There is an increasing awareness of biochar among the agricultural community and beyond, but what is it? David Butler, head of sustainability at Alltech, joins Ag Future to discuss the history of this porous piece of carbon, its application in agriculture and how it's now being used in products ranging from asphalt to jet fuel.

The following is an edited transcript of the Ag Future podcast episode with David Butler 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, and I have some questions. What is biochar? How is it made? How is it used in agriculture? And how can it help with climate change?

All questions for David Butler, head of sustainability at Alltech. Thanks for joining us, David.

David Butler:           Thanks for having me, Tom.

Tom Martin:            So, let’s begin with those basic questions — and first, what is biochar, and how is it made?

David Butler:            Well, biochar is very similar to charcoal, really, but charcoal is specifically used as a fuel and biochar is not. It has lots of other uses. But it’s biomass that has been baked at a really high temperature in the absence of oxygen, so it’s essentially kind of crystallized carbon. All the volatiles are driven off and you’re left with this very, very porous piece of carbon.

Tom Martin:            Any idea who had the “eureka” (moment), for whom the light bulb went off, (or) how the process was discovered?

David Butler:            Well, I think people have been making charcoal for thousands of years, probably, as a fuel. But also, there are a lot of places in the world — especially in the Amazon — where you can find that biochar was used as a soil amendment.

                                And it might have been an accidental discovery. They would kind of bury and burn their waste, so they would be burning waste without oxygen, because they were burying it. And you find soils there that are very rich and black, even hundreds and/or thousands of years later, and that’s called terra preta soil, black soil.

                                And that’s, really, how they fed a very large population there: by enhancing the very poor Amazon soils with biochar.

Tom Martin:            So, they burned their trash and then buried it, and it continued to burn. Is it possible for that to happen without so much oxygen?

David Butler:           Yeah. That’s a really good question. So, it doesn’t actually burn in a lack-of-oxygen environment; it undergoes a process called pyrolysis. And what that involves is kind of breaking down this organic material, driving off the volatiles and reducing it, pretty much, to carbon and minerals. So, it’s not burning, because burning does require oxygen, and at the end of it, you’re just left with carbon dioxide and ash.

Tom Martin:            Huh. So, when you dig it up, what does it look like? What are its properties? What can it do?

David Butler:            Well, it really looks just like charcoal. And you know, there could — you could have relatively large pieces, or it could be almost, you know, microscopic size.

                                 And if you look at it under a microscope, you’ll see that it’s very, very porous. And if you think back to high school, maybe you looked at plant cells under a microscope, right? And so, you know what that looks like. There are all these kinds of spaces that are — they’re mostly liquid in the middle of the cell, and then you have the cell walls.

                                Well, you can imagine, if you baked that at hundreds of degrees, you would drive off all of those, all of those liquids and volatile compounds, and you would be left with kind of the skeleton of the plant matter — and that’s really a major, important property of biochar, is that it’s so porous, because it’s this organic-matter kind of crystal carbon skeleton.

                                And in addition to being very porous, or because it’s very porous, it has a huge surface area. So, it can hold a lot of water, but it can also hold nutrients like nitrogen, calcium, potassium and phosphorous. It can even hold toxic metals and kind of bind those up.

                                And it’s also a great home for microbes. It’s kind of like a little apartment complex for microbes.

Tom Martin:            [laughs] So, lots of implications there. Let’s look at a big one here.

According to the International Energy Agency, global warming could be kept to 1.8 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels if all the pledges and the promises that were made at that recent summit in Glasgow are kept. Scientists have said that warming needs to be kept at 1.5 degrees or below that to avoid the most disastrous climate consequences, but 1.8 degrees is still big news, given that, right now, we’re actually careening toward a 2.7-degree rise.

                                So, to what extent can biochar play a role in helping us get a handle on that rate of increase in (global) warming?

David Butler:           Yeah. That’s a really good question, Tom. And I think that a lot of people are trying to figure that out right now, because even though biochar is a very, very old technology, the biochar industry is relatively new and growing, and there are a lot of exciting things happening with the industry, but it’s still in its infancy, really. It’s still kind of tiny.

                                So, estimates for the amount of carbon that could be sequestered by biochar range from 1 gigaton to 35 gigatons per year. And that’s a huge range.

Tom Martin:            Yeah. What about agriculture? There are indications that it’s already being used in farming; is that correct?

David Butler:            Yes. And you know, it’s been used for a long time by farmers, and I think it’s getting more awareness now, and it’s starting to spread. And one of the fascinating things about biochar is that, because of its properties, it has many, many uses. So, there are a lot of ways to use it in agriculture.

Tom Martin:            Well, let’s explore that a little bit. When biochar is worked into the soil, let’s say, what are the benefits to the farmers?

David Butler:            Well, I mentioned that it holds water and nutrients, and it also is a place for microbes to live; it’s like a little ecosystem for microbes. So, all of those things are beneficial for the soil.

                                 And, first off, if we talk about water, if you have all these little pieces of biochar in the soil that kind of act like little sponges, and they hold water, which means that under times of drought, you have all of the water that’s been saved in the biochar. But also, when it rains very hard in an extreme weather event, then the soil can hold more water, so there’s less runoff and there’s less erosion.

                                So, it really helps with resilience on the farm, especially as we’re seeing more weather extremes due to climate change.

Tom Martin:            We hear so much about these large lagoons, especially in swine production. And so, what about manure management? How can biochar make a difference there?

David Butler:           Well, there’s kind of two ways to look at that.

For one thing, you can take the manure and convert the solids from the manure into biochar. So, that’s huge, because it allows you to stabilize all the carbon and the nutrients in that, in those manure solids, and you’re reducing the volume of them, and so you have a lot less material to deal with.

                                 And once you’ve converted it to biochar, of course, there’s no odor — it’s not going to leech any nutrients — and you end up with this very valuable product as a result: you have the biochar. And you can take that biochar and put it on your manure lagoon. You can use it in your bedding for cows or — you can use it in your bedding for cows, and that helps keep them dry and helps with hoof health and things like that.

And then, you can also take it and spread it on the fields. And it’s great to, you know, mix it in with the liquid portion of the manure that’s going to be injected into the fields, because it helps to absorb methane and hydrogen sulfide and, most importantly, ammonia — it keeps that manure from off-gassing ammonia, which means that you’re keeping the nitrogen in the manure, which makes it a better fertilizer, which means you don’t have to use as much synthetic fertilizer.

Tom Martin:            It sounds as though we’ve finally found a way to literally make a silk purse out of sow’s ear.

David Butler:           Yeah. I think that’s a good analogy.

Tom Martin:            Well, there seems to be a lot of excitement about biochar in the dairy industry. What’s driving that enthusiasm?

David Butler:            Well, I think one really exciting thing (is that) there are some people working on projects where they build small biochar kilns on the dairy, and they take the manure solids and they convert those to biochar. And in the process, they get renewable energy, because when you heat the manure, you also get synthetic natural gas. You can get bio-oils, and then you can take those and burn them to make renewable electricity, or you can convert them to diesel fuel or natural gas for heating or for transportation fuel.

                                There are even some companies working on a biochar process to produce green jet fuel.

Tom Martin:            I’m just sitting here listening to that, David, and thinking about the broad implications of what I’m hearing, and it sounds to me as though we’re talking about the possibility of an alternative to fossil fuels and a renewable energy source that could be in abundance and could be quite helpful in approaching this whole climate change issue.

David Butler:            Yeah. It’s certainly a very exciting piece of the puzzle. You know, I don’t know that it’s going to solve all of our problems, but it’s a technology that’s, you know, it’s available right now, and we just need to scale it up.

                                And in sustainability, people love to talk about things that are a win-win. Well, biochar is kind of win-win-win-win. There are so many benefits to it, and you’re getting renewable energy as you produce it.

Tom Martin:            Once you’ve created biochar on the dairy farm, are there other ways to use it?

David Butler:            Yeah. You know, so I mentioned that you can add it back to the manure, and of course, you can use it as a bedding material for dairy cows, but there are also people (who) use it as a feed supplement for their dairy cows, and that’s not currently allowed in most of the U.S. There probably needs to be a lot more research on that, but there are many countries where that’s being done, and some people report good benefits from that. And I’ve read that that can even reduce methane emissions from cows. I think, you know, there are a lot of kind of anecdotal solutions that claim to reduce methane emissions from cows, so there needs to be a lot of research done on that before we can really hang any hopes and dreams on that.

Tom Martin:            You touched on this earlier, but let’s explore this question for just a moment, because it tends to be kind of overwhelmed by all the discussion around climate change, but it’s equally as important to our well-being, and that’s water. How does the use of biochar improve water quality?

David Butler:            Yeah. That’s a really great question, because agriculture does have or can have an impact on water quality. So, we can look at that in two different ways.

When we talk about, you know, a field of crop land, then you want to make sure that your fertilizer is not running off every time it rains and ending up in the stream. And you know, if that happens on a large scale, then you can get algae blooms in streams but especially in lakes or even in estuaries in the ocean. So, it’s very important to keep those nutrients on the field and not allow them to escape into the waterways. And it also economically makes sense to keep your fertilizer on the field.

                                 So, biochar — because it holds nutrients, it prevents them from being leeched and washed away in heavy rain. And it holds them in such a way that the plant is able to extract the nutrients from biochar when they need it. So, you don’t have to use as much fertilizer, and that’s an important thing, too, because synthetic fertilizer has a very high carbon footprint. It takes a lot of energy to make fertilizer.

Tom Martin:            That is a pretty big implication, because runoff is pretty pervasive in so many ways.

David Butler:           Yeah.

Tom Martin:            We’ve talked about its agricultural applications, but can biochar be used to make other useful things?

David Butler:            Yeah, absolutely. And I think, (for) the biochar industry, a few years ago, the biggest focus was on agriculture, but it can be expensive to get biochar out onto a large-scale farm and work it into the soil. And so, there are other industries where it can be a lot cheaper to use biochar as an alternative product.

So, it can be used as an ingredient in asphalt. It can replace a certain amount of the sand or portland cement in concrete — and both of those substances have a really high carbon footprint. So, as those industries try to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, they would love to take a carbon-positive portion of their product and replace it with a carbon-negative ingredient.

                                 It can also be used in plastics, cosmetics — just lots and lots of different products. But you know, the potential to put it in our roadways is huge. And the nice thing about that is if you’re using it in construction materials, then you can use biochar that’s maybe not of the same quality that you would need if you’re going to use it as a soil amendment. So, you can make biochar from sewage sludge, for instance — and that may have a lot of contaminants in it; you probably don’t want to put that in the soil.

Tom Martin:            Well, this seems, David, like one of those moments when something has been discovered that has so many applications, and important ones, in terms of our environment, our well-being. Do you feel that way? Do you feel like we’re on the — at the beginning of something really important here?

David Butler:            Yeah, I do. I think it’s very, very exciting, and I think that the biochar industry is really going to start to accelerate.

One reason for that is that, last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came out with a report saying, you know, “Here are some of the methods that we can use to draw carbon out of the atmosphere,” and biochar was listed as one of those. So, it provided legitimacy to this growing industry. And now, because of that, biochar is being added as a method to a lot of different carbon-offset markets.

Tom Martin:            So, it’s an alien term at the moment. Do you see the day when we’re going to be talking about biochar as something just normal in life?

David Butler:            Yeah, I think so. And another good indication that that’s coming is that Microsoft and Shopify recently included biochar in their net-zero plan. They’re buying biochar credits already.

Tom Martin:           How about that. Well, let’s keep following this.

David Butler:           All right.

Tom Martin:            All right. That’s David Butler, head of sustainability at Alltech. Thanks for joining us, David.

David Butler:           Yeah. Thank you, Tom.

Peter and Paula Hynes founded Ag Mental Health Week to reduce the stigma surrounding mental health within the ag community and highlight the importance of prioritizing mental well-being. Peter joins Ag Future to discuss his story, the stresses of farming and events planned for the week.

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

Tom:                        We’re joined from County Cork, Ireland by Pete Hynes. Pete and his wife Paula are full-time dairy farmers, running 180 dairy cows on a grass-based system. The Hynes were named “Farmers of the year in 2017”; they serve as ambassadors for the #TacklYourFeelings campaign, and the couple has worked extensively to raise funds for charities since 2017. Pete, who also writes for the Irish Farming Independent, has struggled with depression and he says it has made him stronger and more determined to enjoy life by speaking about it publicly, realizing along the way how that has encouraged others to seek help. Welcome to Ag Future Pete.

Pete:                        Good afternoon, Tom. Lovely to be talking to you from Ireland, straight through to Kentucky.

Tom:                        All right. Well, it's been reported that you and Paula are always the first ones to raise your hands to create awareness around mental health within the ag sector. And that conversation about mental health hits close to home for you. And I wonder, before we go forward, if you could kind of set the scene for us by telling us about your own journey as a farmer coping with depression.

Pete:                        Yes. I suppose nearly 20 years ago now, I struggled with depression. At that time, I was working ridiculously long hours, and things got on top of me, and I left out my social life cold. I suppose, to cut a long story short, I hit a brick wall and lost all control of my feelings. Luckily enough for me, at the time, my wife eventually persuaded me to go to our doctor. And he put me in touch with a very, very good counselor, whom I visited regularly after (that), weekly, and walked through things. And I guess, in some ways, at that time, that was a huge challenge. It taught me to look after myself and my mental well-being a lot better.

                                 And it was something we hadn’t spoken about publicly until 2017. And I just mentioned something briefly on social media, and I got a message from a guy that night who was considering ending his own life. And just through talking to him about what I’ve gone through myself and keeping contact with him over the coming days and the coming weeks, he went and sought help. And he's really turned his life around since; he's got a new job, and he’s gotten married since.

                                I think, at that time, it just opened my eyes up, in a huge way, to the fact that I’m sharing my own story and chatting to those who were struggling in a similar way. It could really encourage people to seek help when they are in a dark place or really low or struggling with themselves. I guess that was, in some ways, how we started discussing mental health publicly.

Tom:                        How extensive are mental health issues among farmers?

Pete:                        I think it's a subject that the industry, as a whole, has really tackled in the last few years. Yet when you look at the statistics all around the world, the reality is that there's a 50% chance a farmer will struggle with their mental health if they're not prioritizing their mental well-being. That goes for all countries, from North America right across into Europe and into the Southern Hemisphere. Myself and Paula have spoken to college students in Kenya, where there’s a huge stigma around mental health — and yet, when you look at the statistics, they're very much the same (kind of statistics) as they are in Ireland.

                                 And I think, ultimately, what we need to do, as an industry — if we want to change the statistics long-term — is to engage with young farmers and get across the importance of looking after their mental well-being, because it's something that could really, really affect the industry and individual countries, depending on weather events or global markets or financials on farms, etc. So, all figures will go up and down from country to country. Globally, it's still a huge, huge issue that faces agriculture — and I guess (that is) because, also, it's an industry that is, in some ways, so isolated.

Tom:                       There is a broad spectrum of pressures on farmers. And I'm just wondering: What are some typical events or triggers that tend to cause mental health issues among farmers?

Pete:                         A lot of it really stems back down, at the end of it, to the financial pressure or family issues — and likewise, when you look at the financial pressures that affect farming, as I mentioned a minute ago, a global weather event can have a huge impact on crop losses or fodder shortages on farms, which could put a huge implication on the financials going forward. Likewise, global markets changing (can have an impact).

                                 So, there’s all those different issues that are impacting farmers. And I think even, when you look at it at the moment, climate change and, I think, the whole conversation around climate change puts a huge amount of stress on farmers for the simple fact that, if you look at how they farm across the world, every farmer is very, very conscious that we need to improve how we look after the environment and how we look after the climate. And one of the very first industries that is affected by climate change is agriculture and farmers and their incomes. And yet, with all the progressive work they do, they don’t get a whole pile of recognition for it, and they still feel like they’re getting the blame.

                                 So, when you look at it, a farmer feels like they're a young child inside the school that's constantly being scolded by the teacher and being told, “You're not doing well enough” and “You're not making any progress,” when the reality is, like, those farmers — we’re the school child that is trying our damndest, and we're improving every day. And we can see the impact we're having, yet we're getting no recognition for it.

Tom:                        How is the ag industry, as a whole, doing in the area of mental health? Has stigma kept farmers from confronting mental health issues?

Pete:                         I think, as the conversation has opened up — and there’s been some phenomenal people around the world campaigning for better mental health awareness in the U.S., Canada, right across Ireland, the U.K., and in the Southern Hemisphere — it has opened up the conversation a lot. But likewise, I think there’s where, probably, one of the biggest issues is; there’s still a huge stigma around the discussion of suicide in the agriculture industry.

                                 And I think the reality is (that) if we, as an industry, cannot openly discuss suicide, well then, someone that's at a really, really low point and having suicidal thoughts is not going to feel comfortable about opening up and saying, “Yeah, look, I am thinking of ending my life, and I really, really need help.” And I think we need to make those people in that position feel so comfortable about saying it publicly and removing the stigma around that area. I think that would have a huge, huge impact on the figures at the moment.

Tom:                        You mentioned climate change. I'm wondering if the pandemic has impacted your sense of mental well-being, and do you hear from others who are experiencing these feelings?

Pete:                        I think agriculture, in a way, can take a lot of positives from the global pandemic in that, all of a sudden, it brought a huge emphasis on the importance of quality food and global markets really, really straightforward during the pandemic — but then the negative side of it was that so many events that farmers would normally attend were canceled. Farmers are used to working in isolation for long periods of time. But then, when they do get down, they like to attend sporting events or big agricultural events. And when so many of those were canceled, I think it has had a huge impact on farmers.

                                But likewise, I think it’s had a huge impact on young people across the world, losing the communication and the avenues where they could meet up from week to week and socialize. And I think it's probably brought a bigger emphasis on the importance for us all to look out for each other and try to stay in contact in some way.

Tom:                        In 2020, you and Paula established Ag Mental Health Week. What inspired you to create this initiative?

Pete:                        Myself and Paula were having a conversation at the kitchen table one evening discussing Farm Safety Week, which is run in Ireland and the U.K. And at that time, when you look at it, the statistics show, tragically, (that) we lose more farmers to suicide than we do to farm accidents. And we have a specific Farm Safety Week, but we have no specific week for mental health and agriculture globally.

                                 And we felt it was certainly a conversation that was far bigger than Ireland. And if we, as an industry, wanted to make a real difference, we needed to have a united voice across the world, which is why we came up with the concept of Ag Mental Health Week as a global mental health awareness campaign for the agricultural industry.

                                 And at that time, we looked at the calendar, and we felt, with World Mental Health Day being on the 10th of October, that there was probably no more fitting day to kick the week off and run it for seven days straight, because I have seen some campaigns run for five days of the week. Farming is a seven-day-a-week job. And I think, with an awareness campaign, we would need to recognize that first, which is why we decided to run it for seven days straight with the campaign.

                                 And we’re absolutely astounded and humbled by the reaction to Ag Mental Health Week in 2020. It had surpassed anything that we thought it could do in the first year. And (we) always felt that it was something that we certainly couldn't do on our own, to drive the campaign forward, which is why we put together a global working group of like-minded people, from farmers to people in the ag industry, and just put our heads together (to) see how we could drive the week forward into 2021.

Tom:                        It really expanded quickly globally, didn’t it? And I wonder if you could tell us about the partnerships and the resources that have since come to the table.

Pete:                        Yes. So, I think, if you — just going back to 2020, we had environment ambassadors from 11 countries around the world. We had panel discussions involving six countries. And given the amount of work that had gone into running the week, we spoke to people in your own good company, Alltech, and people who we’d been in contact (with) for Ag Mental Health Week in 2020 as well. And we also spoke to friends of ours in the Zurich Z Foundation in Switzerland and CEMEX Global Alliance. And I think there were very like-minded companies that were really passionate about prioritizing (not only) mental well-being for their employees but for the sector as a whole. And we also contacted a lot of farmers in the U.K. and the Southern Hemisphere and started up a working group of, I suppose, in some ways, how we could expand the conversation and broaden the horizons and the reach of it.

                                So, this year, we have panelists from, I would say, eight different countries. We’re really focusing on young farmers for research. And we’ll also be having discussions with politicians around the world, because I think it's probably very important that politicians and the agricultural sector are involved in the conversation from the point of view — having a better understanding of how policy can affect the mental health of farmers is going to be huge; (it will be) positive, going forward, when they realize that a decision made within a government is going to impact farmers on the ground. And I think politicians are very welcoming of that and very understanding and realize the importance of changing, I suppose, the culture and changing your mindset within the agricultural industry, that we do need to prioritize our mental well-being.

Tom:                        We'll have some more details on Ag Mental Health Week in a few moments, but I want to circle back to several things that you brought up. You have noted that the statistics out there show that we lose more farmers to suicide than we do to farm accidents. So, you've touched on this earlier, but I wonder if you could tell us: How are you addressing suicide?

