Skip to main content

Dr. Kyle McKinney: New ideas in sustainability

February 2, 2018
Fruit crops such as bananas can be susceptible to destructive diseases. Are there more sustainable alternatives to pesticides?

Fruit crops such as bananas can be susceptible to destructive diseases. Are there more sustainable alternatives to pesticides?

The following is an edited transcript of Luther Andal’s interview with Dr. Kyle McKinney, development manager for Alltech Crop Science’s Central America and Caribbean regions.

 

Luther:                        Dr. Kyle McKinney joins us for a conversation about new ideas in sustainability. Dr. McKinney is now working in Costa Rica as Alltech Crop Science’s development manager for Central America and the Caribbean. Thank you for joining us.

 

Kyle:                            Thank you for having me.

 

Luther:                        Kyle, you moved to Costa Rica recently. Why?

 

Kyle:                            Yes. I moved nearly two years ago. We had a specific project in mind focused on disease in bananas. Bananas are the number one fruit consumed globally and the number four crop grown globally. And there’s a disease that will wipe out 50 percent of bananas worldwide if left untreated.

 

                                    So, our approach in our crop science — Alltech Crop Science — is to look at using natural alternatives to pesticides or natural alternatives for plant nutrition. So, we develop technology that would complement synthetic chemicals (fungicides and pesticides), allowing us to reduce those chemicals and slow the disease spread in bananas in Costa Rica.

 

Luther:                        Can you tell us more about what’s going on in Costa Rica?

 

Kyle:                            Sure. Costa Rica, in general, is the fourth- or fifth-largest producer of bananas and the number one exporter of pineapples. The climate is perfect for disease: disease in the soil, disease in the air. And Costa Rica gets hit hard sometimes on their use of chemical pesticides. But, due to the disease opportunities, they have to fight these diseases to maintain their fruit production and exports. So, they’re looking for help and they’re reaching out.

 

                                    One of the great things is that Costa Rica’s producers want to look at alternatives and they want to look into the future. They know the use of chemical pesticides as used today and as used in the past will not be part of our future. Producers in Costa Rica are very interested in new technology, what we have to offer and the idea that a company would send someone to help. In addition to myself, we have another colleague who came from Kentucky to Costa Rica to work on his Ph.D. at the University of Costa Rica. We also built a microbiology laboratory.

 

So, when we talk about this Costa Rica project, there’s often a joke that I packed my suitcases with fermenters and took those down to Costa Rica, but it’s a unique setup that we have. By having that lab there, we can respond quickly to the producers. They appreciate that, and it’s a good working partnership.

 

Luther:                        You referenced the disease that is endangering the banana crop there. Can you give us a little more information? What its name is, how does it affect the banana crop? Is it a danger to the bananas around the world?

 

Kyle:                            Sure. It’s called black sigatoka. It’s a fungal disease. It’s spread in the air. The climate of Costa Rica keeps cultivating this fungus and it spreads. It gets onto the leaves and causes the leaves to rot away — cell death of the leaves. When you buy the banana, a third of that cost is coming from the treatment of this disease. It’s made it difficult for small banana producers to stay in business because of the cost of keeping the disease away. We would lose 50 percent of the plants if we did not have the constant application of these chemicals to keep the disease from spreading.

 

                                    So, it can be maintained, but the question is: How do we maintain it in a more naturalway using alternatives? That’s really the goal — not just in Costa Rica, but across the world: utilizing more natural resources. Microbes, for example. That’s a big part of what we do in crop science: utilizing microbes in the soil and microbes being applied to plants to stimulate growth, for example.

 

                                    Costa Rica has been fighting this particular banana disease for 30 to 40 years, and they do the job of maintaining and holding the disease from spreading. They do that by monitoring constant application —

 

Luther:                        Given the fact that black sigatoka is costly to maintain — meaning, to hold back — because of pesticides, what are you researching that could offer hope for the future?

