Something to Chew On

In celebration of World Food Safety Day, this week we are joined by researchers from the Food Science Institute at Kansas State University: Sara Gragg, associate professor; Randall Phebus, professor; Carla Luisa Schwan, postdoctoral fellow; and Jessie Vipham, assistant professor.

World Food Safety Day aims to draw attention to foodborne risks and inspire action to prevent, detect and manage risks. This important work contributes to food security, human health, economic prosperity, agriculture, market access, tourism and sustainable development. The World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations jointly facilitate the observance of World Food Safety Day, in collaboration with member states and other relevant organizations. This international day is an opportunity to strengthen efforts to ensure that the food we eat is safe, mainstream food safety in the public agenda and reduce the burden of foodborne diseases globally.

Transcript:

[Music]

Something to chew on is a podcast devoted to the exploration and discussion of Global Food Systems produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. I'm Maureen Olewnik. Coordinator of Global Food Systems.

World Food Safety Day is June 7, 2021. This is a day to reflect on the importance of safe and sustainable food, heed the work being done at K-State, and around the world on advancing an understanding of cause and control of food safety issues, and look toward better nutrition through safe food worldwide. Today we are excited to share with you a panel of food safety experts that work with interdisciplinary teams in the  Food Science Institute  here at K-State. Food safety is a major area of research in the  Food Science Institute , including animal and plant-based foods. Through outreach to colleagues here at K-State, nationally and internationally, the  Food Science Institute 's research team has tackled some of the most challenging food safety problems. From testing in our Biosecurity Research Institute, biocontainment bsl3 facilities, to helping teach consumers in developing regions of the world the basics of handling and preparing safe food. We welcome back co-host Dr. Jim Stack Professor of Plant Pathology, and welcome to our panel of experts Dr. Sara Gragg, Dr. Randall Phebus, Dr. Carla Luisa Schwan, and  Dr. Jessie Vipham. 

World Food Safety Day is a great time to focus on the work being done at K-State in the area of food safety through the  Food Science Institute. We're going to take a bit of a different tact on this podcast by welcoming a panel of scientists that have made food safety their professional passion. They will share with us a vision of food safety research carried out at K-State, and explain how K-State is participating in the recognition of this notable day. I'd like to welcome back to the podcast doctors: Jessie Vipham, Dr. Randall Phebus, and Dr. Sara Gragg and first time welcome to Dr. Carla Schwan. Give us a little background on what the 2021 World Food Safety Day is, and where K-State fits into that? 

Yeah, this is a really exciting endeavor that is led out of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and it was actually envisioned and put into play back in 2018, so we haven't, I don't think, as a university, here at K-State, participated in the past. But we saw this, the date is June the 7th, it's always every year, June the 7th, and the FAO has asked people to participate, and they've given some guidelines on things that we could do. And to highlight some of the food safety work that we're doing here at K-State, which is pretty extensive. The aim of World Food Safety Day, according to the FAO is to draw attention and inspire action to help prevent, detect, and manage foodborne risk. As we know, it's not just the health aspect of foodborne risk, but it's also how food safety contributes to food security, and human health, and economic prosperity, and success in agriculture, and market access, and tourism, and sustainable agriculture. So, there's a lot of things that are connected to food safety, and you know honestly, we address them all here at K-State in one way or the other. It's really interesting every year they come up with kind of a theme for this. For the event in this particular year, for 2021, the theme is safe food today for a healthy tomorrow. And what they're trying to do is kind of take the one health approach, holistic approach, to how food safety interacts with our daily lives. whether we're producers, or processors, or consumers, or someone transporting, or whatever we all have a role to play. And it's all systemic and integrated, you know, one weekly in the chain, start to finish, can cause a lot of people to get sick. And so, I think it's really exciting that we can do some things here, and Carla has actually kind of taken on some of the leadership as far as putting some of our activities together for that day that she'll tell you about here in just a minute. But you know, the FAO really stresses that governments, processors, consumers, and everyone in the chain has to be coordinated and focused on food safety to prevent all of these illnesses. So, just think about in a world today where we have over 600 million cases of foodborne illness annually, and as many as 420,000 deaths, and about a third of those are actually children under five years old. So, this is truly important and work that you know we do a lot of things here for the United States but our work finds its way out globally. Thanks to people like Dr. Vipham and Dr. Schwan that they're going to tell you about some of their international work 

In the food security arena, we often throw around the figure that we lose 35 to 40 percent of the food post harvest. Free consumption are there analogous figures of loss due specifically to food safety concerns. 

Well, you know, I don't know if there's any figures about food waste or food loss, but if you look at what foodborne illness does to things, other than just, you know, people getting sick and having diarrheal diseases and that sort of thing. You're looking at lost productivity. You look at chronic illnesses across the world. People may be, you know, having syndromes and sequelae well past you know the initial infection, so that the cost is just staggering in terms of economic loss, adjusted years of productivity losses, and that sort of thing. So, you know a lot of what we don't think about from a food safety standpoint is, you know, what does it do to young children with diarrheal diseases and setting them back for sometimes their entire life. To get past the foodborne illness or waterborne illness falls into that category too. 

You know, when we think about losses in the industry, though if there is a food safety concern, the industry does have to respond in different ways. Some of which, might be diverting a raw meat product to a cook operation, for example. And in doing so, that can result in, not lost product per se, but lost income, because cook product operations usually result in a lot less income. And so, there are different aspects in the food industry that can result in different losses. Sometimes the product is destroyed as a result of a food safety concern. And so, that could be quote, unquote, food waste or food loss issue that is related to food safety as well. 

Yeah, I think the World Trade Organization, oh 2017 2019, I can't even remember what the date is they had a figure that they put out that was something like 9.6 billion dollars in loss that the world experiences due to unsafe food on an annual basis. 

Yeah, and then I think for especially, specifically for low and middle-income countries, I think the figure is like 110 billion on medical expenses and productivity productivity losses specifically for those countries. But, I'm sure that you know United States and developed countries also experienced that similar levels of losses. 

Yeah so, it's significant, but the problem really becomes how do you begin to measure some of the loss. Right, so two, I think, some of the points that Randy and Sarah have made you have loss on a very individual perspective, but you also have loss on an industry level. And so, how do you really get figures around that and and ultimately when you look into the environment around economics, as it pertains to food safety, that's a really new and budding area of research, surprisingly. So, I think at this point in time we really don't have a lot of awareness for what the exact costs of food safety are, but I think based upon what we all know, we can really make the assumption that it's fairly large. 

Yeah, thank you very much.

I'd add to that, you know, when we talk about food safety a lot of us always think about pathogens, viruses, bacteria, some fungi, and parasites. But, you know, we also have a lot of toxins and chemicals and allergens that are very important, and just as deadly in some cases, and particularly in some of the developing countries where we, you know, we have grain. You can't just you know throw the grain away but with fungal aflatoxin and mycotoxins that are produced. You know, some of what happens to consumption and chronic consumption of such contaminants, you know, it could be cancers and shortened life and you never really know that, you know, 20-30 years in advance.

Great, thank you so much, Carla. I think could you give us a bit of an idea of what K-State is planning to do for Food Safety Day and how the  Food Science Institute  is going to be approaching that big day. 

Yes, as Dr. Phebus mentioned earlier, we've met a few weeks ago, and I think our food safety team came up with a really great idea of creating a specific video that we feature different students of our department here. And they're all from different countries of the world. For example, we have Costa Rica, we have Indonesia, Cambodia, Brazil, United States, India, Africa, all over the world pretty much. And so, we have those students, we brought them in, and we wanted to just ask simple questions to understand what is their food safety perception. Some of them are food safety students, but some of them are not. And so, it was interesting to see how different people from different countries and cultures perceive food safety in one day, or another. So, we are working on that project, and we're going to have this video ready to release on June 7th as part of the Food Science Institute Initiative for the World Food Safety Day. So, stay tuned for that. Additionally to that, we are featuring some of our students here to explain their projects, and what they are doing in food safety, how they're improving food safety, how their projects impact public health, and the significance in events and science in this area. And so, those videos are going to be released all month of June as part of this initiative, but we're going to be individual videos of our students, and then on June 7th we're going to have our group video of everyone talking about the World Food Safety event, and perceptions. And all of that. So stay tuned for that.

Great! Can one of you speak a bit to the global perspective of the food safety work that's been done? 

You've mentioned, a few of you mentioned, several countries that you've worked in. And I know Carla, you and Jesse, you two in particular, have done work worldwide. How does the work at K-State impact these places around the world, and what do you learn in those places that you can bring back to K-State? 

Yeah, I think so, I think I'll go ahead and take that question. When it comes to food safety, I think that one of the exciting things about food safety, and probably one of  the messages that gets lost in terms of food safety education, is really the breadth of opportunities that food safety provides for students, for education. Right, you can be someone who's very interested in industry, and find a place for yourself in food safety. You can be somebody who's very interested in economics, right, or in travel and and find spaces within food safety for yourself. And so, I think that when you look at food safety it really has a very wide swath of opportunities for itself, and when we first, I guess, started our work in international spaces. Carl and I work mainly in Africa and southeast Asia, that's West Africa East Africa, sorry, and southeast Asia. I think we really began to recognize that food safety can take on a very different perspective depending upon what part of the world you're in. So, my educational background was really focused on you know us food safety focused on industry level intervention work. Right, how do we improve really high quality systems, versus, you know, we get to Africa, we get to southeast Asia and and you're really starting at very rudimentary spaces, and I don't mean to communicate that you know that those environments don't have their own successes or their own opportunities but you're just working in a very very different environment, a very different mindset for food safety, and typically very different cultures. And so, a lot of our work for food safety we had to kind of I think tear down our education and our thoughts on food safety to really begin to look at food safety in different ways. And so, as a part of that you know we've done a lot of work looking specifically at fresh food markets those are huge across the world. So typically, when we think about the United States we have these really beautiful streamlined chains of food production. Right, I have someone who produces livestock or vegetables or fruit that then goes to some form of a distribution group or processing group that then sends that through to a grocery store and that's how we access our food. And then, you get into Africa or Asia and it's like a hair of how things get produced and how things end up you know actually sold to people. And, most the time that hair ball ends up finishing at what they call fresh food markets. And so, we've spent a lot of time working on fresh food markets focusing on what are some of the main points of contamination within those markets. How do we untangle those points of contamination, and then focus on interventions that are very adoptable. And so, that's I think, back to that you know how we untrain our food safety minds. You can't go into that space and and just go, okay well, just yeah, you know, you just gotta do this right you just have to use lactic acid or you just use ultraviolet light. And you're good to go, right. You have to really think about what is going to be the best intervention for this space that is adoptable in an environment where people are living on very low incomes they have very low decision-making power the government has a very strong ability to change their mind on any given day. And so, regulations aren't very clear policies aren't very clear how do you work within some of those constraints. And so, that's a lot of I think what our food safety work has been, is to look at what are very applicable food safety interventions to solve the food safety issues that we have identified for specific environments within Africa and southeast Asia. 

One of the things that I have I've really enjoyed my time working with Jesse and and Carla in their international work, but one of the things that I perceive is that people citizens, of wherever they are, they really have a desire to know proper methods, proper storage, proper disinfection. And that sort of thing and the outreach efforts that I've seen  Carla and Jesse do seem to have really good acceptance and effect. And so, I think that's kind of where K-State gets thrown across the oceans is with our outreach and educational efforts in addition to the science. 

I would say we do more outreach and sort of extension style work than even science. You know, I guess in one sense I think that would be, you know, we're more extensionists, yeah than scientists.

We have developed so much material even for kids. And then, if you remember Bangladesh, but just small things that you can do to prevent foodborne illness that we just sharing that information. It seems so obvious to us, but sometimes you go to those places and just share that piece of information it makes all the difference. And so, I remember in Cambodia when we were doing my project in 2018, the vendors at first they were a little bit worried why we were trying to sample their stalls, and why we're there. Then, our students, our converting students, participate in this study, they explained everything and once the vendors knew what we were doing, they would actually come to us and say please come to my cell and temple here, because you you need to help us save our children, because they're dying from E Coli. And that was to me was so impactful, because I didn't even know they were aware of all of that, and they want us to help, and they want to participate they were so friendly and welcoming in those environments. And I don't know it's such a great feeling of helping someone in this food safety area that we can impact. Even though as Jesse mentioned, sometimes  the infrastructure is not as comparable to the us, but still you can impact make great impacts, and and change their environments and lives by just sharing information. 

I think one of the major challenges with food safety around the world is that when you look at the population of the world, the largest population exists within countries that have compounding public health issues. And so, you're not just dealing with whether or not someone's going to come into contact with raw chicken. Right, you're dealing with someone who is malnourished, who might come into contact with raw chicken, who also might come into contact with a mosquito carrying malaria, which who also might come into contact with water that is contaminated, right. So, you have all of these compounding public health challenges that really create an environment that's hard to work in, but I think very rewarding and it kind of takes food safety from this space, and I don't want to diminish the work of us food safety, because it's incredibly important, but it does take it from this you know hey we're improving these really great systems to wow, you know, if we could unlock one of these components, and find a solution something really powerful could happen. And so, that's kind of a driving force, for I think, a lot of our work, in particularly, Africa and southeast Asia. I think that's a lot of why I keep going back. True. 

Well, Jesse, I think they excuse me. I think you're also forgetting to talk about your work to help with capacity building for governments, like our project in Paraguay. Yeah, you know maybe you should comment also on that. And how working with the governments improve their food safety testing is also important. 

Well, I also don't want to take up too much of the time, but I think that that is a good point and kind of speaks to you. We just talked a lot about low income food safety, and I think the point that you're making, Sarah, is a great one which is that there's also a lot of middle-income countries where the again the food safety dynamic changes. And so, you're not really talking about the same scenario that you are in Africa and southeast Asia so if we move to places in South America such as Paraguay. You're really looking at emerging economies environments in which people are looking to enter into trade, and what does the dynamic of trade then due to the safety of that food supply. What are the lenses from a government perspective that need to change in terms of regulation and the capacity that that government then needs to develop in order to participate in in trade not only for success of trade, but success in protection of their own you know food supply their own public health environment And so, we have participated I think and you could probably speak to that too right pretty heavily in parkway in terms of of looking to work with labs and help with their testing capacity and work with them on whether or not they can actually you know effectively carry out trade programs that still provide that that stamp of approval in terms of safety of the products that are coming in and the products that they're they're sending out. 

One thing that's been really interesting for me participating in those types of projects, and in that project particularly is in terms of evaluating what labs like food safety testing labs, government labs, and other countries have in terms of their capacity. That's always really eye-opening as well, and learning about the challenges of wi-fi issues, and paper-based versus electronic systems, and how to convert a paper-based system to an electronic database for example. And the slowdowns that all of that creates in the pipeline in terms of not just receiving and testing the product. But also, creating the reports, and the invoices, and then getting payment. And so, when you evaluate the landscape, if you will, and then seek to provide solutions, it's very sort of knee-jerk. I guess to say, well we use this system in our government labs and it works great, and that's not necessarily applicable. Right, because no wi-fi or spotty wi-fi. And so, that's another example I think of what you were talking about, Jesse, in terms of we have to evaluate what we're working with, and then be creative, also, in solutions and supportive And so, that's always I found to be very rewarding as well and challenging from a professional growth perspective, also. 

One thing, I always get to chuckle at is we talk about other countries. And it seems like we have this mindset that the U.S. food supply is the safest in the world. And you know, we have to be pretty proud of our U.S. food supply but we still have some major issues food safety wise, and when I look across the country I know Dr. Stack does a lot of international traveling, also, there are countries that probably have at least elements of their food safety system that are better than the U.S. system Australia, and New Zealand, and Japan, Singapore places like that. So you know, there's just such a broad diversity of food safety standards. And what not across the globe and trying to tackle all of them all at one time is overwhelming, but that as Jesse just mentioned, I mean, you can really make a lot of headway with some basic elements in some places. Whereas, in other places you know they're pretty sophisticated, so.

I like that you bring up the fact that we are, we'd like, to tout ourselves as the safest food supply in the world, right. But, we are always learning and improving, as well. And I really appreciate Randy, that you bring up the fact that we can learn from other countries. Also, that we're all here to share and learn together, and that inc that in turn creates a safer global food supply, which in turn improves food security, and nourishes the world. So ultimately, we're all in this together and that's what we're trying to do here in K-State. And on that note, actually I might add a few comments regarding what K-State does in food safety. So really, we're as a land-grant institution, we're involved in food safety from the standpoint of teaching research and extension, and I mean that from a global sense even as Jesse demonstrated, that we're carrying out these types of activities all across the globe. But, what really that includes is not just us sitting around the table. I want to emphasize that K-State has many experts across campus in food safety. And so, we're just here to represent a small portion of experts. But you know, in terms of extension, we actually have consumer educators that work on food safety at the consumer level we have extension experts working with processors small processors especially helping to support their hasso plans and their testing for their facilities and a lot of that also includes small food producers, who are really trying to grow from an incubator kitchen and elevating up and becoming a larger processor in the kansas or missouri areas. So that's an important part of what we do from the extension side, and then of course, food safety is incorporated into so many classes across campus. And not just here in the department of animal science, and then the Food Science Institute. But you know, there are elements of Bakery Science, for example, that they talk about food safety and brain science. And that department is a part of our food safety efforts, both teaching, and research, and extension, and vetmed, for example. I don't want to list too many because I'm going to leave somebody out, and that's not what I'm trying to do. But, I really want to really capture the essence of the collaborative effort that is food safety, and you know not to leave out research right, but we work across so many colleges and disciplines to pull off a food safety project. And I really want to refer back to something you said, Jesse, about this includes economics, as well. And we work with social scientists, and it's animal scientists, as well it's pathologists, and you know it really brings in depending upon the project and the funding agency we work with a variety of disciplines to pull off our food safety research. And I think that's a critical point to make that it's not just us doing food safety work across campus. 

You know, I've been told and I haven't confirmed this myself, but if you go into some of our grocery stores here and buy a processed packaged food, say a tv dinner. Dr. Stack, you and I would refer to them. I don't think they make tv dinners anymore, but a product like that might have 40 or 50 countries represented in that one package. So, we are truly a global supply and food chain and you know the systems. Whether, they're informational systems data systems whatever you know even hot topics like climate change, and things like new emerging pathogens that we've never really seen before. You know, we can never get relaxed, we can never sit back, and say well we know enough to be effective, because everything is changing so fast now. And so, that's what makes food safety in particular food science in general and agricultural in general, but food safety is it's almost every day something new happens whether it's in this country or globally. And so, that's what you know having students coming from all parts of the world, like Carla coming from Brazil, it really makes our program stronger because we have that international flair at a very high level. 

You know, over the past, say 70 years or so, we've experienced the emergence of several zoonotic pathogens from animal hosts reservoirs that have had significant impacts on human health, sars kobe 2. and there are several suggested drivers for that emergence including land use, change climate, change trade and travel for speeding them around. So the first part of this, I'm going to ask you to exclude, so excluding the emergence of antibiotic resistant strains because I'd like to touch on that later, but excluding antibiotic resistance has there been a significant emergence of new foodborne pathogens and what were the primary drivers? 

Well, that is an excellent question. Who wants to address it? I'll give you the first, really beautiful, if you want to call it beautiful example. We went back in 2011 when we had the emergence of never before determined sugar toxin E coli strain 0.04. That happened in Europe mainly in Germany where we had four thousand people just all of a sudden become ill at a really high hospitalization and death rate relative to other sugar toxin E coli infections. And come to find out, it was definitely an emerged pathogen that kind of mixed the virulence properties of more human E coli enteric disease, with what we refer to as enterohemorrhagic types of things. As far as the way the organism attached in our GI tract. And so, that's a perfect example of picking up you know just a floating around piece of DNA that all of a sudden turns on the switch to make something almost a super pathogen in this case. And so, we you know we tracked that one back to the type of bean sprouts that were being produced and marketed out of Egypt. And so, you know that you always have to be aware that these genetic virulence properties can jump from one organism to the other, and most of the time they don't have much of an effect but all of a sudden everything can come together and you've got a really important pathogen at that point.

I think there's lots of examples within salmonella as well. Where we see salmonellas that we don't take very seriously from a public health perspective. We know that they, you know, exist within certain animal populations but we don't really see them show up in public health data. And then, all of a sudden you'll have a large outbreak that will occur with a certain serotype that you just really haven't seen in public health data before. And so, kind of back to some points, you know that are being made is that we have those genetic components, where you ultimately what you end up with is a strain that takes on, you know, the genetic capacity to then cause human disease. I think along those lines there is a level too, where I think, from a food safety perspective. We do need to recognize, and not to communicate that we don't, but that we are dealing with from a biological hazard perspective. A lot of little living microorganisms, and they have a lot of capacity to change, and I know that Sarah and I's advisor always makes the comment, turns out they don't read the book on themselves. Right. And so, we tend to get into a mindset of this is how salmonella behaves this is how E coli behaves and all of a sudden they don't behave that way anymore. And I think that that then pushes us as as food safety scientists as individuals within the food industry to just try to be as adaptive as possible be as open-minded as possible. Particularly, when we're talking about pathogens that have shown the capacity to adapt, and in actuality I can't really think of one that hasn't.And so, yeah go ahead.

I'll give you a perfect example of what Jesse's talking about, and related to climate change. You know, we have data showing that some of the ocean waters are warming right and used to vibrio parahaemolyticus and vibrio vulnificus which are two really important public health pathogens associated with shellfish mollusc mollux it was really you know we didn't see it much up in our northern borders of northern coast even here in North America but now we're seeing kind of a migrate migration and emergence of vibrio problems in shellfish in the harvested in what was traditionally the colder waters. And it's even more complicated than that. We're seeing what we refer to in microbiology as viable but non-culturable. So, you really can't detect some of these organisms until they're maybe in your body, you know, in doing the damage, you know, so it's, you know, all of these science facts. You can get really comfortable thinking, you know, enough and then all of a sudden you don't know, you know. It's causing 4,000 people as the E coli 104 outbreak caused 4,000 people to get sick in a matter of a couple of weeks.

Yes, I think kind of back to close the loop on your question I think some of the driving factors can include you know some natural just variation that occurs. I think that there are some factors that come alongside changes in dynamics in terms of our production and our management practices or the environment. But I think some of it also comes from maybe some dogmatic thought processes within kind of this is this is the way that it is and there's no way salmonella can be in black pepper, or in dried flour and turns out, yeah it can.

So we didn't mention antibiotic resistance, because you asked us not to. Yeah, well speaking of.  

Yeah, no. I just wanted to separate them, because the antibiotic resistance challenge is substantial and you know just by parallel tracks we've learned so much about  how microbes interact. And you know, the rate of exchange across taxa is just far greater than we ever anticipated. Than we would have predicted, probably 15 years ago. And so, you know the obvious concern for antibiotic resistance is the ineffectiveness of subsequent treatment for infection, but I guess to tie it to the previous question. That the question I wanted to pose is for foodborne pathogens. What are the inherent risks of transmitting that resistance to other intestinal bacteria during the course of the infection and subsequent clearing. So, I'm looking at it as you know not only are we concerned about resistance in the foodborne pathogen, but are the foodborne pathogens becoming a vector for moving those resistance cassettes. The genomic islands around just as a course of how we do business. 

So, I might comment on that a little bit from the perspective of shiga toxin producing E coli actually. So, we actually don't recommend antibiotics as a course of action because a lot of times what can happen is that sugar toxins being produced in the cell and the antibiotics that then might lyse the cell and release it. And then, suddenly you have a mass release of the sugar toxin that can kind of overwhelm the body all at once and create many complications from a clinical perspective for the patient. So you might ask the question, then well why should we care about antibiotic resistance genes or characteristics in something like aztec, and it's really from a perspective of what you're mentioning Dr. Stack in terms of then if we do have s tech in cattle or in the environment or in our guts, for example. That there are other microorganisms around other bacteria that can then share those genes so even if a antibiotic resistant s tech might not get treated in a human with an antibiotic, because of the concerns I mentioned. There are concerns though that it will be sharing its genetic makeup and sharing those genes to others. And so, now we might have something that was a susceptible bacteria that is now harboring antibiotic resistance genes. And of course, the risk there depends upon what is being shared with, and then of course how broadly does that. Then share its genes, so you can see there's kind of a domino effect, but when you think about animals, and their gi tracts, and their environments, and our gi tracts, right. They're a separate sort of ecosystem with a variety of different bacteria, and other microorganisms hanging out, and that can impact the sharing of genes, and that is a concern. 

Yeah, one of the big issues that has emerged over the last decade in antibiotic resistance is clostridium deficient and my father was just in the hospital, he passed, but I was actually talking to some of the doctors there at fighting  clostridium deficient antibiotic resistance in a hospital environment. Whether that's in the cafeteria, whether your general population is consuming food, or the food being brought to infirmed patients. And now it's expanding to cafeterias, and schools, and places like that, and a lot of the isolates are antibiotic resistant and that makes it even more difficult to address. 

Yeah, from the research we have conducted and commenting back on on Dr. Graham's point, we've seen that some of because we did some whole genome sequencing with the isolates from the research. And we've seen that some of the isolates collected from the year before. Some didn't have antibiotic resistance. And then, next year they already presented that antibiotic resistance, and really looking at the whole genome sequencing and comparing those strains they were the same consider the same strain, but acquired some of those genes they didn't have before and really this complex environment that you have many different species playing around, and they just interact so much that it's so easy to see then you know something that didn't have now all of a sudden, he has this resistance. 

And you're referring to your work in southeast Asia right?

Yes to my, specifically, my work in southeast Asia. 

And well, I just I think I would just follow up on a lot of the conversation with you know that this in the whole area of antimicrobial resistance and research in antimicrobial resistance is an incredibly complex area, right. There's so much to consider, and I think, the more we know the less we know. And that's just what's being made clear right is that as we begin to unravel some of the components around amr and antibiotic resistance. It really is becoming clear how well are you measuring it, how well do you know, you know, phenotypic versus genotypic can you trace back to you know source all those things become incredibly complex, right. And you almost get into you can really get into a very circular space. Where one set of isolates collected from one environment could be a lifetime worth of evaluation to try to identify what exactly is going on there. And are you measuring that as accurately as possible. And I think a point that I just wanted to make is you know when we started doing Carla's research, and looking at that whole genome sequencing of the isolates that we collected from fresh markets. I think it became very clear to us early on that there's so much out there in terms of taking that data evaluating that data, and then re-evaluating that data because they're just a lot. And you could probably speak to it better than I could. There's a lot in terms of understanding these genes, what they mean, how they interact together, what the names are, what you know there's various names for the different antibiotic resistance genes. I'm trying to ensure that you see that from a phenotypic perspective. 

And not only just the genes. Sometimes, we focus on the genes that could  come for a resistance to specific antibiotics, but then it has the gene. But, somehow it's not expressing resistance or it doesn't have the gene. But it's expressing resistance, and then you look you dig a little bit a little bit deeper and you find it has some pumps that were not present before that people didn't know about. And now maybe that efflux pump is helping in this specific antibiotic that we were not aware before. And so, it's very interesting to look over time, and the database that ncbi provides, and just see that you know last year we saw five different resistance five different genes that could encode resistance. And then, this year we have like additional two if flux pumps that were not that before and are helping to explain why we might might see that, or why we might not see that resistance in those isolates. So, it's really interesting how it just changes as the more gathered information, less we know. Probably, as Jesse mentioned, and yeah.

And today, the way we trade food and agricultural products. Whatever that gene is down in Brazil, could be in America in two days, right. Yeah so, then they will adapt you know I mean I think that again not to just kind of continue with the same comment but they are going to from a bacterial perspective right we have to recognize a food safety mindset that they're going to adapt. And so, we're always working with a, I don't want to call him a foe that seems harsh, but we're working on prevention of a group of organisms microorganisms that are going to adapt to whatever we're doing, and that's got to be part of that thought process.

Yeah, I had to follow up on that. In the plant world, we have of course a group of enteric bacteria that infect plants outright, and we're finding what we would have considered a species in the past, they're so variable that they're exchanging on genomic islands. They're not just exchanging resistance genes, or genes for adaptation they're exchanging whole secretion systems, so that we, you know, we can have certain populations with one or two secretion systems and all the one with half a dozen. So, those are the tools that those bacteria need to adapt, and maybe, even adapt to new host species. I, to get it to kind of bring us back to world food day, world Food Safety Day,  what do you consider are the pressing gaps in our knowledge? And what are the opportunities for reducing the impacts from foodborne illness? What do we need to head what's our vision?

Oh I think that a huge one, a huge one, is understanding the role of foodborne disease on nutrition gains. And again that comes back to when you look at the population of the world and the percentage of that population that lives in environments where nutrition is a major concern major concern and I mean I think that that could be applied to high income countries, as well. But, you know my focus is really low income countries. And so, I guess I'll speak to it from that space having an understanding for the dynamics between foodborne disease and negated nutrition gains. Would I think change the discussion around investment in sanitary and hygienic infrastructure around the world. Which, ultimately, at the end of the day, I think is it's alarming that has not been a bigger conversation. That we have such large populations of the world that are living in incredibly unhygienic unsanitary environments. And so, I think until you are able to say the reason why Africa is not seeing gains in their nutrition outcomes, or the reason why Asia is not seeing gains in their nutrition outcomes has a lot to do with diarrhoeal disease. Which is a hypothesis that most people working within food safety and international spaces have. I don't know that you're going to see a huge investment in that space. And so, I think having data that really can explicitly show that would be huge. 

And I'll also add to your question jim if you especially if you bring it back more toward home and developed countries, is we are in an era where we're really going toward minimal processing of foods, what we lovingly refer to as clean labels. You know, doing away with preservatives and you know really going toward fresh and local, and that sort of thing. And to me, you know, some of this technology is opening the doors to new issues in food safety. I'm not, I don't, want to just come out and say that those types of products are less safe. But, they have to be managed differently. If we're not putting preservatives and things in foods then obviously you can have more microbial growth And so, I think it's an error, that especially me, I'm really into interventions and things like that research as far as food safety. It's something that's a very pressing and real issue today, and I think it is as we look into the next five years, I don't see it changing. I think we're really going toward that more natural clean label green produced type food system, and we have to address it. And I think, if you look at fba for instance, they have just come out with a document that's kind of giving their vision for the new era of food safety is what they call it. And a lot of it is global supply chains, minimal processing, and emergence of new pathogens, things like what we've talked about today on this podcast. 

And I might add too, that and this is a little biased because I'm a primarily salmonella researcher, but I feel like the salmonella problem is going to continue on our radar for the foreseeable future, you know, we've made tremendous progress on chicken toxin producing E coli, you know. Particularly, we focus a lot on the beef industry and we've made tremendous progress there. What we haven't made progress on, and you might argue we've made some progress, but is reducing salmonella in terms of public health. And as well as a in different food commodities, including beef for example, and we're making a lot of progress and starting to understand why that might be and particularly in different food products. How is it in a cow, for example and therefore, why is it a risk, so we're starting to make progress, but in terms of like the healthy people guidelines for the government, we aren't making progress there. If you look at it from that perspective. And so, I feel like food safety is going to continue to really be emphasizing funding to figure out what the salmonella issue is, why it's a problem, and then what do we do about it. And that's in a variety of products right, Jesse you mentioned flour, right and we've mentioned beef it's been in produce just to name a few of the many so salmonella will definitely continue to be on the radar for a while.

Yeah, salmonella is actually a bonafide plant pathogen based on all the genetic work done in the last few years. Yeah, 

Interesting, thank you for sharing, that I did not know that.

I was just going to close the loop here and talk about I think part of the extension and outreach, you know, the consumer side. How do we educate consumers to then make sure that, you know, if we are all diligent and make our part and everything everybody's doing their part all across the chain. And then, when he reaches consumer and they don't know what to do, and how to handle their food safely, that could be very detrimental to you know preventing food-borne illness. And I think just looking at the calls of action that the World Food Safety Day calls for one of them is team up for food safety, and I think we really could use that to team up for food safety and educate people around us our friends our families. And I find sometimes hard to just communicate, and I think I have spoken enough times to my friends not to eat a raw, not raw but underdon, burger. That now, when they are eating with me, they look at me and they said “okay, yeah. Well done please.” and they asked the server to be well done, and I guess you just have to do it over and over and over again until, you know, we’re to a point where people just have that in their minds, and they know some of the practices they can choose. Some of the choices can be safer than what they used to do, and I think just it's as much as important as everything else just the consumer awareness, and they know what to do.  What they can do to protect themselves and their families.

I just want to take a minute and actually underline that, because as we were going around I thought if no one says it I'm gonna be selfish and take a second stab, because I think that, I mean as much as that sounds a little crazy, and I don't know, I get kicked out of every food safety group I exist in. But, we need a grassroots movement back to consumer education. We really do because we've moved away from it and there is a true lack of, I think, understanding of just really basic food safety and home food safety information in upcoming generations of people. My mom always kind of takes the stance that it’s because of home economics, and I think I think she's got maybe a point. But, her point is grounded in that it's due to a lack of food safety education for consumers. And so, whether that's home economics not being in high school anymore, or not right, it means that there isn't something that is providing particularly young people with some level of information on ‘this is how you safely prepare food within your home’ and we do we have to have a grass root roots movement back to it, because we've kind of forgotten it. 

One of the scariest things, as a food microbiologist myself, is walking around the tailgates at football games and watching what goes on at tailgates relative to food safety. It's amazing that we don't have huge outbreaks every weekend, you know, in these types of environments. 

You know, unfortunately, for us, people don't want to invite us over for, you know, let's be honest we don't have friends, we're safety scientists. A lot of my friends actually say that they're intimidated for me to even be near them when they're even five feet within the kitchen. 

So but, when you're traveling internationally they all want to be sitting right next to you. 

That's huge, and they're like if Jessie doesn't eat it, I'm not gonna eat it. That's so true.

But, I really like how you all really close the loop with that conversation, because it's something we talk about amongst ourselves a lot but really struggle with. And another thing kind of going back to one of my comments earlier about how it takes all disciplines. And food safety is one of the things that we also really need is working with our social science friends and colleagues to understand how to get the message out in a way that it will be received and valued. And because that's another piece right is I could put together all the data I wanted on salmonella in cattle and but how do I make somebody care about it? How do I deliver that message in a way that's meaningful for my mom in her kitchen? Right, and how it translates from what we do here to the burger that she needs to cook well done. So, it really takes a whole team to address that question, as well. But, I really like though, how we started out talking about processors, consumers, researchers, everybody, and now you closed it with the consumers, as well. It's really good point. 

And, I guess that comment, and some of the comments that have been made throughout the discussion, brings back the importance of the Food Science Institute at K-State. Which is truly an interdisciplinary group, and you've got scientists and researchers from all aspects of research in that area, and very important approach to getting things done the right way.

The Food Science Institute is very focused on food safety, in along with general food science, and I would just like to remind everybody that as June 7th comes up, and the week before, and probably the week or two after, at our food science website, Food Science Institute, website we will have the video posted that Carla mentioned. We'll be sending that to the food and organization. Hopefully, it'll see some international use, and we'll continue to put out as much information as we can about our food safety program. And just general guidance for consumers and processors.

That sounds wonderful, and we will definitely get some connections to those sites through our global food systems website. As well, so that we can get the information out and share all the great things that you're doing, and the students are doing. I think this is an exciting time. 

If you're really interested in this topic you can find a lot of things going on World Food Safety Day gotta get that hashtag in there. I really enjoyed the discussion, so thank you so much for your time today. You know there's a difference between observing human behavior and understanding it, and that's our challenge. 

I agree with the comments about the need for re-engaging the public in food safety, because it seems like we're in this era of well undercooked is better. And you know, if you watch the food network shows it's almost sinful to cook things all the way through. I think your challenge is big, so good luck. 

Yeah, well and I think to that point, right. It may be one of the best ways to kind of close this down, is that the whole Food Safety Day, and their big theme, and has been, you know, across the different years, has been food safety is everybody's business. And so, you know, I think that that's something that we very much believe here at K-State that food safety is everybody's business, and that we're really attempting to cultivate an environment in which we take that into our classrooms, we take that into our research, and we take that into our extension. And so, engaging with the consumer is a huge part of that, and making sure that they are a part of that everybody's business  is a really important one.

Well, great. This has been a good experiment having a having a group of people discussing on an important topic like food safety, and we're really excited to be able to put this out in time for food safety International Food Safety Day and I want to thank you all for joining us, and we'll look forward to talking to you again sometime.

Thank you, thank you very much, thank you all, thank you, thanks so much, have a great day. 

If you have any questions or comments you would like to share check out our website at https://www.k-state.edu/research/global-food/ and drop us an email.

Our music was adapted from Dr. Wayne Goins’s album Chronicles of Carmela. Special thanks to him for providing that to us. Something to Chew On is produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. 

Keywords: Salmonella, lymph nodes, cattle, contaminated, research, food safety, animals, ground beef, Kansas State University

This week, Dr. Sara Gragg, associate professor of food science in the Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, discusses how and where pathogens access meat. The study of E. coli, salmonella and other toxin-producing pathogens has been a major focus of researchers at Kansas State University for many years. Gragg has presented extensively on the topic of food safety and studies processes in food safety and microbiology. Her research program investigates pre- and post-harvest issues affecting the meat and produce industries, with specific interests in addressing how pathogens contaminate food products and the application of interventions to prevent or reduce pathogen presence.

Transcript:

[Music]

Something to Chew On is a podcast devoted to the exploration and discussion of Global Food Systems produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. I'm Maureen Olewnik, coordinator of Global Food Systems.

And I'm Colene Lind, Associate Professor of Communication Studies at Kansas State. I studied the public's role in science and environmental policy.

And I'm Jon Faubion. I'm a food scientist.

The safety of the food we eat is important to everyone. Studies of food contamination with E coli, salmonella and other toxin producing pathogens has been a major focus of research at Kansas State University for many years. Questions on pathogenic contamination in meat and how the organism enters into that food system are at the center of research activities in several disciplines. Today's guest is Dr. Sarah Gragg, associate professor in the Department of Animal Science and Industry at Kansas State University. Her research program investigates pre harvest and post harvest issues affecting the meat and produce industries with specific interests in addressing the manner by which pathogens contaminate food products, and the application of interventions to prevent and or reduce pathogen presence. She is particularly interested in studying the pre harvest transmission of foodborne pathogens in food animals, as well as investigating interventions to reduce foodborne pathogens in live animals. I would like to welcome Dr. Sarah Gragg to the podcast, something to chew on. We're looking forward very much to having a discussion with you here today. Before we get started on some of the technical side of what you do, can you give us a bit of background on yourself, who you are, and how you got interested in the work that you do?