Pete:                        I think there's a number of people around the world that are very, very open (to) the concept of discussing (this topic) publicly and have made a huge, huge impact in their own areas over the last number of years. Emma Picton-Jones, who lives in Wales, she lost her husband to suicide. And she set up the DPJ Foundation in Wales, which has opened up the conversation there. And I’ve spoken to Emma a number of times, and she will actually be a guest on one of our panel discussions during Ag Mental Health Week. She’s always stressed to me the importance of us being willing to talk about it publicly.

                                She said, even after she lost her husband, people were very slow to approach her, because they knew the background of her loss. And she said that was nearly harder for her, but also, she could understand it from the point of view of her husband not being willing to say that he had those feelings. And Cathal McCormack, from Alltech in Ireland, linked up with her last year and has since organized training for a lot of Alltech staff with her around mental health first aid training. And I think initiatives like that are so important, because farmers are isolated. If someone from the ag industry drives into the heart and they can spot the signs of a farmer who is really, really struggling and ask the right questions to try and get them to open up, I think there's so much more we can do. I think we need to make people who are feeling suicidal feel a lot more comfortable to discuss it openly with us.

Tom:                        Pete, do you feel that enough work is being done among young farmers, even on the campuses of ag colleges and universities, to prepare a new generation for the mental pressures and the challenges of farming?

Pete:                        The reality is, I don't think we're doing enough. I don't think we’re putting enough emphasis on encouraging young farmers to prioritize their mental well-being.

                                 If you look at a lot of the agricultural colleges, they have specific courses on farm safety and teaching young farmers the dangers of pesticides and showing them how to handle them correctly. Likewise, (there are courses on) the dangers of quad bikes, the importance of wearing a helmet. And I think we need to have the same modules built into those agriculture courses where we're teaching young farmers the basics of looking after their mental well-being on a daily basis, because the reality is, when you enter agriculture as a career, you are going to be put in times of stress and times of crisis, but when you're prioritizing your mental well-being, you're putting yourself in a far stronger position to deal with those challenges and overcome them. And also, realizing the importance of taking time out after busy periods on farms, like harvest and calving and setting in the springtime, etc.

Tom:                        Pete, what do you and Paula do to keep your mental compasses pointed in the right direction? How do you, as both business partners and husband and wife, manage the stresses of farming?

Pete:                        I think we just do simple things, like, you know, eating well, taking breaks, taking time out, discussing the challenges with each other and not bottling things up inside. Like calving — for us, we’re spring calving herds, so we have all our cows in a short space of time in the springtime, which is extremely busy; there’s no time off-farm. But we try and take a break prior to calving. We try and ensure that we’ve [0:18:15][Inaudible] so that we're getting adequate sleep while calving is busy. And also, we set in place time out for ourselves after calving so that we get to recharge the batteries and get away and enjoy life a bit. And I think that is vital.

                                 I guess one of the other things we do as a couple is we ensure that we go out on a date night at least once a month so that we have something to look forward to, with different surroundings, different conversation. When you’re busy, it gives you something to look forward to. And I think that’s all vital, that you know that there’s an end in sight from the busy period.

Tom:                        What would you like to see happen in the ag industry toward helping farmers cope with mental health issues?

Pete:                        I think one of the big things we really need to do as an industry — and I spoke heavily about this last year — is put crisis numbers on the back of all vehicles that are entering a farmyard, be it trucks, vans, etc., so that when a farmer who is struggling or feeling suicidal sees that number directly in front of them and knows what number to dial to get help in crisis. And I think even the simple message from putting those numbers on the back of vehicles entering farms (is important). And, in many ways, it’s the industry as a whole — be it milk processors, etc. — it’s the whole industry standing up and saying, “It's okay to seek help if you're feeling suicidal.” And I think that's one of the simplest or one of the biggest things we could do as an industry. And I've seen it work very, very well in some areas, but I think the whole industry needs to embrace it, because I think that could be a game changer in the short term.

Tom:                        Ag Mental Health Week 2021 is coming up, (on) October 10–16. And what sorts of events and resources will be offered?

Pete:                        So, we’ll be running seven nights of panel discussions, which we will livestream on our Facebook page at Ag Mental Health Week. The first evening, we’ll have young farmers on. So, we have a young farmer from Australia, a young farmer from Ireland, and I also think we have a young farmer from North America. The second night, we will be having two politicians on: Minister Martin Heydon from Ireland and Minister Bloyce Thompson from Canada.

                                 And we’ll be having discussions with doctors and GPs that week, with support services with the ag industry. We’ll also be having a specific panel discussion with veterinary surgeons. Lizzie Lockett, the CEO of the RCVS in the U.K., is chairing that panel discussion. And we’ll also be talking to families who have lost loved ones to suicide or had family members struggle with their mental health, just discussing how that has impacted the family as a whole. So, those panel discussions will be one of the key things. We’ll also have daily tips on how to prioritize your mental well-being on our social media channels.

                                 And then, on the 13th of October, we are pushing Mile for Mental Well-Being. So, we want as many people in the ag industry across the world to get out and run or walk a mile that day just to highlight the importance of prioritizing your mental well-being but also just taking that space, for maybe 10 or 15 minutes in the day, to clear your head and focus on something other than being at work all the time. We’ll also be encouraging as many sports services and charities around the world to run their own events during Ag Mental Health Week. And we’d be really keen to promote those for the support services. And I know there’ll be many more events planned during the year or during the week.

                                The response last year was phenomenal. The media were very, very good to get behind us and open up the conversation. So, we hope they’ll do the same again this year. So, we’re looking forward for the week.

Tom:                        All right. We’ve been joined from County Cork, Ireland, by dairy farmer Pete Hynes, co-founder — with his wife, Paula — of Ag Mental Health Week. Look for it on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. For Ag Future, I'm Tom Martin. Thanks for listening, and thanks for joining us, Pete.

Pete:                       Thanks again, Tom. Wonderful to chat you up.

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.

From June 2022, a zinc oxide ban, prohibiting the use of therapeutic doses of zinc oxide (ZnO) in animal feeds to control post-weaning diarrhea in piglets will come into effect in the European Union (EU). What does that mean for pig producers in Europe and beyond? Dr. Jules Taylor-Pickard, director of Alltech Gut Health Management, joins us on Ag Future to discuss what pig producers need to know about the ban, the impacts of ZnO on the environment and solutions that help replace ZnO in piglets' diets.

The following is an edited transcript of the Ag Future podcast episode with Dr. Jules Taylor-Pickard 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 in this edition of Ag Future, we’re discussing the use of zinc oxide, (which is) set to be banned by the European Union as a veterinary medicinal product in 2022. Joining us from Dunboyne, Ireland, is Jules Taylor-Pickard, director of Alltech Gut Health Management. Dr. Taylor-Pickard is a nutritionist, obtaining her Ph.D. specializing in piglet gut health, physiology and immunity. In her role at Alltech, she focuses on providing solutions to optimize animal performance and efficiency.

                                 Welcome, Jules.

Dr. Pickard:              Thank you, Tom.

Tom:                        Was zinc oxide seen as a solution after the use of antibiotics was banned in Europe over concerns about increasing levels of antimicrobial resistance?

Dr. Pickard:              Absolutely, yes. So, producers discovered that antibiotics have the ability to promote growth as early as the 1940s. And then, in the decades that followed, producers actually relied quite heavily on antibiotic growth promoters — particularly pre-starter and starter feeds for piglets — to control those pathogenic infections. And so, it’s common practice. And so, various governmental bodies banned the use of antibiotic growth promotors (in) the European Union. That was in 2006.

                                So, that was brought into practice. And they banned the antibiotic growth promoters because of concerns around microbial resistance. And what was interesting, in the European Union — when they banned them in 2006, a lot of producers, they carried on using the antibiotics to what we would call the eleventh hour. So, they used it right off until they were banned, and the stocks have diminished. And all they simply did, really, was move to zinc oxide, then. It would work. It was readily available. So, they didn’t have to deal with as big of a problem as what they are going to have to now, when we look at zinc oxide, because they (won’t) have something that they could just easily switch over to.

Tom:                        Well, why has the use of high levels of zinc oxide in swine nutritional diets increased so dramatically in recent years?

Dr. Pickard:              Quite simply, it works. It helps to decrease the incidents of scouring that we typically see in the post-weaning period, helps to maintain daily liveweight gain (and) reduce susceptibility to disease. It’s relatively inexpensive. It’s readily available. And of course, we’re seeing increasing regulation just around normal antibiotic use — so not just antibiotic growth promotor, which is obviously banned in the European Union.

                                And there’s many beneficial effects of zinc oxide — so, improvements in digestion, immunity. It has antibacterial actions, (is linked to) improvement in intestinal morphology and integrity and enhanced antioxidant capability — all those things that help to get that piglet through that critical post-weaning period.

Tom:                        And now, there is this EU ban, beginning next summer, on the use of high levels of zinc oxide in piglet diets. What’s the problem with zinc oxide in piglet growth and health?

Dr. Pickard:              So, there’s a number of issues. (The) first one will be toxicity. We don’t actually see that too much, but you can get toxic effects of zinc in the pig if it’s fed for too long. Now, typically, they’d feed it for two weeks, which isn’t too bad.

                                 And I should also say, when we’re talking about high levels of zinc oxide, we’re talking about around 2,000, 2,500, 3,000 ppm, whereas the requirement for zinc to the pig is 150 ppm. So, we’re not talking about meeting the nutritional requirements of the piglets for zinc, which will slightly be elevated levels. So, if you fed them for a prolonged period of time, you can get toxicity in the pigs, which we don’t see too much of.

                                But of course, there’s environmental issues, because you’re getting zinc secretion into the manure, which is then applied to the land. There’s also issues with zinc oxide accelerating antibiotic-resistant genes and the spread of antibiotic resistance. And there’s an increase in heavy metal-intolerant genes and the spread of that. And you also get modification of the microbiotic or the microbial population. So, there’s a number of concerns that are genuine around use of zinc oxide.

Tom:                        You just touched on this: There have been recent reports highlighting the environmental impact of zinc oxide. Can you expand on that for us?

Dr. Pickard:              Yeah. Yeah. So, I like to say the main issue is related to the environment because the pig will just — for itself, it will just utilize the zinc that’s required for maintenance and growth, which I’ve said is about 150 ppm. So, anything that it doesn’t use is then excreted into manure. And obviously, we have to get rid of that manure. So, we apply it to the land. And due to the nonvolatile or non-degradable physical, chemical properties of zinc, the long-term continuous application of manure onto crops and land progressively increases the concentration of zinc into the soil, and then you also, obviously, get that into the groundwater.

                                There was an interesting study that was published that looks at zinc levels between the period of 1986 and 2014 from lands that have had the application of slurries and pig farms where they’ve been using zinc oxide. Now, they saw a great soil zinc concentration of 2–5%, which doesn't seem very much, but when you look at the latter period between 1998 and 2014, there was an average increase of over 24%. And obviously, there’s, there’s a risk, as I’ve said, of it getting into the water, affecting aquatic species as well.

                                Now, we do have risk mitigation measures in place, which are implemented, such as manure dilution, ensuring that any manure is spread from a safe distance from surface waters. But the European Medicines Agency concluded that these precautions just simply delay the inevitable, really, which is why we’re seeing the ban next year.

Tom:                        How has zinc oxide turned out to contribute to the spread of antimicrobial resistance?

Dr. Pickard:              So, there’s quite a few studies and reports showing that zinc oxide does contribute to antimicrobial resistance, and that’s because the high levels of zinc oxide can increase the proportion of multi-resistant E. coli in the intestines of pigs, for example. So, a lot of studies have shown that you can get an increase in the persistence and prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus, for example. That’s probably due to the co-localization of zinc and methicillin in resistant genes.

                                And you also get a diffusion of resistant genes amongst E. coli in the intestine of the pig. So, you’re enhancing it in the pig, which is a reservoir, if you will, to enhance that resistance even further. So then, you see more resistance in the feces, in the digesta, and in the colon. And you also have an issue with heavy metal-tolerant E. coli. I mean, a lot of those have been identified, which can further jeopardize the efficacy of zinc oxide. So, there’s quite a few concerns, now, with this whole resistance issue.

Tom:                        Can pharmaceutical-level doses of zinc oxide in the early post-weaning period suppress the growth of beneficial bacteria?

Dr. Pickard:              Yeah. No, again, this is interesting, because the actual mode of action of zinc oxide is really poorly understood. We just know that it works, and it helps get that baby pig through that post-weaning period, but the impact on the intestinal microbiota isn’t that clear-cut. So, there is some data that suggests that in minor or transient modifications to the hindgut bacterial population, whereas other studies get a remarkable effect on those populations — and some do show a suppression of the growth of the beneficial bacteria, such as Lactobacilli, showing that you get a reduction.

                                But the modulatory activity of zinc oxide on the commensal microbiota, it’s thought, resembled the activity of growth-promoting antibiotics — so, suppressing the Gram-positive species without actually directly affecting the Gram-negative strains, bringing that effect to lower the bacterial activity, the ATP or the energy concentration in the guts of piglets, which makes more energy available to the host at the cost of losing some beneficial bacteria.

                                 So, although you might be losing some beneficial bacteria, we do ultimately see the improvements in performance in the pig. So, even though you are getting that suppression, the beneficial bacteria is thought to be short-term and transient — another loss of performance.

Tom:                        Will the EU ban on zinc oxide apply to all animal feeds, or is it specific to feeds intended for piglets?

Dr. Pickard:              It’s specific to feeds intended for piglets, because being able to use these high pharmacological levels of zinc oxide is (only done) under veterinary prescription, but what they found is that the veterinary prescriptions are used quite broadly. And that only applies to the pig sector. So, it is purely for the pigs.

Tom:                        Why is it essential to optimize gut structures in microbial populations in piglets?

Dr. Pickard:              So, as you probably know, most weaning piglets are subject to a multitude of stresses over a short period, (and) that contributes to disturbances within the gastrointestinal tract and immune system — but some of those stresses, it could be nutritional. So, you’re changing the diet from cow’s milk to a dry, solid, pelleted diet that they’re not used to. You’re changing their environment, so they’re moving from being in the farrowing house with the sow to nursery accommodation.

                                 (With) that mixing of litter mates, you’ve got health-based issues. So, you’ve lost that passive immunity from the sow that’s found in the milk. They tend to be immunocompromised because of stress and, then, maternal separation, mixing with other pigs. But what you do tend to get is you get a lower feed intake during that immediate post-weaning period. And when you get that low feed intake, you get significant changes in the structure of the villi in the gastrointestinal tract.

                                So, many of you have seen the structure of a good gut. The villi — the nice, tall, finger-like villi — they have quite a thin wall over which to absorb nutrients. The nutrient digestion and absorption is quite efficient. But when they don’t eat and they don’t have the nutrients, these nice, tall, finger-like villi change to fat, thick, thumb-like villi. So, the surface area through which to absorb nutrients is reduced. And because they’re thicker, the efficiency of that nutrient absorption and digestion is reduced. So, in effect, you have a multiplying effect. They’re not eating enough, but then that efficiency of nutrient digestion and absorption is reduced. So, that gives you your poor growth performance. And that’s when we also see this increased susceptibility or incidence to post-weaning diarrhea.

                                 Anything that we can do to optimize gut health in those early days is really critical to the whole functionality of that young piglet and will have an impact on (its) subsequent health performance. A recent study actually said that producers experiencing an issue with post-weaning diarrhea, which is normally due to enterotoxigenic E. coli, costs about $680 per year. And in the present time, that’s money that our producers can’t afford to lose.

Tom:                        Do piglets have very specific needs to establish good gut health and functions and to limit disease?

Dr. Pickard:              Early-life nutrition is critical. The only thing I would add is that 70% of the new system tissues are found in the gastrointestinal tract. So, I think that helps put it into context as to how important gut health is, because, obviously, if 70% of the new system cells are based in the gut, if it’s not going to work properly, then you are going to see increased disease and mortality, comorbidities, things like that.

Tom:                        In a swine market without zinc oxide, what are some nutritional approaches that could be used to potentially reduce the incidences of post-weaning diarrhea?

Dr. Pickard:              So, there’s a number of things that you can look at. There’s obviously nutrition management and health. But if we just focus on nutrition, we can adjust the diet composition. So, for example, we’re looking at feeding lower crude protein levels. And the aim of that is to reduce the amount of undigested protein reaching the large intestine, so that reduces the incidence of post-weaning diarrhea and improves intestinal health.

                                We can increase the dietary fiber level post-weaning. That helps to reduce shedding. It also affects the retention time of digesta along the gastrointestinal tract. You can use things like organic acid, acid secretion in the gut of the piglet. It takes time to adapt to those dry-pellet diets; those can add acid. It helps to promote good gastrointestinal conditions and healthy digestion and helps to reduce post-weaning diarrhea.

Tom:                        Well, Dr. Taylor-Pickard, what is your recommended nutritional approach for these early nursery diets?

Dr. Pickard:              I think it’s important to be able to understand that there isn’t a silver bullet to removing zinc oxide from diets. We’ve done a lot of work in this area. You have to take a holistic approach. I would always start with the sow. And if we can clean the sow up — and when I say that, I mean, for example, we’ve been feeding some of our technologies to the sows so that we can reduce the pathogen load in sows. So that, in turn, reduces the maternal transfer of pathogens to that baby pig both in utero and at birth. And that also influences the microbiome or the microflora of that baby pig at birth. So, as soon as it’s born, it’s got the favorable microorganisms that we want, and you’ve got a better gut microflora.

                                 We also see things like increased colostrum quantity, increased colostrum quality — so, a higher level of immunoglobulin, so you’re getting back the passive transfer of immunity to that baby pig. So, we typically see less infections, less piglet mortality, high weaning rates. Look at the creep feeding. Make sure that — we’re trying to get at least 200 g of creep feeding to that baby pig while he’s still suckling the sow, because that also aids the transition to those solid diets, because he’s used to eating solid diets. And that, further, helps to get that higher-weight weaning. So, when the piglets are older or heavier at weaning, it makes that whole post-weaning transition process a lot easier.

                                Typically, a lot of our producers forget about water. So, we do spend time looking at water quality (and) water flow rate to make sure that they drink — because if piglets drink, they will then eat. So, that helps to get the pigs eating. A lot of the problem with the post-weaning growth check starts (with the fact) that the pigs don’t eat. So, if we can get them to eat, it does have a huge impact.

                                You need to look at things like vaccination program, biosecurity and hygiene, and look at any stress factors in the environment. So, obviously, it really is a holistic approach. You have to look at everything. And the earlier you can start it — so, I would say, if you start with the sow, the better chances you have of getting that piglet through that post-weaning growth-check period.

Tom:                        What about insoluble fibers such as oat and soybean hulls, wheat bran (or) wheat middlings?

Dr. Pickard:              Yeah. There’s a lot of emphasis on fiber at the moment. So, we know that dietary fiber can improve gut health. It promotes bacterial community and increases hindgut fermentation. If we increase hindgut fermentation, we can prevent diarrhea or disease. So, if we look specifically at the insoluble fiber sources that you just mentioned, these are relatively resistant to fermentation in the hindgut. They accelerate the passage rate of the digesta. So, that prevents the proliferation and colonization of pathogens. So, yes, there’s a huge role for insoluble fiber sources in post-weaning diets to help us to reduce the incidence of post-weaning diarrhea.

Tom:                        How do you think this ban on zinc oxide will affect pig-producing countries outside of the EU? For example, do you anticipate future regulatory restrictions on the use of zinc oxide in the U.S.?

Dr. Pickard:              Absolutely. If we look at some of the things that are already happening — with Canada, for example. Until recently, they’ve typically included zinc oxide at between 2,500 to 5,000 ppm, but Canada is now in the process of imposing similar restrictions to that of the EU. And they will lower their levels, we’re thinking, to around 350 ppm. China actually reduced their levels in 2018. They were using around 2,200 ppm, and they dropped it to 1,600. So, not quite at the levels that we’re at; they’re still quite high. But I know that they’re looking to Europe again, with a view to reduce them even more.

                                For the United States and for some Asian countries, it's definitely not a case of “if”; it’s a case of “when”. And it’s very clear that they’re watching Europe to see what happens. So, it will definitely come into play. As I say, it’s just a case of “when” — and not knowing.

Tom:                        Alltech has a Seed, Feed, Weed solution that can help remove zinc oxide from piglet diets. Tell us about that approach.

Dr. Pickard:              So, as we talked about, a healthy gut is really important, with a good microbial population that allows us to maximize the health and lifetime performance of pigs and, obviously, to help our producers to profit still. Therefore, that’s why we look at nutritional strategies that can promote gut health. And that’s one of the things that’s our core competency on the monogastric side.

