“You are what you eat” might strike you with a bit of fear or guilt depending on what it is that you are munching at the moment. While the origins of this phrase are probably as old as mankind, fundamental research now supports the importance of eating the right things, at the right time, both in humans and animals. 

Our genes are the blueprint that defines who we are. How genes express themselves in the presence of nutrition, to produce proteins, is called “gene expression.” The science that defines how we understand this interplay between what we eat and how our genes function is called “nutrigenomics.”

A small chip, representing all the genes in the tissue of the individual being examined, allows scientists to predict precisely what effects to expect from dietary changes by showing which genes are activated and deactivated (in other words, turned “on” or “off”).

Just over ten years ago, Alltech opened a first-of-its-kind facility dedicated to the study of animal nutrition’s impact on gene expression. This study of nutrigenomics has allowed scientists to determine what outcomes to expect from feeding specific foods, feeds and dietary supplements to animals without waiting the months or even years that are typical in traditional farm trials. Additionally, nutrigenomics is minimally invasive research, requiring little from animals, such as minor bloodwork tests.

Over the 10 years since the Alltech Center for Animal Nutrigenomics and Applied Animal Nutrition opened, nutrigenomics has been used to:

• Understand how specific foods and diet structures change gene expression.
• Quickly screen and identify new nutrients with similar benefits to existing elements of the modern livestock diet.
• Predict responses to novel nutrients or foods.

10 Nutrigenomics Breakthroughs

1. Truly Amaize-ing

Although considered “amazing” by some farmers who use it, Amaize® from Alltech was a product with an elusive mode of action.

Cattle and other ruminants rely upon their first stomach (the rumen) to break down fiber. Enzymes such as Amaize should help with this digestion process. Using traditional techniques, researchers demonstrated that adding Amaize resulted in carcass weight gain for beef and greater milk production in dairy.

Examining tissue samples using gene expression, however, added much more to the story. The enzyme’s impact on the animal’s metabolic system showed that Amaize optimizes animal growth.

Several key changes were noted in particular. Genes relating to the expression of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), insulin receptors and the growth hormone were affected positively. These genes all have a direct correlation to increasing metabolic activity and therefore body growth.

Nutrigenomics allowed scientists to precisely understand the true function of Amaize, making it possible to issue specific recommendations to farmers of how and how much to incorporate into their cattle’s diets to maximize production and profitability (primary scientist: Dr. Ronan Power, Alltech). 

2. EconomasE: An economical alternative to vitamin E

In essence, EconomasE is an antioxidant supplement, demonstrating similar biological functions to vitamin E, but more economically.

Vitamin E is known throughout the world for its powerful antioxidant properties. Antioxidants inhibit the oxidation of other molecules, which can produce free radicals. Free radicals, unpaired loose electrons, cause damage to cells in the body. Generally, therefore, a person who consumes antioxidants will be healthier and in better shape to fight off illness, which is why doctors advise eating antioxidant-rich foods like leafy greens, nuts and certain berries.

Humans aren’t the only ones to benefit from antioxidants; all animals do, and this is why vitamin E is routinely included in the diets of all production animals. Vitamin E, however, is very expensive, and producers often seek ways to minimize its inclusion in their feed. The caveat is that reduction of vitamin E can increase the likelihood of requirement for antibiotics.

Using nutrigenomics, researchers were able to identify vitamin E’s mode of action and then set about identifying other compounds or combinations with similar effects. EconomasE proved capable of replicating the gene expression changes seen with vitamin E, and this was confirmed in 46 subsequent trials with poultry, swine and cattle. EconomasE maintained meat quality and the beneficial, protective antioxidative effects of vitamin E without the high price tag (primary scientist: Dr. Karl Dawson, Alltech).

3. Using zinc to facilitate development

Zinc is a trace mineral required by all animals to grow and develop properly. It supports immune function, allowing the animal to overcome immune challenges. In animals, through optimizing the immune response, it reduces risks associated with a severe infection known as necrotic enteritis (NE), which costs the poultry industry alone an estimated $5 to $6 billion globally and has mortality rates of up to 1 percent per day.

Necrotic enteritis is caused by the pathogenic bacteria family of Clostridium perfringens, resulting in lesions of the intestine that inhibit the absorption of nutrients, further weakening the sick animal and sometimes leading to death. In the last few years, scientists have been searching for ways to reduce the effects of necrotic enteritis in production animals such as poultry, pigs and cattle.

Nutrigenomics also confirmed that the form of zinc used is important. Forms such as zinc oxide and zinc sulphate that are typically used in animal diets, and in human supplements, are less effective than those connected to mixed peptides, which impact how the zinc is absorbed. Treating the animal in a holistic manner, supplying it with nutrients in the optimal form, enables that animal to be far better prepared to fight off potential infection, resulting in less antibiotic use and better efficiency of food digestion, both of which will save poultry producers (and consumers) billions of dollars annually (primary scientist: Dr. Daniel Graugnard, Alltech).

4. Mitigating myopathies in meat

As recently as five years ago, a condition known as “woody breast” wasn’t even on chicken producers’ list of concerns. Now, it is credited with losses conservatively estimated at $200 million dollars in the U.S. and affects chicken producers in Brazil, Spain and Italy, amongst others. An affliction of the chicken breast, it results in tough, chewy and otherwise inedible meat.

While genetics certainly play a factor, woody breast is generally considered to be directly correlated to how fast producers grow their chickens. Consider that in 1930, the average chicken was slaughtered at 2.5 pounds (1.1 kilograms) and took 50 days to gain each pound of weight. Less than 100 years later, we grow chicken to 6 to 8 pounds live weight, and they can put on a pound every eight days!

At a scientific level, fast-growing chickens are being affected by hypoxia (low blood), increased oxidative stress, inflammation and an increase in fibrofatty tissue.  From a consumer perspective, this results in chewy chicken and a generally unpleasant eating experience. However, understanding gene expression changes through nutrigenomics has enabled the development of a feed program that decreases the oxidative effects within the bird, resulting in normal tasting breast fillets for consumers (primary scientist: Dr. Rebecca Delles, Alltech).

5. Actigen: A stronger next generation of a proven success

For many years, Bio-Mos® has been a star ingredient in animal feed. It supported animal performance naturally by reinforcing the function of the digestion system and enhancing feed efficiency.   

The challenge was that the nature of natural is variation: color, odor and particle size relating to the natural process of production. Producers wanted the benefits of Bio-Mos, but they wanted it to be more concentrated, make it more economical and make it traceable.  

Nutrigenomic research quickly confirmed Actigen®’s similarities to Bio-Mos but also showed it to be 2.5 to five times more powerful.

Subsequent animal feeding trials later proved Actigen’s ability to help animals achieve their genetic potential. However, nutrigenomics confirmed its biological value much earlier, in a matter of weeks rather than months or years (primary scientist: Dr. Colm Moran, Alltech).

6. You are what your mother ate: The science of epigenetics

Epigenetics, or how an environment impacts the expression of inherited genes, is the next science that we expect will revolutionize the way we think of nutrition. In this case, what the parents ate, and what the parents of their parents ate, affects gene expression. And, it goes beyond nutrition. Studies have shown that overeating, undereating, exercise and smoking all have potential benefits or deleterious effects on future generations.

Pregnant sows at the world’s largest pig farm were fed Actigen during the last trimester and demonstrated epigenetic benefits. Tissue samples from their offspring exhibited gene expression changes suggesting stronger immune systems and enhanced nutrient uptake. So, as epigenetics suggests, feeding the mothers Actigen resulted in pigs that were much better off than those whose mothers did not receive it.

Healthier piglets will grow better, be more efficient, have stronger immune systems and less likelihood of disease infections/need for antibiotics (primary scientist: Dr. Kristen Brennan, Alltech).

7. Programmed nutrition: Conditioning gene expression

Within the lifetime of a person or animal, genes can be conditioned. In other words, we can design specific feeding regimes that prime the genes so that when a second diet is introduced, those genes express in ways that are more beneficial for the animal. This can be especially of benefit in the cattle industry, where cattle are bred and born in one location and often exchange hands three or four times.

Programmed nutrition shows that when newborn animals are fed supplements at specific levels and specific times, their bodies can better learn to utilize and retain these nutrients. As the animal grows, they become more efficient and require fewer nutrients than animals receiving excess supplements.

One example is EPNIX®. Part of a feeding program designed for genetic conditioning, the timing of feeding EPNIX to cattle is critical. It is a two-part process: the first part conditions the animal’s body to utilize nutrients better and the second part involves feeding the optimal nutrients.

EPNIX is a natural feed program that can positively improve cattle performance, meat quality and even reduce the environmental impact of beef farming (primary scientist: Dr. Vaughn Holder, Alltech).

Check out this podcast by Alltech research scientist Dr. Vaughn Holder to learn more about EPNIX.

8. In ovo feeding: Feed the egg before the chicken

Typically, the time from when an egg is laid to when it hatches is 21 days, almost the same amount of time it takes the chicken to grow. So it’s not surprising that poultry producers are increasingly wondering what nutrition a chick receives inside the egg.

Using nutrigenomics, scientists can look at what happens when different nutrients are introduced into the eggs. When used correctly, in ovo (Latin for “inside the egg”) feeding methods can be a powerful way to improve the development and health of the animal.

Careful egg injections of tiny doses of water-soluble sugar called MR8, from a probiotic yeast, resulted in baby chicks with stronger immune systems at birth and more efficient digestive systems. Not only that, but their hatchability increased, with more chicks born and improved survivability in the first week. Additionally, nutrigenomics showed a more developed digestive system physiologically and structurally, giving the bird a strong head start when compared to chicks that didn’t get the sugar from the probiotic yeast.

Today, implementing in ovo feeding requires special machines for use in hatcheries incubating thousands of eggs. However, the technology is quickly emerging to make in ovo feeding a strong part of poultry nutrition’s future (primary scientist: Dr. Rijin Xiao, Alltech).

 9. Serving salmon sans sea lice

Fish have never been more popular with consumers. As such, fish farming, or aquaculture, has become very important. In fact, more fish now come from farms than are caught in the sea. Yet, aquaculture presents its own challenges, including managing diseases and parasites. Sea lice alone cost the aquaculture industry an estimated $1 billion dollars a year. The threat of sea lice to salmon is not new, and salmon have developed their own protection by the secretion of a mucous layer encompassing its scales. This works, but when the sea lice are big enough, they can harm the fish and sometimes even kill it.

Until now, no annotated gene chip for salmon existed. The only fish species available was zebrafish, which is more likely to be found in your child’s aquarium! Now, a new salmon gene chip allows researchers to test all kinds of nutritional changes from a nutrigenomics perspective, and already evidence has been generated showing how to reduce the threat of sea lice to salmon.

Scientists have learned how to harness the natural immune system of the fish. Dr. Keith Filer and the research team at Alltech have discovered how to help fish produce more of the mucous-producing cells, making them slimier and thus more difficult for the sea lice to attach. For more on sea lice and the salmon industry, check out “For salmon’s sake: Seeking solutions to sea lice” (primary scientist: Dr. Keith Filer, Alltech).

10. Retooling our approach to Alzheimer’s

From humankind’s perspective, the most important work at Alltech’s nutrigenomics facility is with a selenium compound called AT-001. Nutrigenomic studies have indicated this specific selenium has the ability to change biochemical pathways associated with many serious diseases such as Alzheimer’s or other neurodegenerative diseases.

In collaboration with the late Dr. William Markesbery, the former director at the University of Kentucky’s Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, Alltech began testing AT-001, using a well-established mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) to evaluate its effects on neurodegeneration.

AT-001 reduced the incidence of clumps of misfolded proteins, known as amyloid plaques, often associated with Alzheimer’s, by 45–50 percent in the brains of these AD mice. Furthermore, the overall destruction caused by oxidative damage in the brain tissue of these same animals was reduced. For example, oxidative damage to both DNA and RNA was reduced by 35 percent and 60 percent, respectively.

Now tested in other animal species and other tissues, AT-001 has been found to significantly increase mitochondrial activity. Mitochondria are the organelles responsible for producing energy in cells and are thus essential for life. It is well documented in scientific literature that even small decreases in mitochondrial activity are linked to the occurrence of at least 50 different illnesses.

These initial results have opened an entirely new field of research, evaluating the physiological impact of more than 100 individual sub-components of AT-001. Three small selenium compounds have displayed remarkable activity in cell culture and animal models with type 2 diabetes. In addition, the compound in AT-001 that is responsible for the reduction in amyloid plaques has been identified and characterized. AT-001 is currently in Phase II human clinical trials in a population of elderly subjects who are at risk of developing AD (primary scientist: Dr. ZJ Lan, Alltech).

