Meet Dan Olson. His grandfather came from Sweden and began to grow walnuts in the San Joaquin Valley. See how this superfood is grown and harvested, and find out how Alltech Crop Science helped him overcome a mysterious challenge.

High levels of risk from DON, fusaric acid, T-2 and fumonisin present

[LEXINGTON, Ky.] – In 2016, corn growers faced challenges from mycotoxins, and those challenges seem likely to show up for them again as they harvest this fall. The 2017 growing season was challenging across the U.S. Growers in different regions experienced varied weather conditions that could not only reduce yield, but could also increase plant stress and lead to challenges with mycotoxins.

Corn silage samples from across the entirety of the U.S. have shown extremely high levels of mycotoxins, particularly deoxynivalenol (DON), type A trichothecenes (T-2), fusaric acid and fumonisin. It is important to note that once there are mycotoxins in the crop, they will not go away. There will be higher levels of mycotoxins on farms practicing monocropping of corn, as opposed to those farms that are rotating crops or using deeper tillage methods.

Samples submitted to the Alltech 37+^® mycotoxin analytical services laboratory between Sept. 1 and Nov. 1, 2017, show that grains contained mixtures of mycotoxins, including DON, fusaric acid and fumonisin. Forages such as corn silage, barlage and haylage samples also contained multiple mycotoxins in 2017, including DON, fusaric acid, T-2 and fumonisin.

Fumonisin is trending higher across all states as of this time and can have a negative impact on feed intake, gut health, liver function and immune response. Swine and horses are particularly sensitive.

Mycotoxins are a regular concern for producers, as they influence feed quality and animal safety. They are produced by certain species of molds and can have toxic properties that impact animal health and performance.

“Understanding the risk of mycotoxins and combinations of mycotoxins, even at lower levels, allows livestock owners and managers to institute a management program for more optimum performance and health,” said Dr. Max Hawkins, nutritionist with the Alltech^® Mycotoxin Management team. “Testing feedstuffs and finished feeds is paramount to putting this management program in action.”

Mycotoxins are seldom found in isolation, and when multiple mycotoxins are consumed, they may have additive, or even synergistic, interactions that increase the overall risk to performance and health. As a result, an animal may have a stronger response than what would be expected if it was only experiencing a single mycotoxin challenge.

For feedstuffs harvested in 2017 and that are currently being fed, it is important to conduct a mycotoxin analysis that identifies the storage mycotoxins, including Penicillium and Aspergillus mycotoxin groups, as there is potential for additional mycotoxins to develop during storage. Proper mycotoxin management techniques can reduce the risk of mycotoxins coming from feed materials as well as help to prevent the negative effects mycotoxins can on have animal health and performance.

Alltech will be hosting a webinar to review the 2017 Alltech Harvest Analysis results for the U.S. with Dr. Max Hawkins on Dec. 14, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. ET. Register for the webinar via this link.

For more information on mycotoxin management, visit knowmycotoxins.com.  

There is only so much arable land on planet Earth. Only so much water. But people are plentiful and becoming increasingly so, year after year. And people must eat to survive.

So how are we humans doing on the matter of feeding ourselves?

The World Health Organization has set the bar high, defining food security as “a situation when all people at all times have physical and economic access to sufficient and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preference for an active and healthy life.”

We do not live in that perfect world.

The global population is on track to swell from the present 7 billion to nearly 10 billion people in the next 30 years, according to the United Nations (U.N.). And if World Bank projections are on target, Earth’s population will have doubled by 2080.

According to the most recent update (2015) of U.N. population data, most of the world (60 percent of the global population) lives in Asia, 16 percent in Africa, 10 percent in Europe, 9 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean, and the remaining 5 percent in North America and Oceania (Micronesia, Fiji and all of Polynesia). China and India remain the two largest countries of the world, each with more than 1 billion people, representing 19 and 18 percent of the world’s population, respectively.

With such demographics to consider against the backdrop of finite natural resources, the security of a sustainable global food supply is challenging researchers and planners to map long-term strategies.

Agricultural production will have to increase significantly in order to meet the growing need. Can it be done safely and sustainably?

Food price volatility will somehow have to be brought under control — a tall order in a world of competing (even warring) nations and economies contending with increasing demand from finite resources.

Without agricultural innovation, half of the population could be undernourished by 2050

Those concerns, as pressing as they are, may pale in comparison, however, with the uncertainty and disruption brought on by climate change.

“Under a no-climate change scenario, based upon projected changes in population and agricultural land use only, 31 percent (2.5 billion people by 2050) of the global population is at risk of undernourishment if no adaptation or agricultural innovation is made in the intervening years,” according to projections cited in the report “Modelling Impacts of Climate Change on Global Food Security” by a team of researchers at the University of Dundee in Scotland and the University of Southampton and the University of Reading in England.

“An additional 21 percent (1.7 billion people) is at risk of undernourishment by 2050 when climate change is taken into account,” the report states.

A young girl in Kolminy, Haiti, eats peanut butter bread given to her by missionaries. Credit: Michelle D. Milliman / Shutterstock.com

The researchers concede that their projections do not take into account future trends in technology, improved crop varieties or agricultural trade interventions, “although it is clear that all of these adaptation strategies will need to be embraced on a global scale if society is to ensure adequate food supplies for a projected global population of greater than 9 billion people.”

Important solutions might arrive through technological innovation. But there are other key factors to consider.

“There are lots of things that technology can do, but there are also global political and cultural systems coming into play all the time,” said Dr. Karl Dawson, Alltech’s chief scientific officer. “It’s not something a single scientific breakthrough is going to solve.”

Literal food security in the face of terrorism

The term “food security” becomes very literal in the context of the rise of terrorism around the world today.

Since the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York on Sept.11, 2001, for example, the U.S. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has stepped up efforts to protect America's supply of meat, poultry and egg products from intentional or unintentional contamination.

FSIS inspectors have remained on heightened alert to detect unusual or suspicious activity, reinspecting imported meat and poultry products before they are allowed to enter the U.S. food supply.

It’s no small irony that food insecurity can act as a catalyst for conditions that lead to terrorism, according to a report by the World Food Programme.

China’s rising middle class and diminishing arable land

In addition to changes in climate and social and political instability, one factor looms large: China.

Shoppers fill Nanjing Road in Shanghai. Credit: TonyV3112 / Shutterstock.com

Although China's agricultural output is the largest in the world, only about 15 percent of its total land area can be cultivated.