                                 So, the Seed, Feed, Weed concept is one of our gut health programs, and it’s designed to modify the gut microbial population. So, we’re looking at establishing a more diverse and favorable microbial population as quickly as possible after this. So, we work with pig producers to implement the Seed, Feed, Weed program. And it’s basically got three components. The first one is “seeding” the guts with favorable organisms to give us good performance. We then “feed” those favorable organisms, which helps to further create a favorable environment, which provides a competitive advantage to those favorable organisms that’s tolerant to acidic environments, unlike pathogens. So, yes, we’ve taken the balance toward the good guys, the favorable bacteria. And then, finally, using Actigen, we “weed” out the unfavorable bacteria by selective exclusion.

                                 So, (we) incorporate natural feed materials — for example, Actigen — that are proven to maintain a healthy gut for the normalizing of gut microflora in both sows and piglets. And as I mentioned earlier, (the) maternal gut health of the sow is intrinsically linked to that of the offspring, which, again, is why our goal is start with the sow. So, it’s all about getting the piglets off to the best possible start, but Seed, Feed, Weed is just that: It’s seeding the gut with favorable organisms, it’s feeding those favorable organisms, and it’s weeding out the unfavorable or the bad organisms.

Tom:                        All right. We've been talking with Jules Taylor-Pickard, director of Alltech Gut Health Management. We thank you for joining us.

Dr. Pickard:              Thank you, Tom. And thank you for having me.

Tom:                        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.

Pearse Lyons Distillery is harvesting their own grown grains on the Lyons family farm in Dunboyne with the help of Loughran Family Malt and Alltech Crop Science. Conor Ryan, global brand ambassador for Pearse Lyons Distillery in Dublin, and Robert Walker, European growth officer at Alltech and CEO of Ireland-based KEENAN, join Ag Future to discuss the project and the history of Pearse Lyons Distillery.

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

Tom:                        I’m Tom Martin, and joining us are Conor Ryan, global spirits brand ambassador for Pearse Lyons Distillery in Dublin, and Robert Walker, European growth officer at Alltech and CEO of Ireland-based KEENAN, an Alltech agri-brand and a pioneer in the Internet of Things for the farm. We’ve invited them to tell us about the barley and oats being cultivated at the Lyons family farm in Dunboyne, a lovely country town in the county of Meath, just outside Dublin. The project marries a passion for distilling and agriculture — the crops have been treated with Alltech Crop Science products. Thanks for joining us, Ryan and Robert.

                                Conor, let’s start with you. There's quite an amazing story behind the Pearse Lyons Distillery there in Dublin. If you could, give us a bit of background on this distillery.

Conor:                      Absolutely. As you mentioned, it's called the Pearse Lyons Distillery, and it's in the middle of The Liberties in Dublin. And The Liberties area, historically, in Dublin would have been the beating heart of Irish Whiskey. It's where all the big whiskey producers were located. And when Dr. Lyons and Mrs. Lyons were looking for their location for picking their Irish distillery site, they were drawn towards St. James' Church on St. James Street.

                                Now, for many reasons, there's a big personal attachment to the St. James’ Church, which is now Pearse Lyons Distillery, because the church itself used to be the Lyons’ family church. It’s the church they used to attend. It was deconsecrated in 1964, but the first funeral Dr. Lyons was ever at was his grandfather's funeral when he was a small boy — and he subsequently realized he had nine relatives buried in the graveyard outside.

                                 Also, from that area, on Pearse Lyons’ mother’s side of the family, the Dunnes, they were all coopers in the barrel industry in Dublin, providing casks to the whiskey industry, (including) the Guinness, which is only 150 meters down the road from us. So, there were six generations of coopers (in the Lyons family) to be involved in the whiskey business in Dublin prior to Pearse Lyons getting involved in it. And now, with his passing, Mark Lyons is the seventh generation of his family to be involved in whiskey in the Dublin area. Even so much so that there’s very interesting tidbits — (including that) Pearse Lyons’ grand-aunt was actually the first female cooper ever registered in Ireland.

                                So, that was a natural site for Dr. Lyons and Mrs. Lyons to be drawn to, to put the distillery there. And through years of restoration, they’ve put the most magnificent distillery you’ve ever seen in the heart of Dublin to produce Pearse Lyons Irish Whiskey.

Tom:                        Yes. And I know that that restoration story by itself is quite a long one, quite a detailed story. Mrs. Lyons is incredibly meticulous about restoration, and the result of that meticulousness is quite evident, isn't it?

Conor:                      It’s outstanding. So, there's been a church on the site where we are for 800 years, but the church as it stands now was built in 1864. I mentioned it was deconsecrated in the mid-1900s, or 1960. So, once it was deconsecrated, it had many afterlives — pardon the pun. It was an indoor vegetable market; it was a lighting store; and then it fell into massive disrepair. So, when Dr. Lyons and Mrs. Lyons bought the church, they bought it knowing that there was a big restoration project, and they would have done it meticulously anyway. Two weeks after they purchased the church, somebody in Dublin Corporation decided to turn it into a national monument. So, what should have been an 18-month project and an 1x ended up being a four-year project and an 5x project.

                                        So, basically, to restore the church to its former glory, there was a closed quarry in France (that was) reopened to get the exact same limestone to match the building. There was a closed quarry in Wales (that was opened) to get the exact same slate to match the roof. All the windows had been bricked up, so Mrs. Lyons commissioned a company called Art Glass in Derry to put in stained glass back into the church — but instead of having an ecclesiastical theme, it’s got a brewing and distilling theme.

So, from the outside, it looks very much in keeping with the area, very much in keeping with the church, but on the inside, as the beautiful natural light comes in through (the windows), you’ve got the most magnificent framing of the brewing and distilling story told through the stained glass windows in the church, all done and all supervised by Mrs. Lyons.

Tom:                        And if our listeners want to see that, is there a place they can go to view photographs?

Conor:                      Absolutely. Log on to pearselyonsdistillery.com. It will bring you straight to our main website, and all the information needed will be there, plus plenty of pictures and links.

Tom:                        Okay. We want to focus on the barley and oats grown on the Lyons family farm there. Tell us about the importance of these particular grains in the creation of whiskey.

Conor:                     I'll jump in with the whiskey side of things, and we’ll get Robert, then, to tell us all about the magic that we have put in play with the grains out in our land in Dunboyne.

                                        So, the recipe that we’re going to be using these grains for — we planted the majority of our land with barley and then a small amount with oats. The reason for that is the traditional Irish style of whiskey is called pot still whiskey. And pot still whiskey isn’t just whiskey that’s made in a pot still — you know, that copper, bulbous still that everybody will know to look at. Pot still whiskey is a mixed mash bill that would have a minimum of 30% malted or 30% unmalted grains, plus the addition of 5% other adjunct grains. And the adjunct grains that will be traditionally used will be oats, wheat and rye — very much so, in the Dublin distilling industry, it would have been oats.

                                So, what we’re going to do is create a pot still whiskey distilled in the Pearse Lyons Distillery with grain that’s been grown on the Lyons family land with Alltech Crop Science products. Again, in keeping with the Lyons family ethos of doing everything naturally, sustainably, and tying in with our Planet of Plenty platform, we’re going to be using — in the pot still, half of our grains are going to be malted, and half of them are going to be unmalted; so, basically, (those are) raw grains.

                                So, half of them, which is the barley, is going to be malted, where you bring it to maltsters. Basically, what they do is they leave it soaked in warm water, (then) they dry it out, and all of a sudden, it’s easier to access sugars in the grain. Then, for the other half, we’re going to use raw barley straight from the field, as it was grown and as it was brought in. So, we’re going to have a 50/50-percent mash bill, and we’re going to make your traditional Dublin-style pot still, which is heavy on the unmalted grains and heavy on the oats.

Tom:                        I’m going to turn to Robert now. And Robert, if you could, give us some perspective on the significance of the company growing its own grain and how Alltech Crop Science is involved in that.

Robert:                     Great to speak, Tom. It's a very, very exciting project in that, first of all, we’re putting the Lyons (family farm) to good use. We have, around our European Bioscience Centre (in Dunboyne, Ireland), about 120 acres of land. Now, bear in mind that the European Bioscience Centre is where we do a lot of our fundamental research into animal nutrition and then, also, agronomy. So, we have a lot of research in other departments based out of that site, and then we have the site surrounded by the most beautiful land, which has been used for crop research. But more recently, we’ve now turned to this project.

                                The site is also the head office for our Alltech business in Europe. And so, we have a number of customers and other partners coming and visiting us on that site. So, it’s a really beautiful site in Pearse Lyons (Distillery in Dublin) as well. And it’s something that we’re very proud of bringing customers to.

                                 Now, when my whiskey colleague, Conor, approached me on this, we got really excited when we saw what we could do with this — meaning we can follow the crop all the way from seed, all the way through to shipping the whiskey. And what that means is that — that full traceability, that full control, means that we’re able to start with the soil.

                                So, when it comes to crop science, the Alltech Crop Science product has a huge focus on trying to drive up the organic matter in the soil to make sure we have maximum carbon in there, lots of microbes, and that the fertility of the soil is maximized and, of course, diseases are suppressed. We then go on to treat the crop with natural-based products that make sure that the crop reaches its full potential.

                                So, (we are) reducing stress (on the crop), making sure that we keep the crops as healthy as possible without the use of chemicals and, therefore, keeping disease at bay naturally. And then, ultimately, the crop we get out of it at the end is healthier, and it has the right profile for what Conor and the whiskey distillers are looking for. Bear in mind that the crop is grown as a spring crop, which means that it is higher in sugars and lower in protein, which is what you want.

                                 And then, Conor and myself and the other agronomist involved in the project, we meet regularly to talk about what nutritional profile we’re looking for and make sure that what we’re giving the distilling team is exactly what they need to make that order in whiskey.

Tom:                        I mentioned in the introduction that you’re CEO of KEENAN and you are a pioneer of the Internet of Things for the farm. I’m just wondering if any of that technology is being applied in this project.

Robert:                    In this project specifically, no. Nothing from the KEENAN side of the business, because KEENAN is purely for animal nutrition.

Tom:                       I see.

Robert:                    But what we are doing is employing a lot of the scientific breakthroughs that we've had in the Nutrigenomics Center that we have there (at Alltech headquarters) in Kentucky here on the farm.

                                So, nutrigenomics, quite simply, is where we look at the effects of nutrients on genes, and what we are able to show in Kentucky is that we can up-regulate the beneficial gene in plants and, in so doing, ensure that the plants have more resistance to disease. So, not quite Internet of Things, but it is — what we are employing there is much (more closely related to) biotech, much more biological sciences. And of course, when it comes to agri-tech, I guess the closest we come would be in accurate monitoring of the soil using drones and then, of course, soil moisture, soil analysis and the like. Unfortunately, in this project, we don’t have KEENAN involved.

Tom:                        I see that pollinator strips have been planted all around the oat and barley fields as part of the All-Ireland Pollinator Plan. What can you tell us about this?

Robert:                     It's a very interesting project in that Ireland has a challenge with carbon footprint. And so, there is increasingly, across the country, a drive to try and sequester as much carbon as possible.

                                So, there is quite a lot of rewilding being encouraged by the government. From that, Mrs. Lyons and the Alltech group are extremely passionate about encouraging pollinators, bees. And so, we have planted these wild strips around every field (of a) wildflower that is indigenous to Ireland. And of course, this has encouraged the growth of not only pollinators and other insects but has also established very good soil characteristics on the borders and then, also, very good water control. Ireland has a lot of rain, and of course, those pollinator strips do sometimes act as quite a good barrier and quite a good absorbent for those excessive rains that we sometimes have.

Tom:                       And what happens with these grains once they’re harvested? What is the next step in the process?

Robert:                     I’ll probably hand it over to Conor there in a short bit. We just finished harvest. And we do that in conjunction with some really good partners of ours (at) Loughran’s, who are just north of us in Dundalk — which, interestingly, is the town (where) Dr. Pearse Lyons was born. So, we do have a good connection with Loughran’s, who are established in Dundalk. And they’ve coordinated the harvest for us. And they’ve been taking in all the grains and transporting it, then, to Conor and the beverage division in Alltech. And they’ll take over from here. Maybe you want to explain that a little bit, Conor?

Conor:                     Thanks, Robbie. The reason for — Loughran’s, I suppose, in the first place was mentioned (because) Dr. Lyons was from Dundalk originally, and he actually ended up working in the Harp Brewery there after he did his master’s in brewing and distilling in the British Institute of Brewing and Distilling. And while he was up there, he worked there. He was from there, and obviously, he then went away to do other things.

                                Like, what people might not realize, coming from Dundalk and doing what he did — he was actually one of the lead engineers that designed and commissioned what we call New Middleton Distillery, (and) that was opened in 1975. Dr. Lyons was, foremost, a brewer and distiller first. It became his passion after, obviously, the Alltech company was set up. And he went back to brewing and distilling in 1999 with the opening of Lexington Brewing Co. and then started distilling over there in 2008.

                                While that was going on, Pearse Lyons also operated and put on the Alltech Brews and Foods Fair in Dublin to give people — craft brewers and distillers — a platform to meet up to show their wares. Where we used to be very much a couple of large industries only in the beverage scene, Dr. Lyons created this scenario where lots of small producers come together. And the reason I'm telling you this is because Loughran’s, when they went from their — they're a sixth-generation family farm company themselves, but their first transition to go from animal feed into beverage grains was actually (set in motion when) Dr. Lyons met James Loughran at an Alltech Brews and Foods Fair, where James said, “I’m thinking of going into the beverage side of things. I know who you are, and thank you for inviting me here. Is there any opportunity for us to do a bit of business together?”

                                And the first order that James ever sold into the beverage industry was (for) Dr. Lyons. Dr. Lyons ordered a container of his brewing grains and got them sent over to Kentucky. So, Dr. Lyons himself paved the way for us to build up this relationship with the Loughran Family Malt from Dundalk by being their first beverage customer.

                                So, what Loughran’s are going to do — (they are) very skilled in what they do — they’ve taken in our grains, (and) a portion is going to be malted, (but another) portion is going to be unmalted; it's going to be siloed separately from all other grains. So, when we go to draw off the stock for using in brewing and distilling in the distillery, it will only be the Dunboyne crops that we’re brewing and distilling with for the future, for both single-malt whiskey and pot-still whiskey.

                                I suppose this is the beautiful synergy about Dunboyne: (we are) growing the crops out there and bringing it all the way in to the Pearse Lyons Distillery. There’s no other company in the world that actually has this transparency in their story that we have. We’re growing our own grains on our own family land with our own company’s crop science products to be distilled in our own distillery. And when that whiskey is made, we will be aging this whiskey in our own Town Branch (facility); that’s our distillery in Kentucky. We’ve also got (Dueling Barrels Brewing & Distilling) in (Eastern) Kentucky, but at the moment, the aged stock is coming from Town Branch Distillery. And we will be aging our own new-make whiskey in our own X Town Branch bourbon barrels. And the very important bit of that is of course we’re doing this! Also, we’re making the wash to make our whiskey with Alltech proprietary yeast strains. So, this is why the 360-degree circle that we have going on is unduplicatable by anybody, any other drink company in the world.

Tom:                        And this is another reminder of the fact that Pearse Lyons was the ultimate entrepreneur, wasn’t he?

                                I have to ask you: barley and oats. What properties do these two grains in particular bring to the production of whiskey?

Conor:                      When you're producing whiskey, what you want to do is extract sugars from your grains. Barley is obviously the first choice for anyone distilling in this part of the world. I know, in the U.S., corn might be your mainstay, but in Ireland and Europe, barley is the first choice. It's where you get your most soluble sugars, the most accessible soluble sugars. And what you want to do is you want extract sugar from your grain, and from that sugar, you create a wort, which is basically a sweet, unhopped beer. And you distill that into your spirit. And we use very unique and very beautiful Kentucky Vendome stills in Ireland.

                                So, what properties does it give us? High sugar content. As Robert mentioned earlier on, what you're looking for is low protein and high sugar inside in your barley crop. And then, with oats, the reason for using oats — and there's natural enzymes on oats themselves that actually aid in the fermentation and gives us some beautiful, fruity esters. And also, using oats in itself gives you a viscosity and it gives you a flavor profile that's very unique to Irish Whiskey. So, on our first foray into growing the crops in Dunboyne, that's why we went with barley and oats. There are plans, as the crop cycles go along, that we might do rye, wheat and maybe some winter barley.

                                 But it was important to us to use barley and oats. It's the traditional Dublin-style pot still. It’s made from that, and the characteristics you get (are), obviously, your beautiful malt notes and the fruity notes that you get, then, from the esters that are created in the whiskey spirit from your raw barley and from your oats, and then that, in itself, creates beautiful congeners in your Town Branch Bourbon barrels — beautiful flavor molecules that develop over time, then. So, that's why we picked those, because it’s the most traditional style of Irish Whiskey that's quite unique to the Dublin area.

Tom:                       Well, Conor, for anybody listening who might be planning a trip to Dublin and they want to come by and see this, how can they find the distillery?

Conor:                      Log on to pearselyonsdistillery.com. There’s a booking engine there. Due to COVID, we’re not open currently because, obviously, the world is still opening up here in Ireland. (It’s) been quite a restrictive time for us. The distillery's planning on being open in the very near future.

                                So, once you log on to pearselyonsdistillery.com, you’ll find a booking engine, and hopefully, then, people will be able to book their way into the whole sensory experience that is Pearse Lyons Distillery, because when you're in there, it's a fully functioning distillery, from start to finish, in a church. You hear it. You smell it. You taste it. It’s a very tangible experience.

                                 And then, while you’re there, you get guided around the graveyard. As I mentioned, there’s been a church on that site for 800 years, and you’ll be told about the history of the area through our surroundings. Some of the most famous people in the beverage industry in Dublin are actually buried and laid to rest in the Pearse Lyons Distillery graveyard outside, on the grounds. And it's just incredible. Like the cosigner of the Guinness lease, the Costigans, and the Rainsworths, the people who sold the brewing and distilling equipment to George Roe, who was one of the biggest distillers in Dublin and Ireland, and also the fantastically acclaimed James Power. The man who setup Powers Whiskey is also buried in the graveyard.

                                 So, Dr. Lyons and Mrs. Lyons, when they set up the distillery, they always said, “And as part of the experience, whiskey is only part of our story.” So, when you do come and visit us, you will get to hear about the history of the locality, the history of the characters that are laid to rest (in the church graveyard). And they’ll get the snapshot of past, present and then future when they get to taste our multi-award-winning whiskies. And hopefully, if they're really nice, I’m sure they might even get to taste a new-make sample from the whiskey that's being produced at the moment, if they talk nicely.

Tom:                        Robert Walker, you've been listening, and I just wondered if there's anything that you've heard that you would like to expand on or add.

Robert:                    Yeah. You know, what Conor was saying there about the flavor profile and what we’re looking for in the crop, I think that is very interesting, because when Conor first approached us and was talking about what he was looking for, it became immediately apparent that we could help a lot on the Alltech Crop Science side. What we can do with our natural product is we can make sure that the crop exhibits its maximum genetic potential. And so, if we’re looking for more sugar, we can do that. If we are looking for less protein, we can do that.

                                 And conversely, my experience from other crops has shown that we can up the protein, down the sugars, up the mineral profile and make a lot of other changes in the crop just by fine-tuning its nutrition and using these natural ingredients that are designed to get the most out of the crop and make sure that the crop is exhibiting its maximum potential. And I think that's where the exciting part is. The fact that we can trace it all the way from the very beginning, from when that seed first goes into the ground, treating the soil initially, and then all the way through, looking after that crop with natural products, and then finally seeing it harvested and made into whiskey.

So, you’ve got the full 360, as Conor mentioned. And yeah, it’s just a very, very exciting project to watch grow.

Tom:                        Well, actually, it’s the “full 359”. We’ve got one important question here to cover, and that is: When and where can we get our hands on a bottle of Pearse Lyons Irish Whiskey? Conor, you want to take that?

Conor:                      We import whiskey into the U.S.A. through our own beverage company in America. So, Lexington Brewing & Distilling imports all of our Irish spirits or Irish Whiskey and our Irish gin. So, through their website, you’ll be able to find what outlet it is available in stateside. And actually, a point to note is our Pearse seven-year-old whiskey has been awarded Best Blended Irish Whiskey for the last two years consecutively. Now, considering 90-odd percent of all Irish Whiskey is blended whiskey, for us to get the best blended Irish Whiskey for two years consecutively is an incredible achievement to all involved, and it's fantastic.

                                So, we have a range in our Pearse Irish Whiskey range. We also have a Ha’penny whiskey range, and then we also have two types of gins, which — we have a Ha’penny gin, and we have our Míl gin. They’re kind of our core spirits that come from Ireland that are available in the U.S.A. So, Lexington Brewing & Distilling, on their website, they’ve got a location finder on it, and they'll be able to guide you in the right direction to pick up a bottle in the U.S.

