we haven't done it. So, what they need to do is just go back to the basics and just engage people to work with them, because everything is done by hand.

Kara:              Well, we thank you for your time today, Jorge. Again, this is Jorge Delgado, one of Alltech's elite dairy advisors.

Jorge:             Thank you so much.

Click here to learn more about how the Alltech On-Farm Dairy Support team can support your dairy farm needs. 

By the year 2022, pig diets in the EU will be free of zinc oxide thanks to a recently passed ban. Jacob Dahl, chief nutritionist of Vilofoss, an international feed company, discusses the negative effects of using zinc oxide in pig feed and how the company is working to provide solutions for the future. How will pig producers face these new challenges?

The following is an edited transcript of David Butler's interview with Jacob Dahl. Click below to hear the full interview. 

David:            I'm here with Jacob Dahl, chief nutritionist at Vilofoss. Hello, Jacob.

Jacob:            Hello.

David:            How are you today?

Jacob:            I'm fine, thanks, and you?

David:            Good. Recently, in the EU, they passed a ban on using zinc oxide in pig diets, correct?

Jacob:            Correct, yes.

David:            So, tell us a little bit about how that came about and how it will affect farmers.

Jacob:            Yeah. When we're talking about the ban of zinc oxide, of course, it has to be understood as a pharmacological means, and it's been used effectively for decades to minimize the need for the use of antibiotics just after weaning in piglets. The different member states had different approaches — where Denmark has maybe been one of the countries where it was most widely used but is probably also the country with the lowest or one of the lowest consumptions of antibiotics — but now, through authorization and, then, withdrawal of this authorization, the use of zinc oxide for this purpose is coming to an end.

David:            Okay, and what's the deadline for that?

Jacob:            Well, the deadline would be in 2022 at the latest, as it's mentioned. Actually, the individual member states have the option of effectuating earlier, if they feel that it's possible.

David:            I see. Have the allowable levels been — are they reduced up to that point gradually, or is it all wide-open right now and then it just stops in 2022?

Jacob:            Well, it's been by prescription only. You can exceed the normal, what we call the nutritional levels, to a maximum of 2,500 ppm of zinc. It's been recommended to try to reduce, but there's no plan to slowly phase out the levels.

David:            You touched on something important there. Of course, zinc is a nutrient, so, of course, you have to provide that mineral. It's part of the diet anyway, so what we're really talking about here is the pharmaceutical use of zinc.

Jacob:            Exactly, yes.

David:            Why is it an issue? Why is it needed for weaning?

Jacob:            Well, zinc has been used and shown several times to have a diarrhea-reducing effect and also, somehow, a bacteria-modulating effect, thereby reducing the post-weaning diarrhea impact.

David:            Okay, and why is post-weaning diarrhea such an issue for pigs?

Jacob:            Well, first of all, it has a tremendous impact on the pig's health and survivability but also on the ability to convert feed, so it's an economic impact, but it's also a welfare impact.

David:            Yeah. I guess what I was trying to get at is: Why are the pigs very vulnerable to getting diarrhea at the time that they're weaning?

Jacob:            Well, at the time of weaning, the pigs are not used to what we would call mainly vegetable-nutrient feed, and this means that they have to convert, in a very short time, from mainly getting the nutrients out of milk into mainly vegetable-based feeds. This requires a tremendous change in the digestive system of the pigs, which challenges them, and they need to really adapt, which can be very difficult.

David:            So it's a pretty critical time on the farm for those livestock and can really affect the profitability of the farm if they don't get the pigs past that critical stage. So why is zinc being regulated? What is the downside of it?

Jacob:            Well, there are basically two downsides. There was an estimate calculated for Denmark alone where probably about 94% of the zinc added to pig feed in general is also excreted with the manure. This is way more than is then, afterwards, removed by the crops, so, over time, there will be a buildup of zinc in the soils. That's one part. Eventually, if that development continues, we could potentially reach some levels that are sort of toxic in the soil, impacting the crop yields.

                        Secondly, also, there's some evidence that the use of high levels of zinc could actually also push the development into antibiotic resistance for some bacterial types.

David:            I did not realize there was a connection between that. Do you know the mechanism for why that happens?

Jacob:            Not in detail, but I think some researchers have been connecting some genes in some bacteria that is promoted by the use of zinc oxide, and they're connected to antibiotic resistance.

David:            Okay. If you end up with too much zinc in the soil, at some point, I assume it becomes like a contaminated field, and then you can't grow food on it. Would that be accurate? Is there also a possibility that that zinc could leach into the groundwater?

Jacob:            I've not read anything in relation to that, so I couldn't say that.

David:            Okay, but it's a serious problem for our children and grandchildren if we're contaminating —

Jacob:            There was a report concerning this in Denmark a couple of years ago, and they actually estimated that most sensitive soils could be at a critical level in only 50 years if we continued.

David:            That's not really that long.

Jacob:            It’s really not.

David:            Yeah. If zinc is being used in order to reduce the amount of antibiotics, and I know that antibiotics have been regulated very heavily in Europe, what's the solution? Are there other tools that can be used to get around this problem?

Jacob:            I think most people in the business agree that there's no quick fix. We probably will not find another single product that, just putting on top, will solve this problem. The solution probably will be to utilize all the good knowledge we do have on nutrition and management and combine that into a concept that could actually handle this challenge.

David:            Go into a little more detail — what do you think the combination of factors would be?

Jacob:            Well, from the work we've been doing, one of the key factors is the reduction of protein levels, as protein is the main challenge, from a nutritional point of view, to the gut. Also, try to work with feed components that have the lowest impact on the digestive system — meaning, we need high digestibility. We need to utilize the feed, the nutrients in the feed, the best possible way — if not for economical reasons, then to minimize the level of nutrients reaching the hindgut, because then, there will only be substrate for bacteria. And if we cannot control those bacteria, we can have a negative development.

David:            Okay.

Jacob:            So, that would be the main part, and then, also, we need to work with gut development, because the pigs we wean today, we wean them fairly early, so they do have that quite immature gut. So, adding specific fiber types helps us not only to modify the microbiome but, also, to physically stimulate the development of the gut wall.

David:            So you're talking about probably a pretty customized diet, and maybe it shifts over time as the piglet grows.

Jacob:            Yep.

David:            Okay. Tell me a little bit about the Danish Pig Academy that your company is involved in.

Jacob:            It's basically something that was set up to have common training facilities for foreign farm workers in Denmark and visitors. All the Danish companies in agribusiness have joined forces to have a showroom where you can have a concentrated introduction to the products and also a common place to do trainings on different levels.

David:            Okay. Do you see any other challenges for pig producers in the EU coming down the pipe?

Jacob:            There are a lot of challenges we have. There are constant general environmental challenges but, also, welfare issues increasingly are important, and we need to address that much more in the future.

David:            What are some of the methods that farmers are taking, or that the Danish Pig Academy is proposing?

Jacob:            Well, from the welfare point of view, it's widely accepted that there should be more space for pigs. They also discuss later weaning; that's a challenge for financial reasons for the producers. Also, lowering stress in general is important. Of course, we have to also handle castration and tail dockings. Those are the two most concrete examples that are in the public opinion currently.

David:            What challenges are you seeing related to climate change and greenhouse gas regulations?

Jacob:            Well, from a carbon footprint point of view, the pigs cannot compete with poultry or maybe fish, but, luckily, they are somewhat more efficient than the ruminants — but we need to continuously improve, especially the feed conversion. The feed utilization is of importance here. Of course, in general, efficiency in pig production will lower the carbon footprint per produced kilo of meat.

David:            What are the methods that you think we should be exploring to try to get that feed efficiency higher?