“In a quest for rapid economic growth, and the global economy’s insatiable desire for the supply of cheap Chinese goods, China has displayed agricultural negligence — with ramifications yet to be determined, but likely to serve as a catalyst in food security negotiations,” writes the World Policy Journal’s Keshar Patel.

The Chinese ministries of Environmental Protection and Land and Resources issued a national bulletin on soil pollution in 2014 stating that one-fifth of Chinese soil is fallow, “a consequence of exposure to heavy metal contaminants.” The statement described the soil and environmental problems as serious.

This reality collides with another: China’s overall food supply, while growing, is not rising fast enough to keep up with demand.

“The key long-term food security challenge in China remains the steady growth in protein consumption (fueled by urbanization and an expanding middle class),” said Michael Woolsey, senior strategic manager for Alltech China.

“This situation explains much of the sharp rise in beef, pork and dairy imports in the past decade,” he continued. “China can close this gap by improving productivity, as Chinese agricultural productivity remains well below global leaders in key industries.”

Woolsey noted that China’s corn yields per hectare are half the levels in the U.S. and Brazil. Dairy output per cow is 40 percent the dairy output in Wisconsin. Average piglets per sow per year are reportedly around 15, roughly half the level in the European Union.

Chinese imports of wheat have doubled in recent years, as Chinese grain self-sufficiency has drastically decreased.

And after years of negotiations, notes USA Today, “China has agreed to open its domestic market for U.S. rice exports for the first time ever, acknowledging its need for foreign shipments to meet the growing demands of its vast middle class.”

Rice terraces were built into the hillsides of Gullin, China, during the Yuan Dynasty (1271 - 1368).

Servicing that demand has prompted the Chinese government to start leasing farms in North and South America, Australia and Africa. And in some cases, it has bought the land outright, according to Patel.

Water is also at a premium in China.

“Rice is an aquatic crop, a water and labor hog, demanding twice as much labor and water as any other row crop in Asia,” reports Forbes. “In China alone, rice consumes about 70 percent of the nation’s irrigated water.”

Spread the tech to places where it’s needed

“So much of our focus is on high-input agriculture in the U.S. and South America and other parts of the world, but the U.N. estimates that about 60 percent of our food comes from peasant agriculture in low-income countries,” said University of Kentucky agricultural economist Lee Meyer. “That area has seen substantial growth in food output, but there is so much more potential there.”

Key to enabling those countries to meet their food output potentials, asserts Dawson, is finding ways to democratize technologies.

“Getting technology uniformly distributed around the world so we can have an efficient food production system is very important,” he said. “We have the technologies, and we do a lot to develop new technologies, but I’m concerned about educating the world about what those technologies can do and then implementing those technologies.”

Improved feed, feed efficiency, seed genetics, animal genetics and on-farm technical capacity are all key to improving Chinese agricultural productivity, according to Woolsey. Alltech’s range of animal nutrition solutions and technical assistance are helping Chinese producers close the productivity gap, he said.

Alltech partnered with Nestlé in opening a Dairy Farming Insititute in Shuangcheng, Heilongjiang province, China, to help train Chinese dairy farmers.

Dawson, as Alltech’s chief scientist, has for years concentrated on the study of such solutions, with a focus on nutrigenomics, the science of understanding nutrition’s impact at the genetic level. This work has resulted in the development of new tools for understanding precisely how nutrients function, why different forms of nutrients have different effects and how such nutrients can be optimized for health.

“It’s providing us with a very basic toolset that allows us to look at production efficiencies, animal health and the overall effectiveness of food production systems,” he said. “It’s not going to solve all of the problems, but it provides us with a way of evaluating new management strategies and techniques and feeding strategies that we never had before.”

Raising fish on land

Fish farming holds tremendous promise in responding to surging demand for food that is taking place due to global population growth, according to a report by the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization.

This has led to a rapid expansion of the aquaculture industry in recent years, and with it, increased water pollution. The search for ways to prevent contamination has resulted in the development of land-based farms known as recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS).

RAS systems consist of tanks, water filtration units and, usually, degassing and oxygenation. For warm water species, the water is heated as well. This reconditioned water can be recirculated and reused.

“These systems were developed to become less dependent on water sources and climates. Now you can farm almost anywhere with these advantages,” said Gijs Rutjes, technical sales support manager at Coppens International, the Dutch fish feed producer that joined the Alltech family of companies in 2016.

“Closed systems score much better. They have no escapees, the feces are collected and removed, and the nitrogen and phosphorus output is reduced due to filtration units in closed RAS systems,” Rutjes said.

Closed, recirculating aquaculture systems, such as the Marine Harvest one shown here, improve efficiency of production and reduce environmental impact.

Salmon farms have started to move more of their production on land for this purpose.

“There’s a lot of investment in these systems in the Scandinavian countries,” said Dawson. “They’re becoming important, particularly in the area of environmental impact. There is a complete re-use of water; capturing carbon dioxide and recirculating heat to generate power. It gives a whole new meaning to what it takes to build a biological protein.”

Food waste: A paradox of plenty

Perhaps most confounding for a world in search of ways to feed an expanding human population is waste. Countries that have more food also waste more food, according to YieldWise, a seven-year, $130 million Rockefeller Foundation initiative to demonstrate how food loss and waste can be cut in half globally.

“About a third of total food is wasted or at least doesn’t make it from the farm to final consumption,” noted Meyer.

That’s enough to feed everyone in the world for two months, according to the YieldWise initiative. The effort’s initial focus is on fruits, vegetables and staple crops in Kenya, Nigeria and Tanzania, where up to half of all food grown is lost.

Begging for brains: New talent needed for agricultural innovation

The status of global food security is subject to many influences, including the unpredictable. One thing is certain: The planet needs very smart people to carry on the evolution of present technologies and to envision entirely new and innovative solutions to these vexing issues. While perhaps not for everyone, the broad field of agriculture is begging for talent.

“Oh, absolutely,” acknowledged Meyer. “In the College of Agriculture, we are the applied nature to so many of the sciences. There are programs in biotechnology, agricultural engineering, agricultural economics, international development, food policy. There are really rewarding ways to apply a good education in this whole area of food production and food security.”

Documenting trends is the closest thing in business to peering into a crystal ball. When it comes to consumer food trends, a dizzying variety of surveys from around the world readily fill pages upon pages of a Google search.

But which trends are long-term and which are just passing fads? What are shoppers really thinking? What’s influencing or impacting their behaviors? And what’s driving their purchases?