Tom:                        Well, as I said in the beginning, it's all such a fascinating story. And when you think back to the beginnings of Alltech, (the) very humble beginnings of Alltech, and to have achieved what you just told us is just remarkable. Conor Ryan, global spirits brand ambassador for Pearse Lyons Distillery in Dublin, and Robert Walker, European growth officer at Alltech and CEO of the Ireland-based Alltech agri-brand, KEENAN. We thank you both for joining us.

Robert:                    Thank you. It’s been a pleasure.

Conor:                     It’s been a pleasure and an honor. Thank you for the invite. Much appreciated.

Tom:                        I’m Tom Martin, and thank you 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.

Does your company culture align with the values of today's workforce? Scott Nielsen, chief culture and talent officer at Alltech, joins us on Ag Future to discuss the importance of identifying company culture and developing an organization's most important asset — its team. 

The following is an edited transcript of the Ag Future podcast episode with Scott Nielsen 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™.

                                Scott Nielsen is chief culture and talent officer at Alltech. Scott has experience in human resources policy development and administration, benefits plan design and administration, employee relations, recruiting and staffing, compensation, training and development and employment law compliance with an emphasis on strategy, systems and organization design. At Alltech, it’s his mission to cultivate the growth and development of the company’s most important asset: its people.

                                So, our focuses for this conversation are the raw materials — the talent and culture — and why these things matter to the well-being and success of an organization.

                                Welcome, Scott    

Scott:                       Thank you, Tom. I’m delighted to be here.

Tom:                        And so, just to get our bearings, Scott, are culture and talent synonymous with human resources?

Scott:                       Generally, yes. The profession of human resources has evolved from personnel management to human resources to human capital. Now, you may see many companies using the term “people” instead of HR. Here at Alltech, our focus is on the fact that our culture and the talent of our people are strategic contributors to our success. So, for us, culture and talent can and should be cultivated and developed and can be a very meaningful part of our team members’ experience here.

Tom:                        Well, Scott, we're living in extraordinary times right now. Some of it very puzzling and we want to tap into your expertise to try to better comprehend the fact that there are some 10 million job openings out there in the U.S. right now, but about 8.5 million people are unemployed. These numbers just don't seem to add up. Lots of jobs. Too few takers. What's going on?

Scott:                       Well, you're right. It doesn't really add up. And in fact, the latest numbers that I think I saw this weekend were almost close to 11 million positions now, which is a record. So, to start, Tom, this is a very complex issue. There are a lot of factors at play. Not just the pandemic that we've been going through here. We know that childcare costs are making it difficult for parents to rejoin the workforce. Primarily, that's affecting women and single parents more than others. We also have learned that as people have been able to work remotely or have been unemployed for a period of time, many have been reevaluating what the work they do means to them and how it fits into their values.

                                So, I believe people want to contribute and provide for themselves and their families. However, they also want to feel like they've contributed something meaningful [to the workforce]. We’re seeing some geographic shifts in the workforce as well. Some people need to, or because of a loss of a job, or simply because they want to, are relocating to have a better quality of life. You know, Tom, we may be seeing or hearing comments that people just don't want to work. I don't think that's the case. I think people want to be more purposeful in what they're doing and the type of life they want to live.

Tom:                        Do you think the pandemic has brought about some sort of a reset in that respect?

Scott:                       I think in some ways it has because, again, people have had a situation where they can take a look at what is meaningful to them. And in some cases, it's been very difficult and very challenging for individuals who have had to figure their way through this difficult time. And what we're seeing is that… You know, I wouldn't call it a reluctance to get back to work. I would think of it more as a reluctance to go back to how things might have been, recognizing that they see that there might be something that is more meaningful to them.

Tom:                        Well, we're talking about a lot of job openings out there. What are three or four “most important” first steps that a hiring manager should take before beginning that hiring process?

Scott:                       I would say the first thing is to just be very clear about what the role is going to be and that sounds very simple. But fundamentally, we need to think about work from the perspective of the value that it adds as opposed to simply a job to fill. Perhaps a manager is looking to fill a position that has been vacated for whatever reason, and it may be a matter of, “Well, let's just replace that position.”

                                 And the reality is there may be an opportunity to rethink how that work can be done now. Can it be done more effectively in a different way? Can we align it with other objectives? So, being very clear on what that is, understanding what the needs are. And of course, opportunities and business needs are changing every day and that may create different opportunity for where we focus those resources.

Tom:                        How important are internal programs and initiatives to developing talent along their career path?

Scott:                       Well, as individuals, we never stop growing. We can identify some of those experiences that will create a more rich journey for the person. One of the things that we’re starting to look at very closely is the idea of the employee experience. You know, how are we engaging people even before they come onboard with us as we're in the recruiting and interviewing process? Once we do make a decision, how do we onboard them and make sure that they understand what the mission and the vision of the company are? I know those are phrases that might get tossed around, but it's actually very important for somebody to be able to align their personal interests with what the company is doing. That creates a lot of value. And then of course, you know, we have any type of educational programs or learning opportunities. These don't necessarily have to be formal programs. They can be job enrichment, where an individual expresses an interest or a manager notices that an individual might be able to expand their skillset. And so, they do something to help work through that.

                                 And then another piece of that is telling the story of all of those initiatives. For example, here at Alltech, we have a number of things that have been part of the culture from early on that truly create some of those development opportunities. We have a Back2Basics program. We also have a mini-MBA program that individuals might get tied into. And those are excellent opportunities for the individual to grow and develop and also create tremendous value for the company. So, that's probably one of the greatest opportunities we have, to find ways to continually encourage employees to develop and to give them those opportunities.

Tom:                        When you first walk into an organization, you're like a stranger in a strange land and there is a lot of orientation that has to go on. Does a good manager practice patience with that person and give them the space and time, you know, a week or so, a couple of weeks, to just become oriented, to find their sea legs, as it were?

Scott:                       I think it can go both ways there, Tom. Realistically, we all know that when somebody is joining it's because we have a need and we need to have them be productive. At the same time, we can't expect them to be productive right off the bat. And there are a lot of things that an employee needs to learn just to get a frame of reference of the organization. So, yes, absolutely a manager needs to have some patience with that. I would suggest that what a manager also is going to benefit from, and the employee more particularly will benefit from, is to have a plan.

                                So, what does the first day look like? What does the first week look like? Who are we going to connect this person to? Do we have a mentor, for example, that we can put them with, whether it's even just a job mentor or whether it's someone just to help them get to know the company a little better? How can we create some of the relationships that we know they will need to have to do their job well? Let's figure out a plan to put some of those things in place so that when they first show up, we kind of know what's in store for them. They can understand and, as you put it, get their legs underneath them and move forward and hopefully rise to productivity more quickly.

Tom:                       Culture has always been an important feature of the workplace and it can be a minefield, from hierarchy to humor.

                               Talk to us about company culture and why managers and owners need to pay particular attention to it.

Scott:                       Well, it's important to note that the company culture exists whether you pay attention to it or not. Culture consists of the ways we interact with each other, the activities or results we put emphasis on, how we recognize and support each other. Just a lot of things that are coming into play with that. Just as an example, growing up out west, my father had a small orchard of peach and pear trees, and we needed to irrigate the orchard. Now, of course, we had the furrows between the trees. But during the water turns, we had to make sure that the furrows weren’t clogged with leaves or other debris and make sure the water got to the end of the row.

                                Similarly, if a manager isn't thinking about the cultural attributes of their operations or how their people are behaving, if they're not paying attention to those things, they may give clear objectives for the work, but find that things aren't happening the way they would like it to be. So, I think that from that perspective, a manager needs to think about the organization and just be aware of what's happening. I would also suggest that culture is the glue that holds the organization together. It includes the norms, the values that are expected. We have to realize, every time we bring a new person into the workgroup, they're coming in with their own cultural norms and values. And that's one of the reasons that [carefully] selecting new hires is so important.

Tom:                        Let's drill down just a bit further and talk about micro cultures. What is a micro culture, and how do these micro cultures take on different meanings depending on one's role and department within a company?

Scott:                       I define micro culture as the culture of a workgroup. We know that within an organization, we may have a company culture. And that is absolutely important; for us to be as clear as we can on what the culture is that we want within the organization. At the same time, since culture is influenced by how individuals interact with each other, the behaviors, the norms that they have, you might find a group having a little different culture. You know, one group may be a little more focused on speed, if you will, whereas another is a little more focused on accuracy because of the type of work that they're doing. And those are cultural differences. So, that's a bit of how we get a difference in the cultures.

                                One other thought there is that we need to help managers and supervisors understand just how much of an impact their behaviors and interactions with their team members have on that micro culture. It can truly make a meaningful difference for the employer, the team member in how they contribute, and what they do, and how much they enjoy being a part of that team.

Tom:                       So, it remains important to lead by example.

Scott:                       Absolutely. Always has been the case. And oftentimes, a supervisor or a manager may not recognize that every piece of their example matters.

Tom:                        What can a team leader do to make sure the company culture has extended to their team and to establish a positive micro culture within their own team and one that ensures that everybody is on the same page and has the same goal?

Scott:                       Let me kind of back up and describe culture as a tapestry. This is the way that I've viewed culture for many years now, is it’s like a tapestry. If you think about a beautiful tapestry hanging on a wall, there are many different colors, patterns and designs in a tapestry. However, there are certain colors or designs — themes — that flow through the entire tapestry.

                                 And I think that as we look at culture, we need to think about what I'll call the thread running through the tapestry. And so, team leaders need to understand that broad picture, the whole tapestry, and how does my piece of the organization, the team that I'm leading, how does the work that they're doing fit into all of this and then tie that together. One of the key ways to do that is with communication; such an important part of what a team leader does.

                                 Be able to create a common language and understanding and make sure that everyone understands where are we going, how is this work aligning with the objective of the company. And the overall culture ties it together, whereas these micro cultures and the managers, the team leaders, are able to influence it at a very direct level.

Tom:                        As you described just a moment ago, one team might have emphasis on speed, another a deliberate focus on accuracy. So, various departments can have competing needs, agendas, ideas. Is there an approach to managing these various dynamics to ensure constructive outcomes?

Scott:                       Right. So, the differences are going to create a little bit of… I don't want to use the word “conflict.” I'd rather use the word “friction.” And along with thinking about friction is the whole idea of traction. So, too often we might think about some of these things as negatives. And the reality is that it's okay for us to have some of those differences, as long as we understand how they influence and help achieve the objectives across the organization. So, we can't really take a one-size-fits-all type approach to this.

                                 And coming back to the idea of a tapestry, if everything were the same, from my opinion, it would be a little bit of a boring tapestry. Rather, we need to have some of those differences. And the method for a team leader to do that again clearly comes back to understanding where are we going as an overall organization and how does this piece of the business that I have some responsibility for, how does that tie in and help the entire organization succeed?

Tom:                        Okay. Let's turn in a slightly different direction and talk about family operations and farming. These family operations actually account for about 96% of the farms in the United States. And it might seem that legacy is built in, but is that true? Does legacy need to be cultivated and how best to accomplish that mindset?

Scott:                       So, interestingly, a number of years ago, I did a little research on family transition, generational transition of businesses. And as we know, oftentimes, there's a big challenge associated with that, and many family operations struggle to continue for multiple generations. One of the strongest ways, both from what I learned and what I think we see with a lot of operations today, is just always, always tell the story. So, you know, why did the founder start and develop, in this case the farm, for example? You know, was it simply a matter of need or was there some other interest associated? Why was it continued? What are the challenges that have been overcome? And what are the accomplishments that have been achieved as it goes forward? Storytelling is by far the best way to maintain an ingrain the culture in an organization and to help that legacy come about.

Tom:                        Scott, I know that you have your own talent as a singer and a member of a barbershop harmony society. And I'm sure your colleagues and other employees bring their own to the table. Is it to a company's advantage to support and encourage talents and passion outside the workplace? And if so, why?

Scott:                       So, yes, this gets to the idea of recognizing a whole person. I have for a number of years been concerned with the idea that perhaps — I don't think everyone — but perhaps some organizations think that when someone walks through the door, they need to leave part of themselves outside the door. And that just doesn't feel natural to me because I don't do that. Now, I don't sing in the office. Some may like it. Some may not. But being able to find joy and fulfillment in an activity outside of the workplace definitely influences how someone is inside. We know the talents are not unidimensional. We know what when people can find that joy and meaning in their lives, regardless of where they find it, if they find it in their work and outside, it just allows them to be more energized and productive overall.

Tom:                        I'm sure you keep an eye on current trends, what's going on in the field. And I'm just wondering what of those trends that you're watching excites you and gives you confidence in the future.

Scott:                       Well, yes, there are a number of things that have been happening. One that really comes to mind is that I think we have to recognize that leaders are making significant efforts to be listening and to be empathetic. We understand that there have been a lot of challenges for many different reasons and different ways over the last period of time. And so, I think we've got some good focus there.

                                One of the things that really has jumped out at me is just the idea that there's an entire population of people that we now refer to as essential workers that have been getting the spotlight because they are so important and so integral to making our society run. I mean, from our perspective, that includes the folks in the agribusiness and associated companies. That is just so important. Additionally, I think we've got some attention that is being focused on inclusion, equity and diversity. We know that those have been issues for a number of years. And I think it's just good what we’re seeing some additional focus and hopefully some continued change there as we move forward.

Tom:                        All right. Scott Nielson is chief culture and talent officer at Alltech. Thank you so much, Scott.

Scott:                      Thank you. Glad to be here.

Tom:                        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.

According to the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate change is widespread, rapid and intensifying. As the agriculture industry takes a leadership role in reducing its carbon footprint, are there additional opportunities within the report? David Butler, head of sustainability at Alltech, joins the Ag Future podcast to unpack the implications of the IPCC's findings, explain how it may be used to guide policies, and explore the key takeaways for the agri-food sector. 

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

Tom Martin:            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^TM.

                                 I’m Tom Martin, and I’m joined by David Butler, head of sustainability at Alltech. David helps set the company’s commitments and goals to be more sustainable across the more than 120 countries in which the company operates.

                                 A global business must be on top of global dynamics, and among them, of course, is climate change. And recently, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raised the alarm to a new and higher level with a report titled, “Climate Change: Widespread, Rapid and Intensifying”. And that’s our focus.

                                Welcome, David.

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

Tom Martin:            And so, basics first, David. What is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

David Butler:            Well, it’s an international organization that was set up by the United Nations way back in 1988. And it’s made up of representatives from 195 nations. And it’s their job to keep policymakers up to date on the science related to climate change so they have the information they need to make effective policies.

                                And the IPCC does not conduct climate science; they — the representatives enlist hundreds of scientists in the field who volunteer their time to review all of the existing scientific papers and produce these assessments.

Tom Martin:            Well, if you would, bring us up to speed on those assessment reports. What do they cover?

David Butler:            Well, the reports are designed to provide, you know, the scientific basis for governments to develop their policies, as I mentioned. And they’re also the foundation for negotiations at the U.N. Climate Conference. So, this will be central to the next conference, which is coming up in Glasgow in the fall. And they provide the information that the policymakers need, but they don’t tell policymakers what policies they need to put in place to accomplish the goals.

                                 So, the assessments have three parts, and the report that just came out a couple of weeks ago is the first of those three parts. It’s focused on the current science of climate change, which has advanced quite a bit since the last report came out.

                                 And then, the next two reports will be out early next year. The second one will deal with impacts, adaptation and vulnerability to climate change. And the third report will deal with mitigation, or how to combat climate change.

Tom Martin:            This most recent report that we’re talking about now notes changes in the earth’s climate in every region and across the whole climate system. How does this report differ from others that have come before it?

David Butler:            Well, first, I want to mention how amazing it is to me that they’re even able to produce this report, because there are hundreds of scientists that work on it, and they have to come to an agreement on all of the language in the report. And then, they have to agree with 195 representatives from the member countries. And so, that — it’s amazing that they can, you know, agree on such a massive document and all of the statements that come out in the report.

And I think, in the past, you know, that — the fact that they, they all had to be in agreement meant that the language in the report was very, very cautious. And so, you know, if there was a 90% likelihood of something happening, they would use words like “likely” or, you know, “somewhat certain”. They would use very cautious language. But in this report, they used words like “unequivocal”; you know, it is an established fact. They say things like that.

So, the science is much more defined than it was, and there’s really no doubt anymore that climate change is here, it’s happening now, (and) it’s caused by humans, primarily from burning fossil fuels.

Tom Martin:            What does this report tell us about our climate situation now (and) where we’re headed in the short term?

David Butler:           Well, let me read you the very first point in the summary. It kind of says it all:

                               “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.”

                                So, basically that’s saying there is no time left to wait, unless — and they go on to say, “unless there are immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting warming to close to 1.5 degrees (Celsius) or even 2 degrees (Celsius) will be beyond reach.”

Tom Martin:            What, according to the scientists who’ve contributed to the IPCC report, needs to happen in agriculture to help put the brakes on these climate changes?

David Butler:            Well, certainly, agriculture, like every other industry, has its own environmental footprint. The thing about agriculture is that a lot of our footprint is related to methane emissions. And the report goes into great detail about the impact of methane. And that’s really the first time that one of these reports has taken such a close look at methane.

                                 Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO₂. And it’s also very short-lived in the atmosphere; it only lasts about ten years, as opposed to potentially thousands of years for CO₂. So, that means that, if we reduce it, then we can get a pretty quick impact on climate change. So, it’s a big problem, because it’s a very big greenhouse gas, but it’s also a part of the solution.

                                 And although the report doesn’t make specific recommendations and it doesn’t tell agriculture what to do, it does highlight the importance of dealing with methane as soon as possible.

Tom Martin:            Well, agriculture has been taking a lot of the blame as a significant source of methane. I think the IPCC report found that atmospheric concentrations of methane are at their highest level in 800,000 years and that lowering methane emissions is the best option to fight climate change. But how do you see that influencing ag policy?

David Butler:            That’s a great question, Tom. And right now, in Congress, they’re working on budget reconciliation, and in the proposal, there are a lot of climate policies. And there is possibly a methane polluter fee. And as far as I can tell, that is focused on leakage from the natural gas industry and should not affect agriculture.

But certainly, agriculture is a source of methane, and we need to think about what happens down the road at some point — if there are methane policies that impact agriculture, what would those be, how would that affect the industry, and would they work or not?

Tom Martin:            Speaking, David, of legislation before Congress, earlier this summer, the U.S. Senate passed the Growing Climate Solutions Act. And it’s now before the House, where it’s been since about June; (it) seems to be kind of stalled there at the moment. But the bill is supposed to make it easier for farmers, ranchers and other rural landowners to generate carbon credits by reducing their carbon footprint and, then, to sell those credits to companies interested in offsetting their emissions.

And this ag carbon credit market is kind of in its beginnings and is in its developmental stages, but as we await some clarity there, for things to shake out, for it to form fully, what are some of the ways that agriculture could reduce emissions and sequester carbon?

David Butler:            You know, like all industries, agriculture needs to start out by reducing our own emissions. And so, at the most basic level, that means that we need to switch over to renewable energy and get off of fossil fuels. And every industry needs to do that.

                                 But we also have an opportunity to reduce methane emissions from livestock, and we can go into more detail about the possible methods for doing that, but there is a lot of research going on there, there is a lot of potential for doing that. I think that’s very exciting.

                                 And then, some methane emissions come from manure, so we can put into place technologies to help with manure management. There are different ways to store manure, separate it and run it through anaerobic digestion, a big — sometimes they’re called biogas reactor methane digesters. And those allow you to produce as much methane as possible and then take that methane and use it as renewable natural gas or, in fact, burn it to generate electricity. So, that’s much better than releasing the methane into the atmosphere.

And then, we also need to explore agri-voltaics. And that’s simply just putting solar panels on agricultural land in such a way that it can still be useful farmlands. So, if you — if you put the panels on racks that are high enough, you can grow crops or graze animals underneath them, and they might be a little more spaced out than they would be if you have a solar farm, but you’re still getting the agricultural value out of that land instead of converting it into a solar farm. And I think that’s really important, especially as we need to feed more people.

Tom Martin:            So, this implies a lot of gearing up, a lot of retrofitting — changes that will have to be made to accommodate carbon sequestration and, as you say, renewable energy. All that costs money. What might be some sources of funding for all these changes?

David Butler:            Well, as you mentioned, you know, carbon markets are going to mature, probably over the next decade. And that could certainly be a big source of income, because there are industries — like the fossil fuel industry and the airline industry and some heavy-manufacturing industries — where it’s going to be really hard and take a very long time for them to come up with technologies to reduce their emissions. And in fact, the fossil fuel industry, they can never reduce the emissions of their products. You know, they’re going to have to reinvent themselves.

                                So, in the meantime, those industries will need to buy carbon offsets so that they can reduce the impact of what they’re doing. So, a lot of money will be flowing out of those industries, and hopefully, a lot of that money will go into agriculture to help farmers be part of the solution for climate change.

