The science of how we perceive and taste food is an emerging field of study with powerful implications. Dr. Dan Han, Psy.D., CELM, FANA, chief of the division of neuropsychology at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine, is among the healthcare professionals uniting with agriculture experts, chefs and scientists to explore fascinating brain-behavior relationships through neurogastronomy. Dr. Han joins the Ag Future podcast to share how this groundbreaking science could influence quality of life and support global food security. 

The following is an edited transcript of the Ag Future podcast episode with Dr. Dan Han, Psy.D., CELM, FANA hosted by Tom Martin. Click below to hear the full audio or listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Google Podcasts.

Tom:            Welcome to Ag Future, presented by Alltech. Join us from the 2022 Alltech ONE Conference as we explore our opportunities within agri-food, business and beyond.

                     With more than 40 million Americans currently suffering from food insecurity, and with an estimated nine billion people to feed around the globe by 2050, we need deliverable answers to questions of hunger, and we need them now. How can the science of neurogastronomy, the relatively new science of how our brains taste food, move us toward a goal of global food security?

                     I'm Tom Martin for the Alltech Ag Future podcast, and with me is Dr. Dan Han, chief of the Division of Neuropsychology at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine. Dr. Han is a fellow of the American Neurological Association (and) a co-founder and past president of the International Society of Neurogastronomy at UK. He has received federal and state funding and foundation grants in support of clinical trials of studies on brain behavior relationships, curriculum development and program development.

                     Dr. Han's work in translational neuroscience has been featured in Newsweek, National Geographic, The Wall Street Journal, on the BBC and CBC, (in) the Atlantic, HuffPost, Business Insider, New Scientist, STAT, Brain World, Alive Magazine, the ASCO Post, and the American Psychological Association's Monitor on Psychology. Welcome, Dr. Han.

Dan:             Thank you. Thank you for having me.

Tom:            The fact that our experiences with food are related to neurology hadn't occurred to me before, but it seems to make a great deal of sense when you think about it, and you wonder why we didn't think about it much earlier. But the term neurogastronomy didn't appear until it was coined by Dr. Gordon Shepherd, I believe, of Yale. He was first writing about the concept in the journal Nature in 2006. Why did it not become a focus of formal scientific inquiry until so very recently?

Dan:             Oh, good question. The concepts and mechanisms and foundations were there for decades, if not centuries, actually. The movement to translate what we know in the context of neurosciences, individual perception, psychology, how that shapes an individual desire for food consumption and what that means for macro-level agricultural technology, consumerism and so on — as a movement, it hasn't been conceptualized until relatively recently, about 2015 or so. Dr. Gordon Shepherd at Yale conceptualized the term and coined the term and published it in Nature years back. The challenge was set for the scientists and clinicians and other academics by Dr. Gordon Shepherd to come out of the silos and actually talk to each other, educate each other, and have larger optics to look at some tangible questions that are needing to be asked and answered relatively quickly, because we have nine to ten billion people to feed by 2050.

Tom:            The International Society of Neurogastronomy, which you have served as president of, is based at the University of Kentucky. Why UK?

Dan:             The concept was born out of Yale University, but there were many academic clinicians and bench scientists at the University of Kentucky who, out of serendipity, decided to form a group and answer that call. The story actually goes back to 2012 when the book first came out. Dr. Gordon Shepherd, who coined the term, wrote the book called “Neurogastronomy,” and it was published in 2012, which happen to be the year when I was in Montreal for a neuroscience conference. The story is actually quite interesting. I'll get into it as a lay topic.

                     Gina Mullin, who was working with me at the time at UK Healthcare, she was my staff support, and we worked together on getting flights and so on. She was in charge of making sure that my conference travel itinerary was set in place at the time, and the server went down. I'm not terribly computer-savvy, so I was trying to pick her brain and trying to set up the hotel and flight, et cetera. I also asked around among my foodies in town. I asked them, “I'll be in Montreal for a few days. What is the restaurant to go visit?” Everybody told me to go visit Joe Beef in Montreal. That's where the chefs hang out. That same year, Anthony Bourdain did a special on the Travel network and featured Joe Beef as the restaurant to go visit when you're in Montreal. So, we figured, “All right, let’s go ahead and put that on the calendar.”

                     Gina Mullin helped me put that on the calendar, but at that time, the server went down. Internet got cut off and we didn't know if the reservation took. We were in Montreal. We figured, all right, let's just go and see if the reservation took. We went to Joe Beef. Of course, the reservation didn't take. Murphy's Law, right? I was there with some of my academic colleagues. We were there for a neuroscience conference. We figured, “Well, how often do we come to Montreal and visit a restaurant like Joe Beef?” So, we waited, and then we got sat late, about 9:30 p.m., I believe. But because of that serendipity, we ate late, and then things were starting to wind down in the restaurant. That's when Fred Morin — enter Fred Morin, chef extraordinaire and world-renowned chef — decided to come out of the kitchen with a bottle of wine in his hand and decided to make the rounds, saying hello to the patrons.

                     He saw us at the corner, and he immediately said, “Well, obviously, you guys are not from around here,” because we have lanyards and everything. We looked like dorks. We said, “Yeah, we're here for a neuroscience conference.” He invites himself down and actually brings out additional wine and champagne and some hors d'oeuvres on the house. He said, “I just read this book called ‘Neurogastronomy’. I'd love to pick your brain, since you guys are neuroscientists.” He sat down, and lo and behold, it turned out he was a bioengineer by training before he got into culinary arts. We started sparking up a conversation. Thanks to being lubricated with wine, he said, “Doc, if you could get some scientists, legitimate scientists and doctors together, I could get chefs, sommeliers, distillers of that ilk, and then we should have a meeting of the minds,”
because that's what Gordon Shepherd in the book actually called for.

                     That was quite intriguing to me. I said, “Of course, yes, let's do it.” But I didn't really think too much about it. I thought it was just one of those dinner conversations. I came back to Kentucky, and then I didn't really think too much about it. It was a cool enough story that I decided talking to my other colleagues. Brett Smith, who's no longer at University of Kentucky, but he was the former chair of the department of neuroscience, I told him about what had happened in Montreal. He said, “Well, Tim McClintock, who's a physiologist, a smell physiologist and a nationally renowned scientist who's at the University of Kentucky, actually did his fellowship training at Yale,” and there was Gordon.

                     Tim McClintock and I met and sat down and started having our discussions. And then I told him about what had happened in Montreal. He immediately said, “Okay. Well, let's call Gordon Shepherd.” The next thing you know, Dr. Gordon Shepherd not only gave us his blessing; he volunteered generously to mentor the whole process, to initiate a movement, an international society. For your audience, Dr. Gordon Shepherd is an internationally renowned neuroscientist, a living legend with nine seminal textbooks in the field. So, it was an honor for us to really take up the mantle and answer the challenge, but it's written in history. The University of Kentucky is where the movement was birthed, with all these different scientists, chefs, culinary artists, food technologists and agricultural scientists coming together out of their silos to ask the right questions and try to come up with an answer for global health, hunger and feeding ten billion people by 2050.

Tom:            Sometimes, messed up reservations can lead to big things, can't they?

Dan:             Yes.

Tom:            Well, let's get down into the science here for our audience. I'm wondering what factors, such as dimming lights or adjusting music or even saying grace at dinner, can influence our perceptions of food and help us digest food even better.

Dan:             Flavor perception is a truly multidimensional experience. It's just something that we don't think about because it's one of the most complicated sensory processing mechanisms that we know of — in fact, because the evolutionary process has dictated that you don't have to waste too (many) calories in your thinking process to how all this works every time you eat. Otherwise, we'll be burning off the calories that we'll be consuming. It's incredibly complicated, but seldom do we actually pause and think about the mechanism (of) smell, taste, flavor. Smell and taste constitute flavor, but the entire experience also draws from sight and other senses, like texture, sound. They all connect to your long-term stored memory and reward circuits of the brain and so on. There are aspects of anticipation before you actually bite into your first piece of steak and so on.

                     All of that has been studied in independent silos for a long time. Industry has done a marvelous job actually looking at what creates the perfect crisp for a potato chip or what lighting or what decibel makes the perfect ambiance for umami flavors, for a steak dinner with red wine and so on. But what we're trying to do is to identify all those variables and come up with ways to — I don't want to say manipulate them, but actually modulate them and use them so that we're not just merely using them for consumerism but to expand that concept to modulate the brain to want to eat and then desire flavors that come from smaller-carbon-footprint ingredients and create that demand for the masses so that we could actually have an efficient way of delivering food and nutrients for, again, ten billion people.

Tom:            Okay. There's a lot to unpack in that response, and I want to get to the latter part of it soon. But first, just to focus on one of these elements, there have been several studies that have shown that perceptions of sweet and salty can be skewed by noise, by sound. Any idea how sound can affect our sense of taste?

Dan:             Yes. Let me give you the macro version first. There's a phenomenon called the synesthetic experience, and we all have it. If I show you a picture of red jagged edges, you're more likely to call that “kiki” than “mubu”. Again, the words “kiki” and “mubu” are just made-up words. They hold no intrinsic meaning behind them, but your brain is already wired — and this is cross-cultural. We could do this in Asia. We could do this in Africa. We could do this in Europe. We could do this anywhere. Your brain is already wired to draw from the references that are already networked in and from memory, even before you had your own frame of reference, just what the species have actually packed into our evolution.

                     So, when you're thinking something jagged, we're drawing from the library in the brain that is associated with something a little more sharp as a consonant and so on, and then with something more like a cloud-like, fluffy visual. Your brain is drawing from more smooth-sounding vowels and so on. Imagine for a moment how complicated that network is, and we just take it for granted, and we don't think about it. Now, that same principle applies to other senses. Sound, decibel — depending on what kind of sound it is and so on — that's going to actually draw from the referential library in your brain and affect other senses, including smell and taste.

Tom:            Finally, there is a science behind why my wife loves coconut but I don't. It's not about taste for me. It's the texture. Coconut is coconut, yet we have these completely differing perceptions of it. How come?

Dan:             Yes, that's what makes the field quite exciting, because everybody has their own unique, subjective referential library in the brain, and that can be influenced and modulated by your own personal experience. On one extreme end of the spectrum, you have taste aversions. You could have something that you enjoy quite a bit, but if you have too much of it, you will get sick of it. That will be your personal and unique subjective experience that's going to have a lasting change documented in your brain's library.

                     Afterwards, it could be coconut for you, or it could be pork and beans for others and so on. The next thing you know, your brain is wired to create aversive reactions for that stimulus, even in the future. For me, it's pork and beans. If I smell it 20 yards away, it'll start a feeling in my stomach. The funny part of that is that that occurred after (something happened). When I was a preteen, I used to very much enjoy pork and beans, and then I had a gallon of it by myself. I got sick and threw up. There was the referential library deposit, if I may, that was the impetus for this taste aversion for the rest of my life.

Tom:            Well, I had pneumonia as a child, and I loved pickles up until then, but for some reason, the illness made me have an aversion to pickles, and that lasted for years. I finally overcame it after later years as an adult. Is that common?

Dan:             Yes. It's actually quite, quite common, and it has nothing to do with pickles. It could be any kind of food. These taste aversions can occur as the experience is correlated in your brain with something that you used to enjoy. The next thing you know, your brain has this referential library of that entire experience being something awful. Now, fortunately, they can also go extinct, meaning after some time passes and that matching reference is not continuously reinforced over time, then your brain does become more forgiving to the stimulus. So, if you haven't had an aversive reaction to pickles and haven't had pneumonia for some time, you could ease your way back into some artisanal pickles a little bit at a time and then enjoy the experience again, especially if you reinforce it with positive experiences.

Tom:            Right. How can the principles of neurogastronomy guide the design of experiences that encourage us to eat more fruits and vegetables, for example, and fewer high-sugar, high-sodium foods?

Dan:             Well, that's a very complicated question, because not all fruits and vegetables are actually good for you. There's a lot to unpack there. The principle of neurogastronomy really matches all other principles of biological sciences: everything in moderation. There's a Goldilocks zone for all of this. There's a way to maintain homeostasis for any biological entities. Too much of anything is actually no good for you, especially when it's at the expense of other balanced, nutritious diet intake, and too little of anything is not good for you.

                     Now, in North American culture, (the) culture, over the years, has driven to excess of certain types of ingredients. For example, if there is a consumer demand for sugar, then agriculture technology is going to meet that demand by providing sugar. It's a very, very simple economic principle. But what we're trying to do is come up with modulating effects for the brain so that the brain desires just the right amount of sugar but also desires other ingredients that are healthy and with smaller carbon footprints.

                     Once that desire is set at the individual level, then (the) market will just follow. Big ag and agricultural technology and food technology will just follow that trend and that demand. To your initial question about how do we get people to eat more fruits and veggies, well, there are a lot of tricks of the trade to foster that and then promote that. But I'll throw back this question to that question, which is, why are we not thinking about coming up with ways to actually permanently change the habits of the individual so that we don't have to ask those questions? That's the principle behind neurogastronomy.

Tom:            Okay. Bringing it around to the subject of hunger and global food security, I'm going to begin this part of our conversation in kind of a novel way, but it's something that's come up during our conversations here at the Alltech ONE Conference. There's this emerging industry in farming certain types of insects as a potentially important source of protein supplements for human food. We humans, however, tend to almost universally loathe the very idea of eating bugs. These would be ground into a powder. They'd be mixed in with some sort of more widely acceptable Trojan horse, let's say, to get beyond that aversion. But in following up on what you just said, can we trick our brains into enjoying a food that we have not liked? How can neurogastronomy play a role in making insect meal acceptable to humans as a source of nutrition?

Dan:             Excellent question. I'll start off by saying that one of the assumed variables behind that question is wrong: (that) humans do not eat bugs by design to begin with. It's very culture-specific. You can go to other parts of the world, and eating bugs is just a base rate. It's a baseline phenomenon. It's not thought of as an alternative source of fuel that you just make do (with). Rather, it's something that is actually sought out.

Now, I'll actually pose this as a question to derive at the answer. I love cheese. I'm a sucker for cheese. Give me gouda, some brie, what have you — I'm a sucker for all sorts of cheese. My wife is not. Now, if you take the umami, the savory, salty, addictive flavor out of the referential library that I talked about from your brain, if you just purely logically think about what cheese really is, it's pretty gross actually, if you think about it. Nobody thinks about it in Western culture as an example, because it's something that we've been saturated with. You don't think about the process. You don't think about the mechanism. You don't question it. You taste it and then realize, “I like the savory experience.” Then you get to a point where you crave for it.

                     Let me actually provide a reason behind that before we even unpack this. If we could get an entire culture for hundreds of years, if not thousands, to not ask the question about the entire process of making cheese, which is taking lactation from a different species and making sure it rots and then, later, trying to see if you could salvage it by eating it — (if) we could have an entire part of the species not questioning that and actually craving that process, you could do the exact same for bugs.

Tom:            You always want to ask, “What is wrong with us?”

Dan:             Right.

Tom:            First of all, mea culpa, I think I am guilty here of a little bit of parochialism and assuming that this aversion to insects was universal. It's probably more of a Western cultural phenomenon.

Dan:             Yes, even anecdotally — I don't even have to provide other cultural references. I could tell you anecdotally, growing up in South Korea, eating roasted grasshoppers was a very common thing. If you like nuts, you'll actually very much enjoy roasted grasshoppers. It's a very, very sustainable, rich, nutrition-packed source of protein. There's really no reason why we should shy away from this alternative fuel source that can be a culinary delight.

Tom:            Most of the talk about food shortages revolves around population growth on that part of the equation, but how can the science of neurogastronomy play a role in moving the world toward greater food security in the years to come?

Dan:             (The) food shortage and population growth ratio, when the average person conceptualizes the problem, so to say, it's based on a misunderstanding of the data spread. That ratio is off, so the balance is off. It's not so much that we have too many people. We have plenty of people, yes, and we're going to have more, but there are also plenty of nutritional sources that (are) available as is. It's just that that balance is off right now because certain cultures have higher demand for certain specific ingredients. Again, simple economics, supply is always going to follow the demand. Again, we have to re-ask the question before we identify the problem.

                     What is the problem? Well, is it truly that we have too many people and growth in the species and not enough food for them? Data actually suggests otherwise. It's the imbalance of what we desire and what is available for producing crops and so on. So, the question has to be reframed to ask, well, how do we actually regain the balance? I think, by coming out of everybody's silos and crossing the aisles, so to say, and then learning from each other and getting better optics and a bird's-eye view of what we didn't know could really help all these different fields of sciences come together and come up with an innovative solution, which is what neurogastronomists are doing.

                     We have bench scientists who are working from labs, and then we have clinicians like myself who are seeing patients for different sorts of disease. Mine happens to be in the brain disease arena, and then agriculture and food technology scientists in their respective labs and, of course, culinary artists to put all the variables together and actually be able to deliver it to the masses. Because if I prescribe it, then it's a prescription. Nobody's going to follow my regimen. If a lab scientist writes it down, then people are going to fall asleep before they decide to incorporate it into their eating habits. So, we also need the artists to really teach us how to deliver it so that the average person could look at the meal and the concept and the construct and say, “Oh, I want to eat that.”

Tom:            We just have a little bit of time left, but this is really important, and you've touched on it earlier. Can this science, this neurogastronomy, help create the desire for ingredients with relatively small carbon footprints and thereby impact both global hunger and climate change?

Dan:             That's our goal. That was specifically posed as a query and a challenge by Gordon Shepherd himself. Well, the fundamentals of basic economy dictate where science and where food and where agriculture go. Again, the principle is predicated on the fact that supply is always going to follow demand. Right now, humanity has created an imbalance in that structure, so the domino effect also occurs. That imbalance has created a monoculture of crop sciences, which is not the fault of the crop scientists at all. They're just following where the demand is. It's not a blame game, but it's the starting point for this imbalance. It really starts with the individual's desires.

                     Now, you can't blame humanity for that either, because that's baked into our genes. We can't just unbecome who we are. So, how do we come up with an innovative way to have our cake and eat it, too, for creating a Planet of Plenty? The presuppositions behind those statements are the following: We do have plenty. How do we make people understand that the power is in the individual to actually access that plenty? How do we do that psychologically? How do we do that physiologically and neurobiologically with our genetic memory and so on? That's a tall order.

                     Now, where does climate science come in? One could argue that the seven-plus billion people that we have in the planet right now and the domino effect that caused post-industrialization has caused an environmental change that is harmful for our species. I actually dare to say that climate change is not what the average person thinks of as is. Climate has changed, yes. Life will still continue. It's just bad for our species. We have created a climate that is bad for us. Jellyfish are doing great right now. They're actually proliferating more than ever. There's a pretty significant problem that is being posed in sailing and marine life, because there's too many jellyfish now.

                     Life will go on. It's just we created this imbalance for ourselves because our demand for certain ingredients have been met. Again, how do we undo that and recreate that balance? I think our colleagues would agree with me that by coming out of each (of our) fields or silos and getting better optics, we can actually address the individual desire at the micro level and then create a demand for a crop science supply chain that has the least amount of problematic impact creating high-carbon byproducts and then reverse that process and then have multiple ways to actually address carbon in the air.