The past 10 years have seen incredible scientific and technological advancements in our understanding of nutrigenomics. We believe these breakthroughs are only the beginning as technology and data analytics continue to advance. For humans, animals, and livestock and food producers, the future looks optimistic.

By Walter Moncayo

In aquaculture, pathological challenges become a learning opportunity for production technicians, helping us to better understand our role and realize that we are mere mediators between science and nature. An aquaculture pond is a diverse habitat populated by countless species that interact with each other to achieve a unique balance, known as symbiosis.

A holistic approach to maintaining aquatic symbiosis

The existing variables in aquaculture are diverse and interrelated. Pathological events are an imbalance of the aquaculture universe; therefore, any techniques and methodologies that incorporate key elements (e.g., water quality, soil, nutrition, biosecurity) must be positive and sustainable over time. Treating these variables separately will not generate permanent results. The aim should be to seek alternative options, such as integrating them into a more holistic concept.

A great example is technology that combines prebiotic concepts with probiotics, which work together to create a symbiotic environment. Eventually, this alternative approach stimulates beneficial microorganisms (e.g., phytoplankton, zooplankton, bacteria, yeast), which stabilize aquaculture ponds and lower the risk of disease.

Becoming part of the symbiosis

Through management programs focused on health, biosecurity, nutrition and immune support, we have integrated ourselves into this symbiosis, effectively becoming the missing link in aquaculture.

For example, in Ecuador, we have been working with industry partners to develop a symbiotic environment for shrimp through the production of bokashi. Bokashi consists of soy cake, a source of soluble and insoluble fibers. Its protein is also considered a functional food source. Soy nutrients are released when combined with enzymes such as Allzyme® SSF and Allzyme® Vegpro, in addition to Lacto-Sacc®, which provides high-performance probiotics.

An interesting fact is that the probiotics in Lacto-Sacc, such as Latobacillus acidophilus and Enterococcus faecium, contribute metabolites (natural organic acids), which acidify the digestive tract. Additionally, enriching bokashi with Bio-Mos® and organic trace minerals like Sel-Plex® and Bioplex® may result in optimal farming conditions and significant cost savings.

Have a question or comment?

The following is an edited transcript of Tom Martin’s interview with Dr. Karl Dawson, vice president and chief scientific officer at Alltech.

Tom:                            Dr. Karl Dawson is the vice president and chief scientific officer at Alltech and directs activities at the company’s bioscience centers around the world, including Alltech’s Center for Animal Nutrigenomics and Applied Animal Nutrition, where he is the co-director. We thank you for joining us.

Karl:                             Thank you.

Tom:                            The gene editing technology CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) allows researchers to quickly change the DNA of nearly any organism, including humans. Would it be fair to say that the implications are pretty enormous?

Karl:                             Yes. CRISPR is going to change the way we think about breeding processes, the way we think about changing the genetics of livestock, plants. Even microorganisms will be changed using this type of technology. In terms of the way it will move forward, it has ramifications for just about anything we think about in terms of the overall breeding process and the way we think about using genetics and the genetic material that’s in an animal, plant or other organism.

Tom:                            How does this differ from gene modification?

Karl:                             CRISPR could be considered a form of gene modification. It is different in that it is a very precise tool where we can go in and pick out very specific sites on this long DNA molecule and we can put things in or take things out of it. It is a form of editing or changing a gene structure. And it can be used to not only delete specific genes or pieces of DNA, it can also be used to add in pieces of DNA. So, we can make genetic modifications that way. The difference is that we don’t necessarily have to use a transgenic approach, which means we’re not taking material from other organisms and putting it into a new organism. We’re not changing or bringing two types of DNA together, if you’d like.

Tom:                            So, what are the implications for agriculture, for food?

Karl:                             For food, it is a very fast way of changing and, very specifically, changing specific genetic pieces or genetic information. If you take, for example, some of the things that are being done, one of the examples we look at is the polled cattle. Calves are very oftentimes dehorned when they’re young. Dairy cattle are dehorned. That is a process that is rather uncomfortable for the animal, and it’s something that is very difficult to do, but it is very important because it changes the safety of handling that livestock. There has been a CRISPR approach used to change that in livestock. With traditional breeding, you can cross a hornless animal — a polled animal — with a dairy cow and produce a hornless animal. But when you do that, the productivity of that dairy animal changes considerably because lots of other things change when you do that genetic cross.

                                    The idea of CRISPR is that we could actually go in and take the very specific gene that’s associated with that horn formation and eliminate that gene, or poll that gene. And when we do that, we are doing it almost immediately. The difference is, if I bred that animal or did that through traditional crossbreeding, it would probably take 25 years to produce a high-producing dairy cow with that polled characteristic. In this case, we can do it within calves immediately. No time changed. The next generation of animals will have that specific gene.

Tom:                            Wow. Pretty exciting, isn’t it?

Karl:                             That’s powerful stuff.

Tom:                            How does this technology impact the whole GMO debate?

Karl:                             It’s going to change the GMO debate a little bit. There’s still a lot of controversy in this area. Typically, if you look at CRISPR technology, there are a number of other of these. There’s one called TALEN (transcription activator-like effector nucleases) that’s out there and zinc-finger modifications or nucleases that do the same thing. But when you do this, you can go very specifically to a site in the DNA and make your changes. You’re not introducing any new DNA, so it is no longer a combination of DNA from two animals or transgenic. It is, in fact, just maintaining one type of DNA. As a result, it’s not necessarily a traceable activity. So, theoretically, you could actually do a CRISPR transformation of a particular gene and you would not know that it was any different than a natural mutation process. The only thing is that you directed that very specifically to a very specific gene and a very specific chromosome in that animal.

Tom:                            Getting genetically modified crops approved for use is complex and expensive, and most of the crops that have been modified are large commodity crops: corn, soybeans. Could the ease and low cost make genome editing a viable option for smaller specialty crops as well as animals?

Karl:                             I think it could. There’s going to still be an economic barrier there, I’m sure, whether you could do it economically, but it is a very rapid way. This type of technology is not that complex. In one presentation I heard the other day about this, they were talking about this being something some people could do in their basements one day. So, it’s not that complex to take over. So, yes, it may in the long run be a technique that is used to do that very rapidly in smaller crops, different organisms, even fungi and things like that that we use for food manufacturing.

Tom:                            The implications of the science are pretty profound. Even possibly a little scary. What about worries that the field’s breakneck pace is leaving little time to talk about ethical and safety concerns?

Karl:                             Just about every time you talk about CRISPR, that type of information comes up or that kind of discussion comes up. I guess it is a little bit scary if you think about some of the potentials of these things. One of the areas that we’ll talk a little bit about tomorrow in our gene editing presentation relative to mosquito control is that we have gene editing capability right now that will develop what’s called a “gene drive.” A gene drive will actually make it so a specific gene is always transmitted to the offspring. So, if you think about the possibilities there of transmitting a lethal gene to a mosquito, it’s possible to actually cause the extinction of that species. That is not a long time off, either. You could actually do that very easily and change the ecology of the system completely. It’s nice that we want to get rid of mosquitos and we don’t have to swat them anymore, but the activity here says, yes, you could do that, but what happens to the rest of the ecology if that happens?

Tom:                            Let’s take this opportunity to turn to your work on the Zika virus, if we could. If you can bring us up to date where you are.

Karl:                             This is more of an insect-control concept that we’re working on right now. Quite frankly, the Zika virus in our case is used as an example of what might be done in insect control. Our goal is really to look more at some of the other insects — for example, fly problems in the livestock industry. They face flies, and horn flies, and things like that. But the Zika virus gives us an opportunity to see what can happen with the mosquito population. It is probably more developed in terms of population control than any other insect population. Zika has allowed us to put a lot of emphasis on that today. So, there are a number of techniques that are being used to control mosquitos using both molecular tools such as gene editing as well as particular bacterial control systems that will help eliminate the carrier or vectors for these diseases.

Tom:                            And does that steer us away from chemicals?

Karl:                             Absolutely. One of our big limitations is the development of resistance to pesticides. There are mosquitos today that are extremely resistant. It takes five, 10, 15 times more insecticide to kill the same mosquito that was killed 20 to 30 years ago. So, it is changing very dramatically. The idea here would be to move away to more natural control mechanisms or more sophisticated and more efficient control mechanisms.

Tom:                            What ag-tech trends are you watching these days? Which ones really excite you?

Karl:                             One of the areas we talked about today was programmed nutrition and the idea of programming animals to get very specific responses, whether it’s an immune response or growth efficiency or better reproduction. One of the tools we have today is the use of appropriate nutrients at very specific times of an animal’s life. “Programming” young animals to be resistant to disease or “programming” animals to use a lot less minerals in their diets. Those are things that are very exciting because they’re changing the paradigm of what we used to think was common nutrition.

                                    We no longer just think about the diet composition or the nutrient composition of a diet. We start thinking about, “Well, how do we strategically use that nutrient component to change what the animal is doing throughout its life?” Those same concepts are being used to improve meat quality and product quality from livestock or even plant quality. We can use that nutritional approach to do those types of things. So, I think that’s one of the most exciting things that we’ve worked on recently.

                                    Technology is moving so fast in the agricultural field today. I’ve been at a loss to say I know what are going to be the best trends, but those things that have to do with nutrition are going to be very important to us in the future. I think gene editing, in some form or another, is going to be a very important area for us to think about in the future. It’s not going to be in the traditional ways we think about it. But if you think about the barriers, for example, right now, there is no genetically modified livestock that are being used in food production today; part of that is the fear of what recombinant DNA really looks like, but some of it is the lack of understanding of what some of those molecular changes are. There are cattle that have been developed in China recently. They’re totally resistant to tuberculosis. That was the result of a gene editing. The PRRS (Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome) virus in pigs, we have genetically modified animals or used a CRISPR-type gene editing technology to make pigs resistant to the PRRS virus. So, those things are happening. Whether those will be accepted or not, that’s outside of my area of expertise, but the technology is there, and it’s going to change. So, we have to get ready for that type of technology.

Tom:                            I have to believe you must spend a lot of your time being fascinated.

Karl:                             Yes. There’s lots to do. Yes.

Tom:                            What’s the most interesting part of your work?

Karl:                             I’ve been doing this for quite a few years now, and I think the neatest thing that I have to do is — not the science space — but it’s the ability of the younger people we’re producing in science today to come up with innovative ideas. I was involved with the Alltech Young Scientist program here. The brilliance of these young minds, it just always blows me away, and it’s something I like to be involved with. Maybe it’s not a real basic science, but it’s that educational process that leads to innovation that I get excited about.

Tom:                            Dr. Karl Dawson, vice president and chief scientific officer at Alltech. We thank you so much.

Karl:                             Thank you.

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

The following is an edited transcript of Tom Martin’s interview with Dr. Jud Chalkley, a practicing physician with St. Joseph Hospital KentuckyOne Health in Lexington, Kentucky.

Tom:                            To suggest that there is disruption in the healthcare market is an understatement these days. Joining us is Dr. Jud Chalkley, a practicing physician with St. Joseph Hospital KentuckyOne Health in Lexington, Kentucky. We thank you so much for joining us.

Jud:                              Thank you for having me.

Tom:                            Dr. Chalkley, you talk about disruption in the medical hierarchy. What do you mean by that?

Jud:                              I think as we look around and see what’s going on in the healthcare industry in the United States, we see a big chaotic mess.

Last year, we spent $3.2 trillion on healthcare in the United States. About 10 percent of it went to primary care, which is the area that I’m going to be talking about at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference. I think we all saw the animosity, the lack of understanding, the infighting and the politics of the Obamacare legislation. And now, we see it again in the Trump legislation. So, I’m not picking on either political party in this discussion, but looking at alternative ways to provide care in a much more dignified way for the patient.

In Mexico at SuKarne — a beef manufacturer — I learned of a healthcare network called Salud Digna, which is Spanish for “healthcare with dignity.” I think we need to restore that in American healthcare. I also think we need to restore the idea of the doctor-patient relationship where your doctor is your friend and your confidante — not just somebody who’s filling out forms, typing away on his iPad and spending an inordinate amount of time in electronic medicine rather than real medicine while taking care of a patient.

There was a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) from December of 2015 where they followed the interns at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. They discovered that, as they followed them through their entire week, they spent 1 percent of their time eating and going to the restroom. They spent 7 percent of their time actually in contact with a patient and 43 percent of their time with the computer.

Tom:                            Let’s talk about Salud Digna. What about Salud Digna do you consider to be a model for healthcare?