A particular pair of studies stands out for depth of insight for those along the food chain whose job it is to tweak strategic consumer marketing plans.

PERIscope 2017 is a biennial, large-scale quantitative study launched in 2001 by Bord Bia, the Irish Food Board. Based on interviews with 1,000 consumers in each of eight countries, the study identifies major shifts in consumer attitudes over time. The eight markets include Ireland and Great Britain, four continental European Union markets, as well as the U.S. and China. The study explores consumer attitudes about eating at home, cooking, local food, the environment, and health and well-being.

A second survey taps into the consumer food trend perceptions of more than 1,700 registered dietitians (RDs). What’s Trending in Nutrition, an annual survey produced in partnership between Pollock Communications and Today’s Dietitian magazine, covers bases ranging from shifting attitudes to favored resources and much in between.

Here are some of the highlights featured in each.

A source of tension

Among the standout trends of 2017 illuminated in the eight-nation PERIscope survey is a tension between the desire for “new” versus the comfort of tradition.

“We know that across all markets, consumers are placing more importance on spending time as a family over meals, enjoying cooking more and increasingly hosting dinner parties, all indicating people’s desire to balance modern life with tradition,” said David Deeley, a member of Bord Bia’s consumer and market insight team.

Among the countries surveyed for PERIscope, China, followed by Spain, leads in striving to balance modernization and tradition. The U.K. is ranked 7th and the Netherlands dead last in this category.

This finding is supported by the Today’s Dietitian survey, which attributes the latest shift in consumer food perceptions to a slower and more thoughtful approach to eating.

Keep it real

When it comes to authenticity, noted PERIscope’s Deeley, “consumers are tired of uniform, impersonal, throw-away products and the invisible nature of global supply chains. They crave stronger connections with the brands they buy, increasingly seeking out authentic and storied products that tell their brand story in an interesting and resonating way.”

What’s the story behind the story?

The demand for transparency is as strong as ever. The PERIscope survey finds consumers continuing to challenge producers to provide the full details about their food products. Labeling and quality symbols are a major point of interest for many countries, especially in China, where many people have lost faith in the safety of produce.

Provenance and quality matter. In Ireland, 78 percent of food shoppers check for country of origin, while checking for quality symbols stands at 75 percent, up by 20 percent since 2001. In the U.S., almost 7 in 10 people claim to check for country of origin, while 67 percent of consumers check for a symbol or certificate that guarantees the quality of the produce, according to the survey.

Registered dietitians responding to the Today’s Dietitian poll indicate that GMO-free and sustainable foods have experienced on average a 20 percent decrease in terms of what concerns consumers.

“Dietitians attribute this decline to food label transparency and more food companies changing their ingredient deck,” the report said.

And 59 percent of dietitians said consumers are choosing to "eat clean,” selecting foods that are less processed as well as more whole foods, such as veggies, fruits, ancient grains and green tea. Plant-based proteins like nuts and seeds also figure more prominently in diets.

Make it lasting and environmentally friendly

Smart devices deliver a mind-boggling amount of information about brand practices, processes and procedures. The result?

“Consumers are calling out inappropriate, bland or opaque brand behavior and are sharing it with their peers,” observed Deeley.

The PERIscope study finds that consumers prefer to buy from companies that are aware of environmental issues and the value of sustainability.

“We also know that they’re increasingly more aware of terms like ‘food waste’ and ‘sustainably produced' in countries like Spain, Germany and the Netherlands, where awareness of both tops 90 percent,” he said.

Across all eight markets, the survey shows that consumers are adopting a greener mindset and are increasingly drawn to eco-friendly businesses and practices.

Deeley’s suggestion to food producers and processors: “Recycling, upcycling, downcycling, zero waste — it doesn’t matter what you call it. Just be sure that you adopt a green mindset and eliminate any negative environmental impact your products and services may directly or indirectly cause before, during and after production — this includes the entire consumption cycle, too.”

Localism lives on

With a growing number of adults turning toward the local and the familiar, the emergence of the “locavore” is becoming ever more pervasive, according to the PERIscope 2017 survey.

“Local food for consumers means food that is better quality and is transparent in its production processes,” said Deeley. “A growing number are looking closer to home for groceries, and more and more are seeing the importance of purchasing from their local communities. This trend holds true across most countries, with the French placing the most importance on buying local foods (79 percent).”

China (76 percent) and Spain (75 percent), Ireland (67 percent), Germany (64 percent) and the U.S. (60 percent) are warming to the concept. Consumers in Great Britain (55 percent) and the Netherlands (35 percent) are the least interested in seeking out specifically local food sources.

Make it quick — but good

Demand for foods that are quick to prepare has been on the rise. Pre-portioned meal delivery services such as Blue Apron, HelloFresh and FreshDirect have skyrocketed, with 45 percent of consumers now turning to these and similar healthy meal or weight loss menu delivery programs in order to eat healthier, according to the Today’s Dietitian survey.

“In Ireland, this figure rose from 56 percent in 2001 to almost 7 in 10 (69 percent) in 2017,” according to PERIscope’s Deeley. “The majority of Americans have a tendency to pick foods that are easy to prepare (91 percent) and quick to cook (85 percent). More than 7 in 10 people claim to eat convenience or ready-prepared meals regularly.”

In an observation worthy of the attention of food labelers, Deeley noted some uncertainty about which foods are healthy, “with close to half of those polled claiming to be confused about the health benefits of particular foods and 60 percent saying nutritional claims and food labels are hard to understand.”

Keep it interesting

More than 7 in 10 consumers in all eight countries of the PERIscope survey claim they like to try new foods. An increasingly wider variety of foods is available in today’s markets, making it is easier for consumers to explore foods from around the world.

And there’s China again, leading this time in adventurous eating, with 96 percent saying they like to try new foods. And once again, the Chinese are trailed closely by Spanish consumers in an open-mindedness about new foods (94 percent), while the French (81 percent) and Irish (74 percent) are more likely to stick with what they know.

There are apps for that

When it comes to technology, Chinese consumers are far ahead of their counterparts in the seven other countries surveyed by PERIscope in 2017.

Asked if they have ever downloaded a food app, 76 percent of Chinese consumers responded that they have. The next closest are Americans at 34 percent, with only 19 percent of Irish and 18 percent of consumers in the U.K. poking at food icons on their smart devices.

What is influencing consumer perception?

The survey of dietitians looked at the sources of consumer nutrition information. Most (73 percent) said consumers rely on blogs and websites, followed by social media (70 percent). Fifty-eight percent turn to television and radio for most of their information.