Tom:            Well, I think this conversation has “to be continued” written all over it because, obviously, the research is underway and the answers are profound for all of us. So, if we may revisit (this topic) sometime down the road, I'd appreciate it.

Dan:             Yes. Thank you for having me. This is a very passionate topic for me. I think the gravity of the importance of what we're trying to achieve here for global health and to establish a Planet of Plenty is just an exciting venture, but beyond this excitement, it's —

Tom:            It's profound.

Dan:             Yes, it is. It is.

Tom:            Dr. Dan Han, chief of the Division of Neuropsychology at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine. Thank you so much.

Dan:             Thank you very much.

Tom:            For the Alltech Ag Future podcast, I'm Tom Martin. Thank you for joining us. Be sure to subscribe to Ag Future wherever you listen to podcasts.

How can beef genetics improve sustainability on dairies? Philip Halhead, a third-generation dairy farmer and the founder, owner and CEO of Norbreck Genetics, Ltd., joins the Ag Future podcast to discuss how dairies can utilize beef genetics to protect the planet, create jobs and increase profitability.

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

Tom:            Welcome to Ag Future, presented by Alltech. Join us from the 2022 Alltech ONE Conference as we explore our opportunities within agri-food, business and beyond.

                     I'm Tom Martin for the Alltech Ag Future podcast series, and I'm here with Philip Halhead, founder, owner and CEO of Norbreck Genetics, Ltd., based near Lancaster in the United Kingdom. Philip founded the company to improve the beef-on-dairy offerings for global dairy farmers. He's with us today to focus on beef genetics and how genetics play a role in the sustainability of dairies. Welcome, Philip.

Philip:           Yes, good afternoon.

Tom:            Tell us about your work. What does Norbreck Genetics bring to the cattle industry?

Philip:           Well, (I’d like to give) a little background, if you will, if you'll just forgive me for a second.

Tom:            Please do.

Philip:           (It’s) a really interesting, passionate story. I'm a third-generation dairy farmer at Norbreck Farm, and it's the unique ability, I think, of the family and myself to understand dairy farming. I am a dairy farmer myself. I'm also unusually in the beef space. We've bred beef cattle. We have a small Aberdeen Angus herd, a small British Blue herd, (and have been) involved across multiple breeds of beef cattle over 25 years now. It's that ability to understand what the dairy farmer requires, how the industry has changed (that’s crucial). Sexed semen technology has rolled into the industry since the year 2000, and it's taken a number of years to develop and become popular and successful.

                     On the back of that, beef genetics have become imprinted into the dairy herd. We've talked extensively over the last two days about dairy-beef. It's the ability of the dairy cow and its miraculous genetic potential to produce high volumes of luxurious, highly nutritious milk, (and it’s) also producing, now, a beef calf. Ordinarily, we would require some replacements for our dairy herd. Around 25% a year would be replaced, and the sexed semen does that for us. That leaves a lot of cows to carry a beef calf, and the income stream, critically, for the dairy farmer that that provides — and the sustainability piece, which is a big piece of Alltech this week. We're talking sustainability, longevity and, ultimately, supply chains.

Tom:            How can beef genetics improve a dairy cow?

Philip:           So, it's not about improving the dairy cow; forgive me. It's more a case of producing beef from the dairy herd. What the supply chain and, ultimately, the consumer enjoys is a consistent product. So, if we imagine for a minute the 1,000-cow dairy herd, the 500-cow dairy herd, that beautiful Holstein cow, which carries little flesh — it's using its metabolizable energy and its reserves to produce that milk. When you cross that with an Aberdeen Angus or British Blue or Longhorn beef bull, you'll get this almost perfect beef animal that you can then follow through rear to possibly 12 months or a two-year-old grass-fed beef animal that then, ultimately, ends up on somebody's plate.

                     I've talked today during my piece at (the) Alltech (ONE Conference) about food with a story. That's the exciting piece in the future, is providing red meat to a consumer who wants to enjoy a consistent, tasty meat-eating experience and understand the provenance of what they're eating.

Tom:            I'm a layman, so this is a layman's question. Is beef-on-dairy a relatively recent opening up of the industry?

Philip:           That's a great question. If we look back to the U.K., I've been doing this business now for over 25 years, and beef-on-dairy has been something that's been in Europe and in the U.K., particularly, for a long time. Certainly, we could look back 40 to 50 years, and there’s been a small percentage of beef in the supply chain coming from dairy cows. But as I explained previously, it’s now accelerating, and it's accelerating all around the world with the advent of sexed semen allowing just the very best cattle genetics, the very best dairy cows to be bred for replacements on that dairy herd and allowing beef semen to be used across the rest of the herd.

Tom:            So, how is beef-on-dairy changing things in the dairy and the beef industries?

Philip:           Well, I think, again, at the cutting edge of this and the stark reality of sustainability in Europe and in the U.K., we're seeing what you call cow-calf operations; here in the U.S., (that’s) what we would call a suckler herd. Keeping one cow for a whole year just to produce one calf is questionable at best. Now, there are opportunities in more arid areas, in more rugged areas; we think about Montana and states where there are vast ranges of grassland. There's little ability to produce milk in those areas, so the cow-calf operation will survive, and it will be a major part and an important part of the beef industry.

                     But for the supply chain, for the retailer, it's almost been like a gold rush for dairy farmers to buy into the whole supply chain piece. Those herds can provide big numbers of very consistent calves that then go through the chain, and they are finished, critically, quite fast on reasonably intensive diets. Therefore, that sustainability piece, again, that is ticked, and the metrics are met that we're looking to lower imports. We have a phrase in the U.K.: sustainable intensification.

Tom:            How has this impacted the economics of the business?

Philip:           For the cow-calf operation in the U.K. and in various parts of Europe now, it's catastrophic, and that's not just the beef-on-dairy story. That's just the economics of keeping a cow for a whole year to produce one calf. We also think about (how) not every cow has a calf every year, so there's an impact of that on profitability.

                     Subsidies in Europe, as you may well be aware, have been a big piece of that pie. Subsidies are now getting withdrawn, going into environmental schemes. Some of these farmers, their land, they're rugged, so there are more arid areas. (They’re) planting trees, thinking about the ecology and actually destocking — so no sheep, no beef cattle — again, driving that change for getting the beef from the dairy herd and accelerating the change. The profitability in the dairy is an extra income, so it ticks all the boxes. Beef farmers are finding new ways to operate and looking at new environmental stewardship schemes.

Tom:            When selecting beef bulls to breed the dairy animals, which breeds are the most in demand and why?

Philip:           Well, in the U.K., it's the British Blue. It's the quite extreme double-muscle animal that was created from the Beef Shorthorn many years ago. Once the Beef Shorthorn was taken out to Belgium, the myostatin gene was identified, and this incredible animal, which is double-muscled, was developed called the Belgian Blue — now the British Blue. When you cross that onto a Holstein dairy cow, it gives an easy carving (and a) short gestation period, (and you get) the ultimate beef-cross-dairy animal because of the two extremes. You're putting a Holstein cow together with the animal and the breed that has the most amount of meat.

                     The efficiencies that are around that, the killing-out percentages we talk about in the supply chain, those British Blue-cross-Holstein would typically kill out 5% to 10% more carcass yield at a set given time. Those sorts of metrics hooked onto price create an added value both for processor and retailer. Those are the important percentages that we talk about.

                     But also, today, I've talked about the Longhorns. We think about Robert Bakewell, who is the godfather of cattle breeding. He was born in the early 1700s. In 1760, I believe, he took over his father's tenanted farm in Leicestershire and developed this Longhorn breed, which was originally a cart animal for plowing and for doing all sorts of strange things in the fields, as they did back then in the 1760s. But today, it's an animal with a great story. It's a wonderful beef animal. It's got the long horns, as the name suggests.

                     When we think about the higher-end consumer who is maybe eating less red meat but they want meat with a story — so they go to Chicago or they go to New York or they're in London for a high-end, red meat-eating experience in a restaurant. They know they're going to pay a whole heap more for that choice compared with chicken or a vegetarian dish, but they're prepared to do it because they're reading about the Longhorn, maybe about Robert Bakewell, maybe about the fact that it was produced in the Lake District fells. It creates a lovely story. They're comfortable with the provenance and the consistency of the product. It eats well, and then (there’s) that nice bottle of Malbec, Argentinian Malbec, to go with it.

Tom:            You touched on this earlier, but to zero in on it, what is the role of genetics in supporting the sustainability of the dairy operation?

Philip:           For me, the three pillars are planet, people and profit. Sustainability can be talked about in many different formats. I think there's a need to talk about the sustainability of the planet, of course, and that's the mission. Farmers, we are the solution. We're not the problem. I think that narrative is something — it's a story. We have a great story to tell about how we manage the landscape, produce food in a sustainable manner and its efficiencies. It's producing food in a more efficient way. If we can use less artificial fertilizer, think about a greater output from a similar area. Think about the genetic potential of crops and animals. That's a wonderful story.

                     But around sustainability on the dairy and the beef piece, if we can get that extra income from selling beef-cross calves from dairy cows, it puts more finance on the table. It gives, hopefully, a slightly more profitable business. The third piece of that sustainability is people; therefore, we can employ the best people in ag. One of my big things is encouraging young people to come into agriculture. It's an amazing and an exciting future for many, many young people. We need people, certainly a lot younger than I am, to teach me about technology, data and some of those wonderful tools we're going to need in the future.

So, attracting people, protecting the planet and creating more profits at farm level — and the sharing of the profit. I talked about that this morning. In the past, I think it's been a bit disproportionate. We found the retailers taking a disproportionate margin for some of these food products that the farmer produces. Possibly, the processor also tries to capture some margin, and it leaves the poor farmer quite often with either a negative margin or a very small margin. So, we have to close the supply chains down. We have to have a more open dialogue, and the sustainability comes from that.

Tom:            Buyers tend to dislike uncertainty. How would you rate the predictability and the consistency of the beef-on-dairy concept?

Philip:           We heard yesterday from the Texas university professor about the scientific evidence around beef-cross-dairy animals. There's a hormone — well, I say hormone, but it's a natural hormone; this isn't an artificial thing — around dairy cows that gives extra flavor and consistency. There's a certain pack size as well. In the U.K. — I'm not too au fait with the USDA standards, but in the U.K., typically we're looking for a 350-kilo carcass. It's a standard pack size.

                     When I talk to retailers, they try and fit a pack size to a price. Typically, in the U.K., you need a 4.99- or 4.95-pound price tag, just below the five-pound level. People are happy to pick that up so that the thickness of the steak they're collecting off the shelf, the look of that steak — in Europe, we would have less requirement for intramuscular fat, whereas in Asia, the wagyu breed is very popular. It's quite a greasy meat-eating experience but one that's sold as the ultimate meat-eating experience. So, really understanding your consumer, really understanding what it is you're trying to provide, for whom, and at what price level.

Tom:            You collaborate closely with supply chains. And in these times that we're in, many of the world's supply chains are backlogged (or) even overwhelmed right now. How are supply chains that are essential to beef and dairy operations performing in this environment?

Philip:           Certainly, there's some challenge around carcass balance. We see some of those prime cuts, the filet steak, some of those higher-end cuts are needed (and) provided — we just talked about that — in some of the higher-end restaurants and (for) the wealthier consumer. The danger is that a bigger proportion of the carcass is devalued into the minces and the smaller primal cuts that just end up in a really discounted format. That's a challenge for processes, but we've got a slightly bigger challenge, and I think that is one of supply and supply disruption.

                     We are seeing record prices in the auctions for cattle. We're seeing record demand. I'm certainly looking and thinking, “Globalization.” Whilst it's still alive and well, it's possibly been looked at as not the solution for the future. There's a sort of realization — and some countries are actually preventing exports of food products, so that creates disruption in supply and availability. There's an opportunity for farmers to capitalize on that, but not in a greedy way. We need these supply chains to run efficiently.

                     It's a very tight-margin business we're all in, but we also have to capture more value because just in the same way that beef prices are at a record level, all our commodity products that we're buying into the farm are also. We think about fertilizer, wheat and some of the major products that we buy into our dairy units, into our beef supply chain, (our) beef finishing units. They are seeing record price increases. Unfortunately, we're all just moving up a level to a higher reality of expensive food.

Tom:            In your work, do you follow consumer trends? If you do, what are you seeing happening out there?

Philip:           Yeah, very much so. The early signs are of a distressed consumer. Energy and food poverty is going to be on the increase. The worry there is not really too much for a European (or) U.K. consumer and some of those wealthier, more developed countries, but I think my worry is for less developed nations around the world and the potential for literally malnutrition and starvation on a scale we haven't seen — or we thought we'd solved, to some degree — over the last 10 or 15 years. I think that's really back on the table. It's going to give a lot of people thinking time. The Arab Spring, of course, was caused by disruption to food supply and increases in commodities, and it wasn't at anywhere near the levels we're seeing now, (with) 200% and 300% increases in some food staples.

                     There's a political instability that we're going to have to watch and be very nervous about. But ultimately, we can also turn and be positive about where we are. As farmers, I've said it before, we have got the solutions. We've got the tools. We've got the knowledge. We've got the education. We've got a wonderful story to tell. I think we have to be brave about doing that and making sure that investment is continuing into good production systems that are sustainable for the planet and ultimately feed more people.

Tom:            All right. That's Philip Halhead, founder, owner and CEO of Norbreck Genetics, Ltd. Thank you very much, Philip.

Philip:           Thank you very much.

Tom:            For the Alltech Ag Future podcast series, I'm Tom Martin. Thank you for joining us. Be sure to subscribe to Ag Future wherever you listen to podcasts.

The research behind food security suggests that only a handful of nations are protein-insecure. But is the data overlooking the importance of protein quality? Dr. Vaughn Holder, ruminant research director at Alltech, joins the Ag Future podcast to discuss the role digestibility plays in getting an accurate gauge of global protein security and the positive impact that cattle have on the health of people and the planet.

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

Tom:            Welcome to Ag Future, presented by Alltech. Join us from the 2022 Alltech ONE Conference as we explore our opportunities within agri-food, business and beyond.

                     I'm Tom Martin with the Alltech Ag Future podcast, talking with Dr. Vaughn Holder, director of the Ruminant Research Group at Alltech, and he joins us to talk about the contribution of beef to global food security. Welcome, Dr. Holder.

Vaughn:        Thanks, Tom. Great to be here.

Tom:            How would you characterize world food security today?

Vaughn:        This is a really important question to start this conversation, Tom, because it's important to know where you are before you can decide whether we need to do something about the situation. I think it's a really important thing that we look at this.

Now, Paul Moughan is a researcher from a university in New Zealand, and he was the one who actually discovered that the way that we're looking at food security in the world today is probably incorrect, which is quite the realization to come to in 2022 — or this was probably 2021 when it was published. Basically, what it is is that they've been looking at the amount of protein that populations get and using that on what they call a gross protein basis. What that means is essentially the total amount of protein that those populations are getting and comparing it to how much we need.

Now, the problem with that is that we've known this in animal nutrition for a long time, so that's what makes it kind of entertaining for an animal nutritionist, but you need to correct the protein that you're eating to the amount that you can actually absorb and the amount that your body can actually use at the end of the day. When you do that, you go from a small handful of nations being protein-insecure to probably almost half of the planet being protein-insecure, because you are correcting for the poor digestibility primarily of plant proteins, because plants are quite difficult for us to digest as a species.

Tom:            Why is it important when we're talking about food security to include protein quality in the equation?

Vaughn:        That's just it, is that the requirement of our body is in a certain amount that can get into our body and that we can utilize.

Tom:            Is a protein a protein no matter where it comes from, or are there differences between proteins derived from plants versus animals?

Vaughn:        No. Certainly, that's the point. Proteins coming from animal origin are usually complete proteins. They are usually highly digestible because they're in the form that the body needs them. It's how the animals store them.

Tom:            What are your views on plant-based meats and milks and so forth and talks that they will someday replace conventional products?

Vaughn:        This is a really interesting conversation because we need to be very careful about how we talk about them replacing it. I think it's fine if you talk about them replacing it in terms of the food that we eat, the taste of the food. But we need to be really careful to not make the statement that the plant-based meats and milks are actually being produced. In other words, they are not a source of food production. They are made from existing food that we have within our systems and essentially mixed in recipes to taste like meat and milk. That's no problem in and of itself, but if we start replacing protein production with protein processing, we're going to end up with a starving planet pretty quickly.

Tom:            So how do ruminants fit into this world's food supply picture?

Vaughn:        I'm a little biased as a ruminant nutritionist, but ruminants are essentially the natural recycling centers of the world. They turn all the things that we can't use, all the nutrients in the world that are locked up in these plants —  particularly in grasses, byproducts and also food waste — it allows us a second crack at those nutrients. It allows us another way of getting those nutrients back into our systems and actually being able to utilize them through the ruminants themselves.

Tom:            We've touched on this a little bit a few seconds ago, but I want to just take it a little bit further. There may be only a handful of countries in the world that are experiencing protein malnutrition, but for many of the rest, are there issues and concerns around the quality of the protein that their populations are consuming?

Vaughn:        Yeah. That's at the center of Paul Moughan's work, and that's saying that on a gross protein basis, there are only a handful that are protein-insecure. But when you factor quality into it, the amount that people are actually getting into their systems means that probably more than half the world is protein malnourished.

Tom:            What are the implications of that on human health?

Vaughn:        There are dramatic implications, particularly on development in children. We had a speaker at the conference now this week who spoke specifically about the role of protein, protein quality and brain development in infants. It's critically important both to brain development and in terms of development of the body itself. Stunting is obviously a very, very big issue in nations where protein security isn't what it should be.

Tom:            It's been interesting. In the course of the interviews that we've done over the past several days, there's been something of a recurring theme about how we're awakening to just how really profoundly food — what we take in — really does govern how we feel, our actual overall health. I don't think we think of it that way day-to-day.

Vaughn:        No, we certainly don't, but it is at the heart of everything. It's the interaction, it's the direct interaction between us and our environment.

Tom:            It should make sense, but I just don't think we realize it.

Vaughn:        It doesn’t take a lot to step back and just think about why it should make so much sense, Tom, because that's everything that goes into our bodies.

Tom:            Right. Many food production industries generate byproducts. Rather than allowing those byproducts to become waste to be tossed aside, are some provided to the livestock industry as feed?

Vaughn:        Yeah. I was just giving a talk today about the dairy industry's use of these byproducts. There are two factors with that. The byproducts — about 40 metric tons a year — are all fed into the dairy industry, and those byproducts have another crack at entering our food system, at being nutrients that we can actually utilize.

                     But the second piece of that, Tom, is that if there aren't cattle utilizing those byproducts, those byproducts end up in compost heaps or landfills. And as byproducts entering compost heaps, they will end up generating five times the amount of greenhouse gases that they would if they went through a cow and 49 times as many greenhouse gases if they actually went into a landfill as if they went into a cow. So, the role that cattle play at keeping those byproducts out of the environmental greenhouse gas picture is one that we don't really talk about very much.

Tom:            When we're talking about byproducts, are there dominant byproducts in the industry?

Vaughn:        Yeah. It depends on where you are regionally, but if we're talking about North America, probably the biggest one would be distillers grains. We put a lot of infrastructure and funding into ethanol production in this country to subsidize the fuel industry. There's a ton of byproducts that come out of that. That's probably the most dominant one, but then you go back to the more traditional ones, like soybean meal, canola meal. These are the things that we use as the basis of many animal nutrition rations.