Jud:                              The gentleman who owns SuKarne had a son who was very, very sick. He tried to get his son scheduled for diagnostic testing, and the wait was five months. Fortunately, he had the money necessary to bypass the system, but he thought, “Wait a minute. What’s everybody else going to do? Could I help them?” So, as a philanthropic effort, he started this healthcare delivery system. Fourteen years ago, when his son got sick, there were no resources. This program benefited 6.5 million patients in 2016.

He started by focusing on the things he could impact. He focused on imaging, radiology, laboratory and eyeglasses. He provides eyeglasses for $20, and the bifocals, like I have, would cost $30. I visited their glasses factory, and it would be considered state-of-the-art even for Sydney, Australia, or New York City or Los Angeles. Their laboratory has polymerase chain reaction (PCR) machines so that they can do the most recent state-of-the-art testing for a laboratory in microbiology. And their imaging is second to none. They have the same imaging that we have. In fact, they even have some nicer facilities in mammography. They have complete suites with mood music and visualization areas for the women because this can be a very painful procedure for women. A mammogram is $15. A chest x-ray is $15. An EKG is $10. The most expensive test they have is a CT (or CAT) scan, which is $140. It’s performed with a spiral scanner, which is state-of-the-art anywhere in the world.

Tom:                            I was at a recent conference of medical professionals in Washington, D.C., and the buzz was about how we get the costs of healthcare down in this country. And the numbers you’ve just been citing to me are pretty remarkable. How do they do that?

Jud:                              In SuKarne’s case, it is revenue-neutral now, and that was the goal. The owner of SuKarne partnered with General Electric, Fuji and several other major corporations to get the initial hardware and, subsequently, some of the software. Then, they found price points that allowed them to still pay their employees, provide reasonable salaries for radiologists, obstetricians — for the people who were involved in the system, so that they could keep them in the system without overcharging the patient. There was no profit incentive in the SuKarne model. They got their cost down to about a tenth of what we would pay for the same things here in the United States.

I reviewed another healthcare model that exemplified “salud digna.” Its mantra is the English translation of salud digna, “healthcare with dignity.” It’s called Atlas Medical and was started by Dr. Josh Umbehr in Wichita, Kansas.  It’s a direct-care model, and, basically, you pay him $50 a month for your primary care. If you need an EKG, stitches, a routine physical, if you develop a cough or sore throat — whatever — you just go in and see him. The normal overhead for a physician in the United States is about 50–60 percent. His overhead is 30 percent. Most of his overhead is the cost of medicine because he’s taken the pharmaceutical industry out of the equation — you get your medicine directly from him. A treatment round of penicillin is about $3. A treatment course of antibiotics is $10 or less. They dispense the medication right there during your appointment.

Let’s say you have a sore throat: You call the doctor and get an appointment. Then you get to the doctor and see the receptionist to fill out all the forms. Somebody looks at your throat, maybe not even the doctor, maybe it’s the physician assistant — which is fine because physician extenders are an integral part of medicine at this time. You may get the strep screen. You get a prescription for the antibiotic, if that’s appropriate, and then you take it to the pharmacy and get it filled. You spend a good deal of time in the process, and it’s much more difficult as you get older or if you’re caring for aging parents. Or, let’s say your parents are entering a nursing home. It’s a very difficult undertaking.

With Dr. Umbehr’s model, you call him up. You text him a picture of your throat. He says, “Run by the office and get a strep screen, and if it’s positive, we’ll put you on antibiotics.” You get the antibiotics at the office for less than a couple of dollars. I think the strep screen in his office is $1.43. The appropriate antibiotics are about $4. So, for less than $5, you’ve walked away with appropriate treatment and a good level of care.

The other convenience is that you can call him anytime, 24/7. The maximum number of patients that each primary care doctor has in Atlas Medical is 600, as opposed to 3,000 patients that the primary care physician normally has. They guarantee that you can have up to 30 minutes of their time at any 24-hour period during the day. So, it just makes your doctor accessible. You know exactly what the costs are. You pay $50 a month. Just multiply that times 12 to get whatever it is. Thirty percent of that is overhead. The rest of it is profit. And that profit is paying for his salary, which is about $200,000 a year — more than the average family practice doctor makes, which in that part of the country is about $150,000 a year.

So, everything is very transparent. It’s very open and patient-centered.

There are some other advantages to this, too: Let’s say you’re too sick to go to the doctor, so he comes to you and makes a house call. Well, what about things like stroke or heart attack and you have to go to the hospital? Or your wife is pregnant, or you’re pregnant? What do you do in those situations? Well, you buy insurance on top of this, but you buy it for catastrophic or more substantive, more serious medical problems. So, if you’re pregnant, you go to the obstetrician and the obstetrician manages your pregnancy and delivery, and then Dr. Umbehr takes over your care again at that time.

                                   The way the Kansas system is set up, it costs you about a total of $200 a month per capita for health insurance. So, $150 of that is going to the insurance company and $50 of it is going to Dr. Umbehr. The average per capita around the country is over $600. So you see, there’s a $400 savings per person right there in primary care, which is about 10 percent of the overall medical expense in the United States.

Tom:                            Okay. Absorbing all this and thinking about our present national system, if this is ideal, why isn’t this what we’re doing?

Jud:                              I don’t know. It sounds too good to be true, but it is for real and it works. It’s working very well in Wichita, Kansas. In fact, it’s working so well that some specialty care centers in the Wichita area are adopting a similar direct upfront payment system so that there’s no insurance company, there’s no third party to reject going to the doctor or reject this or reject that. You just go to the doctor and get most problems taken care of and then referred on, if need be, from there. There are some dermatological, orthopedic and cardiology practices that are doing a similar thing as Dr. Umbehr in Wichita. They’ve also negotiated rates down so that they can provide specialty care when needed at a reduced cost.

Another interesting thing is they’re being creative. They’re people on the ground trying to figure it out. They’re not beholden to some huge bureaucracy telling them what to do. For example, when they were figuring out how to handle chest x-rays and they considered their options: “Should we buy an x-ray machine for our office? Then we have to lead line the office. It’s going to be cost-prohibitive. So, what should we do?” Well, they talked to the orthopedic surgeons next door and said, “Hey, can you take our chest x-rays for us?"

They said, “Sure.”

So, a chest x-ray from Dr. Umbehr is $25. For SuKarne in Western Mexico, it’s $15. You can’t get a chest x-ray for under $150 anywhere else in the U.S. that I know of.

Tom:                            What about pharmaceuticals? You mentioned that, basically, they’re cutting out the middleman.

Jud:                              There’s a reason there’s a Rite Aid, CVS or a Walgreens on practically every corner. They make a lot of money.

Tom:                            They do, but those are profound savings we’re talking about.

Jud:                              Yes. They are.

Tom:                            So, the markup, is that incredible on the retail side?

Jud:                              Yes.

Tom:                            I’m dumbfounded, because it seems to me as though we’re just scouring this country for this very idea. Has this concept been presented on a national level? Has it been forwarded to—

Jud:                              It’s gaining an audience.

Tom:                            …policymakers?

Jud:                              Dr. Umbehr has been on “The Sean Hannity Show.” His model, Atlas Medical, has been featured in the Wall Street Journal.

Tom:                            Is it such that it could be compatible with what we have in place already, the Affordable Care Act? Could it be integrated with the Affordable Care Act, or would that have to be completely dismantled and replaced with this kind of system?  

Jud:                              I thought a lot about that. With both the Trump proposal, which is over 10,000 pages — and I don’t pretend to understand or to have read all of it — and with Obamacare — which I don’t pretend to have read or understand either — I’m not taking sides on this political issue. I think with either one — either a federally funded or private insurance, or simply an out-of-pocket payment — the Atlas model and the SuKarne model both work extremely well. With the Atlas model, if someone couldn’t pay, either the government or the insurance company — however they wanted to do it — could pay the $50, and they could integrate into the system. If the person just didn’t want to have the coverage, then they pay out-of-pocket when they need care. The same with the SuKarne model. You just know upfront what you’re going to get and what the costs are.

Tom:                            Well, thank you for laying that out. I think that a lot of people are going to be really interested in hearing about that model, and perhaps another time we can talk about it at more length. I want to make sure that we touch on a few other things in this conversation. One of them being our physician resources. Do we have enough doctors in rural areas in particular?

Jud:                              According to the American Medical Association, by the year 2020, we’re going to be about 100,000 doctors short nationwide — and most of the shortage is in rural primary care.

Tom:                            And why is that?

Jud:                              I don’t, again, pretend to have all the answers. The cost of medical education is astounding right now. The average medical student finishes with $150,000 in debt. The average medical resident, by the time he’s finished his training, is over $250,000 in debt total. That really affects your decision-making process when you’re 30 years old and you’re a quarter of a million dollars in debt and you haven’t earned a penny. It’s kind of a difficult situation.

I think we’ve got to get more people interested in becoming doctors and we’ve got to better utilize our physician extenders, our nurse practitioners and our physician’s assistants in meaningful ways that they can provide good care for our patients.

Tom:                            What significant technology innovations on the delivery side or on the regulatory side do you think could transform the healthcare scene? 

Jud:                              I think the biggest problem facing doctors right now is the shortage and the burnout. To address the burnout, there’s a recent study that shows that half of the internal medicine board-certified doctors are burned out by age 35. The reason they give is, “This isn’t what I signed up for.” There isn’t a doctor-patient relationship. It’s more a doctor-computer, doctor-insurance company, doctor-administration kind of relationship. So, I think anything that will help restore the doctor-patient relationship — which I think is the primary motivation for most people going into medicine — is one thing that really needs to be done.

One of the things that’s also hurting is the amount of regulation on doctors. We’re so heavily regulated by things that we’re supposed to do, that we have to do and dotting I’s and cross T’s. Some of those things are probably worthwhile and probably began with good intentions, but when you start piling them on and they become requirements of practice and requirements for the insurance company to pay, it becomes very, very onerous.     

For example, we changed over to ICD-10, which is a coding mechanism for diagnosis. You now have to code for so many things on ICD-10 that any one mistake could mean no payment, either from the insurance company or from the government. So, you spend so much time with problems like coding that you have to hire somebody to code, to be sure that you get paid, and you find yourself supporting four to six people in an office, which is the average nationwide that a physician supports.

Tom:                            Dr. Jud Chalkley is with St. Joseph Hospital KentuckyOne Health in Lexington. We thank you so much for being with us.

Dr. Jud Chalkley spoke at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE17). To hear more talks from the conference, sign up for the  Alltech Idea Lab. For access, click on the button below.

The following is an edited transcript of Tom Martin’s discussion with a panel of experts on the future of farming. Click below to hear the full discussion:

Tom:                I'm Tom Martin, and with us to share their perspectives on what the future holds for agriculture and food production and consumption are Dr. Karl Dawson, vice president and chief scientific officer at Alltech — Dr. Dawson directs activities at the company's bioscience centers around the world — and Dr. Michael Boehlje, who will be joining us shortly. Dr. Boehlje is a distinguished professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University, where he conducts research and teaches in the areas of farm and agribusiness management and finance.

                        Mary Shelman is also with us. Mary is former director of Harvard Business School's Agribusiness Program and an internationally recognized thought leader on the future of the global agrifood industry. And Aidan Connolly, chief innovation officer and vice president of corporate accounts at Alltech. Aidan has been with Alltech for 25 years. I appreciate you all joining us this morning.

                        I'm going to pose questions to each of you. Once you've offered your views, your fellow panelists will have an opportunity to comment on those views. But let's begin with a very broad, very big question that could itself consume an hour — we also have some questions that have come in from media, and we'll try to get them in as well.

 Beginning with you, Dr. Dawson, are you optimistic about the future of farming, and if so, why?

Karl:                 You know, it depends a little bit on what you call “farming” right now and the definition of farming, but I would say that I'm not very optimistic if we continue thinking about farming as we did a decade ago — as a typical family farm. The farm has changed a lot, and it's undergoing a revolution — or evolution — with more technology being in the farm, all the time.

                        To put this into context, I was thinking about a visit I had with my nephew, who runs a farm in northern Montana. He and his neighbors think about farming, using agricultural units, as thousands of acres. That acreage was inconceivable many years ago. We never even thought about using that much land or that many resources, so it's changed considerably.

Even just two decades ago, a 100-acre farm was considered a large farm. These farmers are ready to move to the next level and quadruple in size in the next five years. That's their goal. When they do that, they need the support of technology. 

Even just two decades ago, a 100-acre farm was considered a large farm. These farmers are ready to move to the next level and quadruple in size in the next five years. That's their goal. When they do that, they need the support of technology. Whether it's data from the machines they drive, the harvest or crop materials, the seed stock used for animals or in plants — that support has to come from technology. Farmers are really a technology group now.