Yes, absolutely. My pleasure. Thank you, Maureen. And thanks to the entire team for inviting me today. I really enjoy the opportunity to be here with you and visit with you about my passion, which is food safety. So with that I'll share a little bit about how I came to be a food safety researcher. I was actually in high school and walked into my Agriculture class as a freshman didn't know what to expect. And we had a new teacher that year. His name was Todd Berkshires and he was starting us off on our Agriculture classes but also in taking our FFA program forward as well. We had a co-advisor, as well, in our FFA program. And so I got to know these two teachers interacted with Todd Berkshires the most and as part of FFA, we have to have something called a supervised agricultural experience program or an SAE for short. And, I grew up right outside of Lincoln, Nebraska. And I had like two or three acres and had some close friends that I also would show and train horses with, and so, I was definitely a part of agriculture but I wasn't per se the traditional farm kid if you will. And so, I didn't know what I was going to do for my SAE program. And his wife, Dr. Mindy Berkshires was a brand new assistant professor at the University of Nebraska Lincoln at the time. And he said why don't you go work with her in the lab because food science and technology is actually an SAE emphasis area. And we can see if maybe that's something that you want to do. And I said that sounds fantastic. And so I got to meet Dr. Berkshires and spend some time getting to know her and her graduate students and getting to know the lab and decided that was absolutely what I wanted to be doing for my SAE. And so, I was very fortunate at the age of 14 to sort of luck into food science, if you will, I don't think I'd ever heard of it or known what it was at the time. And so as a part of my FFA program and working with her in the lab, I was able to complete some different research projects for science fairs, and different other competitions and activities through FFA. And so I got to work alongside her and her graduate students while also logging hours for my SAE. And so, after several years of that, I realized this is what I want to do for my career. This is something I'm passionate about. Something's very interesting to me. And I also really enjoyed agriculture and wanted to make a career out of it. So really with that the rest is history. I stayed at Nebraska, to do my undergraduate in food science and technology. And about the time I was a junior in high school, the Berkshires family relocated to Texas, to Texas Tech University. And at the time, I knew that I was going to be following them for graduate school. So I stayed at Nebraska did my bachelor's and then transferred to Texas, to attend Texas Tech for my masters and my PhD. And so while I was there, my master's work consisted of looking at lactobacillus, and some different strains, as an intervention to control E coli. Oh, and 5787 in fresh spinach. And so, produce safety was really the focus for that degree. But at Texas Tech, we had a lot of exposure to meet safety, as well as pre harvest safety, working with cattle, and other animals as well. So then, I stayed at Texas Tech for my PhD, again with Dr. Berkshires, and worked on cattle lymph nodes, actually, and trying to isolate salmonella from cattle lymph nodes. So looking at the prevalence, which is how many animals out of a certain population have salmonella in their lymph nodes, and also trying to quantify how much salmonella was present as well. So looking at prevalence and concentration.

And so that actually was my entire Ph. D. program. So did that for my dissertation work. And we worked with both domestic cattle as well as cattle in Mexico for the various parts of my project. And we also worked with the United States Meat Animal research center in Clay Center, Nebraska, for a large portion of my dissertation work. So that was what I was up to, before I came to Kansas State University. I did a little bit of a postdoc at Texas Tech as well. And then this job at K State came available. And I have been with Kansas State ever since. And so I joined in June of 2013. And I'm currently an associate professor with a 60% research 20 or 40% teaching appointments. So that's a little bit about how I got to this point in my career.

That's great. Thank you very much. You know, looking through the research activities that you've been involved in, it's covers quite a bit of distance, I'm going through the leafy greens and the produce side of it into the animal side. You know, you talk a bit about calorie search. Have you done research on other animals as well?

Yes, actually, so cattle is definitely probably the area that I've researched the most in terms of live animals or in terms of livestock, but also have done some work with swine. We actually as a food safety team here at K State have wrapped up recently two studies looking at hog carcasses. One study was looking at salmonella from carcasses all the way through trim, and trying to identify interventions that are effective at reducing salmonella. And then we did what I would call it that project sister study where we were looking at reducing ShiGa toxin producing Escherichia E coli on carcasses. And so, that those are probably two of our most recent studies. And then we also are working on a collaborative study that just got funded with Texas Tech University to look at salmonella in hog lymph nodes, as well. And so that's going to be as I mentioned, the dual institution project, where we're going to look at a variety of different hog lymph nodes, from hogs around the country with different plants, and both trying to determine prevalence as well as concentration of salmonella. So really, beef cattle and hogs are probably my two main livestock I've worked with.

I'm curious on the the lymph node work, and this will be a question of based on ignorance. How does the contamination in that part of the animal's body impact human food consumption?

This is a great question. So I'm going to focus primarily on beef cattle because that's where a lot of the lymph node work has been done to date and that's where we have the most data. So we have looked, a lot, at what are called peripheral lymph nodes, so those are lymph nodes that are sort of on the outside of the body embedded in the fat tissue of the carcass. Now, when beef cattle are taken apart, which we would consider fabrication, there the fatty tissue oftentimes gets cut away and is sent with trim to grinding. Since those lymph nodes are a part of that fatty tissue, those lymph nodes then can sometimes get incorporated into ground beef. So when we have lymph nodes that have salmonella in them, those lymph nodes then are in the fatty tissue, the fatty tissue goes to ground beef, and then any salmonella within those lymph nodes now gets ground up and is a part of that ground product. So then for consumers who might enjoy a hamburger that is less than well done or cooked to 160 Fahrenheit, could potentially be at risk for salmonella in that hamburger, potentially from a contaminated lymph node. Now, I also do want to point out that those that salmonella is within a lymph node, and that lymph node is embedded within the fatty tissue of the carcass. So if we were doing a carcass wash at the abattoir, let's say hot water, or lactic acid, for example, those washes do help reduce pathogens on the carcass. However, if salmonella is embedded in the lymph node, and in the fatty tissue, of course, it's protected from those interventions. And so that makes it very difficult to protect against any salmonella entering the horse through the lymph nodes. So we have to really then think about, what can we do in at the live animal side? So pre harvest to reduce the chances of having someone else in the lymph nodes? Also, can we remove lymph nodes? That's been a question. Animals have hundreds of lymph nodes throughout their bodies, right? So it would be very, very challenging to get every lymph node removed from every carcass. And so some studies have looked at what if we just remove maybe the biggest six, right? So some are bigger than others, right? Some, if they are contaminated and contaminated at a high concentration could in theory, be providing a larger load of salmonella into the ground product, then a teeny, tiny lymph node that maybe isn't as contaminated, for example. So it's really kind of hard to predict and know which lymph node might be contaminated? And, and really, what's the best way to approach this from an intervention and a food safety perspective, but it's a very important area of research currently.

Yeah, that is really fascinating. Sarah, and the way that you explain it is really helpful in understanding the implications for the consumer. I'm just curious about salmonella, who knew that salmonella hang out in lymph nodes is the same? Could you talk just a little bit about the physiology? And maybe that will allow you then to get into some of your findings in terms of what can we do pre harvest? Is it? Are there particular kinds of rations that help reduce the amount of salmonella? So first, I'm wondering, is it just a natural part of the physiology of the animal? And what have you learned about ways to reduce it pre harvest?

Yeah, great question. So I will kind of start, I guess, by how salmonella even ends up in the lymph nodes and kind of talk through some of those points. So salmonella is oftentimes naturally in the gastrointestinal tract of cattle. And in most cases, cat cattle are not clinically ill if salmonella. Now we have over 2500 Different serotypes of salmonella, and not all salmonella behave the same way in every post, if you will. Now, what might make us sick, like a salmonella Newport, for example, might not cause any issues in cattle. And so it's really hard to pick up at the feed yard level because that you might walk through the pens and think oh, well if they're that contaminated with salmonella, they should be ill and I can pull them and treat them it'll be fine. That's that's just not how it works because cattle are not as susceptible to salmonella. As humans are. In general, right. There are some serotypes like salmonella, Dublin, that can cause clinical illness in cattle. So I'm speaking more in general terms that cattle generally do not get sick. And so they harbor it in their gastrointestinal tracts they pay In their feces, their feces end up in their pins, and cattle lay down, it gets muddy and wet, and so it gets on their hides. And so salmonella is very much in their environment as well. So when we think about that situation with cattle, if it's in their environment, and if it's in their GI tract, it's possible that it's also finding its way to the lymph nodes. And there's a couple of different ways to consider that. One is through the gastrointestinal tract. So salmonella can pass through actually the lining of the GI tract.

They can utilize what are called the M cells of peyres, patches in Peyer's patches are essentially like immune tissue in the GI tract. And someone will actually utilize that to pass through. And so then they can enter into the bloodstream and also be drained to the lymphatic system. Oftentimes, they're in Gulten in a macrophage or some sort of immune cell. And then those immune cells might carry the salmonella to the lymph node. And then we don't really know what happens after that. One of the problems with salmonella in lymph node research is if we're getting these from animals at the abattoir, so they've already been euthanized and are hanging on the line. I have that one shot. So if I wanted to sample cattle throughout it's, it's I can't just get a lymph node from a live animal, right? I have to get it at death's. And so it's not like I can sample the same animal throughout its lifetime to see when that lymph node became positive, and did it stay positive? And did it ever go negative? So those are some of the questions we have in terms of what salmonella finds its way to the lymph node through the GI tract, for example, how long is it positive? We don't know? Does it get cleared at some point does it pass through that lymph node to another lymph node, for example. And there's some research that's kind of looked at that but we still need some more effort there to kind of identify, but again, challenging research. Now there are some other ways that we sort of hypothesize that salmonella finds its way to the lymph nodes. Now, some of those peripheral lymph nodes that I mentioned, one that I have researched, and a lot of others have particularly is called the sub iliac lymph node. Now, the subiliac is a larger lymph node that kind of sits on the hind hip of the hind leg of the animal, and it drains the hind leg in that region. So we were always scratching our head. Why is that lymph node positive? How did why is the hind leg contaminated with salmonella that lymph node perceived it right? So there are some questions about is it an abrasion, that salmonella is entering through and then gets filtered to the resident lymph node, maybe it's biting flies, we know that flies love to hover on feces, right. And so maybe they're hovering on the feces and then they go bite the hind leg of the animal and introduce salmonella transdermally. And then it finds its way to the lymph node. Now, there has been some research done by some of my colleagues that have looked at what happens if we actually do transdermally introduce salmonella at different points throughout the body. And there's been really interesting research trying to understand where salmonella ends up if it's introduced transdermally. And it does tend to be in kind of the surrounding lymph nodes in that area. So that helps us kind of understand how it can happen not just through the GI tract. Now, it is though, like the sub iliac lymph node on that hind leg, for example, that can probably find its way into the ground beef system B just because of its location and adipose tissue, and then that adipose tissue goes to ground beef. So what do we do about this? Right? Well, we're still trying to identify what to do about it actually. So if we go to the farm level, we need to try to minimize salmonella in the environments and in these animals as well. Now, I will say that generally there are trends to when we find salmonella in cattle lymph nodes as well as in cattle feces and the general trend is it peaks in sort of summer to fall As you go south in the United States, and then we've also done some studies in Mexico, I think one study was, I think, September in Mexico, and we had extremely high salmonella prevalence. But you know, we were going south. And we were at that peak prevalence time. So, in general, salmonella is not found as often in lymph nodes or in cattle feces at other times of the year, and especially like here in the Midwest, we don't find salmonella as much as we would as we move south.

So that helps us also sort of target some of our efforts in terms of where do we think the biggest risks are? How do we help those feed yards or those avatars and then, you know, we can apply it to all regions as well to just help minimize any prevalence we have throughout the United States or throughout the world eventually, as well. So pre harvest, good, you know, good management practices, trying to help keep salmonella out of the environment, cleaning, water troughs, and so forth. But also, as you mentioned, what are we feeding the animals? And so we have actually looked at different studies where if we add a supplement, for example, like a probiotic, does it help reduce salmonella in perhaps their feces in their environment? And then of course, in the lymph nodes as well. So that is a pretty important area of research in terms of what can we get that we can feed to the animals that will not, of course, be harmful? Right? It has to be, it has to have animal welfare in mind, but also productivity, right, we don't, we don't want to also reduce their effectiveness in terms of their growth and what they're already consuming for their diet. So we have to work with like ruminant nutritionists and feed yard experts to help identify things that might work, things that could be beneficial without harming the cattle and their and their daily game in their productivity, while also trying to improve food safety. And so it's kind of a balancing act there and definitely an interdisciplinary effort to try to tack this issue. And then I mentioned, of course, you know, at the avatar, there are questions about, should we be removing some lymph nodes? What if we remove some of the bigger ones? Does that reduce the amount going into the grind, and then in our ground beef product? So we're still trying to figure all of those things out, but it's a Farm to Fork question.

That's fascinating, because it really has shows how little, you know, toward any sort of, I don't want to say global because that's not what I'm implying. But you don't have a method for for really positive controls the moment it appears. Right.

Right. Well, I mean, I will say, you know, the industry is doing the best they can, right? Oh, sure. Healthy cattle with clean sanitary environment. But yeah, we haven't quite found the magic bullet or the silver bullet, if you will, to address this issue. And I think some of us that have worked in the pre harvest space, kind of get frustrated with the salmonella problem, because salmonella just won't go away. It's and you know, when you think about salmonella from an overall public health perspective, it just won't go away. So like the Healthy People, 2010 and the 2020. And you know, now we're getting ready to hear about 2030 for salmonella. We aren't making much progress towards those. And there's a lot of effort going on to try to address this issue. Because salmonella is problematic. And we're doing what we can. We just haven't quite found the solution yet, in general.

Are any particular breeds or subtypes of in this case, cattle or swine? More or less? I don't want to say resistant because that imply something we don't know. Are they more or less likely to be hosts for salmonella?

That's a very good question. So I will say from the lymph node perspective, one of my projects that I worked on during my PhD work at Texas Tech, actually compared what we would call feedlot cattle are fed cattle to what are called Cole cattle. So cattle that maybe were like old breeding stock that were done being used in that way and then you know, sent to the avatar. So, oh, feedlot cattle versus other cattle, if you will, or cold cattle was one of our primary objectives. And what we determined there is that feedlot cattle are far more contaminated with salmonella in their lymph nodes than coal animals. And now when you think about it, I kind of describe the feed yard environment, right, we have animals and pins together, and some may have salmonella, and maybe at high levels and others might not. And then they're hanging out together. They're eating out of the same bins, and drinking out of the same water troughs. And so that kind of explains, I think, why some of our feedlot cattle are going to be more contaminated, particularly as we move south and in the summer and fall, then our cover

Is the contamination from the lymph nodes in ground beef, the major contamination point, or what are the other? What are the other major areas that contamination could occur? I guess that's kind of a two question. Question. Yeah.

That's a great question. So part of what prompted the lymph node research, you know, a decade ago, I guess, really is when we kind of got into this business, if you will, is, you know, we, we have these carcass washes that are pretty effective at reducing salmonella on the carcass. So we might have a certain prevalence or concentration, pre wash, and then it's hard to find salmonella carcasses post wash. But then when we grind up the carcass, salmonella's there, so what gives? Right, why, how is this possible? And so then started asking the question of what all is actually going into the grind? Right? And, well, it's not just lean tissue. And it's not just that oppose, there's lymph nodes in there, too. And so that kind of prompted some of that question. So to answer your question, I would say yes, we know lymph nodes can be a source of contamination. If any salmonella is remaining on the carcass, post intervention, or if it's cross contaminated after for example, during fabrication without clean and sanitary environment, and personnel working to protect against that, then, you know, potentially pathogens could be introduced, post washing of the carcass as well. So a sanitary environment sanitary tools, trained personnel. But we also have to remember that if we are using a carcass wash like hot water or lactic acid, for example, we have to use it properly, right? It has to be at the right temperature, and it has to be mixed to the right concentration, because all of those things help to reduce salmonella on carcasses if salmonella is there in the first place. And so there are a lot of different ways I guess that salmonella might find its way in. But we are particularly interested in understanding the role that the lymph nodes specifically plays. And hopefully we're going to be looking at that very soon as well.

Great, thanks.

Sure, you have other things you'd like to talk about other than salmonella, but we're obviously really interested in the nose, they're going back to the consumer end on Maureen’s question. I was wondering about the effects of salmonella, you know, my awareness of food poisoning, or borne illnesses through beef sort of started 30 years ago with E coli, which of course, have very different mortality kinds of consequences. I'm wondering how sick the cells make people and how big of a problem is this for our country in general? 

Very, that's a great question. So you brought up the ShiGa toxin producing Escherichia coli. Right, and, as we call them, are definitely very concerning from a public health perspective if they're present. Right. So salmonella. It's, you asked a sort of a loaded question with salmonella. You know, when you think about how there's over 2500 serotypes right? Not all of them are going to behave the same way. And so I'll comment on that a little bit more here in a minute. But what I will say is that salmonella has oftentimes been associated with the number one cause of death for foodborne illness. So that's a problem and salmonella can make a lot of people sick and it can make some people not very sick, right and so people do die from salmonella. And you know, we generally the classic gastrointestinal illness, right it are the symptoms and salmonella can last you know, three to seven days. Sometimes it can last longer than the 24 or 48 hour bug but you might kind of think is the general foodborne illness. And it can cause some issues especially in immunocompromised individuals like it can also lead to like septicemia for example, but in general, healthy immune competent individuals, stay home stay hydrated. And generally it can have in a few days or you know, a day or 234. And you might not, you know, even consider going to the doctor or the hospital just depending it really kind of varies, but a lot of that can depend upon not just your immune status, but what serotype you were infected with and at what level. So, some salmonella serotypes that you hear about in the news potentially associated with outbreaks like salmonella Newports Salmonella enteritidis salmonella typhimurium, some of those you may have heard about and associate with foodborne illness. So those are some of our most clinically associated serotypes, if you will. So for whatever reason, and some research is looking into this, they are more virulent for humans and can cause more severe illness. Not just that, but at a lower dose as well. So some outbreaks have shown that those more clinical serotypes might be around 10 100 cells versus some other serotype outbreaks have been around a million cells or more. And so it really can depend on a lot of different things with salmonella. Now I will say this interestingly, when I was doing my research at Texas Tech on lymph nodes and salmonella in lymph nodes, when I was working with the Meat Animal research center and Clay Center, Nebraska, Dr. Dana Hart high up there she was serotyping our isolates. And the majority of the serotypes that we found were Montevideo and a Anatum. And Montevideo and anatum aren't generally associated with being highly virulent, or having a lower infectious dose. To be clear, we found all types of serotypes right, we found a quite a variety, including some type of Miriam's and Newports. So it's, even though Montevideo and Anatum were the we're the largest, it doesn't mean that there is no risk associated with them. But it is interesting, though, that some of the ground beef data in terms of salmonella serotypes from the United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety Inspection Service, in past years, has shown a higher prevalence of Montevideo and an Anatum as some of the stereotypes. Now we do know that Montevideo Anatum are often associated with cattle, we often find them in our cattle studies. But the fact that we found them also in our lymph nodes, and we know lymph nodes go into ground beef. And we know that ground beef sometimes has Montevideo in an autumn at a higher prevalence. I don't think that's a coincidence, either. But I haven't investigated that that's just my personal hypothesis and trying to make connections, if you will, to all the data that's out there.

Yes. Which gears just a bit, looking over some of the activities that you're involved with on campus. Um, you are also affiliated with the Center for Food Safety Research and Child Nutrition, which I think is in college years. Program is and what your involvement is with it.

Right. Absolutely. So I work with my great colleagues over there. Dr. Kevin Roberts, Dr. Kevin Sauer, Dr. Powell, Paula Pious, excuse me, and some others that have been fantastic colleagues and collaborators. So that center is aimed at addressing the need for like school, school lunch programs, for example, and child nutrition programs in general. And so they have as part of their center different funding. Research projects, oftentimes is a micro lab study. I'm involved with some of those studies. And so we have a good time trying to address some of the questions out there and they're a great team to work with. So what we've done in the past is looking at cooling of large quantities of food. So as you can imagine in a school lunch program, It's kind of hard to know how much food you're going to need from day to day. And so at the end of the day, I might be left with several large pans of chili, for example, why don't want to just throw that out? So how do I cool it properly so that I don't have a risk of foodborne illness for the students.

So there's something called the temperature danger zone, which is the temperature where bacteria can grow more readily in a food product. And some sources would say it's 40 to 140. Fahrenheit, some would say it's 41 to 135, I tend to say it's the 4140 rule, because I think it's easy to remember. So if a food product is held in that temperature danger zone for too long, and if there are bacteria present, they can grow. And depending upon the bacteria, it could make a toxin that could make you sick, right? Or it could grow to a high enough level that the actual bacteria might make you sick, depending upon what the bacteria itself is. So we need to make sure that we're providing resources to schools on how to cool properly when you have large portions of chili or rice or tomato sauce, for example. So we've worked together to address some of those questions, looking at different cooling techniques. Do we cover it? Do we not? Do we cover it a little bit? Do we put the pans in ice water? And then in the fridge? Do we just put them in the fridge. And so we've looked at a variety of different food products to help try to address some of those questions. And then another study that we did was looking at food served away from school on a field trip. So a lot of schools might provide sack lunches to students. Well, when two field trips start, right, usually we leave at 8am. Everybody gets on the bus and we go you know, visiting outside looking at different things while the lunches stay on the bus probably. What's going on with those lunches? Are they properly packed with ice or ice packs in insulated coolers? Sometimes these field trips might happen in a situation where it's a very hot day. And we all know how hot our cars can be at the end of a hot day. You think about what a bus might be on a hot day. So we tried to answer the question of if a sack lunch is take bank being taken for students on field trips, how are they being stored and how safe is it? So the FDA Food Code has what's called time as a public health control. So we can consider for hours as the public health control if like temperature controls not available, for example, it's called time as a public health control. Well, we need to answer the question is that effective in a scenario where maybe a sack lunch is not receiving proper storage conditions for refrigeration, and maybe it's on a hot bus for three or four hours. So we worked on a study trying to simulate what those bus temperatures might be. So worked with school officials around the country since of temperature data loggers in the month of May in June, I think it was to North Carolina, and Arkansas maybe and ask them to put these temperature data loggers in a bus and outside of a bus. And we tried to look at that sort of 7am to noon or one timeframe to see what the temperatures were doing to know what the risks might be for a cooler of sack lunches on a bus. Well then we tried to create a worst case scenario. So we took that information and then made it worse right temperature wise. And so we created a program on a smokehouse and ramped up the temperatures like what might happen on a bus on a hot day. And again, exaggerated right? Let's stress the system as much as we can to create a worst case scenario and then prepared sack lunches that had salmonella or Listeria monocytogenes inoculated on them and had temperature probes and different sack lunches throughout the cooler and tried to determine not just what's the temperature doing in those coolers and in those sack lunches, but did salmonella or listeria grow. And we had determined based upon preliminary studies that a cooler packing scenario with no ice or With ice, one layer on the bottom or worst case scenario, so those are what we also used in our study. And we determined that the pathogens did not grow during that four hour four to five hour time frame.

And so we determine there's pretty low risk in one of those scenarios of the pathogens being a problem in terms of growth. But of course, there's a huge caution there, right, we looked at salmonella, and we looked at listeria, and we only looked at turkey sandwiches, carrots, and apple slices. There are other pathogens, and there are other food products and their other different formulations of turkey sandwiches and stuff. So we still recommend not keeping it on a hot bus and having at least one layer of ice and eating, of course, within the four hours with food code recommending only four hours as the time point for public health control. So that's a little bit of a summary there. And I have to acknowledge to that Dr. Phoebus, was associated with those studies also. And so our food safety team, as a whole has worked with this group. So it's been a it's been a different approach to research than, you know, the cattle and the lymph nodes and things I've been talking about. And so it's been a very interesting experience that I've enjoyed learning about as well.

Did anybody ask you what you found in food science is a discipline that got you so hooked on it or was not there for other sources of scientific disciplines?

That's a great question. I think it's, you know, I really like pipettes, and I really like the benchtop. And I really enjoy getting to take a meat sample or a spinach sample or something and do different micro techniques that in a day or two, I can see E coli or salmonella on a petri dish, and I can count it and what can I do to treat that product to have less salmonella on the next time that I count? Right? That's fascinating to me. But we'll be what I'm really hooked on is the importance aspect, I really appreciate that what I do could impact lives. And if I can find some sort of solution to a problem, that might reduce salmonella in the food supply. And that's fewer people that get Salmonellosis and fewer people that might have serious illness or die from it, then my job is, it's definitely worth it right. And I feel like I've made a positive contribution, not just to science or to the university, but to public health and to society. That's ultimately what I want to do.

That's very well thought out.

There, I've got a follow up to that your opening narrative about how you got into food science, you framed it as sort of chance and, you know, yes, there's a lot of chance and how we end up in our particular paths in life. But I can't help but notice that it wasn't just chance that you had this exposure to an academic who was a woman in food science, who sort of got you started. I wonder if you could reflect on your time as a graduate student and now your own time with your students in your lab? I wonder, do you have some opinions about what we should be doing to encourage women to choose and to persist in science?

Yeah, absolutely. So I actually am very appreciative that you brought this up, because it's always really important to me to acknowledge that I didn't get here by myself, I had tremendous opportunity, and mentors. And I had people take an interest in me in my professional development, and in my education from a very early age. And so and so I often say I don't know what I would be without Todd and Mindy Brashears I don't know because they introduced me to food science and you know, now my career and so I feel like I will always owe them so much gratitude. And I'm always wanting to make them proud. Because it's as if they hadn't provided like, I don't know where it would be so no, it's you can imagine how important it is to me to pay it forward. And so it I find probably some of my greatest satisfaction. Feeling like I have impacted a life like I have helped a student become a better scientist, help them to be grow in their professional development. maybe help them learn themselves and about life in general. And so if I can do that for one or two, or however many students like they have done for me, then I'll feel like my job is done. Because I think that investing in the future, the way they and others invested in me, is the key to having future scientists and, and having a safe food supply. And so for me, that's really you know, that at the end of the day, that's also what gets me the greatest satisfaction. So in terms of the women aspect, yes, I will say that, you're she has been a wonderful mentor to me, in terms of what it's like to be a working mom as well, and how to balance those things and still be successful. And I've learned so much from her from a personal perspective in that way, too, that, you know, we really need to enrich and encourage that in other women also, and in young ladies who might be interested. And so for me, you know, sometimes we have opportunities to work with different young lady groups that come through at K State. And those are the types of things I think, you know, I should be going to visit and sharing my story about how this woman invested in me at age 14, and look where I am. And she still mentors me today, right? I, you know, text her, often just, and we chat often. And she's still very much involved in my life. And so we need to start that with others at a young age and provide them mentors and role models and a path forward through STEM careers, so that we do continue to have young ladies interested in being the next generation.

Very well said, Thank you.

That is fascinating. That's a wonderful testament to what you are doing as a teacher, as an instructor at K State and having the students going through your program, what an opportunity for them.

Well, thank you. I mean, they do so much right, in terms of the research in helping to teach and training new students that are coming in. And so, you know, I think graduate students and undergraduate student workers are also somewhat of the unsung heroes, right? You know, I did a lot of the lymph node work myself, so I can talk about it. But I also get to talk about the lymph node work my students are doing today. And so you can't forget to acknowledge how important it is to not just recognize what they do and their success and how important they are, but also recognize their contribution to science and how important it is to keep fostering that so that we have great scientists coming out to carry the torch in future generations as well.

I would like to ask you if you've got any final comments or any questions of us.

You know, this has been a wonderful time. I really enjoyed talking with you about my research and kind of about who I am today and how I got to this point, and I really appreciate the opportunity and thank you for all the very insightful questions and hope that we can maybe do it again sometime. Thank you so much.

If you have any questions or comments you would like to share check out our website at https://www.k-state.edu/research/global-food/ and drop us an email.

Our music was adapted from Dr. Wayne Goins’s album Chronicles of Carmela. Special thanks to him for providing that to us. Something to Chew On is produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. 

In this podcast, we talk with Dr. Justin Kastner, associate professor in the Department of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Kansas State University. Kastner co-directs the interdisciplinary Frontier program, which is focused on crossing disciplinary borders, and overseeing scholarly activities for several academic units. Since food production, shipping and trade are all managed through regulation and international policy agreements, students in Kastner’s courses benefit from his experience in international trade policy at the World Trade Organization in Geneva.

Transcript:

Something to chew on is a podcast devoted to the exploration and discussion of Global Food Systems produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. I'm Maureen Olewnik, coordinator of Global Food Systems.

And I'm Colene Lind, Associate Professor of Communication Studies at Kansas State. I studied the public's role in science and environmental policy.

Hello everyone, and welcome back to the K State Global Food Systems podcast something to chew on.

Food production, shipping and trade are all managed through regulation and international policy agreements. History lends a trove of background and information on how these agreements were reached, how the safety and affordability of food is managed through these systems, and points to the importance of an interdisciplinary understanding of the system in maintaining availability of healthy food for consumers. In this podcast, we talk with Dr. Justin Kastner, associate professor in the Department of diagnostic medicine pathobiology in the College of Veterinary Medicine at K State.

Dr. Kastner brings a holistic perspective of pedagogical innovation in student mentoring, co-directing the interdisciplinary Frontier program focused on Crossing disciplinary borders, and superintending scholarly activities for several academic units at K State. Welcome, Justin, the Global Food Systems podcast Something to Chew On and to get things started off, can you give us a little bit of background about yourself, who you are, what brought you to the area of study that you are in and perhaps what brought you to K State? 

Thank you for having me. I am not a native Kansan, but for all practical purposes, a native on, incidentally, true to the theme of the global food system. The second Food Science son of a food scientist, dad, and my brother and I both got to grow up in Manhattan, because my dad, first counselor, who retired a number of years ago, took a job at Kansas State University. So my brother and I were born in Pullman, Washington, the home of Washington State University, the home of a really, really high end, fantastic dairy product called Cougar Gold cheese, which actually the CASPER family, and all generations and all within our sphere of influence, continue to enjoy. And dad works in Food Science at Washington statement. Fortunately, providentially got a job and moved to Kansas State. And so my parents moved us I was, I think, three months old Marine, if you can believe that. And so we grew up here in Manhattan, and my brother and I were thoroughly indoctrinated and manipulated by my dad, to become food scientists as well. And when I was in university at K State, in the late 1990s, that was the time when mad cow disease or BSE was a sort of conflict filled and trade dispute filled public health issue. And when I was finishing my time as an undergraduate at Kansas State, in the late 1990s, I was quite keen on studying that issue and other related other food safety related issues in global trade politics. And so my wife and I, we, we got married, we moved overseas, and to study that issue, actually, in the UK, did a master's food safety and international trade in London and then studying public health in Edinburgh, Scotland. And, you know, I think part of my journey has been falling more in love with the policy aspects of science, including food safety, but also more and more in love with history. And so one of the things that happened after we finished our time in the UK is I was able to work for a summer in food safety and animal disease related policy at the World Trade Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. And I even now, in my job the case date, I teach courses related to the work of the WTO and its principle trade agreement that governs and sets guidelines for food safety, animal disease and plant disease regulation. But while we were in Europe as you as many people listening to this podcast who relate, we just became more and more fascinated by history. So for my PhD, which actually live in Canada, in southern Ontario at the University of Guelph I, I emphasized historical, specifically late 19th century late 1800s, trade disputes over food safety and animal disease, and kind of looking at some of the policy and on economic and political precedents for resolving disputes over food safety, which I had, of course, witnessed at the WTO. And so to sort of be quick here, when my wife and I moved back to the United States, we were fortunate to return to Manhattan, and I've been on faculty here for a decade and up close to two decades, I guess, and have been involved with quite a quite a wide array of undergraduate and graduate programs, I've developed a number of courses teaching, teach a number of courses and involved with the College of Veterinary Medicine, or I'm on faculty that run not a veterinarian involved with the undergraduate and graduate Food Science Program, the undergraduate honors program, and case data lathe as well. And I'm just really honored to get to continue to help students not to put too strongly and help students fall more in love with the policy and historical aspects of the food system, which I myself had experienced when I was close to them leave. 

You and I have talked in the past. And so we've had the opportunity to interact. But I was reading through this again, and kind of getting myself back up to speed on your background. And I find it interesting with the focus that you have, where the College of Veterinary Medicine fits, how did you end up in that particular college with the background and the clear understanding that you have of history and politics and all of the things that go into that? 

I think part of the story is that but you know, the early 2000s here at Kansas State, there was a real movement to set up they weren't called this but you know, basically clusters of multi disciplinary research and teaching groups of faculty that were to some extent kind of charged to and given permission even to operate outside of their home departments outside of their home colleges for the sake of the wider University multidisciplinary tackling of complex problems, including food safety and security. So one of those programs, which was actually I think it was called the targeted excellence program. And one of the targeted excellence programs was for food safety and security. And there were a number of faculty, physicians and faculty, existing faculty who were mobilized for that effort. And one of the new positions was actually here in the College of Veterinary Medicine in my department, Department of diagnostic medicine pathobiology, which is actually one of the most diverse in the sense of scientific disciplines. One of the most diverse departments at K State because we have folks studying all kinds of issues, some directly, some indirectly, veterinary quite a few epidemiology minded scholars, certainly food safety, certainly virology bacteriology in just a very diverse academic department. And as I know, I'm preaching to the choir here. But you know, part of I think the advantage that K State has had is that we have been less snobbish about departmental barriers, and very willing to think across departments across colleges, and even komentar students who advise students might have in my case, I've been involved with helping mentor, undergraduate and graduate students, many, perhaps most of whom are not even actually in the College of Veterinary Medicine, in but in other graduate programs and undergraduate programs. And then through my involvement with the honors program that was exceptionally multidisciplinary, because I spent, you know, about four years helping students from all of the different undergraduate colleges at K State, feed their intellectual curiosity about a range of topics, not just the food system, but I think the short answer is the targeted Excellence Program was how I ended up being based here at the College College of Veterinary Medicine, but one incidental and collateral benefit of that is that I have become more and more conversant about veterinary history, which is something that actually emphasized in my PhD of wealth. And we have really one of the great patriarchs of the history of veterinary medicine in the United States on faculty, faculty emeritus here, and that's Dr. Howard Erickson. I'm sure you guys know and I've really enjoyed working with Dr. Erickson. You'll see him as a as a mentor in the field of that industry.

Justin, I really appreciate hearing your background both in terms of sort of the path to took to get here as well as your PhD. I studied political communication. And your story about how you were socialized into being a food scientist really reminded me that I didn't know what a food scientist was, until my first job out of college, I worked for the National Academies Association in Washington, DC, and we had several food scientists on the staff. So my introduction to food scientists was through policy and politics, but I don't think most people probably have that appreciation for the role that food science and policy the way that they go hand in hand. I wonder if you could talk for a little bit about any how you see those two fitting together? I mean, some people might understand them to be contradictory, right? Science, purely objective policy? Not purely objective? Do you ever feel attention? Do your students feel attention? Do you have trouble convincing your more science minded students to policy matters? 

Well first of all, I think you and I are very unusual, and how we came to become aware of the term food science you sounds like experienced it in no an actual policy workplace. In my case, I was you know, indoctrinated by a family member. But I always joke, or I sometimes joke that most pop culture conversant Americans know food science through the National Lampoon's Vacation series, because Clark Griswold, the Chevy Chase, playing character, he is a food scientist. And so if you ever want to see the essence of Food Science, all you have to do is watch Christmas vacation, or European vacation, and you will fully appreciate the wonders of being a food scientist. You know, I think, more seriously that one of the artifacts of higher education not just in the United States, but everywhere, is that we have these names for undergraduate and graduate programs, in my case, a PhD in food science, that, yes, is merited because maybe we take courses and we are examined, and we are expected to emphasize, like in the case of food science, it's typically you know, food microbiology, food chemistry, food engineering, and food processing expertise. But the problem with these terms, like food science is that just like with any academic program, in a complex society, in a complex world, those titles will never and should never fully convey what makes you you, I tell my students that all the time, like, you should not expect the title Master of Public Health or MS in food science, or doctorate of Veterinary Medicine, you should never let those terms be the the limiting descriptor of what you bring to the table. And that's why my favorite part of favorite part of the graduate degree titles is actually MSC or Ms. Masters of Science or PhD, Doctor of Philosophy, because those convey thinking they convey a scholarly approach. They can convey intellectual curiosity, yes, about whatever the state of degree title is. But certainly not just that. And so I think in my case, fortunately, food science by being either within a narrow definition of Food Science, relatively diverse having food, microbe biology, food chemistry, food processing, but because of that, implicit diversity, there's maybe more of a openness to true diversity, and, you know, embracing all the different facets of the global food system. So I'm very thankful to the food science discipline for that very reason. And I just might add that, I think some disciplines, you know, graduate program titles, for instance, that are very precise, they may actually be very appropriate. You know, you think about someone with a PhD in say, virology that would not necessarily expect a biologist to be conversant on healthcare policy, but what I would expect them to have an understanding of the scientific underpinnings of viruses in society and in public health's reality

That makes sense, and I would agree with your virologist example. But I would push back a little bit and say that while you might not expect the virologist to have an expert, an expertise in policy, I would expect anyone with even an undergraduate BS to have enough familiarity with the way that policy is made and an appreciation of our system of making policy with its strengths and weaknesses to be able to engage it in a particular way, right? I mean, back to your earlier point, I really liked the framing of his initials that matter more than what comes after the initials.