Jacob:            Well, a healthy gut that is able to utilize the feed at its best is important, so anything to support the health of the piglets (would help). Also, in general, to limit health issues, because immune responses take up energy, take up nutrients that otherwise could be used for growth. So, in general, health is very important and, yeah, we need to continuously improve both the efficiency on the sow side, because that's where part of the carbon footprint comes from — so more piglets per sow reduces the imprint per pig.

David:            Sure. I'm sure we're learning more and more all the time about how complex and how important the microbiome is. What are the best ways to ensure that you have a healthy microbiome?

Jacob:            It's a very difficult topic. It's very complex, and I think there's still a lot to learn, so, from my point of view, I'm trying just to look at the pig and see, does the feces look all right? Do we have diarrhea or not? But also, trying to work with some of the mechanisms that we know influence the microbiome in a positive way, using the fibers of the prebiotics and some of the organic acids that we can add — but it's actually also some of the metabolites coming out of some of the bacteria in the microbiome.

David:            Okay. Can you tell me a little bit about your role at Vilofoss and what the company does and how you help farmers?

Jacob:            Yeah. Vilofoss, actually, you could say it's a multinational company coming out of Denmark but with activities in Germany, France, Sweden, and sales in most countries in Europe. We are active in Russia as well and do have some activities in China. Lately, we're also starting up in Spain. We have a big organization that consists of technical people in the local countries and then, based on these people, we have formed an R&D group where we work together to develop our concepts and, also, from the national point of view, try to have a common practice but also try to adapt to the local or national markets. My role is being responsible for Denmark on the pig side, both for R&D and technical support, and also as a part of the coordinators coordinating our international activities. I do support technical support to our sales force — mainly in Denmark, but also in China and Russia — and technical discussions amongst the colleagues in Europe.

David:            All right. Thank you very much, Jacob. I appreciate you spending some time with us.

Jacob:            Thank you.

I want to learn more about implementing sustainable solutions on my pig farm.

Among the challenges faced by the swine industry, this one may not be on the radar. In reality, deaths due to sows crushing their young costs producers billions of dollars a year. SwineTech, a U.S. based startup, is solving the problem using artificial intelligence and sensors to prevent piglet deaths. Can the next generation of ag-tech increase efficiency and improve profitability on the pig farm?

The following is an edited transcript of Tom Martin's interview with Matthew Rooda, co-founder and CEO of SwineTech. Click below to hear the full audio. 

Tom:              I'm talking with Matthew Rooda, co-founder and CEO of SwineTech, one of the Pearse Lyons Accelerators presenting at ONE19. Rooda graduated from the University of Iowa with a degree in enterprise leadership and went through the pre-medicine track. In 2015, he founded SwineTech, Inc., to solve the global issue of piglet deaths on farms. Thanks for joining us, Matthew.

Matthew:        Thank you for having me.

Tom:              I understand that you grew up in the pork production business. Tell us briefly about that background.

Matthew:        Yes. I was born into a pork production family. My grandpa, my great-grandfather raised pigs. My dad raised pigs. I kind of saw both sides of pork production, being the old way of doing it and then the current way of doing it. My dad managed thousands of sows in Iowa, North Carolina, and that really gave me a good perspective of the industry.

Tom:              So, you learned there's quite a lot involved to being a farmer.

Matthew:        Yes.

Tom:              How has that experience resulted in the development of the company that you now head, SwineTech?

Matthew:        It's had a lot to do with it. When we look at what is a farmer — a farmer is a little bit of everything. He's a contractor. He's a plumber. He's an electrician. He's a caretaker. It's a little bit of everything, and you really come up with anything you can to solve a problem. They're problem-solvers. Growing up, I had always been encouraged to solve problems in creative ways. Ultimately, in my experience as a farrowing manager on the South Farm in Northern Iowa, I ran into the problem of piglets being crushed. Ultimately, there was nothing at our disposal to solve this problem, so I started brainstorming with my co-workers and with other individuals — veterinarians, production managers — and, ultimately, came up with a solution that could save a lot of piglets' lives.

Tom:              And so, this led to the creation of SwineTech.

Matthew:        It did.

Tom:              Tell us about it: where are you based, your area of concentration?

Matthew:        SwineTech is an animal health company really focused on reducing piglet mortalities while also driving more efficient and effective management processes to make things better on the farm on a production level. We are located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. We were founded in 2015 by me, Abraham Espinoza and John Rourke, and, together, we have driven the company to right around 18 employees — and a revenue-driving business.

Tom:              How big is this problem? How many pigs die in a year? Why are they dying, and when?

Matthew:        This problem is huge. When we look at what it is over the entire world, we're talking over 116 million piglets that die from this problem, of all piglets born. It's resulting in the waste of more than 34 billion pounds of pork and, because of that, really, it's costing the producers and many stakeholders billions of dollars every year.

Tom:              So, what does your technology do to reduce this?

Matthew:        Our technology leverages advanced acoustic engineering, some machine learning and various sets of sensors to identify when a piglet is getting laid on by using a microphone that sits in the pen and listens to those wavelengths of frequencies of the piglet's squeals. When we look at a piglet's squeal, it's very consistent, very rhythmic, when they're getting laid on; it's pretty much a cry for help — breath, squeal, breath, squeal, “Help, help, help!” What we can do is we can identify that and then pinpoint exactly what pen that's in and then alert the correct mom to stand up and save that pig's life. How we alert her to stand up is with a chiropractic vibration and impulse.

Tom:              Wow, so you're using artificial intelligence and sensors. Tell us a little bit about that technology.

Matthew:        Yes, it's amazing what we're able to do today with technology. What we're doing right now could never have been done in years prior. What you really can do is you can tailor your technology to each individual environment by allowing it to train itself and to learn. What that allows us to do is it allows us to provide a custom application for each producer and for each genetic line of pigs. It's just a great opportunity for us.

Tom:              What kinds of management tools do you offer, and how do they increase profitability?

Matthew:        The management tools we offer today are around the temperature in each of the pens. Right now, the temperature that we see on a reporting basis is the room temperature, when, really, there are drafts to the room, so we should be understanding that on a more in-depth level. We report on how active the mother pig is — so, how often is she standing up and sitting down. This can allow us to understand maybe what sows are sick, what sows are eating enough, what sows may have some complications, and then, we also report when sows are a crushing risk to their piglets.

                        As we move forward, what we continue to find is that, by displaying this information, we can correct certain management practices. We can reduce labor because, if we know that all these sows are getting up multiple times a day, we don't necessarily need to staff somebody to walk around the whole farm to get pigs up three times a day. So, there are ways that we can really make things a lot more efficient, and as we keep moving forward, we're looking at things like birthing, nursing, eating, drinking behaviors, piglet growth rates and, then, helping identify piglets that are falling behind and need more special attention.

Tom:              Do you engage in ongoing research and development?

Matthew:        We do; that's a huge core of our business. We constantly are working with some of the world's leading producers to continually research and identify future opportunities and to develop those technologies that can help support that. Our engineering team is phenomenal, having worked at NASA, the Pentagon, Boeing, Royal Air Force. What that means is that they're able to do some really cool stuff, and our relationships with producers and our engineers has allowed that to really gel and drive great innovation.

Tom:              I'm curious, Matthew: Do you use Google Alert?

Matthew:        Yeah, we do.

Tom:              What's in it?

Matthew:        Identifications on what's new around African swine fever (ASF), what other companies in the technology space and agriculture are doing, and things along those lines.

Tom:              Let's talk about African swine fever — a huge, huge problem. I understand that it has now turned up in Asia, and there's even a global conference that's happened for years, and it's been called off this year as a result of ASF. Tell us more about this.

Matthew:        Yeah, African swine fever is a double DNA-stranded virus that can really, once infected, cause the pig to die within a week and is very contagious. We've seen a great portion of China's swine population die due to this issue. As we look at where it's spreading and how it's spreading, there's a big national alert on the biosecurity and the transfer of pork from country to country. It's a really big problem that everybody is aware of. It's very great, I guess, of the National Pork Board to hold off the world conference. I think that was a good idea; it's not worth the risk at this time. Everybody, right now, is just taking precautions at a biosecurity stage to make sure that we're at least preventing as much as we can, I guess, the infection of African swine fever.