Tom:                Mary Shelman, are you optimistic, otherwise?

Mary:              I have to be optimistic. As a farm owner in Kentucky, I have to be optimistic about the future. I do think it's actually a great time. I'm a little more optimistic than Karl. It’s not just about the scale that we can achieve — and a lot of that through technology — it’s also about the ability to achieve more differentiations, to be able to address more consumer needs, and we see now that there are louder voices impacting the food system.

  But if I look around the world — and we go back to those tremendous figures that the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) provides regarding the change in population and income growth —  with the demand for agricultural products, the output of farms is only going to increase and will increase by maybe 60 percent or 70 percent in the next 35 years. That's a great time and a great need that needs to be fulfilled, and I completely agree with Karl that technology will help us do that.

 On the other hand, I do think there's this issue of economic viability that we also need to be aware of: the dynamics of how pricing works at the farm level — the typical supply-and-demand economics — those don't tend to move in lockstep. At times — for example, crop farming in the U.S. today — prices are relatively low compared to other times within the last five years. So, we need to maintain that economic viability for farmers to survive and, in particular, to attract new, younger farmers to the system. As we all know, the average age of farmers in the U.S. is increasing. We're approaching the 60-year-old mark. We need new talent, and they will only come in if there are attractive returns in the agriculture sector.

Tom:                Aidan Connolly, you work within the areas of innovation and ideas. What do you see in the future?

Aidan:              I have the chance to meet the United Nations FAO group every year, and they, of course, have been quite pessimistic about the future of agriculture. We consider the numbers that Mary mentioned of 70 percent increase in food production over the next 35 years, but if you actually compound that out, Tom, you're really only looking at a figure of 1.7 percent improvement in productivity per year — and agriculture has actually exceeded that. I would be extremely optimistic about our potential for increasing and improving the amount of food we produce. I think farming is going to be very much part of feeding this population we've spoken about by 2050.

 When you look at the gaps we have from the nutritional perspective in feeding animals, nutritional perspective in feeding crops — these factors that are holding back agriculture — productivity losses, the amount of food that we lose, the amount of fertilizer we waste and where food is lost, even within the food chain. I would be extremely optimistic about our potential for increasing and improving the amount of food we produce. I think farming is going to be very much part of feeding this population we've spoken about by 2050.

Tom:                Okay, let's move into our questions and we'll begin with Mary Shelman. Consumers are being described as millennials, “prosumers” and “super consumers.” Do you think we're facing fundamentally new groups of consumers, and do you think this reflects a real change in the marketplace? And, if so, what are their needs?

Mary:              Tom, I do think we are facing a fundamental change. We're in the midst of a fundamental change, and that's a very good thing, and I think it's very positive for the food industry and the ag industry. I think people overall — not just millennials — are asking more questions about where their food comes from and how it's produced. And it's not just in the U.S. or in first world countries. This is true around the world in areas, whether it's driven by food safety or whether it's driven by greater awareness because technology — the new digital media — has made information so available. So, I do think we're in the middle of a food movement. I think that this idea of engaged eating is a really attractive thought to get your arms around. A big piece of that, though, is this new millennial consumer that we talk about.

Tom:                What is that?

Mary:              “Engaged eating” is this idea that someone born between 1980 and 2000 has grown up at a time when technology is all around them — they get information in different ways, they have different values, they've grown up being fed products like Annie's Organic Mac & Cheese compared to Kraft. And now this group — the biggest demographic group with 83 million in the U.S. compared to 75 million baby boomers — are at the stage of having families and moving up in their income potential. So, they are very attractive to the food industry.

                        First, millennials have a much greater understanding of the link between what they eat and their health, and that's a very positive change. The second thing is that what they eat is part of their identity. It actually reflects who they are as a person. They enjoy taking pictures of their food and posting them on Instagram, sharing a meal with their friends and going out and seeking information about food in different ways — not just from mom or from an advertisement.

...not only do consumers want products that meet a certain price point and a certain safety point, they want products that have a purpose.

                        Food also reflects our values. This is the thing that perhaps poses the biggest challenge to the traditional food industry because not only do consumers want products that meet a certain price point and a certain safety point, they want products that have a purpose. They want products from an industry that has the same values that they do, and they're often willing to pay more for these products. As a matter of fact, I was at a meeting last week in New Zealand, and someone was presenting the results of a worldwide survey that was asking this millennial group how they thought they had more influence and whether it was through their vote for a political candidate. They say, “No, it's our vote with our dollars.” So, millennials believe that they “vote” for these types of products, and they’re willing to pay for this.

                        We’re actually at a time that there's kind of a bifurcation in the food system. The majority of consumers need safe, affordable food and accessible food, but yet this group that's a premium category is really growing in their needs and growing in their demands, and they like the stories, they want transparency, they need traceability. I think that’s putting a very interesting twist on the system right now.

Tom:                Aidan, any thoughts on this?

Aidan:              I would say that, as a father of two millennials, I question whether millennials are really that much different than prior generations. They are compared to the immediate generation before them. We consider whether their values and their beliefs are similar to those that we saw in people from the 1950s and 1960s, who were also very aspirational in changing the world.  “Prosumer” is a word I like a lot because I think it grasps a little bit more the fact that they're people proactively making food choices based on their ethics and their desires, what they believe and what they would like to support. And that part, Mary, I think, has been described extremely clearly. That is definitely something that we have not seen before. We certainly haven't seen in the last 20 or 30 years. We provide food which is affordable, which is available, which is safe. Consumers or prosumers are looking for something more, and that's a fundamental change in our food system.

Tom:                Dr. Dawson, do you want to add anything? I don't want to exclude anybody here.

Karl:                 I agree with the comments that have come out. I think you are looking at a different marketplace, and I think that that's something that will drive the overall agricultural system completely. So, as time goes on, it will be interesting how that evolves, but I think it's going to be a simple adjustment in the way markets look at the consumer.

Tom:                Okay, Dr. Dawson, next question is for you and Mary, if you would respond. It appears that nutrition has not changed for decades, and we may be at the limits of what we can do given the ways in which nutrition is researched. Are there new tools that allow farmers to understand better how to feed their animals and be more precise in nutrition?

Karl:                 Absolutely, there are new tools, but I guess I would take a little bit of a different view on this. I really don't see that nutrition has been a stagnant science over the last two decades, or even the last century. We've had a lot of advancements that have really been responsible for a lot of the changes in livestock production we've seen. Particularly in underdeveloped countries, we're using lots of new technology with amino acid balances. Nutrient balances are new things that have come out of that.From our point of view, working at the very molecular level, we can see what effect food and food ingredients have on the basic physiology of an animal by looking at gene expression.

 But we do have a lot of new tools that are coming out that are really going to change the way we've looked at this. Some of this comes from the ability to collect data and process that data, to integrate it into a very precise model. We've never had the capability to do that before. From our point of view, working at the very molecular level, we can see what effect food and food ingredients have on the basic physiology of an animal by looking at gene expression. This is a new tool that's progressing. We could probably talk a lot about this, but it's a very precise tool that tells you exactly what's happening and it has really allowed us to uncover a lot of the “hidden secrets” with nutrition.

So, as those new tools are becoming available, they’re going to allow for diagnostic tests. They're going to look at new ways of managing and looking at the way we train our animals to eat.

Tom:                There are many tangential areas we could go off to here, and we're only two questions into this conversation. But let's go off on one: big data, because we know that it's having an overwhelming impact and is something of a latecomer to the agricultural world. Does anybody want to offer some thoughts on how big data is changing things and what the future holds in that area?

Karl:                 I would start off by saying you have a tool here to take millions and billions of observations, whether it's productivity, food intake, the way we grow our crops, how much rain we get — all of this can be integrated into very precise models, and that's going to be the big change in agriculture. If you would like, we're talking about moving to “armchair” farming. We're going to be making our decisions while sitting in front of the computer, looking to see what we can predict in the future. That's a tremendous tool we've never had before.

Big data — whether it be used in terms of diseases, performance of animals or crops, or whether it be used in the realms of a lot of these sensors and new digital technologies — can capture a lot of information we've never been able to capture before.

Aidan:              I think, in particular, we've seen some of the bigger questions such as food safety — something which is extremely difficult to measure on-farm — and what can influence it, what causes it to increase or decrease. We at Alltech have been working with other programs where big data allows us to capture the factors that we have underlined — why that occurs — which we've never been able to analyze before.

 We're starting to understand things in a very fundamental way, and I think that big data — whether it be used in terms of diseases, performance of animals or crops, or whether it be used in the realms of a lot of these sensors and new digital technologies — can capture a lot of information we've never been able to capture before. We can now interpret that information because we're able to use larger algorithms, larger systems to be able to understand what exactly we're looking at.

Michael:          Okay, sorry for the problems here in terms of getting engaged, but I'm here now. To comment on big data: It seems to me that, specifically, we have had significant advances in this area, and the advances may be as much along the entire value chain as they are at the production sector. In fact, the production sector may be lacking and just starting to catch up. The whole issue of the opportunity we have here, in terms of both capturing the payoff of big data not only at the farm production level but also throughout the entire value chain, is really critical. We can now accurately receive the message from consumers of what they want in terms of physical characteristics of their food or their eating experiences and also get more feedback in terms of those credence attributes, which are really important but difficult to measure. Now we can get them more accurately with traceability through that value chain. So, that’s a big advancement.

Tom:                Okay. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Boehlje. Let's dig a little more deeply into technology and the next question is for you, Aidan and Dr. Dawson. Let's look at the range of primary technologies that are transforming agriculture beyond big data. What else is happening out there?

Aidan:              There's an awful lot happening, and it's very hard, I think, for somebody to capture the degree of change which is occurring. I think if anybody thinks that agriculture is going to be the same way in 20 to 30 years' time, they've got their head in sand. We've written a certain number of papers on the digital technologies and the rate that digital technologies are transforming agriculture at the moment. This includes robots, drones, blockchain, the internet of things, virtual reality and enhanced reality. These are technologies which, either from a hardware or software perspective, can fundamentally change the ways in which we understand what happens when we grow plants or grow animals.

There are other technologies, such as nutrigenomics. That's one that Alltech is invested in very heavily. We're the only ones in animal agriculture to do so. We are big believers that understanding how nutrients impact gene expression in animals and in organisms is going to be very important for maximizing their productivity. I wouldn't forget gene editing, either. This is an area — described as CRISPR — that is dramatically transforming what we can do, again, with the ability of plants and animals to resist disease, enhance productivity, achieve certain characteristics we're looking at from the food perspective.

I don't know how to capture it all in such a short way, Tom, but I'd certainly say the digital technologies, nutrigenomics and gene editing are the three major areas that are going to transform the way we think about how food is produced.

Tom:                Karl Dawson, anything to add to that?

There are things that are happening in the area of biochemistry — findings that are really changing the way we think about processing feeds, handling feeds, the way we think about using feed additives. 

Karl:                 I think I'd add a few other things: There are things that are happening in the area of biochemistry — findings that are really changing the way we think about processing feeds, handling feeds, the way we think about using feed additives. All of those are coming from very basic biochemical evaluation of what's going on in the animal systems and the way they eat. We're doing the same thing in plants today.

                        One of the things that comes up when you start thinking a little bit about this is that we always think about what we're going to do on the nutrition side and how we're going to change the nutrition. We can do that, and we're starting to home in on the gap between genetic potential and what the animal can do.

  The other side of that issue that comes up is that we can start thinking about selecting our animals for specific nutrition. We talked a little bit about gene editing and the capabilities there. We have the capability of doing that and changing what those animals look like coming into the system, and we have the same capability on the plant side. That’s a very important thought process to keep in mind: that those two things are going to come together someday, and we have to be able to go forward with those in the future.

Tom:                Okay, an open question to all of you: This comes to us form Irish Farmers Monthly, and it dovetails nicely with what you've just been talking about. From both the environmental and the productivity perspectives, how important will electric and autonomous vehicles be on the future farm? Will such machinery become more important in light of the increased need for sustainability as the world population increases? Any thoughts?

Aidan:              Look, we're facing a world where we're talking about having planes fly themselves, cars drive themselves. It's perfectly logical that we would see the same thing on the farm. And anybody who's seen some of the injuries that can occur on a tractor and cause somebody to lose an arm or a limb understands that there are all sorts of safety issues that could be addressed by no longer having the potential for operator error.

                        From my perspective, I think it is difficult to find labor on-farm. When you find labor, you want labor to be well-trained and well-prepared. You have safety opportunities, also. I think there's just going to be a lot of factors that are going to drive for these autonomously driven tractors and harvesters to become part of our future.