 

Kyle:                            We’re looking at some of our technologies that have favorable enzymes produced from a bacteria fermentation. So, these enzymes, once applied to the soil or applied to the leaves, will attack the fungi from the disease and break that fungi cell wall down, and we see a reduction of the disease.

 

                                    It’s working in the same sense that pesticides work. Pesticides have been engineered to break down the cell wall of the fungi. We also see opportunities to induce this plant to produce its own self-defenses. For example, when the plant has the fungi on it, it’s releasing compounds as it tries to remove the disease. What if we look at ways to cause these compounds to be released prior to this disease arriving or the fungi arriving?

 

We know we’re not at a point where we can eliminate pesticide usage completely. One day it will happen with technology, and we’re not there yet, but we can reduce it, and we’re showing that currently in Costa Rica.

 

Luther:                        Given the fact that you are reducing pesticide use through using these new treatments, one of the terms I’ve seen is “induced resistance.” How is that being used, and what is the result of using induced resistance?

 

Kyle:                            When we induce resistance, for example, we’re causing that plant to produce compounds that fight off disease. These are enzymes, a lot of times. So, when we induce resistance in that plant, we cause the plant to produce these enzymes and begin fighting before the disease hits. It’s really like a vaccine when taken to prevent disease: You create resistance inside your body for when it may hit. So, it’s the same idea in crops as well.

 

Luther:                        What kind of results are we seeing from the application of induced resistance?

 

Kyle:                            What we’ve seen so far — and we’re very happy with this — is nearly a 20 percent reduction in the use of pesticides with the producers who were applying our technology.

 

Luther:                        When you say a 20 percent reduction, do you mean a 20 percent reduction of the disease or 20 percent reduction of pesticides?

 

Kyle:                            We’re talking 20 percent reduction of the pesticides. So, it’s a big deal, and it’s something we’re happy about. It’s something that the producers are happy about because they’re selling the bananas to people who want a clean, healthy crop, whether it’s a fruit or any other food source. So, we’re all working together to fight this disease using the expertise, from the growers/producers to our people in microbiology on the fermentation side. It’s a partnership that’s come together to solve a problem in bananas.

 

Luther:                        So, that’s a 20 percent reduction when they’re applying those pesticides sometimes two to three times a month, you said, to be able to hold back the sigatoka disease.

 

Kyle:                            Correct. Exactly.

 

Luther:                        Would you say that the biggest challenge for the future of food production is crop protection — or one of the biggest challenges?

 

Kyle:                            Absolutely, it’s one of the biggest challenges, if not the biggest. It’s what we’ve seen over the years: The application of pesticides, whether that’s a fungicide, herbicide or others, has increased each decade since the `50s, `60s. That’s also allowed us to double food production along with other parameters of agriculture. But, the continued growth of pesticides in our crops is not going to be sustainable.

 

                                    People don’t want that in their food. No one does. As people become more aware, it puts pressure on growers worldwide to reduce pesticides. It puts pressure on grocery stores not to stock fruits with high chemical levels. So, it’s a major concern. What we’re happy to see is that producers want alternatives, and that has allowed for a nice partnership, to work together and to find solutions to crop protection.

 

Luther:                        So, we have this kind of dichotomy going on where you have diseases like sigatoka that are decimating the crop if not treated with pesticides two to three times a month. On the other side, we also need to increase the production to meet the world demand — using a term we talked about yesterday: “rising billions.” China, India, Africa and other parts of Asia all coming into a middle class, needing and demanding more food variety. We have this challenge that we’re talking about of protecting a crop but at the same time having to increase that production. So, it sounds like this is a huge need in terms of the future. Would you agree with that, that the crop protection is to protect what we have, but as we increase production, using more and more pesticides is not a viable option?