Tom:              And it has not been detected in the United States. Is that correct?

Matthew:        It hasn't yet. There's just a lot of concern around airports and how it might come through there. I know the government is taking extreme precautions, which I know all the pork producers are very thankful for.

Tom:              And how is it impacting the market?

Matthew:        It's actually creating a lot of opportunity, when we look at the issue. When we look at what's going on, with China supplying over 50% of the world's pork, when they lose a quarter of all of their pork and growing, there's a huge need for more supply. So, you see a lot of countries — more specifically, Chile and Russia — who are able to take advantage of this and help export more to China, and it's, overall, driving up the price of pork considerably. It's a good time, right now, in the U.S. and around the world — if you're not in Southeast Asia and some places in Europe — to be in the pork industry, because there's a lot of profits to be made right now.

Tom:              A moment ago, we talked about research and development. Are you working on any new innovations?

Matthew:        We are. We're working on how we can evolve our technology to further help support farrowing staff and farm managers. Ultimately, we want to be the source of information for everything going on in the farrowing pen. We want to automate the whole process — so, how can we display information that is valuable to them to help them save time but, ultimately, to leave no piglet behind? As we look at this technology and where we're going, there's a lot of thought processes and time that's going into ensuring that that information we're collecting is also valuable to animal health, swine genetics and nutrition companies like Alltech.

Tom:              Matthew Rooda, co-founder and CEO of SwineTech, Inc. Thank you so much, Matthew.

Matthew:        Thank you.

I want to learn more about improving efficiency and farm management on my pig farm. 

We are in the midst of some of the most significant scientific breakthroughs since Norman Borlaug's Green Revolution of the 1940s. Just as his innovative approach to crop science saved billions of lives, agriculture now stands poised to feed the rising population. What technology will drive the new era? Dr. Richard Lally joins us to discuss the most promising research from the field.

The following is an edited transcript of Kara Keeton's interview with Dr. Richard Lally, research scientist with Alltech. Click below to hear the full audio. 

Kara:              Alltech research scientist Richard Lally is with me today to discuss new opportunities in the crop science field. Thank you for joining me today.

Richard:         No problem — a pleasure to be here. Thanks for having me.

Kara:              Globally, consumers are demanding more and more plant-based foods and everyday items. How is this demand from consumers impacting Alltech's crop research?

Richard:         Yeah, it's a really interesting trend that we're seeing now in the food industry. The consumer appears to be demanding more and more plant-based products. There are a few different reasons for this. The people are more conscious now about where their food is coming from. They're demanding more sustainability. They're demanding that the foods that they're eating will have a better nutritional impact to them personally. There are also a few companies who are including more plant-based-type of promises on their labels to give a healthier, more natural feel to various types of products.

                        I think, from that standpoint, there's a real opportunity in research for us to definitely help people produce better food, more nutritious food, and also help them produce in a much more sustainable way so every industrial activity out there has some kind of an environmental impact. Really, what we aim to do and strive to do is try and help alleviate and limit some of those environmental impacts of agriculture. That's really what we're trying to do with our Alltech Crop Science research.

Kara:              Along with traditional crop science research in the lab, I know technology is playing a bigger and bigger role every day with research and out in the field. How can technology provide farmers avenues to help meet these demands for more plant-based products?

Richard:         It's such a fascinating, exciting time, at the moment. If you think back to Norman Borlaug's Green Revolution back in the late '30s and early '40s, that was really a transitional moment for agriculture and, particularly, in crop agriculture. We've seen a massive boom in yield, and it was really the ability to see the opportunity to pull all the technologies and the science that was there together in order to help benefit the output for crop production.

                        We are currently now in a period where we have some of the most exciting scientific breakthroughs that are happening. We have some of the most exciting technologies available to us now that we can use in plant breeding, et cetera.

Really, it's when we pull all of these technologies together and we figure out how to use them in a very strategic way and bring them to the farm, implement them on the farm — we're really going to see the acceleration of what we can merely call the second Green Revolution. There's an array of technologies now available to us that the farmers are currently using. They are currently generating data on the farm, and it's when we start figuring out how to decipher all of that information that we can start making real leaps and help feed the world in a very sustainable way.

Kara:              Do you have research out in the field right now, on farms or at Alltech, that can talk a little bit more about how that technology plays out day to day, both in analyzing the data as well as the production on the farm?

Richard:         Yes. Our focus as researchers in Crop Science is, we really tap into looking at the overall plant health and what exactly we can do to help benefit that. We work from every aspect of the plant or plant production, from the soil to the roots to the stem to the leaves, all the way up to the fruits and the grains. Alltech Crop Science has been around now for 25 years, and we have years and years of wonderful results from the field, so what we're really trying to do now is understand some of the mechanisms behind these programs that we're using with our applications and our materials.

A really, really neat technology that we can use is RNA sequencing, more of would be referred to as the “-omic”-based technologies. These are technologies that can give us a lot of information about the cellular metabolism of a plant, and we can decipher that by looking at things like RNA, looking at protein interactions, looking at the mineral status, looking at the metabolites of plants. By understanding that and understanding where our applications have a role within those technologies — understanding how our applications are impacting some of those subcellular molecular processes — we can help basically guide strategies and guide programs for growers to help them produce more foods and help them protect their crops from stresses, be they biotic or abiotic stresses.

Kara:              What are some of the mechanisms in Crop Science that are not only helping growers — that you're using out in the field right now to produce a better product — but that are also helping the growers see a profit on that bottom line?

Richard:         Again, we work with growers. We work with our partners who help growers, and we try and develop a strategy for a grower. We offer a program and, again, we work with the soil. We work with the plant health. Really, what we're looking at doing — are there any mechanisms within the plant that the plant can naturally call on to help it boost its growth on its own? For example, we could be looking at a defense mechanism. Is there anything we can do to help upregulate some of those benefits in the plant, which can then lead to a reduction in the need for things like the harsh or harder chemistries that would be generally overused in some systems? From a soil health angle, we might look at how we can benefit the soil by using some of our applications. Is there anything we can do to stimulate some of the microbial communities around the roots? This will help us boost better root growth, which will improve the overall health of the plant.

Kara:              Now, Richard, I know that, in 2016, you won the Alltech Young Scientist Graduate Award. What was that experience like for you? How did that impact your research that you're doing today and inspire you to continue down this road of researching crop production?

Richard:         Yes. That was a really, really special moment for me in my life. I was working with some soil microorganisms at the time I submitted. I was advised by my professor at the time to submit a paper, and lo and behold, I ended up winning the competition. I think the real benefit to that experience was experiencing ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference. I think it's a fabulous opportunity for the industry to come together and talk in a very down-to-earth way about the challenges in the industry — and we see, year after year, that there's constantly action, and it comes from this meeting that is having a huge impact in the industry.

                        I think the other thing, really — having worked with Alltech now for a number of years — it's actually using that technology that we work with and bringing it to a commercial setting. When I was a researcher doing my graduate program, I didn't really see that opportunity, and it's because I'm a scientist — and maybe I'm not as entrepreneurial as I should be — but the wonderful thing about Alltech was, they identify these mechanisms. They've identified these benefits from these fermentation applications, and they bring them out to the field, and they provide them for growers to actually have a real impact in the industry. So that, to me, was probably the most exciting part.

Kara:              I think it's always exciting when you see something you imagine or you see on paper put into action, and that's what you're saying you see on these farm trials and with farmers.