Automation and robotics are going to be, I think, much more common and more rapidly adopted than many people think.

Michael:          Automation and robotics are going to be, I think, much more common and more rapidly adopted than many people think. We have a debate here on the Purdue campus of how quickly we're going to see those happening in the field. The discussion is related to whether it's going to be five years or 10 years before we're going to see an adoption of automated tractors and other systems within crop production agriculture. We already see it in the dairy industry in terms of robotic milking. We're seeing it happen particularly in terms of harvesting, especially crops. It’s going to happen much more rapidly than we realize, and it has the opportunity to profoundly change the agricultural sector. It’s a really, really important development.

Tom:                Anybody else?

Karl:                 I think that's true, and, quite frankly, it's not that far off. Some of it is already here. I've been on combines that essentially drive themselves down the row. You need a driver there to turn the combine around, but in the big fields, these 18-, 19-, 20-foot stalls can be driving themselves, and they're controlled by GPS. It's amazing to see how little manpower it really takes to run those.

Michael:          And now they’re able to turn themselves around. So that's even changed.

Karl:                 They didn't the day I was there.

Michael:          Oh, I understand, but that's how fast this technology is coming. It's coming very rapidly. My belief is we'll see this in the fields in five years — not 10 years — and rapidly adopted.

Tom:                Aidan?

Aidan:              I was just going to say I was with an ag-tech startup that obviously made too much money because the owner had just bought himself a Tesla. He just took his hands off the steering wheel and let the car drive itself, which gave me a little bit of heart palpitations as I watched it maneuvering its way through the city. But it shows you what's possible. In the fields, we've got a much more controlled environment — we have much less risk of things such as car doors opening or bicycles. It’s an inevitable part of our future, and we have the perfect opportunity to use this technology.

Mary:              I just want to add an even finer detail around it: What happens when we get in the field and we have the sensors on and the sprayers operating and you're actually sensing which weed to spray or which bloom doesn't have enough pollen on it so you can provide supplemental pollination? We have this micro-level influence. Technology can help us get closer to achieving that potential.

Tom:                We're talking about 9 billion people by 2050. Do these innovations get us to where we need to go to be able to feed the world?

The technology is developing fast and it will continue to keep up with the demand for the foreseeable future.

Karl:                 I think there's no doubt about that. I think the technology is developing fast and it will continue to keep up with the demand for the foreseeable future.

Aidan:              I had the opportunity to talk to a cooperative this week that was asking for some ideas about 2050, and I said that 2050, for me, has become unimaginable in terms of what could potentially happen. I often wonder whether 2050 is the right number to use. Maybe we should just be focusing, as Dr. Boehlje mentioned, on the next five to 10 years, where we can concretely comprehend what will change. But if you say the number is 9 billion and Mary says the number is 10 billion and somebody else says, “Well, what happens if we start being capable of changing life itself and really extending life spans?” maybe the number we're looking at is 15 billion. Maybe we're looking at a much greater number of people that we're going to have to feed.

                        I think we need to be really cognizant of the fact that this technological thing is moving so quickly. Don't stretch yourself too far in predicting. Look concretely at what should be used and how it should be used in the foreseeable future, which is probably more like 10 years than 35 years.

Tom:                These things are changing so much more rapidly these days. You mentioned nutrigenomics earlier, and I wanted to touch on that with Dr. Dawson. What are the main benefits that you see from a nutrigenomics perspective for farmers, and how will that change the way that they farm?

Karl:                 Well, if you think we're going to have a diagnostic kit tomorrow that solves all the nutritional problem of animals, nutrigenomics isn't going to deliver that right now. However, it is redefining nutrition. When we think about the value weight of feed material or feed product, the supplementation strategy, management practices, the way we feed calves or young chickens — all of those things are starting to change now because we have a tool that allows us to actually measure what happens when we make a nutritional change. That's a very powerful thing, and it's not only allowing us to look at productivity. We can now measure immunity in a bird and change that by nutritionally altering the young chick's diet. Same thing with calves: We can pass material information from one generation to the next using a nutritional strategy, but we can actually measure that and see how it's done.

Nutrigenomics is really going to redefine things. It's already redefined mineral nutrition. Trace mineral nutrition will never be the same...

                        Nutrigenomics is really going to redefine things. It's already redefined mineral nutrition. Trace mineral nutrition will never be the same as we view it from now on. We know that we can use less minerals. We can change and have less impact on the environment by using these tools. This tool allowed us to very rapidly understand that and change our nutritional practices.

Tom:                Dr. Boehlje, I want to give you an opportunity to jump in here.

Michael:          Let me just comment quickly. I'm not a scientist at the same level as Dr. Dawson, so I don't have that understanding at a granular level. But, we sometimes describe the technologies as moving agriculture from “growing stuff” to biological manufacturing. This biological manufacturing is very much in the context of what we've already been talking about: it's understanding the science and nutrigenomics. It's understanding biotechnologies and everything that has the potential to significantly impact the growth process of plants and animals at a much more scientific level. We’re getting sciences and technologies that are developing because of the interconnectivity between science bases previously kept in silos: nutrition, nutrigenomics and biology. We see some universities that have said, just as an illustration, that science is not only important, but is also essential. In fact, the required science increasingly in many universities is you have to take biology. You have to take biology to get an understanding because biology is increasingly driving the world.

Mary:              You know, can I come back to that, Mike? I agree with you and Dr. Dawson that science and nutrigenomics is giving us amazing tools. But, Mike, you used that term “biological manufacturing,” and I put on my consumer hat, and I just think that that's a terrible term. Today’s consumers don't want their food manufactured in any kind of factory, and that's just kind of the picture that comes to mind (with the term “biological manufacturing”). We were talking about how we can be more responsive to consumers, have differentiation, we can give this credence attributes, yet you're proposing or using this term that's actually far from that.

Michael:          I understand your perspective and I absolutely agree with that perspective. We aren't going to promote or advertise, we're not going to be saying to consumers, “This is a biological manufacturing process.” In fact, the word “processing,” generally, is not something consumers really want to hear relative to food.

It's interesting, though, that consumers are more than happy to hear the term “processing” relative to health issues or other things they buy, but they really are, in many cases, very negative about the term as it relates to food.

                        I'm not going to promote “biological manufacturing” to consumers, but it’s certainly a concept we in the industry, at the production level, must be increasingly mindful of. This allows us to adopt and facilitate the process of growing and producing food more scientifically and better than we have in the past.

Tom:                Dr. Boehlje, a topic that we were discussing before you were able to join us is big data — or farming data — in the future. Actually, it's happening now. How does that affect the types of people who will choose farming as a profession in the future? Do you think it will change the attractiveness of agriculture in some way?

Michael:          I think that, increasingly, what we're going to find in this industry is that those people who are going to be successful have some skills that maybe they need to enhance to be successful. Particularly, what we're interested in is analytical skills — analytical skills that are tied to data and information.

                        We see this particularly in the financial area, which is the area I work in. Some farmers abhor recordkeeping. They abhor this idea of having to keep financial information to provide to their lender, to understand their own business, to get the financial performance assessment that they need. We need to, increasingly, develop that skill and feel comfortable with that skill of looking at numbers, looking at information, trying to understand what the numbers say and the story they tell — not just crunching those numbers. Data assessment, data summarization, data visualization — those are going to be skills that we need to have more and more of our producers understand, and they will be the skills that might be very important differentiators.

                        And it's not just the stories that we need to have in terms of average yields. We see that, as we go across the fields with our yield monitors today, it's the distributions that count. It's what happens when you are in parts of that field where you have low yields as a function of a number of things that happened — whether they be weather or whether they be agronomic-oriented — and where you get those high yields as well. The same is true with animals. We're starting to see different animal performance even in the same pen in the same group as a function of their genetics, as a function of a number of things. We're going to get more granular in the data, and we need to understand the story there.

                        Data assessment, data summarization, data visualization — those are going to be skills that we need to have more and more of our producers understand, and they will be the skills that might be very important differentiators. Certainly, strategic thinking is another one of those skills, risk assessment, a lot of other skills. But the one specifically related to big data is this willingness to work with data and understand "the story" it tells.

Tom:                Aidan, do you have thoughts on that?

Aidan:              Yes, from a historical perspective, I think of what our system was for deciding who would become farmers. I suppose, originally, everyone is a farmer, and then gradually we decided that there would be land and that land would be passed from a farm owner to their eldest son. And over time, then, it seems, — at least in Ireland — it was divided amongst as many children as you had. Each one got a parcel of land, which created its own issues. Gradually, we seem to have moved toward a system where those who don't want to stay on the land go to cities or go and find other jobs, and we've been left with the people who really want to be farmers. Only in the last 20 or 30 years did we start to understand that being a farmer involves education as well. So, obviously, all the educational systems were set up through land grants and other systems around the world to try to create farming as a profession.

                        I think what we're looking at now is a fundamental change in what that farmer will look like. They won't necessarily grow up on a farm. They might grow up in the city. They won't necessarily have the skills of understanding animals or understanding plants. They'll understand data, they'll understand analytics, equipment, decision-making between all the various technologies, and what they should buy and what they shouldn't invest in.

 I think what we're looking at now is a fundamental change in what that farmer will look like.

                        So, those are dramatically different skills and skills that were used for the last, I'd say, thousand years — you might say a hundred years — to select or to decide who is it that's a farmer, who is not a farmer, and that's very fundamental. And back to the same numbers we're talking about, I think those influence not who is going to be a farmer in 10 or 20 or 30 years' time. Probably even in the next five years, we're going to see dramatic differences in terms of who are the right people, who are the successful people who are going to take over stewardship of the land.

Tom:                It seems to have broad implications for the entire culture. Are we talking about these attributes appearing mostly in large farming operations, or all the way down the chain to small family farmers?

Mary:              I think they have to go all the way down to small family farmers. I would come back to this and say to both of you, to Mike and to Aidan, that you gave a great description. I agree completely. It's about understanding the data to use the data. But, again, what's missing is the typical production push, and we now have consumers controlling more of the acres.

It’s not just about producing at the lowest price, but producing what the market wants...

                        I would add to this list — and this is whether it's maybe more appropriate even for a small family farmer or the new generation that is very attracted to farming for different reasons — is being able to understand the market. It's about being able to understand how to deliver this differentiated product that has extra value. It’s not just about producing at the lowest price, but producing what the market wants — or different segments that the market wants — and being able to sell into those channels, connect with those channels.

                        This is a very big basket now — a very big ask — which is a great thing for family farming enterprises because, typically, you don't have just one person doing all the decision-making — you have a whole set of people. The whole family is around the table, and it's the husband and the spouse, even the children as they come into the family business. I see these enterprises, and they have different specializations within, and that's fantastic because everybody can bring their strength to the table.

Michael:          Let me just completely agree with what Mary said. That's a really important issue. We have a tendency in agriculture to talk about supply chains. That's true in almost all industries and is reflective of the “push” mentality that we've had in a lot of industries, including agriculture: how we're pushing through the supply chain to the consumer. Increasingly, we're talking about “chain reversal,” and that's the whole idea: demand-driven change. We have consumers increasingly telling the entire chain what they want, how they want it and how it ought to be done.

 An important skill that's going to be much more important for farmers is going to be this whole idea of understanding and a willingness to work in an interdependent system — rather than being independent — and be very focused on relationships, collaboration and interpersonal skills. Those are things that many farmers haven’t historically — if I take my own father, for example — liked to do. He wanted to be in his farming operation. He didn't want to do farm records, and he didn't want to have a whole lot of relationships with other people. And, increasingly, those skills will be essential to be a successful farmer in the future.

Tom:                I have a question here from media that I think is appropriate at the moment. Let's just open it up for everybody. I think each of you can bring a perspective to this. This is from Owen Roberts. He's with the University of Guelph and is president of the International Federation of Agricultural Journalists, and he asks a very appropriate question because of what happened yesterday in Switzerland — the country renowned for its food supply. They held a national referendum yesterday designed to anchor food security in their constitution. It initially won approval by about 77 percent of the electorate. Globally, this was quite a groundbreaking exercise on their part, reflecting the growing interest by people everywhere in the production of the foods they consume, as you mentioned, Mary. He asks that we touch on some reasons why precision nutrition can give them confidence about the future of food supply and how they get that message to consuming public. If you'd like to begin with that, Mary?

Do we have the water? Do we have the land? How is climate variability affecting things? This precision nutrition piece is an important data tool that will enable us to do as much as we can with the resources that we have.