Tom:            What are the advantages and the benefits of using byproducts in countering the effects of greenhouse gas emissions in climate change?

Vaughn:        I referred to it a little bit earlier on in the conversation, but it's essentially keeping those things out of landfills and compost heaps. It reduces the greenhouse gas footprint of those. It seems counterintuitive, right? We're all told, “We feed cattle, and when we feed cattle, that makes methane,” but those products that are going through those cattle will make a lot more methane if they don't go through the cattle and get a lot of those nutrients actually captured up.

Tom:            Any unintended consequences of the process?

Vaughn:        Of the use of byproducts by cattle?

Tom:            Yeah.

Vaughn:        I think that it's been in use long enough that we know pretty well what they do in the cattle, and it really is quite well-quantified.

Tom:            Back to quality protein. I seem to be stuck on that, but it's interesting. When a society that has been protein-deficient transitions to higher-quality protein sources, what happens? What sorts of changes take place among the consuming population?

Vaughn:        It's interesting. We had a speaker speak in our beef session earlier in the week. He actually spoke about (how) if we could fix the protein insufficiency in the nations of Earth that are protein-deficient, that the IQ of the world population would go up by ten points. We're talking about the world population as a whole. The entire world population's IQ would go up by an average of ten points. You can imagine the knock-on effects on economies of stunting and brain development and these types of things in the poorer nations. You expect these nations to lift themselves out of poverty, but if they are stuck with a situation where they have improper physical and brain development, that becomes quite difficult.

Tom:            I have a question here that, if you have the answer for it, I think the world will beat a path to your door, but let's go for it. Agriculture, food and climate join at the hip pretty much. How do we fix food insecurity while staying mindful of the climate crisis and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Vaughn:        I think the world assumes that these things are in diametrically opposite directions, and they are not in diametrically opposite positions. As we learn how to do food production better, it involves the elimination of waste necessarily. The better we get at this, the less waste (that) gets generated through the process of generating protein. We've been doing this all along. I know it sounds like a cop-out for agriculture to say, “This is what we've been doing all along,” but it is what we've been doing all along. We just have to now become a little bit more deliberate about the environmental side of things to say that, now, (it) becomes very much a primary part of our consideration alongside food security.

Tom:            Can environmental impact provide a new value proposition for agriculture?

Vaughn:        I think that that will happen eventually. There is going to be a situation with — agriculture sits in a unique position in that we actually capture carbon to produce food as our industry. Our industry is capturing carbon and turning it into food, so we're halfway there. We're the only industry that captures carbon for a living. I think, certainly, there's no other industry that exists at the scale and at the interface between carbon and the Earth as agriculture does, so I think we certainly will. It's just going to take carbon credit systems to come into place to fund a lot of this stuff.

Tom:            How close to that are we?

Vaughn:        Very certainly, by marketplace, I think there are some market drivers that will push that forward. Places like Europe have active carbon trading systems. Places even like California are actively trading carbon, so it's happening at varying degrees in different places, but I think it's not going to really take off the way the world envisions until everybody gets onto the same program (of) this trading carbon internationally.

Tom:            What's going on out there in your world, in your field, right now that really excites you?

Vaughn:        We're a group of ruminant nutritionists at Alltech. That's my group, and that's our major role. As ruminant nutritionists, we look very, very closely at the cow. A major mind shift that's occurred with us probably in the last two years, since we've been working with an ecology group down in Florida, is to change our mindset a little bit as to what the unit of production is. Instead of looking at the cow as the unit of production, we are looking at an ecosystem as a unit of production, because not only do we want to look at what the cow is doing — what's coming in and out of the cow — but the most important thing is what's coming in and out of the ecosystem.

                     If we're talking about carbon, how much carbon is captured? How much carbon is going out? We need to know what the ecosystem is doing, so we have to really have a mind shift in how we think about this and think about (the) ecosystem production of protein with cows as a piece of that ecosystem.

Tom:            That's fascinating. Dr. Vaughn Holder, director of the Ruminant Research Group at Alltech. Thank you so much, Dr. Holder.

Vaughn:        I appreciate it very much, Tom.

Tom:            I'm Tom Martin for the Alltech Ag Future podcast series. Thank you for joining us. Be sure to subscribe to Ag Future wherever you listen to podcasts.

Attracting and retaining workers is one of the biggest challenges facing the dairy industry. Jennifer Bentley, dairy field specialist with the Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Program, and Jorge Delgado, Alltech on-farm specialist, join the Ag Future podcast to discuss an exciting new program that provides producers and employees with valuable resources to attract and retain employees. 

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

Tom Martin:             We’re joined from Minneapolis by Alltech on-farm specialist Jorge Delgado.

                                 Welcome, Jorge.

Jorge Delgado:        Thank you, Tom.

Tom Martin:            And online with us from Decorah, Iowa, is Jennifer Bentley, a dairy field specialist with the Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Program, where Jen develops an educational program for dairy producers and the industry.

                                 Hi, Jennifer.

Jennifer Bentley:      Hello. Thanks for having me.

Tom Martin:            So, question for each of you. I guess we’ll begin with Jorge. What are — what would you say are the most important issues and challenges that confront farming management and labor?

Jorge Delgado:        Yes, Tom. That’s a great question. You know, like everywhere else right now in agriculture, you know, finding people and retaining people is the number-one problem in farming — especially in the dairy industry.

                                The labor pool for agriculture has been shrinking, and the industry is now facing the reality of finding many ways to try to attract and retain employees due to the lack of understanding or how to keep employees motivated in an environment where, you know, there (are) long hours and the lack of benefits is very challenging.

                                So, the producers are, for the most part, are really not prepared to face the reality. Milking is one of the most labor-intense areas on the farm, on a dairy farm. So, to produce high-quality milk products and keep animals healthy, we have to consistently have, you know, milking the cows in a very consistent way, even two or three times a day. So this is vital to the farm.

                                So, keeping these guys motivated is a big, big problem. So, this challenge is the number-one problem not only in the dairy industry but agriculture in general.

Tom Martin:           Jen, what do you see?

Jennifer Bentley:      I would agree with much of the same of what Jorge has mentioned, just that labor pool for finding people in agricultural positions — and, you know, we’re getting further and further generations removed from working on agricultural farms. And so, it takes that motivation and takes that training to get those employees engaged and — and to stay on these farms.

                                 And so, I think (he’s) definitely right, you know: We’re trying to attract employees, and we also want to be able to keep our cows and calves healthy through all that.

Tom Martin:           To what extent is the ag industry dependent on immigrant labor?

Jorge Delgado:        Very high. The percentage is very, very high. In agriculture, I mean, if you — if you see — if you travel to California, where a lot of the, you know, produce comes from, you’re going to see a lot of immigrant labor performing all those tasks by hand.

                                You know, you look at strawberry fields, lettuce fields, tomato fields, (and) it’s going to be — it’s going to be very, very dependable on, you know, immigration.

                                So, and we see this because they are — for the most part, they are the only ones willing to do these kind of jobs. The circumstances for working at a, you know, there are no fair conditions for work. So, we estimate that around 60% of the milk produced in this country depends on immigrant labor. So, all those dairy farms, you know, at least for milking cows and many, many more positions in those roles in the dairy are dependable, highly dependable, on immigrant labor.

Tom Martin:            You mentioned earlier that retaining talent, retaining workers, is one of the number-one challenges facing the industry. Why is that?

Jorge Delgado:        I think one of the things that we see is that, you know, like I mentioned, right now, it’s, you know, the — it is hard to work on agriculture. It’s really hard to work on there. It’s long hours, you know; we have to — you know, the cows, they never stop milking. We have to milk cows, like we mentioned, two or three times a day, you know, seven days a week for 365 days of the year. So, it’s not easy, and somebody has to do it.

                                So, coming to this industry, with those long hours and not presenting the workers to, you know, a fair work condition is really — it really makes it really, really hard.

                                And nowadays, you know, there are so many openings outside of agriculture that we are competing with, with many other businesses, like construction, landscaping, hotels, restaurants, for the same kind of pool (of) labor that agriculture is dependable on, so it makes it really hard.

                                Plus, agriculture doesn’t receive a lot of payment for what they do. You know, milk is a product that doesn’t receive high payment compared to, you know, the products like construction or hotels. So, there are a lot of competition for the same kind of labor. So, first is environment and the second is, of course, the payment. It’s really hard to compete with that.

Tom Martin:            And you have mentioned that producers might want to be thinking about other approaches, like safety and education, as a way of keeping people. Can you elaborate on that?

Jorge Delgado:        Yes. One of the ways that — and this is the reason why, why we’re here and why they were working with Jennifer, is because we are creating a platform where, through education, we’re trying to retain people coming into agriculture, and mainly (the) dairy industry.

                                Many of these guys, they feel like there’s no motivation besides their, you know, not being taken, not being paid, you know, fairly. One of the things that we believe with Jennifer is that through education, these people will see the dairy industry as a place where they can be listened to, they be — they will be reliable, and they will taken care of.      

                                So, we just want to transform them, and we want to see producers to — and doing that: just being proactive on retaining employees through education and through safety and just improve the management skills.

Tom Martin:            You advocate for educating farm workers so they can be good at what they do, which is also, of course, good for the farm. What sorts of education do you recommend?

Jorge Delgado:        Well, we have to be very, very visual, Tom, and hands-on. As you mentioned before, you know, agriculture depends a lot on immigrant workers. So, when we talk about immigrant workers, you know, we talk about countries mainly for, like, Mexico or Central America. We see more and more people coming here from Nicaragua, Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala.

                                 And, unfortunately for these people coming here, these countries, they have a lack of education and investing in these kind of people, and that’s the reason why they are here.

                                So, when they come here, they come here with low levels of education, and the expectations from these guys are very high. So, because of the lack of education and lack of understanding, you know, working with the cattle industry situation, we have to, have to lower the expectations on how they receive education and training. So, we have to create a lot of visual materials, such as posters, movies, animations, and a lot of hands-on training and practices that these guys can understand.

                                 And in some cases, some — in many cases, even the guys coming now from Guatemala or even South Mexico, they don’t even speak Spanish as a first language, you know; they speak dialect. And dialects are really, really hard to understand and really hard to translate, so we need to start thinking about even doing more, more visuals, or maybe through animations or creating materials like that, so people that don’t know how to read and people that speak dialect, they understand what are we trying to do, so they feel reliable when it comes to, you know, performing the work.

Tom Martin:           Jen, that must present some challenges to you and what you do.

Jennifer Bentley:     Most definitely. I think we’re seeing a very high need for additional resources in training employees, whether they’re Spanish-speaking or English-speaking. And that kind of brought us to partnering with University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Alltech, and Iowa State University Extension and Outreach to develop the three online trainings that could be accessed to producers, to employees who want to be able to better train themselves, to better train their dairy farm employees, to help them better understand their “hows” and “whys” that they’re handling their cows — you know, why are they milking cows a certain way; why are they moving cows a certain way. Because we know that when employees understand the “whys” of their job, they’ll more than likely perform their job at increased efficiency and (have) a more motivated ability to do their job.

                                So, with this training program that we developed, it is actually an online training program. And so, an employee or a dairy farm manager would log into this online training, and within that training site, they’re going to be able to walk through or view some learning modules.

We’ve developed eight different learning modules within milk quality, and so those include understanding mastitis, understanding udder health when we take a look at teat evaluation, singeing udders, understanding winter and cracked teats, taking care of how to evaluate milk quality — so, understanding how to read a CMT or collect a milk sample, going through the recommended milking procedure, what that looks like visually. So, walking through and looking through a video and understanding each one of those steps.

Understanding how we handle those animals when removing them to and from the milking parlor. So, we want to be able to handle these animals in a calm manner. And so, how do we properly handle those? So that’s another module that we walk through.

And then, also, things that happen out in the barn. So, not only is it important to understand what happens in the milking parlor, but also, when we’re out in that barn, bringing those cows up, what does the freestall barn look like? What type of bedding surface are they on? Are they clean and dry? In the summertime, do they have access to sprinklers and water? Things like that.

So, kind of bringing in the whole process of taking care of those animals and bringing it back down to the milking parlor and the milking system, where they’re actually going to be doing the majority of their job. So, those eight learning modules will walk through that, and they do accompany (those modules) through videos and resource materials.

So, if you’re logged into the online training, participants will be able to complete a quiz at each of — at the end of each of these learning modules. And if they complete those quizzes, then they’re eligible to receive a certificate of completion for each of the modules.

So, it’s something that they can print off and show their employer that, “Yes, I’ve, you know, completed these training modules; I’ve received some education about how to handle these animals.” And each of these training modules are presented in Spanish with English subtitles, and the quizzes are offered in English — both English and Spanish. And the Spanish quizzes also include some audio translation.

So, we’ve made it accessible for people to easily interpret the information. And the videos include demonstrations of on-farm practices that we really emphasize, key milking and management techniques.

So, along with those videos, we’ve also created some additional resources that they’d be able to print off and keep, maybe, in their break rooms, or if they’re having a milker training that day, they could review — print those off and review those as part of their, as part of their education to have there.

We’ve also created some animations that have really helped to explain more details of why cows or how cows develop mastitis. And so, when we can visually see somatic cells going up into teat ends and understand how that affects the cow, then they can interpret that as trying to better manage their milking protocols within the parlor, talking about hygiene, the milking process, the milking procedure.

But also, the other animation that we’ve created is from food to milk. So, kind of understanding the whole — the whole process of when that cow is eating or trying to keep that cow healthy by providing the right nutrients but, also, how she converts that food or feed into milk and why she is such, you know, a powerhouse for creating that milk and how that milk process happens.

So, those two animations really kind of show how we can produce a high-quality product.

Tom Martin:           Jorge, what sorts of tools are needed to make positive changes in things like milk quality and cow health and well-being?

Jorge Delgado:        Well, Tom, you know, sometimes, when people ask that question, you know, people (are) asking directly, too, you know, what we need to do, you know, to improve that, you know, the milk quality of that cow or coming from that cow for the well-being for, like, that cow.

                                And most of us will respond like, “Well, that cow needs proper nutrition, you know, biogenetics, and the right management.” But I — we think that, you know, there’s a lot of people behind what — what’s happening, you know, behind the animals behind these cows.

                                So, I think it’s all about the people behind the animals. So, we believe that in order to improve or, you know, make positive changes in things like milk quality and well-being, I think we need to work with the employees and take care of the employees first, because they are the ones behind the cows.

                                So, we think that providing the employees with the tools that they need to do their job successfully is the first thing. And in these things, we can include, you know, well-maintained equipment, for example. You know, some — many times, you know, we go to a parlor in dairy farms, and these guys, they want to do the right job; they want to know those cows; they want to get it done; they want to do it the right way.

                                But many times, the milking equipment is not working. So many times, you know, the winter climate Jennifer mentioned, it is very cold, you know; sometimes, the cows are more comfortable than people in the parlor.

                                           So, we have to think about the people first if we want to change to conditions. And one of the ways that we can do this is just to provide the right tools and, also, showing signs of appreciation, like, you know, pizza parties when you are doing a meeting with the employees to — when you’re training them, you can provide pizza, snacks or something like that.

                                Remember these guys on Christmas times or their birthdays. Those are very important for their culture. Or even branded clothing or clothes for the dairy.

And mainly, I think — and, again, we’re repeating this over and over again that, you know, providing safety trainings and other educational resources will really make the difference behind milk quality animal welfare, because if we educate them, if we train these guys, those things will come after these.

So, and it’s important to know that that we rely on these guys. These guys are the first guys looking at those cows, milking these cows, moving these cows, breeding these cows, taking care of these cows. So, if we treat these guys right, then these guys will feel that they are part of the business, they will feel like a partner of the business, and then they will come with feedbacks and solutions with ideas that will improve all these things — all these things that you’re asking as far as milk quality and welfare.

So, in our opinion, things start with people behind the cows first.

Tom Martin:            Jorge, your work in dairy goes all the way back to Ecuador, and so you’ve been around the industry, you’ve been around cattle your whole life. And I’m just wondering: is — do cows pick up on human stress? If everybody in the, in the milking parlor is stressed out, are the cattle picking up on that?

Jorge Delgado:        You bet. That’s an excellent question. They do. You know, their brain is smaller than our brain, so they have to use a lot of the senses. Their senses are very developed. And one of those senses is smell, so they use it a lot. So, they can pick up on, you know, our hormones, you know, being released over stress and anything. As they stress from other animals, from picking up from the smells from their urine or excrement, whatever, they will do the same with — with humans.

                                So, they will read through our body language, and they will read through our — their senses that we are not comfortable in our situation, that we’re stressed, that, you know, we have anxiety, and the animals will react to that. And they don’t want to be approached by humans in those situations, so they will flee from us.

                                So, it will make very hard to work with, with animals when we are, you know, under a lot of pressure. So, it will be very, very hard to handle and move those animals.

                                 An example of that is when we’re trying to milk a fresh cow or a fresh heifer — a heifer that has, you know, the first calf (for) the first time that’s never been in a parlor before, in the milking parlor. So, when she enters, the parlor is going to be a new situation, a new environment, because she is scared; she’s very, very scared. And instead, what we do is we react, you know, by pressuring that animal, and then she starts smelling that — that reaction from us, so it’s going to be harder and harder.

So, and it happens to all the animals, to other cows; they can sense that, too. And we have to be very patient when it comes to milking cows especially, so we have to be in situations where we don’t cause a lot of stress.

Tom Martin:            Back to the subject of employees and keeping them comfortable and on board. What makes a farm successful in developing and also, then, retaining good employees?

Jorge Delgado:        I think, you know, like Jennifer explained, everything starts with — with a good training program. The training is really, you know — some people think that payment is the number-one reason why, you know, people stay in job, especially in agriculture. And it is, but it’s not totally. You know, I think motivations through training, through education, through understanding is what really makes these guys (want) to — to develop the employee.

                                So, what these guys, they want is from the owner or the manager of the farm to explain to these guys how to do the job properly. And that’s the way that you explain that is explain the “whys” and “hows” on how they have to do protocols for tasks. So, that’s very important.

                                So, the other things we have to remember that, like we say before, many of these guys, they don’t have experience with cattle. If they have experience with cattle in the past, coming from countries that — poor countries, like (in) Central America or Mexico, they might milk, you know, one or two cows for survival, but here, it’s a total different experience. We’re milking 200 cows, 500 cows, thousands of cows, and we expect a lot.

                                           So, for these guys, to start driving feed loaders or to deliver a calf is very, very new, so we have to start with the right things to avoid any — any kind of expectation where they go feel frustrated and leave the work.

                                 So — and besides training, also, (provide) continued education over and over again and provide a good environment for work, recognize these guys, make them relevant to the dairy industry.

Sometimes we forget that, you know, they are not just milking cows; they are feeding this nation. So, when you are having milk with your cereal or cheese in your burger or cheese in your pizza, we have to remind these guys that, you know, they are not just milking cows, but they are feeding people like you and me and your family and my family. So, make them feel relevant and important and proud of what they do and just, you know, have clear and understandable goals.

Many times, we set up goals that are — that these guys don’t understand, so we need to clarify those goals and make them easy for these guys to understand.