And I think that that is something that maybe we need to emphasize more. There was an article 20 years ago in The Economist, basically, citing I think it was Arnold Toynbee, some quasi famous British historian, who said that the land grant university system was America's most important contribution to higher education, because it was all about being practical was all about solving problems. It was all about, you know, kind of technical information delivery there in frontier America, you know, in our case in 1863, and then Kansas State Agricultural College was founded, but one of the other sides of that coin in places like a land grant university culture, is that we tend to sometimes I think, I think it's fair to say, We downplay those initials, pH, D, and s, to maybe because we're trying to be practical, right? And that's our heritage. At the end of the day, you know, I'm always mindful the fact that, in fact, one of my high school buddies, his dad, who was a faculty member at K State, an agricultural economist, he said, his name is Dr. David Barton. He told me once that education prepares you for your last job, meaning, you know, when you are an undergraduate student, or you're a graduate student, you're developing the critical thinking skills. Those MSc and PhD initial alluded to skills so that as you go on in your career, you can continue to learn, you can continue to make sense use your human faculty of reason to understand complex problems, navigate new issues, like a pandemic, which by the way, I had no courses. But I couldn't take that when I was studying public health in Edinburgh, we did have courses on pandemics, but no one really prepared me for COVID-19. And I don't think anyone has a degree, master's of science COVID-19, you know, from the 1990s, right. But we choose an MSc Xu understand. And DVM is an MDS.

I love that framing of it prepares you for your last job. I think we spent so much time and understandably so thinking about recruitment in terms of preparing you for your first job. But that's not the point at all.

One of the things that I wanted Justin to talk a bit more about is the Frontier program that he had put together. That is something I remember again, in the past, I remember discussing with you and it's it's quite an interesting endeavor that you had gotten into, can you give us about a bit of background and detail on what that one was?

Yes. Well, you know, like everyone listening to this podcast, and you're, you call you Maureen. It's a common experience in higher education in academic life, and probably in any workplace, to notice those kinds of similarly like minded colleagues that we have, and then collaborate with them. When I was in graduate school, studying BSC studying International Trade politics in London. My wife and I,we lived in a postgraduate student housing complex filled with graduate students and residents from all over the world. One of my fellow students that wasn't living there. His name's Jason Nicholson. He was studying international relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science. And we became friends mainly because he would fly home to his home state of New Mexico and bring back all kinds of good southwest fare and beauty. My wife and Jason and I, we cook these meals to, you know, remember what spicy food tastes like as we were living in bland food, London. And as we became friends with Jason, Jason, I realized that we both had had excellent mentors. When we were undergrads. We both realized we had this fascination with interdisciplinary approaches to problem solving. And then we also incidentally, just both love Star Wars. So we had a lot to talk about all the time, a good reason to like each other. And so Jase, and I became friends. And fast forward 2004. I was on faculty here at K State and Jason was on faculty at kind of in a parallel way, his alma mater, New Mexico State, in the political science or government department, and we decided that we would start something called the Frontier program, and it was all about crossing disciplinary frontiers of kind of a metaphorical statement that had two meanings. One, we wanted to have students be encouraged to be intentional to think outside of the rooms stated, academic department or academic program, baby food science in case of a case State student in political science in the case of the New Mexico State University students, but also to intentionally studying issues at borders, including international trade of food, and other issues that happen at nation state boundaries are frontiers fronteira. And so the frontier party was born out of that kind of idea. And Jason and I and others, Dr. Avenues share case state, we were able to grow that program and through different partnerships over about a decade and a half, including, perhaps most notably the US Department of Homeland Security in their career development grants program. We build a fairly, you know, I don't think it's too daunting to say this, but just very, I think exceptional program of experiential learning and CO mentoring. So Jason and I would, with other faculty and universities, we would take as many as 2030 students, three to four times a year to international trade ports, used to be socially engineering groups, meaning we would have students from political science, sociology, public health, food science, different universities. And we would travel to international trade ports to policy centers to groups like the Congressional Research Service that you probably know about, Colene, in Washington, to historical archives. Remember, I mentioned earlier my interest in history. And we would just give these students a chance. It's not a course as a field trip, and chance to be with peers who are not in their own major, make friends with them. But it'd be a total geek out field trip, you know, learning about international trade, learning about food inspection reports, learning about what was in on the bookshelves in an 18th century, you know, Virginia archive related to food and health meeting with incredibly competent policy analysts and the Congressional Research Service in the Library of Congress. And we would do these trips we did, I think we've had today we've kind of stopped numbering because the program with DHS has ended, but we have probably had 300 400 students travel on these trips. And in COVID, you know, we obviously haven't been doing this, but mercifully, I do every two weeks have resumed based sessions that are similarly diverse in terms of academic disciplines, and we call them crossing disciplinary frontiers gatherings. And so we're encouraging the students and we discuss what they're learning what they're interested in the relevance of thinking across academic disciplines quite a bit on history, quite a bit on the history of public health, obviously, right now at the moment, and I just, I'm just really honored Maureen to have been involved with with Dr. Axelsson in this sort of effort, what we call the Frontier program, the Frontier Field Trip program and crossing disciplinary frontiers. And that also, we're also very grateful, actually, to the Global Food Systems Initiative case state, which did support a good number of these trips several years ago, including trips for not just K State students, but students from for his state. So if you're a pure state legislator listening to this podcast, please know that at Kansas State University, we took very much a non KSU only approach to our mentoring. And we were able to take students from just kstate for UC on some of these trips, and that was really underlining.

How do you say that those activities in that student learning directly impacting the global food system at the state level?

Yes, good question. I mean, I think that what the analog, of course, is COVID. How are we managing the pandemic? We're doing it with public and with private actors. We've got governments, we have local government at the Riley county health department involved. We also have private health care providers involved. We've got private pharmacies, private grocery stores, and the food system is no different. You know, the safety, security and operation of the food system in the state of Kansas is inevitably dependent on both public and private actors. So I would say that, you know, helping students, not only the certainly at Kansas State, grow in their understanding of the multifaceted nature of the food system, having an appreciation for microbiological science as well as regulatory affairs. You know, many students, many K State graduates are conversant in both domains. And, you know, some do work in the expressly public sectors. So one of my first mph students, Ryan Bradburn, graduated from K State and mph in food safety, biosecurity, he works for the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service. And he's very much a government regulator, helping to ensure the safety and security of our meat and poultry Supply here in the Midwest. But then we have other students like for instance, me fairly recently, Dr. Danny Unruh, who actually was one of the students on the global food system grant. And Dr. Andrew now is working for a private firm. But just like Ryan is also a key player in the safety, security and operation food system, in Kansas and in the Midwest. So I think that we have to remember that. And we always said this to the Department of Homeland Security. And they themselves designated the food and agriculture sector, the critical infrastructure, key resources sector of Food and Agriculture as an expressly public and private phenomenon. And so K State, you know, in the words of my, my father, taste state, does many things well, but one thing that we have always done well, is graduate students who understand the food system. And that includes the so called hard sciences, as well as the so called Social soft sciences, social sciences. And those students who have gone on, like Ryan, like Danny, to work in public and private sectors are making a real difference. And you and I, we're all guilty of taking it for granted, but that they are the Clark Griswolds saving the day. Right? Can we agree on that? Colene? 

Yeah, yeah, for sure. I totally forgot about that. It's much cheaper to go back and watch those with a whole different twists when I'm watching those movies.

Yeah, oh, man. It's funny, soft skill. Is writing. So writing is the skill that carries everything else? What's the common experience for a graduate student whether you're doing an MPH report, an industrious thesis, a PhD dissertation, even these coursework only programs at K State, many of them have some sort of writing or written product capsule, that is so good and so appropriate, because Thank you cannot write clearly without thinking clearly. And, you know, it's back today, one of my, one of the graduate courses I teach is, is a, it's a writing course, for science students, and not just food science, and public health, but certainly those disciplines. And I just love it, you know, it's maybe it's not as immediately exciting as a trade policy course, or a history of public health course, child, grateful to teach. But it is exciting to see students refine their faculty of reasoning become better thinkers, literally, because we're teaching them how to properly use a semi colon, or we're teaching them how to be more grammatically parallel in their writing. And then what does that bring along or brings along clarity of thought to begin to understand more effectively articulate what they're interested in the problem they're tackling or the solutions they see? And that is, so the essence of education, and it's a soft skill, I'm pretty sure that writing is a soft skill. I think that's a fair statement.

Maybe the moral of the story is, you're the person who was commenting where rate was right, if we think of it, we categorize it as a soft skill, but there couldn't be anything more important than those kinds of skills. Great. Let's let's go to trade because, you know, it's kind of a big deal, and it's obviously a big deal and an expertise of yours, Justin, now that I'm reminded about your experience in the UK. I wonder if you would be willing to sort of think out loud and comment on Brexit. You know, everything that you read in the mass media about Brexit usually talks about the consequences for lower economic output in the UK and perhaps in other places, or just in the increased amount of difficulty in moving products across board. But now that you're here, I'm thinking that there could be some real serious food and food safety consequences, thanks to Brexit. And I wonder if that's true. Or if there are other things in relationship to the food systems I'm not thinking about in terms of Brexit.

First of all, I'll address the Brexit issue, I think something that has to be remembered on the practical side of international trade is that at the end of the day, trade, international trade, commerce, the movement of goods and services across nation state borders, that occurs because of bilateral have to country agreements, you have to have. I mean, in addition to the private actors involved, you know, the producers, the wholesalers, the transport station, chain, the retailers, the consumers, that's all implied and necessary, but it's only when you have a government to government agreement, which was what we would call a bilateral trade agreement. Only when that happens, and trade occurred. The inconvenience for my, my colleagues in not just the UK, but also in the European Union, is that one of the consequences of Brexit is that because Brexit was basically or you know, because the UK had really been, to some extent, and in a positive and healthy way, reliant on a lot of being on their bilateral agreements being established on the basis of European Union, wide negotiations. Now, all those bilateral agreements that Britain has enjoyed the UK has enjoyed, they have to basically renegotiate, right and and this is the big consequence. And in a technical age, which we all live in highly complex age, where you have multiple categories of trade, issues of trade, technical barriers to trade. In my case, when I sitting, sanitary and phytosanitary, food safety, animal disease, plant disease issues in trade, that that effort is enormous. And so yeah, there's definitely, and I'm not making a political comment about this. But there's definitely a bureaucratic cost to having to renegotiate all this all these bilateral agreements, is there opportunity for Britain to maybe hatch some new trade deals? That's, I'll leave that to the economists to comment on. But when it comes to food safety, there's a lot of effort because judgment calls have to be made. And now that you know, and even yesterday, one of my master's in public health students, she's a government officer from Thailand came to Manhattan to do her MPH in food safety, biosecurity, and her MPH field experience was during COVID was done largely virtually, with a colleague of mine, who's one of the SPS representatives for the European Union to the WTO Geneva. And, you know, if there's anything that was very evident yesterday, and her field experience presentation, was just how her home country, Thailand has to put forth a lot of effort to be able to have a robust trade, relationship and hurt. In this case, it was poultry export trade, poultry being exported from Thailand to EU nation states. And the amount of detail, the amount of scientific and capital intensive investment that has to be made by countries to be able to trade with others, is sizeable. And then if you can just imagine if a country like Thailand, was in a situation like the UK is, and had to suddenly renegotiate with all of those bilateral agreements, that would just be a nightmare, and very challenging. So, but I think like some of the things that we've seen with the pandemic, and in society, a lot of these decisions Brexit included, are not being made necessarily unexpressed, the economic terms of the made because of issues of identity, sociological forces that, you know, a psychologist or a political science and sort of sociologists would be almost better at describing then say a trade economy coins.

Agreed. I'll come back to that toward the end. But thanks for that. Let's go to the other side of the globe. I'm thinking about what lesson we might learn from COVID. And it's spread a Coronavirus, and it's spread from China. And, you know, it's not obviously a food system issue. But clearly, like almost everything else is connected to the food system, as I understand it, the best that we understand not a closed book and by any stretch, but it originated in what essentially is a food market and was certainly spread around the globe, thanks to movement of goods, movement of trade and services. Are there any lessons that are sort of like tentative lessons? I know it's still early, but how did we do in terms of thinking about our agreements between countries and the movement of goods? Post spread of Coronavirus or during pandemic Do you do you have like an early assessment of how we did as a globe regarding trade and the threats from these kinds of pathogens?

First of all, let's acknowledge that a pandemic is an extraordinary event that is inevitably a negative event for someone. But I think one of the good news stories, one of the bright points of this is that, and I actually talked about this in my graduate course on the multilateral trading system for food safety, animal disease and plant disease is that we really saw the vindication, we really saw the value of having what I was called a rules based global trading system. What does that mean? It doesn't mean that there's a juggernaut force, policing the world, making sure that every country does everything correctly. It's about there being international treaties or covenants or agreements on what the rules should be. When it comes to these technical science, latent issues like food safety and animal disease, and the main trade agreement for that is the agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures or the SPS agreement. One of the things that happened early on with COVID when there will these wet markets these in the market and Wuhan, but not just they're also the frozen seafood products that were being moved to large metropolitan areas. Like Beijing. There was a some alerts sort of occurred. Obviously, the news sources and people were trying to understand What's this new, this novel Coronavirus, but one of the kind of interesting but not necessarily talked about issues was the Russian Federation. And I think February of 2020. They did the right thing. They follow the rules of the SPS agreements, Article Five, which basically is is a requirement that if you're going to make regulatory changes on what you allow into your country, you have to do it on the basis of a scientific risk assessment. Okay. And this is designed to take out some of the arbitrary, discriminatory and chaotic trade practices that have plagued humanity in agriculture for years, for millennia. But there's a subsidiary or part of article five of the SPS agreement that says that when we have something new when we have a problem that we don't understand, like a novel Coronavirus, countries have the right to temporarily or provisionally just unilaterally stop trade. And then they are to do a risk assessment. And so Russia did that. They had, you know, they some of their veterinarians had gotten wind of this and they were worried like what might this be, you know, what could the spread to you know, can we will begin it through consuming certain products. And so they stopped trade from China. And, and then incidentally, they later opened up trade because in this you know, the kind of the, the kissing cousin to this as you guys all remember, early on the pandemic, everyone was hyper paranoid about wiping down their cereal boxes. I know I did that. Shame on me, right. And then but that was a kind of like what Russia did, right. They were, metaphorically speaking, wiping down their cereal boxes. They were taking extra precaution because this is a new challenge and no one understood. And it was only after the risk assessment jet eyes came in and started saying, Well, this is actually what's going on. You know, it's being transmitted prior rarely, you know, in the respiratory manner, you're probably not going to get it by ingesting, ingesting it.

And we change our behavior, you know. So now, you know, at least in the classroom, we're not actively wiping down cereal boxes anymore like we weren't in February, March, I guess, March of 2020. And similarly, Russia, they have resumed trade with China, and having a better understanding of the risk. Well, the good news story and all that is that you see the value of having science based rules, in a treaty to give guidance on what ought to be done. Will there be revisions to things like the SPS agreement? Will there be changes to say, the Paris based World Organization for Animal Health, terrestrial animal code, aquatic animal code? Because of COVID? Yes, there will be. But that takes time that you know, you get a scientific consensus. And we're still just barely a year beyond this pandemic. So I'm a big fan, actually. And of course, I worked with the WTO. But, you know, when people say things like, we don't need to have the World Health Organization involved right here, people say, you know, we shouldn't be concerned about what's going on with COVID, in Brazil, or whatever. Those are incredibly irresponsible statements. And then they also ignore what we have seen recently, and that is the value of having countries being encouraged to follow rules. And, we have a rules based multilateral trading system, doesn't mean that we're giving up all of our sovereignty to some, you know, world government. But it does mean that we have guidelines that are rooted in science, and that are rooted in good reasonable practice.

Thank you. That's really, really helpful. I think that you and I could talk for an entire graduate seminar on sort of this tension between this understanding of nation state sovereignty and this rules based system. My big question is, how do we help encourage trust in that system amongst our general population? And I'd love to hear your thoughts about trade. I mean, just as your comments here suggest, you know, public conversation about trade is not very happy right now trade sort of on a on a in terms of public discourse on a downward trend. But thanks for that happy story. I hadn't thought about the fact that the system worked, in many respects, regarding COVID. So that's encouraging. I appreciate that.

Do you have any, any questions of Colene or I, any comments about the Global Food Systems Initiative, or how what you're doing might be impacting overall. And again, our focus is on the state of Kansas and kind of, it was so interesting, listening to some of the international discussion that the two of you brought to this to this, this podcast, and it's in my mind, I can fairly easily bring that from the globe, to the state, and see where some of these things fit is from a communications perspective. And we are such an agricultural state, there's so many parts of what are produced here that don't stay here that are shared and traded globally. And it was just really interesting to hear your take on how some of these things will be impacted and bringing it all the way back down to a local level.

This is both a question and an exhortation. I think that the social justice, issues that are upon us need to be given attention. So I think, My compliments to you Maureen, for your leadership on trying to kind of turn up the volume on all the different disciplinary insights, that case date faculty and students have, whether it's food, microbiology, and trade, public health. And I think, social justice, this, this reality that we have so called Rich, so called poor segments of society that are experiencing not just food safety and food system issues, but also the pandemic differently. I think that is an issue that needs to be amplified. So you probably are already doing that. But I just wanted to ask that question.

There are things going on, and I couldn't agree with you more. I work with an organization here in Manhattan and rally county outside of the K State position that is wholly focused on the types of things that you just talked about at a very local level and the pandemic has brought out challenges in availability of food, availability of access to good health care to affordable housing, all of the things that you think that you just described, have just been exacerbated. And certainly we see it, there are activities on campus that are addressing these things. But they do need to be brought to the forefront. And those are things that need to be addressed. They are part of the global food system in a big way. These these get down to the essence of each person having enough to survive in a healthy life. And I think you're absolutely right. And I will certainly look forward to bring that to the forefront more on some of these podcasts. We've got, as you will know, we look at a variety of different takes on the system overall. And I think this is definitely a topic that could be brought forward in the future as well. 

Thank you, Justin, this has been great. 

Thank you, Colene. Thank you for having me on Maureen.

Well, we really appreciate it. And it was really an interesting discussion went in a direction that I hadn't anticipated in some ways, but I guess that is some of the expertise that Colene brought to this today. Thank you very much. 

Thanks so much.

If you have any questions or comments you would like to share check out our website at https://www.k-state.edu/research/global-food/ and drop us an email.

Our music was adapted from Dr. Wayne Goins’s album Chronicles of Carmela. Special thanks to him for providing that to us. Something to Chew On is produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. 

Keywords: Food, Pandemic, food safety, global food system, podcast, policy, science, trade, veterinary medicine, research

How do we plan to feed 9.8 billion people by 2050? Increasing the availability of sustainable, arable land through the use of modern robotics could help to expand food production, and reduce the need for destruction of forested land. 

 In this episode of our podcast, we talk with Dr. Dan Flippo, Patrick Wilburn Keystone Research Scholar in biological and agricultural engineering at Kansas State University, about the work he is doing to mesh state-of-the-art robotic technology with food production to move toward sustainably feeding the world past 2050.

Transcript:

Robotics + agriculture with Dr. Dan Flippo, biological and agricultural engineering

Something to Chew On is a podcast devoted to the exploration and discussion of Global Food Systems produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. I'm Maureen Olewnik, coordinator of Global Food Systems.

I'm Scott Tanona. I'm a Philosopher of Science.

I’m Jon Faubion. I’m a Food Scientist.

Hello everyone and welcome back to the Kansas State University Global Food Systems podcast Something to Chew On. How do we plan to feed 9.8 billion people by 2050? Increasing the availability of sustainable arable land through the use of modern robotics could help to expand food production, potentially reducing the destruction of forested land. In this episode of our podcast, we will talk with Dr. Dan Flippo, the Patrick Wilborn Keystone Research Scholar in Biological and Agricultural Engineering at K State, about the work he is doing to mesh state of the art robotic technology with food production to move towards sustainably feeding the world past 2050. Dan, welcome to the podcast. We were looking forward to understanding more about your current research. But before we get into that, can you give us a little background on yourself and how you became interested in this area of study.

So I am actually from Kansas, they grew up near Wichita, a little town called Douglas on what's called a hobby farm nowadays, we didn't call it back then. But my dad worked at the post office all day and then came home and farmed. We didn't have too many acres. It was just enough to, it was more of a side business for him. And he wanted it, like it, for it to expand, but it never worked out. He was plagricultureued with machinery problems. And so we had, I have so many memories of broken tractors and that New Holland baler, his was kind of his bane of his existence, it caused a lot of problems. And so I kind of grew up with this mentality that farmers, you know, they're more machinists, mechanics, you know, and they cost it machinery and things like that. And so I went to, I came to undergrad here at K State, in mechanical engineering. And so some of the professors that are still over there taught me and after that I had really no interest in going back to grad school, I went to work at Cessna aircraft in Wichita. Worked there about eight years. And then I mean, my wife and for son, we quit that job and went to grad school while I was at Wichita State System paid for a master's degree in robotics, and mechanical engineering, but emphasis on robotics. And then we went to the University of Oklahoma. And I studied under Dr. David Miller, who is well known as far as planetary science, planetary robotics, planetary exploration. So nothing to do with agriculture really at all up to that point in my education. So I did a lot of wheel to soil interaction traction, specifically with robots and built a very big test apparatus. And I wanted to teach at K State actually. So the reason we went to Oklahoma, went out of state was the purpose of getting back to K State. And so I learned a lot about just the robotic world and the robotic feel soil interaction, it was regolith, really not soil that. And then after I graduated there, there was new university jobs, nothing and I was really set on being in Kansas. And so opening came up in a John Deere in Iowa, programming large tractors and so this is kind of my getting back into the agriculture world and agriculture industry. So I worked at John Deere for about two and a half years, and that's when K State job came up. And it turned out it more of a postdoc for me, kind of introduced to a lot of features and the customer world of agriculture machinery. Didn't like Iowa, it’s really too cold for me. So in 2013, I applied and we got a job here K State. And Dr. Joe Harner. He's already department head, he had a kind of a vision for robotics and kind of that next phase of agriculture. So he was very intent on getting someone who has specific interests in robotics. And so I came in 2013. And we've been here since then. I teach agriculture machinery courses, off road machinery courses, hydraulics, some mechatronics. engine power transfer. My research is in robotics. And so specifically small robotics, what I mean by that is like wheelchair sized robotics, in the agriculture field, so we've kind of focused on the smaller side, just for safety reasons. Because we've found that, you know, once a robot is big enough to hurt somebody, then the amount of sensors and, and technology and complexity goes way up. And so we've kind of, we've kind of focused in on the smaller robotics, and to try to stay away from all that complexity. If my robots ran into you, they would just either stop or run over your toe or something like that. But they wouldn't, they wouldn't hurt you. So we've been successful. We've been successful with that. We've gotten several grants through USDA, some corn commission grant and some EPSCoR grants with and throughout this time here at K State, I've had some really good collaboration with people. Dr. Stephen Welch has been kind of a mentor to a lot of us. He's got some fun stuff going on. And he's always big into dreaming. And so he's, he's on several of my grants. I'm on his EPSCoR grant, Dr. Brian McCormick over an entomology, we've worked a lot with him, he's always fun. To come up with crazy ideas. We had some ideas about shooting lasers at aphids and things. And so he was all about that he enjoyed that. And so this is where we're at, you know, right now we're trying to finish several of these big grants we got one of them is the high sloped hill, where we're trying to increase our arable land, by farming on on hills that conventional tractors can't go is wouldn't be safe. And so we have these smaller wheelchair size tracked vehicles that plant wheat on hills, and either lead cattle graze on that weed or are harvested. So we're working on that we're working on a Dr. Ajay Sharda, who's my colleagricultureue, he's got an NRI grants, National Robotics Initiative. Both those are and it's, we're have a robot that looks for aphids on sorghum and using machine learning. And this, when it spots an aphid or thinks it does, it sprays just that one plant. And so we have a spray rig on a four wheeled robot, and this will save an immense amount of chemical, both for costs for the farmer and environment. And so I think with you know, it kind of brings up a point where these robotics, we're kind of in a new world, as far as farming goes up into this point, we've progressed, you know, we started with just scattering a seed, then the horses and oxen, and then there was a phase change kind of facing that's assessment term, aircraft term phase changes, when you go from one look to another, a big change in design. He went to two mechanical tractors, you know, there's a lot of farmers thought that they we had cabs on our, on our farmers and we had auto steer, then we had bigger and bigger tractors. And we've come in some some issues with just making tractors bigger and bigger. And we, we've done that because of labor shortages and skilled labor shortages. And so we run into problems with the road, and you know, transportation, getting those big tractors, on Highway, soil compaction, things like that. So what we're really trying to focus on is the smaller vehicles, and this has allowed us to kind of open up the world and kind of get rid of a lot of assumptions about farming, you know, really is you're just getting the seed in the ground. And then you're taking the yield from that plant. And so how do we do that? We have a small vehicle, so we've had to kind of rethink how to plant were we thinking, you know, the options are kind of open right now we can we can think about multi crops in the fields and more environmental conscious farming. You know, one thing that we kind of talked about here is that we're able to do more environmentally responsible agriculture, because we're bringing in technology because we can rethink how we do things with the smaller robots and stuff. That's kind of where we're at.

I'd like to hear just a little bit more about what you think this opens up. So you know, you mentioned the phase change and You know, each of these new technologies really changed the way our culture was done right and a change sometimes change what was what was actually grown change how it has grown change the, you know, economics and, and the nature of farms. And so, you know, with all the openness of the future that you just talked about, it's hard to say, but I'm curious just about what kind of where you think we're heading with all this change? You know, what, what is it? What is it set up for us?

Oh, that's a good question. I mean, I'm just thinking, you know, right now, with my robots, I'm trying to think through how we can redo things but want for instance, I was just having a conversation with Dr. Sharda, the other day about, you know, the whole Native American, they do the three sisters method where they grow beans, squash, and corn all at the same time. And those three crops help each other one fights off bugs, the other one gives, you know, the corn gives the beans, some of the verlon with the small robots and automation, you know, we can think about multi crop fields, and not just mono mono crops. And so that kind of a lot of people, you know, I think farm and they take it a certain way. And right now, there's a lot of startups with, with agriculture robotics. And there's tons of them, a lot of bigger companies like the company I worked for, and even the other two big companies that do agriculture equipment, they're a little scared of having their tractors being autonomous, and then they do concept vehicles, things like that. But, it's a big risk to have a big tractor, computer controlled risk. And for the people that are there, you know, if there was a Sunday there in the field, which has happened, you know, things like that. So, there's a lot that has to happen before, I think these big companies are going to, really sell on autonomous tractors. But the startups are crazy. And they're mostly smaller vehicles. There are some like mid tractor size startup companies. But I think it's going to kind of generate this startup level of people coming ideas and ask them questions like, Why do we have to do it this way? And maybe they're not farmers, maybe they maybe they're just either hobby farmers or urban farmers? You know, why not? I saw a gantry farming thing where it just has like a small bed that you put in your apartment or somewhere and it has a gantry, that plants and that takes care of all the plants and things like that. Um, where are we going? Yeah, that's, an interesting question. I, I don't see us getting rid of tractors for quite some time. I mean, the, the amount of power and work that is done in one pass in those tractors on a flat field is amazing. And I think the tractor companies have really come a long way as far as technology and things. And they're expensive, too. I think for a long time. These smaller tractors, these smaller robots that we're working on, are coming in kind of augmenting, either like on high school Till's or farmers that are just getting going, you know, that scalable, you know, they, they want to farm more land, they just kind of bind the robot, things like that. Right now, we're trying to just get people to rethink because farmers have the kind of the tendency or reputation of being somewhat stubborn. And so they do things the way their dad did data, data is another one. I mean, there's so much data right now, coming off of agriculture vehicles, and fighting over who gets that data. Other companies will say that, that data is the farmers. But so there's so much data that no one knows what to do with. I mean, we have images of fields. And so right now, I think there's going to have to be some people really picking up the data, data analysis part of it to try to help farmers make better decisions.

Do you see the initial use of your work? You mentioned urban farming and that type of thing. And kind of the difficulty in introducing this into the very large scale? Do you see it first being introduced into the smaller urban farming or, you know, smaller farming type systems prior to and then kind of building up from there?

I do. I think people that enjoy that technology, you know, the people that get the iPhones and stuff like that, they all kind of think this is really cool. And start there. I see a big community doing that. That's why with this grant, we kind of try to focus on sloped Hills because this is not any place where a tractor can go. And so this kind of helps feed the world. A big push, you know, I'm sure you guys have heard the 2050 push where, you know, we have to feed over 9 billion people by 2050. And so this is kind of an industry rally cry, you know, John Deere kind of talked about that a lot. So we have really, he tried to bring awareness about that as well. And so one way of doing that is, is opening up these little pills that no one's using.

So do you conceive of these as being scalable? If, if a large producer wanted to take them on rather than having to do, I don't know, how many passes on a, on a three on one subsection field, that there'll be multiple of these units is that?

Yes, yes, it's kind of the scrubbing bubbles, technique. Remember that commercial. So you have, you'll have a bunch of a swarm of robots that will work day and night, to get the work done. And now, my robots are pretty slow, you know, they make one pass really easy, but you can have a bunch of them. And so we're gonna have to, you know, networking, as far as wireless connectivity, you know, in the rural areas, and things like that, is gonna have to be extended quite a bit. So right now, you know, thanks to the bigger tractor companies where we have RTK GPS, which is, you know, very sub centimeter accuracy GPS, and that's, we have a lot of stations and stuff. And so we're able to use that, but we're gonna have to, we're looking at right now, you know, different wireless technologies, Dr. Sharda, especially, is looking at different wireless technologies to get to talk from, you know, inside the canopy of like corn. And so one one, not another nice thing about these small robots is that we can be under the canopy of crops. And we're not looking down at the leaves that are healthy, we're looking at from up and seeing where the bugs are trying to see where water stress is, and try to get to a better health picture of what's going on underneath.

So I was wondering if you could share a little bit more of the details of what has to be done to make these workable, I mean, so we've got some of the promise, right? Sir, we can open up areas like the soap pills, that can be more scalable, you can think about doing things differently, right, in terms of, you know, planting multiple crops, and you can reduce the use of pesticides. Right. So he's awesome, super positive. Right? So, what are the challenges for making it work?

The biggest one, I think of right now is how to keep these guys powered, and how to service them. What I mean by services is, if they're planting, get them seed to plant, if they're harvesting, get that seat away from my vehicles are all like electric, so how to get batteries to them, without them coming back and having to do that. And so we're looking at some different things that actually, I don't know if they're gonna work or not, but we're looking at UAVs, you know, unmanned aerial vehicles to be carrying batteries to service and swap on these on these ground vehicles. And so that's one way of servicing the robot. So you can keep working. We were trying to stay away from fossil fuels, we're trying to keep you know, it all electrical. But the power density for diesel is so much more than a battery. And so it's just a big challenge. You know, if you have other robots, UAVs or other ground robots that are servicing, then you have to have quite a bit of communication between the two, you have to have routing plans. And things get a lot more complicated. And so I kind of see that once you work with multiple robots, them all working together, you know, that's going to be quite a task. And we have some very smart machine learning people working on this. And yeah, just getting them power and getting them seed or getting the heart the yield back from them. I think that's one of the things that it's kind of holding us up right now. You know, one thing I will say is that one thing we didn't see coming is getting seed in the ground in a no till situation like on a hill, my robots weigh about 180 pounds 200 If you load them down batteries. So a normal conventional planter, you know, takes at least 300 pounds to push down. And so we tried it, we loaded down with weight even and so we've had to think of some different ideas. And so now we're going with a powered Tiller planter that actually is is more or less a disk with with teeth on it. And it spins, I think it's about 240 rpm, and it it cuts a furrow do this ground and then we put seed in it then recovered back up. We just can't press a disk in there like a normal tractor. Good. So this takes up power. It's not ideal. It's not what we're going for. But we try to, to go with the simplest possible design and then kind of if that doesn't work, we kind of work ourselves up to more complex issues, but that's those are the biggest things that we run across right now is you know, you could have robots that when they ran out of juice, they come back, get recharged, and then go back out. But for a bigger field, that kind of becomes an not very good solution.

What we see is the major push backs that you might get from farmers have spent 3035 years using different approaches in the mechanics we expect to have to answer to.

Most of them don't believe that this will work. So yeah, and a lot of them, you know, my dad was same way kind of your link to the land. That's John years phrase, but they see farming as you're on a tractor. You're out on the field, you know, your field.

Bouncing over the phone. Yeah.

But the thing is, a lot of these bigger farmers have five 7000 acres, you know, doing their field? Is it them on the tractor? Can they really see how their crops are doing? And they can, in certain instances, you know, for what, for example, we have this duck shares, we're going on this NRI grant that spots, aphids. And so right now, you know, an entomologist, you call them up, he'll come to us a few places in your field. And say, either, yes, it's bad enough, you need to spray or no need to wait a little while. So either spray the whole field, or you don't spray enough, you know, and it's just issues like that. And so I think the pushback is, is people, you know, Agra culture, it's a culture and so people are kind of back against, that's not farming, you know, that's not sure. And I think, I think I wasn't around when this happened, but talk to my dad, you know, when people went from horses to tractors to this kind of the same tune. Yeah, attitude, same, you know, you're working together with your horse to, to work the land, you know, I read somewhere where, when calves come on tractors, people were like, you know, I want to smell the dirt, I want to smell the earth. And the auto steer, you know, it's not me steering, it's just a computer, how is that farming, you know, it's kind of kind of a fight every time, I do see a lot of the younger farmers just really be a lot more open to technology, a lot more able to do that. One thing is UAVs. Now UAVs exploded into the agriculture market, because, you know, farmers one, they thought oh, not to walk as much I could see my whole field is a huge help. And it wasn't really farming, it was more of a help for farming. And so I think maybe they didn't have to justify that they weren't farming anymore, but they just this is something that helps them. And so one way for us to kind of get in or not us, but you know, robotics to get in is kind of scouting, if we have these scouting vehicles that go out, and it's a lot like you UAVs scout over the top, but they Scout underneath. And it's kind of it's not farming, but it's more of a help to the farmer. And I really think farmers are all about help.

I've talked to an old rancher actually, a few years ago, and we were talking about advances in this and then the other civil kind of give me an example. That well, there was a time when a PTO shaft was very high technology in the forums I was working on. So you know, what's, what's normal, and what's cutting edge continues to evolve. So I think the trick is to be able to survive that first party evolution and get some buy into it.

Yeah, and tractors themselves have become so complicated. And you know, that's a lot of different forces are pushing their emissions and things like that and features but I don't know if how many farmers can actually work on the tractor nowadays, not like we had to. Yeah. So the technology is there. They're just still driving now. So I understand the pushback there. And I probably feel the same way if I was a farmer. Sure. So we're just trying to trying to help you know, we're not gonna, we're not taking over farming. We're just trying to help, you know, help spray aphids help on uphills, you know, get a little more yield. Right.

Now, then you mentioned that you were working with Dr. Wells on some of the activities you're working on. And a minute ago, you talked a bit about working with people on machine learning, what you've got specific activities that you're focused on in building these types of things. What other kinds of expertise within the university do you bring in in helping to solve some of these problems or work through some of the challenges that you're facing?

Who else have I collaborated with?

Yeah, yeah.
One great thing about my job is that I have such good people around me. See, well, Welch is one of them. Brian McCormick entomology. We have a lot of people in engineering. So, Stacey Kulesza. She is in civil engineering. She does a lot of soil sensing for us, Jared Hobeck. In mechanical engineering, he's, we're talking about some ideas with with genetic algorithms for for tillage tools, some we work with Terry Griffin, who is a agricultural economist, yeah. Then we have, you know, the computer scientists, and they do machine learning, genetic algorithms. Lior Shamir, Bill Hsu, Sanjoy Das, he's an electrical engineering. So we will work with most anybody and some, I really enjoyed, I've learned a lot, a lot of things we also have. So our departments, sorry to interrupt you there, our department is we have machinery, which is what I am. And we have environmental and biological. That's three options of our, our department. Now we're all very much different. But it's been really fun to work with, let's say the environmental group, one example. That is they look for blue green algae, how to predict that happening on on lakes, and reservoirs, things. And so we have, we actually just got a grant, we build a kind of a robotic boat that takes sensors at different depths, and trying to get data for them to actually put that together to predict a bloom happening. So that's another fun thing. I'm working with these environmental people, and I get to make robotic boats and things like that. So I really love my job. A lot of fun.

Oh, before we know what this will look like the pollutes of the Midwest, if you can get the hills farmed.

That's right. Weeds everywhere.

Yeah, really.

I remember talking with Steve Wells about that idea about a year ago. And I clearly it's the same thing that you're working on describing exactly what it was you were you were talking about doing an increasing? I mean, basically, what he was explaining to me was, you're increasing the amount of arable land substantially, which makes a lot of sense. Yeah. Interesting.

We have to worry about, you know, erosion and things like that with hills.

And so sure

I'm sure concern. And our robots rolling down the hill uncontrollably. That's another concern.

Do you have any feel for the impact of having worked in the industries you worked in, prior to coming to a university setting? How that how that may be swayed or impacted or affected the job that you're doing now? Or was it just kind of a building block to get where you are?

Ah, yeah, it's had a lot of impact, you know, well, so I worked in several different industries Cessna aircraft, I was just a design engineer for the interiors. And so I learned a lot about how a company works as far as drawings, numbers, you know, engineering changes and getting a drawing released all that dealing with, we did all very custom stuff, interiors for the these people. And so it was good kind of get a sense of organization. So that's kind of what I'm brought to. Sometimes I teach that and then I also right now I'm also a coach for battle bot team, and Junior Senior High battle bot team. And so we use that in the battle bot team and then work in a John Deere, I learned a lot about you know, the, the relevant cut, you know, conventional features of tractor, a lot of customer feedback, a lot of kind of issues that are going on with the tractors nowadays, especially with the missions and things like that so they know more about farming than I do and so they know they have a lot more equipment than I do or or can get hold of, but you know, explaining like for range here, what that means what's going on in that transmission. So that's been really good to take that and then also like I talked about the 2050 kind of cry You know, I really brought that to our department and really have I made a big deal out of it and I got that a John here but so it's been good all that to say it's been a really good experience. I would I would highly recommend, you know, he got me started late here at K State late in my life but I would highly recommend the experience you get from working in industry. And so I would not want to go back to industry. Good experience.

Well, I was wondering, since you just mentioned being back at K State here, something I didn't ask you when you opened up, but want to ask now, so, why so interested in getting to K State? Or you said that was, that was your goal, right? When you went to get your last degree down in Oklahoma, and you left so that you could come back here? So, what are we looking for here? Why, why K State?

