The following is an edited transcript of Tom Martin's interview with Dr. Raj Kasula. Click below to hear the full audio:

Tom:            Raj Kasula is a poultry technical consultant at Ridley Feed Ingredients. A certified professional animal scientist for poultry via the American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists, he has more than 28 years of experience in multispecies animal nutrition with a focus on poultry. He is currently spearheading the development of a modern version of layer nutrition software called the Alltech Poultry Model. He is also the Alltech lead on projects such as the Alltech Egg Squad, poultry blocks, a natural de-wormer, extruded chicken starter feed and vitamin organic trace mineral premix. We thank you for joining us, Raj.

Raj:              Thank you. My pleasure.

Tom:            Are consumers becoming more critical of egg quality? What are they looking for in an egg?

Raj:              At the consumer level, they are probably not so critical about the eggshell quality. However, they are interested in egg quality in the sense that they walk into the superstore, then they're looking for a selection of eggs, from a regular commercial egg to a pasture-raised or organic to enriched eggs, in terms of pigment or omega-3 or selenium or vitamin E. So, yeah, they're definitely looking for quality and value from the egg as compared to just the traditional belief of “an egg is an egg is an egg.”

Tom:            I'm curious, because I know most of us mainly check to see if the eggs are cracked, but what does somebody with your expertise look for when you go to the grocery store to buy eggs? Or do you have another source?

Raj:              Yeah, being in the industry and working so closely with the birds and eggs, my way of looking at eggs will be really different. Certainly, I do look for the total quality in terms of external parameters of the egg: the shape, the color, the strength (like any cracks on it), how clean it is and how glossy it is, because from each of those parameters, I can read what the hen is about, what is going on with the hen. So, definitely, yes, my look will be totally different.

Tom:            It would be interesting to take Raj Kasula along with us to the supermarket now and then! From a producer perspective, what are the characteristics of superior eggshell quality?

Raj:              From the producer's perspective, among the eggs that don't make [it] to market, about 90 percent of them are due to the poor shell quality. A producer is producing the eggs to make money, and he doesn't make money unless those eggs make it to the market. So, to see any returns, he has to get the egg into the market, and if the shell is not good — doesn't show good color, good shape; it’s not hard enough, the egg cracks, are dirty — they're not going to make [it] to market. That’s the problem in about 90-plus percent of the cases where the eggs don't make [it] to the market.

Tom:            I mentioned that, for the average consumer, we open up the carton and we look to see if they're cracked, and that's kind of how we make our decision, but how significant is an egg breakage? Are there ways, through nutrition, to strengthen the shell to prevent cracking?

Raj:              Eggshell breakage is actually a natural phenomenon, I should say. As the bird is growing older, the size of the egg increases. The shell gland’s capability of depositing calcium on an egg remains the same. It's able to deposit only the same amount of calcium on the egg. So, when the egg is growing bigger, it's tilling out on the egg. That’s how it becomes a bit soft and breaks; it can crack. There is a natural phenomenon, but then, there are ways — by nutrition and management — we can try to minimize that.

Tom:            And is there a certain point in the bird's life-cycle when the producer should start thinking about egg development and about eggshell quality?

Raj:              Typically, anywhere about 45-50 weeks of age. If the producer has been in the business and [is] seasoned enough, he would know that he has to take some additional precautions with his nutrition and management toward the eggshell quality, and it usually happens.

Tom:            Do you recommended a general nutritional strategy, or does it vary from farm to farm, types of birds to types of birds?

Raj:              It’s pretty general, although there are some minor differences depending on the type of farming, such as cage-free or organic or free-range, and the specialty eggs. There are some different strategies for those.

Tom:            So, what sorts of nutritional additives, such as vitamins and minerals, have proven effective in ensuring superior external and internal egg quality?

Raj:              Yeah, let me talk about the external quality first. For the external quality, especially the shell strength, calcium is the key. It is very important to make sure that you provide all the things required by the bird's physiology to absorb calcium from the gut — these levels of calcium, levels of phosphorous — because calcium and phosphorus work together. It is proven that phosphorus, at very high levels beyond the point of production, is not really good for the shell quality. There is another mineral called magnesium, which is also important, that gives the strength to the shell quality, helping the calcium minerals to get on the shell.

                    On top of that is vitamin D, which is important for absorption of calcium from the gut. Vitamin D actually enhances the cell — the interstitial cells — of pigs from the gut to digest the calcium. So that is very important.

                    And then, the trace minerals are very important, because although those are small in quantity — very tiny amounts are required in the ration — when you look at it on the ration, you feel like, “Oh, these are tiny amounts. Do they really make a difference?” And they really do. So, zinc is important and [is] an enzyme that actually helps in formation of calcium carbonate from calcium from the blood and bicarbonate from the blood.

                    We have manganese that helps in the formation of collagen, which is important for formation of the egg and the shell membrane. Then we have copper for some of the glycoproteins, and those, which are, again, components of eggshell and shell membrane. There is also selenium, which is very important for keeping the health of the interstitial cells so that they can absorb more nutrition rapidly. These are my recommendations for primary placement. These are very important.

Tom:            And you recommend organic, correct?

Raj:              I recommend organic because of the efficiency aspect. The trace minerals in the inorganic form and their application use and benefits have been tested and proven for several decades. But, the current trend is in organic minerals because they are a lot more efficient. If you look at research literature, it says the organic minerals are anywhere between three to six times better absorbed from the gut in comparison to inorganic minerals. This is a lot more efficient, because you're feeding the animal less while getting more, and you're not contaminating the environment — the soil — with minerals that are not absorbed.

                    The biggest disadvantage, I would say, with unabsorbed inorganic minerals is that you are feeding the “bugs” in the hindgut, which we don't want. We really want to keep them suppressed. The moment they get these kinds of nutrients, they are going to be more robust, and they're going to be more aggressive when they get a chance to take over. There is enough research to say that organic minerals perform much better than the inorganic minerals — even at lower levels — and on a sustainable basis.

Tom:            Is what's good for the shell also good internally? Are there different or additional additives, minerals, vitamins, that have to be considered for internal health? Do you also have to think about interactions between those?

Raj:              If you're talking about the internal quality of the egg, there are some minerals within the egg mass that are the same as the minerals needed for external shell quality. There are additional considerations for the quality of protein and some of the vitamins and if the producer is focusing on the color of their egg yolk —a darker pigment. If it is a specialty egg enriched with omega-3, omega-6, selenium or vitamin D, vitamin E, those are additional strategies and technologies that you would use to make sure you get them inside the egg yolk.

Tom:            And you've mentioned calcium. Is there something about the size of the calcium particle that's important to consider?

Raj:              Yes, there is. For calcium, the main source in the rations is limestone. There is research showing that limestone is available in many sizes of fine, medium and coarse. The research shows that, when limestone is used as larger particles — especially in the older laying birds — when the birds start laying, they require a sustained release of calcium. If the particle size is too fine, it gets dissolved and absorbed very quick, and it gets excreted also very quick, so there is not a continuous or sustained level of calcium. A larger particle dissolves slowly and gives a sustained level, so the bird is able to calcify the shell during the dark period of the night when she is not eating. That is very important.

                    The larger particles of limestone will also help us in grinding the ration, the nutrients, the feeding grain that it's consuming and liberating nutrients and preventing the digestion for further attack by the good acids and enzymes at subsequent stages.

Tom:            Okay, let's move on to looking at some of the more common problems being encountered by egg producers today. What would you say those are?

Raj:              The disease aspect is very complex and varies from market to market. But in general, as a producer and as a nutritionist, the most common one is the shell quality. There are also behavioral issues, such as pecking. The birds start pecking each other and they end up killing each other — cannibalism. These are some of the issues we commonly find. There are cases where you also find issues with worms; especially when birds that have access to the floor and outside, they end up picking up some of the worm eggs [which] develop inside, and those cause severe production losses.

Tom:            In very recent years, we've seen some spikes in mycotoxins in silage and barlage, in particular, in this country. Are egg producers concerned about mycotoxins?

Raj:              Sure, they are, because mycotoxins are something nobody would like to take a risk with. They are not easily seen; you cannot necessarily determine by sight if a particular ingredient — say, corn, or what have you — has mycotoxins or not. It isn’t visible to the naked eye. So, the best approach would be, like, we do insurance: always have a mycotoxin-binding or a mycotoxin-countering technology built into the ration. Typically, all nutritionists do that.  

Tom:            Tell us about the layer nutrition software that you're working on right now.

Raj:              Okay, the layer nutrition software I'm working on is called the Alltech Poultry Model. This is a software modeled to a particular breed — any breed — based on its life cycle, the way the breed would behave, the modes of ration, and what levels of nutrients are required based on its production and body maintenance. It also takes into consideration the environmental parameters, such as the highest temperature and lowest temperature and the amount of feed the bird is consuming.

                    This software gives a very good idea of the levels of nutrients the bird needs for whatever she's doing at that particular point of time we are evaluating it. So, when we're entering these parameters and the ingredients available, the software will tell you, “Okay, this is what this bird needs, and this is how the ration should be.” It’s then left to the nutritionist to take a look and approve it or make any tweaks needed.

Tom:            Are there any emerging trends, any new technologies in poultry, that have captured your attention and your interest?

Raj:              Yes, lately, in the U.S. at least, I would say the trend is with the cage-free, organic and free-range. Also, the specialty eggs enriched with pigments, omegas, vitamin D, vitamin E. These are all the trends coming up and people are moving toward. I would say they are adding to their range a niche segment, a niche set of products, eggs with these kinds of specialized enrichments. That is something I have seen. Especially, the organic production is picking up much faster than what we usually thought. So, these are the trends, I would say.

Tom:            Raj Kasula is a poultry technical consultant at Ridley Feed Ingredients. We thank you so much for spending time with us, Raj.

Raj:              Thank you, Tom. My pleasure.

I want to learn more about supporting health and profitability in my poultry production. 

The following is an edited transcript of Tom Martin's interview with Nick Adams. Click below to hear the full audio:

Tom:              Nick Adams is global manager of the Alltech® Mycotoxin Management team, and he joins us to talk about the ways in which his team is using the digital devices of the Internet of Things. He’ll explain the data they produce to study and track toxic substances produced by fungus that could travel all the way up the food chain. We thank you for being with us, Nick.

                        Nick, you work closely with the first European-based, state-of-the-art Alltech 37+® mycotoxin analytical services laboratory. Why 37+, and what goes on there at the lab?

Nick:               Tom, thanks for that. Why 37+? If we think about the concept of molds and mycotoxins, the mold is a living organism that grows in the field or grows on our feed and food ingredients as we store them. When those molds grow, they have the potential to produce mycotoxins. We know that there are four, five or six hundred or more mycotoxins that exist. If we want to understand what the real challenge is with regards to mycotoxins, one of the objectives is to measure those mycotoxins. And so, historically, that detection — that analysis — was quite a limiting factor for us; we couldn't detect those mycotoxins. With the advent of the state-of-the-art lab, as you mentioned, the instrument that we use is based on mass spectrometry. By detecting the molecular weight of the mycotoxin, we're now able to visualize lots of mycotoxins.

                        So, why 37+? Ultimately, it's the ability to measure — to visualize — lots of different mycotoxins, and because we know that each different feed ingredient might have hundreds of mycotoxins present, now, with the labs and instruments we have, we can actually measure those and visualize what potential issues there might be.

Tom:              Feed samples from across the United States, Canada and Europe have indicated high levels of mycotoxins. According to the Alltech 2017 Harvest Analysis, in fact, levels found in the U.S. corn silage are ranked extremely high. Has that trend continued in 2018?

Nick:               We'll wait to see exactly what happens with the 2018 harvest, but as we think about that 2017 harvest, when we bring in those materials, the level of risk is based on the growing season; we harvest those materials, they come with a high level of risk and, ultimately, we will feed those materials as they are.

                        What we find, particularly with silage, is that some feeds are more difficult to store because they're moist. There's a good chance that risk levels increase during the storage season because, with the presence of moisture within the feedstuff combined with the presence of oxygen, mold can proliferate. If the mold can proliferate, then, potentially, the mold can produce more mycotoxins.

                        So, yes, we are in the midst right now of feeding those 2017 grains, and when we think about that, we'll continue to do that until this 2018 harvest comes. And, at the moment, the weather is looking like it might be warmer for 2018, so we're waiting to see what impact that has on the crop growing cycle and what that means for the 2018 harvest. [Learn more about the 2018 U.S. analysis results here.]

Tom:              Is there some sort of macro-cause for this? Is there something that's happening weather-wise that is bringing together all those conditions that you cited?

Nick:               Yes. The weather has a huge impact on what molds grow in the field — the type of mold and how much of that mold grows. It's why the climate during that growing season has such a big impact. And it's why each growing season is quite different.

                        When we get to that harvest and we bring in that new season's grains, we really have to hit the reset button, because those grains will be different than the grains we've been feeding from the previous harvest. We have to then understand the risk from this new harvest, because that's essentially going to set the benchmark for what we’re going to feed for the next 12 months.

Tom:              Diagnosis and effective remediation of mycotoxin problems have been limited by the ability to accurately measure these toxic contaminants in feedstuffs. Is this problem of measurement being overcome by technological innovation?