Mary:              Wow, that's a tough one. I think this issue about food security is really important for everybody in the world, right? And you're talking about Switzerland here. The challenge is that in some countries you don't have the resources to do that. I don't know enough about this referendum or the backend pieces of it. But, I'd say that precision nutrition will be incredibly important to meet this global demand. At the country level — we have talked so much about the fact that we can enhance productivity, but we have to do it in a time of decreasing resources, decreasing natural resources. Do we have the water? Do we have the land? How is climate variability affecting things? This precision nutrition piece is an important data tool that will enable us to do as much as we can with the resources that we have. I think country by country you're not going to get the same answer.

Tom:                Wheels are turning here, I guess.

Aidan:              I think that we talk all the time about the need for countries to produce all of their own food, and in essence, that sounds like motherhood and apple pie — you have to agree with it. I don't feel that old, but I can remember days, or growing up, when there weren't oranges in the supermarket, when you couldn't find bananas all year round, when things were much more seasonal. We've all gotten used to the idea that there's an abundance of food. It's available relatively inexpensively. Its carbon footprint, even if it comes from Colombia or Kenya, is actually quite low because the systems of distribution have become extremely efficient. I'll even look at countries like China that want to be sufficient in food yet increasingly are consuming corn from Brazil and soybeans from the United States, and they are purchasing pork and chicken. These are countries that have said they want to produce everything themselves. It's clear that that isn't always that easy.

..the fact is that we have this increasingly interconnected global system, and consumers have an expectation of being able to have food available at a relatively cheap cost and all the foods they want all year round.

                        Mary and I have had this debate in the past about people storing food in cans in their houses. Is that what we should be doing? We imagine people would start to do that again. I struggle with that idea. I think the world has become increasingly global. It requires, of course, free trade and requires us to trust that other countries won't declare war on us — which maybe is a big thing to wonder about. But the fact is that we have this increasingly interconnected global system, and consumers have an expectation of being able to have food available at a relatively cheap cost and all the foods they want all year round.

Tom:                Dr. Dawson, do you have thoughts on this?

Karl:                 I agree with the direction that Aidan is going, but the important things that are coming out today with agriculture boil down, oftentimes, to resource limitations — what do we have to work with? Whether it be the environment, land, water — those are the things that are going to drive the way we look at efficiency as we move forward. I don't know the initiative that they're talking about in Europe, but the idea that these are things that we can control right now is probably not right. We're going to have a limited amount of resources.

I look at an area where I grew up in southwest Montana. At one time, people died over water rights. For many years, it hasn't been that way, but I received something in the mail the other day that said I had to declare my water rights again on the property that I own there with the idea that that's going to go away pretty soon. It's going to be legislated. Maybe there are some security issues there we need to look at. One of the reasons that it's bad there is mining, which uses a lot of water, but the fact is that it's going to happen around the world. So, security does need to be legislated to some extent.

Tom:                Dr. Boehlje, thoughts on food security?

It’s not just our ability to produce enough to have "food security." It's also our ability to protect the amount of production we get and make sure that it actually gets to consumers and, as a matter of fact, to be more efficient and effective in terms of consuming it...

Michael:          Yes, I think the other dimension here is what kind of losses we have in the food chain, particularly in different economies in different countries. It’s not just our ability to produce enough to have "food security." It's also our ability to protect the amount of production we get and make sure that it actually gets to consumers and, as a matter of fact, to be more efficient and effective in terms of consuming it and not having such waste as we frequently have, particularly in the developed countries and developed world.

                        This whole issue of trying to reduce the amount of losses — the wastage — the amount impacted by storage losses, waste in the field, by not getting harvested adequately, by not getting transported adequately — particularly in many countries in the developing world. At the same time, in countries like the U.S., we have a lot of food wastage that occurs just out of our own refrigerators, out of our own food systems, where we buy food products, we don't consume them, we don't take care of them, we don't refrigerate them — and if we do refrigerate them, we lose track of them — we throw it out the back of the restaurant, we may try to donate it, but sometimes it's already expired in terms of its ability to be able to be consumed. There's a lot of waste in the system, and there actually are some major initiatives underway on the part of both corporate and university organizations to try to reduce the losses in the food chain, and that's an important part of this discussion.

Tom:                Dr. Boehlje, I want to stay with you for this next question, and Mary, if you would consider this as well: Economically, the U.S. has been the best place to farm, as you have written, based on its strong infrastructure and on its open markets. Do you think that that will continue to be the case in the future or should farmers be seeking new places to conduct business?

Michael:          We already see that occurring. We have significant expansion of production in agriculture, as everyone knows, in South America, Brazil, Argentina being particularly the case — significant expansion of agricultural production in Ukraine, and they are major competitors now to the U.S. We see it occurring in China, we see it occurring in Africa. So, we do see opportunities much more broadly in terms of farming than we used to. I can name a farming family here who has both a U.S. operation and a Brazilian operation. I actually know three families that have that kind of situation.

So, we are expanding agricultural production more globally. If you go back 30 years or longer, a crew chef from the former Soviet Union came to the U.S. to buy wheat to feed his people. Here we are in the middle of a cold war and he comes to the U.S. — his archenemy — to buy food. This has to be the ultimate indication of the failure of the system. Why did he come to the U.S.? Well, in a way, we were the only store in town. We were the only place where you had the opportunity to get the amount of wheat that he needed to feed his people. Now you can get that in a much broader base of geographies, in addition to corn, soybeans and other products.

 Now, the interesting dimension is that we're going to see farmers who are more geographically diversified in their production systems. We already see it in the specialty crops, where farmers in California have Mexican production as well because they can't grow what they need there. We see it happening in terms of other parts of the U.S., where farmers are in different geographic regions even across the U.S. I've got a potato grower friend who grows potatoes in nine states, 15 locations.

 We see it already happening in the U.S. We think it’s going to go into a more global perspective, and that's really an interesting question and issue because it has profound implications: If we geographically diversify production agriculture, how will the potential weather variability impact total supplies? Will we get diversification benefits? We don't know. But one would logically think that we do. So, will there be farming opportunities in other parts of the world that farmers — whether they be U.S., whether they be European, whether they be South American — ought to be seriously thinking about? The answer is yes.

Tom:                Mary Shelman, thoughts on this?

Land probably isn't the unit of natural resource that we should be looking at. I think water is, in the future, the way that we're going to frame farming operations.

Mary:              Well, I absolutely agree there are opportunities all over the world. Mike didn't mention Africa. I think that's the next frontier for farming, and they need a lot of strong technology and value chain development there to make that work. However, to come back to the opportunities in the U.S., I think they're still very strong, although it's a bit of a transition from the typical push mentality into one that's more based on getting the most value per acre, per animal, per unit of natural resource. Land probably isn't the unit of natural resource that we should be looking at. I think water is, in the future, the way that we're going to frame farming operations. You think about what happens with the tremendous growth of the Brazilian soybean industry — it's basically shipping water from Brazil to China. That's really how I think about agriculture in the world: removing water from one place to the other. There is also the New Zealand dairy industry, selling water basically through milk powders to China, to India, to other places in the world.

                        I think here that there are tremendous opportunities, but our farmers have to be much smarter in terms of all these technologies we were talking about, the different ways that they think about their business, and connecting to markets and figuring out where to get the most value from that water, from that land, and how to factor in the risks.

Tom:                Karl? Aidan? Thoughts?

Karl:                 One of the things that we haven't touched on much here is the efficiency of animal protein production. If you start looking at things that are going on around the world right now, aquaculture is one that will really get your interest. The development of recirculating aquaculture systems is full-steam right now. More of them are going into Norway — their production of fish. These recirculating systems are going to grow tenfold in the next five years.

Tom:                And those are land-based, correct?

Karl:                 Those are land-based systems, but they're very intensive when looking at protein production. We're talking about a system that's probably three to four times more efficient than any of the terrestrial animals we're used to working with. They're better than chickens, they're better than pork, they're better than beef by a long way. So those kinds of impacts are going to be tremendous when it actually comes to looking at animal protein and the way they're being developed. For us in the feed industry, the implications are gigantic.

Tom:                Thoughts, Aidan?

Aidan:              No.

Tom:                Nope. Okay. I do have one that I think you might like to address: Blockchain. This, by the way, comes to us from Simon Duke of Feedinfo.

Aidan:              You can thank him personally from me.

Tom:                What’s your opinion of blockchain and its potential for the animal nutrition industry?

Aidan:              Blockchain is one of the most exciting of the digital technologies. It's also one of the most difficult to get your head around. I suppose the bitcoin example is the one that most people are most familiar with, and it's the one that probably makes it easiest for people to understand: You have something which is this digital ledger where you can understand what's happening in the chain, but not see the individual actors or the individual people who are involved in the chain. I think that has tremendous implications for agriculture. Typically, as farmers, we have not liked people knowing exactly where our cattle come from. At the same time, when there's a disease, we want to be able to trace it back. We've not liked knowing who the people are who transform our food from when it's grown on the land to when we consume it. And, yes, again, if there's an E. coli outbreak and a child dies, we want to know where it occurred and how it happened.

Traceability is a fundamental part of our future. Recapturing the confidence of consumers is extremely important, and I think blockchain is the technology that allows us to do so in a manner that keeps us comfortable.

                        I think when you see companies like Walmart getting behind blockchain and using it in countries like China and being so impressed by its potential — and then they start taking it to the United States and elsewhere — I think you can see what the possibilities are. Traceability is a fundamental part of our future. Recapturing the confidence of consumers is extremely important, and I think blockchain is the technology that allows us to do so in a manner that keeps us comfortable. We're not giving away all of our secrets and, therefore, perhaps not trading our margins to the end food retailer, but at the same time making sure that something does occur. How fortunate that is that we can actually find out where that occurred, what it is that we need to do to stop it happening again.

Michael:          I think this issue of blockchain is a really important issue — sorry for interrupting — but let me just leverage those comments on food safety and traceability just a little bit further. A lot of people, when they talk about blockchain, think about it in terms of the financial markets and some other breaches we've had recently in the financial markets and personal security, et cetera, are really important. So that's where a lot of the common perspective is. But it's interesting how some industries are actually quite ahead of us in terms of using blockchain traceability. For example, the diamond industry is using it as a mechanism to try to trace and make sure that those diamonds that they're sourcing not only are true and accurate diamonds, their location and — back to Mary's points — are with the right credence attributes — that they are mined in the right way with the right work pros, with the right people. So, I think that this whole issue of traceability and food safety will be probably the biggest impact that blockchains have on the agricultural sector.

Tom:                Okay. We have time for one more question before we wrap things up, and let's begin with Mary, if you would. What are the opportunities for farmers to change the way they sell food? Are there specific ways in which farmers can view this as an opportunity to be more profitable or to gain even new markets?

Mary:              We talked about this growing fragmentation on the consumer end of it, that it's moving beyond just wanting cheap and accessible and safe food into things that align with values and other things around the specialty side. I think that does provide some opportunities at the farm level, first of all, just to be much more market-oriented and know where that profit potential is and basically growing what the market is interested in buying rather than what you want to sell. But not everybody can be direct-to-consumer. There are opportunities with technology now. We see the rise of some brands from the farm level. It starts out like a Laura's Lean Beef or Creekstone Farms or Pete and Gerry's Organic Eggs — things that come with some specialty proposition — that actually move all the way to the brand level. When I was in New Zealand last week, McDonald's had big banners in their stores saying, “We sell 100% free-range eggs.”

                        These types of changes are coming. If you look at the AmazonFresh website, you can buy hamburgers from a single cow. When you think about the implications of the supply chain for that and that differentiation, not everybody, clearly, is going to be able to deal with the market at the consumer level. But even at the customer level, the processor level that's buying in, the sustainability pushes inside of these companies, and also better understanding. Again, if you don't satisfy their consumer needs, it will be more about providing these products that have the exact kind of value or attributes that market wants.

                        I think, though, the challenge is that there's tremendous resistance to making those kinds of changes because our system has been set up to move big quantities of relatively undifferentiated products. I was speaking with a buyer of U.S. soybeans in a Southeast Asian country. He said, "We want to buy soybeans based on their oil content because we know how that breaks down in the value proposition." But the big processing companies want to sell soybeans based on whether it's, basically, color and size and the fact that it's this kind of bean and they really don't want to tell. So, it's finding these unique opportunities that are able to match that scale and finding those buyers that are willing to pay.

Tom:                Aidan, what do you see out there?

Apps on phones, websites, digital technologies, the ability to be able to see through cameras what's actually happening on the farm, to be able to see through blockchain what has actually occurred in terms of the way your food is processed — these are all just tremendous opportunities for farmers to engage directly with the end consumers of their food...