We mentioned pay conditions. They have to be fair conditions where they feel safe to work in the, in locations where they are milking cows. And just remember that this is an ongoing process. Some people think that this is just a one-thing deal where you train them once or you make them feel relevant once, but this is something that you need to keep going over and over and over again all the time.

And that’s where, you know, many, many of us, we fail, because we start thinking about other things and we forgot about the data. So, these guys, they need to be reminded about the training, the education, the culture, the safety, and the importance of what they do in a regular basis, all the time. So, that’s what we need to do.

Tom Martin:            Jennifer, there are some surveys out there that show how training and education make a difference. Can you tell us about those?

Jennifer Bentley:     Sure. You know, over the course of years in the dairy industry, extension dairy teams have done surveys on farms to kind of get an idea of managers, employees and how that relates to jobs and employee retention. And a lot of these surveys are coming back (saying) that employees are more successful in their jobs and they’re retained at a higher rates if there is training offered, and particularly in their native language.

                                So, if we can offer more training resources more regularly, like Jorge was saying — just, you know, ongoing all the time — we’re better able to retain those employees.

                                 And as mentioned before, you know, it’s not just the monetary value that employees are getting — employees are getting out of this, but the education really satisfy — satisfies that employee’s drive to comprehend and, you know, be a critical dairy employee on the farm, being able to do those jobs correctly no matter what the experience levels these people are coming in at or proper — or what training levels they’ve been at before.

Offering them very consistent programs as they develop their skills is going to be able to challenge them and motivate them to want to learn more and, hence, retain their jobs.

Tom Martin:            I’d like to ask each of you to give us three things that can be done today to improve on-farm culture. You want to go first, Jorge?

Jorge Delgado:        Yes, Tom. Thank you. I think the first thing that we need to do is to start with a mission statement that involves the workers. You know, many, many employee handbooks, they have really nice written mission statements, but when it comes to the mission statement, they don’t link the workers to these; they don’t make them part of these.

Like, (it might be a) good mission statement, but the workers need to be part of it. They — he needs or she needs to feel part of the mission statement, that “why,” and find a “why” for him and “why” for her and “why” for the producers.

The second thing is I’d say that you need to involve your worker in your decision-making. When I was working on a dairy, you know, one, one day, the owner of the dairy decides to change the new liners to milk cows, and we were never consulted to do that. And we were the ones — or I was the one in charge of milking cows, and he decides to make that change. And to our surprise, those things were, you know, something that we didn’t like. We didn’t know how to use them, and it was — they were not good for the cows.

                                 So, I think, (in) my experience, you know, in every decision that we make, we need to involve the workers, because they know that they are the ones who are in front of the cows and working with the cows.

                                           And the third thing is, many dairies, they don’t have a culture. So, there might be an existing one, they don’t realize that there’s already one, and they, they — the first thing that they need to do is just start creating one. And they way that they can start doing that is by start asking questions.

                                One thing that we do with the farmers is we do an internal survey that, you know, workers, they answer to several questions, and they don’t write their names down. But it’s a way to find the strengths and find also the weak points of the — of the farm, so you can improve or you can maintain what you have. So, I think the first thing is just to create the culture.

                                So, those are my three things.

Tom Martin:            Jen, from you, three things that a producer can do to make for a better on-farm culture?

Jennifer Bentley:     Sure. Well, I concur a lot with what Jorge has already said. And you know, our ultimate goal is to make positive changes in our dairy operations: to improve milk quality, overall cow health and well-being, and just have a general sense of positivity with our dairy farm employees, too.

                                So, really providing those employees with the tools that they need to do their job — and that can mean a lot of different things, right? So, depending on the time of year, whether that’s summertime or wintertime, you know, providing employees with the type of clothing that they need to be outside so they feel protected and they feel safe doing their jobs.

                                If they’re in the parlor, you know, making sure that the milking system has been maintained so they can do their jobs efficiently. If we’re expecting them to be in a skid loader, have we maintained, you know, the oil changes, the upkeeps, the maintenance that’s required with the machineries that they’re operating? So, you know, making sure that they’re getting the tools that they need to complete their jobs efficiently is very important.

And then, providing continuing education, and I also think that starts on day one of their jobs. So, you know, day one, they’re coming into this job — what are those expected things that they should be aware of when they walk onto the farm? You know, what should I wear? Should I bring my lunch? Where should I park my vehicle? What documents do I need? What should I not bring to work? What will I do on my first day of work?

So, kind of relieving that anxiety or that tension of, you know, their first day on the job and then, continuing that throughout their whole career on that farm. So, as they have questions, being there to help answer those questions and make sure that they — they feel like they’re a part of the whole dairy operation. As Jorge was saying, you know, just involving those workers with your decision-making process.

And then, as we mentioned before, showing signs of appreciation. I think that really drives home the whole kind of — the whole atmosphere of the dairy farm operation, for involving them with the day-to-day things on the farm, the day-to-day decision-making. But then, also, showing our signs of appreciation for the things that maybe they’ve gone above and beyond to do, or they’ve maintained things where — where you like them to be, such as, you know, somatic cell count. So, we want to maintain a consistent or low level of somatic cells.  

And if they’re doing the things properly, maybe we are giving them a bonus or we’re giving them a pizza party, those types of things, just to show some gratitude within our jobs.

Tom Martin:            I guess the bottom line is, as a morale booster, nothing beats that feeling that you’re valued.

Jennifer Bentley:      I would say, yeah. Just, you know, any job that we walk into, we want to be treated with respect. So, from the very beginning, we want to be able to make sure that that employee gets started off on a good foot.

Tom Martin:            All right. We’ve been talking with Alltech on-farm specialist Jorge Delgado, with us from Minneapolis.

                                Thanks, Jorge.

Jorge Delgado:        You’re very welcome, Tom. Thanks for the invitation.

Tom Martin:            And from Decorah, Iowa, Jennifer Bentley, now on her twelfth year as a dairy field specialist with the Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Program.

                                Thank you, Jennifer.

Jennifer Bentley:     Thanks for having me on today.

Tom Martin:           This has been Ag Future, presented by Alltech. Thank you for joining us. Be sure to subscribe to Ag Future wherever you listen to podcasts.

The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) has ambitious goals for the global beef industry. Ruaraidh Petre, executive director of the GRSB, joins Ag Future to discuss their mission to advance, support and communicate continuous improvements in the sustainability of the global beef value chain through leadership, science, and multi-stakeholder engagement and collaboration.

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

Tom Martin:             I’m Tom Martin.

                                 Alltech recently became a member of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, which is leading the global conversation on beef sustainability.

                                 And joining us for this episode of AgFuture is its executive director, Ruaraidh Petre.

Welcome, Ruaraidh.

Ruaraidh Petre:       Thank you. Pleasant to be here.

Tom Martin:             And, for context, first, if you could, give us a bit of information about your background.

Ruaraidh Petre:        My background? I grew up in Scotland in a farming community. And from a young age, I aimed to get involved in agriculture, mostly livestock agriculture, in that part of Scotland.

                                 I used to work on farms as a schoolkid and later went on to study agriculture at a university; did a master’s degree as well and took up farm management. And my only career was in farming, both in Scotland but also further afield, in New Zealand, where I now live, and in Australia.

                                 And following that, I really went on a step past, more toward agricultural development in lower- and middle-income countries. I spent a lot of time in Asia, Central Asia — so India, Pakistan, Afghanistan — and subsequently in Africa. So, I spent several years in Southern Africa as well. And all of that gave me quite a sort of broad view of, particularly, livestock systems, because that’s what I was always working on and (had) a real desire to try and improve and contribute to, particularly to produce livelihoods and to ensure that they were getting the best out of what they could do.

Tom Martin:             And so, how did you become involved with the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, the GRSB?

Ruaraidh Petre:        I was living in Botswana at the time and there was an announcement, there was going to be a meeting — his was in 2010 — and in Denver, Colorado, to discuss the sustainability of the beef industry. And that was close to my heart. Botswana is a beef producer and exporting country, a very arid country with its own sustainability challenges.

                                 And so, I attended that meeting and was really impressed by the number of organizations who are committing to this and getting involved. So, I got involved as well as one of the founding members; the organization I was working for at that time became one of the founding members of GRSB, and it really moved on from there.

                                So, when I left Botswana and I was back in Europe, I was only back in Europe for a couple of months when GRSB contacted me and asked me if I would like to join as the executive director, which I’ve been doing since 2012 now.

Tom Martin:            Well, since that initial gathering in Denver, how many members or companies have joined up with the GRSB globally?

Ruaraidh Petre:       We’ve got very good global coverage. We’re now over 100 companies and organizations. So, some of them are producer organizations, for example, which represent a very large number of people, and some are just individual companies. So, yeah, over 100 and still growing.

Tom Martin:            The mission and the vision of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef are concentrated in three areas: climate, nature-positive production, and animal health and welfare.

                                 Let’s look at each of these issues. First, climate.

Ruaraidh Petre:       We set three goals last year. Our members have all committed to following these goals. And the one on climate is to reduce the net global warming impact of beef by 30% by 2030 on a pathway to climate neutrality.

                                And that’s quite an ambitious goal, particularly for the global beef industry. Many of our member countries have already got a goal. And so, for example, Australia and New Zealand have already got the goals, and for example, the NCBA in the United States also has a climate goal.

                                 So, we wanted to take all of those and show the commitment of the global industry. It’s a big challenge, because there are some countries where the emissions are still growing, so we need to reverse that trend, and we need to really start getting the whole industry on a pathway toward neutrality.

Tom Martin:             Well, (with) 2030 just under eight years away, what do you think — can that goal be met?

Ruaraidh Petre:        I think it can be met. It is ambitious, and I think goals are only worth setting when they’re ambitious, because you have to have something to measure yourself against and really demonstrate you’re — you’re seeing change.

                                There are a number of reasons why I think it can be met. There are increasing numbers of technologies available to help reduce the climate impact of beef production, but there are also — there’s increasing recognition of the role of things just like good grazing management and sequestering carbon in the soil.

And that has been almost discounted from the discussion on the climate impact of beef up to now. So, people recognize that it’s a possibility, but beef livestock assessments really don’t take carbon sequestration into account. And that has to change, because we have to be able to show the full system impacts of beef production and the fact that there are some very positive impacts of doing things well.

So, I’m not saying it’s an automatic thing, but when people improve their grassland and grazing management, they really can turn around from being an emitter of carbon to being a sequester-er of carbon.

Tom Martin:            I mentioned that there are three pillars of the GRSB vision and mission. We just talked about climate. Another is nature-positive production. What is meant by that?

Ruaraidh Petre:       So, nature-positive production — and this really relates, again, back to climate — but it’s also really focused on biodiversity. And it won’t have escaped any producer’s attention that the beef industry has been in the spotlight very frequently — particularly in Latin America, but also in some other parts of the world — for being responsible for deforestation, land conversion and generally having an impact on biodiversity.

                                So, we would like to see that trend being reversed. Ever since we set our principles and criteria back in 2014, we said we want to enhance biodiversity and restore ecosystems. So, this is a commitment to doing that, again, by 2030.

                                So, becoming nature-positive really means that the production system is enhancing soil health and enhancing biodiversity, and it’s contributing to good ecosystem function.

Tom Martin:            How is the roundtable looking out for animal health and welfare?

Ruaraidh Petre:       The animal health and welfare is, obviously, a critical one, in social terms. It’s also critical, really, to the performance for producers. Good health and welfare will contribute to a productive and efficient system.

                                And producers, you know — this is no secret to anybody who’s been involved in it — they really respect their animals, and they want to look after them. They want to give them a good life.

                                Of course, there are sometimes bad examples that we see, and they tend to get a lot of exposure when there are bad examples. So, it’s not that we thought that was something systemically wrong, but we do need to make sure that we can demonstrate (that) we’re improving animal health and animal welfare.

                                 And there are particular things, you know, in some parts of the world where there’s still excess mortality for various reasons — and, sometimes, not even well-understood reasons.

So, this particular goal will involve research and working with producers in different regions to work at what the issues are and to help resolve those issues.

And with all of our — with all of our goals, and with all of our principles and criteria, we have to recognize that production systems are really varied (around) the world. And you have numerous different ways of solving problems, and you have a different set of problems in each place.

Tom Martin:            Sustainability is a really hot topic rig ht now, and the definition can feel very broad (and) very elusive, actually. How does the GRSB define sustainability?

Ruaraidh Petre:       Well, it’s interesting you should ask that because, as I’ve said, we defined this really quite some years ago — in 2014 was when we put out our definition, and it’s not short. Our definition of sustainable production, sustainable beef, is actually 12 pages long. So, it’s not something that trips off the tongue exactly.

Sustainability is defined as socially responsible, economically viable and environmentally sound. Those are the three starting pillars for sustainability. And then, GRSB defines five core principles on which we’re built. So, they are: natural resources, which I’ve already talked about in terms of nature-positive and climate impact.

And we have people in the community; that one really focuses on how people are treated within the system. So, employees need to be employed with a fair wage and reasonable conditions. We need to make sure that local communities are not negatively impacted by the beef industry, etc. So, there’s a number of social criteria in there.

                                Then, we have animal health and well-being, as you’d expect. And I’ve already talked a little bit about that.

We, then, have a principle on food, which is really about food. Of course, naturally, food safety, that’s a prerequisite for any food system, but also transparency along the food chain, so that people have access to information about: Where is their food coming from? And how is it produced?

                                           And then, the fifth of our principle of — for sustainable beef is efficiency and innovation. And this may sound like something of an outlier, but we feel it’s important to recognize that there are going to be opportunities in the future for improving things that we don’t yet have available (that) are going to become available. And data sharing is one of those innovations around, for example, feed additives that can improve performance for cattle or can reduce emissions, for example. These are all going to be important things in the future.

 So, we wanted to recognize that there’s a role for technology and efficiency and innovation and not prescribe something that comes from the past. We also need to look at the future.

Tom Martin:             Has the GRSB set sustainability goals? And if it has, could you tell us about them?

Ruaraidh Petre:       So, the three goals that we set last year are focused on climate, on nature-positive production, and on animal welfare, the ones I already talked about. And they — they’re all goals that have a date of 2030, so to keep us time-bound, and they’re all quite ambitious.

                                 Again, it’s important that we, we really keep ourselves on our toes. It’s also important that we measure what we do. It’s no good just having a set of, say, guidelines, for example, which are optional. We really need to hold ourselves to the level of ambition to demonstrate that we’re actually making a difference.

So, that is why we set those goals. And we were fortunate that our members voted overwhelmingly in favor of those three goals, and it’s possible that we’ll add more goals in the future on the basis of our principles and criteria.

Tom Martin:            Ruaraidh, how can sustainable beef production have a positive impact on nature itself?

Ruaraidh Petre:       Well, beef production — particularly going back to what I was talking about grazing management, grazing systems, they encompass very large areas of the planet — often, areas where there is still quite a large abundance of wildlife. Even starting at the soil, the soil is usually bio-diverse, and healthy soils are more bio-diverse than unhealthy soil.

                                And then, going right up through all the species of plants that grow on that soil and that are available in well-managed grazing system — if you are doing things right, you’ll have a healthy insect population, you’ll have a healthy bird population, you’ll have a healthy ungulate population or wild herbivores. There are huge numbers of species that can co-exist in a well-managed and sustainable beef system.

                                So, when we talk about being nature-positive, we’re talking about all of those kinds of things: incorporating, for example, areas of trees. They could just be shade trees, or they could be preserved areas of forests and farms that protect biodiversity.

                                Having a mosaic of grazing system, trees, etc., on a property can really contribute a lot to nature and to biodiversity.

Tom Martin:            We talked earlier about animal health and welfare, but how can sustainable beef production specifically have a positive impact on animal health and welfare?

Ruaraidh Petre:        I think, without good animal health and welfare, you can’t have sustainable beef production. That will be the way I would put it. You know, we must respect the animals that we manage all the way through their life. We must ensure that we’re giving them the best lives we can.

                                So, one of the things that we specifically call out in our goal for animal health and welfare is pain mitigation and the adoption of that. Now, that’s complicated in some countries, because these are pharmaceutical drugs which are not always approved for use in different countries.

                                So, then, we must look for a method to allow the registration of those for use or we must look for alternative. And there’s a good example of an alternative through genetics and breeding. You know, one of the most painful procedures which is often used on cattle is dehorning. And there is, of course, (the) polled gene: we can breed cattle without horns, and that avoids the need for dehorning.

                                So, where we can introduce the polled gene into a cattle breed, that is a welfare improvement that contributes to sustainability and to animal welfare.

Tom Martin:            Interesting.

                                What kind of outreach are you doing now? You, of course, responded to a call twelve years ago, and so, conversely, what’s going on now?

Ruaraidh Petre:       So, we continue to build our networks of companies. We bring in producers, we bring in processing companies. We’re really built on a whole-chain approach.

                                So, we have six constituencies; that starts with the producer, and that’s really fundamental for what we do. If we don’t have the buy-in and the collaboration with producers, I don’t think we can achieve much. So, the producers are really fundamental to us.

                                The next one along the chain is the processors — so, the people, the meat packers, who are buying cattle off those producers. And then, we have a constituency which we call commerce, which is really a bag full of input providers, including financial services.

                                So, you’ve got pharmaceutical companies, you’ve got banks, etc. And they’re an important adjunct to the industry; they can really help with sustainability. Banks, for example, can finance sustainability initiatives, but also, the input providers, technology providers, have a role to play.

                                Further up the chain, we have the retailers. So, that would be the restaurant chains but also the supermarket chains who are buying beef. They’ve got a direct link to the consumer, of course, and they know what the consumer is asking in terms of sustainability, so they’re important to have around the table to translate what we can do and what we can deliver into language that consumers can understand — and vice versa, so they can tell us what consumers are asking.

                                We also have civil society, which means non-government organizations — people like World Wildlife Fund, but also academics. And we have a number of university departments that are involved, and they can give advice on what’s feasible and has a science that can back up things that we want to do.

                                 And then, the final two, actually — we have national roundtables (and) 24 countries represented in our, in our global roundtable. There are 12 national or regional roundtables, some of them covering more than one country, and that’s how we got up to a total of 24.

                                And then, finally, we have allied industries — people like the leather industry and dairy and so on. So, (they) can definitely support what we’re doing; they can take information from the beef industry into their own industry. Leather, of course, is also something that — the fashion industry is often challenged on the sustainability of what they’re doing, and they have an important role to play as well.

                                So, with that whole-chain approach, we can, we can really reach a lot of people and drive change (and) create demand for and recognition of sustainable goods.

Tom Martin:            Ruaraidh, what do you enjoy most about this work?

Ruaraidh Petre:       I enjoy the interaction with people all over the world. And I guess my career over 25, nearly 30 years now has been quite international. I really still enjoy that interaction with people from different places and learning about the different ways people do things. For the past couple of years, that has been quite tricky. It meant a lot of new goals, of course.

But the world is starting to open up again, and I’m looking forward to being able to visit more people. We’ve got an innovation field tour for our Latin American members in Paraguay later this year. We’re going to have our global conference in November in Denver, and there are many other opportunities for me to visit different countries and to learn more about what’s happening in each part of the world. So, that’s what I really enjoy about it.