Nick:               Yes. I mentioned a little bit before about the fact that we couldn't previously detect mycotoxins, and the advancements that we've made with the mass spectrometry-based systems have really helped us in that regard. With the 37+ labs that we have now, we are able to measure for 50 different mycotoxins. That gives us a great insight as to the challenge.

                        The other interesting thing when we think about technology is also the presence or the ability for us to have what we call a “rapid test kit.” So, using a slightly different approach, we're able to go more into the field and have a test that, within 15 to 20 minutes, can give us an idea around some of the key mycotoxins. There are five or six mycotoxins that we see on a quite regular basis in some of the feed materials we're testing. So, some of these main mycotoxins we can test for using these rapid test kits, and that helps point us in the right direction — it gives us an understanding as to the level of variation in some of these raw materials in a more real-time basis, as opposed to the 37+ testing, which gives us a much broader view but, obviously, takes it a little bit more time to do that.

Tom:              What about solutions, Nick? Has your team identified or developed any ways to address this?

Nick:               Yeah. This is an area that Alltech has been working on for many years. Ultimately, mycotoxins are consumed by the animal and they will be absorbed by the animal, and that's essentially where they cause the challenge. Within the gut initially, they can cause issues — and [also] then when they're absorbed. Anything that we can do to reduce the amount of mycotoxin that is consumed in the first place, or the amount of mycotoxin that is absorbed by the animal — those are the things that can help mitigate or reduce the challenges.

                        We work with mycotoxin absorbents, and those are products that we can put into the feed. Then, within the digestive tract of the animal, when the feed starts to be broken up and the nutrients are released, that's when the mycotoxins are also released. Having the absorbent material in there allows us to interact with those mycotoxins so that, rather than being absorbed by the animal, they're flushed through and excreted. So, these are some of the specific things, in terms of technologies, that we can add to the feed. This one is key.

                        We’re also looking at other elements of nutrition, such as vitamins — the trace mineral status. We know that mycotoxins affect the immunity of the animal, so offsetting that by looking at the mineral program can help, as well as looking at other control points outside of the animal itself. These are things that we can do with the management of the feed in the first place to reduce the production of more mycotoxins. Those little things that we work with our customers on to help them understand the different points within the feed chain — these are the things we can do to minimize the issue, and then, ultimately, when it gets to the animal, we use the absorbents as that final stage.

Tom:              To get to that information, that data on the farm-level, today’s farm is being “invaded” by all kinds of connected instruments and digital devices that make up the Internet of Things. How is that flow of data supporting and informing your mycotoxin mitigation strategies?

Nick:               Yeah, that's a great question. There's now so much data — we're being bombarded with it — but [when] used in the right way, it can help us. It can help us understand the problem more quickly and in more depth; we can find a solution more quickly and more accurately.

                        Something going on at the moment is better weather data. If we can understand better the weather during the growing cycle and the potential impact that it may have on the mold growth and mycotoxin production, then we can be ahead of the curve in terms of understanding what potential risks are coming. Now, there are weather companies that are getting more into the ag space and being able to give us better, more localized weather information for farms and fields.

                        We can also think about the concept of the analysis and, again, giving us better information on harvest analysis. If we can understand that risk, how do we then use that information in the formulation of the diet in the first place? We don’t have to wait until we see the impact on the farm. We're actually taking weather into account as we're putting together the basic nutrition for that farm. That can also be linked, then, back into the performance data coming from the farm.

                        We think about the concept of having mycotoxin analytical results and linking that to performance data from the farm. There are companies now that can take data from different sources, amalgamate that, and interpret it so that we can make decisions accordingly. So I think, in the future, we’ll see this concept whereby the mycotoxin data that we have — preharvest information on things like the weather, and the actual analytical information from the harvest analysis — that data can be fed into the systems and interpreted along with other pertinent information from the farm to help us understand, "Well, okay, what's my risk compared to other farms? Is that having a greater impact on my performance than I would like it to have?" So, without a doubt, we've had the data to a certain extent, but the fact that we can now put the data up into the cloud, where it can be accessed and turned around in real time — I think that's the key thing in allowing us to reduce that window of discovery on the farm, where it was always more reactive. Now, I think it's going to allow us to be more proactive in our approach to dealing with the problem.

Tom:              Is that farmer client given training to be able to analyze that information that's coming back? Are they able to interpret it?  

Nick:               That is such an important part of it. When we started analyzing for mycotoxins, the first question we thought about was, “Okay, we can analyze for all of these mycotoxins, but what will all of that data mean without the interpretation?” We spent a lot time on the reporting side to put something together that would give the user of that report a clear understanding as to, "These are the mycotoxins that are present. What might that mean for my flock, my herd, in terms of potential symptoms and performance implications, et cetera?" So, yes, it is important that not only do we provide the data, but that we provide the interpretation. I think that will be one of the key roles when we start to analyze these data sets together; it will be a dashboard, so we can create around that so that it can be visualized in such a way that is meaningful.

Tom:              Is it possible to have feeds and foods that are free of these mycotoxins and [are] more nutritious and can also deliver improved farm performance and better profitability?

Nick:               Without a doubt, if we can generate foods and feeds with lower levels of mycotoxins, animals thrive better. Our issue is around the fact that, as we have said, efficiency on-farm and particularly in the agronomic practices when we think about growing crops, we have turned to practices such as minimum-till farming, no-till farming, and there's less crop rotation than perhaps there used to be. These things have been good for us in many ways — but with molds and mycotoxins, not so good. So, the concept of mycotoxin-free feed when we look at our database, we might see 2, 3, 4 percent of the feed ingredients in feeds we analyze that have no detectable levels of those 50 different mycotoxins. So, conversely, 95, 96-plus percent of those feed ingredients have some level of mycotoxin present.

Tom:              The 37+ lab that you're affiliated with, is that the one located in Dunboyne?

Nick:               Yes.

Tom:              And it's one of a number of such facilities. How many of these are there, and where are they located?

Nick:               At the moment, we have two physical labs. We have the one at Alltech headquarters near Lexington, Kentucky. We have the European facility in Dunboyne [Ireland], and we work with the Chinese government in a partnership with a lab in Beijing. So, between those three facilities at the moment, they cover the globe, and samples will be sent to whichever is the most pertinent lab for that region.

Tom:              What are your near-term goals for mycotoxin management?

Nick:               I think the near-term goals for mycotoxin management — right here, right now — are to better utilize and communicate the contamination data that we are now generating in greater amounts. For a number of years now, we've conducted harvest analyses within Europe and in North America. This year, will see the first harvest analysis for Latin America. When we think about Brazil and Argentina particularly, these countries grow a lot of grain, and they export a lot of grain, so there's a lot of interest globally in some of those Latin American crops and the quality of those crops. So right here, right now, we're very focused on getting that Latin American harvest survey I’ve been running because, over the next few months, it will be critical as they go into their harvest period. And then, as I said, getting that data into a cloud-based format whereby, then, we can interpret and visualize that data far more easily, far more quickly — and, of course, that allows the communication of that data globally to our customers and our stakeholders far more rapidly.

Tom:              Nick Adams is global manager of the Alltech Mycotoxin Management team. We thank you for being with us, Nick.

Nick:               Thanks very much.

I want to learn more about mitigating mycotoxins on my farm. 

The following is an edited transcript of Nicole Erwin's interview with Dr. Amy Coleman. Click below to hear the full audio: 

Nicole:           I'm talking with Dr. Amy Coleman, CEO and founder of Wellsmart and author of the book, “Discovering Your Own Doctor Within”. Dr. Coleman, thank you so much for joining us.

Amy:               Thank you, Nicole. It's great to be here.

Nicole:           You have such an interesting background, from serving as the first female commander of the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Clinic, to being selected as the primary physician for four-star generals, U.S. Embassies, Special Forces teams and even for NASA for space shuttle support. From being a fighter pilot and going with an instinct — what you call "flying with the feel" — to gut decisions in our everyday lives, your ethos seems to be all about listening to yourself and how the gut could be or should be the loudest voice. Can you tell me about the first time that your gut “spoke” to you and you listened?

Amy:               Oh, that is a great question, Nicole. I believe that's something that we inherit and grow into, actually. As children, we can be given examples of how to do this or how not to do that, and hopefully there's a path that allows us to find our way. I believe the biggest gut instinct came to me during 9/11. At that time, I was an intern after medical school, finishing up my internship year. My granddad, who was a sergeant major in the Marines, had always said, "Go into the Air Force. They'll pave your way to school." It was a great idea. He said, "They've got great technology, they treat women well, and wherever you go, you fly in style."

                        So, I said, "Why not?" When I went into medical school, they picked up the tab.

                        I had the opportunity to go through my residency before I started becoming an active duty doctor for the military. But when 9/11 happened, right after I had finished medical school and my internship year, I decided to defer my residency and just go immediately in to active duty. That actually allowed me a great benefit and opportunity to be a flight surgeon, which was really a good instinct, to go into that direction. It's made all the difference because, as a physician, I was able to really meet my patients where they are — boots on the ground, in their facilities, in their squadrons and where they work — and see their environment and really experience what they were experiencing. For the first time, I really learned teamwork in a way that never is taught in medical school. Even seeing doctors working together — that's not something that happens a lot of times.

                        So, in the military, I've really learned teamwork and how to see my patient as equal to myself and just as important as making the decisions in their own health as I was. So, yeah, listening to my gut in that made all the difference in how my style as a physician developed.

Nicole:           And your path.

Amy:               Yeah, exactly.

Nicole:           Admittedly, I'm a bit of a hypochondriac. I listen, probably, to too many things affecting me, both mentally and physically. How do you drown out the unnecessary bits of information and focus on what's really going on inside?

Amy:               Well, that's a super question, Nicole. A lot of people come to me and ask that. They have trouble sleeping because of that. They might start the day with one thought that's concerning to them, and by the end of the day, they have a snowball of thoughts just like it that just gather. We really have to kind of decide what track we want to take. The “monkey mind,” as I call it, makes us want to just turn over furniture and just be destructive, like a monkey in a room — just losing control. Those types of thoughts actually drive you to a way of being, which is a survival mode. That survival mode is driven by neurotransmitters that are really meant to tell you to run from a bear or dinosaur or whatever is threatening you; to live in that state is, really, chaos. So, if we choose to listen to those thoughts that just continuously multiply in our head, it drives us to those fight-or-flight states, which are exhausting to the mind and the body.

                        One of the things that I do is get out into nature. I find that nature resets you. “He,” “she” or whatever you want to call [nature] is an energy in and of itself that just kind of has a way of letting time stand still around you as you’re finding your focus in something that's beautiful and creating a sense of awe for yourself. When you do that, you are increasing the quality of your thoughts, just like the quality of food you eat or the quality of air you breathe is going to make you feel much better. Once you get in those states of awe and thankfulness and inspiration that nature can provide, then, oftentimes, you find yourself settling down in the thoughts that come with those types of inspired, “awe” moments. It's just a cut above all the rest. I prefer to live there. Actually, one of the disciplines of my journey through this life is really to just make that a discipline — to completely create those types of moments wherever I am. I call it my “walking meditation.”

Nicole:           I have heard you refer to a phenomenon called the “nocebo” effect. Can you explain what that is?

Amy:               Right. We are all familiar with the placebo effect, and that's when you're taking something that could just be a sugar pill, but you're feeling the effects of it as if it's something that's quite potent. That actually wraps around the understanding of the power of your beliefs. A lot of times, people and physicians alike consider the placebo effect something that is to be ignored, or it’s talked about around the water cooler as just an interesting effect, but it's much, much more than that. A person's belief system really runs their life, and a belief system actually fuels you to either become more relaxed in your day-to-day walk of your life or feel more threatened. So, you really do have to meet people where they are in their belief set. If someone is taking a pill they don't believe in or that they feel is going to cause them a bad effect, you really have to look at that constructed thought that's been created. A thought is a thing, and that mental construct can build within a person a resistance — resistance against taking what you're offering them. If you're building resistance in a person, it's like arm-wrestling them on an energetic level or a mental level. With that, every time they take the pill, they've got an increased risk of having the side effect side of those medicines, which aren't the helpful side effects but the ones that cause some kind of suffering. So, nocebo effect is when someone takes a pill and feels the opposite of it being helpful — they feel all of the negative side effects. A lot of times, that comes with an internal dialogue. They have a belief set that wasn't met by their physician and they felt like they were kind of pushed or something was pushed on them.

Nicole:           Communicating with co-workers, family and loved ones can be challenging. How does someone communicate effectively with their physician if they don't feel like they want to do what they're saying?

Amy:               Oh, that's such a great question, too. What I would say is, you always have to find the provider that matches your belief set in ways that allow you to be a team — a team working as a group, together. There are physicians out there who are looking to do that with patients, and a lot of times, it's [because] they’re more integrative, holistic, functional medicine-type physicians.

                        Unfortunately, the very structured nature of our clinic system in the current healthcare model doesn't allow physicians a lot of time with their patients to be able to sit and have these types of conversations in a meaningful way. So, your better option is to find a physician [who aligns with you] — even if you might have to find one that you either pay out-of-pocket or pay with a different kind of payment service.