The survey also reveals a paradox by asking where consumers get the most nutrition misinformation. Seventy-seven percent cited social media, 67 percent pointed to blogs and websites, and 63 percent said celebrities often get it wrong (a change from 2016, when celebrities were believed to be more misleading than social media).

Consumers gauge their health and weight, according to the dietitians, by comparing themselves to people in magazines or on television (72 percent), friends/family members (64 percent) or people on social media (57 percent).

Food consumers in China are far more likely than those in the other seven countries of the PERIscope survey to share recipes via social media — 77 percent of Chinese respondents versus the next highest social media users, Americans at 41 percent.

Where are registered dietitians sourcing their own information? According to the Today’s Dietitian survey, most (80 percent) of RDs have bookmarked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s MyPlate website for nutrition education. Sixty-five percent include the published resources of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics among their tools.

What leaps off the page

“For me, the most interesting story is revealed when we look back at the 2001 report and track the changes over time,” said Deeley. “The world was certainly a very different place, and that is reflected in those reports. Today, we know that health and well-being have changed dramatically over time, with people now making more conscious decisions to enjoy a holistic approach to physical health and emotional well-being.”

Although dietitians say consumer awareness of healthy food has increased and mindful eating is on the rise in 2017, they note that issues of access and cost continue to prevent certain populations from being able to eat and purchase healthy food.

“For low-income consumers, RDs say that cost, above all other factors including physical health, is the largest barrier when making food purchasing decisions,” suggests the Today’s Dietitian study. “This often makes healthy eating options out of reach for low-income families. RDs recommend increasing affordability and availability of nutritious food in low-income areas to help reduce barriers to healthy eating.”

The polling for what’s hot and what’s not in 2018 is underway. It will be interesting to see how these trends persist, shift or change altogether in the coming year.

Modern agriculture is facing two daunting challenges: doubling year-on-year production to feed a longer-living population estimated to hit 9.3 billion by 2050, and in doing so, using fewer resources and chemical inputs. Crop nutritional management will be a key aspect of the second Green Revolution, which is looking to technology and sustainable practices to help make crop production more efficient — to get more out of less.

Throughout the world, the potato represents a major food source, with annual global production estimated at approximately 325 million tons and consumption at approximately 33 kilograms per head per year (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2012). Nutritional interventions have been shown to play a considerable role in crop productivity by helping to alleviate the common biotic and abiotic challenges encountered in-field, challenges which frequently result in reduced harvest yields.

The response of two key potato cultivars grown in commercial settings — Rooster (floury-textured, all-purpose potato) and Maris Piper (high dry matter potato, ideal for chipping) — to an Alltech Crop Science (ACS)-recommended program was investigated. Tuber yield and uniformity was assessed for plots treated with Soil-Set® (2 liters/hectare) at planting and Impro-Set® (1 liter/hectare) at early and late tuber fill. The trial was carried out in replicate 38-square-meter plots, each with approximately 140 plants per plot, in a commercial farm on the eastern coast of Ireland during the 2016 growing season.

The combined data for both potato varieties revealed notable improvements in overall yield and relative size distribution with the ACS-recommended program (see graph below). On average, treatment resulted in a 5.9 percent increase in total yield, which equated to approximately 2.7 tons/hectare under these conditions.

Perhaps more interestingly, the relative size distribution of tubers was significantly improved in the desired marketable category (p≤0.05). Reductions of small and oversized tubers in response to treatment coincided with a relative 8.2 percent increase in these 45- to 70-millimeter tubers, equating to an additional 5.9 tons/hectare for this category.

As demonstrated in this study, improved yields and more consistent tuber uniformity across two potato varieties demonstrate the potential benefits of incorporating the ACS program into a commercial potato growing system.

Average relative size distribution and total yield for two different potato varieties

To find out how to incorporate the ACS-recommended program into your crops, contact your local Alltech Crop Science representative or cropscience@alltech.com today.

The following is an edited transcript of Tom Martin’s interview with Rebecca Noble, business development executive for Alltech Crop Science.

Click below to hear the full interview:

Luther: Rebecca Noble is a business development executive for Alltech Crop Science. Welcome.

Rebecca: Thank you.

Luther: Tell me a little bit about food culture.

Rebecca: Food culture is something that we’ve talked about more in the last five to 10 years. But really, food culture is something that has existed with us since the very beginning of human civilization. Perhaps nothing is more ingrained into the concept of human survival and human livelihood than food. Because of that, it has grown with us throughout history since the first hunters and gatherers; those who survived the Ice Age were believed to be farmers. Here in the 21st century, food culture is a lot about choice and lifestyle. Food culture is something that we, as humans, depend on, emote with and cannot escape.

Luther: We’ve evolved to the point where we’re taking pictures of our food and sharing it.

Rebecca: Absolutely. That is absolutely what we’re doing.

Luther: Food is very social now.

Rebecca: Way back in the day, people carved pictures into stone to share and remember a story, so maybe it’s not even a new concept.

Luther: It might not be. Maybe there are hieroglyphics of food.

Rebecca: Exactly.

Luther: Why is food complicated, though?

Rebecca: Food culture and food have existed for millions of years. It has developed throughout our history with war, famine, economic depression and migration. A lot of that complication comes from our history.

The other part of that complication is in the monetization of food. Industrialization and capitalism joined our economy so rapidly in the past 50 to 60 years. With that, for better or worse, the intent gets complicated. The intent gets distracted. Now we have market forces — these key players — joining the conversation and interacting in new ways and disrupting the marketplace.

Luther: As we’ve evolved, we’ve come to this concept of organic food. Tell me a little bit about that.

Rebecca: We focus on consumers a lot when we talk about the organic food movement and how much they’re demanding. But the organic food movement is really something that happened from within the industry. It began most notably with British agronomist Sir Albert Howard. He was writing about organic food as opposition to the rise of scientific agriculture — to the Norman Borlaugs of science and the Haber-Bosch process of synthesizing ammonia. He was going so far as saying that artificial fertilizers would grow artificial food, which would then “nourish” artificial humans.

The idea of organic started from within the industry and then relied on key producers and growers to mobilize and take action. Then it relied on retail advocates to create the space for business — the space for capitalism, in a way — which then gave rise to the consumer movement. These are only certain consumers, I have to say, because they are classified by the middle and upper classes with rising disposable incomes; they have a bigger wallet, so we hear them a bit louder, unfortunately. These consumers will pay very high premiums ­— sometimes 30 to 40 percent more — for food labeled organic.