Well, it's nothing more complicated than me just loving Manhattan long. I, you know, I came here from undergrad and fell in love with it. I tried to stay tried to get a job here in Manhattan. But at that time, there wasn't anything. I mean, I think McCalls had a factory or something. But there was nothing much. So I like the AG. Ag school. So, and I've always had a I've always loved case study. And I want to be home, I want to be close to home. I did not enjoy being you know, Iowa was too far for me. I didn't mind Oklahoma so much. It was warmer. I like that. But I don't know, I don't know that I don't have a better answer than I just like it here.

It's been a good of an answer. So then. So then let me ask the flip side of the of question about what you brought from industry, which is, what's different about working on kinds of things you're working on now? In a university setting, right, as opposed to what, you know, you mentioned all the startups working on, you know, robotics and agriculture. Right. You know, what, what's the difference between, you know, working on maybe things that are, you know, like this are related to this. So you mentioned that a lot of the companies aren't necessarily going to sort of adopt some of the things that you're talking about right away? Because they're, they're focused on different things. But what's the difference between working on this kind of stuff in a large, you know, large established industry versus a startup business versus university setting? Are you exploring different kinds of questions and the kinds of, or different kinds of, you know, pushing the boundary more and the kinds of robotics you're working on, you ask them different questions, how would you describe the difference?

Well, it's probably different for different people who are different jobs, but my jobs were fairly, very structured. And so you are given tasks to do and maybe a feature to work on, you know, I programmed tractors or thing problems to fix, there was very little creativity that I could put into play. And, you know, we tell our students all the time and worked for a big large company, you work for a small section of that product. And you do it a lot more times, like for a small company, you would kind of be on, you know, designing it, testing it, marketing it, selling it, you know, supporting it, here, you know, a large company work on one little spot, and everybody else handles everything else. And so it, I didn't feel like I had much freedom there to try things, especially creativity wise. So here at K State, so much freedom, you know, and and some people don't like, the, the freedom, some people don't like the lack of structure that you would find in industry and, and so there's so much freedom that I have no one cares when I come to work, no one cares, my leave. But yet I have got a lot of responsibility to get stuff done. And, and that really fit me a lot better than and work in a certain time during the day and really not having the chance to dream and think up new things. And so, this morning, I worked on a new kind of a brad program for our department, that probably never happened. But it is fun for me, and kind of really good for me to think through that. And I like that I like to design, I like the I guess freedom to be creative is the biggest change for me. And it fits me. It's not any better than industry or worse, it just fits me better than the industry did. And so, you know, with a small company, you know, you probably have more freedom, and a little less security, but a little more freedom to, to work on products and things and create.

So how do you think this applies to the future of robotics in agriculture? So what's the are you working with startups or any industry on this? Are there other people who are doing this in this area? And what like, what are the different roles that are being played out by, you know, by the startups and industry and university in research settings of sort of kind of envisioning where we could be going in agriculture and sort of working on particular solutions.

Well, now that we are working with several startups, We're working with big in industry as well. So several of the big industries had their own small robotic projects going on, you know, fence and AGCO, they had the Mars program, I hear that John Deere has one going on, but I can't confirm that. But we work with some small startups, as far as there's a, there's a company and Topeka it, it's working with vineyards. And he's doing some fun stuff there with robotics and spraying. So there are a lot of it's a lot of roles going on, and you know, to kind of rethink what agriculture is with, with a whole new set of tools with, with automation, and small robotics. And I think a lot of these ideas could be taken up and used in startups and things and, and then, you know, it's like the electric car, people are getting more and more used to it. And so I see the same thing happening with agriculture robotics today. Did I answer your question?

Yeah, oh, that's great. Thanks.

The only other question I had, and this may be similar to one that Scott answered, asked him a bit ago, but if you had a way of looking into the future, what comes after this kind of technology? Where is this technology leading agriculture overall, let's assume that it's picked up and it's used, and what's coming next?

So if this was fully adopted and used, it'd be a lot more lobby a lot more probably, farmers at home, keeping track of their robotics swarms, you know, doing robotics, and doing agriculture. One thing that I would love to see is that kind of a robotic farm, you know, for ag for university purposes. We proposed this a while back, it was called case utopia that was kind of, I was very proud of that name. But it was just a piece of land that was fully run by robots and for farming. And I can see, I can kind of imagine a class where we teach a class and data would be coming in off this farm from these robots. And the students would take the data and analyze it and see what needs to be done. And, maybe a student would be in charge of a certain plot of land, you know, to control the robots and, and, and how to do the fertilizer, and when, when to plant and keeping track of the soil. You know, I see that as an amazing teaching tool for students in agriculture, you know, automation. You know, I could also see the downsides where we lose our farmers. And, you know, would that happen when we have big huge corporations that just run robots? I don't think so. I think there's always going to be farmers. Just like, there's always the hobby farmers now, you know, it doesn't make sense for them to be hobby farming, but they are, because they love it. And so not a really good answer for that. I'm sorry. It's

No, it's there was a fine answer. I guess, as I've been listening to you talk over the last period of time, just thinking about the, you know, the potential of multi-cropping in the field, or the potential of improving the environmental impact. It's, and then you you talk just a minute ago about these huge corporate owned farms that may or may not be separate for I mean, that's what I'm looking for opposite of one another and their approach on things, but possibly could be, it's just, it's an interesting, it's an interesting mix of potentials and possibilities that you've been describing that could come out of this. So it's, I'm sure that some of this technology will be picked up, it's just going to be very, very fascinating to see where and how it's used most frequently.

Yeah, I think, you know, I think there's a lot of government regulations coming down the road with, especially with pesticides and herbicides. So I think we're gonna have to get creative with how we keep that yield up, and how we make more yield to meet that 2050.

Now, it's been great, it's fascinating stuff. It's just there, there are so many, there's so much potential, and I'm excited to see what happens, those other effects are dealt with, right? So we've got the positives, but then, you know, there'll be there'll be shifts, there'll be shifts in what's planted, right, you know, there'll be shifts in you know, in labor, right, sort of you were mentioned labor drives, was driving, you know, some of the technology but then technology drives labor changes, too, right. And so like, it's just going to be so many differences. It does feel like I guess actually, this is one of the if you've already said it, I guess feels like a more substantial and some of those other technology changes that you've described. And I wonder, wonder if you think it is just, you know, then the next step in the chain of, you know, technological changes that have, you know, shifted farming, but it's not, you know, hasn't obviously hasn't gone away, right? Or if it is something a little more substantial than what we've seen before.

Does it fall into the disruptive change? Category?

Yeah, I mean, I mean, as far as labor, I mean, we'll go away. You know, we, with robotics, you won't need somebody to drive a skilled labor to drive the tractor, but you will need skilled laborers to run the robotics, right? And keep track of them and service them. And so it's, this has been fascinating.

Thank you so much.

Do you have anything for us, Dan, before we sign off here,

No, good luck, thanks for what you're doing.

Well, I appreciate your time. And thanks, Scott, for coming on. And no, this was great.

Really exciting. Thanks. Thanks.

Thanks a bunch. Bye. Bye bye.

If you have any questions or comments you would like to share check out our website at https://www.k-state.edu/research/global-food/ and drop us an email.
Our music was adapted from Dr. Wayne Goins’s album Chronicles of Carmela. Special thanks to him for providing that to us. Something to Chew On is produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University.

In this episode, we welcome Dr. Stephen Higgs, university distinguished professor of diagnostic medicine and pathobiology at Kansas State University. On this episode, Dr. Higgs discusses interdisciplinary biosecurity research programs, agrosecurity and collaborative research. Higgs, who is director of the Biosecurity Research Institute, or BRI, also highlights the role the BRI will play in transitioning work to the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, adjacent to the K-State campus. Dr. Higgs’ research is focused on mosquito-related viral spread, but through his oversight of the BRI, he has expanded to the areas of food safety and security, plant and animal disease and zoonotic disease. 

Transcript:

Yeah, never quite know in this way of research, right? You never quite know what's going to happen. And any day I walk into the BRI maybe a day when one of our researchers makes a discovery that changes the world makes it a better place. I honestly believe that's how I feel every morning.

Something to Chew On is a podcast devoted to the exploration and discussion of Global Food Systems produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. I'm Maureen Olewnik, coordinator of Global Food Systems.

I'm Scott Tanona. I'm a Philosopher of Science.

I would like to welcome today a guest host, Dr. Jim Stack, Professor of Plant Pathology, and Director of the Great Plains Diagnostic Network. Hello, everyone, and welcome back to the K State Global Food Systems podcast Something to Chew On. In today's podcast, we are joined by Dr. Steven Higgs, director of the biosecurity Research Institute, and a University Distinguished Professor in Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology. His research is focused on mosquito related viral spread. However, through his oversight of the VRI Research Center, Higgs has an expanded association with activities carried out in various sectors of K State to include food safety and security, plant and animal disease and zoonotic disease. In this podcast, Dr. Higgs will discuss interdisciplinary biosecurity research programs, agro security initiatives, and the development of collaborative research. And the BRI's place as a platform for transitioning work that will be conducted at the new national and agro defense facility here in Manhattan, Kansas, and adjacent to K State and the BRI. Welcome Dr. Steve Higgs to the something to chew on podcast with the Kansas State University Global Food Systems Initiative. And we really appreciate your time and your willingness to chat with us today.

It's a pleasure to be here.

That's wonderful. Before we get started, it's part of the discussion I'm sure we'll get into some of the details of your work that you're doing and the facilities that you oversee at K State. But I think before we head down that path, maybe get a bit of a background on you, who you are, what brought you to the type of research that you enjoy doing and maybe what brought you to Kansas State University.

Okay, so, yeah, so I just go by Steve. I've been here at K State since 2011. And my background is from the United Kingdom. I grew up in a very small market town called Wantage and Oxfordshire about 20 miles from Oxford  within 60 miles from London. I, it was a small community, it's a country community, which is why I love Manhattan. And I you know, I was a country kid, eventually went to university to study zoology, and then specialized in parasitology. Actually, parasites that could potentially infect livestock. I was studying them in mice, but it was Coccidia that could infect chickens and cattle and so forth. I then went to the London School of Hygiene, I ended up in the environmental microbiology facility in Oxford, and then I was sent to the United States to Colorado State University to learn genetic engineering of mosquitoes. And I'd never been to the States before I came here I stayed a month and then I came back the following year to do a course and was offered a job and so I briefly went back to England came came back came to the United States with the intention of staying no less than a year and some 25 years later, 30 years later. Here I am, I worked at Colorado for 10 years, then University of Texas Medical Branch for 10 and then visited K State to see the Biosecurity Research Institute at a time when I was not really looking for a job and just was one of a better term blown away by the facility and the people here and and what could be done here.

So what was it about the facility that wowed you?

So, you know, my background in terms of research and education and training has been focused on viral diseases of people and virus viruses that are transmitted by mosquitoes. And that's obviously very important because hundreds of 1000s of people are infected by these pathogens every year, I came and looked at the BRI and thought, well, this is so much more of a broad scope and broad impact potentially, because unlike any other facility in the world, and I mean that there is no other place like the BRI we can study foodborne pathogens, we can study plant pathogens, as you Barbara Valent, and Jim Stack. And then they studying viruses here, which is what my background is, but not just of people, but also of animals in particular, livestock, the bread was just incredible. As far as I'm concerned, never seen a lab that could do all that because there isn't one. And I thought well, coming here as a matter of this, that it is a truly global impact on and it touches everything. It is a Global Food System in one building, because we work on those pathogens that affect pre harvest, post harvest food, plants, animals, foodborne pathogens, everything. If it was wider than I'd ever sort of, considered before.

Steve, the connection between food security and public health is very tight. And when we look at the goals that collectively the global community has set in terms of enhancing public health, improving food security, and raising standards of living, all of those things really are integrated. And it's hard to tease one out, if you don't address all of these things, we're not going to reach a goal. So the question, looking back, say over the last 20 or 30 years, where do you think we've made a lot of progress on the public health side? For some of these mosquito borne, you know, vectored viruses, where have we made the most progress? And where are we still needing to make progress in order to achieve those kind of global goals?

Like, like you say, Jim, these are very tightly interconnected, that they're inseparable in terms of, human health and well being the pathogens and the effects of food and diet, we know that if you don't have the diet, you don't get the food and your susceptibility, and the consequence of the disease can be very different. In terms of the mosquito borne pathogens, one area where there has been obvious progress has been in mosquito control, there have been some, you know, techniques that have arisen that we're not even thought of, but not not on, on the radar, I talk about things like not genetic control, necessarily, but technique of using, for example, or back here to reduce populations or to drive populations down. And we, you know, you look at 100,000 cases of dengue. And, you know, there's probably been two and a half million people, just in the United States infected with West Nile, each one of those infections essentially starts with the very simple process of one mosquito that happens to be infected biting somebody. And clearly reducing the population as a hazard. Its goal and consequence reduced numbers of infection. And so we have made considerable strides in that particular area. It's remarkable to me, it's remarkable to me sat here still having this career in mosquito borne viruses, just of how much we don't know. You know, we've known about some of these diseases since the late 1800s. You know, so 120 years ago. And, you know, I got into this in about 1985. And thought, well, this is going to be a short career. If we've known about him for 80 or 90 years, there can't be any questions left to answer. And that is so untrue. We don't know some of the most fundamental things about these viruses and how they interact with the mosquitoes, and how they spread, and how they cause some of the diseases. It's sad and it's remarkable. There was hoping in genetics, when we started getting genome of mosquitoes. And this includes anopheles for malaria, it was like a huge hope of, oh, well, if you understand the genetics of the beast, then we will understand the diseases and we can manipulate it and, you know, maybe make mosquitoes, it can't be infected. And really that hasn't transpired. Which is, which is sad. We don't know, something that I'm particularly into, we don't know why some types of mosquito can be infected by some viruses, and some can't, you know, put it the other way why some viruses infect some mosquitoes and others don't, that seems pretty fundamental, because you want to control the species that are responsible for the diseases that you're trying to fight. So basic research has to still be done. One area that I look at my career, and I'm, I suppose my research, my group's research has been more diverse than most other groups. And I'm, I'm very proud of that, because we kind of invented a term a long time ago, you know, virus vector vertebra interactions, I came up with that. And that's what we've been doing. We haven't just looked at the these diseases from the perspective of a virus infecting a mosquito. But we've looked at the interactions between that virus and the mosquito, the interactions between the mosquitoes and vertebrate hosts, sometimes people that they buy, and the relationship that the broad scope of that relationship, but it's very complex, and still lots more to do.

So oftentimes, progress is a function of innovation in technology. And over the last decade or so, we've seen the application of some new technologies, for example, Genetically Engineered Mosquitoes, and more recently, the gene drive technologies. What are your thoughts on the adoption of those the application of those in the real world? What are the pros and cons of that?

Complicated question, Jim, you know, this has been something that has been discussed for many, many years. Like I say, I came to the United States in 1991. Because the there was getting to be technology that could maybe predictably, engineer mosquitoes that has progressed in leaps and bounds as new technologies came in gene drive was being discussed, then, even though you know, just as a concept with no idea that something like CRISPR, Caste Nine would come along and actually provide that capability. So it's been discussed. And the ultimate goal has always been to release those mosquitoes with reduced capacity to, to be infected and transmit the different pathogens, particularly malaria. I mean, that's been a huge focus, especially for the Gates Foundation. And there is still a hard push, I've been involved in some of the CRISPR Caste Nine discussion in the context of malaria and other pathogens. discussions have been supported by the foundation's National Institutes of Health, and then the Gates Foundation and others. It's, it was gene drive on the horizon. I think that's what the book was called. And it's still very much on the horizon, the horizon is getting closer. But we still haven't quite got to the point of having those resistant mosquitoes that could be released unreduced reduce the incidence of infection. We're at a point where genetically engineered must be there's a technique called redl has been widely used, and it's actually been approved for use in the United States now to question but that depends very much on constant release of mosquitoes in absolutely huge numbers to push down the population. The wall back here, technology, which was one of those strange things from you know, Gates funding, that it was kind of a not exactly a back burner, but it wasn't a front runner, and then everything came together, but that it worked. And not only could it suppress populations, but it actually made the mosquitoes less susceptible to infection in some cases. And so, that is certainly something that is has been moving forward to combat for example, the Zika outbreak in Brazil and things like that. So that is actually, you know, happening as we speak. On a regular basis, those types of mosquitoes, you know, I'm always a little frustrated by that term innovation, you see that in, in grant requests a lot, you know, it has to be innovative, but sometimes old and well tried things still still work. But I do understand, you know, that we, we need to look at novel techniques and novel approaches, because, frankly, some of it, some of the old ones are past their time, if you like.

What are your views about the effects or possible unintended consequences of doing things like reducing or maybe drastically reducing mosquito populations? Right, so this is that that is a different way of attacking the problem rather than, you know, preventing bites or infections. Right. And, and are there are things to be thinking about in terms of, you know, ecological consequences, etc. So how does that all factor in?

So, in terms of ecological consequences, Scott, it would seem to be that there are no species of other organism, you know, predators or whatever, that wholly depend on the mosquito, I mean, we are never going to get to the point where there are no mosquitoes out there. If we can alter the species composition of the populations, to, for example, reduce the incidence of disease. So if you were, for example, eliminating the Anopheles Gambi population in Africa, that would reduce malaria incidents, the chances are, there's another mosquito species that might bite, but not might not transmit, that will probably fill the spot of the one that you'd remove. But there really are no even bats if there's no animal that holy depends on mosquitoes that couldn't switch prey, I guess, as far as I can understand, but as much as I've read.

Yeah, so it makes these interventions, a fairly safe and certainly worth on your view, take it whatever those effects might be sort of in terms of the outcome is like very much worth.

Yeah, and one technique that, you know, I saw firsthand in when I visited Africa a few years ago, was Gates Foundation, kind of pushed and promoted the use of insecticide impregnated bed nets. And, you know, relatively simple technology, I mean, had to be sort of fine tune in terms of usefulness of the nets, and, you know, education of people to use those nets. But I went to a village in Africa, there wasn't, I didn't see an insect the whole time I was there. They hadn't had a malaria deaths. You know, this is something that kills, you know, half a million children a year, some, you know, a child dies of malaria, I think every 30 seconds, still, these these bed nets, eliminated the mosquitoes and reduce the incidence of malaria to two to zero in this village and, you know, kind of low tech, but extremely effective.

I'd like to take the discussion out a little bit further in, in your backyard today is being built the National Agricultural Biosecurity Center, the NBAF Center, which I'm sure you've been watching happened over the last several years. Where's the intersection between the VRI and NBAF? And how do those two organizations fit with one another?

So, right, right from the very beginning, at the time, when I was interviewed, I was asked what I thought about NBAF. And, you know, I was very pro NBAF because of the impact it will have in terms of protecting United States providing new knowledge, vaccines and so forth, to secure our food supply, and it will have a global impact on securing global food supplies in many respects. So right from the very beginning, we've had very open productive discussions with the people involved with NBAF, you know, frankly, at all levels, from, you know, senior Homeland Security and USDA. People and we've had lots and lots of visitors from Homeland Security as they were building and an even before they were building it in discussion, design and so forth. And then USDA ever since I got here, because they were USDA people here in Manhattan, the US Department of Agriculture, ARS, arbitrary, Arthropod Borne Animal Diseases Research Unit. When I got here, they helped build the insectary in the BRI. We're doing their research in here. So we all understand that you can be an expert at one thing, but collaboration really gives the power to move research forward, we understand that and we've always had that very open discussion of how we can help him valve as its as it's moving forward. One of the things that happened early on was the state of Kansas, dedicated $35 million to develop research capabilities here at the BRI, in collaboration with the USDA on diseases that were priorities for NBAF. Unwell, we used it in NBAF study to NBAF but which we could all also handle the BRI there was some very significant hurdles in terms of approvals for us to be approved to work with these pathogens, whether I mean, just like Jim Stack wheat grass, we know were the first non federal non government lab that able to work with some of these pathogens, like African and classical swine fever has never been studied a non federal facility. So we'd be breaking new ground. We have a number of USDA people who are here in town and are at Plum Island and who embark including, for example, the director, Alfonso as adjunct faculty, to different departments in K State that gives them the ability to work closely with us to be on committees and so forth and interact closely. BRI is not just research, it's education and training, we do a huge amount of training. On one of the conduits that link, the BRI and NBAF is educational programs or training programs. So early on, we received an award from Homeland Security to train Principal Investigator scientists. You know that NBAF is a modern replacement for Plum Island, Plum Island. I've visited plumb a few times. But the first time I went up there to meet the scientist, it was a very small room. And like seven people showed up, and I'm thinking, wow, where's everybody else? They said, Oh, well, the other, the other person, the other two people can't make it today. So I was amazed that, you know, in that 350 person facility, there were really only about nine principal investigators. Well, NBAF will have certainly double that, maybe more. So it's critical that they have the right expertise. And we've been involved in the training of principal investigators. Like I said, we got the Homeland Security grant, there was then a USDA award that came out. So we've got five more scientists, graduate students being trained at the moment. The wonderful thing about that particular program is that they are guaranteed positions with the government, but for most certainly NBAF after they complete their degrees. So we're still training those people when NBAF opens, ultimately, we're going to have good case data is going in to, to direct some of that research. Obviously, researchers have research teams. And so we also have another award, largely based here at the BRI. That is training laboratories support staff. So that's, you know, that's an incredibly impactful relationship before and bath ever opens its doors and starts research. And we certainly hope and I was, I now have regular meetings with the director of NBAF and with other USDA, people. We certainly all intend that relationship will not end when NBAF opens its doors but will continue long term.

I can certainly see the need and the importance of kind of being connected at the hip between the two facilities.

You can ask them again, because then I don't have to answer them off the cuff as it were. Right.

Well, one of the other things that you mentioned the Arthropod Borne Animal Disease Unit here in Manhattan, there's several other units from the Center of Excellence for Emerging Animal Diseases on the Center of Grain and Animal Health. How do those programs work into what you're doing at BRI? What kind of intersection do you see? Does that overlap with NBAF? Are there any intersections there? We've got obviously a concentration a lot of efforts going into these areas. So just curious how you work together on those?

Those, okay. So, CEZAD and then now CEZID in particular are groups that focus on, on diseases of animals. And that is very relevant obviously to, NBAF Global Food System generally but also inbound, I tell people that the BRI is you can either say the BRI is a smaller and baffle and NBAF is a bigger, bigger BRI, because we have very similar capabilities NBAF has level four. But the reality is that the BRI maybe a smaller version but has a much broader portfolio in terms of research, education and training. Now NBAF will work on a relatively narrow range of of diseases, it won't work on on poultry diseases, it won't work on foodborne pathogens, and it won't work on on plant pathogens, all of which the BRI will continue to work on the this seed is, is new, it's NIH funded, it's 11 and a half million dollars run by Juergen Richt and Phil Hardwidge, it's training people supporting innovative research on some of those projects are here at the PRI, which is which is always good, good for us. And CEZAD was funded last year, so it's got it, you know, almost another five years to go. So some of the research that is supporting is on those and NBAF priority pathogens. So that just consolidates a relationship with NBAF scientists, we know the people involved, they come here like, like I said, you have that average true unit, who staff regularly work at the BRI we are at the BRI their biosafety level three research facility. I've got multiple projects planned this year that are happening at the BRI, and some of those are specifically being conducted by USDA Arbor Drew Research Sciences as principal investigators got one coming up imminently. So it's an all round, productive, collaborative relationship between all of the people that are involved. Does it answer the question?

Yes, it does. Thank you so much. It does. And I have just had the opportunity just recently to start a discussion with Dr. Hardwidge. I was very excited to start understanding what he was doing and where that works fit into the overall picture of safety. And it certainly fits into the food safety area, the more I learn about what's going on in some of these areas, the more excited I am about it.

It is so exciting. You know, I mean, I come to work full of enthusiasm, everyday, sometimes more enthusiasm and less enthusiasm than other days, but always with enthusiasm. Because, you know, as a scientist, you can plan things, you can hope for a particular result. But you're never white, nothing in this way is research, right? You never quite know what's going to happen. And any day I walk into the BRI, maybe a day when one of our researchers makes a discovery that changes the world makes it a better place. I honestly believe that that's what that's how I feel every morning. I go home at night thinking well, it wasn't today sometimes. But I still go home, you know, happy and looking forward to the next day.

That's great. I'm gonna put Dr. Stack on the hot seat here for just a moment.  You've had a couple of questions that you had for Steve, what kinds of activities are you involved in there, Jim? And how, what's the relationship between the work you're doing in plant pathology and the BRI?

Yeah, sure. So I, from the plant perspective, I think we've been very fortunate that right from the beginning, the idea at BRI was to be comprehensive with respect to agriculture, public health, looking at that total package and not just isolating, which is very common. In the scientific world, we you create these silos, not necessarily by intent, but bits. As a consequence of the practice the funding streams and all of those things. You tend to get isolated, but the intent right up front with BRI has been to house all of the disciplines that are critical to sustaining our agricultural systems that then support public health. And so I think You know, we've been lucky that we came into the building right as it was going operational. Our first project was in 2009, with the wheat grass project. And, you know, we had, we're lucky to have on staff, a world renowned scientist, Barbara Valent, who has now been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, to lead that project. And her knowledge of that system was critical. She was the first one to look at this emerging population in South America and say, We need to be paying attention to this, this is a critical issue. And it's a good thing she did, because she, through her leadership, we assembled a team that conducted some of the fundamental research that is being applied now, as in fact, as was predicted, this pathogen began to spread around the world. So up until 2016, it was confined to South America, but now it has spread to Southern Asia in 2016, hit Bangladesh 2017, into eastern India, and in 2017 18 timeframe introduced into Zambia in East Africa. And that's a critical issue in East Africa, because that's part of the wheat belt there. So the risk of it spreading into Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia is quite high. And again, this goes to the ability to have a facility like BRI on campus that allowed us to do all this early research. We developed the diagnostic the detection assays that are being used globally. So again, having a facility that puts all that under one roof is quite good, because we share we use the same technologies. I mean, we use the same technologies, we oftentimes use the same approaches to the pathogens, even though the pathogens themselves are fundamentally different. And so they're the discussions we have. We're also fortunate that Marty Vanier and Bob Krause established a program called BRI fellows, and it's the leading researchers at BRI that get together on a regular basis have launched and discuss research. And it's an opportunity to say, wow, I didn't know you were doing that. Tell me more about it, I might over use that in my program. And so things like that happen, where we're able to get more out of it than just a building with individual laboratories. So it's been fundamental to us, it's been a critical asset for the scientists in plant pathology. I hope that answered your question.

It absolutely did. And it's given me a couple of ideas. And I'll probably be reaching out to all of you on a later date. No, it's wonderful. And as you know, Jackie, or I'm sorry, Jim, you and I have had discussions on a few occasions about the importance of interdisciplinary and thinking outside of the box. And I'll take this back to you, Steve, when, clearly you've got a lot of different areas that are feeding into the BRI. And different approaches, different types of research are happening there. Do you ever get outside of the basic sciences with what you're doing? And with that, I'm thinking of Scott here, and I'm thinking of some of the sociological research activities going on campus? Is there ever an interface between some of those types of activities that work at the BRI?

No, we haven't really opened up that collaborative avenue if you're like, I mean, we know that these some of the decisions that we work on are the types of diseases have very significant impact on on communities, obviously, and cluding sociological aspects, but, you know, the facility itself is very much designed to safely contain what we affectionately call high consequence pathogens. So it it does not have that component to it, although, I go to all sorts of enjoy, I used to go to all sorts of meetings and you know, inside K State and and outside and discuss our work I was, you know, I had a Zoom meeting and I did a presentation to the University Distinguished Professors Group on Tuesday. And we're always looking for new ideas, new partners, new ideas, new things to write grants and get money on. And we would certainly welcome that we've got a group in the National Cultural Biosecurity Center led by Dr. Venier, that very much interact with communities in Kansas with, you know, for the purpose of emergency preparedness. And that takes in, you know, the aspects of those small rural communities up to big cities. And then they've worked with people who run feedlots and processing plants, all that sort of thing to to develop that preparedness, you know, they've got, you know, considerable money over the especially Homeland Security, to prepare us as a nation against in, in currencies of potentially devastating pathogens. I was going to just build on, I was delighted when Jim mentioned the Marty Vanier and Bob Krause Fellows Program, because how fields move forward is quite often that diversity of ideas where you know, somebody who's never worked with mosquito borne diseases, viruses before, suddenly says, oh, have you ever thought of this? And, you know, you're so wrapped up in your own field that you sometimes have almost blinkered vision. And that sort of that's the innovation and the creativity that we need. And I say this, in all honesty, but what we do here, and this is my work Jim's work on yourselves on Global Food Systems. This is something that is too important for politics, and it's too important for egos. It's something that affects us all. And one of the significant joys for me here at K State is that we have a nominal expertise, we have great personalities, but they pulling in the same direction. I haven't seen the personal agendas, the personal politics, I mean, everybody wants to make a contribution and perhaps be known for it like our recent work  SARS, Covid too, and mosquitoes. But it doesn't get in the way of collaboration. And that's it's something we take for granted, I think, here at K State. But it isn't something that happens everywhere.

I wanted to make me want to back up just a little bit and ask why. Why BRI is so unique in this comprehensiveness. Right, so you said you and Jim both talked about the benefits of these interactions, and the benefit of there being the possibility of jumping in right in an area and you know, plant pathology, and then next to people studying mosquitoes. But but it's not typical, right? Or it's maybe, you know, particularly unique, so why is that? And what could you say a little bit more about, like, how it happened to come this way, and maybe what the challenges were, because we've talked about the benefits here. But so what happened?

So, um, I guess simply put, it's visionary leadership, you know, I can't take credit for any of this. I arrived at a going concern, you know, maybe at its infancy and it's certainly grown tremendously since I've been here. But in the early days of developing the BRI, Jim GEICO was involved. President refold was involved on trim which evolved. And, and subsequently, thank goodness, all of our our senior administrators and leaders. There is a sketch, I think, on a napkin of us facility like this. That was Jim, he probably knows more about this than I do. Because he Jim was actually a previous director of the BRI. So he knows more about how it came to pass in me. But there was that vision that these things are compatible. I mean, you know, inseparable in many ways from a Global Food System, perspective. Plants, animals, foodborne pathogens, they all affect us, they're all interconnected. And somebody said, you know, it should be under one roof, and that I hate using the word unique because the minute you say, Oh, it's a one of a kind, you know, oh, it's unique, then somebody hit lashing, you know, there's this place elsewhere that also has this, but in my experience, I can use the word unique with some conviction because I really do not know of any other facility that under one roof has the ability and the expertise to safely and securely work with foodborne pathogens, plant pathogens, and those animal diseases including zoonotic pathogens, that affect people. There are other facilities that you know, have a narrower portfolio and a much bigger footprint but There's nothing like the BRI. Jim, any comments?

You covered it fairly well. I would say why? Why that was the strategy here. I think it does go to what Steve said the, the leadership, at the time recruited a number of faculty to tackle this idea. And in the idea, the stimulus came from Senator Roberts, who came to K State and said something to you know, don't quote me here, but it something to the equivalent look, every year, you asked for this basket full of things, why don't you give me something big that that we can really sink our teeth into. And so the leadership basically looked at what we were doing at the time, and they pulled together people like Curtis Kastner, who's director of the Foods Science Institute. And, you know, I think, you know, other faculty were involved in it got together and said, what we really need to be, you know, the one thing we can't do yet, is work with some of these very high consequence pathogens that are either emerging or on the horizon that we should be paying attention to. And that's where that sketch on a napkin came from. So what that looked like, and literally, you know, sketches started to appear, well, it would look something like this. Well, of course, that went through many evolutionary steps. Before it got to a blueprint of what we see now is the BRI. I will re-emphasize, I think the point I made that is, I think the silo effect that you see in academic institutions, is not really this intentional, designed to keep people apart, it goes to some very basic things like our funding streams, and we don't apply to the same grants. We don't publish in the same journals. We're not oftentimes evaluated by the same sets of criteria. I mean, overall, yes, but there's a lot of variation in there. I think it's a you know, it's the island effect in ecology, where things diverge, to kind of evolve in their own tracks based on the selection pressures that exist inside, I think some of it is just the way we do our work. We don't have as many platforms for interaction. And fortunately, for the types of things I do, we now have to be BRI, that is that platform, it's the incubator building for thinking where we can sit together and think out loud and say, well, that's not gonna work. To come up with that one Stack, you know, but it's a good opportunity to, to learn what other how other people look at similar problems. So I think I don't think it's by design, I don't think people want to be siloed I just think it there are fundamental aspects of the academic institution that lead to that.

On a course in recognition of, of Senator Roberts contributions, and being a catalyst for these discussions and the creation of the VRI, we are based in Pat Roberts in hall

I was wondering how much that interaction benefits, if we talk a little bit more about how those benefits accrue. So some of its just from ideas, right from other people that maybe have not been working in the same area, but Steve you also talked about the complexity of the problems. And so for example, like a mosquito borne disease, it's not just the genetics of the virus that matters, or this or the genetics of the mosquito that matters, but interactions. And I know, you've done work on like, the interactions between the host and the mosquito in terms of right sort of that really affect the, you know, have an impact on the infectiousness of the virus, right. So I'm wondering how much having a bunch of different kind of work happening at the BRI might potentially help when you turn to look at these complex systems and looking at multiple parts of the systems, right.

Yeah. It's like, it's like Jim said, we do meet through our work and sometimes socially, and, you know, it's sad, but true that we were never far from our work, are we, as scientists, you know, you go out socially and most of the time all you talk about is work and, and that's what happens. I was involved in a conversation yesterday about, you know, a well put, could these pathogens of plants influence pathogens of animals and pathogenicity. When I did that UDP meeting the other night, I was specifically asked, Well, are there plant pathogens out there that can affect humans or, or animals and Dr. Stack immediately came to mind because he'll tell you he's working on this most bizarre pathogen radiobacter tops occurs, which bridges that that relationship between plants and animals in seems to have its foot in all kingdoms if you like. But Scott, to answer your question, just those casual conversations, being able to express, you know, frustrations of something that didn't work, and then having a different point of view with without the the dogma of, you know, people saying, Oh, well, that doesn't work because it never has, you know, for the mosquito side of things. When I first came to the States, it was a group funded by the John D And Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. It was a parasite group. And then there was an arthropod borne diseases group. And the innovation there was it brought in people who knew a lot about insects in particular to software, but nothing about mosquitoes. Nothing about the diseases that they spread, but had a tremendous capacity to work with an organism that was relatively easy to genetically engineer. And that was where the breakthroughs come. It was, you know, you grow up in the sciences. And you know, you get convinced, oh, well, this has never been done before. And everything has been tried. And it just doesn't work. And I won't give up but it isn't where you focus your efforts, because often isn't where the funding is. But then you get to talk to a plant pathologist, or, you know, a food microbiologist. And you have to sort of press that reset, because they can throw out something at any time that you go home at night and you wake up Saturday, wake up at two o'clock and monitoring dial, I wonder if that would work and if that would apply. And that's what happens. And you agree, Jim? 

Yeah, absolutely. And more recently, for me, the bacterium that Steve just mentioned Rathi Pachter hypothesis I'm kind of working on for how we describe the new genetic population of this bacterium. And the hypothesis I have is that it most likely occurred within an animal. And so that's outside my area of expertise. And so I've been talking to the scientists that VRI on how we could explore that how we might figure out if that's where this rather substantial genetic change occurred in this bacterium? So I think, again, it's an opportunity to learn from other people.

Well, I guess that's kind of what it's all about, isn't it? Is getting groups in the room talking to one another, and learning from other people, understanding the diversity of where research can take us.

I have one more question for Steve. So certainly, within in the plant world, there is accumulating data on the ability of viruses to actually alter the behavior of their vector of their arthropod host. And I'm wondering if you see the same thing with some of the viruses and the mosquitoes, does the infection of the mosquito by the virus actually change its behavior? Say it's feeding behavior for conduct D something like that?

Good question. Yeah, I mean, so when I was a parasitologist, a long time ago, you know, there were some fascinating parasites, I launched it for infected and made them run up glass grass stems, late at night so that they could eat be eaten by sheep. So there's been discussion on how viruses might manipulate mosquito behavior in such a way that it would favor transmission. The, you know, these so the interest in these viruses can infect an animal at a very low dose, you might get one West Nile virus particle, and three days later, the animal is dead. And yet in a mosquito, you might get, I mean, serious, you might get 100 million or 1000 million virus particles in that mosquito. And it infects it for life, the whole life of the mosquito and some of these mosquitoes can live months and does not seem to have any of the pathological consequences to the vector. We have noo, we have no idea how these mosquitoes couldn't be infected and churning out. That's a technical term right? You know, having virus replicating enormous titers, and yet really just play about as normal. It's been suggested that maybe the viruses could disrupt feeding patterns in such a way that a virus would a virally infected mosquito would feed more frequently than a non infected mosquito. And the advantage to the virus, there would be that it would be transmitted more frequently and more efficiently. Is it possible that viruses could influence longevity, that wouldn't be obviously to the virus's advantage? Because the longer that mosquito lives, as long as it's infected for life, the longer it can be transmitted. So that would be not a good thing. It's been suggested there have been a few publications that say, Yeah, infected mosquitoes breed more often. And then there have been equally reputable publications. So well, no, they don't. We looked at mosquitoes over a long period of time with West Nile to see if there was pathology. And we had to take those mosquitoes out to become geriatric mosquitoes before we saw maybe a little bit effect, but it was inconsistent. We discussed at one point looking at mosquito behavior in infected mosquitoes. Technically, we never quite figured out how to do that to be honest, because the one thing you want in an infected mosquito is for it to be closely contained. I tell people, you know, one time mosquitoes are infected every week, we count those mosquitoes frequently, maybe every day, as we take samples, because we always have to, we take that safety and security very seriously, you have to know where your organism is, at all times. And so most of our studies are done in relatively small containers. To study the true behavior, a mosquito would need large cages. And maybe remote observation we talked about cameras to track must be no Flight Behavior and so forth. And, and we never really were able to figure it out. Because if you've got a very large cage with 100 mosquitoes in that it's difficult to keep counting them, you know, occasionally they die, they're on the floor, it's easy to do in a small carton, but not in a big container. And all of this is done in a laboratory setting, I had a very nice friend who said, you know, you can say that this happens in a lab with this species of mosquito, this type of virus, this period of time, but you cannot extrapolate beyond that. And the truth is, we don't know what mosquitoes really doing in the wild very, very thoroughly, you know, just to study them in the wild, you have to be in that environment with them, you know, some of the the Para domestic mosquito patterns that are indoors, but some of the mosquitoes are in you know, jungle environments, for example, or in in grasslands, where are they? How often are they flying? You can take snapshots, but not really know what the true behavior is. The bottom line at the moment is there is no consistent there are no consistent data that suggests that the behavior old or the feeding patterns, black pants or anything are consistently changed by viral infection.