                        There are lots of ideas out there and new technologies that are allowing physicians to charge on a monthly basis. Those are called direct primary care clinics. But they are out there. Physicians are out there, and patients really need to know that they have a choice. It’s like anything else; you have to look for the service model that you want to represent you. That includes your hairdresser. That includes your accountant. Sometimes, you have to go through a few of them before you find the right fit.

Nicole:           And just to back up a little bit, going back into the gut, how did you get interested in the microbiome field?

Amy:               When I was a child, I was very sick, and I had to take a lot of antibiotics from the time I was probably six months old to the time I was about four to five years old. I can't even remember a time when I really wasn't taking antibiotics. What happened to me, after being on so many medications early in my life, was I did find myself very weak. My doctor told my mom that I wasn't going to be physical, I wasn't going to be very active, not to expect a lot from me. Of course, there goes the challenge that's laid down. In that, I had to start redefining what made me feel good.

                        So, I started cooking for myself when I was 13, because I was really on an American diet; my mom was a working mother, so Hamburger Helper and Fruit Loops were her go-to so she could quickly feed me and get to work. In that day and age, things were supposedly fortified with vitamins — commercials would say how nutritious they were. We know better now. When we know better, we do better.

                        At 13 or 14 years old, I started eating foods that really made me feel good. I was steaming rice and vegetables and grilling lean meats and things like that. I found that I just felt so much better. Little did I know that I was changing my microbiome, which was supporting my immune system. Back then, we didn't even know the microbiome existed. The only thing we knew back then was that it helps you digest food and you have some bacteria down there. Now we know it's so much more important. So, I was really, I guess, following my gut even back then.

Nicole:           How did your mom respond to you cooking? Did you cook for her, too?

Amy:               Oh, yeah. I tried to cook for everybody, but unfortunately, the culture of eating is very much a social event that often is based on how you're raised. Sometimes, if you don't change your diet, I suppose, early enough in life, you pretty much get stuck in those ways.

                        It was an intriguing entertainment for them to watch me eat. My dad would always say, "Oh, if I ate what you were eating, I'd be hungry ten minutes later." I would tell them, "You can eat small meals throughout the day." It actually started the progression of me going down a fitness track that truly reformed my body into complete physical health.

Nicole:           How will a better understanding in the gut environment impact the wellness industry?

Amy:               The gut environment is something that we really need to understand. For the first time, we're actually starting to look at what we used to think [of] as an enemy and calling it friend — all the bacteria in the gut. There are so many of them that could harm us, and now we're starting to turn around and say, "Where is this ecosystem within us that we need to repair, just as we see outside of us these ecosystems that we need to repair?" What's happening outside is happening within us as well. I mean, look at the Great Barrier Reef and look at global warming. Well, within us is something similar, with the loss of the ecosystem of our gut.

                        The rebuilding of that, I believe, in the wellness industry is going to be about nourishing and teaching people to be good CEOs of every little cell in their body, and nurturing care is something that we really haven't learned. I think wellness industries are going to be well-served to teach the lesson of how to repair your ecology and how to be one with your ecosystem and how many ways we can relearn nurturing yourself. From that, I hope that we can nurture the environment when we learn how to nurture our self.

Nicole:           How receptive are people when they hear you make those connections? Is being able to test the microbiome significant in being able to show what's happening, and can you do that?

Amy:               This is the most phenomenal news for me — that I can help someone redirect their microbiome just like I did when I was 14 years old. I was doing it blindly, but the system that I use for patients actually guides them through a six-step process, where they test their gut flora every two-and-a-half weeks. With those results, we implement dietary changes and we implement ways of being that actually help your gut to be enriched. I'm able to see those results come back better and better.

                        So, really, you're teaching someone gardening. You're teaching someone how to do interior gardening. The way that we run around in this day and age, we don't have time for gardening, but the fact is that we carry our garden within us wherever we go, and whatever we eat either feeds it [or] denies it. If you're a gardener at heart, you just remember: you're always carrying around your garden within you.

Nicole:           What are some things that we can all do daily to improve the health of our microbiomes and take care of our garden?

Amy:               Oh, my goodness. So many things. The gut biome is enriched by you living the life you know you need to live. That means sleeping well, because the gut bacteria have to sleep, too. When people are pregnant, they say they're eating for two or they're sleeping for two. Well, you're sleeping or eating for 100 trillion. If you were going to look at the numbers, it's a good indicator and motivator as to how to take care of yourself.

                        You also need to eat foods that nourish the gut flora. The bacteria in your gut are doing so many things on a daily basis, from making neurotransmitters that your brain uses to making hormone-like mediators that your endocrine glands and systems use. There is not one part of your body that the gut microbiome does not reach. It is your motherboard. It is another brain, as a matter of fact. It has so many neurons in the area of your gut that it is a thinking system. The problem is, with eating wrong, unfortunately, we're losing a lot of our heritage species of the gut microbiome that we need to survive and to do the daily work.

                        When the microbiome does start to diminish or dwindle, it leads to inflammation issues in the body. We're wondering why we have so many autoimmune diseases now, why we're having so many diseases and chronic issues that never really plagued humanity before. I think a lot of it does reside in the gut.

Nicole:           I was always told that if you eat properly, you should be able to get all the nutrients that your body needs. But a lot of us have so many things going on with stress and work. So, if you can't find the time to get the food that you need, do you recommend supplements, or that's not an option and you need to make time?

Amy:               Well, supplements are an option. Also, staying away from things in the environment. A lot of things like antibiotics will completely clear out all of your good bacteria. It's absolutely proven, and it comes back over time. But just think about a child with chronic ear infections. They're going from one antibiotic to another. Over time, it takes longer and longer to get that gut microbiome back into a healthy level.

                        So, some of the things that you can do are to stay away from things that you know would hurt your gut, and that is, if you have the sniffles, don't go for the Z-Pack. A normal cold lasts five to ten days, and the average person does get a cold three to five times a year. It does start in your nose and usually ends up with a cough that's dry and then becomes productive. We actually need to start realizing that normal viruses and things like that don't need to be treated with antibiotics.

                        If you're looking for a supplement, some of the best things you can buy are the fibers. Fibers are prebiotics that feed bacteria — they've got flora, so it’s like you’re serving a T-bone steak down there. Some of those types of fibers are cold-resistant starches. You can get them online or you can [get] them from pretty much anywhere.

                        Inulin has a very good one. Inulin is a fiber made of the chicory root. It's not very digestible, but yet, the gut microbiome love it and it allows the gut microbiome to metabolize that and actually help the body. But getting fiber from food is always best, to be honest with you.

Nicole:           What would you say is happening in today's culture with understanding the gut and our microbiomes? And how accessible is treatment into some of these things that you just mentioned? Is it just a matter of going online?

Amy:               Well, there's so much information out there, and what I see right now is that “probiotics,” “prebiotics” and “microbiome” are becoming the buzzwords. With that, there are a lot of people who are just trying to make a lot of money. So what we need to realize is that this is a very new science and it is a quantum-level science of interconnections: How do the bacteria react to you? How do the bacteria react to each other? How do bacteria react to the food you eat? All of it is a commensal, huge operation of relationships. This is going to take years to unravel and get the wisdom of what all of those relationships are.

                        To think that we know more than we do right now is probably the biggest fault I see. We do have to realize that a lot of the studies are just in mice right now. So, as we are looking further into people as testing entities for the gut microbiome, then we'll know a lot more. But I would just say, “Buyer beware.” I also would say make sure, if you're going to educate yourself, educate yourself on platforms that are putting out microbiome information on YouTube. TedX has some good ones. Working physicians who are leading the drive are good resources because they are typically seeing patients every day and not necessarily selling you a prebiotic or probiotic to make their living.

Nicole:           Dr. Amy Coleman is CEO and founder of Wellsmart and is author of the book, “Discovering Your Own Doctor Within”. Thank you so much.

Amy:               Thank you so much.

Dr. Amy Coleman was a guest speaker at Health & Wellness breakout sessions during ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE18). Click here to learn more about the next global ideas exchange. 

The following is an edited transcript of Nicole Erwin's interview with David Donnan. Click below to hear the full audio: 

Nicole:            I'm talking with David Donnan, senior partner with A.T. Kearney, a global management consulting firm based in Chicago. David, welcome.

David:              Hello.

Nicole:            Your firm conducted a recent study called Consumers@250, which found that a fundamental shift in consumer behavior is underway. Can you tell me a little about some of the core findings and how Amazon, Alibaba and millennials have become the future influencers of retail?

David:              Well, Consumers@250 has a special meaning: the year 2026 is the 250th anniversary, or “birthday,” of the United States. We looked out ten years — what were going to be the demographic, technology, resource, financial and economic issues facing us in the next ten years, and how they would impact consumers. We looked at, at that point in time, the two biggest cohorts, the two biggest population groupings or generations, which will be millennials, which we're all familiar with, and Generation Z, the ones following right after millennials. In fact, baby boomers, who have been such a dynamic force in the economics of the world for so long, are actually, unfortunately, on the decline, and will be much less of an influence. Most of them will be retired [and] have less income and less spending capabilities.

                        We look at millennials and Generation Z and ask, “What are the fundamental drivers that are affecting them, that are changing how they buy things differently than what we've seen before?” Primarily, over the last 30 years, there have been three drivers of consumption that we've looked at, and those drivers are usually affluence, persuasion and scale. Affluence ― we all wanted to be better than our parents. We all wanted to earn more money. We all wanted to be richer. Persuasion was how the brands took advantage of us. They persuaded us to buy their products. “You'll be smarter, you'll be thinner, you'll be better-liked if you use our product.” And then, finally, scale. You had to have big plants, big factories, big marketing budgets, big sales forces to succeed in that. That's how our entire consumer products industry has developed: large retailers, large CPG companies. We believe this has changed. The change is that, now, there are three new drivers, which are influence, trust and personalization. That's what my whole presentation [at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE18)] is around — how each one of those influence our consumers.

Nicole:            And how does categorizing Generation Z and millennials and these different groups help in understanding marketing?

David:              There is no such thing as [an] average millennial, just like there is no such thing as an average baby boomer or an average anyone. But we do see fundamental shifts in how they receive information ― how they process information ― and what we look at as what is driving their values in how they purchase things. Value is being driven by products that have some purpose behind them. Is it a sustainability purpose? Is it a purpose behind nutritional content? Is it a new purpose behind child welfare or about localized byproducts? Those things are becoming much, much more part of the influence we're seeing with consumer products, whereas, in the past, we used to buy based on value. We would buy eggs as cheaply as we could get them for a dozen. Now, we buy omega-3 eggs. We buy cage-free eggs. We buy eggs that are GMO-free. Those are all values-based purchases rather than value-based purchases.

Nicole:            As you said, consumers are growing more passionate about the things that they purchase, including the food that they eat. It's really interesting to see how all these reality TV shows glorifying chefs have really taken off over the years. What impact have celebrity chefs had in the local food movement ― in driving the farm-to-table fresh approach to consumption?

David:              I think the celebrity chefs have really made food entertainment. I mean, if we look back 20-30 years, food was there for nutrition. We were there to eat, to get calories. They ate food that tastes good and, occasionally, went out to a restaurant. Now, with celebrity chefs and with the whole food movement, food is celebrated in a different way, and people look to food as not only a measure of getting nutrition ― of getting calories ― but an expression of their self-worth, an expression of their own character. And I won't even challenge now, I think celebrity chefs are on their way out.

Nicole:            Really?

David:              Now, we're celebrating the local farmer. We're celebrating that local producer, the farmer, the cattlemen, the local butcher with the local produce person. They are becoming the true measure, the true icons of the food industry today, as we look beyond the glitz of celebrity chefs to the real, fundamental values and authenticity of a local farmer.

Nicole:            How is the local farmer being celebrated? Is it through digital media, social network?

David:              Probably, first and foremost, farmers’ markets. There has been a giant growth in farmers’ markets over the last several years, and every town has a farmers’ market. Every neighborhood has a farmers' market, so that's driving that.

                        Second, grocery stores now are trying to replicate farmers' markets in their produce sections. If you look at grocery stores, most people shop what's called “the perimeter” of the grocery store; that is the area outside the center. Instead of going up and down those straight isles ― those boring isles ― they go to the perimeter, which is all around the seafood, the meats, the poultry, the fresh vegetables and fruits, the deli, the bakery and the dairy. All of those are where we're going, and those are mimicking a farmers' market.

                        Then there is social media. Look at what's happening now, with the capabilities for full traceability. So, when I go to a Whole Foods, Kroger or Walmart, I can not only buy my fresh produce, but I know where it came from ― not only where it came from but how it was made. It's not just buying broccoli; it’s buying broccoli that came from this farm and it came through these processes. That's a different set of information than we've had before.

Nicole:            Would you say that millennials are more impressionable, hence the impact of these shows and being able to change the dynamic of the store? Or is it the opposite of that? And if it is, what is it that people are connecting with in the programs and at the things that you're mentioning?