Organic, first and foremost, is a certification by — in our case in the U.S. — the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It’s a certification saying this good is organically produced. Then we take it a step further: organic is an idea. It’s an idea that has drawn from a lot of marketing; to use Jack Bobo's term, “disrupted communication.” This idea is not just about organic, but it’s about small, local producers, and it’s about healthy lifestyles; it’s emotion.

In an economic sense, organic is a premium that you can extend to the grower on one side and then charge it back to the consumer because the consumers are willing to pay for it. I think retailers will keep targeting these consumers because we see their behavior is different from a mainstream consumer. They are willing to pay 30 to 40 percent more for a good that is labeled organic — which is a certification that has a lot of cost behind it — and also labeled natural and sustainable. Natural and sustainable are labels that don’t have a regulation and don’t have a certification or even any kind of framework for definition.

We also know that these consumers who are buying organic are going to the grocery stores more often, maybe multiple times a week. When they do shop, they’re spending more money than a mainstream consumer. Retailers are going to continue to target these consumers because it’s good for business, and who can really blame them in some ways?

Luther: When we say the word “organic” and blend it with food, it really does tie into culture.

Rebecca: Absolutely.

Luther: It obviously ties into business and goes all the way back to the producer level. It’s a very complicated topic.

Rebecca: Very. I didn’t even get into the science behind it because we tend not to lead with science, as it complicates things. I think the one thing I want to say about science behind organic versus conventional farming and food is that it’s very complicated, and the messaging is very mixed and there’s no one clear answer.

Consumers who are buying organic are buying it on the basis that it’s healthier and it’s more nutritious. There are two ways to look at this: There are lower residues of pesticides on organic food, and that is a fact. However, in a place like the U.S., where the EPA has stronger regulations on the levels of pesticides allowed in our food — no matter organic or conventional — there’s no real evidence that it makes a difference in our diet. But, in countries where regulations on pesticides almost don’t exist, an organic option can be big for consumers in those developing worlds.

There’s also the nutrition side: The vitamins and minerals. For example, several studies have shown that strawberries have more vitamin C when grown organically, but a lot of studies have also shown otherwise.

I guess my point here is, it’s complicated, and there’s so much that we can step back and think about.

Luther: It sounds like when we use the word “organic,” we’re encapsulating a lot of different meanings from the consumer standpoint. Right?

Rebecca: Absolutely. Yes.

Luther: You said the word “organic” may mean antibiotic-free to one person and may mean locally grown to another.

Rebecca: Exactly. However, they’re not the same.

Luther: To someone else, it may mean it’s a traceable source.

Rebecca: Exactly. And that’s also not the same.

Luther: Visibility. Right?

Rebecca: Those are three separate ideas for one label. An organic label only actually certifies that the product wasn’t exposed to a list of substances during crop production and food-handling processes. That doesn’t mean that it was grown within 100 miles of you. For example, organic produce is delivered to the U.S. from Argentina every day. It’s still operating in the same system that conventional food is grown in.

Luther: Let’s talk about the global aspect just for a moment. In America, it seems like the availability of organic-labeled foods is increasing. They are more accessible.

Rebecca: Absolutely.

Luther: We’re starting to see them not just at Whole Foods — which we’ll talk about in a bit — but they’re also accessible in other, more mainstream chains.

Rebecca: Sure.

Luther: What about organic popularity globally? Is it growing? Is it also as important globally? Maybe more important than it is here?

Rebecca: The answer is yes. I always want to preface this with: The idea of organic and the organic movement often correlates with the development of a country and the development of a middle class with a rising disposable income.

As emerging markets enter the economy with a growing middle class, people have more choices in what they buy. As of 2017, 179 countries reported organic farming activity. I believe it is 87 or 89 countries that have a legal organic distinction available. As far as its prominence, remember that food culture is different around the world — producers and consumers look for different things.

In the U.S. and parts of northern and western Europe, the food culture is characterized as fretful. There’s a lot of anxiety around our food. Maybe we’re more apt to respond based only on anxiety and the need for nutrition and longevity than other parts of the world. In the Mediterranean and Latin American regions, food culture is characterized as social. There is still emotion around the idea of organic in these areas, but maybe it’s more centered around the social and local aspects.

In parts of Asia, it’s more about nature. We do see growth in organic markets coming from Asia as the middle class rises, and also in Latin America. We’re seeing, on average, that in the U.S., about 25 percent of consumers are purchasing organic at a premium. We’re seeing numbers in Latin America and Asia growing to 40 to 45 percent as affluence grows.

Luther: It sounds like the global market for organic is somewhat tied to the economy.

Rebecca: Economics. Absolutely. That’s the case in the U.S. as well. Organic is going to grow and will ebb and flow with the economy.

Luther: Is this a return to the past, so to speak? Before modernization, we were organic.

Rebecca: Absolutely.

Luther: We’ve modernized and brought in fertilizers and pesticides — understandably because we had to meet the rising demand. Now we’re looking at organic again. Is that a bit of a return to the past while applying today’s science?

Rebecca: I don’t think from a scientific standpoint that it’s a return to the past. I think with organics, there’s much more that we don’t know about the soil and ecosystem. We’re doing much more research into identifying different microorganisms in the ecosystem. I think from a scientific perspective, we are honoring some traditions, but I think science is going to move with organic.

I think it’s in organic’s best interest to let science move with it. It’s just a “back to basics” science, or looking at what’s inherent. From a consumer perspective, I think it’s an idea of going back to the past. It’s this idea of: This is what’s in my bones; this is what’s in my soul. Some of the first people to talk about nutrition were religious leaders. Our relationship with food is ingrained in us, even if we don’t think about it.

I think that idea and the ability to go back to basics is a luxury for some people. We should be adamant about saying that, because having food choices, in so many ways, is a luxury. I think that idea and ability to daydream about going back to basics and going back to the past is something that comes with more affluence.

Luther: The term has been coined “rising billions,” which addresses the growing populations and growing middle classes of China, India, Africa and other parts of Asia. With that growing population comes increasing strain on food production. With the rise of a middle class comes choice: Perhaps now I don’t want the same things that I used to have. With modern techniques, we’ve seen the ability to meet demand and increase yield. If we go to organic with modern science practices, are we still going to meet that demand and provide choices?