Tom Martin:            I don’t know that this is necessarily on the horizon in this country — maybe it is — but what, David, is likely to happen if governments take actions to reduce livestock numbers to reduce methane emissions?

David Butler:           That is an excellent question. I think it’s kind of, you know, that’s what’s on everybody’s minds: Will we come up with caps for livestock?

                                I don’t think that that would work. And the reason is that, you know, it would have to be on a country-by-country basis if there were limits on livestock. We don’t have a world government, so nobody can say, “This is how many livestock are going to be produced in the world.”

                                So, let’s say that the U.S. put a limit on the number of cattle. Well, that’s not going to change the demand for beef or dairy, so you would have to import those animals, and they would most likely come from Brazil, which could involve further deforestation of the Amazon or conversion of other ecosystems in Brazil. And that, combined with the transportation, could actually create a bigger carbon footprint than you had before.

Tom Martin:            Lots of complications in this issue. Is there already evidence that the agriculture industry is taking on a leadership role on climate change?

David Butler:            Absolutely. The U.S. dairy industry has a net-zero initiative with the goal of achieving that, zero emissions, by 2050. And there are many companies that are signed up to support that.

                                 And the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association recently came out with the carbon neutrality announcement, also for 2050. So, more and more companies are working in this direction, and the industry, as a whole, is moving in that direction.

Tom Martin:            Well, David, as I mentioned in the introduction, you are the head of sustainability at Alltech, and so you must have a very large plate (of responsibilities), I would imagine. And I’m just wondering: What sorts of projects related to climate change are currently on that plate?

David Butler:            Well, I work with several teams across the company. So, I want to mention a couple of their projects first.

Alltech E-CO₂ is a subsidiary that Alltech has that works with farmers to help measure and reduce their carbon footprint. And so, they’re growing and getting projects all over the world. There’s more and more demand for that. And they help farmers, in a lot of different ways, identify how they can reduce that carbon footprint. So, that’s really important.

                                 And then, our research and technical teams are working on a lot of exciting projects right now to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts from livestock production in general, but especially from ruminants. And some of those other environmental impacts include nutrient pollution, like nitrogen and phosphorus runoff in water or mineral contamination in soil and water. And so, I think that’s really exciting.

                                 But my team’s main focus, right at the moment, is working on our transition to renewable energy. And we began installing solar at some of our facilities. The first facility to have a solar ray is our plant in Serdán, Mexico. And those panels will be operating very soon.

                                 And we’re looking at energy efficiency improvements in our facilities, and we’re looking at purchasing renewable energy from solar developers through power purchase agreements as well.

Tom Martin:           What are some various ways to reduce the carbon footprint of cattle?

David Butler:             As you probably know, the big problem with cattle is that they produce methane when they digest grass and other kinds of fiber. And that happens because in their rumen, there are a number of different types of microbes that help to break down the cellulose in that plant matter. And some of those microbes produce methane. And interestingly, the same thing happens when termites eat wood.

So, that methane, when it’s produced by cattle, that’s not a good thing for the farmer. It’s actually kind of a waste product; it’s lost energy. It would be better if the cow was not producing methane and if the rest of that energy from, from the carbon and hydrogen bonds went into helping the cow grow.

                                So, agriculture is working on a lot of different ways to try to combat this problem. And it can help farmers be more profitable at the same time that it reduces the amount of methane that we produce. So, one way to do that is (to) improve the efficiency of ruminants by making them — making them healthier and giving them better nutrition. And, you know, the more milk that they produce from the same number of cattle, or the more meat they produce, then you have less methane per gallon of milk or per pound of meat.

Many of our products do just that. They improve the performance and productivity of livestock, which means it takes fewer animals to produce the same amount of food. So, that reduces the overall environmental footprint of livestock, including greenhouse gas emissions.

And beyond that, there’s a lot of work being done on feed additives and ingredients that show promise for reducing methane emissions from cattle and other ruminants. And people are looking into breeding cattle that can produce less methane.

                                So, at Alltech, we’re doing all kinds of research in this area and making great progress on finding solutions. And I think that it’s probably comforting for people to know that this is a problem for agriculture, too, just from a productivity standpoint, and that we want to solve that, and there are a lot of people working on that.

Tom Martin:            You’ve touched on solutions that are in discussion, research and development, and in practice at Alltech. What else could agriculture do, in general, to combat climate change?

David Butler:            Well, you know, farmers have been recycling biomass for thousands of years, right? Nothing is wasted on the farm. Manure is used as fertilizer and, you know, crop waste, like corn stalks, (is) used as food for animals.

So, farmers are kind of like recyclers within the carbon cycle, right? They — everything they do revolves around the carbon cycle. I would like to see the agriculture industry take leadership of that and kind of help to transition us to a circular carbon economy.

And right now, an incredible amount of biomass goes into landfills or gets incinerated every year, and that’s a huge waste of nutrients and carbon. So, I’m talking about food waste, yard waste, wood waste and sewage sludge that all end up in landfills or are incinerated.

                                 And if you can imagine, we could take all of that organic matter, that biomass, and reuse it or recycle it in some way. Some things can become animal feed, some things can become compost, and other things can go into anaerobic digesters to produce natural gas or renewable electricity.

                                 And then, at the end of that cycle, everything else can go into biochar. And that’s a big topic, maybe for another day: What is biochar? We could talk about that for two hours.

Tom Martin:            Can you just give us a quick definition of that?

David Butler:            Yeah, sure. So, if you take organic matter — it could be wood chips, it could be straw, it could be manure — and you heat it without oxygen, you’re essentially baking it. It’s called paralysis. And (if) you drive off almost all the hydrogen and the oxygen, and you’re just left with this kind of crystalline carbon. And if you put that carbon in the soil, or if you use it in manufacturing of some other product, like roadways or plastics or concrete, then you’re pulling that carbon out of the carbon cycle, and so, you’re sequestering it. And it can last in the soil for hundreds and thousands of years. And that’s a great way to draw down carbon from the atmosphere.

Tom Martin:            It’s all so interesting, and we’ll revisit (this topic) over time. David Butler, head of sustainability at Alltech. We thank you so much, David.

David Butler:           Yeah. Thank you, Tom.

Tom Martin:            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.

HELM Agro and Alltech Crop Science are aiming to take crop yields and quality to the next level. Dave Schumacher, president of HELM Agro, and Alltech Crop Science manager Steve Borst joined Ag Future to discuss the partnership, which bridges the gap between traditional and biological crop input solutions in the U.S.

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

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

                                 I’m Tom Martin. And joining me for this edition of Ag Future are Dave Schumacher, president of HELM Agro, and Alltech Crop Science manager Steve Borst. These two entrepreneurial, family-owned businesses have formed a new partnership, and we’re going to get the details.

                                Welcome to Ag Future, Dave and Steve.

Dave:                       Thank you, Tom.

Steve:                      Thanks for having us.

Tom:                        And I’d like to get your perspectives on this partnership. Dave, let’s start with you. If you could, tell us about HELM and what it brings to the arrangement.

Dave:                       Sure. Well, thanks, Tom, for a chance to, to share more about our relationship.        

                                 Like Alltech, HELM is a family-owned business. And we’ve actually been in business for 121 years. So, we have a deep commitment to, to serving our customers.

Within our business, HELM Agro, we are involved in the crop protection business in the U.S. So, we provide solutions to help farmers grow better crops and (are) really helping them reach their crops’ full genetic potential.

HELM also has the fertilizer business (and) crop nutrient business in the U.S., and they’re committed to bringing crop nutrients to the market and to help farmers achieve that high yield potential.

So, we’re excited about bringing our capabilities around customers and market knowledge and our crop protection footprint and fertilizer footprints to this partnership. So, we’ll be bringing sales and marketing, as well as salespeople in the field, to support and grow the Alltech Crop Sciences portfolio.

Tom:                        Okay. Let’s bring you in, Steve. Same question: What is the role of Alltech Crop Science in this partnership, which I understand is unique?

Steve:                      Thank you, Tom. Yeah, very much so. We’re just really excited about working with Dave, the HELM team, and having the ability to bridge two companies that have the same culture, the same entrepreneurial culture, of figuring out ways to do more with less.

                                 And I would say, from our standpoint, as Dave was mentioning, you know, what HELM brings — on the crop science side, our focus is on the innovation, technologies, and the R&D and the science behind getting these technologies through HELM to the marketplace.

                                 So, our founder, Dr. Pearse Lyons has always — has always maintained a very entrepreneurial mindset to coming up with solutions and looking at solutions from a forward-thinking perspective. And now, his son has carried on that same mindset and really has pushed us to figure out ways to partner and to work collectively with key groups within the ag space to better service our clientele and better service our customers. So, as far as the uniqueness of this partnership — and, again, it’s a testament to the initiative that Dr. Mark Lyons had set out for us.

So, our Planet of Plenty vision of looking at ways at — looking at ways to build these partnerships and to get these types of technologies into the ag space. So, the uniqueness here is that we’re, we are — it is a strategic partnership that is going to focus on bridging agronomic or traditional agronomic solutions with the biological solution platform. Because we think both technologies offered by both companies have a space and have a position in the ag space and need to be utilized collectively together in order to achieve the genetic potential that Dave was mentioning.

                                So, we’re very excited about what this is going to offer our customer base and what it’s going to provide the ag sector, the agronomic sector.

Tom:                        The Planet of Plenty initiative revolves around sustainability. How does this new relationship between Alltech and HELM Agro apply a systems approach to support sustainable solutions?

Dave:                       You know, from our perspective, customers want options, and they need options to produce a crop that’s going to feed the world. So, when we look at a systems approach, there is resistance, in some cases, to some traditional crop protection products that, we think, using a systems approach of some application of Alltech Crop Science’s products in rotation or in combination with some of the traditional products can help farmers manage some of that resistance and also, you know, improve their overall yield.

                                 I think there is certainly a push from the end consumer to have less, I’d say — less traditional chemistry is used in the practice of growing the crop. And I’m excited about the technology that Alltech Crop Science has developed.

And what we’re going to be able to do, as we start working with our customers in this portfolio, (is) to help them with those solutions. And ultimately, I think (this partnership) is a great opportunity to increase yield and increase the quality of crops while having less of, you know, herbicide, insecticide or fungicide, from a traditional standpoint, being used. So, that’s really exciting for us.

And, you know, a key part of this partnership — we couldn’t be happier about the products that they have in the pipeline and the science behind it. You know, specifically, the nutrigenomics is a very cutting-edge technology, a best-in-class technology that kind of helps really determine what that crop is going through and how we can get the best performance on the timing application. So, it’s really using science to look into what that crop is doing at a molecular level during that time of production. So, we think that that analysis will help us springboard this into a very science-driven portfolio. So, we’re very excited about it.

Tom:                        Steve, you have thoughts on this?

Steve:                      Yeah. And just to reiterate what Dave was saying, I think that the Planet of Plenty — and just maybe dovetailing into it the sustainability aspect of it, sustainability means longevity and the opportunity to really facilitate your crop life cycle and to better produce a higher-quality yield.

                                 And so, I think, when we are talking about how sustainability fits into this partnership, as Dave was mentioning, tying both of our companies’ strengths together, from a biological and from a traditional chemistry approach, is a way for us to be able to provide a long-term solution or a long-term opportunity for our crop, as a crop input, and for our customers and our retail partners that we have around the world — and more importantly, here, with our domestic partnership here in the United States. Because everybody in our space right now — from an agronomic perspective, everybody is looking for new and innovative ways to combat the challenges that they’ve been, that have been occurring for the year-on-year cycle.

                                 So, this is just, again, another way for us to provide more technologies and more and newer innovation to the agronomic space and to take a better stab at providing better solution, better biological solutions on-farm.

                                  And so, combining the retail outreach that HELM has and the sales force and the marketing tools that HELM has and combining that in with the crop science innovation technology — and, as Dave mentioned, the nutrigenomics, of tying a mode of action to these biological solutions — and providing through that retail arm is just really, really exciting.

Tom:                        So, do I understand that this systems approach that you’re talking about, does this more or less optimize efficiency and sustainability?

Steve:                      Yeah. I would say it optimizes efficiency. It optimizes efficiency.

                                 But as Dave and I both mentioned, it does provide opportunities for us to look at different ways to combat these challenges that we’re seeing. Whether we’re talking about disease pressure or the challenges with yield and producing more bushel to the acre, it does provide more opportunities and more selection for — more selections for farmers to combat those challenges, Tom.

Tom:                        Okay. Each partner is bringing to the table its own ongoing scientific research, as well as the development of new products. Does the partnership call for communication and collaboration in those areas?

Dave:                       Absolutely. You know, this a partnership, and we look (forward) to growing the product portfolios together. We’re going to be collaborating closely on new product development. I would see our R&D team and marketing teams working closely together in the upcoming few months to identify where some of those new products (and) solutions can be created.

                                So, you know, there’s a lot of opportunities, I think, in some of the crops that we’re looking at that we’ll be able to reach, as well as some potential combinations between a more traditional synthetic traditional crop protection product and a biological product.

                                So, I think there’s a lot of opportunity for collaboration and development and really pairing up the strengths of both companies to bring a solution that fits the needs of our customers.

Tom:                        Steve, over on your side at Alltech, do you have a bat phone on your desk for HELM? I mean, are you all staying in communication?

Steve:                      Oh, routinely. It’s a big, bright red phone that Dave has on his desk, and I have one on mine, that we routinely pick up. [laughs] Absolutely, Tom.

                                 I would say, you know, a lot of the excitement that you hear from this is, as I mentioned earlier, (rooted in) the similar culture and the openness that we are both taking going into this new agreement together, with family-owned companies (that are) privately held (and that have a) global outreach, have a strong entrepreneurial mindset to both of them.

                                 I would say, you know, it’s been an absolute pleasure — and I have to say that we, we always are continuing to find new and innovative ways and opportunities that we haven’t really thought of, as individual partners, individual companies, (to collaborate). And back to what Dave was saying there, from a partnership (perspective), you know, who better to have an idea of where to fit biological solutions in a traditional synthetic program than a traditional and synthetic company? And vice versa: Who better, alternatively, to think of some ways to put some synthetic and combination program opportunities or ideas together than, you know, a traditional chemical company and advising a biological company?

So, it’s just, it’s — we are both very much looking forward to continuing the discovery and exploring new ways for us to combine our footprints to create something very special, futuristically, for our customers.

Tom:                        Dave, back to you. Tell us about a couple of herbicides produced by HELM: Reviton and Katagon. I believe I’m pronouncing that correctly.       

Dave:                       Yes, Tom. Thanks. So, Reviton and Katagon, these are two new products that we launched this year. And I’m very excited about their performance in the marketplace.

                                 Reviton is a new active ingredient that’s registered in the U.S. (for) first time ever. So, in crop protection, new active ingredients have — there hasn’t been a whole lot of them in the past few years. So, with our partnership with other providers globally, we’ve been able to introduce that product. And it is a product that helps growers start cleaning at the beginning of the year. We call it the “burn-down market,” where we start cleaning at the beginning of the year (and doing) broadleaf and grass control. And (Reviton has a) very good safety profile compared to some other products in that market. So, we’re really excited about that.

                                 Katagon is a post-herbicide for corn, so (it is applied) after the corn crop is up. And it does not contain glyphosate, so it could be used for growers that are not planting GMO-type corn. So, if you don’t have a glyphosate-tolerant corn, you could use Katagon for your broadleaf and grass control.

So, we’re really excited about those two markets. The Reviton, we see big increases in minimum tillage or no-till (with this product) as growers look to conserve moisture in the soil and manage soil health as best they can. Reviton has been a great solution to help them in that space, to start cleaning in the spring. Or if you have a weed problem in the fall, you can address it with that.

                                So, (we are) really excited about those two products and think these are a great addition to the Alltech Crop Sciences portfolio, so that we can bring total solutions to our customers.

Tom:                        Under this partnership, HELM is marketing, selling and distributing the Alltech Crop Science line of products. Steve, I wondered if you could tell us about that product line.

Steve:                      Sure. Yeah. Alltech Crop Science, our — at Alltech, our focus and our expertise is fermentation. Whether we’re talking about yeast, bacteria, fungi — I mean, our focus is providing a fermentation-type technology to the market.

                                 And I would say the opportunity on the line, and the uniqueness of our line that we’re offering, is that we, as a biological company — a lot of the challenges that we ran into, or a lot of our customers would say (that) a lot of the challenges they ran into, were with the biological companies, (and those problems) stem from quality, shelf life and an understanding of mode of action.

                                 And so, our focus, over the past 26 years of existence, has been to come up with these types of technologies that are more convenient for the farmer to use (and that) improve shelf life and stability, and then, ultimately, with our nutrigenomic and our research arm, (we want to) provide a mode of action or rationale to how these technologies work in the space.

                                 And so, our lineup that we are currently offering, our standard lineup that we have — we have four pillars that we focus on. (The first is) soil. So, soil health (and) technologies to deliver to the soil. (The second pillar is) nutrition, which is (provided via) our micronutrient packs that we add amino acids to and then incorporate those technologies to improve overall uptake and efficiency from a mineral-use program.

                                (The third pillar is) protection, which is (going to be featured in) our future lineup that we’re excited about. So, providing technologies, like some of our research ones — though some are currently still in research — and that we’ll be deploying with PTA registration through HELM. So, biofungicides and biostimulants. And then, (the fourth pillar is) our performance line, which is our biostimulant line that is the technology delivered to provide a genetic benefit or a specific yield or quality gain.

                                 So, all those four pillars, all of our technologies, will be offered through our HELM partnership or through HELM to our distribution channel that we currently work with.

                                 But as I mentioned, we’re really excited about what we have in R&D and in the pipeline coming with regards to the biofungicide and the bionematicide — two key technologies that we’ll be launching through HELM, hopefully, by the end of next year.

Tom:                        Well, I’m glad you brought that up, Steve, because I was going to ask each of you — and I know that you can only go so far with what you can reveal (about) what’s going on in your labs — but (I am) just curious: What’s percolating there that might be of interest to our listeners that you’re excited about?

Steve:                      So, I can go first. I would say our — we have a technology, and the code name right now is ACS811. It is a biofungicide product that we are registering as a biofungicide, and it is used to combat fungal and bacterial pathogens. And the mode of action, how it works, is fostered around us triggering defense mechanisms in the plant to provide a systemic reaction to defend, or from a defense standpoint.

So, we’re really excited about what we’ve been able to create there from that. And also, having contained within that product is a contact reaction. So, if the disease is present, we also see a contact, where they kill stimulation that, basically, would help to combat the disease if it’s already there and present. So, it’s almost — not to use an example of where we kind of are right now within our, within society, but it’s almost like a vaccine, where you’re putting this on a plant, and it’s triggering a defense mechanism to help to defend itself against an impending attack.

So, we’re really excited about that technology. And then, the other one is a bionematicide that we currently are in the process of registration in both Brazil and, currently, here domestically, in the U.S., that we will be launching through HELM. And that is (targeting) nematode problems, a very serious problem that usually requires very serious and toxic chemistries in order to combat. And we will be providing a safe, biological-derived technology to combat those challenges, that challenge, for our customers as well.

                                 So, they will be the two key ones that we have under (development) in the safe right now, Tom, but we are really, really excited and focused on getting (these solutions) deployed out through HELM as soon as possible.

Tom:                        Well, Dave, I want to give you that question as well, but before we get there, I just want to say that that sounds pretty revolutionary to this layman’s ear. It sounds as though what you’re doing is fortifying the plant’s ability to defend itself versus applying some external chemical or toxin to do the same thing. Is that a correct assessment?

Dave:                       Yeah, I think you’re absolutely right. With the biological approach, it’s really working with the plant to enhance its defense mechanism. The product that Steve was referencing, ACS811, we’re really excited about that product and the opportunities that these products will have in the marketplace. We can see a lot of applications to that in either row crop or specialty crops as well.

One of the challenges with disease pressure is it’s ever-changing, and Mother Nature always wins. So, Mother Nature will build resistance to some of the products being used. And this gives us a great opportunity to address them, those challenges that growers have, with a different mode of action that can make a healthier plant.

                                 So, we’re excited about, you know, being able to bring new solutions to growers and retailers to help out in that space. So, it is an exciting, exciting venture. And a lot of what we’ve seen with other biologicals are they don’t work as consistently as what we’re seeing with the Alltech Crop Science portfolio. And I think that attributes to, you know, the rigor around science and product development but also the manufacturing capability (at Alltech Crop Science). It’s not easy to manage that fermentation and produce through fermentation, and Alltech Crop Science and Alltech are experts in that space.

So, that’s going to help us, I think, break through dark water, if you will — (and by that I mean) some of the biologicals that are out there — and really bring that consistency and science-based approach, along with the proof points of, like, nutrigenomics that we can show (producers that) it actually is enhancing that plant’s defense mechanism.