So I am not asking you to comment here. But I mean, just as a as a working hypothesis, you might predict that though, since the virus is dependent upon the vector to deliver it to a toast for replicate, unless evolutionarily, the the virus in say, the human host, or the animal host is incidental, and it's its main focus is the vector itself. And so those are some of the hypotheses that are being kind of tossed about in the plant. So well. Thank you, Steve. Yeah, appreciate that.

Lots to talk about Jim.

Indeed.

There’s lots to talk about. 

The only thing that I that I wanted to get an opportunity to ask you about was no, there's some work on SARS, Covid to BRI, and sort of in the current world that we're in sort of any, any thoughts you have about about some of the complexities that we've talked about about you know, host virus vector. I mean, there's not a vector here that we're worried about, but complex interactions, that there are lessons that We might have for SARS Covid. Two and COVID. Going forward.

Yeah. Oh, Scott, I could have paid you for that question. So, you know, so last year, as the university was, was closing down, you know, personal interactions very much, and many other facilities and buildings were being closed down. It was early. I mean, we knew we knew this was the case, but it was quickly realized by the bar leadership that the PRI isn't the sort of facility that you can just close down and open up again, it's not like, you know, you flip the switch is such a sophisticated facility in terms of air handling and safety, security, everything and keeping our pathogens secure, that we really just couldn't close it, and then turn the turn the lights back on and parently generate generators and or the HVAC system. And I'm be back to normal. So, you know, thank goodness, we were able to rearrange our stopping slightly with a reduced stuff. But we've never closed we've always had people on site. An Luckily. Again, the administration said, well, this research that you do, on the expertise that you have can, could be turned towards COVID, we already had investigators sort of knocking at the door saying I can work we need the answers. For COVID. It's a new pathogen in a new environment, and there's so much that we don't know. So one of the beauties of being a University is that we can be nimble. Government labs probably don't have that luxury. But we were very quickly able as an institute, and I mean, as a university, the K State Institute, not just the BRI, to enable research to be done on SARS, Covid too, you know, the IBCs, the IR cooks met, especially to review proposals and protocols for us. And we were very quickly able to wind down and complete a couple of research projects, but start projects on SARS, Covid two. And my theme, obviously, was mosquitoes. And I posed a very simple question, can this virus can infect mosquitoes and could it be transmitted, because if it could be transmitted, then that would potentially have a huge impact on transmission dynamic, you know, mosquitoes bite, feed on almost anybody indiscriminately, if they can find them. And it's the right mosquito, they will feed on people. So that means that children and you know, different age groups, you might not be susceptible to being exposed to the virus would all be exposed. So we did? Well, we say it's relatively simple. So we actually inoculated the virus into three species of mosquito, which is the most rigorous test of a virus capacity to infect a mosquito, we get three different species. And whereas as a researcher, as a scientist, you, you hope for positive results. There was a, there was a big part of us, basically saying, Well, I hope the experiments work because we know what we're doing, and we're gonna do them properly, but please, please, that this virus does not infect mosquitoes. And that, that is, that is what happened. And we were the first researchers to do these experiments and publish it in a peer review. Journal. I got the data on this with a UDP meeting the other day. So we, we published the work, the university very quickly wrote a journalistic piece to highlight it. And today, that work has been reported in 618 news outlets in 42 countries and been translated to 18 different languages. You know, that's, I mean, it gives me personal pleasure. But in terms of highlighting the capabilities of what we can do at the BRI, in a relatively short space of time, that really puts us on the map. I mean, that puts a university on the map, which is, which is good for all of us to get that sort of attention and recognition. And then we had other researchers, notably Juergen Richt team, you know, doing studies on pigs on in cats. Early on, there were a few cases reported that companion animals could be infected. And so it was important to do that research to just, you know, get the data so that decisions could be made based on data and not just on assumptions. 

Great work.

I suppose just a comment that, as you said right at the beginning, the Global Food System Initiative is something that I think more broadly touches all of us at the university than maybe any other initiative. Jim does brilliant presentations on the impact of food insecurity, local and global scales, politics and everything. I mean, it's so impressive. And for you to for us to have this program here and for you to have the leadership roles in this is so important at all scales for K State and for and for the world. Really.

I want to thank all of you. This has been really interesting discussion. And thanks so much for coming on for giving me your time.

Thanks a lot for your time today. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks very much.

Take care. Yeah, bye bye. Bye.

If you have any questions or comments you would like to share check out our website at https://www.k-state.edu/research/global-food/ and drop us an email.

Our music was adapted from Dr. Wayne Goins’s album Chronicles of Carmela. Special thanks to him for providing that to us. Something to Chew On is produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. 

In this episode, we welcome Dr. Christer Aakeröy, university distinguished professor in the Department of Chemistry at Kansas State University. Dr. Aakeröy’s research lab focuses on supramolecular and crystal engineering. By translating molecular function into predictable intermolecular recognition, he is creating versatile pathways for improving processing, performance and shelf life of pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals, dyes, and energetic materials.

Transcript:

I'm thrilled to bits with the way that this is working out. And even if we don't make the world's best new fertilizer, I'm still perfectly comfortable with learning so much more about what is required. And maybe I can't make the difference but my students and Ganga’s students and postdocs can take this to the next level and I think that's the legacy that is worth pursuing.

Something to Chew On is a podcast devoted to the exploration and discussion of Global Food Systems produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. I'm Maureen Olewnik, coordinator of Global Food Systems.

And I'm Colene Lind, Associate Professor of Communication Studies at Kansas State. I studied the public's role in science and environmental policy.

And I'm Jon Faubion. I'm a food scientist.

Hello everybody and welcome back to the Kansas State University Global Food Systems podcast Something to Chew On. In today's podcast we will visit with Dr. Christer Aakeröy. Dr. Aakeröy is a University Distinguished Professor of Chemistry at K State. His area of research is focused on the science of communication and change between molecules. This work emphasizes the synthesis of organic molecules, some of which are used in the formation of cocrystals. This versatile material can be used in creating new methods for delivery of important components in agrochemicals, pharmaceuticals and other areas where controlled directed releases useful. In this podcast we will discuss Dr. Aakeröy's interdisciplinary work with Dr. Ganga Hettiarachchi, Professor of Agronomy here at K State on the targeted release of soil nutrients in crop production.

I should say before we start that, unlike my usual self, I'm going to be rather the mirror today. I'm just fascinated by the work that Christer is doing. But I know that you're a chemist. So I know that you'll have a lot smarter questions about Reno that presupposes a lot of don't question. Fair. But you know, and Christer, just for your edification, as I, I'm really fascinated by you have to know that. Obviously, I'm not a chemist. And it's probably the weakest of my subjects when it comes to scientific understanding. I'm really I understand what you're doing. But the CO crystallization that's, I'm, I need some help on that. So just definitely specific growth as we go along to get that but I'm really curious. And I hope that when we leave here, I understand this idea of CO crystallization better.

Okay, well, I'm gonna I'm gonna attempt some ill advised or ill conceived analogies in that case, to try to put that science across. And yeah, it might get a little risky at times, but we'll clean you be happy to know that chemistry is only about communication. That's all there is to it. There you go. There you go.

I was struck by that. As you know, the first word on your description is communication. And I think, Oh, really? I'm intrigued, but I'm not sure. So let's find out more.

To welcome today, our guest Dr. Christer Aakeröy, who is a professor in the Department of Chemistry at Kansas State University. In welcoming Dr. Aakeröy, as I get started here, I would, I would like to say that I have people ask me how something like chemistry fits into the Global Food System. And from my perspective, it's a critical piece. And this is critical as any of the other pieces is as critical as transportation, or Agronomy or Plant Pathology or any of the above. One of the analogies I use frequently is to discuss food from a grocery store or from a farmer's market being at the very tip of the iceberg. And that's where we interface most frequently with the food that we however, the fundamentals that happen in research in the basic sciences and chemistry and physics and those types of areas are at the base of the iceberg. And those are the things that support ongoing abilities to move forward with technologies and that type of thing and it's as critical a piece of the food system as anything. So with that being said, I will then jumped into, again welcoming Dr. Aakeröy, and asked if you could give us a little background on who you are, how you got interested in the work that you're doing. And then maybe we'll just take it from there.

Thank you very much. And thank you very much for inviting me to this podcast as well. Maybe we should warn the listeners to this particular episode that I have relatively limited experience with farming or food science, food production, and food distribution. But as a chemist, I still believe that chemistry is underpinning all of these different efforts that we are looking at. So maybe there's going to be something that can be useful to the listeners. At the end of the day. 

My own background is quite, quite diverse. I grew up in Sweden, I have a Norwegian passport. And I was never ever ever going to be a scientist. My goal when I was in high school was to be a psychologist or a psychiatrist, I didn't really know the difference between the two at that point. I applied to go to do psychology at Uppsala University in Sweden, they had only 10 positions. And I was the first on the reserve list. So I didn't get introduced ecology unfortunately, as a result that I decided to take a year off. And maybe this was my first contact with food because I took a job in a meat processing plant meat packing and meat processing. I learned a lot about the sort of rather harsh end of the Global Food Systems industry. And I can't really say that it was love at first sight, I have to be perfectly honest. It was long hours hard work. But I learned a lot about people I learned a lot about different skills. And it wasn't really something that I ever thought I do. But I spent a year in a meat packing and meat processing plant. After that I decided to switch so I became a substitute teacher and stuff because I still couldn't get into psychology at Uppsala University. So I became a substitute teacher. And I don't know, if you remember what it was like, at school, when you had a substitute teacher. If you had a substitute teacher, nobody would do anything. But it was to me it was a really, really interesting and valuable experience because you walk into a classroom with maybe 30 or 40 students. They're not interested in you if you're not interested in the topic. And it is really a challenge to try to basically have maybe 30 seconds or a minute to win or lose that battle. You walk in you try to read the room, you try to figure out who how you can communicate with these students. And it turns out that I, I think I won more battles that I lost by and large, which made me realize I wanted to become a teacher at the end of the day. So I went to University eventually. I did Chemistry, and I had minors in Mathematics and Biology and in Pedagogy. So I actually got myself a teaching degree from Uppsala University, I started teaching still never had any intention of becoming a full time proper scientist. Long story short, I had a chance to travel to the UK to do some Chemistry at the University of Sussex, which is south of London. It wasn't really because I was interested in Chemistry, per se. It was more a case of having an opportunity to do live abroad. First London which is which was a fantastic experience. One thing led to another I was offered a place to do a PhD at the University of Sussex. I didn't quite know what a PhD was, unfortunately. So of course I had to say yes, so I accepted Teamspeak and that was in Chemistry. I still didn't really know what I wanted to do at that point, which is strange, because at that point I had a doctoral degree in chemistry. I applied for two jobs. One was the British Petroleum. And one was at Queen's University of Belfast, I interviewed at both places. My interview at Queen's University in Belfast is probably was the other of the whole podcast itself. But I was offered a job at Queen's University Belfast and I stayed there for three years did Inorganic Chemistry. I got tenure. And then I resigned two weeks later because I had been sort of headhunted by Kansas State University. I couldn't really refuse. To be perfectly honest, I never saw myself moving to your living in the United States, let alone in the Midwest, in the middle of the Midwest. But now I've been here for close to over 20 years and certainly from a career perspective and a life perspective. It's probably the most definitely the best decision I ever made.

I have, like I said, I've lived in that K State now for over 20 years. My research spans a wide range topics, food size is bad in minor, minor, minor minor, out of that. We did a lot of fundamental research in chemistry. And we can talk more about that in a while. I teach a variety of freshman classes I do, like I still really, really enjoyed the teaching. The bigger the class, the more enjoyment I get out of it, I think. So I can't wait for this particular lockdown and, and zoom based educational methodology to be over so we can actually get that teaching in person again, because luckily, the research is going my students are in the research labs on a regular basis. So we haven't been too badly affected by that. But yeah, I mean, so difficult times, but we're going to get through it. And we're going to get through it because of big science and STEM research. That's basically what's going to help us out in this process. So that's a little bit of a starting point.

Well, thank you for that background and overview. i It's interesting to understand the directions and different directions that people take and getting from, you know, what they think they want to do when they're 18 years old, where you actually ended up today and certainly ending up in Manhattan, Kansas is taking you a long way from where you started.

Actually all senses that he senses. Absolutely. In reading through the research that you have been most heavily focused on at K State. I keep seeing the term cocrystals over and over again popping up. Can you explain to us in layman's terms a bit about what that research is? What is the cocrystal? And how does it impact research?

Right, so let's in that case, we have to probably go back to basics a little bit. So making a contrast is essentially trying to convince different types of molecules to coexist in a crystalline or solid material. And that might sound relatively straightforward. But it turns out that molecules more than likely are not keen to coexist with other molecules that are different from themselves. In the same crystalline, solid environment. In many ways, molecules are rather selfish. They like to hang out with molecules that look exactly like themselves. They are a little bit suspicious. Molecules, they don't look like themselves. So in some ways, they are a little bit like people as well. So one of the one of the buzzwords that we use in my research is that we think we like to talk about the Chemistry that we do in terms of molecular sociology, or psychology, we are basically, we're basically trying to figure out how we can convince molecules to interact productively, to recognize other molecules to bind to other molecules. Because when different molecules bind and hang out together, they can perform and do very, very different things. And there are many analogies that you can make with this. For example, if you have a football team, with only quarterbacks, that football team is not going to win anything at all. But if you have different molecules or players in different positions, then as a whole team, then you can do very, very, very different things. And the same is true for molecules. I think one of the illustrations that we sometimes refer to is that, let's say, let's say if you have a cup of coffee in the morning, and some people for some reason like to put sugar in the coffee. At the end of the day, you forget about a cup of coffee, and you leave the coffee cup sitting for a day or two, you come back to it and the water is gone. And at the bottom of the cup, you will have crystals of caffeine. And you'll have different separate crystals of sugar. Now each trickle contains billions upon billions and billions of molecules of caffeine in caffeine crystals, and billions upon billions of dollars of molecules of sucrose, no sugar in the sugar crystals, you will not find a single molecule being able to fit in to the other type of crystal because they're the molecules are so selective and so specific about what other molecules they're willing to spend time with, and what other molecules that are willing to recognize and bind with. So in that sense, molecules are very, very selfish. So making a cocrystal to figure out what molecules want. And what we tried to do in my group, then we did for a longest time, that was the basic research that we did was to try to interrogate individual molecules and find out. So based upon the shape, the size, the particular functionality of a molecule, what would that molecule look like in a potential partner? Is it something to do with shape? Is it something to do with size? Is it something to do with the different elements that make up that molecule? So in many, many, many early experiments, we played a molecular dating game, if you like. But it's really like a dating game. So we essentially, we introduced one target molecule to another set of molecules, maybe three or four different potential partners. And we let them spend time together, we dissolve them together in some solvent. And as the experiment, figure out, if they did crystallize together in a cocrystal, or if they just went their separate ways. So based upon hundreds, if not 1000s, of experiments, we can begin to figure out dating guidelines for molecules. So this point, we are really treated, that knowing what a molecule wants. So if you can draw a molecule, if you can describe a molecule to me, I can probably give you a pretty decent idea of what kind of partner is the best fit for that molecule. And that is the basis for how we make country schools. So calculus is just a macroscopic overview of that. So we convince one type of molecules to form a new solid material with another type of molecules. And the reason why we want to do that is we want to make new materials where the properties of that material is taking the best of both worlds. And that's really the driving force for making cocrystals. And that's just very, very briefly what a country's length, this might sound a little bit like, like, regular dating, as well. And, um, we have actually made the molecular dating. I'm going to tell you about that.

Fascinating. It is fascinating, Christer, this is really helpful to me, I find myself wanting to follow up on several different possible threads of the, you know, human social analogy that you suggest to us. So when you say that you had a dating app for Oculus? I can I assume them that the rules that you have discovered, for what molecules like to hang out with other modern molecules are fairly contextualist or objectives? In other words, I would think that whether or not size or shape or whatever other characteristic is relevant to a good match would depend by and large on what kind of molecule or what class of molecule? I mean, how hard is it to sort of abstract out these rules to other kinds of molecules and larger groups?

Yeah, no, I mean, that is that is the the big question, because, obviously, in order to have these, in order to identify these guidelines for molecular dating, they have to be somewhat transferable between classes of compounds and between classes of molecules, you can't just have one set of guidelines for molecule A and then have another set of guidelines for molecule B, because then you're not making any progress. But it turns out that, by a large molecules are just like many of us quite superficial, in that sense, is looked for, for a few couple of key characteristics. They don't really worry too much about personality, initially, at least it's usually about looks in some usually about a trade. And it's usually about appearance. And that typically most frequently leads to a recognition event, which leads to binding. And once that binding takes place, the chances are that you are going to poetry's to where both partners are present together, whether the properties of that material are going to be better or worse than those expressed by the two individuals. That is difficult to predict. But the big thing the molecular dating app that my students put together, essentially will be really, really, really somewhat frightening. primitive in essence, because you've put in a few descriptors of your molecule, and then the program will list a set of potential partners as likely, very likely or highly unlikely to be suitable candidates. And that's it. So it's, it's a swipe left, swipe right kind of deal. But just for molecules. Wow, you didn't know that about molecules. So they had personalities that had a social life like that, did you?

I had no idea. No, I did not.

Ultimately, the reason why we want to pursue this is that, for example, if I can, there is the first application we looked at here was actually in the pharmaceutical industry. Because it turns out that a vast number of potentially useful pharmaceutical drugs fail to reach the patient, because they have, they may have a really good biological properties, biological activity, but they have very poor physical properties, physical properties, like solubility, for example, you'd be astounded at how many compounds fail in development, because they're not soluble in water. Now, if a drug isn't soluble in water, it's not going to be good to water based organisms like us. So what we tried to do in that context was to try to combine the biologically active, maybe a cancer drug, which was poorly poorly soluble in water, with a co former, a partner that was very, very soluble in water. Now, if we convinced the two to live together in one crystalline material, we could take advantage of the favorable biological activity of the cancer drug, and the favorable physical water solubility or the other component. And that will then take us from something that couldn't possibly make it to the market into a formulation that potentially could make it to the market because now, it combined the best of both worlds, trying to figure that out in advance, is still something that we can't do with too much certainty. For the longest time, we would still be trying to work out how we get those molecules to live together, and that we have a pretty good handle on.

you, in some cases drives the process by a solvent that is almost partitioning, or do you have to add energy to the system to get it to just fleetingly change? Its its three dimensional property, so it would then start it would interact? And then once it's sort of caught?

Yeah, I was gonna say, Yeah, well, not to push this analogy too far. But initially, we made we do all these experiments in solution. So we have to have a solvent that we can use. And more often than not, it's the solvent is some sort of alcohol. I'm not saying that that is helping the molecules to get together. But you need to find a solvent, it could be, it could be an alcoholic, could be water, it could be acetone, it could be chloroform, it could be all sorts of things. But you need some sort of solvent in which both components are reasonably comfortable. Because if they're both reasonably comfortable, then there is no partitioning or no segregation, within that experimental space within that mixture. And that will then facilitate the close proximity of the two, or the different types of molecules. And that's ultimately going to make it easier for them to nucleate or to bind to recognize them to nucleate. And ultimately, to crystallize together. solvent is an important choice, but we don't have to add, we don't heat them up. We simply rely on the sort of improved the ability that Partner A and Partner B have together to the stability they have with themselves. Okay, yeah. So this is pretty much like a partnership between humans as well. I think the idea is that two humans in a partnership will be stronger than the individual components by themselves. And I think the same applies in many ways to molecules to so there’s an energetic benefit to having different components together. So molecular diversity in this sense is a really strong driving force for what we try to accomplish.

Gotcha. Okay. And how do you measure the outcome of the experiment? If you now have a solution that has a compound B, compound, see this the cocrystal have that?

Yes. Yeah, it's relatively straightforward actually. So in the case of, so you can measure some simple things the left if we take the example of caffeine, which is pure, solid, and sugar, which is the pure solid, so we can measure their melting point meaning there thermal stability separately, and we can make measure their solubility of water separately. And then we make the country school. And then we can measure the melting point of the cocrystal, which is inevitably going to be different to the melting point of individuals we can make, we can measure the aqueous solubility. And by doing those kinds of measurements systematically, we have, we fixed the target. And we test it out with a series of different core formers that are a little bit different from each other. And that way, then we can begin to correlate physical properties of the bulk material to some sort of feature of the individual molecules. Because ideally, at the end of the day, we would like to be able to predict basic properties that are fundamentally important just by looking at the molecules themselves currently, that cannot be done.

Yeah, right. Otherwise, it just be a series of giant survey experiments every time.

Exactly. And I'm too lazy to do 1000 experiments, I would rather just do experiments to do the right experiments. These guidelines and the way we're developed now, structure property correlations, is helping us to do that. And I think having multiple components in one Christian crystalline environments means that we can make these we can tailor make the properties. And we can make them more or less suit or more suitable to a specific target and to a specific application. So for the pharmaceutical applications, we typically we're looking for increased aqueous solubility, so solubility of water. In many agrochemical applications, we're looking for the opposite. We're looking for maybe fertilizers and pesticides and herbicides that are less soluble in water, which means that you have a slow, much more controlled release of the active substance. So if you have a sudden rainfall, which can happen all over the place, the whole, all the pesticides and herbicides that you've sprayed on the crops in the fields is not going to disappear overnight, it'll still be slowly slowly released over an extended period of time. Now, if we can tailor those kinds of simple properties, stability, mechanical strength, melting, temperature, ability to withstand moisture, heat, then we have something that is classified or can be thought of as smarter or more responsive material. And that can be an issue anti cancer drug, it can be a fertilizer, it could be pesticide, it could be an explosive, it could be all sorts of things.

Great segue into discussing a little bit about the seed grant proposal that you received funding for recently, as the title of this is exploring cocoa crystal technologies for efficient and sustainable nutrient management. And this project you're doing in conjunction with Dr. Ganga Hettiarachchi, and in the Department of Agronomy and in the Agricultural College, can you give us a bit of background on how you ended up working with Dr. Hettiarachchi on this and kind of the direction that that proposal is taking.

But again, it's it's I think it's random, I think that's the best way to describe it. Actually, I actually met Ganga at a sort of a Buddhist ceremony. It was not a Buddhist, but she was hosting a ceremony for Ali was the sort of funeral service for a parent at one of my students. And Ganga was kind enough to host this in our house. So that's where we met up. And it turns out, the first thing she said to me is that I was your student at one point to which made me feel incredibly old, obviously. But it turns out, Ganga, who is now a full professor in Agronomy was in my very first class that I taught in Inorganic Chemistry here at Kansas State University. But anyway, so yeah, we had met before. And we started talking about the things that she was doing, and the things that we were doing, and we realized that there was an interface that we might be able to explore and exploit because she is sort of world famous world class soil scientist, and she knows everything there is to know about sorry, chemistry. I know nothing about solid chemistry, but I know how to change physical properties of materials such as fertilizers. So that made us think that maybe if we can make some new formulations and new or different types of fertilizers with slightly different properties, then she would be able to test them out in her lab with her expertise. And figure out if these new formulations, actually, they made a substantial significant impact on performance in such a way that we could maximize efficiency and minimize negative environmental, environmental impacts of over fertilizing, for example. So that's how that little project got started. That's great.

They had in looking through the proposal that you submitted on this, I know that you're in the process of working through this project at this point in time and don't have results yet. But there were three separate approaches, is can you step through some of those and explain a bit about how the cocrystal portion of this is going to be working with an interfacing with what the soil science pieces of it is doing? Right, I'm referring to the organic urea cocrystals for ionic cocrystals And then you have organico crystals for developing both nitrogen and phosphorus. It's there's some background you can give us on those.

Yeah. So, the starting point for this is very simple molecule called urea, urea is the is the probably the most common fertilizer, I think approximately 220 million tons of urea is produced every year globally 90% of that is used as fertilizer. Now, urea has a lot of great advantages, it has the high nitrogen content 46% of the weight of urea is nitrogen. So, it has the highest nitrogen content of any fertilizer, it is cheap to a large extent, but there are several drawbacks with this particular fertilizer first of all, it is really soluble, which on some level is good, but it also means that it can leach out into the groundwater really rather quickly, which is a disadvantage. Urea by itself is not absorbed or taken up by the plants urea has to go through several steps, which takes place in the soil. So urea is converted to ammonium ions to hydrogen carbonate and to nitrates. And then in those formats, then the plants can make nitrogen be more accessible. Now, the breakdown of urea is usually done by a naturally occurring enzyme that will break down urea, but a large amount of the urea that is being broken down does not reach the plant ultimately, because the breakdown is too fast, some of the urea is going to be into greenhouse gases. So some of the urea when it breaks down produces ammonia, and dye nitrogen oxygen, oxygen oxide, which are both greenhouse gases. And nitrate ions contributes negatively to eutrophication as well. So there are plenty of drawbacks with urea. And at the end of the day, it turns out that almost 50% of the RIA that is applied to crops globally is not going to reach the farm. So if we do the math, then it means that we are spreading maybe close to 100 million tonnes of fertilizers that will never reach the plant. Now that is not efficient. So, the way we're going to try to tweak this a little bit was to try to make cocrystals of urea, where the CO former or the partner would tailor their solubility in such a way that the unwanted breakdown of urea was going to be slowly slow down. So, a smaller portion of was going to disappear into the atmosphere and a smaller portion of the urea was going to disappear into the groundwater. So that would maximize the efficiency of the transformation from urea to nitrogen that plants could actually absorb. So, initially, our job is to try to make a large number of different characteristics of urea.

So the what we are trying to accomplish in my group then is to try to change some of the physical properties or the Yeah, some of the physical properties Urei itself, notably its solubility and stability, because we want to try to minimize urea breakdown in such a way that we don't siphon off a lot of the nitrogen into unwanted products that will have a negative environmental impact. And we don't want to siphon off nitrogen in forms that will lead to increased eutrophication. So we want to max it really would like to have 100% of the nitrogen that we put on the crops end up in the plant. So we call for most that we combined with urea are primarily there at this point at least to try to reduce Use or control the solubility of water in such a way that urea goes in much more slowly. And there is more of a controlled release of the fertilizer over an extended period of time, which, in principle then should maximize the efficiency of the formulation and maximize the distribution of fertilizer onto the fields. Ultimately, if we can limit the amount of fertilizer that we distribute, without losing any of the beneficial effects on food production and food supply, that is obviously the ultimate goal for that particular part. And for those other two projects that we have funded in that seed grant, it's going to be very, very similar. We haven't done a lot of work in that area, because we really only started a couple of months ago. So initially, our focus had been primarily on making these organic crystals. I'm happy to report and I just found this out literally a couple of hours ago, because I was on a Zoom meeting with Ganga in the agronomy department. And her and her students or postdocs have started to work on exploring if there are notable differences in soil samples that have been treated with pure urea compared to those that have been treated with cocrystals of urea, because you can imagine that the worst case scenario for us would be that once they go into the soil, there is no noticeable difference in their effect. But I'm happy to report that it turns out that the formulations that we've made, these countries and stuff we've made, make a significant difference in terms of how the breakdown of urea into these different components take place. And this gives us a lot of encouragement, because now we can begin to tailor make partners, because we know that it works, the proof of principle is in place. So we can now begin to target co foremost that can provide additional value to the fertilizer, we can provide micronutrients, we can provide components that would control the way in which the enzyme breaks down the array itself. Which means that again, we can dial in release and transfer and transformation of nitrogen that can be utilized by the plant to nitrogen, it can be utilized by the plant in a much more manageable manner. And I think long term, that's really what we're hoping to do to better manage the nitrogen cycle. And ultimately, the goal to do that is to provide more sustainable food supplies, and maximize efficiency. 

And also to minimize the environmental impact we I personally live in the country, and we are water comes from a well. There's farmland all around us. And nitrates is probably my biggest concern about the water coming out of that. 

Well, right. Yeah, to pick up on that point. And if we can, if we can more, or if we can better control the release of nitrogen into the soil and make it more available to the plant when they needed, then of course, we can address both environmental issues, cost and sustainability all at once. So it's kind of a it's a, in some ways, is a blue sky project. But I think the results that we've seen, even after a few months on working on this are actually quite promising. Wow. And we couldn't do any of this without thinking that global food systems avoided us and I couldn't do any of this without the expertise that can get a heterogeneous group are providing us as well. So it's yeah, it's a really, really good interface between two areas where she's in the field in a very, very different way. And I'm in the lab, doing very fundamental science and I in a million years, I didn't think I was going to do something that you one day might be actually be able to buy in a store. But here we are, may not be too many years down the line.

The initial results that you just stated are really exciting. I think that the potential for having a major impact is as you said, it's kind of a blue sky project with the sounds like demand the potential is high. What are the other things that I know from this and really through the Global Food Systems we're trying to promote in a big way one of the things we try to promote obviously, is the interdisciplinary activities which clearly you and you and Ganga have have taken to a great level. But the other thing is with the students and I was you know in thinking through how the students are interfacing with one another, I thought you know, the soil students have most certainly taken chemistry classes. So the chemistry has been important part of what they do, but the chemistry students, chances of them having background in the soils area is probably pretty limited. Where do you see the benefit of that kind of interaction are the students having the ability to work together and kind of broaden their base understanding of things as you work through this project.

But I think every time Well, first of all, every time you step out of your comfort zone, you learn something about yourself about what you do and what above what other people do. But I think in practice, so we spent 10 years developing molecular dating rules. And then suddenly, we go over to agronomy. And we, we look at actual samples of sand of soil. And we begin to realize what the challenges are, and how we might begin to address those by changing what we do in the chemistry lab, in order to better suit and better serve the requirements and the challenges that real life scientists face on a daily basis. And ultimately, then, the real life challenges that the farmer or the consumer are facing on a daily basis. If you don't walk out of your lab, if you don't physically see smell, I should say taste. But almost if you don't feel that in your hands, you don't really, really understand what you need to be able to do in order to make a difference. So I think I know that my students has, has really started thinking much more differently and much more deeply about how she can use her skill set on making these concrete skills into being able to translate that into products, to translate that into something that will have a huge benefit, not just to know the local economy in in the Midwest, but also to people back in her home country. So she's from Zimbabwe, and she there is a very agro driven country as a learner, we've been having several conversations about that maybe one day, she would like to go back and educate, teach and make a big, big difference in terms of how farming is done in the faraway place 1000s of miles literally away from Kansas State University. And I think the students in the agronomy department also get a different understanding of how you make these particular compounds and what is needed in order to characterize and classify and, and develop new materials. So I couldn't really think of a better connection between real life out there and synthetic fundamental chemistry in the lab, in my group, I mean, I'm thrilled to bits with the way that this is working out. And even if we don't make the world's best new fertilizer, I'm still perfectly comfortable with learning so much more about what is required. And maybe I can't make the difference. But my students and Ganga students and postdocs can take this to the next level. And I think that's the legacy that is worth pursuing.

Absolutely.

You are singing the Global Food Systems Initiative song.

I didn't realize you had a song as far as I know, I mean, it's, it's so critically important. And I recall, when I first started working in this position, I'm talking to somebody out of the chemistry department. And so that was there was a physicist or the chemist and I was telling them kind of the work that we were trying to do in bringing interdisciplinary groups together. And one of them looked at me and said, We don't have any impact on the food system. We're in this area. And I thought, oh, goodness, there's work to be done. And convincing on both sides of that equation, that there's so much interaction that's so critical.

Well, I mean, I think as a chemist and I, obviously a little bit biased here, but I think chemistry forms a critical part in every single scientific pursuit because we can make new things. Yes, we can make new molecules, we can make things that never ever existed before. And as a funny aside, actually, I never realized this until I started working with Ganga on this project. So you Raya, this molecule that I've been referring to several times, was first synthesized in 1828, by foolish Birla. And this was essentially represented the birth of organic chemistry. This was by and large, the first organic molecule that was synthesized in the laboratory. So there is there's a historical arc here that I that I quite like as well. Yes, indeed.

Just to follow up on this point about collaboration and interdisciplinary research, you know that I've been fortunate enough to be a part of, I don't know, four or five of these podcasts now. And it really is interesting for someone who has a life outside of the scientific enterprise, to come to a new understanding about how science works. I mean, even, you know, from outside of science, I think of it as a competitive venture. So, early on in our conversation, I was thinking to myself, I wonder if there's anyone else in the world who has a lab that's doing similar kinds of investigations with molecular dating rules? Surely there is, but maybe not, I don't know. But now that we've come full circle, for the end of the conversation, I'm realizing that the most important point was that this collaboration happened. And you might not have ever discovered the ways that they would have been applied without this kind of collaboration. So I'm glad we got this thing.

To address your point as well, of course, there is, I mean, science and getting to a certain result or finding a cure for COVID-19, or finding a better material, there is a competition. But I think getting gaining an advantage. You do that by collaborating with other world class scientists. And we have a lot of those on this campus. And right now, we can do different things with our cocrystal technology, purely because we're collaborating with soil scientists that we couldn't do before. And as a result, other groups that might be working in similar areas that were trying to do similar or related things on a fundamental level. Now as Grambling because they don't have the same sort of soil scientists working with their materials that we have. So not only is it a friendly collaboration, where we learn something and the students learn something, it does give us an advantage, a competitive advantage, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna lie about that. That's, that's part of the equation as well, of course.

That's part of what you know, through working for the global through the Global Food Systems at Kansas State, being able to I mean, that's agriculture is one of the main areas that K State offers, I think that probably internationally, we're known, known well, for those things. And so wherever we can, we can find ways to, to build off of that, and, and take advantage of, as you said, world class research in the areas that we'll be impacting that system overall, is, is something that we want to continue doing.

Yeah, I mean, even though I have, have a relatively recently evoke an interest in, in Global Food Systems, I think having this kind of umbrella, where a lot of different scientists from different areas can meet to exchange ideas, really leverages the expertise in different departments and different colleges even in unique and highly productive ways. So of course, I'm very grateful for that. And I'm delighted to be part of those.

It's wonderful. And it's interesting that the way you and Ganga came together was so random. I'm hoping that over time, we will be able to take a little of that randomness out of the equation and find better and better ways of connecting folks together to have some discussions to see where, where, where the fit that works, or doesn't work.

Well, maybe you can design an app for how to get different faculty together.

I've got some ideas on how to do that. Let me know, I would be happy to take that on. 

It's probably being licensed as we speak. I'm not quite sure if I can reveal that in public. 

Yes. Just one more sort of like, big picture question, after urea, what's next? I mean, do you see yourself continuing with working with other molecules that might have applications in the food system setting? Can you imagine what that might be next? Or do you think you might go back to focus more exclusively on some of the work that's more applicable to the Cancer Center? I'm just curious, what's next?

Well, I have a relatively short attention span. So I tend operate with numerous projects all at once. So we have projects going in, that are sponsored by the Department of Defense for making more stable explosives. We are working with Yeah, I mean, that's another that's another I was not gonna say impactful because that's what we tried to minimize impact sensitivity. But we're working to improve stability of explosives. We are working with pharmaceuticals. We are working with agrochemicals sometimes it's difficult to plan ahead and I'd like this random walk through the scientific world and the real world and sometimes you just come across an opportunity to do something. Right now we are potentially looking at fragrances, which is a whole different story where we can try to control the release of fragrances in a more fashion. So there's a lot of things I mean, every time we think about how can we control or improve the physical properties of any material or any substance, we might be able to make a difference, it's just a matter of finding enough hours in the day. And it could really be that there'll be looking more closely at pesticides and herbicides, to make them more targeted, to make them more efficient. And to make them more environmentally friendly.

I can think of dozens of applications of something like this, all the way from the agronomy of the agricultural system all the way up through the finished food product, things like like flavor enhancement, or flavor compounds coming coming out at different times during the during the the eating process of things like managing the chemicals that are used to extend shelf life of products. They're just there's so many applications that something like this might fit nicely into.

Yeah, I think all you need is curiosity. Yeah.

Yeah, I think getting the Christers and the Gangas of the world to sit down and talk over a glass of wine.

You call it random, and the way that you tell the story of how you ended up in science and at Kansas State, and you know, there's there does seem to be a sense of randomness to it. But, I have to think that there isn't that not that it's preordained, or anything like that. But as you very well say it's curiosity and expressing interest in those around you, that leads us to these seemingly random discoveries. And I can't help but also observe that, you know, 10 years in your lab, developing these technologies, so that now that you've got this really strong base that can be applied in so many different places, I find that really inspiring as well. It's like, it's sort of like you have empowered curiosity. Now that's really going to help in all kinds of applications.

Yeah, I mean, I never planned to work with explosives, to work with soil scientists, or to work with agriculture, anti cancer drugs, I think you just need to listen. You just need to listen to the challenges around you and listen to the presentations that other people give and the work that other people do. And I think then you can begin to find a niche for yourself. And if you're lucky, then you find the right collaborators, and things tend to work out. But listening, I think is almost as critical as the curiosity part.

Absolutely. Do you have any questions of us there any thoughts on the program at this point?

I hope you're planning to can continue it. I think that's a request more than a question. And what do you what do you need from the projects? I mean, what would you ideally see happen with each and every single project that you fund?

Yeah, I have to go back to my funding source, which is the state of Kansas and what the status looking for is expansion of business expansion of jobs in the state, but also helping to to improve the ecological impact of the food system in the state there, you know, just all anything positive that will help move things forward within the state of Kansas. And, as you know, and you know, we've worked with groups with a Feed the Future labs and other groups, things that positively impact the state of Kansas are not just from the state of Kansas, there are there are things that are happening all over the world that researchers at the University can look at and bring back to help us better understand what's going on within our systems within the state.

Was, I think that's, I think we should try to pursue that as much as we can. Because that clearly is a real driving force for what we do here as well.