Tom Martin:            All right. That’s Ruaraidh Petre speaking to us from New Zealand, where he is executive director of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef.

                                Thank you, Ruaraidh.

Ruaraidh Petre:       Thank you.

Tom Martin:            And for Ag Future, I’m Tom Martin.

VICTOR Pet Food is looking beyond trendy diets to deliver targeted science-based nutrition. Michael Keith, senior vice president of nutrition and supply chain at Mid America Pet Food, joins the Ag Future podcast to discuss the role pet food plays in the health and happiness of our pets, the importance of gut health and his history with Alltech.

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

Tom Martin:            We’re joined by Michael Keith, senior vice president of nutrition and supply chain at Mid America Pet Food.

                                 Michael is one of sixteen pet food industry professionals holding a professional animal scientist certification in companion animals from the American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists.

                                 His true passion is animal nutrition. And over the last twenty years, he has held numerous positions in the field, working for both manufacturers and industry suppliers.

                                 During his tenure at Mid America Pet Food, the company has seen record growth, launched two new brands into the market, and their VICTOR brand continues to be one of the fastest-growing brands in the pet specialty segment.

                                 Michael, welcome to Ag Future.

Michael Keith:          Great. Thanks for having me.

Tom Martin:            So, we’re going to talk about VICTOR’s science-based approach to pet nutrition in just a moment. But, first, let’s give our listeners a bit of background for context.

                                 Briefly, if you could, tell us about your own personal experience with livestock.

Michael Keith:          Absolutely. I’m a West Texas farm boy, is how most people term me. But I grew up in the small town of Carbon, Texas, which is just kind of east of the Abilene, Texas, area. And I grew up on a farm and ranch, and (we grew and raised) peanuts and beef cattle, and (I was) just kind of submersed in this the whole rural farm town life.

And as we grew up in that, basically, (my) parents one day just said, “Hey, we’ll support you on anything, but peanuts and cattle (is what we do) — (you) need to go to school.” And so, obviously, (the) animal nutrition field was very close to what I grew up (with) and what I would call my childhood interest and passion. And I went to school for that bachelor’s, master’s degree and then got out into the industry, started working my way to the industry.

So, I’ve been involved in the livestock nutrition field, as both on the manufacturer side and on the supplier side, for a little over twenty years now. And truly, I call this industry home. At the end of the day, it’s a very small industry but a very tight-knit community.

Tom Martin:             How did your path lead you to Alltech? And if you would, briefly give us a bit of (your) history with Alltech.

Michael Keith:          Absolutely. Alltech is a very well-known company in the — on the supplier side of the livestock nutrition field. And so, as I’ve done dairy nutrition and equine nutrition and worked with several different companies, Alltech has historically been a valued supplier.

                                And then, at one point in my career, I was actually a competitor to Alltech. And then, as I’ve come back full-circle in the industry on the customer side, (the) manufacturing side, (I’m) once again a customer.

And so, I’ve kind of partnered with Alltech and been around Alltech in many different facets of the customer-competitor (side) in the industry. But then, at the end of the day, it’s all about the respect for the product, respect for the science behind the products, and what drives the innovation, from their standpoint. So, we’re proud to use Alltech products and be supported by them in the companion animal industry.

Tom Martin:             And your current role with Mid America Pet Food?

Michael Keith:          I am senior vice president of supply chain and nutrition. And so, I tend to all of our formulations, all of our product development, and then, I oversee several other departments within our company, such as shipping, (the) logistics team, customer service and procurement.

Tom Martin:             Okay. Let’s look at some product lines. If you could, what trends in pet nutrition marketing is VICTOR’s VPRO Blend looking to counter?

Michael Keith:          So, VICTOR takes the science-based approach to delivering nutrition; we don’t follow trends or fads. And the VPRO is basically our way of branding that science-based nutrition.

VPRO is included in every bag of the VICTOR kibble (for) dog and cat. At a scientific level — and we have plenty of research that breaks down the benefits, but not everyone has time to really dig that deep and review how it appears in the ingredient deck. And so, with that, we use the VPRO terminology and VPRO insignia just to convey that scientific approach, because we truly believe every ingredient has a purpose, and we want all of our nutrition to be firmly rooted in science.

Tom Martin:             All right. Let’s take a look at that information deck for a moment, if we could, and just ask you what VPRO Blend does for our dogs and cats.

Michael Keith:          VPRO is a big part of how we deliver on our mission that’s included in all of our formulas, allowing us to deliver a quality product at a scientific level that works with the animal and allows the pet parents to see a difference in the animals.

                                So, the VPRO Blend itself is a combination of selenium yeast, mineral complexes, prebiotics, probiotics. And so, these are all health benefits — they provide health benefits to the animals, whether that’s skin and coat or we’re looking at cellular regeneration or promoting a strong immune system and just promoting digestive health. (There are) different types of health parameters we’re looking for, and obviously, all of these are backed with scientific research trials.

Tom Martin:            Do you offer a feed that’s formulated specifically for sporting dogs? And if you do, what makes it different from the other foods in the VICTOR product line?

Michael Keith:          We do. There is, I would say, the basic level of VICTOR. And then, most recently, we launched the VICTOR Realtree sub line, which is specifically formulated for those sporting dogs.

                                Right now, we have two formulas in that sub line: that’s our Realtree Max-5 Pro and our Energy Edge. And these two products are just more calories and they’re more completely formulated for sporting dogs.

                                 And when we say that, it’s the level of increased nutrients, and then it’s also some of the common additives for high-intensity-use sporting dogs. So, we have supplemental glucosamine chondroitin and — for both, for those formulas. And we just take some of our better products, and then, if we can fine-tune them for just specifically for sporting dogs, that’s what we’ve done by adding some of these other key ingredients to it as well.

Tom Martin:            I was online reading about the product and thought this was really interesting: the timing, and why timing is important in feeding hunting or sporting dogs.

Michael Keith:          Absolutely. That’s — a lot of people don’t think about this, but when we talk about sporting dogs, timing is very critical when it comes to feeding. And it — the easiest way to relate it to, at the end, of (the) customer is to think about it from the human perspective. And as a human, if we were an athlete — or some of us have children that are athletes — and what we don’t want to do is have our athletes trying to perform on a full stomach.

                                And so, if we have a sporting dog — and just a good example would be fall hunting season for, say, ducks — if we’ve got dogs or dogs that we’re going to be asking to perform in the morning hours, typically, we would want to feed them at night. That gives us about 12 hours, just (for) the typical digestion time frame.

                                And so, if we feed them a good meal at night, they’ll digest that all night, they’ll have all those nutrients absorbed to be able to expand in the field, and then, also, they’ll be working on an empty stomach. And so, if you’ve ever tried to run and do a lot of physical activity on a full stomach, it can cause digestive upset; therefore, you don’t have your peak performance.

                                So, (the) timing of feeding regarding sporting dogs is super critical. And then, obviously, we want them to have a cool-down period and then be able to feed them again.

                                So, not to say it has to be limited to once a day, but we certainly want to feed the athletes at least 12 hours before their performance period, whether that’s a set performance time at some sort of dog show or training trials or if that’s in the field, on a hunting basis.

Tom Martin:            Okay. Let’s say I’m in the store and dog food is on my shopping list. What should I be looking for in a dog food brand where safety and standards are concerned?

Michael Keith:         That’s tough to recognize in the store, because most retail stores are all about the presentation and display of the dog foods and trying to appeal to your senses to buy a product.

                                And so, (the) main thing you want to do is do a little bit of research before you go into the store, and where is the product produced? Are the ingredients locally sourced, or are they internationally sourced? Or are they — all the way down to learning about the manufacturer.

                                There’s a lot of dog food brands in the industry. There (are) not as many dog food manufacturers. A lot of brands are produced by third-party companies. And we probably manufacture all of our VICTOR products here in Mount Pleasant, Texas. But we also have a lot of food safety certifications to go behind that. So, we’re SQS-certified and Safe Feed/Safe Food-certified. And these are all third-party auditing credentials that we obtained. And so, you just want to know a little bit about the manufacturer of the product and the food safety track record.

                                You know, accidents do happen. (At) VICTOR, we’ve been fortunate to never have a recall, and we hope to keep it that way. And we try to train our employees and keep improving our processes and procedures to prevent an accident from happening. Any accident can happen at any point in time, but our job is just to minimize the ability for it to happen.

                                 And so, we’re proud to say that we’ve got a very strong food safety record. We have excelled at all of our third-party audits that have happened and just know a little bit about where the product comes from and all the way down to the ingredients.

We talked about locally sourced, and we are able to source (the) majority of our ingredients within a day’s drive here at Mount Pleasant, Texas. And that’s a benefit for us because of the locality, but it’s also a benefit for the consumers, because they can know and trust that these ingredients are top-quality.

Tom Martin:            What about my dog’s or cat’s age? Should I be thinking about that when I’m choosing what to feed them?

Michael Keith:          You should. Some dogs and cats we can feed their entire life on one product and it not be an issue. But obviously, that’s not the case across the board. We’ll look at — we’ll just go specifically with dogs, but we can extrapolate the same for cats.

                                 A puppy has different needs than an adult dog. And then, as we transition, say, roughly six months, after a puppy is six months old, we usually want to get them on more of an adult diet. And then, obviously, as we get later on into the years of that dog, we also may have to address some senior needs there as well.

                                 So, a lot of dog foods are all life-staged. So, even in VICTOR, a lot of our dog foods, our adult dog foods, can also be used as puppy food, but there’s the specialty ones that are more predominantly just for puppy or just for adult.

                                But as we get into seniors, we need to be cognizant of, number one, is senior dogs tend to not have the caloric needs that active dogs have. And                    so, they may need fewer calories. They may need, because of genetic problems or just age-related problems — whether it’s hip dysplasia or just arthritis or hip and joint problems — they may need more glucosamine chondroitin and other-type supplements that our normal, healthy, active dogs don’t need.

                                So, because of that reason, we typically look at dog food nutrition in three phases: the puppy, the adult, and then the senior categories. And, obviously, there can be some outliers here and there, because every dog is unique in its metabolism and its genetics.         And so — but if we look at those three buckets, we can easily say that those are the three type (or) categories of needs we need to look at.

And then, like I mentioned earlier, one dog food could easily last the average dog all the way through its life, and — but sometimes, that’s not the case, and so we would need to look at those three individual buckets separately.

Tom Martin:            Well, Michael, we have a question here from our studio dog, Ella. She wants me to ask you this. So, let’s say I’m a dog and you feed me VPRO Blend. What’s going to happen to me?

Michael Keith:          At the end of the day, (you will) feel better. And to the human side, to the companion animal owner, you’re going to see it in the dog. And it’s going to be a couple of different ways that it manifests.

Number one, it’s just going to be the overall attitude of the dog and the awareness of the dog. But, most importantly, it’s going to be — you’re going to see it first in the skin and hair coat. And you’ll see it first there because, as the owners, that’s really the only thing we can see. We can see the brightness in their eyes, we can see their overall demeanor, and then the skin and hair coat. And that’s where we see the majority of the issues if a dog has issues.

And the reason we say you’ll see it in the skin and hair coat is because a lot of the ingredients we utilize do have a positive impact on skin and hair coat. But at the end of the day, we take away the typical pest environmental factors of fleas and things of that nature — if we take all that away, what we see on the outside is an outward expression of what’s happening on the inside. And if we’re taking care of the dog’s gut on the inside, we’re going to see that reflected in a healthier skin and coat on the outside.

                                 And so, using our products that have the VPRO Blend in them, that’s where you’re going to see it manifest itself, is on the outside of the animal. Improved skin integrity, improved paw pads — you’ll see the healing of paw pads, wound healing, and a healthier skin and coat, and then, this general overall brightness in the eyes and kind of a brighter attitude.

Tom Martin:            You mentioned taking care of the inside. How does VPRO Blend take care of the gut?

Michael Keith:          Everything in the VPRO Blend — whether it’s the selenium yeast or the mineral complexes we use or prebiotics and probiotics — are all truly geared to the gut itself. And so, we’re trying to build a healthy animal from the inside out. And so, all these four, (a) combination of products.

                                You know, we talk — a lot of companies want to talk about gut health, and we talk about prebiotics and probiotics, and we’re very familiar with those from the human standpoint, as we talk about yogurt and supplements and things of that nature. But probiotics are the live, naturally occurring microorganisms that we’re adding into the gut. And then, the prebiotics are nutrients that feed the gut, the microorganisms in the gut. And so, (those are) two different pieces there.

But even when we talk about trace mineral nutrition, it’s all about — we talk about building a better immune response, and we’re doing that from the inside out with the integrity of the gut wall.

And we talked about, you know, skin and coat health. And a lot of people just think about the outward skin and coat health. But when we talk about skin, we’re talking about epithelial tissue. And if we just take a step back and we think about animals in general — whether it’s a cow, a horse, a dog — there’s a lot of epithelial tissue that people don’t think about. And that can be the paw pad on a dog, the hoof on a horse. But also, when we talk about our internal — we talk about “from the inside out,” the lining of all of our intestines and our organs, that’s all epithelial tissue as well. So, it goes deeper than what we typically think about when we first hear “skin”.

                                 And (when) we talk about skin, we’re talking about epithelial tissue and building up that epithelial tissue. And what we actually see through the research is that we can actually thicken the epithelial tissue with the trace — sources of trace minerals that we’re using within our diets.

Tom Martin:            What are some things to look for that are red flags that signal that we might not be feeding the right dog food?

Michael Keith:          As I’ve mentioned before, what we see on the outside is a good indicator of what’s happening on the inside. If you’re seeing dull, flaky coats, weight problems, lethargy, digestive issues — these are all signs that something’s amiss in our nutrition program.

                                 And it may not be, per se, the dog food itself; it just may be the changing needs of our — of our animals, our pets. And so, as we talked earlier about a senior dog needing something a little bit different than an active dog occasionally, that could be what we’re referring to, is just — the needs of our old pet have changed.

                                Every once in a while, it can be feed-induced or food source-induced, and maybe (the animals) have developed an allergy, or something’s just not sitting right. But your dog will tell you a lot about what it needs if you just spend time with your dog, and you’ll see these changes manifest find and

                                 If something happens overnight and a dog becomes lethargic or has weight issues — and when we say weight issues, that can be: Is it obese? Obesity in pets is a big problem. But also, is — or is it losing weight? And that may be indicative that we need to make a change. Obviously, if we see skin and hair coat problems, that could be indicative that we need to change as well. And digestive system issues are a little bit trickier, because that’s the thing we want to watch; it’s a trigger point.

But we also have to realize that our (furry) friends tend to get into things that they shouldn’t be getting into. And so, we have to kind of take that in context. Has the dog been out, you know, playing in the yard and maybe eaten something that it shouldn’t have and it’s one-time issue? So, as with anything, we just need to take it into context — but what we see on the outside is the true reflection of what’s happening on the inside.

Tom Martin:            Okay. Let’s say that that dog we talked about a moment ago is in my care. What are the benefits to me of feeding him or her VPRO Blend?

Michael Keith:          You’re going to have a better health track record. The higher-quality food you’re on containing the VPRO Blend — all these added nutrients that we’re providing, you’re going to have a healthier dog. And with that, you’re going to have better peace of mind; you’re going to have more of those good days at home to share with that animal and just less downtime. And that’s going to come — you’re going to see it as the owner with reduced trips to the vet overall. And certainly, things are going to rise. But it’s all about taking care of the pets that we’re entrusted to feed.

And we look at VICTOR and the VICTOR brand and, yes, we do we feed a lot of performance dogs, and we’re geared towards the hunters and the trainers and everything performance-driven. But it’s not that we’re a performance dog-only company. Because (when) we talk about performance, that manifests itself in a lot of ways. That can be having a litter; that can be playing with our children in the yard and just being that active dog that we crave. And so, there’s lots of ways that performance can be manifested outside of just the sheer hunting or sporting dog activities.

But just having those positive influences — and that’s kind of where we get our tagline. So, the saying for VICTOR is “always by your side.” And your dog is always by your side, (but) we want to be always there by your side as well, as your dog food supplier.

Tom Martin:            All right. That’s Michael Keith, senior vice president of nutrition and supply chain of Mid America Pet Food.

                                Thank you, Michael.

Michael Keith:          Thank you.

Tom Martin:            And for Ag Future, I’m Tom Martin. Thank you for listening.

The Pet Sustainability Coalition is advancing pet businesses through the integration of environmental and social practices. Caitlyn Dudas, executive director and cofounder of the Pet Sustainability Coalition, joins the Ag Future podcast to discuss the importance of collaboration across the entire supply chain to meet the rising consumer demand for sustainable pet products.

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

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

                                 Armed with a bachelor’s degree in environmental studies and economics from the University of Colorado at Boulder and a master’s in environmental management and sustainability from Harvard, Caitlyn Dudas brings together pet industry leaders to strengthen their businesses while also shaping a future where pets, people and the planet can prosper. Caitlyn is executive director and cofounder of the Pet Sustainability Coalition, and she joins us from Boulder. Welcome, Caitlyn.

Caitlyn:                    Well, thank you, Tom. Happy to be here.

Tom:                        And you have an interesting background. I'd like to explore that for a moment, just to give our listeners some context here. And I know that, even as a young teen, you were traveling to struggling parts of the world. You were supporting humanitarian efforts, building schools, teaching sustainable farming methods, delivering hospital supplies, that kind of thing. What led you to that path so early in life?

Caitlyn:                    Well, Tom, I grew up in the Midwest in a small kind of hobby farm in Northwest Indiana. And both of my parents were very actively involved in progressive social movements. So, I think I learned early to be an active participant — but I also grew up on a farm. So, I had a lot of opportunity, kind of, to explore the natural world and to lead from a place of curiosity as a child. And so, I think the combination of those things — kind of a very strong sense of active engagement and encouragement from both of my parents to participate in a future that's good for everybody — I think the two of those things came together.

                                And I had the support from my family to really explore the world, and the role that I wanted to play in being a great citizen and a participant, whether that was traveling — you mentioned some of the things that I got the amazing pleasure to work on in Central America or in my local community. I was very interested in just learning and seeing what was out there. And I think, when you're exposed and see different places around the world and you see a different plate than the privilege, I think, that we often have here in the United States, any person would be hard-pressed not to want to be a part of the solution and to make people’s lives better.

Tom:                        I know it's difficult to reach back over a lifetime of experience, like what you just described, and unpack it, but if you had to, what would you say you've learned from those experiences that informs what you do today?

Caitlyn:                    One of the things that I did — for example, in college, I traveled to the Amazonian region of Brazil, in the northern region, in a town named Belém, which is at the mouth of the Amazon River, and I explored and spent time living in very remote villages with people who didn't have access to basic things, like groceries and a store. And they really lived off of the land.

                                 And this is an example of an experience where — I knew that there was a turtle species that lived in the region that ecological organizations have decided was a high-value species. And so, they wanted to protect it. And what they did is they basically decided they were going assess fines on anyone (who) killed one of these river turtles. And when I actually got the chance to go into Brazil and to live in these villages, (I eventually came) to understand that this same turtle was basically what many of the tribes used as an opportunity to trade in the marketplace. And so, what they brought was this river turtle to market, and then they traded it for other goods and services.