So, we’re really excited about this technology and what it can provide for our customers for the future.

Tom:                        Earlier in the conversation, we touched on the Planet of Plenty initiative at Alltech. And to wrap things up, I’d like to ask each of you to tell us how the Planet of Plenty initiative figures into what you do into your work. How about you, Steve?

Steve:                       Perfect. I would say, from the initiative, as I mentioned, that Mark has really set forward for us to use as our focus, from a crop science standpoint, I would say what this partnership has really touched on is, as we mentioned, the sustainability aspect of the relationship and what each company is trying to deliver from a solution standpoint — but more importantly, (in relation to our) partnership.

                                 The ability for us to work collectively together — and the idea was to benefit from each other’s strengths and to combat some of, maybe, the weaknesses that we might have been looking to come up with solutions for (as) an individual (company) that (we) now have the opportunity to be a bit of a stronger force in the space (by working together). I think that would be where I would say this really ties into that overall message that Dr. Mark Lyons has set forth for us all from an Alltech standpoint.

Tom:                       Okay. And Dave, your perspective on that?

Dave:                       Yeah. I think, you know, as we look at this partnership, it’s going to provide us with the opportunity to provide more solutions to growers.

Currently, you know, this will be a new venture into the soil health piece, and that’s been an area that’s very much growing. And we’re excited to be a part of it, because we’re seeing, you know, a lot of development in that area. And being able to grow a sustainable crop really starts with your soil and the nutrition in your soil, as well as the right bugs that are converting organic material into food for the plants. And the Alltech Crop Sciences portfolio has some great opportunities to do that.

                                 And also, with the Reviton product, you know, that’s going to continue to support minimum or even increasing to till acres, which will be good in that as people think about growing a more sustainable crop.

                                You know, the other thing I wanted to add is, overall, HELM is moving in this way and other parts of the business as well. On our industrial business, we just announced a joint venture with Cargill Green to build a plant in Iowa that will make input products for plastic to make sustainable plastics out of corn — so versus out of a petroleum-based or an oil-based input.

                                So, we’re really excited about that as well and our commitment to agriculture and how we can help use the land, to be good stewards of the land with our customers. So, we’re really excited about it.

Tom:                        All right. Dave Schumacher, president of HELM Agro. Alltech Crop Science manager Steve Borst. Thank you both for joining us.

Dave:                      Thank you, Tom.

Steve:                     Thanks, Tom.

Tom:                        I’m Tom Martin, and thank you for listening. This has been Ag Future, presented by Alltech. Be sure to subscribe to Ag Future wherever you listen to podcasts.

As a fifth-generation rancher, BEEF blogger and speaker, Amanda Radke has dedicated her career to serving as a voice for beef producers in the United States. Amanda joined our expert panel during Alltech's affiliated session at the UN Food Systems Pre-Summit to provide a beef producer's perspective on the future of protein security. Today, she joins us on the Ag Future podcast to discuss a range of topics, including consumer misconceptions, ag literacy and beef's role in feeding our planet while conserving the Earth's natural resources.

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

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

                                 I’m Tom Martin, and with me is Amanda Radke, a fifth-generation cattle rancher from Mitchell, South Dakota, who has dedicated her career to serving as a voice for the nation’s beef producers. She travels the country speaking to agricultural groups about hot industry topics — (and was) included the (lineup for the) 2020 Alltech ONE Ideas Conference, as a matter of fact.

                                 Amanda also is a blogger for Beef Magazine, providing timely industry news week by week, and she joins us to talk about a recent experience as a panelist at an Alltech-sponsored conference leading up to the U.N. Food System Summit, where she brought a producer’s perspective to an important discussion about the efficient use of resources.

                                Welcome to AgFuture, Amanda.

Amanda:                  Well, thanks for having me.

Tom:                        The panel that you participated in looked at the future of protein security and how to maximize the efficiency of production resources without unintended social, cultural and environmental consequences. You were the only producer on that panel. And, first of all, I’m wondering if you went into the discussion anticipating having to defend production practices.

Amanda:                  Yeah. I kind of chuckled because I felt, “Oh, I’m missing the ‘Ph.D.’ behind my name. I’m not sure if I’m qualified to speak on this.” And, you know, the Alltech folks assured me, “No, no, we want someone that’s actually, you know, managing the land and taking care of the cattle and can offer that perspective.”

                                 And so, I was really proud to be able to represent beef producers from here and around the world and highlight some of the things that we already do very well in regards to managing our land and responsibly taking care of our natural resources and creating a product that is not only nutritious but that is a sustainable part of a healthy diet.

Tom:                        Well, as a matter of fact, I know that you did do your homework. Prior to the panel discussion, you asked federal ranchers, through your blog, what they would tell the U.N. about beef production. Could you share some of the more useful feedback that you got from that?

Amanda:                  Absolutely. I definitely wanted to crowdsource on this as I prepared for the presentation, because producers know best. And, really, what I wanted to highlight — and what seemed to be a common theme from the responses — was (that) ranchers uniquely match, you know, their production practices to their environmental landscape that they’re working with.

                                 And so, for example, what I can grow here in South Dakota might be different than someone could grow in, you know, California or Africa or somewhere else entirely. And that’s really the beauty of beef cattle, is that they fit into this mix when we’re talking about environmental management and production practices, because they can utilize land that would otherwise, you know, sit barren and go to waste.

Tom:                        The pre-summit event featured a lot of talk around things like greenhouse gas emissions, (which are) certainly top of mind these days, with the latest U.N. report telling us that the situation maybe more pronounced and maybe even more dire than we thought. But you chose to focus on real-world ranching applications that folks should know about. And from your perspective, is there a disconnect between what producers know and what the rest of the world perceives about beef production?

Amanda:                  Yes. (For) the producers, it’s rather frustrating to see the beef cow take the brunt of the discussion on climate change, because the fact of the matter is is that, you know, here in the United States, the U.S. beef industry contributes 3.4% of total greenhouse gas emissions, according to the EPA. And Frank Mitloehner, who we know very well as an expert in greenhouse gas emissions from UC Davis, he has said if every American were to go meatless on Mondays, as suggested, to help save the planet, it would only reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 0.26%.

                                 And so, the reality is is that we can’t eat our way out of climate change, and simply giving up a burger isn’t going to move the needle in any significant direction. And just on the food side of things, one thing I’d like to tell people is, if they truly want to make a dietary change to help the planet, we need to be focusing on food waste and respecting our harvest, because 40% of what we grow in the United States ends up in landfills.

                                 And so, if we can respect the harvest, reduce waste and focus on waste (so) that we can redistribute some of this abundance and get it to people who need it the most, that’s truly what I would like to focus on — outside of, you know, what I’m doing on the ranch and raising beef cattle.

Tom:                        You mentioned diet. How is our world diet changing with respect to protein?

Amanda:                  You know, I see this huge push for us to go to, you know, plant-based proteins or eating cricket protein powder or cicadas and other, maybe, things that we’re not used to having on our plates here in the United States. But yet, the global consumer is saying, “We want something else,” and what they want is more animal protein.

So, global meat consumption is expected to increase 1% in 2021, which is really exciting stuff, because producers, I think, are up to the challenge and the task of feeding a hungry planet. And as the middle class is growing around the world and people have more disposable income to spend on food, the first thing that they’re wanting to do is update their — their bean-and-rice diet and add some meat to their plates.

                                 And so, again, I think we are up for the challenge. We can produce more beef today using pure and natural resources than ever before, and so, it’s an exciting time. And I think, as long as we can curtail some of the regulatory burdens and media campaigns that seek to paint meat in a bad light, the sky is the limit for livestock producers in what they’re going to be able to achieve in the coming years.

Tom:                        In a synopsis of the panel discussion, Alltech suggested that calls for reductions in animal agriculture could actually create a protein deficit that, due to the limitations of available arable land and water, can’t be overcome by growing crops. Are the implications of this trend not fully understood or recognized by consumers, do you think?

Amanda:                  Absolutely. You know, looking at my pastures here in South Dakota, they are steep and they’re hilly, and we get dry, and we absolutely could not plow up these lands and grow anything else. But what we can do is put ruminant animals like beef cattle on the ranch, and they can graze the grass, and when they do that, they’re doing a lot of important things. They are aerating the soil with their hooves. They are naturally fertilizing it with their manure. They are protecting the landscapes, which keeps a cover on it with those native grasses that have grown here for a hundred-plus years. And those grasses have roots that extend down tens of feet into the soil, so they’re capturing carbon by maintaining that grass.

                                 They’re also protecting wildlife habitats as well, because when you (cover) that up, the deer and the rabbits and the other little wildlife pastures are suddenly misplaced. And then, ultimately, they can take this grass, these grasses, and they can convert it into nutrient-dense beef. And on top of that, they’re reducing the spread of wildfires because they are eating the brush and eliminating that dead brush and promoting new growth.

And I could go on and on. But this phenomenon that we see — that cattle do with this grass one — is an important piece, because we simply think that we can replace it and do something else, but truly, that beef cow does something very unique and very important to managing our natural resources and producing enough to adequately provide for humanity.

Tom:                        Well, from your perspective as a producer, what do you wish consumers understood about the difference between protein derived from meat versus that derived from plants?

Amanda:                  I’m really proud to raise beef that is jam-packed full of nutrients. And so, the nutrients found in beef are very bioavailable, meaning they are readily absorbed by the body. Beef includes ten central nutrients, including zinc, iron and protein.

                                 And what’s really cool about beef is a 3-ounce serving provides 180 calories. And in that 180-calorie serving, you get 25 grams of protein. Now, to get that same amount of protein from a plant-based source, like broccoli or peanut butter or quinoa, you’d have to eat several cups or 600-plus calories of these feed item or food items to get that same 25 grams of protein.

                                 And so, calorie for calorie, (beef) is truly a super food, and that’s where it gets really frustrating when we talk about eliminating meat from the equation, because it simply ignores the fact that it is a nutritious, wholesome food product that benefits people here and around the world as far as providing, you know, adequate protein to meet their needs.

Tom:                        In a synopsis of the panel discussion, Alltech suggested that calls for reduction in animal agriculture could create a protein deficit that due to the limitations of available arable land and water cannot be overcome by growing crops. Are the implications of this trend not fully understood or recognized by consumers?

Amanda:                  Yeah. I think that is a big misconception that people have, that we can simply replace animal agriculture and, you know, plow the land and plant something entirely different. And the reality is that there’s a large percentage of land around the world that is too steep, hilly or rocky for modernizing or farming. And so, what my cattle can do — and cattle around the world can do — is they can go into these steep and rocky and hilly landscapes — for example, like the rolling hills outside my back window here in South Dakota that are home to native grasses that have been growing here for hundreds of years — and they can go into that landscape, and they can graze the brush, which reduces the spread of wildfires and promote new growth. They aerate the soil with their hooves. They naturally fertilize these lands with their manure. And they protect the wildlife habitat simply by maintaining that grassland. And on top of that, they can upcycle the cellulosic material that is grass, and they can convert it into that nutrient-dense beef.

                                 And so, cattle and ruminant animals really play a critical role in utilizing these lands that would otherwise go wasted. And so, it is truly a beautiful thing to see, and I wish every consumer had the opportunity to visit a cattle ranch and see cattle in action on the ranch amidst the wildlife and the rolling hills and see what they can do to really, really make the most out of the landscape.

Tom:                        That’s what the animals can do. In what ways have cattle ranchers excelled in conserving resources?

Amanda:                  There are so many principles of soil health that we follow that aren’t celebrated or aren’t greatly understood or even acknowledged as being not just sustainable but truly improving the landscape, year after year.

                                 And so, some of these principles of soil health that we follow is, you know, trying to mimic nature and keeping a cover on the soil as much as we can. And so, not only by maintaining grasslands do we do that, but on our crop fields, where we might plant corn, in between the corn rows, we’re planting what’s called cover crops, which includes a variety of plants, like radishes, turnips, alfalfa, etc. And then, after the fall harvest, when we’ve harvested that corn, our cattle can go in and graze the cover crops, as well as the corn stalks, and it becomes a really great cycle where we’re adding nitrogen back to the soil and we’re creating feed for our cattle, and then, our cattle are then fertilizing our cornfields as well.

                                 We plant — we not only do those kinds of things, but we practice things like rotational grazing, where we create smaller paddocks in our pastures, and we’ll move the cows from paddock to paddock in order to avoid overgrazing and to stimulate new growth and allow for some of that, (for) those plants to recover after the cattle have come through and grazed.

                                 Farther out West, where pastures are large and it’s a little bit tougher to practice rotational grazing, producers will do a lot of things, like piping water so that cattle can move to different places in their pastures and utilize those grasslands even more than they normally would.

                                 And then, we’re very conscious of the wildlife that live here, and so, understanding that we’re providing a home for these wildlife — and on a given day, we can see anything from hawks to fish to bumble bees and everything in between. It truly is a beautiful thing to see. And like I said, the production practices that ranchers already employ on their farms are really worth celebrating and taking a closer look at.

Tom:                        You know, it seems as though we can’t talk about anything these days without COVID-19 coming up somehow. And I’m wondering: What are some important ways that the pandemic has impacted ranching and beef production?

Amanda:                 You know, 2020 was pretty difficult for animal agriculture. I had friends in the pork industry that had to euthanize their animals because the processing plants had slowed down their lines or shut down entirely. Folks had nowhere to go with their animals. This was a true tragedy, not only from the producers’ standpoint and the financial loss and the loss of life without, you know, being able to respectfully utilize these animals, but on the other side, it also just was a waste to (not be able to) provide that meat for consumers.

                                 We also saw shortages in the grocery store, you know, whether it was toilet paper or meat and dairy products. All of a sudden, consumers were seeing — maybe for the first time — that their favorite products or brands weren’t always available, because of, you know, COVID supply chain disruptions.

                                 And so, I truly think, while it was a difficult time and has been and continues to be challenging in a lot of ways, (it is) also a unique opportunity for ranchers and farmers to connect with consumers in brand new ways. For example, I’ve seen a lot of producers find great success selling their beef direct to consumers and educating them for the first time, you know, (or people buying) a quarter or half of beef and buying bulk and filling their freezers to stockpile, you know, for the year so that they’re good during an emergency, when the grocery stores might be short.

                                 And so — not only that, but consumers are suddenly wanting to ask more questions, and they’re wanting to go directly to the producer to ask those questions. And so, I think, in agriculture, we can continue to be a transparent and authentic resource that’s readily available to answer their questions. We can not only grow those relationships, but we can also start earning a premium for our products and start taking control of our markets and our ability to make money, even during difficult times.

Tom:                        (This question is) not related to the panel discussion that we’ve been talking about, but I know that this subject is important to you, Amanda, and that is ag literacy, especially among future generations of producers. Tell us about this concern.

Amanda:                  Yeah. You know, ten years ago, I started noticing that there weren’t a lot of agriculturally accurate books on the shelves. And what I mean by that is there’s plenty of farm books out there, and there’s plenty of movies, too, for kids, but they usually characterize the animal and give them the full range of motion and, you know, maybe the farmer or the rancher is the bad guy or the side character. And I really wanted to flip the narrative on that and highlight the farmer and the rancher and the animal caretaker and show their role in, you know, providing the essentials for these animals and taking care of the land and getting food to the table.

                                 And so, ten years ago, I wrote my first children’s book, titled “Levi’s Lost Calf,” and since then, I’ve had three more released, and I have two more in the works that will come out in 2021. And truly, the focus of these books is to counter the misconceptions that are out there and teach kids about where their food comes from and, ultimately, help to empower the next generation of consumers so that they truly understand and know about agriculture when they go to the grocery store to make purchasing decisions.

Tom:                        How can farm moms and dads out there find these books?

Amanda:                  They can visit Amazon; all my titles are (available) there. And they can also check out AmandaRadke.com — and I’d be delighted to work with farm groups or schools to also get books purchased in bulk to try to get to as many young people as we can in elementary schools as well.

                                So, feel free to reach out to me, and I’ll help you connect the right book to the right classroom. One story at a time, we will teach kids about where their food comes from.

Tom:                        And Amanda, I have to ask you this. I took a look at your itinerary. I know you’re the mother of three kids, I believe, right?

Amanda:                 Yes. Well, more, as foster parents, so, yeah, we have extras all the time on the farm.

Tom:                        And a rancher and a blogger. Do you ever get any sleep?

Amanda:                  [laughs] Not much sleep — and a lot of coffee.

Tom:                       [laughs] Amanda Radke, fifth-generation cattle rancher in South Dakota and a prolific voice for the nation’s beef producers. Thanks so much, Amanda.

Amanda:                 Yeah. Thanks so much for having me.

Tom:                       This episode of AgFuture has featured a discussion from the U.N. Food Systems Pre-Summit around ensuring food security for a rising population while protecting the earth’s natural resources. The pre-summit event was hosted by Alltech.

                                 Be sure to subscribe to AgFuture wherever you listen to podcasts.

                                 I’m Tom Martin. Thanks for listening.

In this episode of Ag Future, we revisit Alltech's affiliated session at the UN Food Systems Pre-Summit. Led by Dr. Vaughn Holder, ruminant research director at Alltech, the expert panel discussed ensuring food security for a rising population while protecting the earth's natural resources.

The following is an edited transcript of Alltech's affiliated session at the UN Food Systems Pre-Summit. Click below to hear the full audio or listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts or Spotify

Tom:                      Welcome to AgFuture, 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.

                               The food we eat brings us together as families, communities and nations. It underpins our cultures, our economies and our relationships with the natural world. The U.N. Food Systems Pre-Summit was recently held to unleash the power of food to deliver progress on all 17 of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals.

                               Alltech was selected to host a session during the Pre-Summit event, which featured a robust panel discussion around ensuring food security for a rising population while protecting the earth's natural resources. The following is the audio recording of their conversation, which was led by Dr. Vaughn Holder, ruminant research director at Alltech.

Dr. Holder:             Well, welcome folks. It's 1:30 (p.m.) here Kentucky time, from sunny Kentucky, and welcome to you, whenever you are and from wherever you are. I guess there’s some “Good afternoons” and “Good evenings” at least, that I know of, but probably a few “Good mornings,” as well.

                               So, I really appreciate folks getting onto this call. It's probably a pretty important topic that we’re discussing today as a part of this United Nations Food Systems Summit. This is the Pre-Summit, and we're talking about pretty important conversations that affect the future of food production in this world. So, I very much appreciate (that) everyone is here because they want to contribute to this conversation.

                               So, I'm going to give you a couple of ground rules for the discussion today. There's going to be a completely open discussion in the chat. That's a place where we can have conversations about the topic today. Let's keep it kind and let's keep it civil in the chat. We’re all here for the same reason, although we may sometimes have opposing viewpoints. So, bear that in mind. If you do have specific questions for the speakers, please post those in the Q&A section. We will try to get to some of those at the end of the webinar today, but if not, certainly, those conversations can be carried on offline as well.

                               Finally, there will be a recording of this webinar available. We’ll probably send that out tomorrow morning, early Wednesday morning, so that will be available as well.

                               So, I’m Vaughn Holder. I'm the ruminant research director here at Alltech. We submitted these series of questions or this topic to the United Nations for consideration. I’m very happy to be discussing this here today.

                               So, this is the U.N. Food Systems Summit, obviously. And what’s the point of this whole thing? Well, we're talking about the future of food systems to deliver progress on all 17 of the Sustainable Development Goals, and those will (all) need to be considered for all factors of this conversation, but we will be focusing very much on the Zero Hunger goal as we talk about protein security, as well as good health and well-being and responsible production.

                               We’re all looking to make healthier and more sustainable and equitable food systems — and very importantly, this all has to be evidence-based and (can only be accomplished by) taking scientific approaches to these transformations. This is what we're trying to do: We’re trying to ensure that we can provide for the nearly 10 billion people that we expect to have on this planet in 2050. So, (that’s) no small task at hand for us. (These are) really important discussions, and it's taken seriously.

                               So, just to break down, very briefly, what the topic covers here, we’re talking about global resource use efficiency for protein production systems. We're talking, really, about using what we have available to us to create protein in the world. Right? We're talking about the fact that we only have one planet, we have limited resources on that planet, and how shall we be distributing the resources that we have available to us to best serve the food security of the future? That’s what it’s all about.

I’ve gathered a panel of people that are much more qualified than I to address this topic. We will go through them one by one. Sara Place, chief sustainability officer at Elanco Animal Health — welcome and thank you, Dr. Place. Dr. Tryon Wickersham from Texas A&M has studied protein metabolism almost all his life, I imagine. Welcome, Dr. Wickersham, and thank you. (Next), Amanda Radke — we wanted to have some representation from the producer side of things, (which is) very important, with so many people all over our planet being involved directly in production agriculture. But she’s also a very busy lady. She’s an author of materials online, of blogs, but is also a children’s author of very good children’s books. So, Amanda, thank you and welcome. And finally, Dr. Jude Capper, chair in sustainable beef production at Harper Adams (University) and a sustainability consultant. Again, welcome and thank you, Dr. Capper.