Rebecca: The easy answer to that is that we don’t know. The science is muddy. It’s very clear that conventionally farmed wheat, corn and soy have much higher yields than organically farmed wheat, corn and soy. There are other organic vegetables and fruits that may have better yields when farmed organically, but the science is so muddy. I don’t think we know. More importantly, if we are going to be farming organically, can we make food affordable?

Something I should have pointed out earlier is that organic agriculture only makes up 1.1 percent of total U.S. cropland. That means there’s a question of scalability in front of us. It’s a big question, and the science is not clear. If anything, the science overwhelmingly states that it’s impossible. Organic agriculture cannot displace conventionally grown food and the need for cheaper food.

Luther: You brought up price and the fact that 1.1 percent of farmland is currently designated for organic food. There’s still a lot of traditional food being produced. But Whole Foods came in and disrupted the marketplace. Can you give us a little insight into that?

Rebecca: Absolutely. When looking at the organic movement, Whole Foods was one of the first retail advocates, and it has been the most outspoken and transparent company within the movement. It’s grown steadily for over a decade, now reaching annual sales over $15 billion. Whole Foods set out to create the infrastructure and supply chain around organics, natural and local food.

Whole Foods opened the door for mainstream competition. We look at Costco, which reported just two years ago that it was the leader in sales of organic produce, selling over $4 billion in organic produce in 2015. It’s now working with its growers to purchase organic land for it because it simply cannot meet the demand of its consumers.

Kroger is selling $11 billion in natural and organic products — that’s 10 percent of its business — in just five years. It’s been able to reach 70 percent of Whole Foods’ capacity in just five years. We also look at Walmart, which has long been trying to enter the organics game and is on a mission to provide its customers — its mainstream customers — organic products priced 30 to 40 percent below comparable items.

Mainstream competition has really heightened. Whole Foods has made organic a mainstay within the industry. Organic is now 10 percent of Kroger and Costco business. That’s only going to grow because those margins are so much higher.

Luther: It’s great to see it has expanded and that the price point is coming down, potentially making organic food more accessible. Has the table turned a little bit for organic food at this point? Has it gone from being a niche part of the economy to a more accessible portion of the economy?

Rebecca: Absolutely. I believe so. When we talk about consumers who purchase organic, a lot of times we refer to numbers. For example, 80 percent of consumers are purchasing organic either a couple times a week, or every time they go. I think what we have are consumers — mainstream consumers who are searching for a lower price point — creeping up into this periphery category where they are looking at organic prices and making those purchases, but it’s not going to be their entire basket.

Luther: How important is age in determining whether I buy organic or I don’t buy organic?

Rebecca: Age is perhaps the factor that we’re able to study and that we’ve seen as a significant factor when looking at consumer insights. The popularity of organics, natural food and local food are more concentrated in younger generations, particularly with millennials and Generation Z — the generation of 20-year-olds and younger who are going off to college and making independent food choices for the first time. They are more likely to shop at specialty retailers that are more devoted to the natural, organic lifestyle.

Luther: What does the future hold for organic food?

Rebecca: We have to remember that organic is a label; it’s a certification. It means that the product was not grown with this list of substances. It’s not so much about what the future holds for organic food, but it’s about the next premium. What is that next action that production consumers and proactive consumers can take, either through organic or conventional growers? Is it a label or a third-party certification regarding their energy use; their water efficiency; their labor practices; how they treat biodiversity within their land? That’s really the next frontier. It’s not so much organics. Organics are pretty much here to stay. We have a consumer base that will pay that premium.

The question is: What are retailers going to be looking to capitalize on next? Maybe looking to conventional growers? What changes are conventional growers going to have to make to fulfill that demand? It’s less about the organic label and more about the next demand on agricultural production, whether it’s organic or conventional growers. We know that consumers, proactive retailers and producers are forcing change within the industry. What’s next is more about how producers are sustainable and how you can communicate that effectively to a consumer.

Luther: Last question: What is the favorite part of your job?

Rebecca: I think, without a doubt, the favorite part of my job is being able to be in the food industry and to have discussions about food.

We started off the podcast today talking about food culture, and that’s something that I absolutely feel: Food is not just about feeding myself. It’s about emoting and showing support, love and security for people all over the world. It’s about having an absolute passion for food and how it’s grown, being able to better understand that and then, hopefully, being able to communicate that to other people.

At our conference, Jack Bobo said that never have consumers cared more but known less about how their food was produced. Being able to understand that, meet the people who produce our food and who are responsible for meeting our needs is a real honor. It’s my absolute favorite part of my job.

Luther: Rebecca Noble, business development executive for Alltech Crop Science. Thank you for joining us.

Rebecca: Thank you so much.

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

What does the future hold for farming and the entire food supply chain?

Everything from automated farm implements and nonstop reams of data to consumers’ ability to trace their food to its source and create supply chain reversal, according to a panel of agribusiness experts.

Looking ahead into that near (and already here) future was the basis of a live video panel discussion entitled “Farming the Future.”

What’s changed about what it means to be a food consumer?

“I think we’re in the middle of a food movement,” said Mary Shelman, former director of Harvard Business School’s Agribusiness Program.

She cited the rise of “engaged eating” — taking the consumption of food beyond simply eating to making food choices that are considered nutritious, safe, culturally appropriate and produced in environmentally sustainable ways.

“A big piece of that is the millennial consumer,” she explained. “Technology is all around them. They get information in different ways. They have different values. They’re the biggest demographic group in the U.S., and they’re just at the stage of having families and moving up in their income potential, so they’re very attractive to the food industry.”

Shelman noted that the millennial generation, born between the early 1980s and 1990s, has a much greater understanding of the relationship between health and food.

“What they eat is part of their identity,” she said. “Food actually reflects who they are as a person, as well as their values.”

This presents what, in her view, may be the food industry’s biggest challenge.

“Not only do they want products that meet certain price and safety points, but they also want products that have a purpose,” she said.

Shelman noted that these “prosumers” have a strong belief in their purchasing power’s ability to affect the change they wish to see in the world. They “vote” with their dollars.

What’s changed about what it means to be a farmer?

Aidan Connolly, chief innovation officer at Alltech, recognized that the rate of change occurring in agriculture is outpacing comprehension of its scope and scale.

“I think that if anybody thinks that agriculture is going to be the same in 20 or 30 years, they’ve got their head in the sand,” he said.

Connolly, who has written about digital disruptions that are currently transforming agriculture, cited those technologies: “…robots and drones, blockchain, nutrigenomics, the internet of things, virtual reality and enhanced reality — these are technologies that can fundamentally change the ways in which we understand what happens when we grow plants or animals.”