David:              I don't know if it's a matter of being impressionable. I see, across the board — whether it's millennials, boomers, Generation Z or the Alpha generation that follows Generation Z — there is a shift in trust of authority figures. If you look at the Edelman Study on trust every year, which is the trust barometer, trust in the institutions has gone down dramatically. So, trust in governments has gone down, trust in big business had gone down. Part of the equation on trust is, who do you trust? What we're finding, particularly with the age of social media and digitally enabled consumers ― mostly millennials and Generation Z, which are the first digitally native generation to grow up totally digital ― is that their trust is around their friends. Their trust is around social media activities. Their trust is around influencers on social media. So, maybe Laura Vitale — who is an Italian chef who talks about great Italian cooking — she becomes the trusted person, rather than the USDA food plate or nutritional pyramid.

Nicole:            Interesting. What viewpoints in products that were once outliers with co-ops and local health food stores would you say have gone mainstream?

David:              Avocado is number one. Bone broth is now coming up into play, as we're seeing the use of collagen ― using collagen and bone broth to help your skin. So, we're using it as a cosmetic that you digest. Quinoa was obviously one that came and has kind of come and gone. We’re just getting into arugula and all the different types of vegetables and salads.

                        We're also seeing ― and it's just starting now ― a whole area of supplements and vitamins and other, what I would call “non-mainstream” types of products with no scientific evidence behind it. The whole thing, I think, about food is that we're all clustering into “food tribes.” Think about it: it used to be, if you're from Italy, you'd eat Italian. If you're from Greece, you'd eat Greek. If you're from China, you eat Chinese. Now, food tribes go around nutritional norms. I'm a vegan. I'm Paleo. I'm a person that only eats gluten-free products. So, you tend to tribe around what you're eating now rather [than] the country you came from in your daily eating as well. That has an effect on the types of products that were non-mainstream before coming into [the] mainstream.

Nicole:            How is this same demand for transparency impacting the ag industry? Is the pressure as strong? And, if so, where do you see new consumer demands really taking effect in impacting the future?

David:              If you talk to grocery stores or restaurants, they want to have that transparency back to the farm. They want to know, “Is this chicken antibiotic-free? Has it always been antibiotic-free? Is it cage-free?” I want to know about these vegetables. Have they been sprayed with fungicide, herbicide, pesticide, et cetera? That pushes its way back to the food brokers and the food wholesalers, who then push back to the farmers as well. I'm seeing that farmers are very, very responsive to this. They are trying to get sustainable agriculture ― regenerative agriculture ― trying to reduce the amount of fungicides and pesticides and herbicides they are using, trying to be much more cautious but also much more thoughtful on how they make the product as well. They realize consumers are ultimately going to buy this product, and that's what they're going to look for. It may or may not be organic. I mean, organic is one part of what consumers look at, but people may just want less processing, less artificial in the product.

Nicole:            Throughout some of your articles that I've seen online, you mentioned the significance of personalization. How is this created to influence consumer engagement?

David:              Well, I think we're at a level of personalization now that we've never seen before because of our connection with digital media and digital technology. We all have iPhones ― or most of us do. Many of us have Fitbits, and so we're also measuring when we're exercising. All that information is going somewhere. Google and Facebook and others know when you're awake and when you're sleeping and when you're walking and how much activity you're doing and what your heart rate is. All that data allows companies to target active people versus targeting non-active people. They can say, “I'm going to target people who are much more physically enabled in these types of sports than others.” That type of a process is going on.

                        I think one of the greatest phrases I've heard is, “If you're getting Facebook for free, you're not the customer; you're the product.” The amount of information that's being gathered on each one of us is over five gigabytes a person, and it's really just on all of our activities, and that information is being used to better personalize.

Nicole:            Does that cause some dissonance with millennials and Generation Z? Because it seems like it would.

David:              It can, because I think, right now, people are willing to give information up if they get something in return. The recent scandals at Facebook and some of the things with Cambridge Analytica and everything else, I think they're starting to put a pause on it. Although, Facebook's numbers still are increasing — they're not decreasing. So, I think people are willing to give up personal information if they get something back that they feel is of value.  

Nicole:            I think something that really made a presence with this last presidential election was the increased hype behind purchasing power. Consumers are putting their money behind products that meet their worldview, ethically and however else. Why hasn't this been tapped into before, and why is this a millennial or Generation X thing?

David:              Well, I think the whole idea of purchase decisions has become more of a thing, more of a movement in the last 10 to 15 years. I think it, again, comes back to the issue of trust. We have less trust in government institutions, less trust in big business. But we trust our own purchases and we trust what we do. I know that if, for example, I do not want eggs coming from hens that have been caged, then I have a way of expressing that view by buying cage-free eggs. Similarly, I can buy other products that have a worldview either on sustainability, environmentalism, et cetera. That is being heard by companies. In fact, what we're seeing is that a lot of the changes that are occurring ― whether they are in regulatory food safety, sustainability, environmental concern ― are being driven by companies, not necessarily being driven by more federal or state regulations. I think that's a very positive thing because it means consumers really are in charge of saying what is it we value, and how do we make sure that it is being delivered to us in the way we want.  

Nicole:            Is that really increasing the role of corporate social responsibility?

David:              I think it does. I think many corporations have realized how important it is that corporate social responsibility is a key part. It is very fickle as well; you can lose it very quickly if you do something that people deem to be unethical or against your values. I think companies now are paying very close attention to making sure that they are living what they say.

Nicole:            Did the report reveal that the top 25 U.S. food manufacturers' share of U.S. food and beverage retail sales has declined from 66 percent in 2012 to 63 percent in 2015? Or is this something that was known before Consumers@250?

David:              It was generally known, I think, in the last two years. But I think if you look at the large CPG (consumer product goods companies) and food companies, they have lost a lot of share in the last 3 or 4 years. In fact, it’s a loss of over $15 billion in market share. The reason is twofold. One is that there is much more movement towards fresh. We're shopping the perimeter rather than the center of the store. The second is that there are a lot more startups now. Look at your Chobani and what they did to the yogurt industry. Look at what RXBar is doing now with Kellogg. I mean, there are a variety of things where new startups, innovators, more authentic brands are taking share away from some of the larger companies.

Nicole:            If you think about the beer industry, though, a lot of these larger companies are buying up micro-breweries because the brands are hyperlocal. Is this a quick fix, or is it strategic overall that the local beer movement seems to really have come against these buyouts?

David:              I think if you're a startup, if you're a small entrepreneur, I mean, getting bought out is kind of a good thing in some ways because you do get to cash out all of your investment. But, yes, again, it's the authentic nature of it. Authenticity is important. If, all of a sudden, we find out these craft breweries are just being run out of some big mega-factory in the middle of the grain fields, then we're going to lose interest in it. Part of it is that we like the fact that it is local. Part of it is, like, the fact that it has some community involvement as well.

                        I think there is also a shift in technology that's occurring. Whereas scale, as I've mentioned before, was a key determinant to success, now, scale is less important because I can actually manufacture ― I can produce goods on smaller lot sizes now, using things like HPP (high-pressure pasteurization), using vertical farming or an indoor grow that can grow vegetables right inside of a warehouse or on top of a roof, or using other types of technologies around sous-vide or other types of preservation technologies, which allow me to grow things, to make things, to prepare things very locally.

                        Think about what's happening now in the home delivery business. It used to be, you're at home, you order pizza, and that was about it. Now, with Uber Eats, Grubhub, Foodora, Blue Apron and all of the other options, there are just many, many options to get fresh, good-quality, highly nutritious food delivered to your house. That's fundamentally different than even [what] occurred five years ago.

Nicole:            Seeing these stronger local movements move forward makes me think a greater distribution of market wealth could surface. Is that what you're saying? How does a shift like this influence corporate social responsibility efforts?

David:              Yes. There is an opportunity for more distribution of wealth. However, there is still a concentration with large companies because they have access to capital. Large companies also have access to large distribution formats, et cetera. But the thing that is leveling the playing field is that companies like Alibaba and Amazon ― Alibaba in China, which is much bigger than Amazon ― 30 to 40 percent of their vendors are small “mom and pops”; they're independent. They are not large companies. So, the ability for a small company to get a platform, to get distribution and to get access to a community is much easier than it ever was before.

Nicole:            So, it's more collaborative?

David:              It should be. Yeah, much more collaborative ― an ability to, again, get consumer access, distribution and engagement, because you have something to sell and you have a story to sell, rather than just [the] fact you happened to be on the shelf because you happened to pay the slotting fee to get there.

Nicole:            Is there anything else your research revealed regarding changes that could potentially shape the next decade in retail?

David:              Well, I think, in the next decade of retail, watch China, and look what's happening with Alibaba and their new retail formats. They are a combination of physical format and online format, much like the Amazon Go in Seattle. You go into the store, you are already registered on your app, you bring in your phone, you get the product, it gives you all the information, it tracks you, you pay by face scan ― your face is actually scanned, and that's what pays for the product. What they've made is what I'll call the “ultimate convenience store.” You walk in, find your product, you already know what's there, it's giving you alerts, and you walk out and that's it. There is no cash transaction. There is no standing in line. If the product is not on the shelf, it automatically recognizes that and will have it delivered to your house. I mean, it's just this combination of online and physical retail, which I think gives you high-touch but high-tech as well.

Nicole:            David Donnan is a senior partner with A.T. Kearney, a global management consulting firm based in Chicago. Thank you so much.

David:              Well, thank you.

David Donnan shared his insights at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE18). Click here to learn more about how you can be part of the global ideas exchange.

The following is an edited transcript of Nicole Erwin's interview with Dr. William Bernard. Click below to hear the full interview. 

Nicole:         Certain supplements may have a legitimate place in addressing optimal performance in breeding in elite equine athletes. As an equine nutritionist and veterinarian, Dr. William Bernard is here to help provide a bit of perspective on how to identify and utilize the proper products in a multibillion-dollar industry. Dr. Bernard, hello.

William:         Hello, how are you?

Nicole:         Doing okay. Thanks for joining us. When I think about the history of horses in Kentucky, I imagine the sheer number that have made their way onto TV screens across the globe during The Kentucky Derby and other races. How do the stakes change when you're addressing the health of an animal that can have so much invested in its success?

William:         Well, I suppose I could say the stakes change because of the potential monetary value of that performance — if it's a race or a three-day event — or in the value of the animal that is a high performer. So, nutrition and supplements do have a place, and my major interest in that area, currently, is probiotics.

Nicole:         Well, how would you say that the daily demands of an equine athlete compare to, say, a hobby horse, and how would those translate into the nutritional needs to balance the optimal performance and health of that horse?

William:         A hobby horse is going to be nutritionally satisfied by a minimal pasture grass, good hay and, potentially, a little supplementation of a concentrate, such as grains. A performance horse is going to be using a lot more energy, so it's going to need a much higher level of nutrition, although we do have to be somewhat careful in that too high a level [of] nutrition can be harmful metabolically.

                    And then, I think also it's hard for us to realize or difficult for us to see, but the performance horse is under a lot more stress than the hobby horse. The hobby horse may spend a week outside, come in on Sundays, be ridden a little bit or not ridden at all, brushed off and taken care of, but doesn't have that daily stress of, say, a racehorse going out to the racetrack daily and exercising. There may be something new in the environment, there may be a new horse in the barn, and there's also a lot of shipping involved when you get to that level of performance. A performance horse may spend three or four hours in a trailer. It may have to get into an airplane. So, there is not only a caloric nutritional need for the performing athlete, but the consideration of the stressful periods that they actually go through.

Nicole:         There is a lot more attention on the gut response to some of those stressors that you're mentioning. Most animals have their own unique bacterial environment in the gut. Can you talk a bit about challenges in balancing bacteria in horses?

William:         Yes. If you think about one of the simplest things that probably alters that flora — which we can call the microbiota or the microbiome, which is the term that's used now to describe the flora of the gastrointestinal tract — the way we feed horses is totally different than the way they developed. The horse developed as a grazing animal; it spent the majority of the day grazing on grass — and, oftentimes, not that great quality of grass. Nowadays, we feed high-quality hay because they need the energy and we feed supplements, concentrates and grain, which are also high in soluble carbohydrates. And, yes, they provide a large amount of energy. However, we feed them in meals. The horse is a grazing animal. It's not used to being fed large meals of 10-12 pounds of grain. So that's one of the things that occurs, is that we initially stress the horse with the way we feed them.

                    And then, as we were talking about a few minutes ago, the stresses of their daily activities, the stresses of the social environment or lack of social environment, the stresses of being inside most of the day, the stresses of their performance, their stresses of travel, et cetera, can really influence the gastrointestinal tract. There have been some very interesting recent studies that have showed how stress can actually change the flora within minutes or within hours of that stressor.

                    Part of the aspect of probiotics and the microbiome that has become very interesting is the testing. When a new test comes out in some field, all of a sudden, we discover new things when we're able to look differently, look further, look in different places.

                    Relatively recently, RNA sequencing has become a technique where a scientist, veterinarian or biologist can take a sample of the flora of the gastrointestinal tract and do what's called the RNA sequencing — some people call it “shotgun RNA” — and can determine all of the different species and the number of those species of bacteria in that sample.