Yeah, absolutely. So and I think what you're doing, he's got a direct potential direct impact. So this is wonderful.

I was just thinking that doing podcasts like this ought to be a basic requirement. And I think it essentially is an informal sense. But in all seriousness, being able to communicate the value of this research, and the way that it happens is, I think, really important for the public to have a sense of the way that this work is done. It won't be funded by the state of Kansas, if there isn't a greater appreciation for the ways that teaching and research go together for the ways that their deputy sometimes seems to drive these innovations. I just, I really appreciate marine that we're doing this and thanks for being here, Christer. I think it's really important.

Can I just add to that as well, and since we might have listeners who are not necessarily in their labs, I think sometimes you do not have any idea if your research is going to have a real life application or not. But sometimes it happens. And I think it's therefore it's incredibly important to support fundamental research. Because you don't know in advance where those findings and those results are going to take you. And we will not improve quality of life by itself. That can only happen through sustained research efforts, driven by universities, that's where all the exciting stuff happens. And I hope that we can continue to get resources, or even more improved resources to do what we do, because ultimately, some of us will find something that will have an incredibly important impact on the lives of people in the region, or, more broadly speaking, nationally, and globally.

Could not agree more. And I'll just follow up on that quickly before we have to sign off here. But you know, the, as you know, Christer research isn't done in a bubble. So you've got I'm sure colleagues, at other universities, within the US and around the world that you work with, and collaborate with and learn from and that type of thing. And it's just so important for us to be able to do that. And these podcasts at this point in time have been picked up since we started that picked up in over 60 countries. So I'm really excited that there are people around the world that are listening and understanding and interested in what we're doing. And hopefully the you know, when there's a collaboration that makes good sense, we'll be able to facilitate some of that as well.

Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Excellent. Well, thank you so much. Christer. 

Okay, well, thank you for inviting me and putting up with my analogies and otherwise attempts at explanations.

I think that that background in psychology has served you very, very well, even if it didn't happen at the graduate level. It's made you a fabulous explainer of chemistry so much appreciated.

Thank you. This has been absolutely fascinating. And it just opened so many different channels for further thoughts that I'm grateful. And I think that's one of the characteristics of good science. With this really is so thank you.

 Thank you for taking the time to appreciate it.

My pleasure. Great.

All right. Thank you so much. And hope to see you all soon. Thank you. Bye bye. 

If you have any questions or comments you would like to share check out our website at https://www.k-state.edu/research/global-food/ and drop us an email.

Our music was adapted from Dr. Wayne Goins’s album Chronicles of Carmela. Special thanks to him for providing that to us. Something to Chew On is produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. 

In this episode, we talk with Dr. Sara Rosenkranz, associate professor in The Department of Food, Nutrition, Dietetics and Health at Kansas State University. Dr. Rosenkranz's primary research is focused on the influence of physical activity, sedentary behavior, nutrition and obesity on cardiovascular and metabolic clinical health outcomes. Her work has assisted in a successful application to the Food and Drug Administration to have resistant starches four added to its definition of fiber. 

Transcript:

Focus on Nutrition, Behavior and Lifestyle with Dr. Sara Rosenkranz, associate professor in Food, Nutrition, Dietetics and Health.

If you're an expert in one area and not the others, it's important to have a strong team around you who can help understand the other behaviors because there's such an interaction between them. And if you're not accounting for those other behaviors in some way, shape or form, you actually may come up with an answer that's quite a bit different than where the truth actually lies. And so I always think having nutrition and physical activity in or you know, information or expertise on your team is really important, no matter if you're, you know, on one side or the other at that interaction.

Something to chew on is a podcast devoted to the exploration and discussion of Global Food Systems produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. I'm Maureen Olewnik, coordinator of Global Food Systems.

And I'm Colene Lind, Associate Professor of Communication Studies at Kansas State. I studied the public's role in science and environmental policy.

And I'm Jon Faubion. I'm a food scientist.

Hello everyone and welcome back to the Kansas State University Global Food Systems podcast Something to Chew On. From an individual's perspective, all of the things that go into producing, transporting and distributing food is only supportive of what we consume. The food we eat directly affects our health and along with lifestyle food is a major component in influencing overall well being. In today's podcast we visit with Dr. Sara Rosenkranz. Dr Rosenkranz is an associate professor in the Department of Food, Nutrition, Dietetics and Health here at Kansas State University. She's a recent recipient of a Global Food System seed grant where she is studying the effect of fiber and resistant starch concentrations in food and their impact on the cardio metabolic outcomes in humans. Her broader area of interest includes behavioral aspects of lifestyle on health outcomes with a focus on nutrition and dietary intake. Sarah, thank you so much for joining us today. And welcome to the Global Food Systems podcast, Something to Chew On. Could you give us a little background on who you are and how you got interested in your area of teaching and research at K State?

Absolutely. So I feel like I've been around a long time at this point. And my background goes way way back in terms of where my interests kind of come from. So I'll try to give you the short version. But so I graduated from Manhattan High School here in Manhattan, Kansas, and basically did my undergrad in psychology and then did a master's degree here at K State in kinesiology and specifically kind of exercise physiology area. And there I got, you know, I became really interested in taking some nutrition courses and I had been an athlete pretty much all of my life. So between my master's degree and my PhD, I went to work for USA Triathlon, I traveled around and put on coaching education clinics, and my husband was involved in junior national team triathlon training. And so obviously, with sport, nutrition became a really critical topic. And so building off of my master's degree, I decided that I wanted to come back and actually get a PhD in human nutrition. So my two loves our exercise physiology and human nutrition. And my research really is exciting to me, because I often combine those two primary loves that I have so kind of looking at both mechanistic as well as applied approaches to understanding the influence of, of lifestyle, on the whole on cardio metabolic health outcomes. And so that's really kind of what drives the very large umbrella under which my research sits. Specific to this project. I was really, really fortunate that Dr. Mark Cobb was a mentor of mine for quite a long time and we knew each other speaking of small worlds that we were just talking about, he and I did triathlons together for a number of years and he helped to mentor me and he introduced me to this current collaboration that I've got going on sort of multi pronged across the grain sciences and industry, they bakery science and working with MGP ingredients. So we were really interested in looking at the effects of fiber consumption on cardio metabolic outcomes. And then we got really interested in this resistant starch kind of world. And again, this is all really I owe this connection, this collaboration to Dr. Hobbs. So I would be remiss if I did not mention that. And so really, some really exciting findings that we had led me to continue on in this work. And it was an opportunity to allow my graduate students to obtain training that was really transdisciplinary, which is also really exciting to me. And I think one of the real goals here is to help to train students to fulfill the industry needs at the end of the day. So understanding those connections between brain science and industry, and human nutrition, metabolic health out, and how that interfaces with the FDA and their regulatory processes, has been a really big learning experience, not only for myself, but for my students. So there's a very long winded short answer to your question.

No, that's great. So the what you were talking about on the resistance starch is that the seed grant, the GFS seed grant that you're referring to are is more expensive than that. Okay.

Yeah, so the GFS seed grant is kind of the latest development in terms of that collaboration, because we've worked on a few different projects with the same team partners leading into the latest efforts for the seed grant, which the seed grant is really meant to examine the opportunity for making further health claims related to resistant starch for being able to meet the FDA regulatory guidelines for making such health claims and involve a little bit further work from from where we've been, which we were involved very, very recently, just within these last couple of years in helping to get Rs four resistant starch for designated as a fiber. And so that was sort of my introduction into this real regulatory world at the FDA. So I was really fortunate to have some strong partners who obviously had done that quite a bit before. So yeah, the GFS grant is kind of our next steps. So things that we started to talk about while we were doing some shorter term studies, while we're working on that fiber classification, kind of like, well, where are we going to go from here and say, we developed this collaboration together to work on the longer term consumption question and how that impacted cardio metabolic health and in more particularly, our bad cholesterol, or LDL cholesterol, as well as blood pressure. So in terms of FDA regulations, those are the two primary outcomes that they're really in, they're really interested in in terms of being able to make that cardiovascular health claim.

That's fascinating. As I was reading through this, I was thinking back to the work I did over the past. I mean, I, in my past life, I did a lot of work with the food industry and with FDA on exactly what you're talking about here, and would be really interested in understanding how your interaction worked in getting that process in place in the classification. I, the discussions on fiber are ongoing with the food industry, as you probably learned in that activity. And interesting to know where the university fits in those kinds of discussions. And how about that piece work?

Yeah, absolutely. And so as a cereal chemist, you probably actually have a much more in depth knowledge in terms of some of the structure function interfaces when it comes to fiber. So part of our team, not only Dr. Mark Cobb, and myself but Dr. Ody Maningat who works with MGP ingredients and Atchison, Kansas, and he's their vice president for ingredients or research and development and he's their Chief Science Officer. He's a K State alum. And, and you guys probably already know him and then 

Also classmates of both John and mine.

So that small world keeps cropping up again and again, doesn't it? Along with Ody or Dr. Maningat I should call him his formal title, but Dr. Paul Seib, who's also emeritus professor of grain science and industry and then Dr. Yong-Cheng Shi has been a part of our team as well. So sort of together with them. We're talking about it You know, things that are going to be beneficial to MGP ingredients that also are possible with the expertise that we have at K State. And certainly I defer to Dr. Seib and Dr. Shi and Dr. Maningat when it comes to understanding the ins and outs of the structure of those starches and how they intersect with human health. And my heart is really, as a clinical researcher, and I work exclusively with human subjects, I really haven't done much with rodent models, although a little bit on collaborative teams. So really kind of understanding how we would translate these questions into projects that are going to meet the requirements of FDA and what they're looking for. So I had the opportunity to sit in on some calls with the FDA with my whole team around and then and then we would be able to meet up afterwards and talk about what the primary concerns from the FDA perspective were based on the existing literature and why in the initial classification for resistant starch, really resistant starch types, one, two and three were indicated as fiber but resistance charge for was not and sort of understanding why the studies that had been done previously, were not enough to make the case for a fiber classification for that particular type of resistance starch. So my job really is working with Dr. Haub, who's the other human clinical researcher on the team to come up with ways that we could design a study that would allow us to assist MGP and grant scientists and industry in translating that work that they're doing based on crystalline structure based on processes that they use to create this resistant starch type that comes really from wheat, which obviously has a huge impact on on the state of Kansas, in more ways than one to translate that to a project that's going to be acceptable, according to the FDA criteria. And I don't know if that answered your question or not, but if not, I'm happy to follow up.

No, that's great. Thank you.

Yeah, sometimes when I'm talking with relatives, or friends, or people I don't even know. And they find out that I'm a food scientist, or cereal chemist or whatever. They'll ask me to de convolute some terms that we use all the time and understand and they don't have a clue. And one of them, you mentioned, I think about the second sense of your when you started speaking and it was a lifestyle. It's an umbrella term, but what are we actually saying? What components go together to make different lifestyle?

So obviously, that's a great question. And I appreciate that so much, because I think as a researcher, we sometimes forget how much we know and how specific our research vernacular is. So when I say lifestyle, I've got something really, really specific in mind. And they're really a compilation of different behaviors, that definitely have strong research support behind them in terms of their ability to impact health outcomes, and in particular, health outcomes that are, you know, non communicable chronic diseases that are really in the top 10 or so of our most prevalent causes of death. And so I am really talking about physical activity or exercise. I'm talking about your dietary intake, talking about sleep, I'm talking about, you know, some of the cancer preventative behaviors, like wearing your seatbelt, not smoking, using your sunscreen. And so if we kind of take a look at those things together, then that's what we're really kind of trying to look at is what are the effects of these behavioral aspects on really important health outcomes? And obviously, I've focused primarily on the nutrition or dietary intake, and then I, I still dabble quite a bit with physical activity and exercise and the interactions that are specific to those two key critical energy balance related lifestyle factors.

Excellent. So there's no single, one single definition and if the researcher developed that, in the best way to utilize it to to get the answers that they hoped there were to get the answers they're testing for.

I suppose. Yeah, it's a great point because I think if you're an expert in one area and not the others, it's important to have a strong team around you who can help understand the other behaviors because there's such an interaction between them. And if you're not accounting for those other behaviors in some way, shape or form, you actually may come up with an answer that's quite a bit different than where the truth actually lies. And so I always think having nutrition and physical activity in or you know, information or expertise on your team is really important, no matter if you're, you know, on one side or the other at that interaction. Great. Thanks.

Sara, if I could follow up, I had a similar question to John, as I reviewed your data and your research, a term kept coming up that occurred to us a couple of times already, and that's cardio metabolic outcomes. I frankly, I thought about that a lot. And I thought I don't know what those are now, I've heard you mentioned them. And I'm getting an idea LDL and HDL levels, blood pressure, could you talk a little bit more and maybe provide a few more concrete examples of what cardio metabolic outcomes are? And maybe that will provide a chance to sort of talk a little bit even more about the interaction of nutrition and exercise in relationship to our cardio? Cardio metabolic?

Absolutely. Another really great question and, and friendly reminder to me that I need to not speak in the way that I speak sometimes, and I apologize for that.

No, no, you don’t apologize. I just, you know, for someone who doesn't deal with these issues every day, it's pretty understandable that we come up with specialized languages, right?

We all fall prey to that. It's more efficient.

Yes, that's exactly right. And I know that I'm speaking to a whole bunch of very knowledgeable people. So for me, cardiometabolic is, is kind of, if you speak with young people, today, they have this term, it's probably already out of vogue at the moment called shipping, where you're kind of putting two things together. And that's exactly what I'm doing. And that is, you know, cardiovascular risk factors, and then metabolic risk factors. And so we know that there is a lot of shared risk when you're talking about people who have cardiovascular disease. And people who have diabetes mellitus type, type two diabetes is a one that we're most familiar with. And so cardiometabolic risk factors for me are ones that we would understand from the research literature can help to predict risk for cardiovascular mortality, or cardiovascular morbidity or sort of complications related to cardiovascular disease. And we know that people with type two diabetes mellitus often have stronger, much stronger risk of death from cardiovascular disease related issues as compared to people without type two diabetes mellitus. And so these risk factors that I think about are you know, you go to your doctor and you get your blood test, and you get screened for your total cholesterol, your bad cholesterol, your your healthy cholesterol, your HDL, your triglyceride levels, they'll test your fasting glucose, which definitely is related to not only cardiovascular disease, but also to that diabetes mellitus issue, blood pressure, would be another one that crosses over quite a bit. And then we think about things like body composition, or waist circumference, BMI. And then, you know, really, there's some specialized things that I've looked at a lot with my research, and that is markers of inflammation. And we know, for example, that C reactive protein is a global marker of inflammation. And that inflammation in the body is sort of what connects the risk for a lot of these different chronic diseases, which are big causes of death for us in terms of the United States and other westernized types of countries. And I think the other one that I look at often is things like insulin, and that's probably familiar to most people as it relates to diabetes and you know, controlling blood glucose. So insulin and glucose outcomes would be definitely sitting more primarily in that metabolic world, but certainly crossover into cardiovascular disease too. So the reason I kind of combine those into one term is because there's so much commonality there. So those would be really the primary things that we look at is insulin, glucose, inflammation or oxidative stress, and then our lipids and blood glucose, blood pressure, and other things related to the metabolic syndrome, which again, crossover between cardiovascular disease and And the more metabolic types of disorders or diseases that we have.

One thing and again, reading through some of the background that you've got in your training, the Bs in psychology or BA in psychology has me intrigued to understand where that fits into what you're currently teaching how you're doing, how you approach the work that you're doing. 

Now, what a great question. And something that I often talk to my students about. And, you know, that is, my path toward where I am now has been quite circuitous is how I would describe it. I definitely didn't follow that trajectory of, you know, bachelor's to Master's, straight on to PhD and on into my academic career, I've traveled a lot and had a lot of experiences, but my BA in psychology is still foundational to the things that I do, and I think allows me to understand not only the mechanistic or physiological side of the work that I do, but also the behavioral aspects. And so I think, for me, I think about, for example, I used to teach a class called exercise testing and prescription when I was a student within the Department of Kinesiology. And one of the things that I would often mention to my students was that I could write the perfect exercise training program that would, you know, be almost guaranteed to get somebody the results that they wanted. But if they didn't do it, then it was literally worthless. And, you know, similarly, that holds true for a diet, like if I prescribe somebody or write a specific diet for somebody to follow, but it's impossible for them to adhere to, or they're unwilling to, or unable to, for some reason, then it's not worth anything at the end of the day. And so when I was getting my undergraduate degree, I really had in the back of my mind, that I wanted to work with people with eating disorders. And I had some opportunities to do that I was involved in running an eating disorder support group and had some experiences that are somewhat sort of seared into my brain, that made me realize that it was not work that I felt that I could do without really negatively impacting my own mental well being. And I really got involved with some coursework, as well as some research that had to do more with behavioral modification, and specific specifically around cigarette smoking cessation, and had an opportunity to really kind of get into some of the behavioral world around those lifestyle factors that we were talking about earlier. And so that, you know, that is really still a big part of what I do. And it's kind of cool, because I am, I described myself as the jack of all trades and the master of none. And that means that I can walk in both worlds in terms of behavioral research, but more that mechanistic and physiological research as well. And I think it's really important to be able to do that, while still having a strong team of expertise around you. But it allows me to get into some of this real transdisciplinary or interdisciplinary work. And, you know, I love that people have started to get away from silos and reductionist kind of thinking, and more into thinking about systems and thinking about how one thing might impact another because that's kind of the way my brain likes to think. And maybe it has something to do with my background. And Maureen, did that answer your question?

It did. Thank you. Yeah, it's in looking at it. It seems that it would be you call it foundational, and I could see how that would be the case with the kinds of things that you work on and that you're building on, it makes perfect sense. That would be quite a great add to some to it to a technical degree that you're that you ended up with, with your PhD to have something like that to help keep you focused on the for the personal side of things, or the, you know, the human side of making sure that understanding and kinesiology understanding of nutrition, those types of things make sense to people?

Yeah, I think too. I would just add to that, that it's kind of about that translation issue as well. And so the application part, you know, so one of the questions that was sort of drilled into me at an early age in my academic career was, will so what, why do we care about this, and how would we apply it? And that's always I think, a really important background question to have in mind.

Sara, as I look at some of the work that you've done recently, I'm really intrigued by the fact that your research seems to span and perhaps even speak to, maybe you can speak to this more the the interaction between personal behaviors on health and health outcomes, as well as sort of the social systems that we find ourselves in. I mean, I, you know, look at some of these work you've done recently on sugary drinks and the outcome that that has in terms of personal health, but then you've also got the articles about nutritional levels of middle school food, it's different districts around Kansas. And it's recently, a commentary about the amount of activity the schoolchildren have, and how that can have a direct impact on their academic Well being a little bit about both from a standpoint of an expert in health and health outcomes about interaction between those two personal and social systems. And then how do you approach that, as a researcher? Do you? Do you find yourself pulled in those two directions? Or do you feel like it's important for you to be able to say things about both of those?

Wow, as that's quite a question, is great question. And the reality is that you hit on something that's really often on my mind. And that is, you know, this juxtaposition really between, you know, individual or personal level functioning, and, and the systems in which we sit and, and that balance between mechanisms, outcomes, a lot of the work that I do, and, and then the so wet question that I just mentioned before, and I do think it's important to be able to talk about both of those things I so often see in, I'll just say people in general, but in particular, in my students, oftentimes, early on, when they come to their undergraduate career, for example, they might be very, very strongly in the camp, that personal responsibility is, is where everything is that if you are, for example, and well, or if you're overweight or obese, then you really just need to exercise more and eat less, for example. And then I think, throughout their time at K State in one of our degree programs, they're likely to get a little bit more information a little bit more opportunity to, to see the impact that systems or the environment around them can can really have on those things and, and get away from this idea that things are quite so simple. You know, if you've got somebody who's a working adult, maybe they're a single parent, and they've got two or three different jobs, and their priorities are really around, you know, making sure that their kids are clothed and fed and well educated, then they may not really have in terms of their their hierarchy of needs, or in terms of their priorities, their own personal exercise, physical activity or dietary intake, for example, and would you then condemn them for that? Or could it be something that would be potentially understandable, and of course, it's the latter and my students always, inevitably get there. But I think it's it's a really common error that we make not only about others, but also about ourselves, you know, in terms of blaming ourselves for these behaviors or sort of not understanding maybe that impact of the real ability to choose some of these things that we do, and the overall impact of the people around you, the household maybe that you live in the community that you live in your opportunities for access to healthy foods, or healthy physical activity behaviors. And in COVID, it's a really interesting time right now, we actually have got a new study going on right now, where we're working with K State research participants who are now largely working from home. And they are, you know, we've had given them the opportunity to work on their sedentary behavior. Many of us are now you know, in a system, whereby we've changed our work environments, and we become largely quite sedentary and that research data suggests that we have done that and that some people are resilient and they will schedule in all of these different opportunities to get outside and go for walks and walk their dogs and fix healthy meals, etc. But other people are not faring quite as well in the COVID environment. And so this study is really all about, about that, you know, that switch from the way that we normally work. So I do think it's incredibly important to understand not only the individual level factors that predict these really important health outcomes, but also the systems and the larger context in which people work and you know where their priorities might be. And I probably got really sidetracked and answered your question in a way that was not what you intended. But yeah, you've hit on something that's so incredibly important to me. I remember vividly my PhD defense. And I was sitting outside in the hallway waiting for them, the people on my committee to come back out and tell me yes or no, did I pass my doctoral prelims or not? And I remember sitting out in the hallway, and I could just hear laughing, coming from the room, and I was just like, what are they laughing at? What did I say that was so funny, and I was feeling oh, my God, I failed. And I went back in the room. And really what came out of all of that discussion was that I passed, unfortunately, but that they really felt that I needed to find my specialization that I needed to be known for something. And so I've resisted that. I thought about it. I nodded. I agree. And I think that is important, because that's how you get grant funding. That's how you get published. That's how you get recognized as being an expert. But at the same time, there was this poll, as you described in your question, originally, for me, because I definitely think both, or all sides of that are incredibly important. And what you'll see in my Vita is really interesting, back and forth. Sometimes between work, what you'll see is just a reflection of my varied interests, how it's really difficult for me sometimes to just pick one path and go down it. So I've tried very, very hard to pick some lines of research that are things that are interesting, compelling, important, help to develop strong collaborations, etc. And then dabbling in areas where I still have a lot of interest, like, for example, the school foods, menus, dietary quality question that you were talking about before, and oftentimes, honestly, it's my students who lead me down some of these kind of different pathways. And I'm happy for that to happen. Because I did that as a student, I led my major professor down a path that he probably would not have otherwise traveled. And so as long as it's something I'm interesting, interested in, and I think it's important, and it helps me to push one or more of these lines of research forward, then I'm happy to be led, I guess, off the beaten path a little bit, I want students to..

We all struggle with these questions of how should we specialize? How specialized should we be? Should we ignore this interesting path? Should we stay with this one. So I appreciate hearing you reflect on how to try and balance those. And I really appreciate your story about your students, and you know, where they start and where they end up. Because I deal with political discourse. I'm often frustrated by the fact that most people see this as an either or question, our health and our well being as a consequence of what we do period, or our health and well being as a consequence of where we find ourselves in the system period. And of course, both are true. And both can be true and are true at the same time. But that's not that's not an easy answer. Either way isn't, but it's closer to the truth. So I appreciate that it's not an easy way to engage researchers to think about those in tension with each other at the same time.

That was very, very well said. And I could not have said it better, for sure, very succinctly. But exactly where my mind was meandering, I tend to be an external processor. So sometimes I'm thinking as I'm talking, but I love the way that you just worded that.

You should do more podcasts, because I think that's what they're all about is external processing.

That is exactly the case. That is true. Well, and some of the discussion that was just had here, I think points back to the complexity of, you know, I'll say the complexity of the global food system, because that's what I'm representing. But the way all of these things interact with one another is incredibly complex. And you can't, you can't look at things in a silo or from a unit direction, unidirectional perspective, things interact, and there is no black and white to most any of the questions that we have.

Absolutely. Just another little quick anecdote. I most recently, the most recent semester where we got our teaching evaluations, I had a student to reflected that I said sort of too much when I was answering questions, and I sort of laughed while see I said it again, I laughed out loud when I read that evaluation, because I do I rarely give concrete answers to anything. It's always well, there's no black or white, there's no Yes or No, there's no either or. And as scientists, I think we do that because we understand the lack of certainty, and the complexity around the different answers to questions that we might give. But it's often dissatisfying to the audience or to our students as well. So another balance point to be had there.

I think, you know, you've really touched on one of the central dilemmas of five communication, which is, many audiences, for understandable reasons, expect concrete direct answers to guide behavior. And that's not certainly what science is about producing, right. So it’s..

We often produce more questions than we do answers.

Exactly exact.

Truly what science is about, that is exactly what it's about, you know, parting comments that you met want to make sure the listener has in mind.

You know, I really don't think when particular food is gonna be the answer to all of our woes. And so I continually see people trying to find one specific thing, I think, kind of reductionist, and I would just encourage people to kind of use what we've just been talking about, and understand the bigger picture of the overall quality of their diet, the overall influences of their lifestyle behaviors, especially right now in this very difficult time that we have going on right now, with the COVID pandemic, and everything else that we've been facing in this year of 2020. And think about the bigger picture and how these critical pieces fit together. And I suppose give yourself some grace would be how I would put it just hang in there. Hopefully, there's a light at the end of the tunnel, and things will get better.

And honestly, what you stated was Global Food Systems related. Yeah, it's what I really hope that the listeners pick up and that the faculty that we visit with pick up and learn from this as a Global Food Systems is not a group of singular activities that are happening here. And there. It's just this incredibly complex interaction of things that are touched by I think everything that we do on the K State campus one way or the other. Whether it's humanities, engineering, human nutrition, or agriculture, all of those areas have an impact. And so, you know, when, hopefully, as we work through this, and people pick up and listen to more of these, and one of the outcomes of this I'm hoping to, is to get more faculty members just to talk with one another, learn what each other is doing. And understanding how that computer engineer has a direct impact on nutrition. There are things where those two areas of study, come together and overlap with one another. And those are just two that I pulled off the top of my head, but I think you understand maybe what I'm getting at.

Absolutely 100% agree. And I would just like to take this opportunity to thank all of you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today. And for all of the great thoughtful questions. Even though I was externally processing a bit, I really, really appreciate it and I agree with you Maureen regarding the potential for collaborations is probably beyond what many of us had imagined they would be. So hopefully, we'll continue to work in teams and across disciplines. And really, I think that's how problems are going to get solved is to get out of our silos and talk to one another, and collaborate with one another in meaningful ways.

I agree this whole conversation is made me think, Hmm, the next time I teach persuasion, how can I hit up Sara and get her expertise and help communication questions that invariably come up in persuasion class? So thanks, thank you for your time and your expertise there. And thanks for that. Shout out for just a little bit of grace. I think we that's a great way to go in this pandemic, when so many things are uncertain. So thank you for that.

 Absolutely. Thank you. 

Thank you. Thanks, everyone. Thank you. Bye bye.

If you have any questions or comments you would like to share check out our website at https://www.k-state.edu/research/global-food/ and drop us an email.

Our music was adapted from Dr. Wayne Goins’s album Chronicles of Carmela. Special thanks to him for providing that to us. Something to Chew On is produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. 

In this episode, we discuss one professor’s pure joy in impacting the community by keeping food safe. Dr. Valentina Trinetta's research focuses on understanding the ecology of foodborne pathogens and identifying microbial entry routes into the food supply chain. Dr. Trinetta also works on the development and implementation of antimicrobial intervention strategies to reduce and control foodborne pathogens in different commodities.

Transcript:

The Power of Passion: The next generation of researchers with Dr. Valentina Trinetta, assistant professor in animal science and industry

We are in a phase where the food system has become so complex that we cannot not consider it all the part of this chain or this system.

Something to chew on is a podcast devoted to the exploration and discussion of Global Food Systems produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. I'm Maureen Olewnik, coordinator of Global Food Systems.

And I'm Colene Lind, Associate Professor of Communication Studies at Kansas State. I studied the public's role in science and environmental policy.

And I'm Jon Faubion. I'm a food scientist.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Kansas State University's podcast something to chew on. In today's podcast we visit with Dr. Valentina Tonetta. Dr. Trinetta has passion for understanding ways to keep food safe is outpaced only by her passion for teaching. Her research focus is on understanding foodborne pathogens ecology and identifying microbial entry routes into the farm for food supply chain. Dr. Trinetta also works on the development and implementation of anti microbial intervention strategies to reduce and control foodborne pathogens in commodities. Dr. Trinetta is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Animal Science and Industry at Kansas State. She carries a BS in Food Biotechnology from the University of Pisa Italy, a master's in Genetics, Biotechnology for food safety from the University of Naples, Italy, and a PhD in food science and technology from the University of Milan, Italy. Dr. Valentina Fernando, we want to welcome you to the Global Food Systems podcast Something to Chew On. Before we get started, in our discussion today, I would like to ask you to visit with us a bit about some of your background and how you got to become so interested in the area that you work in today.

Thank you for the invitation. As you probably understand from my accent, I am Italian. I was thinking when I was a child that I wanted to be a medical doctor. But I realize that I'm very afraid of blood and needles. And so I decided to become a doctor of food. So since my start in the university, all my degrees are in Food Science. My masters and my PhD are in Food Science. And slowly I got very interested in food safety. I spent part of my PhD at Penn State University and really fell in love with research and the opportunity that I could see at Penn State and in general, doing your research in the United States. Therefore I continue with a postdoc at Purdue. And before starting my position at Kansas State in 2016, I worked for a corporation a chemical company Ecolab in Minneapolis, and in all my experience I work with different commodity but always in food safety and trying to control them transfer foodborne pathogens in the food supply chain. Since 2016, I moved to Manhattan, Kansas, with my family. And I am an assistant professor in the Department of Animal Sciences and Industry. And I'm also a faculty of the Food Science Institute. I have a heavy load of teaching Food Microbiology and then all the rest of my appointment is research.

Very interesting. I see you had mentioned that you are in the Department of Animal Science and Industry. But it looks to me from looking at your areas of expertise in the studies that you've obviously done before you came to K State. You got interested in capabilities for reaching beyond just the animal science area? Is that correct?

Yes, exactly. I'm working a lot on product safety. And even if I am part of the Animal Sciences and Industry department being part of the Food Sciences Institute is key, because I'm fortunate enough to be connected with the multicultural department of Kansas state and with some faculty in Olathe campus, and they're pretty strong in Urban Food System. And the last three years, we have been pretty successful on working on produce safety. In Kansas and Missouri, we do have several projects, looking at improving shelf life and quality of berries, trying to help the Kansas producer with transportation and ensuring quality of these small crops, we recently got a bigger grant on sponsored by USDA NIFA, to help always grower in Kansas semi story to make sure their water that they use for crop production is a safe. And so this has given me a little bit of versatility of not always working with the same type of commodity, but working with different people, different reality, different food matrices, and trying to apply the same type of mental approach, but in a different way. Because the situation and the production of produce is completely different than animal food.

So help me out a little bit I people as I talk to people or students and talk about the supply chain, and now they're starting to hear people are starting to hear about the supply chain is that applies to the COVID vaccine. How would you define the supply chain? What's the good definition for that that we could use? Or I could use as a starting point in talking to two people or students?

So I think I would and this is also based on what in my previous job that represented the supply chain for the corporation or for the company. So I always refer to that situation, at least in my mind and to talk with students, I think we can define production chain from farm to fork, but I would define supply chain all those operations that transport the product. So when I talk about supply chain, I always refer to the part that goes towards retailer when the finished product is produced and there needs to reach the consumer they. Regarding your question about COVID vaccine, I was fortunate enough that to be involved in a recent grant getting sponsored by USDA NIFA was a emergency call. And we put together a set of experts from Kansas State University. And since the strength of the Food Sciences Institute and animal science is the ability to work in the food wings at the BRI we partner with a virologist at the vet school and we are going to see all the parameter that can in the production part of animal food that can influence the spread of COVID-19. So we are excited we started officially this project in September. We are still at the BSL two level working with surrogate we are ready to start with the BSL three virus at the BRI in January. We are going to evaluate air flow different surfaces, foot contact, not foot contact and understand how the food industry can use the tool that we already have as disinfection and sanitation to try to overcome the spread of COVID.

Valentina, I want to learn more about this research regarding COVID-19. And that you're working on. But before we leave this concept of the production chain from farm to fork, I wanted to follow up on Jon's question a little bit. I think that that's a very interesting and informative way to distinguish the supply chain from the production chain. I, as I listened to you talk about, for example, the work that you're doing with K State Olathe, and water in the urban food system, I was reminded that, at least it seems to me that food safety really emphasizes that food systems are a system and a very complex system. I mean, I think about how contamination with water can end up contaminating crops and end up contaminating a salad that ends up in a restaurant somewhere. So what I'm getting at is, is it really a chain? Or is it something even more complex than a chain that you as a food safety scientists have to think about in terms of like larger, complex interactions?

I think it’s more complex solving, as compared to the mere definition of a chain. And I'm gonna give you another example of another type of research that I'm doing that seems not connected, but I think it is. So I am working on a lot in feed safety. I'm working with this swine group in the animal science department. Because I came across this very problematic stereotype of salmonella that recently has been seen pretty often in United States at the retail level or production level. So in piece of pork meat, we had several outbreaks with these salmonella. And so I was reading several article and I came across a work that some professor from the vet school did on African swine fever, demonstrating that one of the way to turn off transmission of this virus is through feed, and I start researching about these salmonella serotype. And there are a lot of entities such in Canada and North Europe that did preliminary study. And they found a lot of the stereotype in our feed and feed meal. So I was fortunate enough to partner with this swine group at Kansas State and is almost four years there. We are researching the presence of the serotype from feed. Now we did the feed, we are investigating the farm. And they recently got a GFS a seed grant through the Global Food System Initiative, where we are gonna understand if we've lived pig, if they drink or they eat or they ingest somehow this pathogen if they keep it inside their body and then at slaughter, there is still the partition. And so like this pathogen can go at retail level. So what I'm trying to say is that, that I don't think it's a matter of water meat to anymore I think we are in a phase where the food system has become so complex that we cannot not consider it all the part of this chain or this system. So it's very fascinating for me also investigating what we call pre harvest beside harvest. And I think I came to this consideration because working at Ecolab that is a chemical company and see all the work that they do with the food industry and with their client on giving information and giving tools for cleaning and disinfection. I am pretty comfortable with saying that the industry as all the metal the potential to produce safe food. I think we under look some points that are coming before the production.

Right? Right. That's a wonderful example and exactly what I was getting at. And it's a great example not just because of your point of looking at a different point in the food system, but also because it required some interdisciplinary outreach and connection on your part that I would assume is absolutely vital. Now in tackling those complex interaction,

I we had, we had working with a historian, because that was the migration of these foodborne pathogen from Europe to United States until 15 years ago, this particular serotype of salmonella was never seen in the United States on log in. And so we are trying to understand if there was a change in the in how this one industry worked, that allow the transition the migration of these microorganisms from Europe to United States. And so we have a KPI in the history department that is helping with this research. So has been very interesting also for that.

Absolutely no, that is that is even more interdisciplinary than I realized. That's great. Thank you.

And even more complicated, because if it's coming from Europe, and then goes into another complete, I guess web if you want, or set of connections. So it's not not just finding the particular serotype here and tracing it down. How'd it go make it to the US to begin with. And then since it's gotten in the US, that's another set of problems. So it appears that it keeps the idea of mitigating the problem as one of the potential focuses of the research. Beyond just figuring out now it's here we have this problem. How do we get rid of it? How do we control it?

I love the fact that you're working with somebody in the history department. I know that you've heard my spiel before Valentina, but just the critical importance of bringing in various focused ideas on how to tackle big problems is so important. And sometimes we forget about the impact of what the humanities brings to some of these questions. I think that's wonderful.

Sometimes is difficult to make this connection. So the Global Food System Initiative, really gave me the possibility to stretch my mind a little bit and say, Okay, this is the occasion where I can try to truly do a multi or interdisciplinary project. So I contacted the professor from these departments.

Yeah, no, that's wonderful. You know, I'm curious, going back to the discussion that you provided a bit on the research you're doing in livestock processing facilities, where do you see the information you develop is going to be critically important. But I'm seeing that we are hopefully going to watch this COVID issue go away over the next year? Where do you see some of that information and work that you're developing now sit after this as this part of our lives is closed up? You know, once we get our hands around COVID? Are there going to be outcomes of that that will be impacting the industry long term and how they do the work in those facilities? Or is it something that will be shelved until the next time we have something like that happen?

So my hope is that what we produce is gonna be relevant for COVID-19, but also for how to better mitigate if we have another problem of this type. I think our approach is that since we are not we did not propose the development of new cleaning or disinfectant tool, we are going to work with what the industry is already using. And we did it on purpose because we know that sometimes the adoption of a new system becomes too difficult for the food industry. So we part we start with the advantage of proposing to the industry what they already know this step forward. The ease that we are gonna try to combine factor and parameter that sometimes been looking a separate way that can be pH or concentrate or temperature, and we are going to try to combine them and see and see a way to enhance the capability of these chemical compounds against COVID. Now, I think all our study will be applicable to other type of pathogen and viruses. Also, because unfortunately, we are seeing an increase of antimicrobial resistance. So, the fact that we are going to offer also results on the physiology of the virus and what is happening when the virus is treated with this compound can be useful if we see in a rise of salmonella, multi resistance pathogen in the poultry industry, understand and take the results that we are going to produce from this grant. So I do not see it only for COVID-19. I see it as the way to explore with the tool that we have now, but enhance and improve if something unexpected is gonna happen again, to make our food safe.

Is it possible that contamination by other microorganisms, salmonella, for example, work could actually create a micro environment that would facilitate the length of life of COVID 19?

So it's something that we cannot disclose, because I saw a lot of study where there is a symbiotic relationship between viruses and bacteria. And an example of that is not a virus, for example. But I think COVID is so new, that we do not have that knowledge yet, but definitely think that there is an interaction. Thank you.