 

Kyle:                            You’re correct. Crop protection is number one. We understand more about plant genetics. We understand more about microbials. And as we move forward, we’re going to see combinations of natural solutions, whether it’s microbes or it’s the compounds that microbes produce. Those combinations are going to give us alternatives for crop protection. We’ll see a drastic reduction in the use of pesticides over the next decade. There’s no question. That’s the direction the industry is moving.

 

Luther:                        Would those then be what we referred to as biopesticides that you’re talking about?

 

Kyle:                            These would be referred to as biopesticides.

 

Luther:                        Okay. Can you give us a little more detail on what a “biopesticide” is? I think you probably have talked about it a little bit. But now that we have it, quantify what the term is.

 

Kyle:                            Sure. “Biopesticide” essentially encompasses this natural solution versus a synthetically produced chemical.

 

Luther:                        So, sometimes it may be used to make the plant healthier and stronger, and other times to combat the disease itself or the effects of the disease?

 

Kyle:                            That’s a good question. Our approach is to focus on the plant. Let’s make the plant healthier and the plant can then fight these diseases. Then, let’s also attack the disease as well. When you strengthen the root system of the plant by removing pathogens in the soil, it’s an interesting discussion point.

                                   

                                    If you take 1 acre of soil, there are nearly 15 tons of microbes in that soil, and we only understand about 2 percent of those microbes. We have no idea what the other 98 percent will allow us to do to improve plant health, plant nutrition and reduce disease. That’s a big component, a big focus of what we’re doing in Alltech Crop Science.

 

Luther:                        So, it sounds like there’s a tremendous opportunity as we research the 98 percent to find other biological organisms that can stimulate growth, increase health and combat disease.

 

Kyle:                            Absolutely. There’s no question the future of crop protection and the future of improving crop plant nutrition will be utilizing microbes in the soil.

 

Luther:                        It sounds like it’s very similar to humans in that we are using our biological antibiotic system to fight disease. So, we’re making ourselves healthy, and at the same time, we also have other biological elements that fight the disease. So, it equates well to a diet for a human being: not necessarily using antibiotics that are artificially created in a lab, but using foods that maybe have natural built-in compounds that fight disease. That’s kind of equivalent to what you’re attempting to do with crop protection.

 

Kyle:                            Exactly. We’re allowing that plant to fight the disease, which is what it was designed to do. We’re encouraging that plant to start fighting the disease maybe before the disease arrives. But when the disease arrives, it can maintain and sustain itself much better. We’re not changing any genetics. We’re just promoting what that plant has already been designed to be able to do for itself.

 

Luther:                        There is a lot of discussion on the human use of biostimulants — natural substances that help the development of the human body from birth through adulthood and maintaining healthy bones, vision and mental aptitude. Can you tell us what biostimulants are and how they apply to a plant? It sounds like there are some similarities in what you’re trying to achieve.

 

Kyle:                            Right.

                                    When we promote using a biostimulant, we’re promoting the plant to grow better and grow faster. A lot of times, we see better quality fruits and we see more uniform fruits. When consumers are buying from a visual standpoint, it’s a benefit for the producer.

 

Luther:                        I know that you’ve been working with pineapple in Costa Rica, with some biostimulants. What are the results of that?

 

Kyle:                            Correct. We’re focused on pineapple as well as banana. What we’ve seen in pineapple is a stronger root development. When the root develops in a pineapple, the uptake of nutrients changes, so we see a faster rate of growth and we see more uniformity of the pineapples, which is important for export. We’re quite excited about what we’re seeing in pineapple. We really started in the banana and now we’re shifting to this pineapple area, and we’re seeing some opportunities that make us excited.

 

Luther:                        What about corn? I believe in Iowa you’ve been working with corn.

 

Kyle:                            Exactly. So, when we look at our biostimulant work, we’ve really focused on corn as we worked and developed this program. In corn, we see increased root base, and that leads to a faster development, to more uniform corn kernels. The biostimulant aspect in corn is something we’ve been working on for a decade or more.