Richard:         Yeah, absolutely. It's been a pleasure working with the Alltech Crop Science products because, when I start introducing them into experiments, you get these really strong responses, so there are mechanisms that have existed and that we've loosely known about for years and years and years, but now, we've really taken out the magnifying glass and are having a look at what's happening. So, it's really interesting and fascinating to work with these applications for the better good of agriculture. It's really exciting to be a scientist working in this area.

Kara:              As a scientist in this area, I know that you have seen many things develop, since you've been working in this field the past several years, but I'm sure that you have visions of what will come down the road as you continue your research. Where you do hope to see crop sciences in five or ten years? Is there anything on the horizon that is really exciting to you or you see potential for?

Richard:         Well, I think crop science — the industry and the developments that are happening — I think we're going to see crazy changes over the next decade from the digital technology that's available on the farm. I was recently on an almond grove, and there were people measuring how trees are shrinking and expanding in response to water stress and, then, guiding water or strategies based on these technologies, which were leading to a reduction in water use, et cetera. There are other technologies now, like CRISPR; it's being used broadly. Actually, the European Union have blocked some of the regulations around CRISPR at the moment, but other places are embracing it — like Russia have announced that they're going to be investing in it. North America: We see it's allowed to be used here as well. So, I think, using the technologies that are there, we're going to see some really, really interesting breakthroughs.

                        More of what I'm working with, the gene expression and other things: We have worked with Alltech on nutrigenomics, which is just the study of the gene expression. I think, using these technologies and really starting to understand the biochemistry behind some of the pathways that we're looking at, that we're really going to have a major impact. We're going to be able to produce healthier fruits, vegetables. We're going to be much more sustainable in our production through nutrient use, the reduction of pesticides, things like that. I think the future looks really bright, in my eyes.

Kara:              It sounds like there's a lot of new opportunities out there for you in the future, and I wish you luck in your research.

Richard:         Thank you very much. Thanks for having me today.

Kara:              Thanks for coming in. That was Alltech research scientist Dr. Richard Lally.

I want to learn more about improving crop efficiency and yield. 

Floating islands of plastic waste. Sea turtles with straws lodged in their nostrils. Images abound and emotions are high as the critical problem of single use plastics floats to the surface. At the same time, food waste is as high as 40% in some countries. How do we balance the preservation of our most perishable products with protecting our environment? We explore the complex issues with Karl Deily of Sealed Air and find opportunities for hope. 

The following is an edited transcript of David Butler's interview with Karl Deily, SVP and chief commercial officer of Sealed Air. Click below to hear the full audio:

David:            Hi! I'm here with Karl Deily from Sealed Air. How are you doing today, Karl?

Karl:                Just fine, David. How about yourself?

David:            Good. Well, thanks for joining us. We're going to talk a little bit about the war on plastics versus food waste, right?

Karl:                Okay, my pleasure.

David:            These are two very big issues — and, probably, plastic pollution, plastic waste, gets a lot more press right now than food waste. How and why are they connected?

Karl:                David, that's a great question, of how and why food waste and plastic waste are connected. Basically, a focus of our technologies and our innovations over the years has been to develop predominantly flexible plastic solutions that protect food, food safety, and extend the shelf life for the food product, allowing them to be shipped from where they're produced to the consumer in a safe and wholesome fashion.

                        Obviously, as everyone knows, there are significant statistics around the amount of food that's wasted — about 33% globally and as high as 40%, even in a country like the United States. Finding ways to reduce that food waste is very much a humanitarian, economic and environmental issue. In the last two years — you're very right — solid plastic waste has become an increasingly discussed issue with sustainability and the war on plastics, and even the plastics in the ocean. So, you have a lot of emotional issues tied up in the need to provide for minimizing food waste and kind of dichotomy of, now, reducing plastic waste.

David:            What's the trade-off there? How can you do both of those things at the same time?

Karl:                And how we can eliminate a trade-off? You don't want a trade-off. We want to continue to advance and to minimize food waste, but we want to do it in a very sustainable fashion. So, from a packaging perspective, what we're looking at doing is making the packaging materials more circular versus the linear process. We used to take raw materials, convert them into a package material, package a product, go to the consumer and then go to the landfill. We now want the products to go through that process but, then, either be recycled back into the product or reused. We've made some significant pledges or commitments to increase the amount of recycled material we use, to make our materials more acceptable for recycling and support all the initiatives around creating a more circular economy. We can further the fight against food waste but do it in a very environmentally friendly manner, because, at the end of the day, they're both resources that are vitally needed by the world we live in.

David:            Can you go into detail on some of the things that you have to do to make more plastics recyclable and make sure they actually get recycled?

Karl:                Yes, David. To make materials more recyclable, we make some very complex materials that are very thin, but because they're complex and they're made of many different resins, that inherently makes them harder to recycle in the recycle streams that are available today. Something like a water bottle, that's made out of a mono-resin, is relatively easy to recycle; you just reprocess it, melt the plastic down, re-pelletize it to a resin form and re-extrude it. If you have a multilayer material, that's not near as easy to do, so our strategy is severalfold: One, to make the materials more receptive to recycling, we reengineer the materials so that they can use recycled content as well as be recycled. We even look at things like bio-derived resins that are made from renewable resources that we can use to make functional materials as well, and we're involved in doing all three.

David:            Go into a little more detail on the bio-derived resins. What are the sources that you use to make those chemicals?

Karl:                We have a partnership with a company named Kuraray, who has a technology that they call “PLANTIC™,” which is made from corn. That immediately excites everybody because they say corn is either used for animal feed or used for human feed and you can't divert that to make plastic materials. Well, this happens to be a very unique corn that has a very high amylose content, and that's typically not used for human feed or animal feed.

                        We can take this product and convert it into a resin that we're able to extrude. What's unique about it is there are other bio-derived resins on the market, but most of them don't have functionality. This particular product has a lot of functionality. It has an oxygen barrier to prevent oxidative rancidity of products. It has an abuse barrier to protect the product through the rigors of distribution. It's a very unique technology that uses a renewable resource to make a packaging product. At the end of life, at the consumer, it's typically made in a lamination, where you have two recyclable materials with this polymer trapped in between. It's easily separate-able. The corn-based product can be dissolved, and the recyclable resins that sandwich it get recycled and used again, so it's a completely renewable product.

David:            That can be recycled in the current recycling streams?

Karl:                Yes, David, and that's the beauty of this — the resins that we're using are the same that you would use to make a water bottle, which has a well-established recycle stream, and we can even use recycled resins in the product.

David:            I have seen a lot of controversy recently about biodegradable plastics not biodegrading. What's behind that issue?

Karl:                Yeah, and that's been the issue with biodegradable materials since the inception of them. For years, there have been a lot of studies where biodegradable materials have gone to landfill, they dig them up years later and they haven't degraded at all because they're not in the presence of either the right organisms, oxygen, moisture or what have you to propagate the degradation. There's also the second argument that, if you put a product in the landfill, you don't really want it degrading because, depending on what it's made of, it could potentially get in the water stream. We haven't necessarily focused a lot on biodegradable materials. We looked at solving it with a variety of other options but, at the end of the day, having some level of biodegradable product is probably part of the solution. It's just what that technology will be, but yes, it has a history of not being an acceptable technology.

David:            How far out do you think we are from truly biodegradable plastics?

Karl:                It's not only biodegradable products but a number of these other solutions that we have to really look at and what they are being used for. If they're just a carrier for a product, they can be used in a broader level of applications. If they're trying to protect the product, especially a food product, then they have to have functionality; they have to have properties like an oxygen barrier and a moisture barrier.

                        In this day and age, with merchandising, they have to be printable, so there's a lot of functionality that materials have to have. We see biodegradable materials being a component of the solution — maybe not a total part of the solution — but that's where we're seeing that marrying or coupling multiple technologies together, to minimize the amount of non-recyclable kind of linear products to a minimum and maximizing the amount of either recyclable products or things like bio-derived or even biodegradable products, in combination with the highly functional materials.