                                 And so, I started to understand a little bit about the differences between rules and regulations and the impact that they have on real people and real environments. And I started to understand that there are tradeoffs in environmental policy and in sustainability, but there are very few silver bullets where there's a solution out there that doesn't have a ripple effect or other impacts on — whether it's people or other environment.

And so, I think, in that way, one of the pieces I took away from some of these environmental or adventurous experiences (that I had) when I was younger is the complexity of the world that we live in and what that means about developing our problems and how we go about all the problems in our natural world. And to understand that the environment and humans are linked; you know, they do not exist outside of one another. And so, while many people may think of governmental issues as separate from human or community issues, really, we're all on the same planet. And through marketplaces, or through trading, or through food or shelter, it is impossible to separate the two entirely.

So, through those experiences, (I got a better) understanding of how interwoven our communities are, the natural world, and also how complex it can be to make systematic laws and regulations and changes that work for everybody involved.

Tom:                        Human conceit has always interested me — how we somehow imagine that we're not part of the natural world. It's interesting, isn't it?

Caitlyn:                    Yeah. You know, the way that we live is very disconnected from our natural world. We don't see where our food and water comes from; we don't see where it goes when it leaves our house. And so, I think, over time, in the process of living in a privileged place, we leave our connection to these things. After college, for example, I spent several summers taking high school students into our backcountry of different natural areas around the United States — all over the place, from Alaska to New Mexico to Texas — and really reconnecting them with the environment and remembering how closely connected we are. So, yes, I would agree. We are all connected, from the planet we live on, where our food comes from, and how much we really rely on the earth for our well-being.

Tom:                        Well, Caitlyn, let's talk about the organization that you now lead. How did the Pet Sustainability Coalition come about?

Caitlyn:                     Sure. So, I am a cofounder. So, Chris Bentley, who was a cofounder of Aspen Pet Products, which was a large manufacturer of dog toys and hard goods, was living here in Boulder. And I had just moved here after I finished my degree from Harvard in environmental management and sustainability. And I had joined a small nonprofit consulting company just outside of Boulder. And Chris had spent some time looking for an organization to build him a suite of tools where business could really kind of get on their path for sustainability, start measuring their impact and building plans for improvement.

                                Now, Chris Bentley, having kind of lived in Colorado for a long time, also has a very strong passion around sustainability and the environment. And he considered (the question), where did he, as a person, have the most leverage, right? So, where were his biggest opportunities to really make an impact? And he recognized, after spending 25 years in the pet industry, that his biggest lever for change was, really, as a successful businessperson. And so, with a very strong goal to use that position to really bring sustainability to the pet industry, he recognized early on in our work together that I have the skillset to be his implementation partner.

                                So, he really brought this vision, which we developed in partnership. You know, we looked at other industries — like the apparel industry and the natural food sector — to understand what they were doing around sustainability. We used them as a model to understand how we could effectively work with businesses, which really can have a much wider impact across all their stakeholder groups than individuals working on their own. And so, he and I together, we studied those separate industries, and then — he really had been working for years before we met to really understand the need of the audience. So, he would meet with CEOs and execs in the industry and say, “Hey, what are you doing around sustainability?” And (he was) really cataloguing, over years of these meetings, what they were doing, what they expressed needing help with and support with, and then (he began) working with me to build a model around a nonprofit that could deliver on that need and start to work with his community of executives that were ready to take action.

                                 So, together, he and I built the concept for the Pet Sustainability Coalition. And we pitched it to a group of about 15 to 20 different companies at one of the industry's largest trade shows in 2013. And out of that meeting, eight companies wrote a check for $10,000, and that became the seed money from which we started developing the Pet Sustainability Coalition. And then I was hired as the executive director to implement the vision that he and I continued to create. In addition, we expanded to adopt a formal board. And so, that board, along with Chris and myself, have really been the visionaries and the people responsible for, at the end of the day, turning that vision into an action plan.

Tom:                       Well, what would you say is the overarching mission of the coalition?

Caitlyn:                    So, our mission here at PSC is to advance pet businesses through the integration of environmental and social practices. That mission is really (working) toward a vision where the pet industry is not only doing less harm, but we're actually actively participating in building better communities and improving the environment in all the places around the world where we do business.

Tom:                       How many companies belong to the coalition?

Caitlyn:                    So, today, we're about 200 companies strong, and we have representation from the entire supply chain. So, we have retail members; we have distributor members. We also work with manufacturers, brands, producers and suppliers.

                                 So, all the way through the supply chain, companies come and they work with us. And really, we have a basic three-step model. So, they measure their impact. We are in alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals developed in partnership with the UN Global Compact and the nonprofit B Lab. We help companies measure and benchmark where they are today, and then we develop improvement plans.

                                 So, it’s a very customized process to understand what objectives look like for every different business. For some companies, that might mean building or, ultimately, engaging and attracting and retaining top talent. You know, having a strong workforce is a real challenge for businesses today, and many people want to be participating with purpose-driven businesses that are (about) more than profit. They're really thinking about, “What is our place in the world, and how are we participating in a better future?” And so, other companies may be looking at cost savings and efficiency improvements. So, that might mean reviewing their warehouse, looking at things like alternative energy or where's their waste and their footprint. So, we work on a variety.

                                 Sustainability can mean so many different things to so many different people. That is really a custom process for most of our member companies to really identify what their objectives are, what is their priority, or what the return to their business will be from investing in a sustainability program — and then, when they’re measuring and improving, really working on celebrating those accomplishments.

                                Sustainability is a commitment to continuous improvement. At the end of the day, you don’t get to check a box that says, “Hey, I completed sustainability off my checklist today.” And since we’re continually improving — and every year, there's new technology out in the marketplace — we really think it's important for companies to celebrate those accomplishments and those milestones that they're taking as their impact continues to improve. So, our member companies are measuring. They’re building that improvement plan and then celebrating their accomplishments all along the way.

Tom:                        Caitlyn, under the “About” tab on your website are some core values, and they include a couple that I would like to bring into focus here. First, authenticity. Tell us about that.

Caitlyn:                    Yeah. So, “sustainability” has become a buzzword for so many industries and companies. And really, when you're in a place of shifting the market — so initially, businesses, their sole intention and purpose was to drive profitability to shareholders. And as that definition has expanded to today’s modern world, where businesses are really meant to drive value to stakeholders instead of shareholders and (are) really considering their impact on a much wider audience, not just to those shareholders, there have been a lot of different interpretations of what that might look like for different companies.

                                 And so, authenticity and the core value is really — at the end of the day, as an organization, we measure whether or not we're successful as to what? The actual science-based outcomes, right? So, are environments actually being improved by the work that we’re doing with our member companies? And at the same time, are communities actually being improved? So, what we do is we really think about, “How do we measure that?” So, we are continually aggregating data from our member companies, and we’re able to show a really interesting, authentic picture around different environmental and social metrics that actually lead to a better world.

                                So, we’re an organization that says, “Hey, you know, our mission is to advance the pet industry and to be a positive contributor the environment and communities. How do we measure that?” So, (those are) just a few interesting pieces. If you look, for example at alternative energy use in our member companies between 2016, say, and 2019, we can see a sharp increase in the number of our members that are using alternative energy. And on the social side, let’s say if you look at gender diversity, our member companies have a much higher percentage of gender diversity, of women in leadership, management and executive roles, than the average business as well.

                                So, authenticity and transparency is another one of our core values. It’s really ensuring that every program that we invest our member dollars in is delivering a return to that core mission.

Tom:                       I see that another of your core values is about focusing on implementation. What does that mean?

Caitlyn:                    Yes. Absolutely. So, for example, if I said that our member companies came to us and they measured, and then we developed improvements, and that was the end of the services and tools that we deliver to them, that would be the opposite of an implementation focus.

                                So, we are an action-oriented organization. An example of this is all of our memberships: We take 20% of that membership fee and we hold it aside in what we call a project credit. Now, that project credit can be used for a company to take action to complete a project or take a step that shows a measurable improvement, again, to, kind of, their baseline performance today on how they impact the environment and communities. So, that's one example of how we integrate opportunities for companies to take real action through their membership. So, that’s that kind of action orientation.

                                 I think also we’re in an environment — sustainability, in general, isn’t a place that has a lot of truths. There’s lots of case studies out there. And at this point, there are more than 500 peer-reviewed studies that show (that) sustainability drives long-term profitability for a business. But for a lot of what we do, there's no rulebook. There's no guide to how to run a coalition or how to advance an industry and sustainability. And so, when we talk about being implementation-focused, it means that, oftentimes, we’re pioneers. We’re out in the front of different issues that are coming to the industry, and we're really helping to spearhead new initiatives that have never been done before, instead of waiting to allow other actions to take place before we may decide, “Hey, this is improving. So now, we’re going to go ahead and give it a try.”

                                 I think an example of that might be some of our packaging work. So, we piloted a takeback program for all types of flexible bags that are used for pet foods and treats in about 120 different retail locations last year. Never before had the pet industry come together to collect this hard-to-recycle material. There had not been extensive testing done on the 300-million-pound packaging footprint that we have today that’s currently going to landfill. I’m not going to give you an example of how our organization has really kind of pioneered through action and different solutions to some of the environmental problems that we face.

Tom:                        What would you say are some leading issues that, in your view, Caitlyn, must be addressed and overcome by the pet industry to achieve meaningful sustainability?

Caitlyn:                    Yeah. So, as an organization, in 2018, we had about 80 member companies at that time. And we had an interesting shift in kind of an extension of our mission overall. You know, we had those 10 companies we started with, and we grew to 50, then we grew to 80. And what happened uniquely is that we suddenly had representation from the entire supply chain. I mentioned all of the different types of members that we have. And that put us in a new position. It put us in a position to understand and to start addressing areas of sustainability that are too big for a single company to form on their own.

                                 And at that time, we really started to look at: What are those areas of sustainability that really need leadership? They need thought leadership, they need experts, they need education, and then they need actionable ways for companies to come together as individuals, but in a way that aggregates their impact so that we can address these larger-scale issues working together as an industry overall.

                                 So, the three key topics of sustainability that we selected based on their ability to drive scalable impact — the first one is sustainable packaging. So, thinking about this big movement that’s happening across all industries and all sectors — it’s really looking at the impact of plastics in our environment. You probably know that there's been estimated to be more plastic in the ocean than fish by 2050, and (we’re) looking at, “What’s the footprint of our industry, and how do we start to advance solutions for the entire industry we participate in?”

                                 So that’s one piece. The second piece is around sustainable ingredient sourcing. So, the pet industry — obviously, you know, two primary categories (we’re) looking at are food and treats and then, on the other side, textiles and hard goods. Particularly in the consumables section of our industry, the food and the treats that we’re developing, about 25%, on the low end, it has been estimated, from all of the proteins that are grown and raised in the United States, eventually goes to pets.

                                 And so, we recognize this enormous opportunity to say, “Hey, if we’re at 25% participants, we have a big opportunity to start to evaluate: What is sustainability and the transparency and traceability of the ingredients that we use in this industry, and how can that be an opportunity for us to drive further impact and to participate in a bigger movement that's happening in the agricultural sector overall, toward more sustainable soil treatment and farming methodology and ingredient sourcing and formulation, so that we can be an active participant in the change that needs to happen to protect our environmental resources?”

                                 And then, finally, in 2019, we also took a look at social sustainability and equity, an equitable system. And we added diversity, equity and inclusion as a component, or kind of one of those large keystone initiatives that we wanted to start leading the way in as an organization. So, (we’re) looking at: What’s the overall status today around diversity in our industry? Is it equitable? So, is it serving all communities? And whether that’s the equitability of our farming practices to the diversity of professionals in our industry to meeting the needs of pet owners of different backgrounds as well.

                                 And so, those are the three key issues that we also help to address overall as an organization, kind of beyond helping every single member company improve, but also taking a look at those larger issues, including sustainable sourcing, sustainable packaging, and diversity, equity and inclusion.

Tom:                        From your perspective as somebody who's keeping close watch on the pet industry, how could you assess the industry's movement toward sustainability?

Caitlyn:                    Yeah. So, there have been some key milestones that I think have served to progress the industry more quickly at different times. So, in 2016, millennials became the largest pet-owning generation. And it took a couple of years for, I think, the pet industry to really grapple with that intersection between millennials and sustainability. And it turns out, millennials care more deeply about the environment and communities than any other generation. But also, importantly, they're the first generation that’s willing to pay more for sustainable products.

                                 And so, I saw a very large shift between 2016 and 2018 in terms of an understanding of the demand for sustainability from consumers and, as a CPG[ET1]  industry, starting to really think about, “What is our responsibility and, really, our opportunity to meet those customers in that more kind of values-aligned way?” And so, there was a big shift in 2018. So, in 2018, as an organization, if we’re a reflection of the demand and adoption for availability, we have seen, as an organization, we've doubled in size every year since about 2018. And so, that’s really where we started to see that uptick, as pet businesses started to recognize this demand and opportunity for sustainability.

                                 Then, I would say in 2019–2020, there was also another big shift that we thought was primarily around sustainable packaging and collaboration. So, every year, we do a survey of our members in the industry. And early on, we recognized that there was a lot of fear in the industry around collaboration or collaborative models, around sharing information with other peers and competitors or brands of similar types and sizes. And everyone wanted to kind of work on their sustainability internally. We still do, but (we) have strict NDAs with many companies. They were not interested in developing case studies or sharing what they're working on.

                                 And there’s been a big shift in, (A), the desire to communicate externally around sustainability goals. So, I think, as we have seen expectations around accountability and reporting to wider reporting groups, there has been an interest in companies to really be seen as leaders and to share more information on their successes and challenges and data-driven goals and reporting. So, that's a big shift that we’ve seen. And I think, any time (there is) an industry where peers start kind of openly reporting on their sustainability, we see an acceleration in (the) adoption of sustainable practices, because it starts to become a minimum expectation to do business in the pet industry.

                                 So, I think there was a big shift there. And then, you know, one of (the) big areas, sustainable packaging, has been able to really push forward solutions. I can recall, in 2018, reaching out to a group of pet packaging suppliers and saying, “Hey, you know, there's 25 different solutions that are being pushed in the market today around sustainable packaging. We don't think that's healthy, and it's not creating a unified pathway to arrive at solutions faster.” So, we were able to kind of move from 25 down to five. We’re now getting down to about three. You know, we have seen an incredible acceleration of pace around sustainable packaging solution just in the last two years as well.

Tom:                        Well, for anybody listening who's considering career paths right now, what's your pitch to them for a life working to advance sustainability in the pet industry?

Caitlyn:                    Yeah. You know, I think sustainability is an incredible space to build a career in. It is creative because, like I was mentioning before, you know, there's not a roadmap already built. There's no guidebook. And so, for people who like developing something from nothing, it is a very creative space in which you get to iterate new ideas and test them and pilot them in different industries or different, kind of, smaller businesses.

                                 I think, also, businesses are an incredible engine for driving change, right? If you think about the scope from which a business works — whether it's working with all of their employees, which could be hundreds of thousands of people; or all of the natural resources they use, which could impact environments around the world; or all of the markets that they play a role in — again, this industry is very strong here in the U.S. but also in Asia, in South America and in Europe.

                                 And so, I find it to be a particularly impactful way to use my career in order to drive the world forward, to harness the power of business to do good in the world while, at the same time, working in a very creative space that’s impact-driven, that’s purpose-aligned, that attracts other purpose-driven individuals that are generally just a fun and vibrant and very inspired group to work alongside, who is — they’re all so invested in each other's successes. And so, it’s a very collaborative space to have a career in.

                                 And then, not thinking about the pet industry — you know, I had no sense that I would have a career in the pet industry. I knew I wanted to do impactful work that made the world a better place, and I can't say that I had, before doing this, squarely said that I would be in the business sector. And so, you know, the pet industry is the right industry for really bringing together multiple stakeholders, because its core consumers — whether that’s pet or pet parents — naturally have a strong caring bone in their body. This is an industry that attracts very caring people, and care, care starts with care for yourself and then care for your family, and then your family includes pets. And I'm pretty sure, pretty soon, you know, that starts its ripple effect as well, so then you start to care about your dog park, and you care about the other people at your dog park in your community and then your town and your environment, and then the U.S., and then the world, and then animals that live other places. And so, the pet industry is a unique, playful, caring industry from which to really grow this idea and movement around sustainability.

Tom:                        All right. That’s Caitlyn Dudas, executive director and co-founder of the Pet Sustainability Coalition, with us from Boulder. Thank you so much, Caitlyn.

Caitlyn:                    Thank you, Tom.

Tom:                        You bet. And for Ag Future, I’m Tom Martin. Thanks for listening. This has been Ag Future, presented by Alltech. Thank you for joining us. Be sure to subscribe to Ag Future wherever you listen to podcasts.

Backed by more than 40 years of research experience, innovation and scientific expertise, Acutia is a continuation of the legacy of innovation established by the late founder of Alltech, Dr. Pearse Lyons. Nikki Putnam Badding, registered dietitian nutritionist and managing director of Acutia, joins the Ag Future podcast to discuss the origins of Acutia and how its innovative packaging and refill system might help mitigate the prolific waste problem associated with the supplement industry. 

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

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

                                 Alltech has, for years, been a global leader in the animal health industry. But now, the company is taking more than 40 years of scientific innovation and proven nutrition expertise and is applying all of that knowledge to human health. I'm Tom Martin, and joining me is Nikki Putnam Badding with the story of Acutia, the Alltech human health line. A registered dietitian/nutritionist, Nikki is its managing director. Hi, Nikki.

Nikki:                       Hi, Tom.

Tom:                        So, tell us a bit about your background.

Nikki:                        Sure. I'm a registered dietitian, and I have a background in research, nutrition counseling and retail dietetics. And now, I'm the director of human nutrition initiatives at Alltech and (am), as you mentioned, also the managing director of Acutia, where I oversee the business strategy (and) product formulation and manage companywide operations.

Tom:                        Am I right that the origins of Acutia can be traced to Dr. Pearse Lyons and two of Alltech’s flagship organic nutrition solutions, Sel-Plex and Bio-Mos? How did Acutia come about? If you could, give us the backstory.

Nikki:                        Of course. You’re absolutely right about that. And long before I joined Alltech, (the company’s founder) Dr. Pearse Lyons took interest in the application of Alltech products to human health. And it was a natural fit, because those with a science background know that animal health and human health are very closely linked. So, a new division of the company was created: Alltech Life Sciences, where the research scientists focused on utilizing internal expertise gleaned from (the company’s) experience in the animal health industry and applied that to human health — including the first iteration of human health supplements of the company — and (were) also carrying out clinical trial work.

                                 And then, in 2013, I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Pearse Lyons myself during my job interview, in which I was proposing that Alltech hire me as their first registered dietitian on staff. So, he and I had a cup of tea, and thankfully, I got the job. And in true Dr. Lyons fashion, he sent me away with a 900-page book on selenium, asked me to read it and jot down a few notes and then start work the next week with a business plan for a human health supplement company. I read that book. I still have it here in my office today. And I put together a plan. And while, admittedly, Tom, it wasn't a very good plan — it sat unused — but the desire of Dr. Lyons to provide high-quality, effective, safe and attainable nutrition for people interested in improving in their health still remained.