                               So, the point of this is to have a discussion and not a slideshow. So, I am going to discontinue those right now and will start the discussion. I think we talk a lot about that 9 or 10 billion people (who will be on the planet) in 2030, but I think it serves us well to start the conversation with where we actually are right now and understanding what protein security actually looks like in the world right now. It’s very important we start there before we start to decide how we want to change our production system.

                               So, Dr. Capper, if you would come off mute and start this discussion for us, please. Where do we sit as far as protein security? Do we have a false sense of security right now?

Dr. Capper:             That’s a really good question. Thank you. And it’s a real pleasure to be here and involved in this discussion today. Yeah. We’re at quite a crossroads now in terms of what we do, what we choose to eat. And from the start, I think it’s very clear that there is no one-size-fits-all (approach), whether we’re talking about global diet, starch-free choices or even production systems. Frankly, we’ve got as many livestock production systems in the world as, almost, we do producers. So, to assume that we’re just talking from a U.S. perspective, a European perspective, as I am at the moment, (that) is untrue. We have to think globally but act locally, as it were.

                               We certainly know, to be fair, that ruminant livestock do have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions. According to data from the FAO, for example, approximately 14.5% of our global greenhouse gas emissions come from ruminant livestock. But we’ve got to think a little bit more deeply than that and think about the nuances. So, for example, it’s important to recognize that a sizeable number of our global population rely on livestock absolutely for their income, for their health, for their education. So, we have billions of small holder farmers across the globe who absolutely rely on livestock. And livestock give us more than just food. So, obviously, they provide us with protein and energy and essential fatty acids and minerals, but they always, also, have huge roles in terms of byproducts, in terms of pharmaceuticals, manure, leather, etc., etc.

                               So, at the moment, we know that we have a sort of dichotomy going on. We have wealthier nations who could be considered to be consuming too much protein per person per day, whether animal or plant-based — just an overconsumption of food. And then we have a huge portion of the globe who have less food available, whether protein or not. And I guess what I would really like to see, going forward, is a recognition of two things. One — and I think Dr. Place is going to talk about this later — is the best use of land on a global basis, and livestock have a huge role to play in that, but also the recognition that the reason that we have livestock is to produce protein. And frankly, it makes me really angry when I see quotes all the time saying, “Livestock use X amount, but they only give us 12% of our calories,” or 20% of our calories, or 5% of our calories, depending who's quoting it. We need livestock for that high-quality, affordable protein — affordable, I should say, to many of us in the developed world. So, we’ve got to think about strategies and innovations across the globe that are appropriate and applicable to all livestock systems so that we can improve.

Dr. Holder:             Yeah. So, (there are some) really important conversations in there, and that’s usually the right metric, Dr. Capper, to measure these things, right? Because we often talk about producing a certain amount of food per amount of land or per amount of greenhouse gas or whatever it might be, but the amount of food is not necessarily what matters — the kilograms of food that’s produced. It’s about limiting nutrients, right?

                               And we’re focusing very much on protein right now. And when we correct — some of the papers that have recently come out (are) showing that when we correct for poor digestibility and poor amino acid composition in some of our plant proteins, we go from having a world that is mostly protein-secure to having 105 out of 190-something countries being protein-insecure at the current moment. So, I think these are important conversations: what metrics we use to discuss our food systems of the future. It's not necessarily how many kilos of a certain thing we can produce. We’re chasing nutrients. I think that’s important to discuss.

                               Dr. Place, something that Jude mentioned about this idea of humans and animals competing for the same food sources, obviously — because we do get the discussion coming on a lot of the time that, “Well, if we just repurpose the food that we’re giving to the animals, we could feed a lot more people with that.” You’ve looked at this pretty closely in some of your research and some of your work. Do you want to talk us through that a little bit, Dr. Place?

Dr. Place:                Yeah. Yeah. Thanks, Vaughn. And again, thanks for having me this afternoon, this evening. So, yeah, I think that’s a really great question and a fair critique that folks put forward, of “Hey, you know, let's think about this from a resource competition perspective and really dig into this idea of: Is there competition directly between animal feed and human food.” Right? This idea — could we nourish more people if we fed some of these plant sources that we’re feeding to animals to humans?

                               And so, if we take a step back and we look at that from a very large macro perspective — there's a nice analysis that was done by the U.N. FAO looking at this, (a study) of all domesticated terrestrial species, right, everything from poultry to sheep to cattle around the world, and analyzing: What is the actual global total amount of feed that these animals are consuming? It’s around 6 billion tons of dry matter every year. What they also found is that 86% of this is actually not directly in competition with human food. And so, there’s some interesting nuances there. One is that it varies depending on where you are. I think what you just mentioned is really, really important, right? We talk about these things at an aggregate level sometimes, and at a global level, and that’s good — it’s good to ground ourselves — but also, on the ground, realities can vary.

                               And the other thing is (that) this changes depending on what species we’re talking about, right? So, cattle, sheep and goats, the ruminant animals that tend to emit methane gas and tend to get more of the attention with regard to climate change, are actually also the animals that compete far less directly with human food. Right? (And) that's just because of their unique digestive system. The animals that tend to not emit methane, right, because of their digestive system — poultry species and swine — are the ones that compete more directly with human food just because they’re monogastric omnivores, simple-stomach omnivores, just like we are, right? And so, they tend to eat more high-quality protein sources directly that, potentially, could be competing with human food.

                               So, I think that's just that important nuance: that there is competition, but it's probably not (at) as high a degree as some folks think. And there is this variation across species. And I think the other part of that is when we think about that global amount of food, a lot of it is actually byproducts or coproducts of human food production. Right? There are so many examples all over the world.

                               If we were — just to think of an example, here in the United States, where we have a lot of dairy production, in the U.S., (in the) state of California, we also have a whole lot of crop agriculture that takes place in that state. So, everything from orange production to almond production and dairy production is happening right there. And what's interesting is all those industries are really tied together, right, where we have oranges that are going for orange juice and making citrus pulp as a byproduct, (and) that ends up in the diets of dairy cows. Or things like almond hulls, right? When we're processing almonds, whether people are eating them directly or producing almond milk, quite frankly. So, I think that's a great example of — I mean, sometimes, in our minds, (we) formulate these things as “either/or” when, really, they’re all connected, if that makes sense.

                               So, if we think about it from a sustainability perspective, it’s saying, “How (can) we strengthen those ties where it makes sense?” Because that is essentially cycling nutrients through the system. And that’s really one of those key benefits of having livestock in our food systems: They’re able to take the parts of plants that we cannot consume, that are human-inedible, and essentially upcycle them to higher-quality products, as was mentioned earlier — nutrient-dense foods — and extract more nutrients from those. And hopefully, we're able to tighten those nutrient cycles and minimize pollution, because that's what we're also concerned about as well.

Dr. Holder:             Yeah. It's a really good point on connecting these systems together. Sara, do you think that — you know, we’re sort of talking, as an industry, in terms of, “It’s plant ag versus animal agriculture,” and I think that we need to look at the fact that there's a place for both. We can get a significant proportion of our protein coming from plants directly, which is a very efficient way of doing it. I think animal protein can fill in some of those gaps in terms of nutrients that might be missing from a plant-based diet. And these things are compatible, I would say, rather than saying, “It's one or the other.”

                               But certainly, in terms of those raw materials that we’re utilizing — like, (if) we take all those raw materials off of the food production stage, we are going to end up being in a nutrient deficit as a planet, as a people. And (if) you take all that protein production off the table, I wonder what we might think of the consequences of some of those — where did those raw materials go, if we're not putting them into animal production? I wonder if you have any thoughts on that.

Dr. Place:                Yeah. So, I think that is a very good point, Vaughn, as we think about all these choices we can make, the consequences of different choices. So, my mind always goes to (the fact that) it's a mass balance. We're creating this certain amount of material, again, from the plants. Roughly, a global average ratio is for every 100 kilos of human food we get from crops, we generate 37 kilos of byproducts. So, the question is: What happens to those byproducts? Does it make sense to, in many cases, feed them to livestock and, again, essentially extract more energy and nutrients from that plant material (and) also generate manure that can then be used to cycle those nutrients back to crops? Or does it make sense to you to combust them or put them in a landfill or whatever the choices are?

                               So, I think it's all about those choices, and the right answers are going to be the same anywhere. But I think it's just good to ground ourselves in (the fact that) natural ecosystems don't typically just have plants; they have a whole bunch of trophic levels. The same is true in our agro ecosystems. That's why we have these things working together, quite frankly. And again, that nutrient density piece that you mentioned is super important. The proteins are not all equivalent across the board. I know we have more of an expert here that could speak on that in Dr. Wickersham than myself.

Dr. Holder:             Yeah. That’s a good transition, Sara, to Dr. Wickersham. Dr. Wickersham, you’ve studied protein metabolism quite intensely. And I've followed your career for a while, but (some) recent research you've been working on this concept of protein upcycling that ruminants do. Can you comment for us a little bit on looking at ruminants’ contribution to protein production and the unique way in which they do it? And perhaps also comment a little bit on what types of things do actually contribute to protein supply in our world and what types of things don’t.

Dr. Wickersham:      Thank you. Thanks for having me. When we look at ruminants, the real value they bring — and Dr. Place talked about this already, to some extent — is they can be low-quality sources of amino acids, so amino acids that don't necessarily meet human protein requirements for essential amino acids, or what are more recently being called digestible indispensable amino acids. And those cattle — or ruminants, to be specific — through their relationship with the microbes, can take nonessential amino acids, or even non-protein nitrogen, and the microbes in the rumen can convert that, and the animal can use that to synthesize meat protein or milk protein that we, as humans, can then consume. And those sources of protein are highly digestible and do a great job of meeting our amino acid requirements.

                               If you look at the FAO’s homework on amino acids and the Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Scoring System, you look at some cropping systems — like corn will be the primary example. They do a very poor job of less than 50 on the DIAAS score. Whereas, (when) you look at animal sources of proteins, they’re all in excess of 100, meaning they really positively contribute to our amino acid supply.

                               The other real big advantage about the production system is they can utilize grasslands as well as all the coproducts that Dr. Place talked to you about. Particularly in the United States, one of those will be distiller’s grains. So, whether you think (it’s) right or wrong, (the United States) creates a lot of fuel from corn, and a tremendous byproduct that we (would) have to eat a lot of would be distiller’s grains. (If) we're not feeding to ruminant animals, the other alternatives incur a large environmental cost in terms of burning them or using them for fuel or depositing them in landfills, so feeding them to ruminant systems really provides a lot of benefit.

                               The other thing to kind of think about is, when we think of protein supply, if you look — at least to my knowledge, most ecosystems are not nitrogen-limited, in general. And so, it's kind of fitting that when we look at human food supply, one of the challenges we have is deficient amino acids in our diet and meeting those amino acid requirements. So, really, any food source that can take low-value sources of nitrogen or can take nitrogen out of the air and convert that into something that humans can consume is a real benefit.

                               Consuming a mixture of plant and animal proteins probably provides the best way forward. And a diet that blends those two together well would be best for meeting people's amino acid requirements.

Dr. Holder:             Yeah. I'd say that's pretty important — and that metric, I think, applies to everything. We have to look at what is being used to produce the protein and whether it’s creating new protein or not. I think fermentation is one of the big ones, (and the fact that) this fermentation that occurs in the animals, which ruminants are able to harness very nicely, but there's also fermentation that we can harness the power of outside of animals to convert non-protein nitrogen to edible protein. So, those types of things are contributing to protein supply.

                               Obviously, nitrogen fixation is the big one in plants. The fact that plants can convert atmospheric nitrogen — with the help of some friends — to things that we can eat is, really, the source of most of our protein that we have available to us, whether it goes through an animal or not.

                               But I think that when we do consider the future of food production, I think these are the things we have to step back and say, “When we’re looking at the future of food production, do the things that we are proposing contribute to the protein supply that we have available to us on the planet, or are they repackaging existing protein from existing sources into another form?” Because that's fine, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. We do that in meal preparation all the time. But we need to not confound if that's not supplying additional protein.

Dr. Wickersham:      In the United States, we're probably one of the most dependent on human-edible sources of protein in our beef production system, for sure, anyway. When we look at the value of those systems, even in the United States, to contribute protein and non-protein contributions — remember, we use to measure that — and we generally get about three times as much protein out of that system — human-edible protein that’s a high-valuable source — than we put into it. So, basically, we’re going to return it 3:1, and that seems to be a real positive improvement.

                               In my opinion, the other thing is — the result of those feeding systems is (that) we decrease the amount of methane produced per kilo of product to your formulation (of a) better diet. That’s not to say every system needs to go to that, because not everybody has the resources, but it's something to keep in mind, is that repackaging you mentioned.

Dr. Holder:             No, that’s a great point. I want to shift gears for just a second and bring in a little bit of a human element into this. Amanda, you’re a rancher. You’re a beef producer. I want to get a little bit of your perspective, honestly. Dr. Place was saying 1.3 billion people in the world rely on agriculture either directly for nutrients or income. So, we're talking about a large human burden, if we're talking about removing animal production from our food systems. Can you talk a little bit about what sustainability means to you as a rancher and as a producer and the types of things you're doing to address and to look at your sustainability?

Amanda:                 Sure. Well, it’s a pleasure to be here representing the independent cattle-ranching community. I'm also a mom of four beautiful children who benefit from the nutrient-dense products that we raise here on our ranch. What sustainability means to me is, I guess, to be truly sustainable on the land. I think farmers and ranchers strive to be much more than that. We strive to utilize our natural resources to the best of our abilities. And one of the things that I hear from the ranching community is that they wish the naysayers could see it from our perspective. So, we can talk all day from the 30,000-foot view of what the future of food really looks like, but I think a better testimony would be if you could see what's outside my dining room window right here in South Dakota.

                               So, there's no-one-size-fits-all approach to producing food. There's not a one-size-fits-all approach to the best diet on the planet. And there’s certainly not a one-size-fits-all way to manage the land, because so much of the landscape is vastly different. So, what I can grow here on the rolling hills in South Dakota varies greatly from what can be grown on the California coast or somewhere all the way around the world.

And so, right here in South Dakota, like I said, we have rolling pasture hills with native grasslands that have been growing here for hundreds of years. The roots of these plants go down hundreds of feet, (and) that's capturing carbon; that's keeping cover on the soil. When cattle graze on my pastures here in South Dakota, they’re aerating the soil with their hooves. They're naturally fertilizing that landscape. They are part of that water cycle. They’re upcycling that cellulose material that would otherwise sit and be underutilized, and they are upcycling it into nutrient-dense beef and hundreds of life-enriching byproducts, as well, that would have a great environmental footprint if we were to replace these items with synthetic options.

Not only that, but any landowner understands that there are principles to maintaining soil health that we need to follow to maintain our landscapes. That includes maintaining soil covers. So, the fact that my pastures stay covered year-round, like I said, does capture that carbon, but it also protects wildlife habitats. (There is) limited disturbance, so minimizing tillage and trying to keep cover on that soil by planting cover crops — I can tell you it's an amazing thing to see, in between rows of corn, when you plant cover crops, which might be turnips and radishes, to see a cow go in and pick up a big turnip and eat it in the fall and know that they're adding nutrients to that cropland, as well, when they are eating some of these cover crops that are going in our fields.

                               Also, we believe in maintaining the diversity of the soil and mimicking nature as much as we can. So, that means cool- and warm-season grasses, broadleaf plants — again, those cover crops. And then we practice things like rotational grazing, where we try not to overgraze, so we will move cattle from paddock to paddock to promote new growth. And one thing that's not talked about enough is the fact that when there are ruminant animals on the landscape, they are reducing the dead brush, promoting new growth and, ultimately, reducing the spread of wildfires. And so, often, we make the mistake of thinking, if we leave the land alone and don't touch it, it would be better off environmentally. But when we can utilize the landscape by putting ruminant animals on these lands that are too steep, hilly or rocky for modernizing our farming, we can create and produce a nutrient-dense product that's packed full of protein and help to enhance human life around the world.

                               And so, the final note I want to share is that we're being told constantly that we can live without animal proteins, and yet, consumers around the world are expected to increase their meat consumption by 1%. And one thing I'm really mindful of, as a producer in the United States, is that around the world, where the growing middle class continues to expand to different places for the first time ever, what's the first thing people do when they have a little extra disposable income? They add animal fats and proteins to their rice-and-beans diets. Now, why is that? Because this is a rich source of protein.

                               So, I think, at the end of the day, farmers and ranchers are trying to serve people in the best way possible. And for us to maintain our freedoms to make the best dietary choices as individual, sovereign beings, we need to continue to have a wide variety of production practices, including beef production, to feed a hungry planet and meet the nutritional needs of people here and around the world.

Dr. Holder:             Yeah. Amanda, that's a great point that you make about nations, when they become more wealthy, is the fact that they start to look toward getting more animal-type proteins into their diets. And it makes a really good point, is that we’ve got to be really careful, because we’re typically discussing these types of topics — the U.N. Food Security Summit is looking at the future of food from the first-world countries’ perspective. I think we’re in a lot of danger of applying things that we might want to apply on first-world countries and the knock-on effects that they might have in some poorer countries.

                               I'm not going to put this to a specific person on our panel, but I'd be really interested in hearing (your) thoughts of how we take a summit like this and look at it more granularly. Jude, you spoke about thinking globally and applying it granularly on the ground. I mean, that’s obviously pretty important, because none of this stuff applies universally across these systems. The objectives are different across these systems. If I wanted to go vegetarian, I could afford to probably figure out what amino acids I might be missing and what macronutrients I might be missing and be able to balance the diet, but a lot of people don't have the means to do that in a lot of places. So, certainly, (I want to) open up this question to the panel and see (your thoughts on) how do we think about this in terms of — from an international perspective, from the U.N.'s perspective?

Dr. Capper:             If I can jump in here, I think that's a really, really good point. As we’ve seen from the chat, there are a lot of global languages (along the lines of) “Everybody knows this happens” and “Everybody knows that happens,” and it’s really, really important to do more research to understand (that) a livestock farmer in Kenya with two cows is absolutely not the same as a rancher with 1,000 cows. They’ve got different challenges. They’ve got different infrastructure. They’ve got different soils, different climate, different levels of income. Yeah. They’re all of these things.

                               I've done some work with some of the NGOs or charities that supply livestock and information tools and technologies to some of the smallholder farmers in the world, and the difference that a single cow can make is absolutely astounding. There's a quote that I often use that always makes, sort of, tears come to my eyes, to a certain degree, which is from a lady who was helped by the charity Send a Cow, and she's now about same age as me, and she’s a bank manager in Africa, but she says that she couldn't have become a bank manager, she couldn’t have got that job, she couldn’t have had that education, except for the fact that her family was given a dairy cow unit 20-odd years ago. So, just the income, the food, the improved health, the ability for those kids to go to school and get that education is absolutely huge. And we can’t ignore that based on the rhetoric that we apply to larger farms in more industrialized areas of the world.

                               And so, there is no one size fits all. There is no, “Oh, if you just do this, if you just feed this, if you just hole your soil like this, it will apply on every farm across the world.” It’s simply not possible. And so, one of the things that I would really like to see out of this summit — well, two things — one is the recognition that there are almost as many livestock farming systems in the world as there are livestock farms. You know, no two farms are the same. And therefore, we've got to find solutions, tools, technologies (and) management practices that can be applied across the globe with due regard for the culture, the region, the challenges, the climate, and then to have better outreach to apply them. Because if you're a farmer who doesn't have internet in Kenya, let's say, you can't just Google the best cows to have or the best way to apply my fertilizers. So, I think almost all of us on this are talking from a fairly privileged point of view, but we’ve got to think about it globally and then, as I say, act locally, have applicable appropriate solutions for every local farm in the world.

Dr. Place:                I would definitely agree with what you said. I think that’s what’s really key, is (that), sometimes, these discussions, they kind of devolve into the same talking points, and at the end of the day, it's like we forget that we share a tremendous amount in common. Everybody wants to, hopefully, have better development outcomes for people. At the end of the day, if we look at the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and think about what's really at heart in each one of those, there's a lot of agreement. And so, I think it's more of realizing there is no one answer, but also, livestock will be a part of the food system in 10 years, in 20 years and in 30 years. It is reality. So, how do we keep improving that system and hit on all those points that Jude just made, that the challenges in each area — everything from: How do you improve productivity in certain spaces? How do you improve people's incomes and livelihoods so they're not forced to make decisions that potentially lead to environmental degradation to take care of their family? The on-the-ground realities that some people are concerned about — that's not going to be solved just by, unfortunately, most likely, changing somebody's diet. It's going to be: How do you improve people's livelihoods where they’re at in all these different ways? And that is a bear of a challenge.