David:            Okay. I have seen a lot of stories recently about various countries banning particular single-use plastics. Maybe it's most often shopping bags. Can you give us a little tour of regulatory requirements that you see popping up over the world?

Karl:                Right. There are a lot of regulatory things that are occurring around the world. I think, if you take a look at the domino effect, some of the first issues started in China, where they had a National Sword regulation where they stopped importing or stopped receiving scrap plastic from around the world. They were the largest importer of scrap plastic produced in the world, and they typically reprocessed it. They decided that that wasn't in their best interest, so they stopped doing it.

India also imports a significant amount of scrap plastic. They soon followed suit, so you saw a lot of this plastic backing up around the world if they didn't have the infrastructure to address it. What you're seeing is a lot of subsequent regulations trying to help address the issue, and one of the proposed regulations that you see a lot of is banning single-use plastics, or banning certain packaging items that they think may be harder to process or what is maybe perceived as more of an environmental issue.

                        Straws are made out of polyethylene. Straws are very recyclable because they're made out of a single material — if you can collect them, you can recycle them —  but they've been at the epicenter. You mentioned grocery bags as well. They're made out of a single resin. A lot of those products can be easily recycled, but they get the focus in that they don't provide a higher level of functionality, so they're easy to get rid of. When you see something like McDonald's, that uses 95 million straws a day, you can say, “Hey, you don't really need a straw. You don't really need a disposable bag. You can use a reusable bag. Let's just ban them.”

                        The reality is, some of the reusable bags, you'd have to use them 3,000 times to basically neutralize the carbon footprint of the disposable bag that’s produced today, so there's a huge amount of emotion in it right now. It's where we need to get to, David, where we get beyond emotion and start solving this issue with good scientific innovation and investment.

David:            That sounds good. You've touched on greenhouse gas emissions, and that's a very important thing. It's a different issue than plastic waste in the oceans, which, of course, is a gigantic problem and we need to find a solution for that. On the other hand, we have this greenhouse gas problem, and plastics kind of help reduce greenhouse gasses, in some ways. In other ways, of course, since they're petroleum-based, many of them take energy. They contribute to greenhouses gasses. Can you go into some depth on this?

Karl:                David, what you described in saying you have plastic waste, you have greenhouse gas emissions produced by both the food product as well as the packaging material, or at least the production of it, I think you really have to look end-to-end, from where food is produced to where food is finally consumed and any of the packaging material disposed of, whether it's recycled or reprocessed.

                        Look, there are multiple steps in there that have some level of environmental impact on the resources we use. First and foremost, the food: It can produce a significant amount of greenhouse gas if it's wasted and disposed of in the landfill, but prior to that, it's the most significant use of freshwater. It's obviously a significant use of arable land, as well as energy, so there are a lot of resources that go into producing food and getting it to the consumer. The worst thing you want to do is throw it away before the consumer can gain the nutritional benefit of that food product. That's where packaging can play a role, and you get a significant return on investment. There is a much smaller carbon footprint — by about 370-fold — compared to the food product that it's protecting, so it does provide a real benefit on greenhouse gas. It also provides a benefit from the humanitarian standpoint and economic standpoint to minimizing food waste, but it also has an environmental viewpoint as well.

                        I think we just have to address it in the collaborative manner, and that's why I really applaud Alltech for some of the programs and processes that it's looking at. You have to start from food production all the way through consumption and, at every step of that chain, look for how you can make it in the most efficient, effective and renewable manner possible.

David:            Tell me a little bit about what Sealed Air does, just very briefly, and then, I'll ask you about that later, at the end.

Karl:                Okay. We're a global corporation and, basically, our history is that we work in two areas. We're in protective packaging — so things like bubble wrap, void fill, e-commerce, heavy automotive, things of that nature — where we're protecting products from where they're made to either where they're going to be used or the consumer. A lot of that is secondary or tertiary packaging.

                        Then, about two-thirds of our business is in food packaging — predominantly perishable foods, whether they're fresh or frozen foods.

David:            Tell me a little bit about efforts that the plastic industry, the packaging industry or consumer goods industries are taking to reduce plastic waste in the ocean.

Karl:                What the industry is doing to reduce the amount of plastics that are going into the ocean — and, first and foremost, a lot of the plastics that are in the ocean don't come from food packaging; they come from things like fishing nets and all sorts of other sources. They're general garbage. I saw a statistic on even how many toothbrushes are part of this plastic waste in the ocean, but that doesn't alleviate us from having to help address the topic. Again, basically, the plastics industry is focusing on making our products much more renewable, so one would just be reducing the amount of materials we use to provide the same protection. In the last 20 to 25 years, we've reduced, through technologies, the amount of plastic that's actually used by a significant amount, so we're more productive with less initial product. That's kind of step one.

                        Step two is in being able to utilize materials that can be easily recycled into multiple products, whether they go back into food packaging or they go back into other forms of packaging. We need to be able to sort, segregate and reprocess those plastics. A very efficient use of the plastics is to incinerate them and get the original energy out of them. Even though that can be done in a very environmentally-friendly manner, it's not broadly considered a very acceptable thing to do, so we're not using that as a solution. We're looking at how we can take those products and then reprocess them.

                        We're also looking at how you design package styles to minimize the amount of plastic and using a variety of different sources of material — whether it’s more paper goods or more bio-derived products — to complement the plastic material so that they're separate-able, so you can separate those that should be recycled and separate those that go into other waste streams. We’re looking at it from a very comprehensive manner.

                        Our suppliers, the resin companies, the large producers of our raw material products are heavily engaged as well. We're engaged with our customers. David, that's the type of collaboration that it’s going to take to make a significant impact on addressing the amount of plastic waste that ends up in the environment, whether it's in the ocean or in landfill.

David:            What do you see as a solution to the challenge, with China and maybe other markets ceasing taking recyclables?

Karl:                The biggest challenge the rest of the world is going to have with China and Russia taking less of the plastic waste and reprocessing it is having the infrastructure to reprocess. Closer to home, in America, water bottles are commonly recycled. They're the most recyclable products on the market because they're made of a resin that we call PET, and there are many resources for recycling water bottles. However, many other products are made of a single resin and, in America, there are no recycle streams for those. Although the products could be recycled — I mentioned straws earlier — they're made of a different resin, a polyethylene, that's easily recyclable if the streams are set up. There is a level of investment that is going to need to be made, and you see a lot of entrepreneurs in Europe getting involved and getting involved in either mechanical or chemical reprocessing that will allow the circular economy to be developed. It’s mainly infrastructure that is the biggest inhibitor to doing it tomorrow.

David:            Do you think that business will be able to close the loop on the circular economy? Will there be enough money in recycling to do that, or is it going to take initiatives from governments to make that happen?

Karl:                I think you're going to see that the investment is going to come from the private industries. You're going to see joint ventures set up and collaboration set up between multiple companies to invest into infrastructure. I think you will also see governments putting tariffs on virgin resin to make it more economical to recycle because there's no argument today, David, that recycled resin is more expensive than virgin resin.

                        If you think about it, the processes have been there for 40 to 50 years to turn petroleum products into resins, and they've gotten very good at it. Now, to recycle a resin, you've got to sort it. You've got to claim it. You've got to clean it. You have to reprocess it, and then you have to ship it to where it's going to be used, and all of that has infrastructure that has to be put in place to get there. It will become economical over time, but I think you'll see taxes and some things levied to take the cost, the disadvantage, out of doing the right thing.

David:            Okay. Are there any countries that are levying those taxes right now?