                                 So, in 2018, five years later, Dr. Lyons asked me to revisit the idea of a human health business by joining an internal incubator, where a few of my colleagues and I were able to begin hashing out a true business plan to bring this idea to life. And then, in March of 2021, we launched Acutia.

Tom:                        Is Acutia an example of a business that emerged from the Pearse Lyons Cultivator? I think you just mentioned that — the Alltech program that mentors entrepreneurs and provides resources to help them take a startup company to the market. Is that the path that it followed?

Nikki:                       Yes, absolutely. As you well know, Alltech’s company culture emphasizes curiosity, creativity and entrepreneurship. So, within the program, we were given the time and, maybe most importantly, the space to explore new ideas to provide better solutions for our customers, meet the unmet needs of the industry, and maybe even do things that we had never done before as a company. So, Acutia’s true beginning as a business, yes, started within that program, with extensive support from many of my experienced and knowledgeable colleagues and a few external business experts.

Tom:                        Well, Alltech is known worldwide as an animal health organization, and I'm just wondering: Why did the company want to enter the human health side, and how does that align with their current business purpose?

Nikki:                       That's a really good question. Alltech was founded on the ACE principle, which brought focus to safety and benefits — that everything we would do would benefit the animal, the consumer and the environment. So, Alltech has since expanded upon that with our Planet of Plenty mission, whereby, working together with others, we can improve the lives of people, plants and animals while also ensuring a world of abundance.

                                 Acutia carries forward not only, then, Alltech’s legacy of innovation and that entrepreneurial spirit that I mentioned, but we're also guided by that Planet of Plenty mission — supporting the healthier tomorrow for our customers by connecting that science that we're so good at (with) sustainability and wellness.

Tom:                        Acutia offers a trio of supplements; two of them, Acutia Selenium and Acutia Brain Health, are now available. The third, Acutia Digestive Health, is on the horizon. Let's take a look at each of those.

                               Tell us first about Acutia Selenium.

Nikki:                        Sure. So, selenium is so important because it helps maintain a healthy immune system — something that all of us are interested in at this time. It also supports normal thyroid function and acts as an antioxidant. And antioxidants, they offer protection against oxidative stress to cells that are caused by free radicals. And while free radicals are produced naturally in the body, exposure to everything from pollution to sunlight can accelerate their production and then lead to oxidative stress. So, selenium, an antioxidant, helps to maintain cell health by protecting cells from that oxidative stress.

Tom:                       So, who should take Acutia Brain Health?

Nikki:                       Our brain health supplement was formulated for anyone looking to enhance their day-to-day nutrition and support their cognitive health and brain function, both now and into the future.

Tom:                        As I understand it, Acutia Brain Health does also contain selenium. How does it differ from Acutia Selenium?

Nikki:                        Indeed, our brain health supplement does contain selenium, that ever-important antioxidant that we discussed. In addition, it's formulated with plant-based omega-3 DHA and vitamin C to support the process of neurotransmitters.

                                 Now, neurotransmitters are often referred to as the body's chemical messengers. They're the molecules used by the nervous system to transmit messages between neurons or from neurons to muscle. These chemicals and their interactions are involved in countless functions of the nervous system, as well as controlling bodily functions.

Tom:                        What's the source of the selenium found in these supplements, and how do they differ from other selenium supplements?

Nikki:                        Acutia products utilize a food-grade version of Alltech’s Sel-Plex, which delivers a safe, high-quality, consistent source of selenium with each capsule. The form of our selenium is highly bioavailable, meaning that it's easily absorbed and utilized by your body. And when it comes to supplements, there are three characteristics that are absolutely critical. They need to be safe. Of course, they need to provide a consistent dose of the nutrients. And they should be easily absorbed by your body.

Tom:                       The digestive supplement is not yet on the market, as we mentioned earlier, but what can you tell us about it now?

Nikki:                       Well, we’re thrilled to announce we’ll be launching Acutia Digestive Health later this year. And hopefully, I’ll have the opportunity to join you again on the podcast to talk more about it then.

Tom:                        Okay. Well, let’s talk about the science behind these products. Alltech has, for many years, been widely known for its scientific innovation in animal health. How did the growth and development of the Acutia human health line benefit from that research?

Nikki:                        Well, (as) I mentioned earlier, Acutia supplements were developed with the support of research conducted by Alltech Life Sciences. With their support, we've applied more than 40 years of Alltech’s research experience, innovation and scientific expertise in the animal health space to human health. We're also very fortunate to have two of our senior Alltech research scientists on the Acutia team — chief scientific officer Dr. Ronan Power and research group director Dr. Alex Yiannikouris — to help guide the continued scientific innovation of our business.

Tom:                        Acutia’s approach to sustainability appears to have a lot to do with packaging and shipping, and it involves a refill system. Can you elaborate on that?

Nikki:                        Absolutely. This is truly one of my favorite things to talk about in regard to Acutia, because environmental sustainability is as much a part of our mission as our commitment to supporting human health.

                                 So, each component of Acutia’s unique packaging and refill system has been designed with sustainability in mind — particularly, reducing the amount of plastic waste that’s typically associated with the supplement industry. So, upon your first order, we send an optional starter kit that includes a reusable glass jar and a travel container. Your supplements are then packaged in compostable pouches, and you can store your supplement in your glass jar or take it with you on the road in your travel container. You compost your pouch and eliminate a ton of unnecessary plastic waste. All of your following orders are then sent in their compostable pouch for refilling containers.

                                 And all of the other packaging material — the shipping box for the starter kit, the shipping envelopes for the refill pouches and the informational card — they're recyclable, and they're either made from recycled post-consumer waste or made from material that’s been certified by the Forest Stewardship Council or the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. I'm sure you can tell that we're very proud of our packaging.

Tom:                        Well, tell us about Acutia’s partnership with Nori, the Seattle-based company that's created this marketplace for removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in the soil, (which is known as) sequestering.

Nikki:                        Certainly. So, our commitment to sustainability, it doesn't stop at packaging. To deliver our supplement sustainably, we purchase carbon units from Nori, and those funds are distributed directly to farmers and producers, utilizing regenerative agricultural practices, which ties us back to our roots at Alltech. And by combining nutritional science with the sustainable delivery system, we're able to support the long-term health of the planet and the people who share it.

Tom:                       The supplement market is pretty huge. What distinguishes the Acutia line from all the rest?

Nikki:                       I'm glad you asked this. One of the biggest things is that our team is made up of scientists and dietitians. So, we are the ones that are formulating your supplement to optimize the quality, the absorption (and), of course, the safety and effectiveness, meaning that these products are truly great.

                                You know, the scientists are there from kind of the bench level, the nitty-gritty, and then the dietitians are there to talk about application with lifestyle — you know, how does that fit with your life? We're committed to the science of sustainable wellness — not only the long-term health and well-being of our customers but, also, doing our best to reduce our impact on the environment along the way.

Tom:                       How can people learn more (about) and, for that matter, purchase Acutia supplements?

Nikki:                        You can learn more and purchase Acutia at our website, acutia.com. You can find more information on our supplements, our team, the science behind our products and, of course, our commitment to sustainability.

Tom:                        And that’s Nikki Putnam Badding, managing director of Acutia, Alltech’s line of human health supplements. Thanks, Nikki.

Nikki:                       Thanks, Tom.

Tom:                       This has been Ag Future, presented by Alltech. Thank you for joining us. Be sure to subscribe to Ag Future wherever you listen to podcasts.

Inclusion cultivates creativity and drives innovation, and the future success of the agri-food industry requires diverse perspectives. Maria Arreaza, marketing manager at Alltech Latin America, joins the Ag Future podcast to discuss the barriers for women in the sector and how organizations can bring new ideas to the table by promoting workplace equity and inclusion.

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

Tom:             I'm Tom Martin, and with me is Maria Arreaza, Alltech marketing manager for Latin America, to talk about diversity, inclusion and connecting women from across the agri-food sector with mentors to champion their professional success. She joins us from Alltech Global Headquarters in Kentucky. Welcome, Maria.

Maria:            Thank you. Pleasure to be with you, Tom, and with your audience this morning.

Tom:             Well, let's begin, Maria, by having you tell us about your career journey within the agri-food industry.

Maria:            Sure. Well, I'm originally from Venezuela, and I graduated in business with a minor degree in marketing. I left school around 21 to 22 years old and started my career in my home country, Venezuela, outside the industry, in the tourism industry. One day, I just saw this advertisement from a company called Alltech, and (my) curiosity just sparked. I went through the interview and fell in love with the (company’s) purpose.

                      At that time, the company was telling me their vision, about the ACE principle, which is really developing solutions that are friendly for the animals, environment and the consumer. That was 20 years ago. I just clicked with the purpose and the fact that I could be joining a company — that I will be creating, through my work, an impact by feeding the world. That's how my connection to agriculture came to become a reality, came to place.

Tom:             Well, what would you say are the key opportunities and the key challenges facing diversity and inclusion in the agri-food industry at the moment? I guess we need to break that into two questions, and begin with the opportunities that you see.

Maria:            For me, (one of) the (greatest) opportunities right now is the interest of the new generation, who are learning more about how they can really make an impact and make a difference through their work and their daily actions. So, that gives agriculture an enormous opportunity because, like I said initially, we are ultimately feeling the work.

                     There are also concerns about the impact of agriculture in the environment, but from my point of view, the fact that you could show purpose, a clear purpose, in a name is a humongous opportunity to attract new talent — especially people who are really looking forward to having a direct impact in their communities through local restaurants, farming and so on and so forth.

Tom:             And the second part of that question: How about the challenges that are facing diversity and inclusion?

Maria:            At the same time, competition is high. Right now, all we hear about is the talent — it's like a battle for talent, right? During the global pandemic, many things shifted — the ways of working, the appreciation of talent, the use of skills in the workforce shifted completely. And I would say it's hard to get the right talent into place and keep coming to the industry, for all the greatest challenges, (including) going beyond the males and the traditional profiles that would apply for this type of job.

I mean, agriculture might not be the most sexy industry, to a degree. People really don't understand what it's about. When you talk about agriculture, you might think of farming and, you know, harvesting, but it goes beyond that. I believe — especially the people who are working in marketing and communications — we have in front of us a huge challenge of communicating what the industry is about, the real significance of the industry, and the impact that we have in the work (that we do).

Sure, it's hard. It's hard to get the right talent, because competition is high. At the same time, there is an opportunity for us to really showcase what agriculture is about. It's beyond what is advertised or stigmatized, to a degree. There are a lot of opportunities on using emerging technology in the industry to really completely reshape the landscape of the industry to create a better world. It may sound a little cliché, but I truly believe we are in the right place to do that.

Tom:             What would you say is the significance of inclusion and creating an equitable workforce in the agri-food industry?

Maria:            Well, for me, inclusion and diversity are key. My answer might be twofold. One, diversity and inclusion bring a diversity of ideas, which is super crucial to go beyond traditional solutions. When you are in front of a great challenge or facing a great challenge, you cannot tackle those challenges with the same level of understanding or the same mindset that you have (always had). That's when you need diversity of opinions (and) a healthy, complete debates of ideas so you can really incorporate the point of view and understand the point of view and have more empathy for the different perspectives. If you create your company or your business surrounded by people that think only like you, well, you're going to get just the same results. That will be, for me, the most important thing.

Tom:             Well, I guess this next question really goes to what you just said, but maybe we can expand on that, and that's how ensuring a diverse and inclusive workforce helps address those challenges that you've mentioned that are facing agriculture.

Maria:            Well, like I mentioned initially, only having males and technical agriculture-backgrounded people in the industry is not going to help us to elevate the sector and to reshape the business, just because of the reasons I've mentioned previously. So, I would say that it's crucial that the company's businesses and managers are thinking about this every single time. It's not only bringing and attracting people from different backgrounds to our business; it's also making sure they're included in the important conversations.

                      I’d like to expand on that point. It’s one thing to hire people from different backgrounds; (it’s) another thing to make sure they’re represented at the table — they have a seat at the table and their voices are heard. You might have diversity, but you may not have inclusion. Inclusion is, to me, more crucial and more important, because it gives you the warranty that you are bulletproofing yourself against your own bias, your confirmation bias, and that you are considering different perspectives on your decision-making and on the things you want to do and create.

Tom:             So, the problem may remain the same, but by bringing various cultures to the table, you bring various perspectives on how to solve that problem to the table. Is that what you’re saying?

Maria:           Yes, that is exactly correct.

Tom:             So, what do you think are the implications of diversity for the next generation for attracting fresh talent?

Maria:            Well, I'd probably answer this question based on my experience as a mother and looking at my teenager and how she's interacting. Like, her friends are pretty much in the virtual world (and are) from all kinds of different backgrounds, different cities. I don’t know where they are, but they’re everywhere in this world, when they’re playing video games. So, by looking at her and seeing how she's making a connection and building relationships in a completely different way than I had when I grew up in Venezuela — (which was) just with the same people. You know, we look the same. We speak the same.

To me, the new generation, I’m hoping, are going to have a lot more flexibility and, perhaps, sensibility about differences. I’m hoping that the new generation is going to grow up thinking that diversity is the common state rather than the exception, Tom. I don't know if I'm explaining myself. For me, everybody who speaks in Spanish looks the same but came from different families. For my daughter, she will think this is funny. She has friends from everywhere around the world. She's getting exposure through the internet — and I'm talking about positive exposure and positive information — from all kinds of people and experiences around the world. To me, that has broadened her perspective. When she comes to the workplace — and I'm hoping she comes to agriculture, of course — she is going to come with a whole different mindset. She's going to come with expecting flexibility, expecting to be heard, expecting to be seeing these different colors and points of view.

So, I believe companies have to incorporate those artifacts in their communications, in their culture; showcase flexibility; showcase a diversity of opinions; showcase that there is a place for everybody in the company, more than — beyond backgrounds. You're creating a place where people can have the space and the freedom to voice out what they think and what they want to achieve.

Tom:             Well, you've been doing this for a while, Maria. I'm just wondering what changes you have seen over the course of your career in terms of diversity and inclusion.

Maria:           Yeah, that's a good question. Yeah, twenty years in the industry is a little bit of time. I would say that the most significant change I have observed so far is more women in the workforce in, maybe, nontraditional positions. I'm talking a little bit more about managerial and executive positions. It used to be mostly male; I remember, in 99% of the meetings, 99% of the time that I was attending a meeting, I was the only female, and the youngest. That’s shifted now. If I go to a meeting nowadays, you'll probably see three women in there — and one of them is the boss, not a man. So, it has been interesting to showcase that.

                     I also have observed — and I'm talking specifically about Latin America — succession in place, and daughters taking after their parents, (joining) the business, and really embracing the family business again, which is very, very, very good to see. In the past, the newer generation would have shown no interest in agriculture or in the family business. I have seen observed a little bit of the change. The most significant (change), I would say, (is that) I'm seeing more females in the industry in roles that are more managerial and with a little bit more power, to a degree, and influence. And I'm thrilled to see that happen.

Tom:             Do barriers to the inclusion of women in agriculture remain? And if so, what would you say are the most significant among them?

Maria:            I would say it will depend. For managerial roles, for departments like the one that I am (in), marketing, or for that type of job, the barriers that I see not only relate to agriculture but in any industry is providing more support systems to women. I'm talking about childcare, fixed wages, maternity leave or flexibility for female workers to care for their family while, at the same time, having a healthy contribution, healthy life and healthy work.

                      I believe a lot of improvements have been made, but still, there is pressure. And right now, a lot of — during the pandemic, a lot of female workers were really struggling. It is known that many resigned their positions because they have to decide between taking care of their families and taking care of their job. So, that, I would say, could be a barrier and, at the same time, an opportunity for companies to enable those systems, those support systems, that are going to be allowing women to work and feel like they're also taking care of their families and having a whole life.

Tom:             You know, Maria, this pandemic that we've been going through has been very revealing. It's pulled back the curtain on a number of things, among them something that's critical to what you're talking about there, and that is childcare. Do you feel that perhaps because of this understanding of the — or let me put it this way, a better, deeper understanding of the direct connection between workforce and childcare, because we understand that better now — do you think there might be, we might finally see some improvement on that front?

Maria:            I think so. I have experienced it myself, personally, in the sense that women, we tend not to ask for help. I personally hesitate many times to ask for help, but I have to ask, Tom. (During the pandemic) I said, “I don't have childcare for my daughters. I need a little bit of flexibility.” And the answer was, "Yes, we can accommodate you." I was kind of not surprised, I would say, by that, but it was a relief.

And I believe changes are coming. I believe there is a whole new opportunity for us to really understand what work means. The definition of work has changed completely. The definition is shifting, and it has changed completely as well. Work is not eight-to-five or nine-to-six. Work is just the impact you have when you sit down and have focus and accomplish what you're supposed to. To me, we came back to the sense of what purpose is, what clarity means, intentionality, why I'm doing things, what's the reason behind (it) and what I'm trying to accomplish. And when we really know, we have clarity of purpose. And when we put intentionality behind it, I believe our productivity increases and the quality of the work increases, and companies thrive and people thrive at the same time.

Tom:             I'd like to drill down into one thing that you've mentioned there, because (we’re) still making that connection between workforce and the availability of childcare, and ask you: What does quality, affordable, accessible childcare mean in terms of productivity? How does it translate into greater productivity?

Maria:           Well, from my personal experience as a mom, if I'm not worried about who's taking care of my children — are they getting the needs that they're supposed to? Are they being educated? Are they engaged? Are they not (being) exposed to the information that they shouldn’t be on the internet? — if I have all of these points checked, the one hour that I'm going to be working on whatever it is, that hour is 100% towards that and not worrying about anything else. If I have 100% of my brain capacity to dedicate, creativity, personally, flows. I'm not anxious about, “Oh my gosh, what's happening?” Because what ends up happening is you're not here or you're not there. You're not in the present moment. You feel bad because you're working and your family is alone, or if you're with your family, you feel like you're slacking because you're not working at your fullest potential. So, affordable childcare means, like, you are going to have the capacity to focus your energy on what you're supposed to be doing in that moment. I don't know if that answers your question.

Tom:             It does. So, let's say that an organization has taken care of childcare. They're providing great childcare or the flexibility that you need. What else can an organization do to promote inclusion and diversity within their organization or team?

Maria:           Yeah, that's a really good question. And I would say, in a lot of things, I have seen many companies that have really put a lot of effort on doing practical things. Like, from the hiring process, they're starting to write differently — and I'm talking about literally the wording for the job. If the job boards or the position they're advertising is well-known, depending on the language for certain roles, only certain people will apply.

So, that's one thing that companies can do. The other is making sure you're creating the services for cross-functionality and collaboration in the front-end products. Sometimes, even though we might — like I said several times — we might have diversity, we don't have inclusion, and a way to promote that is allowing those outside of the work project to be led by cross-functional teams from different areas, different departments and different backgrounds. That's the way that you, individually, can expand your network, your relationships, your understanding of different cultures, but also, the company can make sure that they're including everybody and the opinion of everybody's perspectives on different products. In other words, just because it's a marketing project, it doesn't mean that only the marketing department needs to work on it. If it is about the purpose of the company and we all are part of the company, why not invite all the departments? So, expand the collaboration through external stakeholders, customers, suppliers, NGOs and so on.