                    The reason that's such a huge advancement is that, in the past, we took that sample and had to culture the bacteria, which is not an exact science. Each bacterium has its own growth characteristics, and you can imagine the thousands of cultures you'd have to do on one sample to try to determine what it is. The new technique has allowed us to look at the population of bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract over time.

                    Studies have shown that, if you have a group of pigs and you look at their microflora with this sequencing of RNA, and then you stress those pigs and take another sample — you stress them by moving them from one pen to another or changing something predominantly in their life — you've changed the bacteria.

                    That also reflects on how we study these bacteria. If we're going to study these bacteria, we have to remember that, if we stress the animal before our study or during our study, we better watch where we take our samples or when we take our samples.

Nicole:         It seems like that would be kind of challenging in creating a meal plan for a specific horse, if the microbiome can change so quickly and be so different than the horse that's in the stall next to him. How do you determine feeding rates, what kind of feed, what probiotics to use? What has the research revealed that is working best, I guess, across the board?

William:         I think there's a lot of research on how to feed horses. That has been studied extensively because there is a financial reason to do so, not only for the feed companies but for the owners of the athletes themselves. Nutritionally, that has been researched and that information is definitely available.

                    Now, in the last 10 to 15 years, we've increased the amount of fat we feed horses. The thing to remember is, if you do make changes in the diet, you're going to need to make them gradually. If you make a sudden change to the diet, you're going to have a major impact on the gastrointestinal flora. If you make more of a gradual change to the diet, you're going to give it more time to adapt.

                    To get away from meal-feeding if possible, to extend that period of which we feed our concentrates, the trouble is that the management of that is very difficult. So, part of the way we manage the daily activities of these horses is going to dictate how we feed them.

Nicole:         What are some of the challenges in determining what probiotics you can use?

William:         That's a really good question — and a very important question [that] has not really been addressed in the past: What kind of probiotics should you be looking for? What are the factors that tell you this is a good probiotic? There are three or four very important things. One, and probably one of the most important, is species specificity. That means that, if you're going to use a probiotic for a horse, it should be a bacterium that's from the horse. If you're going to use a probiotic for a dog, it should be from the dog. If you're going to use a probiotic for the human, it should be a bacterium that was cultured from — originated from — a human. So that's what I mean by species specificity.

                    The reason for that is that, if you take a dog bacterium and give it to a horse, most of the probiotics that are of significance lived along the surface of the gastrointestinal tract. The organisms that digest feed live internally in the gastrointestinal tract. The probiotics live along the surface. So, if you're a dog bacterium, you're probably not going to attach to and live on the surface of the gastrointestinal tract — the surface cells of the gastrointestinal tract of the horse. So that's why species specificity is important.

                    Now, that's not always 100-percent true. There is some thought that some of the dog bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract are very similar to human bacteria and may live together very well. The reason is because the dog and the human have evolved together for so long. So, maybe that case is different, but there are probiotics on the market now that are cheese culture bacteria. Why are you giving bacteria that makes cheese to a horse? You need a bacterium from that individual, that's been cultured from that individual and, then, will have the ability to live on the surface and reproduce and grow on the surface of that species.

                    The other thing is that it's very important to give live bacteria. Dead bacteria will have only some benefit.

Nicole:         How can you tell if it's alive or dead?

William:         Well, it should have a guarantee, but oftentimes those guarantees aren't very accurate. But it should have a guarantee of live bacteria at time of use. Then, you want to look at the type of product packaging. If it's a container with a lid, you're very unlikely to have live bacteria. The reason for that is, as soon as you take that lid off, there is going to be exposure to moisture in the air, and bacteria there in probiotics are generally lyophilized or freeze-dried. Those freeze-dried bacteria, when exposed to moisture, will come to life. They're not dead because they've been freeze-dried, but they'll be able to start to reproduce. If they're not in an environment where they can live, they're going to die. They're not from a container. They can't live in the container unless they're lyophilized.

                    A product needs to be an individual dosage product, like a sachel or a packet, or it needs to be in something that is hydrophobic — something that doesn't like water, like an oil base or a paste that's oil-based — or potentially a tablet. Certainly, one of the worst things would be just a container you take a scoop out of. Those bacteria are unlikely to be alive. So, live bacteria are very important.

                    The other thing, besides species specificity and live bacteria, would be numbers. If you see it has a million bacteria per dose, that's not very good. We're probably needing billions of bacteria per dose. Now, if you're giving a sick animal —because probiotics can be very useful for a sick animal with gastrointestinal disease — there are two ways to think about giving probiotics. One is your sick patient, and that's where I got my interest in probiotics — my specialty is in internal medicine. I treat a lot of horses with gastrointestinal disease, enterocolitis — which is a fancy name for diarrhea — and probiotics, to me, are very helpful for treatment and recovery, probably more so for recovery of returning to a normal stool. The other way that probiotics are given is more as a daily.

                    So, you're giving a sick animal a probiotic — you want to give a horse 20 billion to 50 billion. If you're giving a daily, you can get a lower number, but it should still be in the billions, because the idea with a daily is to continually replenish that important bacteria.

Nicole:         If a horse owner is looking at getting into probiotics, can they just get it over-the-counter, or would you recommend them going to their vet?

William:         I think you can do either/or. Honestly, when I was in veterinary school, we learned a lot about bacteria, but we learned about bad bacteria. The good bacteria were those bacteria that were in cows and horses — or ruminant and non-ruminant herbivores — that digested the feed stuffs. We learned about those bacteria, and we learned about the bad bacteria: Salmonella, E. coli, Clostridium, et cetera. But we didn't spend a lot of time learning about the good bacteria and what they actually do and how they do it, which is fascinating, and it’s a more an evolving science.

                    So, as a veterinarian, I can say that a lot of veterinarians don't really have the knowledge about probiotics. Obviously, as a veterinarian, I'm not trying to be critical of veterinarians, but I didn't understand either until I looked into it.

                    I think you can do either/or. You can have conversations with your veterinarian or you can go to where you buy your supplements and ask, but look for things with live bacteria, large numbers and species specificity.

Nicole:         What made you look in this direction? Was it the veterinary feed directive coming into play?

William:         No, and that's a good question. I'll tell you: what got me interested in this was my patients. When I had an active veterinary practice, I worked in a hospital and I had sick horses. We would have our rounds in the morning, and students and interns and residents would ask me, "Well, why are we not using probiotics?" They were coming out of school with more knowledge about probiotics than I had, so they were asking me questions about not using a probiotic. What I'd learned with time is [to] never disagree — some students may know a lot more about some things than you do, so be careful — but I didn't really know until I looked into it. It's because we didn't have good bacteria. The bacteria were dead. At that time, there was a veterinarian in Canada at the University of Guelph who cultured ten of the probiotics that were available, and they all had dead bacteria. A lot of them had bacteria that were from other species or cheese cultures, etc.

                    So that's what started me into it. I was trying to help my patients because, to treat a horse with diarrhea, we were limited. Yes, we can use antibiotics, but we had to be careful because we may even be killing more gastrointestinal bacteria. We used bismuth subsalicylate, which is basically Pepto-Bismol. We used charcoal to try to bind toxins. There's a lot of things we have, but we didn't have something really good to replace the flora of the gastrointestinal tract.

Nicole:         What kind of changes in performance have you witnessed in preventive nutritional plans versus pharmacological treatment?

William:         That's a really good question, because I love that word, “preventative.” If you think about it, as veterinarians, what preventatives do we practice in our backyard horses, in our athletes, in our breeding horses? Vaccinations? That's a preventative. Deworming, treating parasites or preventing parasites — that's a preventative. We've been doing that for years. We haven't really addressed the gastrointestinal tract as far as the flora at all. I think it's potentially an inexpensive way, particularly in young animals or young horses you're raising.

                    There's been some work done in humans that has shown how important that certain bacteria are to the development of the immune system. One of the bacteria that I'm most interested is called Lactobacillus reuteri, and this bacterium is critical to the development of an infant's immune system — not only in the horse, dog or the cow, but to humans. If you think about it, what have we done in human medicine in raising a newborn that has changed their flora the most? Where does the infant get its flora?

Nicole:         Its mother.

William:         Its mother, correct. It gets it from passage through the birth canal and from feeding. So, what have we done? We feed a lot of milk replacer — or, as it’s called for humans, infant formula. We do a lot of cesarian sections in humans, so they don't get their flora. The flora is critical. There have been studies that have shown that adding Lactobacillus reuteri back to some of these infant formulas has produced a healthier child. Studies have been done in mice and other species with Lactobacillus reuteri to show how some of these effects occur and develop the immune system.

Nicole:         What would you say is the current owner or industry perception of probiotics, and how do you see it evolving?

William:         I think it's a matter of education. I really do. I think that we see a lot of human probiotics being advertised on television, so people have the knowledge of a probiotic, but I don't think they have the knowledge of the importance of species specificity, the importance of live bacteria, et cetera. I think those are the things that people don't understand — not that they should, because they just haven't been told. They're not exposed to that information. But I think the perception and use of probiotics is going to expand when we see what it can do.

Nicole:         Dr. William Bernard is an equestrian veterinarian in Lexington, Kentucky. Thank you so much.

William:         Thank you.

I want to learn more about improving horse health and performance! 

The following is an edited transcript of Tom Martin's interview with Ruben Groot. Click below to hear the full audio:

Tom:              We're talking with Ruben Groot, aquafeed nutritionist at Alltech Coppens, where he not only oversees feed quality but also engages in research and development at the Alltech Coppens Aqua Centre. Thank you for being with us, Ruben.

Ruben:           Thank you, Tom.

Tom:              As the aquafeed nutritionist at Alltech Coppens, you are responsible for maintaining the quality of almost 200 different feed recipes. Is that variety species-specific, and can you tell us about the work?

Ruben:           Indeed, we have a very high number of recipes. They’re not only species-specific, they’re also system-specific. We produce for roughly ten different fish species. The most dominant are trout, sturgeon, catfish and some other species, such as sea bass and sea bream.

                        So, we have feeds for different species, but we also have feeds for different systems. Trout, as an example, are grown in recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS). And, for all these different systems, we also have different feeds.

                        In addition to industrial feeds, we have quite a large range of hobby feeds — for angling, for hobby, for ponds, for aquaria. It's a high variety of products that we have.

Tom:              To stay on top of quality and maintenance, do you have to constantly sample and test?

Ruben:           That's very important for maintaining the high quality that we require for the feeds. We actually test quality at all the different points in our factory. When the newer raw materials are coming in, they will first be tested. We’re looking at physical properties — does it look good? Is the smell okay? We even have a new infrared device, which allows us to measure protein, fat, ash and phosphorus within seconds. That really helps with maintaining the quality.

                        We also test further down the line. Raw material is the first point, and then, of course, also, the quality control of the end products is very important. So, we look at physical parameters — again, is the quality of the pellet okay? Is it hard enough? Is the shape all right? Is it too big or too small? And, again, we look at the protein and fat levels, among others. There is a lot of quality control going on in the factory.

Tom:              For those not engaged in aquaculture, could you explain why fish meal and fish oil are not an endless resource?

Ruben:           Fish meal and fish oil are generated from wild-caught fish. The supply of fish meal and fish oil cannot increase any more, but aquaculture is increasing very fast. There is a limited supply of marine resources. We now need some substitution of fish meal and fish oil.

Tom:              Is it possible to produce a high-quality product without those ingredients?

Ruben:           Definitely, yes. For the last eight years, we have been developing Neo Green trout feed, which is a completely fish meal- and fish oil-free diet for trout. Trout is a carnivorous fish species. This is a very difficult fish to create a fish meal- and fish oil-free diet for, but we have been able to successfully replace the fish meal and the fish oil while maintaining a high-performance feed.  

Tom:              I mentioned before that you are the aquafeed nutritionist at Alltech Coppens. Can you tell us a bit more about that role and what you do at Alltech Coppens?

Ruben:           My main responsibilities are, of course, maintaining the quality of the feed formulation itself. I also work intensively with different departments in our company. For example, with the purchasing of raw materials, I need to be aware what kinds of changes are happening in the market, so I can adjust the formulations based on that. Of course, the bases of the price are the recipes, but you can imagine that fish feed production is also very dependent on the formulation that's used. There is a lot of communication between nutrition and production so we can ensure high-quality of the feeds in the entire process.

Tom:              Can you talk about the research that's going on at the Alltech Coppens Aqua Centre? Is there a proprietary issue there, or are there things that you can talk about?

Ruben:           As a nutritionist, I'm also part of the research and development (R&D) group at Alltech Coppens. It illustrates the strong link we have between research and nutrition. Almost everything that we do in R&D can be directly translated into the feed formulation. Some examples of that are testing of new raw materials we can use into feeds formulation, and researching the effect additives, for example.

Tom:              What are some new ideas in feed development that are helping aquafarmers convert to a zero-fish-in and zero-fish-out process?

Ruben:           The main development is looking beyond replacing fish meal by plant protein sources. In our case, we use some animal byproducts to replace the fish meal. But some new developments are, for example, insect meal, which is a very promising new animal protein source. I have also had a lot of contact with a producer that is working on bacterial protein. It is also quite an interesting new raw material that could be used to replace fish meal.