Perhaps the most widely felt game-changer in agriculture has been the arrival of “big data.”

“You have a tool here that looks at millions and billions of observations, whether it’s productivity, food intake, the way we grow our crops, how much rain you get — all of this can be integrated into very precise models, and that’s going to be the big change in agriculture,” said Dr. Karl Dawson, chief scientific officer at Alltech. “We’re talking about moving to ‘armchair farming.’ We’re going to be making our decisions from a site, sitting in front of a computer, looking to see what we can predict in the future. That’s a tremendous tool that we’ve never had.”

What does this imply about the knowledge and skills required of the 21st-century farmer?

“I think we’re looking at a fundamental change in what that person is going to look like,” said Connolly. “They won’t necessarily grow up on a farm. They might grow up in a city. They won’t necessarily have the skills of understanding animals or plants. They will understand data, analytics, equipment and decision-making about all the various technologies and which investments should and should not be made. So, dramatically different skills from those used for the last thousands of years will determine who is and who is not a farmer.”

Key among those talents are analytical skills that are tied to data and information, according to Michael Boehlje, distinguished professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University.

“We are going to have to increasingly develop that skill and feel comfortable with looking at numbers, looking at information,” he said.

Boehlje emphasized that this doesn’t mean a farmer has to transform into a number cruncher but will need to understand the stories that the numbers tell.

“It’s not just the story they (data) tell in terms of average yields,” he explained. “It’s the distributions that count. It’s what happens when you are in parts of your field where you have low yields and where you’re getting high yields as well.

“The same is true with animals,” continued Boehlje. “We’re starting to see different animal performance even in the same pen. That’s a function of their genetics and a number of factors. We’re going to get more granular in the data. So, data assessment, data summarization, data visualization, strategic thinking, risk assessment — those increasingly are going to be the skills that we need to have.”

Attracting a new generation of talent to farming

Shelman agreed that new and emerging farm technologies will enable agriculture to be successful in meeting increasing demand, but attracting and retaining that new generation of farmers requires something more.

“Supply and demand economics don’t tend to move in lockstep,” she said. “For instance, in crop farming in the U.S. today, prices are relatively low compared to other times in the last five years. So, there’s a need to maintain an economic viability for farmers to survive — and, in particular, to attract new, younger farmers.”

Shelman pointed out that the average age of the American farmer today is reaching 60 years.

“We need new talent, and they will only come in if there are attractive returns in the sector,” she said.

This new generation is being attracted to farming for very different reasons than their predecessors.

“It’s about being able to understand the market,” said Shelman. “It’s, ‘How do I deliver this differentiated product that has extra value?’ So, it’s not just about producing at the lowest price, but producing what different segments of the market want and being able to sell into those channels.”

The result: supply chain reversal

The industry is seeing the rise of “demand-driven chains with consumers increasingly telling the entire chain ‘what we want, how we want it and how it ought to be done,’” according to Boehlje.

“So, a really important skill that is going to be much, much more important for farmers is going to be understanding and working in an interdependent system, rather than as an independent farmer, that is very focused on relationships, collaboration and interpersonal skills — things that many farmers have historically not liked to do,” he said. “But those are going to be skills that will be essential to being a successful farmer.”

So, how can farmers change the way they sell foods?

Consumers are moving beyond the traditional demand for cheap, accessible, safe food to shopping decisions that align with their values, according to Shelman.

“I think that provides some opportunities at the farm level,” she said. “First, to become much more market-oriented and know what the market is interested in buying rather than what you want to sell.”

Added Boehlje, “We’re increasingly seeing this entire food production and distribution industry move very dramatically from a commodity orientation and a supply chain mentality to a differentiated product orientation and a demand-driven system. And the technology to get that done is increasingly available.”

Shelman cited as examples the rise of brands such as Laura’s Lean Beef or Pete and Gerry’s eggs, items that come with specialty propositions.

“If you look at the Amazon Fresh website, you can buy hamburgers from a single cow,” she said.

She acknowledged that dealing with the market at such a level is not for everyone in farming, but it’s increasingly popular among consumers.

“There’s tremendous resistance in the system to making those kinds of changes because our system has been set up to move big quantities of relatively undifferentiated products,” said Shelman.

Dawson cautioned, however, that there remains a messaging gap in the commercialization chain that has failed to win the buy-in of the middleman.

“Alltech Angus was an example of a succulent meat product that received very good reviews, but, quite frankly, we never could make it go because there was a barrier between us and the consumer,” he explained.

Still, noted Connolly, technologies enabling transparency and traceability are ushering in a new era for the farm-consumer relationship.

“We are seeing very large changes in consumer behavior,” he said. “Apps on phones, websites, the ability to see through cameras what’s actually happening on the farm, to see through blockchain what has occurred in the way your food is processed — these are all tremendous opportunities for farmers to engage directly with consumers of their food, and I think, eventually, that makes for a more profitable farming system.”

Success in farming, said Boehlje, will depend on an ability to move away from the mentality “If I produce it, they will come.” That, increasingly, is not the industry of tomorrow.

As the winter months near, you may be in the midst of harvest. Perhaps you’ve already started thinking about how to increase your crop quality or increase your yield next year.

As you consider how to better your crops, there are a few things you can do now to prepare your soil for the winter and the eventual spring.

Setting your soil up for success

1. Broadcast or drill in a cover crop

Topsoil has been a big topic of discussion across the globe. Each year, erosion eliminates some of our fields’ topsoil, and it takes many years to try and rebuild it, if it can be done at all. One way to maintain the top soil in your fields is to keep it covered throughout the winter by broadcasting or drilling in a cover crop post-harvest.

2. Apply a soil amendment

One of the challenges of minimum tillage or no-till practices is the buildup of residue on the soil post-harvest and pre-plant. To help reduce this buildup of residue and use it to benefit your soil, try applying a soil amendment like Soil-Set®. By breaking down that buildup of residue, it will turn into organic matter for the soil, and planting may be a bit easier, too.

3. Get your soil tested

Many people only soil test their fields on a biannual or triannual basis, making it difficult to have a solid understanding of what is going on in their fields year after year. By getting your soil tested post-harvest, you can have a better idea of what you need to apply in the spring to get the most out of your soil and ultimately grow a better crop. Many agriculture retailers offer this as a service and can help with the planning of proper nutrient placement and timing once the results are back.

Want to learn more about getting your soil set for success? Click here to contact us.