Aidan:              Well, Mary summarized it extremely well, which makes it difficult, but I'll maybe take a slightly different approach. I think that we are seeing very large changes in consumer behavior. You see that when they go to the grocery stores or supermarkets and they’re not going to the so-called “center aisles” anymore. They're not choosing to purchase the cornflakes, they're not buying food that, traditionally, was perhaps the macaroni and cheese that was extremely processed, for example, and they're looking for the “mom and pop” — as I call them — brands. These companies may not even have commonly recognized names. Consumers are looking for these companies they perceive as being more organic, more local and fitting with their ideals for food and the way they “vote,” as you put it earlier, Mary.

                        From my perspective, I think that's a massive opportunity for farmers to engage directly with consumers. Instead of farmers going to big food companies or medium-sized food companies, they can go directly farm-to-consumer. They can have a relationship directly with a consumer of their food. That can allow them, hopefully, to capture more value, so they can charge a higher price or just capture more value within the system and to, hopefully, adapt to what they find consumers are looking for. Maybe consumers are asking for questions that larger systems can't accomplish.

The massive opportunities, particularly, through apps on phones, websites, digital technologies, the ability to be able to see through cameras what's actually happening on the farm, to be able to see through blockchain what has actually occurred in terms of the way your food is processed — these are all just tremendous opportunities for farmers to engage directly with the end consumers of their food, and I think, eventually, that makes potentially a more profitable farming system.

Tom:                Dr. Boehlje?

Michael:          Yes, I think Aidan and Mary have really, really synopsized this issue quite well. Let me just put a broader context on it with some keywords. 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. Those are very dramatic shifts in terms of what people have to do and how they do it, and the technology is increasingly available to get that done. Consumers are not buying food products. They want food consumption experiences, and that's a really different perspective on this industry than what we’ve had with the traditional producer commodity and what I sometimes refer to as the “produce and peddle mentality”: If I produce it, they will come. That is not the industry of tomorrow.

Tom:                Karl Dawson, thoughts on this?

Karl:                 Well, I guess I would agree with the whole concept here, but there is still a large change needed. I've been involved with programs for the last 15 years producing high-quality beef products with very specific attributes that we felt were of interest to the consumer and receiving good reviews from the consumer. But from a commercialization point of view, to date, those have been failures. We are not getting the story across in a way that allows us to get the feedback from the consumer and get the middleman to buy into the concepts we're making at the producer level or in the production. Alltech Angus was an example of a meat product: Succulent, very good reviews, and, quite frankly, we never could make that go because there was a barrier there between us and the consumer.

                        I see where that's coming from and the potential for doing that, but there's still a big hole in the middle in that commercialization chain that we have to take advantage of. Believe me, I'd love to see it go, because if you tell me what attributes you want in your beef, we can work on those things with our tools today.

The existing system is set up to be more commodity push, and that includes the processing sector. But we see now the advent of these nontraditional actors here: the investors.

Mary:              I might just come back to that because I think that's the same resistance that I was talking about there: Why we can't sell soybeans based on oil content rather than something else? The existing system is set up to be more commodity push, and that includes the processing sector. But we see now the advent of these nontraditional actors here: the investors. You have Bill Gates basically investing in Beyond Meat — alternate protein sources. You have Sergey Brin, founder of Google, investing in tissue culture beef. You have Jeff Bezos of Amazon now completely disrupting everybody's thought pattern by buying Whole Foods. So, hopefully, Karl, I think we're just at the breakthrough point on getting through. There are people in the system now that look at this and say our traditional food system is broken. Now, that's a rough thing, but they're coming with very innovative ideas, very disruptive ideas, and see a new future. And I think we're talking about what that new future is. Hopefully we're close to getting past that.

Tom:                Okay, we have just a few minutes remaining. What I'd like to do to conclude is to go around the panel and ask you to give us your closing thoughts on what viewers of today's discussion might want to consider their main takeaways from what they have heard. We'll begin with you, Dr. Boehlje.

Michael:          We’re certainly talking about an industry that's in a major transformation. In fact, we do programs called “Disruption” and “Chaos,” and that's where we are in this industry. It's been pretty tradition-bound in many cases. As just indicated in the previous conversation, parts of it are still tradition-bound. But there will be a profound transformation from outside the traditional players in the industry when we start doing more — putting together the pharmaceutical and the health industry within the nutrition industry. Maybe we're going to find that what happens is outside forces are going to be shaping up more than they have. When we put sensing technology out there, when IBM decides, which it has, that agriculture is the space where they ought to be spending some time and energy, not just at production, but across the value chain, that makes a big difference in this industry.

                        We’re going to see a lot of both big and small firms and organizations outside the traditional sources or the traditional players in the industry have a very disruptive impact on this industry.

Tom:                Dr. Dawson.

If I had to sum it up in one sentence: It's not your daddy's farm anymore.

Karl:                 Well, I think it's obvious from the conversation today that technology is going to drive a lot of different things. If you look at how we refer to the farmer today, I would change that to “agricultural technologist” rather than “farmer.” We're going to be bucking tradition, and that's one of the things that is a huge problem for a very conservative industry as we're moving forward. But if I had to sum it up in one sentence: It's not your daddy's farm anymore.

Tom:                Mary Shelman, takeaways?

Mary:             I think it's been a great discussion. In particular, the consumer has a much stronger vote today than ever before about what's happening on the farm. Therefore, you have to be market-oriented, and market-oriented not just in terms of thinking about the price of soybeans or the price of beef, but about the fundamental segments that can meet with the different value propositions around it.

                        So that's one piece, and the talent piece is absolutely essential. There are tremendous challenges, but even more importantly, there are tremendous opportunities in the next few years, and I think it's incredibly exciting time. But you have to be a little bit patient because, as Karl said, you can come up with a great product and a great proposition, but time might not be quite right yet. So how do you navigate this transformation that we're in and actually be able to balance looking toward the future while remaining very grounded today and having a successful business?

Innovators are the ones who are going to be successful — they're the ones who are going to survive and thrive. That's the farming of the future for me — innovation.

Aidan:              I think farmers of the future will be innovators. Until now, farmers have been good at learning from others, embracing technologies that others have, learning what methods they use and doing so successfully. In the future, my recommendation to farmers would be to buy yourself a passport, go travel the world, read as much as you can, learn as much as you can, and when you see innovations within reason, embrace them as quickly as possible. I think innovators are the ones who are going to be successful — they're the ones who are going to survive and thrive. That's the farming of the future for me — innovation.

Tom:                Aidan Connolly, Mary Shelman, Karl Dawson, Dr. Michael Boehlje, thank you all for joining us. It's been a fascinating conversation. We appreciate it very much and thank you for joining us.

Farming the Future was a live video panel discussion. To watch the recorded video and learn more about our panelists, click below:

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.  

High levels of deoxynivalenol (DON) and zearalenone (ZEA) present in grain and forage samples across Canada

[GUELPH, Ontario] – The 2017 growing season was a variable and challenging one across Canada. From drought conditions on the prairies to above-average rainfall in Ontario, weather conditions can not only reduce yield, but can also increase plant stress and lead to challenges with mycotoxins. Results from samples submitted for the Alltech 2017 Canadian Harvest Analysis show that grains and forages from across Canada are at risk of mycotoxin contamination.

Samples submitted between Sept. 1 and Oct. 15, 2017, show that grains contained mixtures of mycotoxins, including deoxynivalenol (DON) and zearalenone (ZEA). Forages such as corn silage, barlage and haylage samples also contained multiple mycotoxins in 2017, particularly from mycotoxins produced by Fusarium species of moulds, such as DON, ZEA and T-2/HT-2 toxins.

As a result of the late-season rains in many provinces, especially following the dry conditions during the summer in the prairies, there is additional potential for mycotoxins such as fumonisins.

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

“Farmers should carefully consider if and how feed with mycotoxins is used,” said Dr. Alexandra Weaver, Alltech® Mycotoxin Management technical specialist. “Even minimal changes in feed quality can have a big impact on an animal’s production over time.”

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 currently being fed, it is important to conduct a mycotoxin analysis that identifies storage mycotoxins, including the Penicillium and Aspergillus mycotoxin groups, as there is added 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 have on animal health and performance.

Alltech Canada will be hosting two webinars to review the 2017 harvest analysis results with Weaver on Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2017. The Western Canada webinar will take place at 9:00 a.m. MT, and an Eastern Canada webinar will take place at 2:00 p.m. ET. Reserve a spot for the Western Canada webinar via this link and for the Eastern Canada webinar via this link.

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

To listen to our entire conversation with Paul, click on the player.

From fish to humans: Algae's impact throughout the food chain 

Luther:                        Paul Groenewegen is the director of innovation and nutrition at Masterfeeds, an Alltech company. He’s here to talk with us about how algae might transform the way people and animals obtain essential nutrients. What are the benefits of algae?

Paul:                            Well, it’s a great question, Luther. The main benefits of algae are to provide a very sustainable, renewable source of the essential omega-3 fatty acids we hear a lot about in the industry, in consumer press. The main essential fatty acid that we’re going after with algae is DHA. So, we hear about the omega-3 fatty acids that we need to increase our omega-3 fatty acid intake, but the true fatty acid we need to consume is DHA, traditionally consumed through fatty fish, marine fish.

                                      So, how marine fish get this DHA-enriched meat is by eating as they go further up the food chain, starting with algae, the DHA. The algae go into the tissues of one species of fish that’s consumed by another, all the way up to, for instance, having pieces of marine salmon that are high in DHA.

                                      We always say that, you know, our mothers always told us that it was good to have fish once a week. And I believe on our food guides — I know the Canadian food guide indicates — that we have to have a meal of fatty fish at least once a week, and that’s to get the DHA. That’s where we’re coming from, from an algae perspective. So now, we have a sustainable source of nutritionally enhanced food that provides DHA from algae.

Luther:                        What are some important ways algae production can disrupt the status quo?

Paul:                            The main way we’ve traditionally received or utilized DHA in the food chain is through fish oil and fish meal that were harvested from the ocean. Utilizing algae that are produced in a very controlled, sustainable fashion, we now have a renewable source of DHA to enhance food products through meat, milk and eggs that is not depleting world stocks of fish.

                                      That’s the true disruptor: How do we maintain world stocks of fish while producing these larger quantities of a very sustainable, very digestible, very good source of food that once fed to animals enhances the DHA content of meat, milk and eggs?

Luther:                        So, what you’re saying is, instead of going from further down the food chain, we’re going up to a source, and we can either consume that or —through feeding to other animals — consume it when we consume those animals.

Paul:                            Absolutely. As I mentioned earlier, fatty fish, marine fish that we consume to get DHA in our diets, they have to consume the algae. So, we’re just circumventing that, and now we can put DHA into terrestrial animals — layers, pigs, chickens, etc. — that we can then consume and have a DHA-enriched source of terrestrial food (i.e., meat, milk and eggs) that we traditionally haven’t had before.

 Beyond nutrition: Algae in energy and baby formula

Luther:                        Algae has been a buzzword in the biofuel industry. Can you give me some ways in which it is disrupting that industry?

Paul:                            Yeah. The key component is algae. There are thousands of species of algae that you can grow under specific conditions to harvest carbon dioxide, which the algae then convert into fats, which then can be harvested and used in biofuel. By utilizing algae, it does give us a renewable source of energy. Whether it’s economical or not at this stage of the game is a whole other discussion, but it does allow for sequestering carbon into a fuel source.

Luther:                        Fascinating. What are some other product applications for algae?

Paul:                            Oh, the product applications for algae are widespread, from food sources (that) different parts of the algae can be used and extracted for, from cosmetics to all different kinds of food sources.

                                      If we think about human infant formulas, algae have been grown for years to produce DHA that then goes into human infant formulas. And for those listeners out there who have young infants, if you do have some infant formula in your house, take a look at the label. You’re going to see DHA on the label. In most cases, that will come from algae.

Luther:                        What items out there can algae replace?

Paul:                            The main items that they can replace from a food perspective are fish oil, fish meal and some different types of oils.

                                    Obviously, algae can produce different types of oils at different levels depending on how they’re grown. And you can replace oils for cosmetic reasons. You can replace oils for biofuel reasons. You can replace protein sources if you grow algae to produce protein.

                                      Obviously, from a nutritional perspective, we can utilize algae to produce a number of different products that can then displace typical products that we use to extend the overall lifespan of our more traditional products: from an oil perspective, for instance, or from a cosmetic perspective. And we can continue to grow algae very quickly, very economically. And it’s very sustainable. And it’s a renewable resource. 

Growing algae 

Luther:                        Can you bring us up to date on the status of Alltech’s algae research?