Tom:              Is there an insect or are there insects that show particular promise?

Ruben:           At the moment, there is a lot of work going on in black soldier fly larvae. They mainly use the larvae because the larvae do not have an exoskeleton yet. The protein content in that is still very low, and fish have some difficulties utilizing the protein. The black soldier fly larvae are, however, one of the more interesting species.

Tom:              When you're developing feeds, do environmental impact considerations come into play?

Ruben:           Yes, of course. If I just take one example, of phosphorus: phosphorus is a mineral that is required for the normal growth of fish, but [if] phosphorus levels are too high, the fish will not be able to utilize it to the full extent. Some of that excess will go back into the environment. It's about finding a balance. A little is not good, but too much is also not good.

Tom:              Alltech Coppens is known for its ability to develop feeds for eels, which I understand is quite challenging. What makes the formulation or production of eel feeds more difficult, and how has Alltech Coppens overcome that?

Ruben:           The eel is a very picky eater; it will react to the smallest changes in quality. So, for example, we have made contracts with one fish meal supplier to always give us a constant batch of fish meal for those feeds. From the raw material side, we know we always have a constant supply of raw materials.

                        In addition to that, we also focus on maintaining the quality of the pellets that we're using. When we make eel feeds, we make high volumes. Then, we can make one batch that has the same quality — that helps us a lot.

Tom:              What recent innovations in aquaculture have captured your imagination and your interest?

Ruben:           Regarding raw materials, for example, the bacterial protein is, I think, very interesting, but I already talked a little bit about that. Another thing that has really caught my interest is net energy formulation. This is still a fairly new concept in aquaculture. It has been around for a lot of years in pig and poultry nutrition, but it shows a lot of promise in aquaculture as well.

Tom:              Ruben, what do you enjoy most about what you do?

Ruben:           The thing I enjoy in aquaculture is that there is still so much to do. There is still so much to discover, so much to improve. There are so many different fish species you can work on. It's really the difference in the work — no one week is the same. It's always different. It's —

Tom:              Never a dull moment.

Ruben:           Never a dull moment.

Tom:              Ruben Groot, aquafeed nutritionist at Alltech Coppens. Thank you so much for being with us.

Ruben:           Thank you as well, Tom.

I want more information on high-performing fish feed!

The following is an edited transcript of Tom Martin's interview with John Power. Click below to hear the full interview:

Tom:            Digital innovations are being harnessed to address growing global demand for food and agriculture's diminishing labor force. Joining us for a look at how technology is transforming agriculture is John Power, president of LSC International, Inc., a Chicago-based firm advising corporate and financial participants in the global agri-food chain. Thanks for being with us, John.

John:            Thank you.

Tom:            How important to the future of farming are advanced technologies such as automation and artificial intelligence?

John:            This is essentially a new era of agriculture. It's comparable to mechanization and chemical use in agriculture. It's basically the next new wave.

Tom:            Historically, agriculture has been an industry that was subject to a lot of innovation and technological maturation over the years, hasn't it?

John:            Yes. Agriculture has definitely been on the leading edge of innovation. Really, it goes back 10,000 years to the original farmers, who selected different varieties and made different seeds and saved superior seeds.

Tom:            To bring this up for the here-and-now, how are advances in autonomous technology, machine learning and data analytics changing the way farmers farm?

John:            These technologies have just been introduced, and so, we're at the early phases of the change. The most adopted technology is auto-steer, which is the GPS system that essentially guides the tractor. The farmer is in the cab but, in fact, it's more like his office, because the farmer is most likely going to be on the phone or on his iPad. Essentially, it enables the farmer to accomplish a lot more. That's the most adopted [technology].

                    On the data side, we are seeing a lot of new technologies, and these are being adopted. For example, an interesting technology is aerial image technology, and that's being introduced now and would be very effective.

Tom:            Is digital farming proving to be economical and scalable?

John:            We're still at the innovator stage. Our studies would indicate that the innovators are finding it economical. However, there are significant challenges, because this is not the easiest technology to adopt. A key issue is how it can be made as user-friendly as possible.

Tom:            There has been this explosion of new technologies and insights all across the cultivation cycle, and there are predictions of huge growth within the next five years in intelligent agricultural technologies. What existing digital innovations currently make your short list, if you will, as the most significant and impactful [for] farming?

John:            I’d just like to start by saying that it's well worth remembering the quote from Bill Gates in talking about technology and technology adoption. Basically, Gates says that we always overestimate what will be accomplished in two years and underestimate what will be accomplished in ten years. There's an additional factor in agriculture, which is the seasonality.

                    You really have only one cycle per year, and that is very different from most other areas of technology, where you have many cycles per year. In terms of the technologies that we see that are most interesting, it's around the analytics of the data and being able to deliver to the farmer data so that the farmer can take action. That's really where the cutting edge is.

Tom:            The analysis of that data is still quite a challenge, correct?

John:            Well, actually, there's a challenge before that, which is the quality of the data. One of the biggest challenges is having quality data. That's the first step. Then, if you have quality data, the analytics actually can be handled using artificial intelligence — machine learning and technologies like that. On the analytics side, that's been automated.

Tom:            An interesting term that has come up around here that's a little bit controversial among farmers is “armchair farming” — the idea that we might arrive there someday. Even those going into farming in the future may come out of other disciplines in terms of their higher education.

John:            Well, actually, yesterday, when I presented at [ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference], I did use the video from John Deere, which basically presents what you might call “armchair farming.” I prefer the term “mission control.” Basically, it's putting the farmer in a position where the farmer can see what is happening across the farm and [can] then make decisions and implement actions. This can actually be done at the farmer's house or in the cab. But I think, in the future, we will have, essentially, “mission control” for farming.

Tom:            Which farm equipment brands are your ones to watch for cutting-edge innovation?

John:            Well, I think all of the leading companies are making very significant efforts in this area. The thing that I would most look out for are the startup companies — they are in a position where they can move more quickly. There’s an aerial analytics company called IntelinAir. They are doing amazing analytics with the aerial imagery, for example.

                    Another company that is getting a lot of attention in the retail space is Farmer's Business Network (FBN). They're really innovating how business is done — it's more like a business model innovation than a technology innovation.

Tom:            What ag-tech challenges need to be addressed and overcome?

John:            The principal challenge that we've identified — and this is work that we did over the last several years — is how to show the value to the farmer. Basically, what we have is many technologies, and they're all being presented to the farmer at basically the same time. It's very difficult for the farmer to determine which really has value. The most important question is the value question. Everybody, of course, says they will increase yields and reduce cost, but we also feel that time is a huge factor.

                    If it makes the farmer's activity and life more complicated and basically demands more time, that's not a positive. You want to be able to deliver so the farmer has more effective use of their time, which is actually their most critical resource.    

                    The other element is quality of life. Basically, what we see is — for example, going back to autosteer, that means that the farmer can come home in the evening and the farmer is not completely exhausted. That, basically, it's like being at the office for the day, rather than driving the tractor and all the hard work associated with that before the automation.

Tom:            They say that technology often leads regulation. Do you see the emergence of new regulatory policy relating to precision agriculture?

John:            Well, the area that might be applicable to regulation is in relation to the data — essentially, issues around privacy ownership of data. At this stage, it's essentially a voluntary system. Many companies have adopted positions in agreement with the farmer organizations on how to approach the issues of data ownership and privacy. I don't think there's so much discussion. A few years ago, there was a lot of discussion about this; now, it seems to be less of a point of discussion.

Tom:            There has been a steady decline in available farm labor in the U.S. and other countries, and some farmers are looking to robotics and even artificial intelligence to adapt and to fill the void. How far along are technologies in replacing human labor?

John:            We’re really seeing equipment being developed and changes in how the crop is grown that will facilitate automation. Certainly, there will be a lot more automation. This has significant impacts because it really means you will have a different type of labor on the farm. Many of the physical tasks will be automated, but then there are going to have to be people on the farm who can manage the equipment and support the equipment.

Tom:            I've read that what's needed first and foremost is an integrated digital platform — a digital ecosystem that automates and pulls in and makes sense of massive amounts of data and does a lot of what you're talking about. Are you aware of anything coming close to this?

John:            Well, actually, it’s interesting because this is a key issue, as I see it. Basically, there will be a platform in agriculture — my work is mostly on the crop side; I haven't done that much work on the animal side — but right now, essentially, Climate Corporation — the Monsanto Company — and John Deere are the two emerging platforms. Essentially, farmers need a platform, and ultimately, one or two of these platforms will dominate.

Tom:            This is a holistic software, or whatever, that brings it all together.

John:            This would be a platform that is basically like a Bloomberg Terminal, in a sense. For the trader, they basically work off the Bloomberg Terminal. Conceptually, farmers would have the equivalent of a Bloomberg Terminal, so they don't need to go from one place to another; everything will be presented to them on the single platform.

Tom:            Do you think that the startups that you've mentioned and others that are developing these technologies need to be thinking in those terms, about how their product was going to integrate with that platform?

John:            Yeah. The platforms actually are integrating through APIs, the startups. There are different approaches on that, but basically, they want to get the startups on their platforms.

Tom:            True. True. Which key market trends do you follow most, do you keep your eye on? What are they indicating for the future of farming?

John:            Well, I think that the major trends in farming are around the commodity prices. Given the current level of prices, it's difficult. That's one. Then another major trend is consolidation at all levels. I think that these technologies are likely to support this in two directions. One is what we might call the “large-scale farming operations.” These will grow bigger. But we'll also see smaller, highly-focused operations serving local markets, and that will be facilitated by the digital technologies also. That'd be two different things, but both areas will benefit.

Tom:            John Power, president of LSC International of Chicago. Thank you for being with us.

John:            Thank you.

John Power presented at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE18). The conference returns May, 2019, to continue the exploration of meaningful ideas that change our lives and the world around us. Learn more here. 

The following is an edited transcript of Nicole Erwin's interview with Patrick Walsh, founder of Dogpatch Labs. Click below to hear the full interview:

Nicole:           From working with the top new ag-tech startups from around the world to creating internal startups to rapidly advance new ideas, Alltech has sought new ways to innovate that speaks to its entrepreneurial roots. I'm talking with Patrick Walsh, founder and managing director of Dogpatch Labs, a leading startup hub in Dublin, Ireland. Patrick, thanks for joining us.

Patrick:           It's great to be here.

Nicole:           Before we get too far along, can you describe the development of Dogpatch Labs?

Patrick:           Sure. I sort of came from a startup background and I would see these great hubs in places like Silicon Valley. It struck me that we didn't have a big central- connecting physical space in Dublin. I thought that was a good problem to go about solving. I started walking around warehouses in Dublin and thinking what the right space would be. Eventually, we found this beautiful historic building right in the center of Dublin Docklands.

                        We started small; I think we just had 30 people sitting at desks in our first month. But over the last four years, that has evolved rapidly. Now, we’ve tripled in size. We have now 450 people on three floors. But it's not just us in chairs now — we do events and programs and incubators and accelerators. It's really expanded out from there.

Nicole:           Does “Dogpatch” mean something?

Patrick:           Well, it's a long story. It's an area in San Francisco where the idea was originally conceived. I guess the spirit — the entrepreneurial spirit of that area — was something that captured our imagination.

Nicole:           Dogpatch Labs is working to deliver The Pearse Lyons Accelerator. Can you share how you and [Alltech founder] Dr. [Pearse] Lyons decided to create this incredible opportunity here?

Patrick:           Dr. Lyons was such an incredible entrepreneur; he was one of the great Irish entrepreneurs, and entrepreneurs globally. For someone such as myself that runs an entrepreneurial hub, it was incredible opportunity to potentially work with Alltech when the opportunity first presented itself. I think he was an individual that was always interested in the next way of innovation for the industry. What you've seen over recent years is ag-tech is really starting to take shape. Agriculture is the least digitized sector in the world.

Nicole:           Really?

Patrick:           It's an incredible statistic. Last year, ag-tech was the second-fastest-growing sub-sector in all of technology; the venture capital dollars are just flowing in. Increasingly, farmers are starting to adopt technology. I think this is something they — Dr. Lyons, along with [chief innovation officer at Alltech] Aidan Connolly — were starting to see and made the decision that they wanted to really be at the forefront of that, to get some insight into that, and to start to partner and work with some of the most interesting startups from around the world. That was where the idea for the accelerator originated.

Nicole:           How do Dogpatch Labs and The Pearse Lyons Accelerator create realities for those who want to take advantage of the opportunity that an accelerator can provide?

Patrick:           Agriculture is a tough industry to break into if you're a small startup company. You’ve got to partner with big companies or find farms. It can be a highly fragmented industry to access. Finding a route to market is a huge challenge. I think that's one of the central reasons why we decided to position this accelerator as a business development-focused accelerator — especially for slightly later-stage companies that had proven something, maybe, in their home market and that were looking to scale internationally.

                        One of the things is that Alltech is a very international company now — it has quite a decent presence in, I think, well over 150 countries across the world. There are many different accelerators out there for ag-tech entrepreneurs to choose from. Some of them are great if you just have an idea and you're trying to get to the first version of your product. This one is for a later-stage company who's really interested in scaling up.