Collaboration is big. Nowadays, in agriculture, it's going to be crucial. We cannot achieve the purpose of feeding the world in a sustainable way without reaching out to others. One thing that I personally learned from the pandemic is I cannot do things alone. I need connection. I need connectivity. I need to feel included and be part of something bigger than myself. That's what makes me a human — and particularly and specifically, a happy human.

Tom:             All right. That's Maria Arreaza, Alltech marketing manager for Latin America. Thank you so much, Maria.

Maria:           Thank you, Tom. It's been a pleasure.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the biggest threats facing both animal and human health. Dr. Richard Murphy, research director of the Alltech European Bioscience Center, joins us on Ag Future to discuss the challenges that AMR presents in livestock production and the possible benefits of a multifactorial approach.

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

Tom Martin:                 Antimicrobial resistance, or “AMR,” in agriculture can negatively impact public health, with an ever-increasing rise in bacterial strains that are less and less sensitive to treatments.

                                        Antimicrobial resistance has the potential to become one of the greatest problems of our generation. Each year, 700,000 people die of AMR. Without action, the death toll could rise even higher, to as many as 10 million deaths annually by 2050, and cause a 3.8% reduction in annual gross domestic product, all of that according to the 2017 report, “Drug-Resistant Infections: A Threat to Our Economic Future.” The world’s poorest people — those living in low- and middle-income countries — are disproportionately vulnerable.

                                        So, the search is on to find ways to reduce antimicrobial use in livestock production. That imperative is challenging scientists, like our guest, to come up with alternatives.

                                        Joining us on this episode of AgFuture is Dr. Richard Murphy, research director of the Alltech European Bioscience Center in Dunboyne, Ireland. Welcome, Dr. Murphy.

Richard Murphy:          Thank you. How are you?

Tom Martin:                  I’m great. And first, if you would, for those of us who know just enough science to be dangerous, if you could, help us with the difference between antibiotics and antimicrobials — or is there a difference?

Richard Murphy:          That’s a great question, and I guess there can be some confusion with that.

Typically, when we think about antibiotics, we’re talking about medicines that we use to prevent and treat bacterial infections.  “Antimicrobials,” then, I guess, can be used as a broader term, and antimicrobial resistance — you can refer to resistance to drugs to treat other infections that are caused by other microbes, like parasites or perhaps viruses.

                                        So, there is a tendency to use them interchangeably — so, “antibiotics” and “antimicrobials” — but antibiotics are the medicines that we would know, whereas the antimicrobials could be a lot of different types of compounds. So, I hope that helps a little bit.

Tom Martin:                  It does, yes. Thank you very much.

                                        So, Dr. Murphy, your colleagues and you have written, in an article on Nature.com,  about pressures to understand the mechanisms surrounding antibiotic resistance and the search for alternatives. So, let’s begin there. Where are we in our understanding about antibiotic resistance?

Richard Murphy:          Gosh, it’s an era that’s really exciting, actually, because when we look at antibiotic resistance, it’s actually been around for a very, very long time. In a lot of more recent work, which would look at, I guess, profiling historical samples, say, in fossilized remains of animals or even in mummies from Egypt, for instance. And with, you know — scientists have been able to identify the presence of resistant gene markers well before what we will call the so-called golden age of antibiotics, which would have been the 1960s and 70s.

                                         So, really, antimicrobial resistance or antibiotic resistance has been around for a long, long time. And the problem has been that the selection pressures that really are driven by not only the use but the misuse of antimicrobials in disease prevention and treatment in humans and in animals — and then, as well as improving their use for improving growth rates in food-producing animals — both significantly contributed to an accelerated development of AMR.

So, while antibiotic resistance has been around for a long, long time, I think it’s the accelerated development of antibiotic resistance which is, really, a lot of concern. That being said, I do think that the intensification of agriculture and widespread use of AGPs, along with the use of antibiotics for so-called metaphylaxis, that’s really allowed for an enhanced spread of resistance.

                                        And then, right now, I guess, the major spread — area of concern has been the spread of antibiotics, the spread of resistant antibiotics of critical importance to humans, and so — antibiotics like silver quinolones , for instance.

                                        The last number of years has really gotten quite interesting in that a lot of the focus has started to shift to trying to understand the makeup of the resistant gene markers that are present within the gastrointestinal tract, the ecosystem. So, within our GI tract and within the GI tracts of animals, you’ve got an entire population of all the microbes — not just bacteria, but fungi; you’ve got viruses; you’ve got protozoa. As well as that group of organisms, you have a population, for want of a word, of resistant gene markers, and that’s called the so-called resistome. And so, that’s a really exciting area.

                                        And what that’s shown, over the last while, is that there are hundreds of markers to antibiotic resistance that are present within this GI tract ecosystem. Some of these can be chromosomally incorporated, from the chromosome of the bacteria or of the fungi, but the majority of them tend to be on, I guess, more what you call as mobile genetic elements. So, small pieces of DNA, certain pieces of DNA called plasmids, or we may have other ones called the intergrins, or that could even be present on phage that can easily move around, the bacteriophage that can easily move around.

                                        I think the biggest area of interest for me has been the demonstration that antibiotic resistance is persistent. And that’s the way I like to think about it, is that once antimicrobial or antibiotic resistance gets a foothold, it can be extremely difficult to get rid of.

                                        And you can look at data from a lot of different monitoring agencies — whether it’s the ECDC here in the EU or NARMS in the U.S. — a lot of different monitoring agencies produce these really good data sets each year, and they all seem to indicate or they all show that simply restricting or banning the use of antibiotics doesn’t necessarily result in an elimination or a very significant decrease in the problems associated with antimicrobial resistance.

                                        And that’s the biggest not only an area of interest for me, but also, I think, it’s also one of the biggest areas of concern for me, that while we have a drive towards restricting and reducing the use of antibiotics, which is very much needed, I think there’s less attention paid to how we’re actually going to reduce the presence or the prevalence of resistant organisms that are already present within our production system or present within the environment. And that’s the, I think, where the most critical needs over the next few years will be, is to look at strategies that we can, I guess, (utilize to) reduce the presence of resistant organisms.

                                        So, I guess that’s a very whirlwind look at the whole area. Certainly, it’s not all-encompassing, but those are the most — the most interesting areas, to be honest.

Tom Martin:                  Okay. Well, thank you for bringing us up to speed on that.

                                        The EU, the European Union, banned antibiotic use in 2006. And since then, there has been this imperative to find ways to support antibiotic restriction while continuing to promote animal health without contributing to antibiotic resistance.

                                        What have been some important outcomes of that drive to identify alternatives to antibiotics?

Richard Murphy:          Yeah. That’s a really interesting question as well. I think the key message that we would see is that, really, there’s no silver bullet. So, you know, taking antibiotics out of the diet has been difficult, and that’ll cause issues for producers. And there is definitely a need to look at this from the point of view of being, of it being a multifactorial issue that we need to look at.

                                        So, for instance, we need to look at management, hygiene practices and antibiotic use for disease prevention in animals that do get sick. But we also need to look at diet, and I think we need to look at nutrition more closely as well, because within the production system, everything is linked.

So, while there is no silver bullet to replacing antibiotics, I do think it’s a much bigger picture that we’re trying to look at. And I do think that, really, when we think about replacement of antibiotics, we will need to take into consideration multiple factors or dimensions, such as animal management and facility hygiene; diet certainly is going to be absolutely critical, and nutritional components play a huge role in transitioning — (that word) is probably the way to look at those — away from antibiotic use, in transitioning towards antibiotic-free production systems.

Tom Martin:                  What can you tell us about dietary oligosaccharides in feeds as a non-pharmaceutical alternative to antibiotic growth promoters?

Richard Murphy:          Again, (that’s) a really exciting area, and certainly one that Alltech has been involved with since the, I guess, the late 1990s. Really, the heart of what we’re talking about with dietary oligosaccharides, such as mannan-oligosaccharides — these are, I guess, isolated components that we take from yeast. So, from baker’s yeast — like Saccrharomyces cerevisiae, for instance.

                                        The realization has been that the oligosaccharides that are present within the yeast cell wall have many different functions. So, some of them, for instance, can be used to reduce the impact of mycotoxin contamination in feeds, and some of them — like mannan-oligosaccharides, for instance — have the ability to control pathogens.

                                        And when I talk about controlling pathogens, I guess, from the historical perspective, mannan-oligosaccharides would been viewed as a tool to control E. coli and control Salmonella. So, they bind the E. coli and Salmonella and prevent them from colonizing the GI tract, thereby reducing the overall load of them within the bird, and then, obviously, reducing problems in the associative consumption of contaminations in meat and egg products, for instance.

                                        Something that is quite of interest when we look at mannan-oligosaccharides is that, typically, they are associated with a performance response. So, we do tend to see improvements in feed conversions, we see improvements in weight gain, but critically, we also see decreases in mortality as well.

                                        So, for a producer, they represent the really elegant, I guess, solution — or elegant part of the solution — to replacing antibiotics in that you can look at them as a way in which you can improve the performance of your animals, your livestock and your poultry, but also, you can begin to reduce the presence of pathogens like E. coli, like Salmonella. And more recently what we have seen is, I guess, is control of other pathogens, like Campylobacter, for instance. That’s really a different mechanism but, certainly, is a very important aspect to the use of mannan-oligosaccharides.

Tom Martin:                 Are prebiotics such as yeast MRF (mannan-rich fractions) effective alternatives to antibiotics?

Richard Murphy:          Okay, so when we talk about MRF, what we’re actually talking about is, again, a further refinement of the whole mannan-oligosaccharides concept. And initially, when we developed our mannan-oligosaccharide product in Alltech, we looked at the interior cell wall of Saccrharomyces yeast.

With MRF, it’s actually a much more refined structure that’s obtained from those MOS preparations. And it’s characterized, I guess, by being a very highly branched mannan sub-structure. So, we call it mannan-rich fraction. MRF as a prebiotic really does represent a very good part of the arsenal that we would have in terms of looking at transitioning producers away from the use of antibiotics and transitioning towards antibiotics-free diets.

                                        And certainly, we developed some quite nice data from the use of MRF within the laboratory and within the research program here in Dunboyne. And we’ve basically shown that with preparations like MRF, you can have dramatic impacts on the growth and the sensitization of antibiotic-resistant bacteria; you can actually change the way in which the bacteria metabolizes, and that makes those bacteria more sensitive to the use of antibiotics. And certainly, yeast MRF do represent a very good part of the puzzle in transitioning away from antibiotic use.

                                        Click here to access more detailed information on MRF.

Tom Martin:                  After that EU ban on antibiotics, there was a turn to zinc oxide, which also turned out to be problematic. How has zinc oxide also contributed to the spread of antimicrobial resistance?

Richard Murphy:          Again, that’s a really good question, and one that we could chat, really, at length about, to be honest. And it tends to get, I guess, when you look at the literature, it can be — there’s a lot of, I guess, conflict in the literature about whether zinc oxide has or hasn’t contributed to the spread of antimicrobial resistance.   

                                        Personally, I do think it has. And there are quite a number of excellent publications out there indicating that the use of high levels of zinc — and also, high levels of copper, for instance — can actually select for co-resistance; it’s a co-resistance mechanism that’s been selected for in this case, here.

                                        And the way in which that can be, I guess, easily described is that when you have those mobile genetic elements — and so, those smaller, easily transmissible pieces of DNA that carry antibiotic resistance markers — sometimes, they can have markers that encode resistance to metals, like zinc, like copper, like cadmium, for instance. And when you have a selective pressure — and what I mean by that is when you have a high level of zinc (or) a high level of copper in an animal’s diet, you can actually select for the expression or select for high-level resistance to occur to both the metal and both the antibiotic.

So, while there is a little bit of conflict in the literature about it, I think it is pretty clear, at this stage, that the use of high levels of zinc, zinc oxide, or high levels of copper have, in part, contributed to the development and contributed to the spread of antimicrobial resistance.

Tom Martin:                  What does the latest research tell us about the benefits of enhancing microbial diversity in the, in the gut?

Richard Murphy:          That’s an area that we’ve been working extensively on over the last number of years. And really, the realization here is that when we think about microbial diversity, really, what we’re talking about is the balance of bacteria and microbes within the GI tract.

                                        And I guess us humans, for our own diet, we’re interested in trying to improve the balance of bacteria within our guts. And the same is true for our production animals or for our livestock and for our poultry, that we want to take as much care with increasing the diversity of bacteria within their guts, increasing the balance of bacteria within their guts, in order to improve their health and, obviously, in order to improve the performance of our poultry and our livestock.

                                        So, certainly, when we think about microbial diversity, what we’re really trying to do is improve the balance of bacteria within the gut. And our own research has shown that by the use of yeast MRF, or by the addition of yeast MRF in diets, we can, in fact, improve the balance of bacteria within the GI tract — so we can get an improvement in the overall diversity, which we’ve definitely been able to link to an increased (protection) against pathogen colonization.

                                        So, we get increased — or, rather, we get decreased colonization with pathogens like Campylobacter, like E. coli, like Salmonella. And in many respects, I think that this is a really elegant part of the transition to antibiotic-free diets, is that by improving the balance within the GI tract, or the microbial balance within the GI tract, we actually allow the gut to begin to self-police itself. So, we enable the bacterial ecosystem within the gut to more effectively control and more effectively prevent pathogens from colonizing the GI tract.

                                        So, I really do think that microbial balance or microbial diversity within the gut is a critical part of any antibiotic-free program.

Tom Martin:                  Why is it important to understand the role of intestinal microbial communities in existing feed additives, as well as in the development of new additives?

Richard Murphy:          Again, that’s a great question. And I guess it comes back to trying to understand the factors that influence the diversity of bacteria within the gut or the factors that influence the balance of bacteria within the gut.

                                        So, it’s a multifactorial process, so everything, including management practices, hygiene in the facility, the diet that’s being used, whether we’re changing diets — so, going from starter to grower to finisher — whether we’re using nutritional additives, all of these factors together will influence the balance or influence the diversity of bacteria within the gut.

                                        So, when we make a subtle change within the diet, we may actually have an impact on that balance or an impact on that diversity. So, really, we need to think carefully about the impact that a change in the diet may have or the use of a new additive, what (impact) they may have for a production system.

                                        And really, for me, I think it’s — we can take it right back to trying to understand how diverse or how good the balance of bacteria within the gut is. Any factors that reduce that balance or reduce that diversity, they should be avoided. So, really, what we need to do is look at using additives or developing newer additives that solely are designed to improve the balance or improve the diversity of bacteria within the GI tract.

Tom Martin:                  Has the research made it possible to attribute cause and effect to the way nutrients affect changes in the gut microflora, which are ultimately responsible for digestion and metabolite production?

Richard Murphy:          Yes, absolutely, it has. And a lot of this, I guess, has its genesis, really, in our work which has looked at the diversity or looked at the balance of bacteria within the GI tract.

                                        If you think about it, within our guts, we have an ecosystem of microbes, and that ecosystem, I guess, it breaks down the nutrients that are in the diet, and they produce short-chain fatty acids, for instance. So, if we change the balance of bacteria within the GI tract, we can actually influence the way in which that bacteria functions or the way in which they produce VFAs or short-chain fatty acids.

                                        And that’s something that we’ve found with the use of MRF, that when you encourage the beneficial change of bacteria within the GI tract, when you improve the balance and improve the diversity of bacteria within the GI tract, you actually begin to change the way they act as an ecosystem. And that change typically is shown by improvements in butyrate production or improvements in propionate production.

                                        And that, to me, is a really good, I guess, proof of our ability to modulate or ability to change metabolite production, is that by influencing the bacterial balance, you actually change the metabolites they produce — and in some cases, what’s beginning to get really interesting for us is that the metabolites produced in certain regions of the GI tract actually have a profound influence on the colonization of that region of the GI tract with pathogens.

                                        A good example of that is our work in Campylobacter, where we’ve basically shown that by using yeast MRF in the diet, you change the balance of bacteria within the cecum. And by changing that balance of bacteria within the cecum, you change the way in which they function, and that function is often demonstrated by changes in butyrate production. And when you get those increased butyrate levels, you actually see a decreased Campylobacter load in the cecum.

                                        So, it’s quite an elegant way in which we can control Campylobacter: Change the balance of bacteria within the cecum. That changed balance then shifts the metabolite production towards more favorable metabolites, like butyrate, and those butyrate molecules then begin to control the Campylobacter or make it less hospitable of an environment for Campylobacter to grow.

Tom Martin:                 Okay. You touched on this briefly earlier in our conversation, but I wanted to come back to it: current trends in the world of antibiotic research and the work to identify safe alternatives. And I’m just wondering: Among those trends, what excites you most?

Richard Murphy:          Really, what’s beginning to get, I guess, particularly exciting but is also an area that really needs to be looked at are the strategies that we need to look at reducing the presence of resistant organisms.

                                        So, on the one hand, we do recognize that, you know, there is a need for newer antibiotics to be developed. So, we need to be consistently looking out for antibiotics to replace the ones that we have, which will safeguard us against the development of antimicrobial or antibiotic resistance.

                                        But at the same time, I think, from, I guess, from a production animal point of view, do we actually need to look at using antibiotics at all? Should we be looking more towards, I guess, transitioning to antibiotic-free diets? And that’s really, I guess, what’s of interest to me, is how we can enable that research — so, how we can not only move towards the ABF diets, so move towards antibiotic-free programs, but also, what benefits we can have in terms of — will that transition towards an ABF system, will that actually reduce the presence of resistant organisms that may be present, say, for instance, from — present in the environment that we’re growing our production animals in? And can we reduce, then, the overall impact of those on the animal?

Tom Martin:                  Well, tell us about the Alltech solution — its Seed, Feed, Weed program.

Richard Murphy:          This is a program that we’ve worked on for a number of years now, and again, it’s back to the comment I made earlier about there being no silver bullet. So, it can be quite difficult to develop programs whereby you remove antibiotics and replace them with a single compound or a single nutritional additive.

                                        Really, with the Seed, Feed, Weed program, it’s multifactorial. And so, at its heart, what we’re looking at is the “seeding,” if you like, of young animals’ guts with probiotic bacteria. So, that looks at enhancing the resistance of the young animal to colonization of their gut with pathogenic organisms.

                                        We have a “feeding” element, which is a low-pH element, whereby we use a fairly safe organic acid that reduces the pH within the GI tract — so it makes it less favorable for the growth of organisms like Salmonella, like Campylobacter.

                                        And then, lastly, we have the “weeding” element. So, we use yeast MRF prebiotics as a way in which we can control, further control and further restrict not just the colonization of the gut with pathogens like E. coli and Salmonella, but then, also, changing the metabolites that are produced within the gut, so that you get decreased campylobacter prevalence, for instance.

                                        So, the Seed, Feed, and Weed is a multifactorial program. Again, there is no silver bullet, I think, to complete antibiotic-free production systems. You need to look at multifactor programs such as this and then also look at management and hygiene practices as well.

Tom Martin:                  That’s Dr. Richard Murphy, research director at the Alltech European Bioscience Center in Dunboyne, Ireland.

                                        Thanks, Dr. Murphy.

Richard Murphy:          Thank you.

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

                                        This has been AgFuture, presented by Alltech. Thank you for joining us. Be sure to subscribe to AgFuture wherever you listen to podcasts.