Don't question makes me think of another that's much more simplistic, and it will but will show my lack of rudimentary knowledge and biology. But I was I'm struck by the fact that Valentina, you usually work with bacteria like listeria, E coli, salmonella, and now but I mean, as you as you referenced in some earlier discussion, as well as this project, regarding COVID, you're being brought in to think about viruses in the way that they're transmitting. And under what conditions is that? Is that a relatively easy jump for someone like yourself, who's usually working with different kinds of bacterial pathogens instead of viruses? Or do you just provide different kinds of expertise to the project? How does? How does that translation work?

Yeah, so I'm not a virologist, and bacteria and virus are completely different. So we made sure we had the virologist in the team. I think we got this grant, because we brought in a different perspective of how the food industry work, what they are using for clean sanitation, how food products are produced, what they need to do the in the operator and the employer in order to producing keep the environment and the products safe. So we brought in all this knowledge, that is definitely definitely applicable to virus. Now we needed the virology is because the mode of action and how to cultivate and how to enumerate and recover the virus is completely different as compared to bacteria. So I think is a good example of synergistic activity. And all of us bring a different perspective. Right?

No, I agree. And as I hear you talk about that synergy it, it just makes me think about how how interesting it is that the safety of the workers in these facilities is directly related to or connected to the safety of the food and the way that it's pretty I don't know, maybe it's, it's not that revolutionary of an idea and for food safety, like yourself, I'm sure it's not. But I don't think I would have automatically put those two kinds of risks together as as interacting and influencing one another.

Actually, the majority of foodborne illnesses that we have is because of hygiene, or poor hygiene of worker or wrong way to handle food. So they are very much related.

They very are connected. Right,

Does the neurologist that you're working with, Can you I guess the term would be carry a culture of, of COVID? Is there a way to keep it alive for an extended period of time outside a system that that has the cells that it would normally populate?

Yes, because we will, we are working on these trying to keep the virus alive for longer because our study is going to be over time at a different temperature. And we are going to understand the survivability of the virus for example, on Stainless steal at refrigerated temperature for one week. But we have been reading also that there is a group that was able to recover a COVID on a piece of meat to when this piece of meat was frozen for at least two weeks. So we do have some evidence that the virus can survive.

Yeah, it's ironic that you should be investigating it living longer, rather than shorter, even a good experimental reason.

Volunteer, I really look forward to hearing the results of that research, as I'm sure many people will be very interested, you know, in Kansas and around the world. But I haven't I have a completely different line of questioning for you. In the materials to prepare for today. We were given some information about some of your social media posts. And I have to say I had a lot of fun looking at your labs Twitter account. And I wonder what's going on with that spinach that you posted? Can you explain a little bit about the experimentation that's being done on the color of this spinach?

Yeah, so I need to say that all my graduate students and undergraduate students are helping me a lot to be active on social media. And after I'm going to explain you about the spinach, I want to tell you what I had my undergraduate student do for food, food micro but so this project of the spinach is funded by KDA. So is really to help increase the production of safe products in Kansas, a lot of time, especially in the last two years, I think all of you heard about outbreak related to lead to and leafy green. So we also know that consumer one grass organic, natural way to preserve their food, they don't like the idea of adding a lot of chemicals. This step of washing leafing leafy green spinach salad is key to prevent illnesses. The problem with washing products that are so delicate is that they lose color. They become mushy, they short term very much the shelf life. We have in the industry, a lot of chemical sanitizer that are very effective against E coli or salmonella, but they are so effective, that they kind of bleach or discolor the product and therefore cannot be used. So, what we are trying to do in this research is to test some natural compounds that are essential oil and encapsulate them in water solution in a motion and then in using them in water solution and understand if there is an effect against E coli and if the parameter of quality Keep such as color, we want to try to imitate the small producer of Kansas. This is why my student is working, relatively small batch. But since we need a lot of replication, then you saw all the picture of spinach laying down on the in the hood, right? Right. Yes. Yeah. So this plant is that of this peanut are inoculated with the pathogen. And then we tried the different antimicrobial intervention for different time and different concentration. And when we see that one particular treatment is effective than the other part of experiment is to double check, none of the quality parameters are compromised. 

Yeah.

And do you determine the color instrumentalist? Or do you go to a some kind of visual human assessment.

So we do both, we like to record our parameter with the cement with a calorimeter, I think is more objective. But we also take picture of your time of the product. And like when we see maybe mold, or some defects, that's also a visual quality parameter that we can use to assess the shelf life of the product. In collaboration, we will later we are able to measure respiration, antioxidant, a lot of a lot of parameters that contribute to the quality of produce.

So you didn't have to go out and establish what the quality characteristics for good versus poor spinach. Were you had those accessible to you?

Yes, yes. So there are established now we didn't need to go out and understand they're established. We did a similar work with berries. And in particular, we work with strawberries, and was very much the same. Apparently, there is a certain level of red, and that indicated the ripeness. And that's what is prepare by consumer. So is this done?

Add that color is labile to, to the whatever it's encountering and processing. So it will bleach?

Is yeah, the green, the green, the chlorophyll is very sensitive. So for example, all the last loose all this peanuts, or the colleagues of this tuber can be very much affected.

Okay. Valentina, I find that really fascinating and really hopeful on the low levels. I mean, you know, it's an experiment, I'm sure it will take time before you know exactly what works and what doesn't. But the idea that a natural oil might have the same kind of effectiveness but not caused the damage to the food. That seems really brilliant. I hope it works. But I'm also really impressed that KDA is funding this research that obviously could help local growers in Kansas but could also be applied, I would assume nationwide as well, correct?

Yes. And I think this is another example of my research, that is multidisciplinary, because my expertise is in food microbiology and safety. So I know how to control count characterize pathogen, but I am working with a chemist that knows how to encapsulate essential oil and make a motion and deliver these, these oil. I should say that these are ready the second proposal that KDA found us the first one was on a novelty packaging material. And I think Katie in the state of Kansas as shown a lot of interests and being open minded in trying to help these the the products grower and understand that we the products grown in Kansas should also start reaching outside Kansas so not produced just to say satisfy the Kansan, but also start to expand their businesses.

Wonderful.

I had an interesting discussion with a with another researcher just yesterday, actually, that some of this, some of this discussion worked into it and in developing more potential for work in the, in the rural parts of Kansas. And a lot of it did focus back on smaller farmers being able to produce produce specialty crops. As with the the commodity crops, that really does kind of push people out, as the farms get larger, and the commodities take over more space, they're less people that are living in these areas, and in the idea of trying to populate and grow those regions. The idea of the smaller farmers and these specialty crops has been, I think, coming more to the forefront with KDA.

I agree, this is why we were trying to offer them a solution for transportation or extension of shelf life. Because as you, as you say, Kansas is big. And there are some areas that are rural, we need a lot of time to reach those areas. So I think the point where we can now help and improve is transportation and storage.

Yeah, I've got a couple of questions that aren't associated with one another at all. But one of them, I'll go back to your social media discussion that we had. And I thought it was interesting that you brought that up, Colene, because that was one of the questions that I had here. But what I'd like to know is, you clearly have a good handle on how to get information out. And man, it's fun. And it's interesting. Have you seen feedback on how impactful that is? Do you have a good feel for how well that's being utilized or looked at?

I don't think so. I mean, every year, or every semester, I'm growing my followers, and I'm getting more interest among K State students. So I know that I mean, actually, I know that, for example, we have been engaging in a lot of students from biology that do microbiology as a major, so I can kind of measure my impact at university level. But I wouldn't be able to measure in a more broad way. But what we have been doing is that we have been presenting all the activity that I put in social media, and I use with within the classroom, at the International annual meeting over food safety and microbiology. So that one was a broader way to impact colleague and students.

So at this point, would it be safe to say that the directionality of your interaction with the people out there that might be the ultimate end users of this knowledge? It is pretty much one directional at this point, they're not coming back to you. And asking questions or the like.

No, we are not there yet. I will keep going and see if I can get there.

Well, Valentina as the comms scholar in the room, I have to come to your defense and say that, you know, different, different communicators have different audiences. And it's, it seems pretty clear to me that by looking at your Twitter feed, your audience is clearly students and potential science students at Kansas State and beyond. I mean, that I get from your Twitter feed is that food safety research is fun. And I don't know if you could have a more important message for bringing new and diverse students into science and food safety research. I mean, I just think it's outstanding. And, you know, sure, we want the great information that you're learning to get out to Public that will use it. But I think that there's another way to think about the effectiveness of your communication, and that's in bringing a new generation of people into food safety research. 

That's very true.

Yeah, thank you for this perspective.

It's pretty clear that your students have fun. I wonder, you know, what are you doing that makes it so fun for your students? Do you attribute that to sort of like your own enjoyment in the research or did you have a colleague or a past faculty or a past mentor who sort of encouraged you to think about approaching your lab and your interactions with students in a particular way.

I think is both, I think that definitely I am passionate. And because during my training, I felt this passion from my advisor. And that's what led me to become a professor, I definitely want to give the same to my students. So when I communicate or when I'm explaining concept, I'm always trying to making engaging or trying to relate them to real life for daily routine. I'm I also know because I work in the lab a lot that if you do not have fun, you, you are not productive. Not too much fun, but just a little bit of fun. So I think a relax and nice environment is, is key to good productivity. I'm also and this is what I did during while I'm teaching, I also know that sitting and listening for 15 minutes to the instructor, sometimes is difficult. So I add some friend in the area of food safety and microbiology that are also professor in other university that are very creative. And this person play the ukulele and telling the study of bacteria with this ukulele. So now I play piano, but I cannot bring my piano in the class or I don't want I don't feel like I can engage with singing. So I have been reading about some publication and they were saying that, okay, you are not a musician, you are not a singer, but to try to engage them with one of your other skills. And so when I was in high school, and even in elementary school, I was acting. And so that's kind of what I make them do. Sometimes we try to be the bacteria that are injured, or stressed. Or some other time, I make them write a poem. And then they needed to tell them allow and one of them even did the rap on Twitter, there are a lot of playable games, because I think for kind of, everybody's interesting to be a detective. So I'm making them detect the bacteria that made a certain person sick, or the food that is potluck made time people ill. So I'm trying to, to make it a little bit different. Because I know that if I do present them all the time, the 15 minutes lecture, I might lose them on the way I do have a lot of 15 minutes lecture, but then I'm trying to give them a break with these activities.

Back in the gym, dark past when I was in graduate school, a fellow graduate students in the same lab, wrote an anthem to our particular discipline to green science called Green scientists. And it got so popular that it was actually sung in a national meeting.

I remember that clearly.

Yes, yes. But you have to be willing to put yourself out there. You can't hide behind the podium.

But Valentina to that, I mean, in in in an encapsulated way, that's that's the true dimension of interdisciplinary and you're, when you're talking about writing poems, I'm thinking about last year, to try and pull the humanities and the understanding of some of that thing into global food systems. On World Food Day, we had a poetry contest. And I'm thinking, you know, most of the people that were that that got involved in that were of the English department of the humanities areas. Wouldn't it be just great to pull in some of the folks that you have in it and then maybe team them up with somebody out of the English department and have them work together on coming up with something that's interesting and fun.

That would be fun.

Valentina, I have to say that you give me a lot to think about as I prepare for the next semester. I mean, John's got a great point, you know, you can't be afraid to put yourself out there. But I do think a lot of faculty members, they hesitate to try to innovate in the classroom, because they don't see it as their strength. But their mentor gave you a great lesson. Think about other things other than being a scientist or being a professor that you do, and use those to encourage different ways of learning and thinking, I think that's really inspirational. Thanks for that. Yeah.

No, I don't think so I just wanted to make sure that the message that comes out is that I am passionate on my work, because I had great advisor and teacher, that gave me the desire to give the same passion to the student, and that all the work that I do, even if it's in my contribution is in food, microbiology, I'm having a broader impact, because I'm working with different people. And my research is multidisciplinary, because I'm convinced that the food system is complex, and every lead player is important to overseeing look at the problem.

Very good. You're singing my song out there, Valentina.

I've been learning stuff left and right here. This is great sad, clicky.

But you make me want to be a food scientist. Thank you. So find future scientists to send to you keep doing great work.

Thank you so much. All right.

Well, thank you all for your time today. And Valentina, thank you so much for coming on. I think this was just a fun discussion and all of us learned so many things, and not all things that we expected to be hearing today. So this was this was great. Thank you. Very true.

Thank you again for the invitation.

Everybody have a wonderful, wonderful holiday and hopefully get a little rest over the break.

Happy holidays. Goodbye, everyone. Holidays. Bye bye. Bye.

If you have any questions or comments you would like to share check out our website at https://www.k-state.edu/research/global-food/ and drop us an email.

Our music was adapted from Dr. Wayne Goins’s album Chronicles of Carmela. Special thanks to him for providing that to us. Something to Chew On is produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. 

In this episode, we welcome Dr. Vaishali Sharda, assistant professor of biological and agricultural engineering at Kansas State University. Her research focuses on the complex dynamics of food-energy-water systems. Vaishali’s modeling is based on farm management scenarios and integrates agro-hydrologic models and climate data. This research couples human activity and natural systems with applications in sustainable agriculture, water resources management and applied hydrology with particular interest in the Ogallala Aquifer and farming in the Great Plains.

Transcript:

Tackling the dynamics of food-energy-water systems with Dr. Vaishali Sharda, Assistant Professor of Biological and Agricultural Engineering

So, you know, when I tell people that I'm a modeler, they're like, you know, she sits in front of a computer and punches numbers and you know, but then there's that part of it where you translate that information into tools that the stakeholders can use. And that to me, is, is a really important component.

Something to chew on is a podcast devoted to the exploration and discussion of Global Food Systems produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. I'm Maureen Olewnik, coordinator of Global Food Systems.

And I'm Colene Lind, Associate Professor of Communication Studies at Kansas State. I studied the public's role in science and environmental policy.

And I'm Jon Faubion. I'm a food scientist.

Hello, everybody, and welcome back to the Kansas State University Global Food Systems podcast something to chew on. In today's podcast, we will visit with Dr. Vaishali Sharda, a small but mighty advocate for tackling the question of climate, water availability and crop management in today's challenging environment. Dr. Sharda’s main area of study deals with modeling based on farm management scenarios, integrating agro-hydrologic models and climate data. This research couples human activity and natural systems with applications in sustainable agriculture, water resources management, and applied hydrology with particular interest in the Ogallala Aquifer and farming in the Great Plains. Dr. Vaishali Sharda is an Assistant Professor of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at Kansas State University. Sharda carries a BS and MS in Agricultural Engineering and Farm Power and Machinery respectively from Punjab Agricultural University, and a PhD from Auburn University in Biosystems Engineering.
I would like to welcome you, Dr. Vaishali Sharda to the podcast today, we would like to learn a little bit more about your background, about who you are, what got you interested in what you're doing, maybe how you got to K State, and then we'll open this up for a good discussion with Dr. Lind and Dr. Faubion. So would you like to start by telling us a little bit about yourself?

Sure. Uh, first of all, I like to thank you all for giving me this opportunity. I definitely appreciate it. Talking about my background. So I'm originally from India. I did my undergraduate and my master's in Agricultural Engineering from Punjab Agricultural University in Punjab, which is not India, and I applied for my master's in Agricultural Engineering or Water Resources in 2001. And then September 11 happened and I did not get a visa to come to the United States. So then, you know, life happens, I got married, had a daughter and then my husband applied for a PhD and he got admission at Auburn University. So we all came together to Auburn. I had already given my GRE and my Teufel with the plan that I would also start my PhD once we are in the United States. So and that is what happened. I started my PhD at Auburn as well. I changed my field a little bit. I used to work more in farm machinery, but then I moved on to the Water Resources and Agricultural Water became more of my research area. After finishing my PhD at Auburn in 2012. I moved to Washington State University on a postdoc opportunity which was at a research station in Prosser which is in Yakima Valley, and I used to work with a unit called Ag Weather net. So they are basically a network of agriculture of weather stations. And but the director there was very involved with crop modeling. So that's how I started using crop models extensively for water resources management. I worked there for about a year and a half and that's when my husband got his faculty position at K State. And we moved from Washington State to Manhattan and I was still working remotely for Ag Weather Net for quite some time after we moved to Manhattan And as it is with mostly with, you know, dual career professionals at one place, it is not easy to get employed at the same Institute. So we kind of worked around that for a little bit, I worked at University of Nebraska Lincoln for about two years at their water center. And I was part of the Ogallala Water Cap, which is a USDA NIFA funded project. And we looked extensively at integrating agricultural models, hydrologic models, economic models, and using climate information to inform these disintegration. So I worked both in Nebraska and Kansas as part of this project. And while I was still working at UNL, I got a, I got this assistant professor position here at K State, which tied up really well since I was already working both in Kansas, and Nebraska. So it was an easy transition for me. And so I started working part time at K State. And then in fall 2019, I started my tenure track position at BAE and I have continued my work on integrating crop models and hydrologic models, I have gained more knowledge about economic models and a big appreciation of the socio economic impact of everything that we do as engineers, as water resource managers. So I'm incorporating more of that into my research. And that is how this idea about this proposal, the Global Foods Seed Grant that we got came up to kind of integrate the information, and, you know, have that bridge between the two disciplines. So that's how it happened. That's a brief introduction.

No, that's very good. Thank you so much. It gives us a good understanding of how you got to where you are today. And clearly, there's a good solid background in the in the research area in the Great Plains, in areas where water is critical to to the agricultural business side of things, I was looking at some of the information that was provided on your background and work and one of the questions that I had is, you talked about just a minute ago about the social socio economic interface there. How do you get the information that you're working on to the user? Or how do you make that impact? Either the grower or the, you know, those folks that are being directly impacted by the the information that you're developing?

Yes, thank you for that question. Maureen, I think we rely heavily on the extension component of the land grant system. So while working at Washington State and even you are now and that case, day two, we have always had the opportunity to work with Extension agents, whether those are county agents, because they actually connect really well with the producers. Now, I have been to a lot of meetings with that, where I have directly interacted with producers, and somehow they place their trust in in the extension component of all their all the land grad schools. So I think it is a great connection. And working in the climate change climate variability area. Initially, I think we you know, as a graduate student, I realized that producers have their mindset. And they have their beliefs, which has come from many, many years of experience. And they don't like when a scientist who's probably half their age comes and challenges it, and tries to tell them that you should not be doing a certain thing this way, rather doing it my way. So that is, I think, where the extension people come in really helpful because they know the connection, they know the ways and they have that capability to translate your very technical information into turns where producers understand it and appreciate it and are perceptive of it. So I think I would say that extension plays a big role. And at K State at the Southwest Research and Extension Center in Garden City, Dr. Jonathan Aguilar is he's a great asset to all the work that we do and he helps to connect our work to the farmers there. We can we conduct field days of a lot of producers in the region come and listen to what is being done what is new and especially specifically in irrigation research, and and they pay attention. And they are very open to adopting new technologies or ways to conserve water to sustain the life of the Ogallala Aquifer specifically.

If I can follow up on that Maureen, I really appreciate the question. I've had it on my list too. And I, you know, I take your point about some voices, just having more resonance with the farm audiences than others. And everything in the social scientific literature about diffusion of innovations would indicate that, you know, you're absolutely right, you, you talk to the people who are closest and already have entrusted the producers. But I have to tell you that as I read your piece on ideal irrigation rates in Texas, High Plains with soybeans, I grew up on Nebraska farm on a corn and soybean farm. I know what a you know, what a visceral decision it is, whether to irrigator on or not. And as I read that piece, I thought, wow, this is so immediate, to the decision making of every farmer with a center pivot in now, obviously, that was in a particular context. And part of the argument of the article is, it's going to vary by every context. But what I'm getting at is, I don't quite want to let you off the hook. Surely, there's a way that you can go about your research, which provides information that's really useful and immediate to farmers. And it seems to me that that's what you're doing in your research. Did you ever or do you think about the end user when you're designing your questions and designing your research?

Right, right. And we totally do. And that's where decision support tools come into picture as well, you know, you get there. I mean, farmers are one of the smartest people that are out there, you know, you tell them that this is the reason behind doing something that they're we're asking them to do or we're recommending, they'll listen to you. And that's where decision support tools come into picture where you give them an app, for example, with I have a farmer in Nebraska, who we worked with extensively and Ogallala water cap, and he told me about a time that he has 42 apps on his phone that he uses to kind of to manage. And I mean, given that his farm is huge, he has a huge operation, and you know, all kinds of different enterprises. But this is where I think you know, if you want to, I know the context of your question. So decision support tools, and designing them in a way that they're appealing. And that they're user friendly, the interface is not overwhelming. So that you know, you just punch in simple numbers, and we can give you a suggestion of when to irrigate, you know what your soil moisture is like you from right from, say feeling the soil, to relying on the soil moisture sensor data, and then inputting those parameters and then coming up with an irrigation strategy. So that is partially what we talked about in that paper that you're referring to the soybean study in Texas High Plains, there is another paper that I'm currently working on for Kansas, it's for GMD three, and I work with Nathan Hendrick. So we're an Ag Econ. And so, you know, we are trying to look at how can we save water while not compromising on yield? Essentially, that is the main question that is out there. And that is what the farmer wants. They do want.

Yeah, that is the holy grail.

Right, right, you know, they do want to save water and sustain the life of aquifer. I have met with farmers from western Kansas and eastern Colorado, who said on your face that they know that they're if their grant kids choose to farm, they might not have the water that they have now on the farm. So they want to make mends to their current practices, but it's a financial decision at the end of the day, you know, they do not want to give up on their bread and butter. So we have to come up with smart and intelligent ways to reach the farmer so that they listen to us and they adopt the strategies that can help them.

Is this a strategy that has better outcomes or more outcomes or more efficient if the people that adopt these, these changes or these methods are contiguous, or doesn't matter that they might be isolated with other you know, other producers in between?

That was something you know, that's a great idea and we haven't looked at it from that point of view. But I would say that, you know, if it's, if the strategies or if they irrigation, different irrigation management scenarios are adopted, as you know, not not as a separate entity, but more more on speed given spatial scale, that they might be more effective. Yeah.

My wife grew up on a farm in South Central Kansas. And there were clearly thought and opinion leaders out in the field, that a lot of different producers that would look to them, and in some cases may make them. So I just wondered if that apply, in this case, to my will? Or on the other hand, there were people that no matter what they did, everybody else was going to do the opposite.

And, you know, I mean, there's that, obviously, I've heard it so many times, that people are farmers turn on their center pivots, when they see their neighbor is irrigating. And I mean, I agree that used to happen. But I think especially in areas where water is scarce, like invest in cancers, people are getting smarter about it, you know, nobody turns on their central pivot because their neighbor is, or at least that's my experience to the farmers that I have talked to, don't do that anymore. So

So if all of this research, and it's it's translation, then out into the productions, producers field is wildly successful beyond your wildest imaginings, what would we what would we see what would the outcomes be that you could look at, or point to say.

Well, the long term outcome would be that we would be able to extend the life of our aquifers, or, you know, make it sustainable long term, especially given the future impact of the changing climate and keeping that in mind. So I think the long term significant effect of this research would be definitely to increase the life of our water resources.

Great. And perhaps more than more next generation is a visual staying on the farm of meaning successful.

And, you know, there's another one of my graduate students spent this summer in Garden City. And what we are trying to do now is, as part of the Ogallala watershed, let me backtrack a little bit, what we did was based on the information that we have, from the environmental data, which is your weather data, and then you know, in field observations of plan data, you know, growth in season growth, metrics, like Leaf Area Index, biomass during the season of the crop that you're growing. So based on that, we calibrated our models, and then we studied the irrigation impact. What we are trying to do now is having more infield data, for example, data from soil sensors, data from drones that tells you about crop stress, and disease, and then combination of satellite data. And we have aerial data from a manned aircraft. And they are collecting data and sending those images to us. So you know, combination of all this data, so it's more like a machine learning, artificial intelligence, kind of, so you have your environmental data, you have your infield, in season data, and then you combine everything together to make your decision, I think more informed.

Right as robust as possible.

As robust as possible. So that is the next step that we are taking to hopefully make our models even better. So the results that we have from the calibrated models from what work I have done in the past are great. And the farmers that have adapted those irrigation strategy. So a combination of how much water is available in the ground. So we call it plant available water, and how frequently do you irrigate? That's called irrigation frequency. So the combination of the two is what we were using so far. But with this data set, I think we can add a layer of information to the models.

Great.

And I think that would be really interesting to look at. So he's my grad student that's right now working on it, and I look forward to seeing his results. That how are they better? Hopefully better And then what we already have?

Well, you know, I, I hear you say that it's the extension folks that get out and get face to face with producers and sort of make the sale, if you will. Do you feel like you're an advocate? Do you enjoy that process as well? Or is it just a set is that an end of business that you're just not comfortable with, because you sound like a spectacular advocate.

I completely enjoy it. You know, and I think I have come a long way from being a grad student at Auburn to I just love talking to people. So you know, and it's so it's enlightening to you know, hear other people talk about their experiences. And I have no doubt that the farmer who has worked all his life in a field knows more about, you know, the entire management package of growing a crop than I do. But we are all learning from each other. So I really, really appreciate that part of the job, though, I did not get to do much of it this year. But you know, that's something I completely enjoy. And I love when people challenge your science, you know, I love to tell this story that when I was a grad student at Auburn, I went to present my research to farmers and extension agents in a extension meeting. And here is this, you know, five feet tall girl from India, who is new in the country and talking to a group of farmers and extension agents and telling them that climate change is happening. And it's anthropogenic, and we are causing it we humans are causing it, and how it impacts the weather, the day to day weather, as well as what impact does it have on our border availability. And after the present, after my presentation was over, I would say good 65-70 year old, tall, well built farmer approaches me and tells me whatever you presented is all wrong. And you know, climate change is it's been happening forever. We are not causing it. It's a natural phenomena. It's written in the Bible. And you know, and I just gave that my PhD advisor was standing behind me and I kind of gave him a look. And he was like, he gave me the look that you have to handle it. This is part of the training. So I told him, I was like, I respectfully disagree. In my mind, my faith and my science, they run parallel, they cannot merge. So you know, but I, you know, that's part of the job that teaches you so many things and you learn how to how to handle and how to defend your science. So yeah,

As someone who teaches communication, I of course, love that story. I assume that that kind of experience was unique to your extension, training and background. I just wonder how many other scientists would be benefited by having that kind of experience of interacting with the public to present their findings?

Yeah, I completely agree. It's enlightening, you know, you, this is something that you cannot learn by doing research in your lab setting, you know, until and unless. So, you know, when I tell people that I'm a modeler, they're like, you know, she sits in front of a computer and punches numbers, and you know, but then there's that part of it, where you translate that information into tools that the stakeholders can use, and that to me, is, is a really important component. And I think, you know, growing my father has spent all his life in extension, he retired as the additional Director General of extension in Indian Council of agricultural research, which is parallel to USDA here. I should say that I grew up in the middle of it and you know, I grew up hearing about farmers and you know, how they're how research translates into field practices in the end, and that's where it should end. I mean, I love this part of the job, though I do not have an extension appointment.

Sort of the opinion that science regardless of what their research areas would benefit by taking actual formal instruction and how to speak to people that are different than they are. It's not an inborn ability, and it's something that can be at least developed. And it makes a real difference, I think, very can.

I agree, I mean, I was just thinking about, I wonder if there are any ways that you can integrate those kinds of training experiences into any students that you're working with. And if you don't have the extension appointment, it may not be obvious, just a little bit of foreshadowing, we're talking in our department about ways that we can provide opportunities for graduate students across the campus to be able to have just just those kinds of experience, we will be in touch in the future. That's really, really outstanding, the perspective that you think your work?

Yeah, so I Maureen knows about it, that we support my graduate students who were going to come join our research team, but not able to come because of the pandemic, their travel plans changed. And the grad student that I have right now is he's on the BSMS. In our department, we have a BSMS integrated program. So it's essentially a fast track Master's, he really enjoyed. As far as I hear from him, being out in the field and doing the field work, though his idea is to work more in data and in models, but he really appreciated being out in the field, in Garden City. So and that's why I really appreciate the partnership that we have with Dr. Aguilar over at the Southwest Research Station, because I think that's essential to, to what we do.

And the research that you're doing. Is there any of what you're doing this steps into the area of water contamination? Or are you just looking at water availability in in these areas?

I'm not looking into contamination. But that is one thing I want to do. And I, you know, that is one thing that there was there, there was a call for a proposal, I think few, I think a month ago or so. And I scratched my head. And I wanted to look out for a person who is more focused on contamination and water quality parts so that, you know, we can partner together. But that is definitely something there about, there's a lot of work being done in Nebraska, on groundwater contamination and the team that I was part of at the Water Center, a lot of our colleagues that do that work, but I definitely want to bring that work to K State as well. And you know, start looking into it.

Do you mind if we go back to climate change for a little bit in the narrative from back at Auburn? I am really interested to hear you talk about the way that you're integrating lots of different datasets and data into your models, the more information the better, hopefully more robust, more accurate predictions based on models with more information. I know enough about our understanding of climate change and how it will impact rainfall patterns, humidity levels, when it's hot variability, I'm wondering now, how much can we rely on the information that we have about climate in our models in the future? In other words, we've got some predictions about the way things might be changing. But is there enough variability now that we can be less competent our predictions, and therefore that might hinder your models just because of the variability thanks to climate change?

Yes, and my answer to that is to run an ensemble of models, you know, we cannot rely on just one model, just one forcing, and make decisions or make forecasts based on that. So as far as climate variability signals are concerned, for example, I've worked quite a bit on El Nino Southern Oscillation. And so which, you know, the prediction that they're putting out there for next three to six months, is based on I think, 16 or 18 different models, so they run an ensemble of models, and then based on that, they forecast what the answer conditions are likely going to be in next three to six months. So that is, I think the way to go even for crop models. You know, I one of my papers just came out where we use two different models that have just using one so you know, that gives us more confidence. And especially when you're forecasting yield, or when you're, you know, using some historic information to make forecasts. I think ensembles are a really powerful tool that we can use.

Can we can we step over to the grant that you were given the seed grant through the Global Food Systems Initiative and talk a bit about Maybe you can give us a bit of background on what that area of study is, I know that you've had some challenges because of the COVID situation and that type of thing. But I do look forward to seeing, you know, possibly some good information coming. But can you give us a little background on what that was? And there is and where you're going with that study?

Right. And so in that, in the, in the grand that we got working with Dr. Kate Nelson, from Department of Geography, and so she works in spatial, social, you know, setup and sustainability of our more from the demographics side of things. I think, the idea started, we were meeting for another, another, I think it was a USDA call. And you know, when at around the time the GFS call came out, and we were like, you know, we can propose this idea for a smaller time, smaller time period, where we can get our initial data in and set up this vulnerability index. So what was the index? So the background basically, is that we are, we were trying to look at a watershed and the eastern Kansas River Basin, which is a combination of both rural and urban areas. So stepping away from focusing only on agricultural, rural agricultural areas, and take bringing into account urban areas as well. And that's where Dr. Nelson's expertise comes into play as well. So the idea is to look at the watershed, and given and so the phase of research that we are in right now. So we have climate change data for the watershed for the regions. So one of our students has downloaded data from I think we are using two scenarios of climate change. So he has downloaded I think 19 models, and for that area, and we have converted all that data into a format where our models can use it, we have the soils data, so soils information from the area, I think we have, we have identified around 120 major soil groups, so there of course, you know, tons of smaller soil groups, but 120 major soil groups that we are going to use. And then we are focusing on corn and soybean, so two crops for that area. And so the idea is to combine the concept of exposure, exposure here being the climate impacts. So that includes like Colene mentioned, you know, precipitation changes, temporary changes, temperature changes. Another thing that we are going to focus on is the increased frequency of extreme events. Now, those extreme events could be a flood, or it could be a drought. So having a lot of precipitation in a very short timeframe, which can cause floods, and then not having precipitation for an extended period of time, combined with very high temperatures that can lead to drought. So we are also looking at those two extreme events. And then we are looking at adaptive capacity, along with sensitivity. So how sensitive are your rural as well as urban systems to these shocks? And then how can they adapt? So Dr. Nelson's expertise and her students will do the adaptive capacity part, I'm doing the crop suitability part based on the climate shocks. And then we will combine these three components to form an index or that is the idea that can hopefully translate into if we have this climate change information in the future. How can we be prepared depending on this information, so that our rural and urban systems don't feel that at all, they're ready to deal with that shock. So this index will tell us that how vulnerable is a system to these shocks. That is the broad idea behind this proposal.

I'm curious, as I heard you talk about this, I was reminded that you focused on the Kaw River Valley or the Kansas River Valley as your area for this pilot study. I'm wondering if that was more choice of convenience, or if there's something unique about this watershed? Or is it the watershed because of the flooding issues and in the worldwide watershed and why this watershed to delimit? The area of your study?
Right so definitely flooding in the area was one of the drivers we also wanted to look at. So most of the areas invested can't are very rural. So there are not where where agricultural happens, there are not big urban centers. And this watershed, we are looking at Topeka, we are looking at Lawrence, we are looking at the western parts of Kansas City. So we do cover quite a few urban areas and the watershed as well as good bit of ag. So that that was another. So another thing that that, you know, I mentioned that this whole idea started as part of another proposal that we were thinking about. So, in that proposal, there was also a component of groundwater wells. So, this net, this area also has a great network of groundwater wells, that kgs managers, so that was another company or another driver behind choosing this watershed.

No, that makes sense, it reminds me, I talked to enough policymakers to know that there's a common misconception that climate change is an urban problem, and that it will affect urban areas more. So having this kind of vulnerability index, to show relative vulnerabilities between River and urban areas, I think will be really informative, potentially for policy makers. Right. And, you know,

I mean, in look back 10 years, we have seen a lot of extreme events already in this area. So you know, you don't have to ask people to scratch their memory, you know, kind of think about it, Oh, when did we have the last flood or when was the last drought? So you know, it's very recent. So I think that that is definitely front and center, hopefully, in the minds of policymakers as well, that this problem needs to be addressed.

It also occurs to me that you have a new audience to get information out to once you produce this vulnerability index, if it works, right. So farmers are unique lot with their own challenges. But now you have a different public to try and reach. I think that will be an interesting challenge to find ways to get these messages out to municipalities, emerging emergency preparedness directors, senators, just more variability in your audience to more more challenging potentially.

Yes, and interesting.

I really, really, I mean, I'm very interested in and until you started talking about 100 different majors, 120 different major soil groups, I'm like, Oh, yes, sure. The kind of soil that you have will make a big difference in whether or not a massive amount of rainfall will impact that soil group. So fascinating. I'm really curious to know what kind of factors will be included into the social dimension, or the social side of this index. That proposal alludes to things like inequality, I assume a relative age will make a difference to I assume kinds of occupations. But those are all just assumptions. So I'll probably will have to just wait and see. But I am really curious to find out what factors get thrown into the social side of the model.

Right. Right. And you know that I don't, I cannot. It would be unfair to speak on Dr. Nelson's behalf. But she definitely has more information on that

We’ll bring her in next.

Yes, yes. She just came off her maternity leave. So I'm sure she's ready to rock and roll.

There we go. There we go. It's interesting that you brought 120 soil groups in and made me think of the podcast we did last with Dr. Ryan Hansen, who was in chemical engineering. I don't know if you've had the opportunity to meet with him in the past, but he was talking about the number of microorganisms in a gram of soil. I believe it was in the vicinity of a billion 120 different groupings of soils. And you take all of those groupings and multiply that by the number of different microorganism groupings that are going to be developing in different areas in different parts. It's amazingly complex.

Yes. And these are just major soil groups. You know, I mean, within, you know, within that soil group, there are like, so many different soils. So, sure, yes.

We've got a lot to learn, I think.

Yes, we do.

That's, that's fascinating, big, hard question. That was probably in the end, but I'll go ahead and lay this on, you know, we can maybe struggle with other I, it's, it really is appropriate because we've talked so much about science communication and getting you know, applicable findings out to different kinds of public's both private decision makers as well as potentially policy decision makers. I, I really, I found your work about aquifer stabilization to be particularly delicate because because I spent about four months traveling around Kansas in 2014, at a series of public meetings about water, and heard lots of different people talk about, you know, in rather conflictual ways about what do we do about the decline in the Ogallala Aquifer. And amongst the many different things that I heard from community members and farmers and extension experts, a common refrain I've heard, especially from the general public, the the interested but general public was, we shouldn't be growing corn in western Kansas until as farmers figure out that we can't grow corn in western Kansas, we're never going to solve this problem. And as I read some of your work, I was really struck by the property and how problematic that might be. I mean, I can I can appreciate the sentiment. But given the your work to try and maximize yields for farmers without depleting water resources, how would you respond to a concerned citizen who said something like that to do? We've got to stop growing sports planes, or we've got to stop growing?

Yeah, that is a hard question. I mean, again, it as I, as I said, when we were first talking about compromising yield, by cutting down irrigation, you know, it's hard to convince anybody to give up their income, you know, and cutting down areas. I actually met a farmer, I think, earlier this year in one of the meetings at Garden City, and he said that they went from irrigated corn to dryland corn, and they're actually making more money, because they're not spending as much money on inputs. So, you know, there, there is a way around that, I hope and, but it's hard to we actually, we did a paper earlier this year on transitioning from irrigated to dry land, as well as to pasture. So you know, just completely changing to a pasture. I was part of that group. And Dr. Bill golden, who's an economist here at K State, he had some very interesting, you know, observations in that paper, so that I can forward you that paper if you want to read it. But I agree that there is. I don't think we have to completely give up growing corn. But we have to come up with strategies, where it's not as hard as it is now on the natural resources.

Very fair. Yeah. Well, and I, your point that, you know that back to something you said earlier about, farmers have a great deal of experience, you know, on the ground in their particular area, they're going to be in a much better positioned to make those kinds of decisions, at least on their own farms. And I know from a farmer's perspective, that's the fear is that someone will make that decision for them. Right. So we could talk for another hour about where that responsibility lies, and who should be making that decision. But I appreciate that you're doing research, not just on how to maximize profits by minimizing inputs, but on potentially completely different ways of farming or different crops?

Great, yes.

That's an interesting feed into something that's been floating in my head. And I'm not sure I know how to ask this question. But when you talk about different crops being grown, do you feel that there's potential for crops that aren't normally grown in these areas? And I'm thinking in terms of, you know, we've got a lot of work in the Olathe campus done on small and urban farming on smaller farming enterprises in some of the rural areas where, you know, there's there's less demand on water, they may be more water consuming crops in vegetables or fruits or whatever it might be in smaller quantities. But the very large scale demand, isn't there. Do you see any, any potential in that kind of thing growing, becoming a larger enterprise in western Kansas? Or is it just a niche that's going to be a niche forever in the state?