                               So, I think, coming out of this Pre-Summit, (one outcome), hopefully, is that recognition that, “Hey, there isn't going to be one solution. We agree on these high-level goals and recognize that how we're going to get there is going to be a whole bunch of different ways” — because what works for Amanda in South Dakota doesn't even work for a different rancher in the United States, because it's incredibly varied depending on what climate you have, what resources you have, etc., etc. So, that’s what’s really key here: it’s just recognizing the complexity of this and that it's just chock-full of value judgments. There is no single right answer in a lot of this.

Dr. Holder:             That's good point, Sara. And let’s, perhaps, change gears a little bit. You haven’t talked about the things that we can do. Obviously, you just indicated that those (options) are very wide and broad and varied. And as the agriculture animal science community are looking at, probably, a lot of these things that are applied differently in poorer countries than they do in (first-world countries) — maybe we should start there, Sara. Just to talk about the opportunities that we have for improving efficiency in the emerging markets and what that can actually do for the global efficiency and, also, the environmental credentials of livestock production.

Dr. Place:                Yeah. Right. There’s so many issues that fall under this really wide umbrella of sustainability. If we were to just narrowly focus, though, on greenhouse gas emissions for now — and as per the discussion, you know, what we know from the FAO, from their 2013 report tackling climate change through livestock, is that if we were able to take, essentially, the top tenth-percentile production practices and get those applied across the board (and) have that become the new global average of how we’re producing meat, milk and eggs around the world, we could actually lower greenhouse gas emissions (by) 30% and keep output constant.

                               So, what does that really mean in practical terms? It just means there's a big opportunity gap of just getting the things that we know how to do well to those folks on the ground and understanding: What are the real barriers? Because folks are just not doing these things voluntarily. There's barriers for why, but it's everything from how we make sure that we're delivering the right kind of feed to animals, improving their nutrition, their nutritional status — essentially, their welfare, because oftentimes, that's a hindrance for productivity of animals, and that is something that leads to more human nutrition but also (has) fewer environmental impacts per unit of milk, meat and eggs that we produce.

                               So, for example, there’s estimates that you lose essentially 20% of animal production around the world because of disease. So, everything from vaccinations, prevention and having that good nutritional health status, for example, is really, really important. (There are) so, so many examples there (of studies focused on this topic) — a lot of great work. I would tip my hat to the folks at, like, the Livestock Lab at University of Florida. They've done a lot of great work there just showing some simple ways of applying stuff that we kind of take for granted here in developed countries — technologies and innovations that we have readily available to us. How do we make sure that we can adapt that to other places in the world and improve their productivity, again, (and) hopefully have that whole benefit of livelihoods, nutrition and reducing environmental impacts all at the same time?

                               So, I think that's just one example. There's tremendous opportunity for us to lower environmental impacts and produce more high-quality nutrition for more people in the future.

Dr. Holder:             We share that, Dr. Place. Very well-said. Dr. Wickersham, do you want to talk about a little bit of the things — I know your program has focused somewhat on trying to reduce some of these emissions outputs. (Can you talk about) what's practical and what we've done, what we've accomplished, over the last few years? Any thoughts?

Dr. Wickersham:      So, I think it builds a lot on what Sara said. When you look at — even in the developing world, there's probably a greater response surface for improving sustainability or reducing methane emissions through some of the technologies we talked about, (such as) vaccination, improved reproduction.

                               One thing I’d like to address real quickly is whether or not the research is biased. And I guess, in my opinion — and it’s an opinion, as we’re offering opinions now — when I set about asking questions about the sustainability of beef cattle production systems in the United States, my goal is to — and sometimes, because I'm a rancher as well; we have a small cow-calf operation in Texas — my goal is to find out the actual answer. And then, when I know the answer, whether the answer is what I want it to be or not, I’ve shared that answer, and then I hope that we can improve. The goal is continuous improvement and mitigation strategies to try and help make animal-source proteins a more sustainable source of protein to meet human demands. And I think, if the answer wasn't favorable or is so unfavorable that we need to look at something different, I think it would be practical to go and look at something different and move to other things and move to other sources of food. Just because I'm a beef cattle nutritionist does not mean that I necessarily approach all things as though beef is superior. I recognize our weaknesses.

                               And the other thing is (that an) inherent problem with beef cattle, or an inherent challenge — challenge is a bit better word — is (that) ruminant fermentation is going to produce methane. And so, there's been some comments that (we) are working on ways to reduce methane. And I think that's been a continual challenge in all ruminant production systems for at least the last 50 years, because not only is it an environmental cost, but it represents a cost to producing, because that methane lost energy — energy that the cow can use to grow, can use to produce milk, to produce protein.

So, I forgot the original question, which isn’t uncommon with me, but yeah, I think a lot of people around the globe — I think New Zealand and Australia are really leading the way in doing genetic selection for animals that have reduced methane. We’re looking at some of the new techniques in ruminal metagenomics and the microbe and how we can select for different microbes to reduce methane production. I think those are all things the scientific community is trying to do in order to help make livestock production systems more sustainable.

Dr. Holder:             Thank you, Dr. Wickersham. Dr. Capper, again, I guess the same question for everyone: What are we doing — and what should we be doing — to make these protein production systems better as we look forward to accepting the U.N. Food Systems challenge of making better food systems? What do we have to do?

Dr. Capper:             So, to echo what both Dr. Place and Dr. Wickersham have said, it is about doing everything better. And that isn’t a cool, sexy, high-tech answer where, if you just use Magical Protein Powder A, you know, everything is solved. We do have to do absolutely everything better on every single farm.

                               But also, just to come back to a comment that was made in the chat, there’s an awful lot of research on this worldwide, particularly with ruminants, in terms of cutting methane emissions. So, we know that there are certain feeds that can be used. For example, I just read a paper today that showed that if we use oats as opposed to barley in dairy cow diets, we can cut methane emissions by 5%. There are vaccines that will target the actual bugs in the rumen that produce methane. There are various different companies producing feed supplements to cut methane while maintaining productivity. And there are even some sort of cow gas masks out there, which are leading to some really interesting innovations in terms of cutting methane.

                               And to come back to a comment earlier about the metrics — and there’s also some new research from Oxford University looking at using the best metric, and there’s a new one called GWP (Global Warming Potential), which looks at the fact that methane actually breaks down in the atmosphere over time. So, if this is adopted on a global basis, this is [inaudible] beef, for example, by about 50–60% overnight.

                               Now, that doesn't mean that anyone's done anything better in terms of farming, which is accounting for it in a different way, but we’ve got to use the best science. And I don’t say that because I'm a beef professor. I want the best science, whether it's good or bad for the beef production. I think we had the most clear, accurate, transparent science. And there's always a tendency for those who are opposed to animal ag to say, “Well, you’re biased. You would say that.” We all work in beef on this panel. Of course we are going to be pro-cutting greenhouse gas emissions, but not at the expense of livestock. We've got to have that balance, though, I think.

Dr. Holder:             Yeah. That’s so critical. And we would probably need another hour and a half, Dr. Capper, if we’re going to discuss that one. But having clear metrics is absolutely critical. Understanding the effect of ruminant methane on warming is absolutely critical, and that’s an ongoing discussion amongst scientists — and it’s not a settled discussion, to be quite fair. And that does make what we are setting out to do here quite challenging. Even looking at the process of sequestration of carbon and soils, this is something that we don’t often hear about from the animal ag side. We do know that animal agriculture can increase sequestration of carbon, (but that is) very, very difficult to measure and to measure accurately onsite. And so, that's a whole part of carbon cycle that you talk about, that methane is a part of that carbon cycle. And we don't treat it that way in our current calculations. And I'm going to leave it there, Dr. Capper, because as I said, that is a can of worms that needs another hour and a half.

                               Amanda, I want to leave it with you. We’re running out of time, but we do have a few minutes. From the producer perspective, what do we need to do to ensure a food-secure future?

Amanda:                 Yeah. I would like to share just some boots-on-the-ground thoughts from my role not only as a rancher but as a mom who has benefited from beef significantly in my own life.

                               So, I think, just to start, if we're going to reduce (how we choose) our diets to simply looking at the carbon emissions, then we need to truly compare apples to apples, and so, calorie for calorie, what beef has to offer is an incredible, nutrient-dense product. To get the same amount of protein that you could get from 180 calories in a three-ounce serving of beef, you would have to eat about 600 calories of broccoli or quinoa or peanut butter. And so, we need to really start comparing the water use, the natural resources used and those kinds of things to get that nutrient density that we get from beef.

                               Another thing, I think, that's largely ignored in the equation is (the fact that) there are lots of things that we do in our daily lives that maybe wouldn’t be essential to us surviving. So, whether that's having a companion pet that — also, emissions are (coming from) using things in our lives that are highly consumable and tossed. And even just the foods — not what we eat, but how much goes wasted. So, if we are truly going to eat our way out of climate change, I think the biggest two things that we can focus on are, number one, the fact that here in the United States, 40% of the food we grow here, meat or not, ends up in landfills. And so, if we want to focus on reducing our waste and respecting the harvest, I think that's critical. And the second part or piece of that that we need to focus on is distributing that food that would otherwise go wasted and getting it to parts of the world where food is more scarce. And so, those are two big things I would challenge the U.N. and any stakeholders in food production to really focus on.

                               On the flip side, like I said, as a mom — and I see in the comments here, there's a lot of folks commenting that we don't need animal fats and proteins in our diets at all, that we can subsist on plant-based diets, and I would again reiterate the fact that there's no one-size-fits-all dietary approach to achieving optimal health and nutrition.

                               As an example, here in the United States, our dietary guidelines for Americans pushed to reduce our consumption of animal fats and proteins like meat and dairy and have really pushed for an increase in consumption in grains, fruits, and vegetables. Now, even I, myself, as a rancher, really bought into that. And for years, I followed the dietary guidelines. I almost felt guilty about eating the beef that we were raising on our ranch. I tried to fill my plate with all the things the government was telling me to. I was overweight, infertile, depressed, and was trying my hardest to be as healthy as I could be. I did, like, what so many hundreds of thousands of people that I (know and) am a part of in some meat-centered communities have done, and I focused on a nutrient-rich diet that focused on meat. Within a few months, I had regained my fertility. I had three back-to-back healthy pregnancies and beautiful babies after years of infertility. And I'm living proof that just because someone else can thrive on a plant-based diet doesn't mean that everyone can.

                               And so, ultimately, every stakeholder in the food production system should be focusing on serving the needs of their customers, whether that’s raising almonds and broccoli or raising nutrient-dense beef. There is a customer that needs these products. And to truly be secure and to be free and to be able to make choices that best fit the needs of our families is incredibly important to having a happy, healthy food system and population, here and around the world.

Dr. Holder:             That's well-said, Amanda, and that’s really a theme of this entire discussion. There is never one-size-fits-all situation for everything. And to be honest, the science is never settled, and even the science of what (is believed to be) the ideal human diet is certainly not settled and is an ongoing social experiment. So, we follow that.

                               I think, from my perspective, I want to stop here. We are up against the time. I want to thank all of our speakers for being on here today. (This was) a really important discussion — a discussion that's just starting. I think that all options are on the table. Any time I have to address this topic, internally or externally, I keep saying all options are on the table. This is a challenge. We have over 50% of the country and the world (who) are currently protein-insecure. This is something that we can’t ignore, and the discussion needs to focus on how we feed this planet now, as well as moving forward into the future.

                               So, I think this is a good start. Really, it's all about choice. It's about maintaining the choice of all our people in the face of a very, very difficult challenge that we’ll get through together. So, I appreciate, again, (and want to say) thank you for the speakers. Thank you for the robust discussion in the chat. We’ll be addressing some of those as the days go past. Everyone, we appreciate (you for) getting on. Thank you so much for the attention. Thanks. Bye.

Amanda:                Thank you.

Dr. Place:               Thank you everybody.

Dr. Capper:            Thank you all.

Tom:                      This episode of AgFuture has featured a discussion from the U.N. Food Systems Pre-Summit around ensuring food security for a rising population while protecting the earth's natural resources. The Pre-Summit event was hosted by Alltech. I'm Tom Martin. Thanks 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.

As a member of the Alltech Mycotoxin Management team, Dr. Alexandra Weaver uses data to help producers make quicker decisions about their feed and limit the negative impact of mycotoxins on their animals. She joined the Ag Future podcast to discuss the effects of extreme weather on mycotoxin management and shares how technology can help mitigate the risks.

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

Tom:                      I'm Tom Martin, and joining me is Alexandra Weaver, a member of the Alltech Mycotoxin Management team. The group has been providing technical support globally since Dr. Weaver joined Alltech in 2013. She's been working on the topic of mycotoxins for more than a decade; research for her master's and Ph.D. in animal science and nutrition from North Carolina State University focused on mycotoxins. She joins us to bring us up to date on the mycotoxin issue in agriculture. Welcome, Dr. Weaver.

Dr. Weaver:             Great. Welcome. Thank you very much for having me.

Tom:                      And so, tell us about your work in developing computer programs to track mycotoxin risk, as well as (to) measure the physical and financial impact of mycotoxins on animals.

Dr. Weaver:             Yes, of course. So, if we think about mycotoxins, which are metabolites that are produced by fungi naturally out in the field, we need to know their contamination level, and we need to understand how that relates to animal performance so that we can have a better method for managing those toxins.

                               So, actually, to better understand the mycotoxin challenge, Alltech began collecting data on samples that were being submitted for mycotoxin analysis back in 2012. We started (doing that), and shortly after that, we started developing simple, Excel-based programs to look at the data — but, really, Excel is kind of a technology of the past now. And it really didn't tell us enough information.

                               So, over time, I've actually worked on advancing our programs to include better interpretation and visualization of the data. And now, we currently use Microsoft Power BI-based programs. And Power BI is basically just a high-tech system that allows us to increase the functionality of our data and allows the user to actually see mycotoxin contamination profiles from around the globe in real time. So, they have really fast access to data and information about mycotoxins.

                               Now, you also mentioned (something) about the connection between, kind of, the data and the risk to, actually, the animal performance. And I've also developed programs that allow us to actually link (and) publish scientific literature to the potential impact on the animal. And then, through that, we can actually try to assess and understand the financial impact of that performance change on the animal.

Tom:                      And is that information being updated?

Dr. Weaver:             Yep. Whenever there's new information on the scientific literature side, we can look at that, and we go through and add that new information into our programs so that we can have the best prediction models that are out there.

Tom:                      Okay. Are these extreme weather patterns that we're experiencing — the severe flooding (and) severe drought — are they impacting, one way or another, the fungi that are the source of mycotoxins?

Dr. Weaver:             Yes, definitely. So, weather events are certainly impacting that fungi. And actually, weather is probably one of the biggest factors in promoting fungal occurrence and the type of mycotoxin produced, as well as the concentration of the mycotoxins.

                               So, anything like drought, excess rainfall, high temperatures, tornadoes, hail, wind damage — really, all of these can alter the complex balance between the plant and the fungi. So, if that plant is stressed, that could increase the fungal colonization and the mycotoxin level (in the plant). If the plant is damaged, that allows (for the) entry of that fungus into the plant and, again, increases growth, increases mycotoxins. But even if the fungi itself gets stressed, this also increases the mycotoxin production.

                               So, weather really does play, again, one of the biggest roles in that occurrence and the growth of the fungi and the production of mycotoxins. And it is really something to keep an eye on.

Tom:                      Well, let's narrow that list of extreme weather conditions down to drought. Is drought having — or may (it) have — an impact on mycotoxin risk in this year's crops?

Dr. Weaver:             Yes. Certainly. So, many areas this year have experienced some very significant drought conditions, and drought is a very stressful situation for the plant. This provides a great opportunity for fungal colonization. And particularly when we think about drought conditions, we often talk about the mycotoxins aflatoxin and fumonisin being more prevalent in those areas that have had drought conditions. So, if someone's been experiencing drought conditions in their area and they're worried about mycotoxins, those are certainly ones to keep an eye out for.

Tom:                      Are you seeing any big trends in terms of contamination patterns?

Dr. Weaver:             Yeah. I think, really, the biggest trend is just the variable weather patterns on the extreme weather events. Really, over the past several years, we have seen quite some varying weather. A couple years ago, some areas in the upper Midwest had actually record rainfall. And with that, we saw some very high levels and very high occurrences of some mycotoxins, like deoxynivalenol.

                               Now, of course, this year, you’re going to see quite a range of weather, from the drought conditions over to, maybe, some very high-rainfall areas (and) maybe some that have experienced both — so, they had drought conditions, but then rainfall came. And that could still cause problems to the plant as well, depending on when that rainfall came. If it was around tasseling that actually could promote mycotoxins, regardless of if you had normal (conditions) or drought conditions previously.

                               So, really, these extreme weather events — that is, (these) variable weather patterns — really are the trends we're seeing. And it really is going to affect what a producer sees, and they're going to have to be very aware of the weather they experience on their crops. And certainly, I would recommend testing for mycotoxins so you can be aware of the contamination level.

Tom:                      Well, farming has never been easy but (is) certainly not for the faint of heart in these times.

Dr. Weaver:             Very true.

Tom:                      What are the most recent advances in technologies related to mycotoxins?

Dr. Weaver:             Yes. So, I think — there’s certainly a lot of new technologies, but I think a lot of them have actually centered around data generation, data collection and data management. So, that could be things like tools that allow that user to detect mycotoxins on their sample just very rapidly, within minutes. You can send your samples to labs and get results for dozens of mycotoxins at a time in that sample. And then, of course, (there are) programs — such as those I've worked on — that allow the user to actually log in to see their data in real time and look at data either on a local scale or a global scale.

                               So, really, I think these new technologies are centered around data — and rapid access to that data and interpretation of that data — so that the producer can make a quicker decision about their feeds and limit those negative impacts of mycotoxins on the animal.

Tom:                      So, the updated Alltech portal delivers risk assessment?

Dr. Weaver:             Yes, exactly. So, the Alltech mycotoxin management portal is our home for a variety of tools that allow the user to manage and interpret their mycotoxin data. So, if they’ve submitted a sample for analysis by either (the) Alltech 37+ laboratory or our field-based testing, which is Alltech RAPIREAD, those samples can get loaded onto this Alltech portal. And they can then get information on not just those numerical results (from the) testing but, actually, a more detailed interpretation through what we call an assessment report. And this actually provides information on how mycotoxin levels can relate to an animal performance or health change.

                               So, if that user logs in, they look at their assessment report, they get an idea now of, actually, “Is that sample at a lower, moderate or higher risk to animal performance?” And again, that can help them make a better decision on how to use the material.

Tom:                      Is the web address for the portal short enough to talk about verbally here, or is it something that we should post online for our listeners to find and access?

Dr. Weaver:             Yep, it's pretty easy. It’s knowmycotoxins.com.

Tom:                      Ah, clever.

Dr. Weaver:             We can post that as well.

Tom:                      How can we best use data to meet the sustainability challenge in agriculture?

Dr. Weaver:             Yes, that is a great question. So, data actually is, of course, very important for understanding and tracking your mycotoxin risk, as I’ve described. But we actually can start to use data to understand how mycotoxins, for example, impact even the sustainability of (the) production setting. So, we've actually started looking at scientific literature, and we've been able to complete several meta-analysis studies that actually show that mycotoxins can not only alter the gain and efficiency of an animal but (can) actually alter even the CO₂ output and the overall sustainability of a farm.

                               So, I think this is really interesting information that shows that mycotoxins are playing, actually, a very big role on the farm — and, again, not just on the performance of your animals but, actually, (on) many different areas of that farm.

Tom:                      Are you and your team trying stay out ahead of what producers will be anticipating, what they’ll be demanding, in the near future?

Dr. Weaver:             Yes, certainly. So, that fits right into the sustainability aspect. So, we think producers, consumers — really, the food chain as a whole — are demanding information on sustainability. And we want to know how mycotoxins are impacting that farm's sustainability and how we can bring solutions to that system to actually play a role in improving sustainability on farms. So, using this information, using the scientific literature that we have, we’re able to see how we can go about dealing with this challenge and provide those — the details that producers and consumers are going to want, and provide solutions to that challenge.

Tom:                      All right. That’s Dr. Alexandra Weaver, a member of the Alltech Mycotoxin Management team. Thank you, Dr. Weaver.

Dr. Weaver:             Great. Thank you very much, Tom.

Tom:                      Join Alltech and a panel of expert speakers virtually during the U.N. Food Systems Pre-Summit Alltech session, (which) will be held on July 27 at 1:30 p.m. Eastern time and will feature a robust conversation on future protein security, focusing on maximizing the efficiency of production resources without unintended social, cultural and environmental consequences. Click here to register: https://bit.ly/36Mp9XZ

                               This has been AgFuture, presented by Alltech. Thank you for joining us. Be sure to subscribe to AgFuture wherever you listen to podcasts. I'm Tom Martin. Thanks for listening.