 

Luther:                        What do you see on the horizon for biological technologies?

 

Kyle:                            I think we’re going see a dramatic change over the next five to 10 years in this area of biologicals. Many people are taking notice. Universities are doing research. It’s in a lot of discussions on harnessing the power of microbes.

 

                                    We’ve seen a dramatic shift over the last five years. The biopesticide biological market is expected to go from about $2 billion in global sales currently to $8 billion in four years. So, you’re going to see a tripling of this market. I think the biopesticide market is currently growing at about 15 percent per year compared to 3 percent for synthetic chemicals. So, you’re seeing this change. As we understand more about soil microbes and how they can be beneficial, you’re going to see a dramatic growth over the next five years to a decade.

 

Luther:                        That’s substantial. What about for microalgae? What specifically do you see for the future?

 

Kyle:                            Microalgae are something we’ve taken notice of, and we know that there are biostimulant aspects of microalgae. Seaweed, for example, has been utilized for many years to promote growth as a biostimulant. It’s one of our expertise areas — growing microalgae. So, we’re really going to start pushing into that area for biostimulants.

 

Luther:                        What about in the area of solid state fermentation? Are some advancements being made there?

 

Kyle:                            I like solid state fermentation because I did my Ph.D. in that area. Solid state fermentation has been around for a thousand years. You see it often, like when you see fungi growing on a log, for example. What it’s doing is breaking down fibers, releasing nutrients. Solid state fermentation offers the same idea of producing beneficial fungi, which will help break down nutrients, which will help develop the root base and resist disease in the soil. It helps increase water uptake as an extension of the roots. So, solid state fermentation offers a lot of promise moving forward on production of beneficial fungi and bacteria.

 

Luther:                        Overall, how do you think farmers are doing, and growers, in terms of sustainability?

 

Kyle:                            I think sustainability is starting to take off. In the past five to 10 years, people started to understand the idea of sustainability. As consumers become aware that crops and animals can be raised without the use of heavy levels of pesticides, chemicals or other inputs, sustainability is going to be the future of crop protection. It’s going come quicker than most people think.

 

                                    Many farmers want alternatives. They’re excited about the future of alternatives. They seek out companies like Alltech and say, “Hey, can you help us? What can we work on together?” So, the future of sustainable agriculture, and this whole new technology wave we’re seeing in agriculture is really going to change. We have to change in order to produce the food to feed another 2 to 3 billion people over the next 15, 20, 30 years. So, all this technology is going to come together, which includes microbes to produce the food that we require.

 

Luther:                        So, how does this affect the average consumer’s kitchen table? I’ve heard you talk about how much cost goes into pesticide use, for instance. Beyond that, what other ways will it affect an average consumer?

 

Kyle:                            Maybe at the moment the idea and the understanding that they’re eating healthy food is more significant than the financial impact on consumers. We can incorporate programs using alternatives such as biopesticides and not impact the cost for the producer. I think when consumers can sit down to eat and not fear that what they’re eating is unhealthy or may have some chemical inputs, I think that this leads to a better understanding and people are more excited about the area of agriculture.

 

Luther:                        Well, that leads right into what you enjoy most about your job.  

 

Kyle:                            You know, Alltech, in general, is always changing. There are always new opportunities. There are always new paths to take. If you’re bored in this company, then you’re not seeking out the opportunities that come around the corner.

 

                                    I’m excited every day to get up and look at the challenges that we’re facing in Costa Rica and work with producers to offer them alternatives. They’re seeking these alternatives, and we have the technologies and expertise to work together and make a difference.

 

Luther:                        Dr. McKinney is Alltech Crop Science’s development manager for Central America and the Caribbean. Thank you very much for joining us.

 

Kyle:                            Thank you for having me.

 

Dr. Kyle McKinney spoke at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE17). To hear more talks from the conference, sign up for the Alltech Idea Lab.

Alltech Idea Lab_6.png

Loading...