                        I think that's where we position the accelerator; that's where the value has been extracted from the companies that went through the first year. We saw some incredible results from that. Collectively, I think we saw startups get $50 million in qualified new sales leads across 28 new markets in that first year. That really speaks to the value that some of these companies got out of it.

Nicole:           I lived in Australia for a few years, and Americans were often perceived as a bit of aggressive, very forward and to-the-point, where many of us would point out individual strengths. They would kind of view it as this “tall poppy syndrome,” which meant that you would be cut down. How do entrepreneurial personalities differ in Ireland, in the U.S. and other groups that come to you?

Patrick:           Well, someone said earlier today, “When you've met one entrepreneur, you've met just one entrepreneur, because every entrepreneur is different, and those personalities take very different forms.” The thing is, through this accelerator now, we've worked with entrepreneurs from, I think, over ten different countries — which is obviously a huge ag-tech hub — to China to Canada to Ireland and London. It's interesting, because people do have very different personality types.

                        But, at the same time, I think what we found in the groups of entrepreneurs is a lot of common ground. I think it's been great to see how those different personalities have come together to support each other and to help each other understand — how does someone from China sell to Americans, for example? I think that's one of the big value-adds of having a global accelerator with a global group of people: they help each other understand those different cultural norms as they sell into very different industry types across the world.

Nicole:           What were some of the challenges of building a startup ecosystem? What elements need to be in place? Does it take a visionary to lead it? What else?

Patrick:           I think there are several different elements that need to come together. I think one of the key things that we've started to understand in Ireland is you really need to have a coordinated and connected effort; you can't just have a lot of different elements operating by themselves if you really want to create a synergistic ecosystem. We were talking about this earlier today with some of the folks from Kentucky [who are interested in creating a startup environment].

                        What I said was that what I would much rather see Kentucky do is, rather than a hundred small things, do three initiatives that are real lightning rods to kick-start an ecosystem. One initiative is a conference that pulls together the industry and pulls together investors in ag-tech companies. Obviously, you've seen examples of that in Ireland with the Web Summit, which has moved beyond Ireland and now has European cities bidding to come to it. But you have a great conference here in ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference that could be built and evolved upon. It's already a coming-together of industry.

                        I think you also need to have a global accelerator. I think we’ve started that and we continue to evolve it and, maybe, bringing other people in. I think another important part of an ecosystem — and why I was very passionate about starting Dogpatch — is I think you need a physical hub as well. A lot of the time, you just need that mental anchor point — that epicenter of an ecosystem — so that, if people get off a plane and think, "Well, where would I start?" or they get out of college and they say, "Well, where would I go?” you have this physical space, as well. Those can be real catalysts.

                        Then, you need all the other elements to come in to play as well: strong connections at the universities — and investors need sort of a coordinated story to think about if they're going to come to an ecosystem. You're talking about a lot of different elements coming together. Certainly, what we do in Ireland is we sit around the table with various members of the ecosystem, whether they are the big multinationals like Google — who's a big partner of us and who really supports the ecosystem — but also with government as well.

Nicole:           The Pearse Lyons Incubator was also launched to focus on entrepreneurship with the hope to enable Alltech staff to rapidly advanced new ideas. How is this different than, say, going up to your boss and just pitching an idea?

Patrick:           Well, that's a good question. I think this was something that Dr. Lyons was very passionate about. He said he was delighted to be supporting entrepreneurs all around the world, and that was an important part of external innovation for Alltech and bringing about innovation with our partners as well. But he also wanted to give his staff the opportunity to adopt a startup mindset — to have the opportunity to play by different rules, have some training and mentorship around advancing an idea forward in the same way that we've been doing in the accelerator. That's something that I think the people at Alltech have responded well to.

                        To answer your question specifically, the difference is that, often, when you pitch your boss, first of all, you might not be sure about how to best craft that proposition to create something that is an investor-ready deck. Also, your boss might not be empowered to fund that development or to enable you to go ahead and work on it. What you end up needing is some sort of a defined entrepreneurial function within a large organization — especially as it gets bigger and bigger. I think this is something that Dr. Lyons was talking about a lot in the last few years.

                        I know [Alltech president and CEO] Mark Lyons is very passionate about it. If you're a small company, you're entrepreneurial by your very nature. You don't need to do anything, and things just start to happen. But, as you start to get bigger, like Alltech has done in the last few years, you need a bit more of a purposeful effort — a defined function to advance new ideas. I think that was a lot of the thinking behind the incubator. We wanted to empower our staff so they can advance new ideas, because they're the people that are talking to our customers. We want to do it in a different way and we want to have a defined way of doing it.

Nicole:           Can you tell me about some of the successful presentations that have been pitched?

Patrick:           Well, I don't like to have favorites, because we work so closely with them all. I think what you saw this year is a great range, from beef to dairy to human nutrition to insect proteins, et cetera. I think the whole area of CRISPR is particularly interesting. I'm very struck by it. I think that is an area that will continue to have a massive impact. I think we're just at the start of that. The FDA has just said that they're not going to regulate gene-edited crops. It'll move to animals next.

                        You saw an example of the potential of that to save the industry, not only to save a lot of money, but also to have a massive sustainable impact. With the eggXYt presentation — the Israeli company — and then, for CRISPR, after animals, there are human implications. I'm just fascinated personally on that particular technology and how that's going to play out and disrupt the agriculture industry over the next few years.

Nicole:           Dr. Lyons recently passed away, but he was incredibly progressive and constantly pushing limits. Do you feel like these accelerator projects embody the spirit of Dr. Lyons in some way?

Patrick:           I think that's something that Mark said. The accelerator bears his name. I think it really was something that he was quite passionate about. There are so many stories of Dr. Lyons helping other people in a charitable way — helping other people in terms of supporting them as entrepreneurs all throughout the years. It’s great that we had the opportunity to start this when he was here. He was such an incredible inspiration to so many different people, and he is an incredible inspiration for the next generation of entrepreneurs. It’s great that we've managed to do these programs. I do think it embodies his entrepreneurial spirit.

Nicole:           Patrick Walsh is the founder and managing director of Dogpatch Labs, Ireland's leading startup hub. Thank you so much.

Patrick:           Thanks.

Do you have the next big idea in ag-tech? The Pearse Lyons Accelerator is taking applications for the next cohort of innovators.

Learn more here.

The following is an edited transcript of Nicole Erwin's interview with Dr. Philip Lyons. Click below to hear the full audio:

Nicole:         When it comes to fillet quality, consumers want to ensure they're spending their money on a premium product. Dr. Philip Lyons is a research scientist at Alltech Coppens. He joins us to discuss the advancement of innovative aquafeed solutions that improve fish health and performance. Thanks for being here.

Philip:           Thank you very much. It's great to be here.

Nicole:         Dr. Lyons, before we get into the science of what makes a first-rate fish fillet, it's my understanding that, since you were very young, you have had a fascination for aquatics. Would you have ever imagined that your connection as an adult would be so direct and through fish nutrition?

Philip:           I think so. As a young boy, I was always very interested in fishing — all things outdoors and to do with fishing. I grew up in the west of Ireland where we did a lot of trout fishing. That was really where I kind of got my interest and my passion for fishing. Then, as you go through college, you have to figure out how to do that as a profession. Aquaculture really represented an opportunity for me to directly work with fish whilst also trying to make a difference in terms of sustainable feed solutions and these things. I think I'm really very fortunate and privileged that I'm able to do something I love every day with Alltech Coppens.

Nicole:         What is it like developing quality fish food? And if we say “quality,” that means there have to be some not-so-good varieties out there. What's the worst thing that you've seen fish being fed?

Philip:           Oh, good question. Well, in some areas of the aquaculture industry, they feed wet fish to fish — for some of the big carnivorous species like yellowtail. I think that's just so environmentally unfriendly and not sustainable at all. You are really damaging the food chain in those environments by feeding those. It makes absolutely no sense to feed such a huge volume of wet fish directly to large carnivorous species.

                    I think that's something that needs to be refined, and it really shows how young the aquaculture industry is when those practices are going on. But I think we've learned a huge amount from that, and you've seen how fish meal inclusion in aquafeeds is coming down and we're searching for alternatives. I think we're learning a lot, even though it's a young industry, and those practices are now kind of things of the past — or are becoming things of the past.

Nicole:         Speaking of some of the alternatives, what are some fish feed formulations that you're working on right now?

Philip:           We're looking at a lot of different alternatives, like everybody is — we've seen innovations in insect meal production for pet feed, for animal feed in general — but obviously also for fish food. I think that has a lot of potential given that, if you consider a trout growing up in a wild freshwater environment, its main dietary source is often insects. I think it makes a lot of sense that, instead of feeding so much fish to fish, we can actually substitute some of that fish with alternative protein sources like insect meal. That's an area we're really interested in. We will do some research on it and we already have done it in other species like catfish, et cetera. So that's one.

                    I think bacterial meal also has potential as an alternative protein source. There are various other alternatives to fish meal, but there are challenges associated with those in terms of the palatability of raw materials. The cost of production is still quite prohibitive for some of those technologies. When that begins to become competitive with fish meal, then I really do think that those raw materials will be widespread in aquafeeds.

Nicole:         We talked to the company yesterday that is taking fly larva. They're feeding off of spent grains and other food wastes and then turning it into a pellet, but that still seems fairly new. So how accessible is something like that now?

Philip:           If we were to put it into aquafeeds right now, I think there are still some challenges when it comes to fish performance because the amino acid profile has to meet the requirements of the fish. That's one thing. In terms of accessibility of the raw material, I think the companies now that are making these types of meals are only starting, and they're making very small volumes — so, really, test volumes that we can use in a select number of feeds or for research and development purposes. In short, they're not so accessible, but the industry is ready to test them and to look for alternatives to fish meal. We're ready to accept them, but the volume is not quite there at the moment.

Nicole:         What are some of the most sought-after fish fillets, and what kind of food does it take for them to obtain that kind of premium product stamp of approval?

Philip:           When it comes to salmon and trout, the coloration of fish fillets is usually one of the biggest things. That coloration in the wild comes from salmon and trout eating crustaceans that naturally synthesize the carotenoids like astaxanthin that then get directed to the flesh. But in farmed fish, we don't include a huge amount of those raw materials in feed, so we have to add the astaxanthin in. That has some advantages and disadvantages. Some people use a synthetic carotenoid or synthetic astaxanthin, and then there's a natural form, but the synthetic form is often more stable than the natural form. That being said, there's a demand again in the industry to adopt natural solutions, and it's certainly the direction we want to go in — into natural forms of that astaxanthin that we can include into the feed that will give that lovely red color.

                    Other parameters, then, for fillet quality would obviously be: the fish has to taste very, very nice, so the raw materials that go in have to be optimal. Fillet gaping — the actual structure of the fillet and the muscle strength — has to be good, has to be fresh, has to be firm, and the collagen structure of the flesh has to be good. So, yeah, all of those things combine how we would judge whether a fillet is of optimal quality for us.

Nicole:         You touched on this a little bit earlier: some fish meal labels include ingredients like cornmeal, fish meal, fish oil, poultry meal, poultry fat and grapeseed oil, among a number of other things. What percentage of the industry would you say are still using these ingredients?

Philip:           Still quite a large percent. I don't know how to put a number on it, but it depends on the countries as well. So, whether it's in Norway, whether it's in Europe, whether we're talking about aquaculture in Asia, et cetera, the raw materials are vastly different. In some markets — for instance, in Africa — they use a lot of locally-produced raw materials, and they can't get access to the quality raw materials that we use in aquafeeds in Europe, for instance. So, they're being used in a lot of markets still, but I think you're seeing that usage declining as aquafeed formulation is evolving so quickly because of the environmental challenges we're facing. Yeah, I think it's becoming less and less.

Nicole:         When you said that they lack access to the quality ingredients, is it due to financial access? What is it?

Philip:           Yes, and importation, I think, of certain raw materials — for instance, land animal proteins. There are restrictions, obviously, on importing those raw materials. It's a combination of both. If you can produce aquafeed locally in those markets, then, obviously, it gives you a very big edge and an ability to distribute your feed very efficiently to farmers, and they're readily willing to test it and to try it.

Nicole:         Getting it right every time and doing it sustainably — does that require a bit of an innovative approach? Are you looking at gene editing? Is it more nutrition? Is it holistic?

Philip:           At the research center where I work, at the Alltech Coppens Aqua Center in the Netherlands, we have a very applied research focus. The goals of the research are to make informed feed formulation and raw material purchasing decisions whilst also optimizing the health of the fish and making sure that the feeds we use are healthy for the fish feeds.

                    But in terms of the innovation side, we have, for instance, on the gut health side, a very big multi-partner project including Nofima, Marine Harvest, University of Glasgow, and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) in the U.K. It's a huge multi-partner project with the sole goal to understand the structure and the function of the intestinal microbes within salmon. That area has been very widely covered in other species and in other areas of terrestrial agriculture, but in fish, we're still really lacking, so we've initiated this project. It's a Ph.D. project to understand the structure and the function of intestinal microbes and their sort of functional contribution to fish nutrition, and we're making big strides with that. It's only just over a year into the project now, and some of the work that's coming out of that is really like a new frontier, I would say, in fish nutrition — and it's bringing that area up to the same level as what we know about intestinal microbes and the health of dairy cattle and even humans. So that's one of the big innovations that we're working on right now.