Karl:                Yeah. There are some that are proposed in the U.K., as well as in continental Europe. It's interesting. Europe is going even one step further in that they're going to tax virgin resins — and they're going to also tax to a significant quantity, by the way, maybe €1 to €2 per kilogram, so a pretty high tariff when you consider the cost of the base resin product — but they're also going to tax recycled resins if they come from outside of the European Union. So, they not only want you to recycle the products, they want you to recycle the products that are used within their geography, because they're trying to solve their problem and minimize this waste. For instance, if North America or even China were to get significantly into reprocessing scrap back into resin, they don't want it coming from offshore; they're wanting it to come from their geography. I think it will get quite interesting before we get to the final solution.

David:            Yeah, that sounds exciting. Are there any last points that you'd like to leave us with, something you see on the horizon that you think is really going to be good?

Karl:                Yes, David. The last points I'd like to make are that we understand it's a very emotional topic, anytime you see a sea creature that's disadvantaged by pollution that's in the ocean, especially if it's plastic waste. It's obviously a very emotional issue because you have a belief you can prevent it, and we can. So, what we've been talking about are various things the industry can do to minimize product that either goes to landfill or gets discarded and may end up causing an environmental issue.

                        The industry is committed. The industry is investing a lot of money in it, but it will take time to get to where we need to go. The thing I really like is, in a very conservative industry, there are people signing up for pledges to make significant strides by 2025 and 2030 to address this issue without even knowing exactly how we're going to get there. We just know we need to get there, and if we don't make these commitments and we don't make these investments, we'll never get there. That's probably my last comment. We know it's emotional. Just rest assured that there's a level of awareness, acceptance and investment in innovation going on in this area.

David:            Thanks so much, Karl. It was great talking to you, and I'm glad to learn a little more about that topic.

Karl:                Well, thank you very much, David, and I appreciate all that Alltech is doing for the industry. This is a great conference and you have a lot to be proud of, so thank you.

Agriculture has the power to solve some of our most challenging environmental problems. We can put carbon back in the soil and forests. We can recycle nutrients and keep them out of our rivers, lakes and oceans. We can generate renewable energy. And, together, we can build a more sustainable world. Learn more about Working Together for a Planet of Plenty^TM.

With a mortality rate of up to 30 percent, blackhead disease can be detrimental to the flock and to poultry producers. Dr. Robert Beckstead's team at North Carolina State University is researching on the disease on a molecular level. Are there alternative treatments and preventatives to consider? Dr. Beckstead shares why producers may reconsider their feeding strategy in the future.

The following is an edited transcript of Kara Keeton's interview with Dr. Robert Beckstead. Click below to hear the full audio:

Kara:              I'm here today with Robert Beckstead, associate professor of poultry science at North Carolina State University. Thank you for joining me today.

Robert:           It's a pleasure to be here.

Kara:              Now, I understand that your area of specialty is molecular diagnostics of poultry. Tell me a little bit more about that field.

Robert:           Molecular biology is really just looking at DNA, RNA or protein and, then, it's using those markers or biological molecules to be able to diagnose diseases. For instance, each species has a very specific genetic makeup, and so, we can use that to detect those species.

Kara:              So, you're able to look at major concerns and health issues facing the poultry industry?

Robert:           We use these as part of our toolkit to be able to study parasites, as well as other pathogens — sometimes, just knowing whether the organism is there, then you can correlate that with the diseases that you see.

Kara:              What are some of the biggest diseases facing the poultry industry today?

Robert:           Some of the biggest diseases facing the poultry industry would be viral diseases that cause problems with the health of the bird, but most people are concerned with bacterial diseases that also have a human health implication. My lab studies “the ugly stepsister,” which are the parasites that are associated with diseases in poultry, and although those parasites don’t cause diseases in humans, they can cause a huge financial risk to the poultry industry.

Kara:              And one of these diseases that I have read that's a major concern these days is blackhead disease. What exactly is that disease and how does it impact the bird?

Robert:           Blackhead disease — or histomoniasis — is caused by a single-cell, anaerobic protozoan parasite called Histomonas meleagridis. In chickens, it can cause up to 30% mortality and increased morbidity, especially in layers or breeders, where it can cause reduced egg production, as well as decrease in the first lay. In turkeys, though, it's quite catastrophic; turkey flocks with an outbreak of histomoniasis can lose 100% of the birds.

Kara:              Which is devastating to a farmer, of course.

Robert:           Yes, it is, and part of the problem that goes along with it is that all the treatments and preventatives for this disease have been taken off the market. So, in reality, when a turkey flock breaks out with blackhead disease, all that the grower and company can do is wait to see how many birds are going to die.

Kara:              Your research has been to study this disease and possible alternatives to treating it. Is that correct?

Robert:           That is correct.

Kara:              What have you discovered in your research?

Robert:           Our research focuses on probably four different areas: First is looking at the genetics of the bird. We've started screens to look for subpopulations of turkeys that may be resistant to the disease, and so, the idea is that maybe we can breed a healthier bird, and that bird will then be resistant to the organism.

The second area that we've looked at is looking for alternative treatments. There's a lot of what you would call “complementary” and “alternative” medicine out there — products that companies are producing to increase the health of the bird or that may have antiprotozoal activity. Our lab is set up to screen a number of these products to be able to see whether or not they can improve the outcome for birds that have been infected with this parasite.

Kara:              What is the success rate found with these screenings?

Robert:           The success rate for molecules or complementary medicine is zero in the bird. What we've noticed when we started to screen a lot of these molecules is that actually looking at how molecules affect the disease isn't just a matter of whether or not they get rid of the parasite. The research in my lab has begun to focus on how the organism is transmitted bird-to-bird. What we've identified is that birds that are healthy have a tendency to block the transmission of the disease. So, even though the organism may get into a flock, if birds aren't flushing or birds don’t have other enteric problems or gut health problems, then, actually, the transmission of the disease is slow, and you will have fewer birds that will die from the disease.

                        That's changed, in a way, how we are starting to look at products, whereas before, we looked at products to say, "Is this antiprotozoal?" Now, we look at products and say, "Okay. What is this actually doing to the overall health of the bird, and can we measure that in terms of its ability to block that transmission of the parasite?"

Kara:              This is where feed and nutrition really come in to play a role in this whole research and development of alternative ways to address this disease.

Robert:           That is correct. Really, it's opening up the doors to be able to look at alternative products and ask the question of whether or not they are improving the health of the bird. At the same time, what we've noticed is that other pathogens can also cause the bird to be ill and that, then, sets the bird up for transmission of the disease. So, if we find a product that improves the health of the bird because it reduces some of the bacterial load that's associated with the bacterial pathogens, that actually can have a positive effect on the disease that we're studying — blackhead disease — because a healthier bird isn't going to have less transmission of the disease.

Kara:              Are there any technological advances that you're able to use in your research that have really helped move this forward as you're studying bird health and gut health?

Robert:           The disease that I study begins in the ceca. The ceca is a pouch that's part of the intestinal system, where fermentation occurs in the bird. In most cases, nutritionists or scientists or growers really don’t care about the ceca because it doesn’t play a role in feed conversion as much. It doesn’t play a role much in weight gain and it's at the end of the digestive tract. The problem is that's where Histomonas resides. Salmonella, E. coli, campylobacter — all these organisms are living in the ceca and, in a sense, we're not as worried about it.

                        The new technology that we're pushing — and, also, that my lab is working on — is: How do we encapsulate some of these products, which, as we've shown in an in-vitro system, can have antiprotozoal or antimicrobial activity and get them to the ceca? So, in order for them to not be digested, absorbed, changed in some way through the microbial community, we need to deliver them to the ceca so that they can have that activity in the location where it's needed.

Kara:              Where do you hope to see the research develop in the next few years and developing ways to address these problems and maybe move towards new solutions for these diseases?