There’s a coolness in the air, and leaves are starting to turn. The onset of fall weather means harvest season is upon us. During this time, farmers have much work to do in a short time. That sense of urgency can lead to accidents and damage that might otherwise have been prevented.

While we want you to accomplish your tasks efficiently, we’d like to ensure you do so safely. Therefore, we’ve compiled some recommended safety guidelines that should be useful reminders during your busy season.

Equipment and operator safety

Harvest inevitably means long hours spent behind the wheel of heavy machinery, and the safe completion of related tasks depends on both overall knowledge and attentiveness. It’s perfectly normal for us to take pride in our work, especially if that means putting in long hours in pursuit of a common goal. This is particularly evident in harvesting operations. Yet exhaustion and sickness regularly contribute to accidents in the field. It is important to recognize what your body is trying to tell you. If you aren’t feeling your best, consider turning the operation over to a trusted friend while you recover.

Keep in mind these safety tips:

• Take regular breaks to aid in divvying up the monotony of machinery operation.
• Turn off engines, remove keys and wait for all moving parts to stop before getting out of machinery.
• If you are going to eat in the field, climb down from the combine and relax for a little while.
• Dress with both comfort and safety in mind. Wear protective footwear and close-fitting clothes.
• Proper safety gear should be worn at all times around dangerous noise, dust or hazardous materials.
• Turn equipment off before making any repairs or adjustments.
• Do not remove safety shields, roll bars or guards. They are there to protect you.

Grain bin safety

Farm workers should all know the hazards of flowing grain and how to prevent a grain entrapment situation. When grain is being unloaded from the bottom of a bin, it flows downward from the top center, creating a funnel effect. If a person is on top of the grain in a bin being unloaded, they can be pulled into the flowing grain within a matter of seconds, likely rendering them helpless and potentially resulting in suffocation. Anybody who works with grain, in any capacity, must be aware of the dangers.

If you must enter a bin, it is vitally important to follow these safety precautions:

• Shut off and lock all unloading equipment before entering a bin.
• When possible, ladders should be installed inside grain bins as emergency exits.
• Avoid entering the bin when possible. A long pole can be used to break up crusted grain instead of having a worker enter the bin. Grain that has crusted can cover open spaces, which likely will not support the weight of a person.
• Wear a harness that is attached to a properly secured rope.
• Stay near the outer wall of the bin. If the grain starts to flow, move to the bin ladder or safety rope as quickly as possible.
• Never enter a bin alone. Have at least one person stand outside the bin, someone who can help you should you become entrapped. It is best to have two people available who are properly trained to follow all safety procedures for entering the bin.
• Wear a dust filter or filter respirator when working in a grain bin, especially while cleaning.
• Do not allow children to play in or around grain bins, wagons or truck beds.

Farm equipment road safety

If you need to drive your equipment on any roadways, you should consider the following safety tips:

• Increase visibility by using the equipment’s lights and flashers, especially during inclement weather or when light is low (early mornings and evenings).
• Avoid busy roads whenever possible.
• If there is a line of cars behind you and a suitable shoulder is available, pull over and allow traffic to pass before proceeding.

It is our hope that, by following these and other appropriate farm safety guidelines, you will have a productive and safe harvest not only this year, but for many years to come.

You may be wondering, “When is the right time to begin building healthy soil?” While this answer may surprise you, the right time is always now. Whether you are choosing the seeds for your next crop or have just finished harvesting your fields, planning your sustainable soil management strategies should always be top of mind. 

Through seasons of use, soils can become depleted of nutrients and organic matter. If left unattended, this will lead to a decrease in yields for the grower. Additionally, soil depletion is not a phenomenon that is limited to the farmer; the home grower and gardener can face the same issues in their own front or backyards. 

Proactive growers work for their soil to ensure that it works for them.

Healthy soil — which is soil that has a high organic matter content, a balanced structure and high nutrient availability — provides an excellent basis for plants. It can decrease the amount of inputs that a grower needs to use, since many of the nutritional requirements of the crops will already be supplied through the soil. This increased nutrient availability can also help plants to develop stronger roots and become naturally more resistant to environmental stressors. 

The four tips included below will help increase your soil health in a sustainable way and will lead to noticeable improvements for years to come. 

Increase soil organic matter

Between all the animals (like worms and insects) and the millions of microbes that make their homes in the ground, healthy soil is teeming with life. Each of these creatures plays a role in nutrient cycling, which is the process of breaking down crop residue, such as corn stubble, and degrading it into organic matter in the soil. Once the breakdown process is complete, the nutrients then become available for use by the plants. When plants use the nutrients that are available in the soil, growers can begin using more specific additives and fertilizers instead of deploying widespread “just in case” spraying. 

Minimize tillage

Tilling can damage the soil environment and should only be used to improve problem areas, including where the soil is compacted or where drainage issues are heavily impacting the fields. Tilling can also increase the number of weeds in a field by bringing them to the surface, where they can germinate and grow. These weeds will compete with the intended crop for nutrients and take over precious field space, potentially decreasing crop yields.

Keep the surface of the soil covered

Using cover crops has become increasingly popular, and for good reason. Not only do cover crops offer another opportunity for growers to improve their soil makeup, since their use increases the availability of nutrients like nitrogen in the soil, but they also significantly reduce the likelihood of soil erosion. When fields are kept uncovered after harvest and during the winter, they become susceptible to erosion from wind and rain, which leaves the grower a step behind in building a healthy foundation for springtime crops.

Rotate crops

The type and amount of nutrients used by different crops will vary depending on which crop is being grown. Different crops also will increase the availability of different nutrients, which can be used by the crops that follow. Crop rotation also plays a part in preventing soil erosion. Not only does the field remain covered, but as each crop’s roots grow to varying lengths, they will hold onto the soil at different depths throughout the seasons, maintaining stability against heavier rains and winds.

While these steps are great ways to improve your soil and ensure that it will continue to be the hardworking first step toward producing a healthy plant and a profitable yield, their results can be maximized when combined with other management tools. Soil testing throughout your fields, for instance, will help you pinpoint areas of concern. Field scouting during the growing season will help the grower catch any areas where there might be a nutrient deficiency or disease pressure before the problem becomes widespread and requires more intervention. By combining all the tools at their disposal, growers can give crops the best possible foundation for seasons to come in a proactive and sustainable way.

Want to learn more? Sign up for Top Crop, our newsletter full of information on sustainable management practices, grower stories from around the world and news from Alltech Crop Science.