Nicole:         Your eyes kind of lit up, actually, when you started talking about it.

Philip:           It's a really nice project.

Nicole:         So, are you looking at using probiotics? Or what kind of things are you seeing?

Philip:           Well, I think before we can start thinking about probiotics in fish feed — there's been a lot of work on probiotics and prebiotics in fish feed, and a lot of work that we've done with Bio-Mos® has really shown very nice results in terms of gut structure and gut health.

                    But I think, when it comes to the intestinal microbiome, we need to know what the actual structure looks like in a normal fish before we can start thinking about how we make new applications to target the functional potential of those bacteria. At the moment, we have characterized what the microbiome looks like, and now we're thinking about what feed additives to modulate that microbiome in order to harvest kind of that main functional potential that gives the best benefit to fish health and fish nutrition — whether that's breaking down different raw materials, whether that's providing short-chain fatty acids that we know help the intestinal cells of fish, thereby enhancing growth. But until we get that baseline data, then we can start thinking about application. But it's something that the industry as a whole has very little knowledge on, but I would say we're really at the forefront with this project.

Nicole:         Wild-caught fish are still considered premium. Why would you say that this message is still prevalent: that farm fish aren't as nutritional as a wild version? And is it kind of part of your mission to change that?

Philip:           Yeah, I think it's a complex one because I think the media has really put out some myths about farmed fish — about how they're produced. The overall welfare of farmed fish is another big area that's misunderstood by the public. I would say that a lot of that responsibility does kind of fall with the media and reporting incorrect facts about fish farming. I think, when you compare fish farming with other areas of agriculture, it's hugely sustainable. We have all the space in the world to do it. It has minimal environmental impact. We have hundreds, if not thousands, of fish species that we could farm sustainably, and we've only just concentrated on a few. So, it's really at the very beginning. It's really exciting that we have such potential at our fingertips for aquaculture.

                    I think the negative spin that has been put on it is really just a misunderstanding based on how things are reported about how aquaculture is conducted. If you go to a fish farm and you see how the fish are treated and you see how much the farmers care about the fish and you actually see how little environmental impact it causes, then I think that can change perceptions. So, it's really a perception thing, and we need to get the message out there that farmed fish are healthy and are perfect sources of omega-3 for human nutrition.

Nicole:         I think a lot of that also comes down to what fish are being fed. It goes back to that old adage, “You are what you eat.”

Philip:           Of course. What we're feeding our farmed fish, in many cases — such as with the algae that we produce here and the fish meal replacers that we're using — these types of things are highly sustainable, so I don't see the problem. If you eat a fish from the wild, that fish has also eaten fish, so it's a bit of a vicious circle in that way. But, like I say, if you go to a fish farm and you see how well the fish are treated and how much space they have in terms of the welfare in comparison to some poultry farms and things, it is one of the most responsibly conducted forms, I think, of food production.

Nicole:         What percentage of fish in, let's say, five years do you anticipate will wind up on someone's plate that will have been farmed?

Philip:           I think a couple of years ago, farm fish began to overtake wild catch. If it keeps stagnating the way it's going with wild catch, you're going to see, it's going to climb up 60 percent, 70 percent, 80 percent. At the moment, I think all prawns and shrimp that end up on people's plates are pretty much farmed, and they come from southeast Asia and south America. I think, the more species we learn about — there are so many developing species in aquaculture that could be farmed even more efficiently than salmon and bass and trout, et cetera. So that percentage is only going to climb because we have such potential there to research other species.

Nicole:         What are some of the more successful breeds of fish that you're seeing?

Philip:           Well, in Greece, there's a species called meagre, which is growing. In Greece and Turkey, traditionally, they have grown sea bass and Sea Bream, which are very tasty, very efficient fish. But in terms of aquaculture, the production cycle is quite long. I think some species like meagre may have the potential to be produced more quickly.

                    There are several strains of tilapia that can have a six-month timeframe to harvest — so that's extremely efficient. Farming very low on the food chain, the feed inputs are very environmentally sustainable. Cobia in Panama, I'd say, is another developing species. They're a carnivorous species, but they're farmed quite far offshore, with high omega-3 content in the fillets, and have a lot of potential for growth. Striped bass, I suppose, in America is another species that has a lot of potential. They would be some of the emerging ones that we've seen, certainly, around the world in the last few years.

Nicole:         And you were talking about how you think a large percentage of all the shrimp that ends up on the plate is farmed. How quickly is the aquaculture business moving along, and how competitive is it?

Philip:           It's quite competitive in that we have quite a small number of big players in terms of aquaculture feed. So, they control a lot of the market, let's say, so that there's three or four, mainly, of those. And then there's kind of a stock of sort of medium-range players in the market who are specialized in different particular species. It's very competitive, particularly in Norway, where they have had an established salmon industry for many, many years now. That's a difficult market to get into, but it's growing so fast that the opportunities are there to easily get into those markets. Especially within Alltech with Coppens, the flexibility we have to move into different markets and to make different feeds, and because we make feeds for so many different species, we have that potential.

                    How fast is it growing? I think the growth stagnated a little bit last year, according to the feed survey that Alltech conducts every year. I think we saw a little bit of stagnation in the aqua side. But it can only grow. It has to grow, because the world needs protein and, in my opinion, aqua is the most sustainable way to do that. It's only a matter of time before that growth picks up again and continues on.

Nicole:         Any idea why it's stagnated a bit?

Philip:           That's a good question. Yeah, I'm not really sure exactly why we saw this kind of stop or this stagnation. But, yeah, it could be markets contracting or something like that in some areas, and feed is not being produced in as much quantity. I think also there have been problems with sea lice and mortality in Norway. That also has maybe played a little bit of a role, and it's becoming an increasing problem. They're really still trying to figure out the best way to tackle that huge issue. Disease also plays a role more widely. White spot virus in shrimp and early mortality syndrome in shrimp has also played a role. So, yeah, I think diseases also played a part. That's one possibility.

Nicole:         Well, lastly, how do you feel that public demands for traceability will affect this industry in the future?

Philip:           I think it will. I think if you look at, for instance, supermarkets now, they will demand a product that's produced in a certain way. For instance, the issue of including land animal proteins is still controversial in some markets. I think you're seeing a more demanding consumer nowadays, especially when it comes to fish, because of the perceptions that are right there in the media, so it's going to become more and more important. But we see applications that are online now where, whether it's a wild caught fish or a farm fish, you can actually track where that fish was produced, what it was fed, et cetera. Traceability is going to become more and more important, I would say.

Nicole:         I'm really interested in the algae aspect. When consumers hear that the fish are being fed algae and some of this new insect technology, what kind of response are you getting?

Philip:           Really positive. With algae, we can completely replace fish oil with the algae meal and maintain the same amount of omega-3 left in the fillet. If you're providing such a sustainable product and you're eliminating fish oil from the diet and the consumer is getting the same  benefit, then yeah, it's so, so positive for the industry. We also have a fish meal-, fish oil-free trout feed on the market. It's the only one on the market now. So, we're getting a lot of very good responses from our customers and from consumers about that. People, like I say, are more open minded these days about how their fish are produced, so it can only be a positive.

Nicole:         I'm talking with Dr. Philip Lyons, a research scientist at Alltech Coppens. Thank you so much.

Philip:           Thank you very much, too. Thank you.

I want to learn more about improving the quality of my fish feed!

The following is an edited transcript of Tom Martin's interview with John Perry. Click below to hear the full audio:

Tom:            Pesticide-free crop production: is it science or is it science fiction? Joining us to discuss this question is John Perry, agronomic services team manager with Simplot Grower Solutions. John has 40 years of experience in the pest management profession. Before joining Simplot, he had a 26-year career with Mobay/Miles/Bayer/Bayer Crop Science. Thank you for being with us, John.  

John:            Well, thank you for having me.

Tom:            John, consumers have demanded — and received — antibiotic-free meat. Calls have also been building for pesticide-free crop production. Is that realistic?

John:            I don't know that it would be realistic. We have many organic growers that utilize organically certified products. They are pesticides — even though they are organically approved — they are pesticides with various insects, diseases that we have, especially in our fruit and vegetable crops. I doubt that it's going to be totally anti-pesticide.

Tom:            Just for speculation's sake, if we were to come up with a pesticide-free crop production method, what tradeoffs would that involve? What would we lose? What might we gain?

John:            That's a big question. Some tradeoffs could be lower production. That would be possible. I'm not saying that that would happen, because I think we do a lot of things today that are environmentally friendly, that we're actually increasing yields with the tools that we're developing. But it's that outlier — that insect that you don't count on that plops in, or that disease shows up because of a climate difference or an introduction from outside, all of a sudden. Those are the things you can't count on.

Tom:            There are a lot of variables out there.

John:            Exactly, a lot of variables.

Tom:            We've heard predictions that the global biopesticide market is going to double within the next five years. What are biopesticides? And, if you agree with those predictions, what's driving that growth?

John:            There are several things. I agree with that statement; I think it's going to grow faster, and there are several reasons. One is the regulatory realm. Government agencies have some of the harsher chemicals — the harsher pesticides — with the bullseye on it. They go about it in various manners. Reducing the crops that are registered on it is one method that they use.

                    Even more importantly, the big companies — the major companies, like the Bayers of the world — they are looking at these products for a couple of reasons. One is sustainability. It will be a sustainable product for their company, but also, the cost of bringing those biological products to the marketplace is much lower than the traditional pesticide. Today, it's about $300 million to bring a new insecticide, fungicide or herbicide to the marketplace. With the biopesticide, it could be only $25 million. There's a huge cost difference. And then, of course, you have the acceptance by the regulatory organizations too.

Tom:            We're operating under twin imperatives these days: one, growing food to meet demand and feed the world, and also, grow it in ways that make it as safe as possible for human consumption. These were often in conflict. Are we getting any closer to figuring out a way to make them work in harmony?

John:            That's a tough one, because we deal with specialty crops in California and in a lot of our acres, and we also have issues that we deal with at the same time. Acres are being reduced because of housing, especially in our coastal areas. For 80 to 100 years, we have been growing our key vegetables crops, our fresh market crop — those that you buy in the store. Then, the acres that we have available to us, because of that 80- to 100-year realm, we have diseases that have established themselves that are identified with those crops. They like to feed on those crops. We have those kinds of issues.

                    The biggest issue is the competition for water in California. It's estimated that, in 2020, we're going to have 40 million as a population base. Ninety percent of that population is in four key population areas; agriculture is not one of them. Agriculture is going to take not even a second-tier position, maybe a third-tier position, because you have water for people, water for environmental reasons and, then, water for agriculture. Water is going to be the driver for us more than anything else. We have to become more efficient in how we use it. The crops that we have need to be of high value so that we can afford that water, because it's going to have a higher cost to agriculture. Yeah, water is the driver, and that's what I see in the future.

Tom:            Do those drought conditions — and there have been a lot of drought conditions — do they impact the crop from a pest perspective? In other words, do they weaken the crop's ability to fight off pests?

John:            It's more of the opposite. If we have a wet year, then we will have larger population of insects, diseases or weeds than a drought year, per se. During drought years, it's more about having enough water to grow the crops to stay sustainable in the marketplace, because you have an infrastructure that you have to deal with also.

                    If you have a cannery or several canneries that are running at a certain capacity, and you don't have the crop for that cannery — take tomatoes, for example — then all that infrastructure is impacted. Then you have labor; that's the other side. If you are not growing the crops and you have a certain labor pool, if you're not there, they're going to move on to where they can earn a living. It is pretty complicated. I guess I'm going in a roundabout way of answering your question, but drought probably has less effect on pests than a wetter year. During wetter years, yes, we can have that impact.

Tom:            You have to stay on top of trends in the science, in the marketing, in the conditions on the ground, in the pesticide realm. Are there certain trends that you are following right now that are particularly important?

John:            Yes. Soil-borne diseases are going to be more of a problem because of our irrigation practices — with low-pressure irrigation drip or micro-sprinklers, it seems to exacerbate the problem. At the same time, our growers, because of the cost of doing business — and they are trying to extract the most money they can out of that crop as soon as possible. With almonds, it takes four to five years for full production; pistachios, eight to nine years; walnuts, seven to eight years. The growers are pushing them really hard, so they are really pushing those trees to grow quicker. They want to crop earlier, that type of thing.

                    That puts pressure on the root system. Our goal as a company, in the last three or four years now, is to really focus on the root system — to get the healthiest root system we can. That means overcoming diseases, overcoming salt conditions in the soil that we bring with our irrigation water that we're pulling up from down deep. It's not always the best water. We have all those parameters that we have to deal with, but that to be as productive as possible on less acres. That's what happens. That's what you have to do. You have to have a good, strong root system to overcome those problems.   

Tom:            John Perry is agronomic services team manager with Simplot Grower Solutions. We thank you for being with us, John.

John:            Thank you for having me.

I would like to learn more about sustainable crop solutions!