Robert:           I'll give you this as a caveat because I'm a parasitologist, but I really think that, as we begin to lose more of the drugs and treatments that we currently have, we're going to have to actually develop new strategies, and those strategies are really going to be a focus on bird health. Currently — and this is a broad stroke — diets are designed based on feed conversion ratio and how much it's going to make the bird gain weight. That's how we make our money and that's how we keep our product cheap or affordable, but, in the future, we may have to start to design diets primarily on health and then, secondarily, look at, “How does this affect feed conversion? How does this affect weight gain in the bird?” That actually opens up a large research area to say, “How is it that we test a product to determine whether or not it actually is improving the health of the bird or is causing problems?”

                        I'll give you an example: We've tested some essential oils and, at lower levels, we see some good effects in terms of the health of the bird — but if we increase those levels, it causes some damage to the gut, and now, the bird begins to flush, and now, we start to see increased transmission rates of blackhead disease. So where, on one condition, that product may actually be useful, but where more product may actually cause a problem for the bird — and so, we need to be able to look at each product as we would if we were trying to get FDA regulation and actually really understand how that product is helping the bird and in what condition.

Kara:              It looks like you still have a long road ahead as you continue to explore other avenues for addressing these issues with the reduction in antibiotics and drugs in the industry, but I think you're making some progress with some of the developments.

Robert:           Yeah. I'm excited for the research moving forward. I think it is going to, in a sense, in the future, revolutionize how we grow chickens and actually make ourselves better — both for the chicken itself but also better for the consumer and better for the environment.

                        I also think some of the research is occurring now because, in the poultry industry — well, in animal agriculture — we're being forced to find alternatives, but these alternatives in the future will actually make it back into human medicine. And so, the stuff that we're learning right now, in terms of understanding how we can treat a bird without using antibiotics, maybe, in the future, will help us understand how we can treat a human without the use of antibiotics and be able to reduce antibiotic use across the board, not just in animal agriculture.

Kara:              That sounds wonderful. Thank you for joining me today, Dr. Beckstead, and I hope you enjoy your day.

Robert:           Thank you.

Kara:              That was Dr. Robert Beckstead, associate professor for poultry science at North Carolina State University.

I would like to learn more about supporting the health and productivity of my flock!

Dr. Frank Mitloehner has done the math on the livestock industry’s contribution to climate change. He is a professor in the Department of Animal Science at the University of California, Davis, specializing in measurement and mitigation of airborne pollutants from livestock production, including greenhouse gases, VOCs, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and particulate matter. Dr. Mitloehner joins us for a closer look at the claims against agriculture and what he says is the truth behind cattle production and climate change. 

The following is an edited transcript of David Butler's interview with Dr. Frank Mitloehner. Click below to hear the full audio:

David:            I'm here with Dr. Frank Mitloehner. We're going to talk a little bit about the greenhouse gas impact of cattle production — specifically, beef.

                        Dr. Mitloehner, this is a very big topic for you. A lot of your research has gone into this, right?

Frank:             Yes.

David:            Let’s say that you're an average person in America. You've probably heard that beef production contributes to global warming. The story is that cows produce methane, and everybody knows that's true. Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas, and everybody knows that's true. So, the natural conclusion is that cows are a big problem for climate change. It’s not quite that simple, right?

Frank:             That's correct. In order to really understand the topic better, I think one has to go a little bit into the chemistry of it, but just a little bit. Methane is really very different from the other greenhouse gases. The three main greenhouse gases we're dealing with are methane, CO₂ and nitrous oxide.

                        So, how are they different? The last two — the carbon dioxide, or CO₂, and the nitrous oxide — they have a very long lifespan. Once they are in the air, they stay there for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Any kind of CO₂ that you have ever put into the air by driving a car is still in the air. The only way that gas goes is upward. The more we emit, the more accumulates in the air. These gases are called stock gases because they always add up; they don't go down.

                        Methane is very different. It does not have a lifespan of 1,000 years; it has a lifespan of 10 years. So, after a decade, it's gone. There's a process — and that really makes methane very different from the other gases — there's a process that destroys methane, and that's called hydroxy-oxidation. What that really means is that, if you were to be the owner of a dairy or a beef operation, and let's say you've been in the business for 50 years with 1,000 animals, then, 50 years ago, your thousand animals put out methane. For the first ten years, that methane was new because you just started that business.

                        After that, you did not add any new methane to the atmosphere, because anything that's emitted is also being destroyed. After ten years, that gas is gone. All the emission inventories and all the media output that you hear assumes that all the methane that's generated by, let's say, cattle, adds up, but it doesn't. At the rate it's emitted, it's being destroyed. That makes methane very, very different from the other gases. This is critical to know.

                        What this means is, if a country like Ireland, New Zealand or the United States keeps their livestock herds steady, then they keep their methane steady. If they keep their methane steady, then they are not increasing global warming. So, do we increase global warming with our livestock herds? The answer to that is no, as long as we don't increase herd sizes.

David:            That makes sense. What about the rest of the world, where maybe beef and dairy production is not quite as efficient?

Frank:             Well, that's really where the majority of the problem resides. According to the IPCC — the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change — developing countries such as India emit about 70 to 80% of global greenhouse gases associated with livestock. For example, in India, there are three times more cattle than in the United States, and they don't even eat them.

David:            Wow.

Frank:             India alone has more cattle than the United States, the European Union and China combined, but they don't even eat those animals. Those bovines in India that are dairy animals produce an amount of dairy, of milk, that's nominal. It takes about 15 to 20 cows in India to produce the same amount of milk as one cow in the United States. That's why these herds are so enormous.

David:            What can we do to make those dairy cattle more efficient?

Frank:             Well, what we have to do is pretty straightforward: We have to do the same thing that we have done in countries like the United States or Denmark. For example, in the United States, we used to have 25 million dairy cows back in 1950 — 25 million dairy cows. Today, we only have 9 million dairy cows. We have shrunk the herd drastically. But with this much smaller herd today — with the 9 million — we are producing 60% more milk. That means we have shrunk the carbon footprint of the dairy industry by two-thirds in the United States between 1950 and today.

                        The same can be achieved around the world through the installation of a veterinary system, better feeding, better genetics, better reproduction rates. We can do this throughout the world. That doesn't mean that we're exporting the U.S. CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation) model throughout the world, but what it does mean is that even basic vaccination and treatment against parasites, improvements in feeding and so on will have a drastic improvement effect on national production rates.

David:            While we're talking about different kinds of production systems, let's touch a little bit on the controversy between grain-fed and grass-fed beef and the environmental impact of those two systems.

Frank:             Well, what most people don't know is that, for example, here in the United States, all cattle are raised on pasture. Regardless of how they are finished, whether they are grass-finished or corn-finished, they all start out on pasture. When I say “start out,” I mean they live the majority of their lives on pasture. Those animals that are corn-finished are finished in a feedlot and fed corn for the last four months of their life. Prior to that, they were on pasture. Most people, first of all, don't know that.

                        Then the controversy erupts over people saying, “Well, the feedlot system must be much more environmentally detrimental.” Actually, it is more complex than that. For example, when it comes to methane, we as scientists were surprised to see that beef animals in a feedlot hardly ruminate. You hardly see any belching going on. The reason why there is no rumination, or very little, going on is because their diet doesn't lend itself to methane production. In feedlots, like it or not, the majority of feed is concentrated, meaning it is a feed base other than roughage that does not lend itself for methane production.

                        The methanogens — those methane-forming microbes in the rumen, in the stomach of a beef animal — those methanogens need roughage to produce methane. The more roughage or fiber in the diet, the more methane they will produce. In the feedlot, the amount of roughage in the diet is much lower than it is on grass. As a result, there's much less methane production going on. That is one of the reasons — the substrate in the feed that doesn't lend itself for methane production that is to be blamed for a lower methane output of grain- versus grass-finished animals.

                        But the other reason is simply the lifespan. If you have a grain-finished animal, which will go to slaughter around 14 to 16 months of age — let's call that one-and-a-half years — and then they go to slaughter. If you finish an animal on pasture, that animal will be 26 to 30 months of age, so almost twice as old as its grain-finished peer.