Paul:                            Our algae research has allowed us to register the technology across the globe in a number of countries, allowing us to make very specific claims on the enhancement of meat, milk and eggs with DHA. Regulatory bodies around the world stipulate that we have to have efficacy trials. And all the research that we have done globally has pointed directly to the fact that when you feed All-G Rich® to chickens, pigs, dairy cows and a number of other species that we’re doing research on now that we do enhance the DHA content of the meat, milk and eggs that they produce.    

                                      We are also looking at positive attributes to animal health from a welfare perspective and just an overall health perspective in the animals.

Luther:                        What of the future challenges of growing algae commercially?

Paul:                            How we grow it is extremely important.

                                      People think of algae and see pond scum and layers of algae, or we hear about algal blooms in the Gulf of Mexico, for instance. That’s not the type of algae that we’re talking about.

                                      The big focus that we have now is growing very specific strains of algae under very controlled conditions to give us the very specific product we need.

                                      Algae are incredibly good at cleaning up the environment, and it just concentrates whatever contaminants you’re trying to clean up, and that’s one thing we’re not trying to do. We’re trying to grow algae very specifically to give us a very specific end product to enhance human food and animal feeds.

Luther:                        Are there challenges with the rising billions who are moving into the middle class (China, India, other parts of Asia, Africa) with the demand that’s going to be placed and meeting that demand in terms of production?

Paul:                            Oh, absolutely. And as the middle class continues to grow and as our world population continues to grow, we have to produce more food that’s very nutritious. And traditional global stocks of DHA through fish and fish oil are not only decreasing, but they’re not going to be able to meet the demands that are coming down the pipe.

                                      By utilizing fermentation technologies that allow us to grow algae in large quantities of very specific strains that produce very high-quality human food and animal feed technologies, that’s going to fill that gap as we grow up through the global population of the 6 to 7 billion; people are going to reach the 9 billion mark and are going to have that good sustainable food source as well.

Luther:                        What are the new markets (you’ve addressed some of those) for algae that it’s either disrupting or it’s starting from scratch or are new markets that it might be emerging into?

Paul:                            What we see is, we can utilize these technologies through algae. The biggest one I would say is functional foods and enhanced foods.

                                       At Alltech, we’re about enhancing food to better people’s lifestyles down the road and utilizing algae to produce functional foods for infants and the elderly.

                                      There are also some applications from a DHA perspective looking at different health conditions that, as we improve our human health, it’s going to have a positive impact on the health care system so we can utilize these technologies to have an overall benefit to society.

The health benefits to algae 

Luther:                        You’ve touched a lot upon DHA and its definite health benefits. Are there any specifics that DHA actually addresses in terms of our health, that it promotes health, or it may be a condition that it helps to treat or to improve?

Paul:                            We know that DHA is required in infants for brain development.

                                    If we think about our brain, it’s a very fatty substance, and we require a lot of DHA fat in our brain for membrane integrity. So, as young children are developing, they require DHA in their diet to develop the brain. There are cardiovascular issues in adults, there are eye issues, and DHA has a positive impact.

                                      I think from a sports perspective, concussions are a big concern in football and hockey. Being a Canadian, yes, hockey — we follow it very closely. And knowing that a lot of sports players run into concussion issues, I truly believe that utilizing DHA for sports injury repair is something that’s coming down the road as well.

                                      Just think about it: You get a concussion, your brain is damaged. You need to replace and rejuvenate the membranes of your brain. Some of the research is showing that this is going to have a huge impact.

                                      So, it’s brain development in human infants. I believe there are impacts on brain repair through sports injuries or automobile accidents or whatever injury. People fall, and they hit their head sometimes. So, there’s an application there, as well as cardiovascular disease. That’s all part of the omega-3 concept and increasing our omega-3s and overall improving human health.

Luther:                        What opportunities are there on the horizon? What do you see either today or tomorrow or maybe an interesting fact we haven’t touched upon when it comes to algae?

Paul:                            The biggest impact we’re going to have is: How do we produce large enough quantities at economical rates and then have those technologies registered to be used for animal and human food products?

                                      Our regulatory bodies have to look at these conditions extremely closely so that we can move fast enough so that these technologies can replace depleting stocks of the traditional feed stocks or food stocks that we have to meet the demands of the growing population in the world. So, that’s going to be the biggest roadblock: How do we scale up production fast enough and get acceptance through the industry to utilize new technologies? We have to adopt these technologies not only from a regulatory perspective, but from an application perspective as well.                  

Luther:                        And, finally, bringing this back home, how do algae affect the average consumer’s kitchen table? You’ve talked a lot about DHA. Other than just DHA, are there other ways that it’ll affect the average consumer, their kitchen table, their health, the food they eat?

Paul:                            Yeah. By enhancing the food that consumers eat, we know we have a very safe supply of ingredients, low in contaminants. Global regulatory agencies and governments around the world are watching the food we eat more and more to make sure there are no contaminants in there.

                                Utilizing a technology like algae that’s grown under very specific conditions allows us to produce a much more consistent and much safer human food product.

                                As well, there are potential attributes not only looking at the fatty acid component of algae, but maybe some of the other structural components that are coming down the pipe that we can say, by utilizing the structural components of algae, the carbohydrates in algae, the protein in algae, we can enhance our overall diet, broaden our spectrum of nutrients and ingredients that we consume to give us a healthier population.

Luther:                        Paul Groenewegen, director of innovation and nutrition at Masterfeeds , an Alltech company. Thank you for your time.

Paul:                            Thank you.

Paul Groenewegen spoke at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE17). To hear more talks from the conference, sign up for the Alltech Idea Lab. For access, click on the button below.

Doctoring calves is never easy. Doctoring lots of calves is a nightmare. For producers, nothing takes more time or creates more stress than seeing sick cattle. So how do you get ahead of the problem and address herd health and immunity before it's too late?

In a recent webinar, Dr. Kate Jacques, Alltech’s director of nutrition, shared how to bolster herd immunity and increase profitability.

Strike Out Scours, Fight Down Stress Webinar

Key tips for bolstering your herd’s immunity

Identify stress points

When it comes to boosting immunity, “Stress is the enemy,” said Dr. Jacques. Scours, respiratory issues or decreases in dry matter intake are all indicators that cattle may be stressed.

The first thing to do is identify the source of stress. Common stress points include:  

• Weaning
• New pens, chutes or feed bunks
• Movement through marketing channels
• Shipment – both to pasture and feedlot
• Diet changes

Keeping cattle healthy and maximizing growth means getting them through a number of crunch points before finish. Rethinking how to best handle these stressors is a continual process, but it is critically important to do so to keep immunity high.

Boost gut health through nutrition

Feeding some form of starch, fiber, protein and mineral is typical in most rations, but realizing the opportunity other nutrient forms can play shouldn’t be overlooked. 

Bio-Mos® provides a new perspective on carbohydrate nutrition. Bio-Mos is in a unique class of functional feed ingredients able to play a positive role in gut health.

“If you can reduce challenges to the intestine, you can promote a healthy gut, and that’s exactly what Bio-Mos does," said Dr. Jacques.

For over 20 years, Bio-Mos has been Alltech’s trademark technology. Studied in more than 733 research trials, it has been proven to aid nutrient uptake while also binding potentially harmful gut bacteria to drive growth and performance at all stages of production.

Put a plan in place; Act on it

At the end of the day, there’s a tension between knowing something is a best practice for your operation and actually doing it.

Dr. Jacques stressed that producers need to be strategic and that waiting to spot a problem means that profits have already been lost. To best boost immunity, analyze your operation’s potential stress points and use technologies like Bio-Mos in the ration before a gut health or immunity challenge. 

Trust that with proper management and nutrition, profits will follow. Like thousands of others across, producers such as Clifton Goff of B-Gee Angus in Nebraska have seen the benefits of having a plan and using Bio-Mos. He explains that by using Bio-Mos they’ve, “got a healthy herd of calves running, and I haven’t dealt with anything respiratory.”

By being proactive, you can fight a mess of stress in your operation and boost your herd’s immunity. To learn more about how Bio-Mos might benefit your beef cattle, visit bio-mos.com or contact beef@alltech.com.

Have a question or comment?

To better contribute to China’s agriculture, Alltech signed a memo of understanding with Guangdong Evergreen Conglomerate to carry out research on sustainable aquaculture.

[DUNBOYNE, Ireland] – On June 10, Chunhua Hu, Communist Party secretary of Guangdong, led a trade delegation consisting of representatives from the biomedicine, information and communication technology, and financial industries to visit Ireland. During this economic exchange, the delegation paid a special visit to Alltech’s European Headquarters in Dunboyne, Ireland. While there, they learned more about the world-leading animal nutrition company’s interest in building a production base in Guangdong province, which would become its second production facility in China, and signed a memorandum of understanding to further aquaculture research.

Yue Xiaoyong, China’s ambassador to Ireland, and Paul Kavanagh, Ireland’s ambassador to China, were present during the visit. Senior government officials for Guangdong’s provincial government also attended, including Wen Guohui, mayor of Guangzhou, Zhong Weiyun, director general of the 7th Bureau of the International Liaison Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, as well as several other officials from Guangdong province.

Dr. Mark Lyons, global vice president and head of Greater China at Alltech, and Aidan Connolly, chief innovation officer and vice president of corporate accounts at Alltech, welcomed the delegation and led the visit.

During the visit to Alltech’s European Headquarters, Hu heard a presentation by Lyons on the status of Alltech’s global business.

Since 1985, Alltech has adhered to what the company calls the ACE principle, a promise that in doing business Alltech has a positive impact on the Animal, the Consumer and the Environment. Since entering the Chinese market in 1994, Alltech has witnessed and been heavily involved in the rapid development of China’s agriculture industry. Alltech shares China’s vision and understand the challenges being faced in the field and on the farm.

Alltech is committed to the concept of green agriculture. On March 8-9, Alltech hosted the Greening of Chinese Agriculture Environmental Conference, to discuss and commit to energy conservation, production optimisation, improved management practices, and agriculture laws and regulations. Alltech called for 10 agriculture companies to sign a proposal promising to optimise their production processes and work together to realise China’s green agriculture.

Guangdong is one of biggest agricultural provinces.

“I hope Alltech solutions will help Guangdong and China’s agriculture sector work toward practical solutions for sustainable farming,” said Lyons.

“Five years ago, I came to China,” continued Lyons. “I like to work and live in China, especially in Guangdong, which is a big agriculture province. We have many important clients, and they have become our good friends.”

The delegation heard of Alltech’s interest in building a second production base in Guangdong, which would provide strong support to Alltech’s production in Asia. It would also drive the scientific and technological innovation for Guangdong’s, and even China’s, agriculture industry, promoting the development of biotechnology as well as the local economy while doing so in an environmentally friendly manner.

Alltech regards innovation as a top priority and is committed to discovering sustainable nutritional solutions for plants, animals and people. Similarly, the basic principles of the China Manufacturing 2025 Report include being innovation-driven, putting quality first, green development, structure optimisation and being talent-oriented.

Guangdong is China’s largest economic province, having led the country’s economic development for many years, and is considered China’s “south gate”.

“If it were a country, Guangdong would be the 16th largest national economy in the world,” said Xin Xiaowei, director of the Guangdong Provincial Bureau of Statistics, in a media interview.

It is a major shipping and transportation hub and home to South China Agricultural University, one of the leading universities and institutions around the world with which Alltech has established more than 20 research alliances. Combined with the talented people who work in the local agriculture sector, these qualities make Guangdong an ideal home for Alltech’s new production base.

In addition, to better contribute to China’s agriculture, Alltech signed a memo of understanding with Guangdong Evergreen Conglomerate to carry out research on the sustainable farming of aquatic species. Through the collaboration between Alltech and Guangdong Evergreen, both parties aim to advance the development of aquaculture nutrition and feed sciences, including the improvement of aquatic feed nutrition, antibiotic-free technology in aquaculture and aquatic ecological breeding technology (e.g., the reduction or replacement of fish meal and/or fish oil) with Alltech products such as Bioplex®, NuPro®, Allzyme® SSF, Actigen® and ForPlus™.

Alltech also intends to promote a programme in Guangdong that could follow in the very successful footsteps of The Pearse Lyons Accelerator 2017 program. The Guangdong programme would be in partnership with local agricultural companies and would support and guide agricultural start-ups to encourage innovation.

Yue and Kavanagh expressed how the cooperation between Alltech and Guangdong strengthens the connection between Guangdong and Ireland, deepening economic ties among enterprises in both countries. This is extremely beneficial to the continued cooperation between the two countries and will result in the creation of more business opportunities.