                        What does that mean? Well, that means that, if an animal lives almost twice as long, then it will have much more time to produce environmental impacts. Let's say it has more time to consume water, it has more time to excrete manure, it has more time to belch and so forth. That cumulatively leads to a situation where a grass-finished animal will have about 25 to 30% more carbon emissions associated with it than a corn-finished peer. That is taking into consideration the fact that a corn-finished animal, of course, eats corn, and that corn was produced someplace and also had environmental impacts. But, all of that taken into consideration, using the life cycle assessment approach, will lead to the result that the corn-finished animal will not have a higher but a lower overall environmental impact.

David:            Wow, that's interesting. The deeper that you dive into this topic, the more things, like that, you find out were just more complicated than you would expect based on what you've seen on social media. One of those messages that I can think of that's repeated over and over is that we're using land to feed animals, and we should be using that same land to feed humans; that would be more efficient. But that's another one of those areas that's a little more complicated than that, right?

Frank:             Absolutely. This is another issue that people are really confused about. Just imagine all agricultural land in the world. Let's look at what this agricultural land looks like. About two-thirds of all agricultural land in the world is called “marginal land.” Marginal means that either the soil quality is not good enough or there's not enough water to grow crops.

                        What do we do with that land? We use it for livestock. To be precise, we use it for ruminant livestock because ruminants are able — like sheep and goats — to use non-human-edible feedstuff, such as grasses and certain legumes, and convert those cellulose-containing feedstuffs into animal source foods, such as meat and milk and so on. Ruminant animals are the ones making use of two-thirds of all agricultural land. Why? Because we cannot use that land for any other purpose, period.

                        The remainder — one-third of all agricultural land — is what we refer to as “arable land.” That's the land where you can grow crops — crops for animals and for people. Now, the criticism sometimes is, “Well, why do we use any of that arable land for feed production for animals?” Well, the simple answer is because people like animal-source foods, and animal-source foods are highly nutritious, are very nutrient-dense, and people simply demand it. It’s not an “ivory tower” discussion of, “What's the most efficient use of land, and should only the most efficient food items to grow there?” That's not how humans operate.

                        I can tell you, there are different things, for example, that we can drink. We can drink water, but we can also drink wine, or we can drink tea, or we can drink coffee. But there's no reason we drink tea or coffee other than that we like it. There's no nutritional reason behind it. It takes 700 liters [of water] to produce one liter of wine. Isn't that wasteful?

David:            Sure.

Frank:             I could just as well say, “Let's quench our thirst with water and save a heck of a lot of water to produce wine or coffee or tea.” But guess what? We humans are not just rational and “ivory tower” type of people. We say, “What's the most efficient way of producing what we eat or drink?” But we also do it because of cultural reasons or simply because of pleasure reasons. There's not a reason why you and I would eat chocolate ever other than because we like it.

David:            Yeah, that's a very good point. Certainly, when you have a huge problem like climate change — which is a crisis that's already here — and people are discussing how to deal with it, I think there is a lot of wasted time talking about the silver-bullet solution when we need lots of solutions, and we need to make sure that the things that we are doing are things that will work. But ideas like just telling everybody they shouldn't eat meat — that's not very practical. I don't think that it will happen. As you mentioned, you could do the same thing with tea and coffee and wine. It's really no different than saying, “Okay, we just need to have half as many people on the planet.” Just pushing that message is not going to make that happen.

                        So, since people that don't want us to engage in animal agriculture have done a fantastic job at spreading the message that meat and dairy are largely responsible for global warming, what can we do to get the message out there that that's not the case, it's more complicated than that, and that we really need to look at the data?

Frank:             So that your listeners really get a feel for how significant this issue is — or how insignificant it is, I should say — the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) of the United States looks at all sources of greenhouse gases. According to the EPA, all those sources consuming fossil fuels — such as transportation, power production and use, the cement industry and so on — combined are responsible for 80% of all greenhouse gases in this country. All of livestock and feed production in the United States combined are responsible for 3.9%.

                        One of the big issues is that people in animal agriculture try to appease that 1 or 2% of the fringe that make all this noise, and they completely forget the 98% that actually like animal-source foods and that have high confidence in that food being produced in a humane and a responsible fashion. We need to stop doing that; we will never appease the fringe. You will never appease those people shouting for meat tax and propositions and so forth. We need to make sure that we open up to a public that, increasingly often now, wants to know where their food comes from and that we open ourselves up and talk to them about how it's produced and why.

                        That has not happened in the past. That is a big black eye animal agriculture has, and rightfully so, because you cannot sell something that people have an emotional relationship with, which is food. When people ask, "How is this food produced?" you cannot say, "No comment." There's no reason for us to say that, but there's every reason in the world to explain why we do what we do, because we do it exceptionally well.

                        Now, you just mentioned the comparison of food versus other activities. I'll just give you one example so that your listeners understand how overblown a lot of the frenzy is that they're listening to right now. Assuming that you were an omnivore right now, let's assume you were to go vegan for the next year, not eat any animal-based foods. Then that would save 0.8 tons of greenhouse gases — 0.8 tons. If you were to fly from here from the United States to Europe and back, per passenger, that equates to 1.6 tons. So, to change your diet from omnivore to vegan for one year is half the impact as one transatlantic flight. That tells you what you should think about the hype that's coming your way as a citizen by those people who tried to work through the anti-animal agriculture agenda.

David:            Wow, that's amazing. When you watch some of the documentaries on this topic, the message is very much that the only thing that you can do that will make an impact is to stop eating meat and dairy. When you look at the data, that's just not really the case.

Frank:             Well, the same people who are saying that today said ten years ago that we should stop eating meat because of ethical reasons, because they don't agree that animals should be in bonds, and then they looked at other means to get people to stop eating meat and consume dairy and eggs. None of that stuck — but the carbon footprint discussion does stick. Many people in animal agriculture just haven't really spent enough attention on that very topic, and now they see, this is more serious than we originally thought. It is high time now to really take this seriously, to take consumers' perceptions around this seriously, and to make sure that producers understand that, in order to keep their social license to produce animal-source foods, they need to engage in this topic. They have a great story to tell, but they need to start telling it.

David:            I have to confess that, even though I work in agriculture, I'm very concerned about climate change. I'm our sustainability manager here at Alltech. For a long time, I thought this was a valid message, that meat and dairy were worse for climate change than other foods. So, I felt a little guilty every time I ate meat or dairy. I didn't think about it every day, but I thought it was a legitimate thing. So, I was very happy, as I was researching you and preparing for this podcast and learning more about the topics that you talk about — I was excited to find that it was a more complicated story than that. I think it's just very important that we get that message out there to people. So, where can people find out more about what you've written and maybe find you on social media?

Frank:             About a year ago, I started on social media. Before then, I thought it was silly, but now I know I was silly thinking that. I'm on Twitter. My Twitter handle is GHG — that stands for greenhouse gas — @GHGGuru. That's where you find me for sure. If you are interested in publications that I've published, you will find me on ResearchGate. All you need to do is put in my name, Frank Mitloehner, and you will find the publications that I'm putting out — not all of them in peer-reviewed scientific papers, some of them in other outlets, such as The Conversation or Medium. These are web-based platforms. But the reason why I go onto these platforms, too, is because you reach a lot of listeners or readers that way. In general, when you Google my name or names of people you're interested in, you'll find everything now on the internet.

David:            All right. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Mitloehner. It was fantastic talking to you.

Frank:             Well, thanks for having me.

David:            A pleasure.

Agriculture has the power to solve some of our most challenging environmental problems. We can put carbon back in the soil and forests. We can recycle nutrients and keep them out of our rivers, lakes and oceans. We can generate renewable energy. And, together, we can build a more sustainable world. Learn more about Working Together for a Planet of Plenty^TM.