Yeah, I think so. I, you know, diversification is it's great. But you know, for a farmer or for a farming enterprise that has been growing corn for generations. And you know, sometimes the farmer will come to you and say that this is what I know how to do. You know, so there's that fear of diversification and what will happen, so I think it will will require a combined effort not just on the bait on the on the part of farmers and scientists, but also policies that support that, you know, I don't know if that that could be some kind of subsidies, some kind of tax credits, you know that I mean, that's not my area, and I shouldn't speak to that. But there has to be some sort of incentive where that risk is covered, I guess, you know, of trying something new and what will happen thereafter? There is a farmer in the Lawrence area, and he exclusively grows organic wheat. And, and he also has a vegetable farm and he is very successful. But did he tried, like, did he transition his land from corn? No, that's where he started. He is young, he's probably 10 years younger than me. And he's doing great. He's so innovative. But you know, because he did not have that traditional. He did not grow up on a farm that was growing corn or wheat. He started this new thing that appealed to him. And it's working great. He sells to Whole Foods in Kansas City, you know, so he has that niche more like you said, you know, it's that niche market that appeals to certain people, but not everybody.

I want to thank you very much for your time. And this was really, really an enjoyable conversation. I very much enjoyed it.

I really enjoy it definitely been my experience. I love that conversation. Thank you for it.
Thank you this, I did not expect it, we'd be able to talk so much about the very people that we're all here to serve right, Kansas, Kansas farmers, the next generation of Kansas who's going to have to live with or without an aquifer. So I think that's really been fascinating and really interesting, as well as the way that you're improving your research by including new information in your models all the time. I think that's really fascinating. So thanks. Thanks for taking time to share it with us.

Thank you.

Thank you very much Vaishali.

Thank you, Maureen.

If you have any questions or comments you would like to share check out our website at https://www.k-state.edu/research/global-food/ and drop us an email.
Our music was adapted from Dr. Wayne Goins’s album Chronicles of Carmela. Special thanks to him for providing that to us. Something to Chew On is produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University.

We welcome special guest, Futurity CEO Jack Bobo. Jack finds himself at the intersection of food, technology and design harnessing science, policy, values and communication. Bobo supports businesses that are enhancing the healthfulness and sustainability of the global food system. His study of food technology and consumer attitudes and trends helps to create a better understanding of the future of food. 

Transcript:

A Futurists Thoughts on Food with Jack Bobo, CEO of Futurity

But, you know, you need a diversity of players to be able to do those kinds of analyses to because of all the trade offs, you know, again, that's what it comes back to, is that on a single dimension, organic might look good on multiple dimensions, then it's going to be more complicated, doesn't mean it looks bad, but it's certainly more complicated conversation.

Something to chew on is a podcast devoted to the exploration and discussion of Global Food Systems produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. I'm Maureen Olewnik, coordinator of Global Food Systems. I would like to welcome today a guest host, Dr. Jim Stack, Professor of Plant Pathology, and Director of the Great Plains Diagnostic Network.

I’m Scott Tanona. I'm a philosopher of science.

Today's guest is Jack Bobo. Jack is the CEO of futurity, a food foresight company that works with food and agriculture organizations to better understand emerging food trends and consumer attitudes and behaviors so they can position themselves to thrive in an ever more complex world. Jack previously served as the chief communications officer and Senior Vice President for Global Policy and Government Affairs at Intrexon Corporation. He is a globally recognized thought leader having delivered more than 300 speeches in 50 countries on the future of food, the role of science and technology and sustainably and nutritiously feeding the world and how to build consumer trust. In 2015, he was named by Scientific American, one of the 100 most influential people in biotechnology. Prior to joining Intrexon Jack worked at the US Department of State for 13 years as a Senior Advisor for global food policy, food security, climate change, biotechnology and agricultural trade. Prior to his career at the State Department, he was an attorney at Cromwell and moring LLP, he received a JD, a Master of Science and Environmental Science, a Bachelors of Arts in Psychology and chemistry, and a Bachelor of Science in Biology from Indiana University. Again, I want to thank you so much for joining us. This is a real treat for us and I think is going to be a real treat for the listeners that we've got on our podcast series. I'd like to welcome you duck Bobo to the something to chew on podcasts here at Kansas State University. And we'd like to start by asking you to give us a little background on yourself and what brought you to the high level of interest in the food system.

Well, thank you, thank you for allowing me to be on this podcast. I'm really excited to be here. So like some of your previous guests, I'm going to go way back. I'm going to go back to when I was growing up in southern Indiana. And I didn't grow up on a farm but I did have a cornfield that it came all the way up to my backyard. And my family we had a family garden at my grandmother's house. And unlike many of the gardens today we grew corn, peppers, green beans, cantaloupe, strawberries, watermelons and pretty much everything you can name and my mother canned everything. And I like to tell people that we were all organic, because we had child labor, which was me and my brothers. And so I didn't grow up with a bit of an understanding of what it meant to produce the food you eat. But I certainly never thought that I'd be working in food and agriculture. When I grew up. I went to Indiana University and as an undergrad I ended up with degrees in psychology, chemistry and biology. I was as indecisive then as I am now was a Peace Corps volunteer in Central Africa, came back and got a master's degree in environmental science and a degree in law. Well, that led me to the US Department of State where I worked for 13 years on global food policy. And I always Thought I'd work on environmental policy. But once I got into the food world, I realized that really, there's nothing more important than agriculture in terms of the impact on the environment. So if I really wanted to try to have a positive impact on the environment, food and agriculture was the place to be. Well, after that, I spent a few years working for a biotechnology company that was working in food and agriculture as well. And for the last year and a half, I started my own consulting firm, where I work on the future of food. I work with food tech startups and big food brands, helping them understand what is the future of food look like? Where a consumer trends and attitudes going? And how does one get ahead of the trends so they don't get run over by them?

Great. Well, thank you for that. Thank you for that overview. That's quite a background. And it's interesting to hear that you that you kind of started your professionalism, professional focus on things, internationally, looking at things that were going on in, in various parts of the world, and probably in very poor parts of the world, where, where food and food availability was more of a challenge than it is here.

Yeah, absolutely. I was a volunteer and gap on in Central Africa. And I was a science teacher, but I was in perhaps the most isolated corner of the country. And certainly, food insecurity was a everyday reality for the people and the students around me.

And I think the natural first question is, so what is the future of food?

Well, well, that's a good question. And I've got a futurist answer, which is futurist don't predict the future. What we do is we try to help organizations understand what does what are the possible futures that are out there, and work with organizations to try to figure out what's your preferred future, and then develop a path to get there. So it's less about predicting, and it's more about understanding what's possible, and try figuring out what's the best possible outcome we can have. And that might be by working with dairy and livestock, but also with the newer plant based and alternative protein companies.

Also, so then it's gonna be hard for me to wrangle some more answers out of you, if you don't want to predict things which everybody wants. Right. But so yeah, plant proteins are obviously, you know, old trend. What are the other kind of new-ish things coming up that are maybe maybe instead of predicting what the future is? What kinds of possibilities do you see opening up that, like the average consumer may not be aware of?

Yeah, well, so, what I worry about more is less the opportunity, I see that there's tremendous opportunity with alternative proteins, but also just improving the livestock sectors that we have today. I mean, now you have facial recognition for cows that are making our productivity, you know, better and improving the health and welfare of the animals, you've got robots out in the fields that are, you know, waiting for companies, you have, you know, these alternative proteins, where you can produce eggs, proteins through fermentation. So there are a lot of exciting things happening just across the food chain. But what I worry a little bit about is how the food industry in some ways is going after each other. The alternative protein companies plant based company, as you're talking about how 10 years from now, we're gonna see the end of the livestock industry. And then the livestock industry responds by talking about how Ultra processed these other foods are. And what I worry about is that what these companies are doing is they're really undermining consumer confidence in our food system. And I think that's important because people are really worried about really small risks are food has never been safer in the history of the planet, and people have never been more scared. And I think that undermines the confidence and people just don't enjoy food as much as they once did.

And what else plays into the role of the that lack of confidence? Is this Are you concerned about concerns about like pesticides and GMOs and things like that as well?

Well, I'm not worried about them, but certainly concerned about people's worries.

Yeah. Yeah, well, because, you know, if we're looking at places like the United States and Europe, in many parts of the world, those technologies are beneficial farmers that are using some of those technologies really like them, but the biggest benefits are often in other places. So if you're a farmer and you start using a herbicide tolerant crop or a BT crop that's insecticide resistant, you know, you probably save a little bit of money or you save a little bit of time. But if you say take that same technology to South Africa, or China or India, all of a sudden you end up with 70% yield increases and dramatic reductions in pesticide poisonings. And so the real benefits are in other parts of the world. And we often don't see that. And so I worry about the lack of innovation being available to people in other places. Recently, within the last year, Europe has developed its Farm to Fork strategy. And it really builds on these kinds of concerns, because they're hoping to go to 25%. Organic for all of the agricultural land in Europe by 2030. And this sounds like a good thing. And you will end consumers think about it, I'm sure that they're pretty excited about it. But under the Well, based on the research from the European Commission, organic production in Europe is about 36%, less productive than conventional agriculture under real world conditions. So if they move to 25%, organic, that's going to cause an 8% reduction in production in Europe. And the country that sends the most food to Europe is Brazil. So Europe is planning on exporting its environmental footprint to the most biodiverse country on the planet. And so that's where it's not really about right or wrong, or good or bad, but there are real choices and consequences at play.

So you work with a lot of different country companies. And as you mentioned, in your TED talk, the world's gonna add quite a few more people to the planet, this entry. And I'm wondering as you work with those companies, are they just tracking markets and market development? Or do they have a vision for what the food systems should look like, say 3040 50 years down the road?

Well, that's a good question. And many of the alternative protein companies, they do have a vision. And unfortunately, often that vision doesn't include much of a role for the livestock industry. And I think that's part of what's creating this tension is this expectation that they're going to usurp the role, or they're going to replace animal agriculture. And I think they're, they're mistaken in that because, as you said, we're going to add another two to 3 billion people to the planet in the next 3040 years. And that means that we're going to need to increase production of food by at least 50, or 60%, if not 100%, in areas of like protein. And so there's this huge market opportunity for everybody. The alternative protein industry can grow to be a trillion dollar industry in the next 30 or 40 years. And that wouldn't require the elimination of any animal industry at all. And so instead of talking about how they're going to replace what's there, they should talk about meeting this future need, because that's big enough. And, you know, it's an opportunity, and it's not the sort of problem that's going to create the pushback that can slow down new innovations.

So does their vision, focus on markets? Or food security outcomes or health or life outcomes? I mean, and I don't mean that in a data set, and just what are the drier, they're developing their strategic plans?

Yeah. So if you look at a lot of these, it's really focused on the environmental benefits. So let's just use plant based proteins as an example. So you have Impossible Foods You have beyond meat. And those products are, by and large, intended to reduce the impact of agriculture on the planet. But what's interesting is if you look at why people are buying those products, 95% of purchasers are doing it for health reasons. And I think that there's an interesting disconnect there if the reason you're producing a product is because of its environmental benefits, and the reason people are buying it are because of what they have a perceived health benefit. And then when you go and do the nutritional comparison, you find out that it's not actually nutritionally better at all. I think there's a risk of consumers being turned off about, you know, whether or not those products are delivering on what they want.

How do you approach industry with this type of a dilemma? How, what is the discussion with companies that are kind of working against one another, and trying to put things out in such a way that it's going to be benefiting all?

Well, so part of what I do is I always tell people my personal mission is to de escalate the tension in our food system, so that we can all get about our business of saving the planet. our own way. And so give you a concrete example of putting that into practice. Back in 2017, there was a lot of conversation around clean meat, which is the lab grown or cell based meat. And I gave a talk at the new harvest Conference, which is sort of the research arm of the cell based lab meat industry. And I encourage them to kill the term clean meat. Now, after my talk, there was a lot of pushback the people at the conference, were not terribly happy that I had told them that they were calling their product, the wrong thing. But I worked with the companies in that space over the next nine months, and help them to understand that the use of the term clean meat was implying that the other meat was dirty or unethical. And that that might not be a particularly good way of marketing your product. If you're trying to tell people you're evil, stop being evil and consume my product. But that might not be a good message for the consumer. And over the course of that nine months, I was able to convince all of the companies in the sector that they would drop the term clean meat and took about a year and a half. But pretty much all of the organizations that are working in the space and you know, moved away. And that's why you hear more about cell based meat or cellular agriculture today.

The challenges that are around the world, from a food perspective are incredibly varied. You know, what you were facing what you were discussing was going on in Europe, as opposed to some of the activities happening here, as opposed to what was going on in Gabon when you were there, and is probably still some of the situation there? How do you? How do you get your hands around messaging, some of the futuristic ideas or thoughts that you have, when you've got such variability worldwide, in different areas around the world?

Will, I think it's, it's not as hard to come up with good messaging, the trouble I have is convincing people to stop using the bad message. You may have run across the Eat Lancet report that came out a couple of years ago. And it's an example of a report that, you know, had a lot of positive aspects to it, it was talking about how people need to shift some of their diet so that we're eating a more balanced and nutritious meal. And many of us are eating too many calories. But there was the language they used was frankly, you know, somewhat off putting or offensive to a lot of livestock producers. And the message never really got put forward. So we never ended up having an important conversation about, you know, what our global food system should look a lot like, because it sort of quickly degenerated into, you know, two different sides. Now, as an example, I was working on the Rockefeller Foundation's food vision prize, I was a judge, and then later a mentor for two of the 10 finalists. And each of the finalists. In their proposal, were pushing for reduction of animal agriculture and moving to these alternative proteins in their food vision for the future. And what I told them was, if their goal was to improve the planet, and to improve health, and they were saying we want to reduce animal protein by 30%. I said, Well, why don't you just say that your goal is to reduce the impact of protein production by 30%? Well, maybe that's going to happen because of plant based proteins and cell based meat. But if the livestock industry can deliver the environmental benefits that you're asking for, why not let them have a seat at the table. And so instead of saying a reduction of 30%, in animal products, saying the reduction of 30% of you know, the impact completely changed the dynamic of that conversation, and they at least were able to realize that, you know, they had these biases in their mind that, you know, they were looking for a particular future, and that the language they were using wasn't going to help them to get there.

So that's, that's really interesting. I was going to ask, because you've been talking a lot about language and the importance of language for consumers and for producers as well. Right. And in some cases, some of what you're recommending is just a shift from one kind of language to another that might make it more palatable or, or better convey what's actually happening, right sort of with. So but but in some cases, like this is a case of not just a change in language, but it's a it's a shift, maybe a subtle shift, but a shift in goals, right, sort of an I wonder, right, sort of to, to instead of reducing, right, the impact of certain animal production, to just reduce the impact sort of overall right of you know, whatever, it's a shift, right. So I'm wondering, like, how much of the tasks for getting the different actors in the food production system? and the consumers right to together, like on the same page and something that works well for all of us and is sustainable. You know, how much of it is like, look, we actually have the same goals in mind, we just have to be talking about it in the right way. And how much of it requires some shifting, you know, and what we're trying to accomplish?

Yes. So I think this is actually one of the areas where futurism has a role to play. Because often, when people are looking at the future, they're sort of saying, Well, what do I need to do today, what needs to happen tomorrow in order to get to a very specific future that they've already imagined. Whereas, you know, there are actually lots of possible futures that could be sustainable, that we could achieve in different ways. And that it's actually really helpful to start with a vision for the future, you know. So, for me, I have a vision for the future that is both sustainable and nutritious, so that people are nutritiously fed and that food is sustainably produced. So I have a very clear vision of what I want that future to look like. But I actually am very flexible about how we get there. And so one of the fathers of Futurism, Bob Johansen, he always says that the future rewards clarity, and punishes certainty. And what he means by that is, it's really important to know where you're going, but you'd never, you shouldn't be so fixed on how you're going to get there, because reality is going to intervene. And so it's a little bit like, you know, somebody is traveling down the highway, and they know where they're trying to get. And all of a sudden, there's a detour. And they just stopped because they don't know how to get there. Well, people who are flexible are gonna say, Well, you know, let's just go off on this, let's get out Google Maps, and we'll find another way of getting to our goal. And so having that flexibility about how you get there is really helpful to organizations, it's helpful to companies, and not being so fixed on what it's going to require.

So, so that's good. I wonder. And I'm sure there's, there's lots of ways in which we kind of have a similar vision, and maybe if we just shift and act towards it in a different way, we can sort of get on the same page. But I wonder, sort of maybe to kind of a question that Jim was asking earlier, if, if the, if the visions are enough aligned to get us there, or do we does the futurist require also work? You know, in helping us with that vision, right? Not just Yes, yeah. We're all working to write but sort of, have you considered this goal even right, nevermind, you tour the power the path, right, but sort of even where we're aiming for.

Yeah, and that's why, you know, in the visioning exercise, you know, one builds different scenarios to try to understand, you know, the range of possible futures. Because if you just start out and sort of write down what that future is, then, you know, you're really limiting yourself. Because there, there are all sorts of, you know, ideas that could be brought to the table. And so really, you know, it should be the result of a process. And part of that is going out and looking at sort of the signals of the future, you know, what, what's happening around the world today that, you know, could suggest new opportunities in the future. And that's, that's going to be important, because, again, you know, we don't quite know, what the world's gonna look like, you know, even 10 years from now, let alone 20 or 30. I think it would, you know, if you look back at 10 years ago, well, what companies, you know, exist today that you couldn't live without, that didn't exist at all, you know, just 10 or 15 years ago. And, you know, it's really pretty shocking, you know, that, you know, companies like Google and Facebook and Instagram and all these things that people spend all their time on, you know, didn't exist, you know, not too long ago.

If I could follow up on Scott's thinking there. industry, government, academia, all these sectors are contributing to the research and technology development that drives progress. But on the government and academic side, a lot of that is influenced by policy. The policy determines what the priority priorities are going to be, what initiatives we're going to pursue. And I'm wondering, you know, maybe somewhat based on your experience at state, but now that, you know, you've had time to reflect on that and interact with the industries that are driving progress. Do you think we have the policy right, or should be policies, right, to realize some of these goals or are there specific policy challenges we need to address.

Yeah, well, I always tell people, I'm a science optimist, I'm convinced that science and technology consume can address many of the problems we have. But I'm a regulatory pessimist. I'm not at all convinced that the scientist will be allowed to go there. And so, I think that goes to your point that, you know, I think that there is a real risk that we don't achieve our goals, because the policies, you know, don't allow us to go there. I mean, I think that's pretty clear. If you look at what's happened in Europe, over the last 20 years, you've had an exodus of science scientists working in biotechnology in many fields, because you know, if you can't, doesn't help if you can do research in a lab, if you can never bring a product to market. And it's very hard to understand, you know, what opportunities never came to be, you know, because you can't quantify, you know, the discoveries that weren't made or the products that weren't commercialized. But there's certainly a cost to it. And I think that, you know, we need to try to find a way of figuring, including that more in these conversations, that goes to what I was talking about earlier, in terms of local sustainability. And you see that in the UN Food System Summit, that's going to happen next year, as well. There's this emphasis on local sustainability, regenerative agriculture and other things. And I think we forget that, you know, it's a continuum, local sustainability is about using less water, fertilizer, insecticides and other things. But global sustainability is about being more intensively preparing producing products, so that you have less of an impact in some distant place. And because consumers think about sustainability, in terms of local, and companies and organizations, often things in terms of global, there is that disconnect in terms of how they're, they're envisioning, you know, how we get to a sustainable future. And right now, you know, in many places, there is a very strong push for policies that will prioritize local sustainability. And they're really just going to be exporting their environmental problems to other parts of the world, that are even less capable of, you know, absorbing those impacts. And I think, you know, that's, that's why it's important that, you know, we have close conversations about these issues, so that we, you know, keep a proper balance, you know, it's about trade offs. It's not about, you know, one being right, and the other being wrong. But, you know, we need a balance of both.

Any wisdom on how to influence policy development?

Well, you know, I think that, you know, researchers at universities, and the work that you do, certainly has an impact on what people are thinking about in Washington, DC. But in my experience, many universities don't take advantage of the power they have, you know, we seldom see researchers, you know, coming and knocking on the door, saying, you know, the fact that you're opposing these technologies, or it'd be the fact that we don't have a regulatory path for Gene edited animals are, whatever it might be, means that we're just not going to do any work in that field, you know, that instead, the research, just go do something else. And so again, nobody ever hears about the problem that, you know, they just ignore it, or they walked away from. So I think the research community needs to be far more engaged in these conversations than they have been historically. Otherwise, it's going to be consumers that are driving the policy. And, you know, frankly, you know, consumers have never cared more nor known less how their food is produced. And because they care, they're asking for policy changes, but because they don't understand it, those policy changes may not result in the kind of change they actually want. And so I think we need a broader spectrum of voices in the conversation. So I absolutely think there's, you know, there's a role for industry, the private sector, university researchers really need to, you know, spend a little bit of time looking at how they can influence these policy conversations.

Yeah, thank you for that. I agree with that assessment. I think we're a bit challenged right now, in deriving a set of policies that unleash the capabilities that are clearly there, but in a manner that doesn't create more problems than it solves.

Well, one area where I think universities could use of health as in science communication, which of course is what this podcast is all about. But by and large, I don't think there's enough of an emphasis on the role of science communicator. At most, you know, big research universities, people aren't necessarily rewarded for it. I know they are more now than they were in the past. But we need, you know, a lot more science communication than we've had.

So I, yeah, I agree, we need more and better science communication. And this is across the board, not just in areas of food. But I wonder how much I mean, I hear this a lot. And I worry sometimes not that we're doing this. But I worry sometimes that we sort of then put the onus on the scientist, and I'm wondering, to communicate more to communicate better. I'm wondering, sort of, if you could say something about some of the other factors, you said that consumers never cared more, but knowing less about their food, where, where it comes from maybe how its produced, I forget what you said. But there's a lot of factors here, some of it is sort of the media at large, some of it's sort of the way our food is advertised. Right. And that is not on the scientists, you know, that's on people, maybe we're doing the advertising, right. And there's, just so many factors here. I wonder if you could sort of talk a little bit about what you think, that interplay there is and what other what other ways there are of getting consumers to better understand and not just the local impact, but the but the, you know, the science behind the behind food production and, and the global issues and global impact of different production.

Yes, so I'm, I'm just finishing up a book now, why smart people make bad food choices. And it certainly doesn't put the blame on, you know, the universities or others. A lot of it has to do with psychology. And, you know, a lot of the problems we have today weren't necessarily sort of intentionally brought about. But, you know, back in the 80s, there was this move towards, you know, looking at nutrients in foods, were we breaking down our foods really better understand, you know, its components and what its components do in terms of health. But once we started doing that, then it led to companies saying, oh, you know, fat is bad. So I'm going to give you low, low fat cookies, well, those low fat cookies still had a lot of sugar. But you know, health halos, our mind immediately jumped to the positive aspect of it ignored all the negatives. And so, you know, we have a lot of things that are happening all at the same time. And so when I'm talking to scientists, I'm encouraging them to, you know, communicate more when I'm talking to companies, I'm talking about the importance of trust, you know, that we need to, to build trust, because consumers aren't going to allow you to deploy new technologies if they don't trust you. You know, science tells us what we can do. But it's the public that tells us what we should do. And so we really have to be working at each of these levels. And, you know, it's not enough to try to communicate on a controversial issue. I think we all know that when it comes to things like GMOs, it's not an information deficit model problem. More information is not going to convince people that these technologies are safe and effective. What's going to change is whether or not people trust you. And I'll give you a concrete example. In, you know, the Impossible Foods, their product is a GMO hamburger, but obviously, it has not received a lot of pushback from the public. But imagine for a moment if Monsanto had created the Impossible Burger. Well, I think we all know that it would not have been a hit. But all of the journalists would have said it failed, because nobody wants a GMO burger. Well, that obviously isn't true. So why people think it failed, and why it actually failed are often different. The reason it would have failed is that nobody wanted a GMO burger from a large multinational company. And because they misunderstand what's going on in situations like that, they also companies like Impossible Foods misunderstand it as well. They think that consumers trust us because you know, we share their ethical values. And that's partially true, but it's only true as long as they're small. The moment Impossible Foods went into 18,000 Burger Kings was the moment that people push back on the fact that it was Ultra processed. No rich people cared that it was Ultra processed, but it was $20, a burger and high end restaurants. They only cared when poor people could afford it. And so you know, the relationship of companies to the consumer changes as they scale. So I just mentioned that, there are a lot of different things going on. It's not just our relationship to industry, it's relationship to the kind of industry the point that they are and their development. And so that's why I spend so much of my time trying to de-escalate that tension. Because it's not making people happier. You know, people are less happy, you know, then than they have been in a long time. People in the United States tend to be less happy than people in many developing countries that obviously have much More difficult circumstances. And that's because so much of the messaging that's going on is convincing people to worry about smaller and smaller risks. Because that's what we do as human beings, you know, we, we focus on hazards, we don't focus on risk.

And we're very bad judges of risk. I totally agree with that. And something else you said, is really interesting to me, too. And I think the way he was talking about how policy drives so much of what research gets done, and but you just talked several times about the ways in which at least certain groups of consumers drive, drive the future of food drive some of the innovations in food, right. So could you say something about what you think that interplay is between the well off people interested in sort of certain kinds of food products and the impact that has on our system overall?

Sure. Well, you know, it's interesting that if you look at 2019, the biggest diet trend of 2019 was clean eating, but the biggest IPO of 2019 was beyond meat. And so on one hand, you know, consumers believe that the most important way to a healthier life is to eat whole foods and simple ingredients. And yet, they're investing in companies that are fundamentally producing an ultra processed product. And so there is this disconnect that's happening. And the consumers that are pushing some of these trends, you know, they are focused more on health and wellness. And yet 85% of consumers are more value shoppers. And so trends often get pushed in a direction that doesn't necessarily reflect the needs of the vast majority. And I'll return to the Eat Lancet report, as an example, you know, they the report kind of demonized animal products, and that, you know, we're eating too much meat. And yet, if you went in analysis was done, the cost of consuming the diet that they were proposing, it was clearly more expensive than the diet, people were eating. And so, if money is not an issue, then you can eat healthy any way you want. But if money is an issue, then you need to take that into account. And too often when you have people from a certain socioeconomic status where money is not as much of an issue, they're balancing their environmental desires versus taste and quality and other things. But for many people, you know, they don't have the luxury of balancing those. And just to give one concrete example, there, there's a report that looked at, you know, do consumer, what do consumers worry about in their food? And how important are environmental issues? And the report said, like 65% of consumers said that, you know, environmental issues were very important in their purchases. But then when they broke that down as to well, what does that mean for you? Well, for most people, that meant that you were reducing pesticides, or you were making food more affordable? Well, my guess is that was not the same consumer saying those two things, you know, for some reducing pesticides equated to environmentally sustainable. On the other hand, some people thought making food more affordable, made it more environmentally sustainable. And obviously, those two things are actually, you know, in conflict, if you reduce pesticide, you increase cost, and, you know, so, you know, we have different parts of the community that are at odds. And, you know, only one of those is really at the table most of the time.

So, like, we've spent quite a bit of time talking about the foods that we eat, and you know, what's in people's diets. Another very important component of food security, or the future food is how food gets to the table. So the distribution technologies and systems. And I'm wondering if you've given as much thought to that, as you have to the rest of it, I'd just be curious what you think about the role of distribution in realizing this vision for safe, nutritious food in the future?

Yeah, well, certainly, you know, in the age of COVID, there's been a lot of interest in food supply chains. And I think there's a lot of concern about long food supply chains. I'm a bit of a contrarian here on that topic. You know, I understand why when we look at the bottleneck that was caused by meat processing, that people would be concerned about the consolidation of that industry, but it's, it's worth looking at, you know, what the alternative is, and if we go back, just two years, there was a swine fever outbreak in China. And as a result of that, you know, they had to slaughter half, you know, 500 billion pigs or something like that. And the reason the problem was so bad is because they had such a highly distributed processing, you know, backyard processing and other things that exacerbated the, last pandemic. And of course, in response to that China has gone massively in the direction of the more consolidated processing that we have here in the United States. And so, you know, there are always going to be those kinds of trade offs when we think about our supply system. But, you know, my view is that the, the global trade and the diversity of our supply system, you know, really strengthens it. And it's, it's fine to buy local, you know, it's good to buy local support your community, but it's probably unrealistic to think that that can solve all of our problems. You know, if you were to look at the environmental footprint of local production, you know, for many products, it's going to be greater than something produced far away. And the reality is, you're going to end up with a much less diverse, much less nutritious food palette, you know, if you do reduce, you know, the, the reliance on these global supply chains. So I think they're to our credit, and we need to improve them, we need to reduce the some of those risks. But you know, calls for, you know, increasing inventory so that we don't have the disruptions we had in the past, I think it's short sighted. The reason we have if you increase a inventory, what you're really doing is increasing slack in the food system. And slack is a lack of productivity and efficiency, and it means higher cost. And again, I'm personally more concerned about people on the lower end assist socio economic scale, and they're the ones who are going to pay for, you know, having the luxury of inventory that's going to be there when somebody wants toilet paper, you know, in the next pandemic, 50 years from now.

What about the energy aspect? That wasn't too provocative?

No, quite interesting. What about the energy aspects of that, you know, the, right now agriculture is being looked at as one of the primary drivers of climate change, and land use change. And if we're going to move more food over greater distances, in shorter periods of time, it's gonna take a lot more energy to do that. And if energy is one of the important contributors to climate change, how do we reconcile that, you know, we're going to move more food at the same time we want a better environment?

Well, you know, one there, it's always worth doing a lifecycle analysis to see whether or not something produced in New Zealand really has a, you know, a bigger carbon footprint, because the transportation, most of the time, that's actually not true. But I also think that, you know, when somebody talks about the carbon footprint of transportation, often the conversation then turns around, says, well, we should be doing producing food, you know, organically and regeneratively and other things like well, either we're going to look at the carbon footprint or we're not, you know, if the carbon footprint matters, then organic production loses every single time, regenerative agriculture is probably not going to win, you know, any of these conversations. My personal perspective is that, you know, we need a balance of both, that our food system is stronger because of the diversity, but that one solution is not going to solve the problem. So producing food in Brazil might reduce the global environmental footprint, unless you're deforesting land to expand that. And so you know, right now, you know, as I mentioned earlier, Europe, Europe is the number one export market for Brazil, Brazil's top export destination is Europe or sometimes China. And so, you know, it's not just, you know, the distance traveled, but it's, you know, where it came from, as well.

So some of comments that you've made over the last, you know, several minutes, really deal with one of the things I've focused on most heavily since I've been at K State, which is trying to get a good interdisciplinary activity going between different players. This is probably more of a comment than I'd like you to just speak to that it is really a question, but it's clear that interdisciplinary and bringing in many different facets of study, then looking at these questions is going to be critical in coming up with any kind of a solution. Could you speak to that?

Yeah, well, I think you're absolutely right. I mean, too often, we have You know, an analysis by, you know, one group that's, you know, has a vested interest in the outcome. And I think we need to have more of that multidisciplinary approach. I think organizations like the World Resources Institute, tend to do a pretty good job of balancing those. You know, but you know, other organizations have been a little bit disappointed, and, you know, their lack of concern about, you know, productivity as being an important factor. I've had conversations with the World Wildlife Fund and others, and they're not really convinced that productivity is that important. And, you know, frankly, I don't understand how they can view that because, you know, if we double productivity by 2050, and we need twice as much food, then that's great. But if we double productivity, and it turns out, we don't need any food, then we've just cut in half our environmental impact. And so there's a benefit. But, you know, you need a diversity of players to be able to do those kinds of analyses to because of all the trade offs, you know, again, that's what it comes back to, is that on a single dimension, organic might look good on multiple dimensions, then it's going to be more complicated, doesn't mean it looks bad, but it's certainly more complicated conversation.

Yeah, and in that discussion, even thinking outside of the use, the term that I should not use ever is the hard sciences, but looking at the the need for the social impacts, and understanding where those fit in, in dealing with some of this, the situations that you've discussed, I think, is is of critical importance as well.

Yeah, I think, you know, many Americans forget that, you know, before COVID Hit 40% of Americans at some time in the previous year, didn't have enough money to buy the food they wanted. So, you know, these are not, you know, problems for, you know, foreign countries, developing countries, whatever. I mean, these are, you know, realities for many people today, and it's obviously, you know, significantly worse today.

Right, and I think it's, it's not just a problem outside of the United States, I think there have been studies done certainly within our university campus and within our town and surrounding regions that show a fairly high level of people before, even before COVID that weren't, weren't able to purchase the quantities of food needed.

Yeah, I mean, I spend a lot of my time these days, you know, talking about, you know, behavioral sciences, cognitive psychology, behavioral economics, and I think, you know, the, those areas are going to have a big impact on our ability to, one figure out how to communicate these issues, but also how to reshape our food environment to begin delivering some better outcomes.

You think we're missing anything in the academic environment in terms of training those next generations of students that are going out?

I think that they're, you know, students are quite capable. And I think the challenge is just understanding, you know, what are the problems that are going to be and that's hard to anticipate. And so they're often I think universities are being squeezed in order to train people more like, you know, a technical school as opposed to train people how to think. And I think that the direction that we're going, you know, we need people that are have a good foundation and systems thinking, in addition to whatever, you know, specialization they might have.

I completely agree with that. We just published a paper on that idea.

You'll have to send it to me.

We'll do. I will just say, thank you so much, Jack, and very much enjoyed the conversation. And I did want to comment on your TED talk. What you did at the end, was very creative. enjoyed that very much.

Well, thank you. I wasn't at all sure that it was going to, to work. So it was actually louder in person. I wish they had sort of up to a little bit of volume on the video. But my fingers were crossed. They said, well, we'll just cut it out. If it doesn't work.

It was great. Thanks for joining us.

And hopefully everybody listening here now goes and watches that TED Talk and sees what's gonna happen at the end. Yes, this has been great. Thanks. I was wondering if there's sort of any one thing that sums up what you think either gay anybody worried about food systems from production to the consumer and should be should it be doing to to address all all the range of things that you've been saying?

Well, the one thing I think is important is that I am I often hear a lot that, you know, consumers are anti science or different groups are anti science. And I think it's worth remembering that, you know, I have never met anybody who's anti-science. I've met a lot of people who didn't trust the government and didn't trust industry. But they all love science. I think we sometimes, you know, confused that lack of trust with a lack of, you know, belief in science. And so we need to be aware that when somebody says they don't trust the science, you know, even if you know that that's not correct, it's probably we're trying to understand why they don't trust the person saying it, you know, instead of the thing that they're saying. But the last thing I'd like to say is just, you know, I would encourage, you know, students, scientists and others, to expand their networks, one of the things that, you know, I worry about is that people have not built a big professional network that's going to be there. And I personally don't look at networking as a job skill. I look at it as a life skill. And it's how you build relationships with people. And it's how you help people before you need their help. And if you're out there helping people every day, you can be confident that the day when the day comes that you do need somebody else's support, they'll be there. And it's never been more important because unfortunately, like my daughter, the kids today are going to be graduating into the worst economic climate since the Great Depression. And so, you know, there's never been a better time to reach out and you know, ask questions and you know, get to know other people.

A message. Thanks so much.

That is a great message. Yeah. Thank you so much. And with that, I think we will sign off and I and again, I so appreciate your coming on with us Jack and have enjoyed the conversation and look forward to getting this out to share with listeners.

Well, thank you so much for having me on. Really appreciate it. If I can be of any help, let me know. Thanks.

If you have any questions or comments you would like to share check out our website at https://www.k-state.edu/research/global-food/ and drop us an email.
Our music was adapted from Dr. Wayne Goins’s album Chronicles of Carmela. Special thanks to him for providing that to us. Something to Chew On is produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University.

In this episode, we focus on a critical element of any research endeavor — having the correct tools to do the work. The interdisciplinary research of our guest, Dr. Ryan Hansen, assistant professor of chemical engineering at Kansas State University, focuses on food and health related studies. Dr. Hanson uses innovative approaches in microfabrication, polymer science and surface chemistry to design novel synthetic biological interfaces for characterizing microbial populations.

Advancements in Measuring Techniques: our ability to understand microorganism interaction with Dr. Ryan Hansen, assistant professor of chemical engineering

With the microbiome is that it really does require a range of skills. It's not just going to be one person that can do, you know, genetics or, you know, one person that makes these cool devices, right, or one person that specializes in bioinformatics. It's a combination of biologists, computer science, computer scientists, chemists, engineers, right. And so, so it really does require, you know, it takes a village, if you will, right, it's going to be a very big interdisciplinary effort.

Something to chew on is a podcast devoted to the exploration and discussion of Global Food Systems produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. I'm Maureen Olewnik, coordinator of Global Food Systems.

And I'm Colene Lind, Associate Professor of Communication Studies at Kansas State. I studied the public's role in science and environmental policy.

And I'm Jon Faubion. I'm a food scientist.

A critical element of any research endeavor is having the tools needed to do the work. Today's guest is Dr. Ryan Hansen, Assistant Professor of Chemical Engineering, and the Steve Hsu and Warren and Gisela Kennedy Keystone research scholar when it comes to micro organisms, and the interaction of microbes and complex systems, the tools being developed in Dr. Hanson's group may change or at least have direct impact on the ability, speed and accuracy of these studies. Ryan, welcome to the podcast. I would like to welcome you Ryan, Dr. Ryan Hanson to Something to Chew On. We're really looking forward to hearing a little bit more about your research activities. Before we move into that I would also like to welcome Dr. Colene Lind. Dr. Lind is an associate professor of Communication Studies at Kansas State and will be joining us from on occasion as a host. And so welcome, Colene. 

Thank you, Maureen. Great to be here. 

And with that, Ryan, could you start out by giving us a little background on who you are? And really what drew you into the area of study that you're into, and then maybe we'll take it from there?

Sure. So I am an Assistant Professor in Chemical Engineering at K State in the Tim Taylor, Department of Chemical Engineering. And I've been here for five years now I'm going this is my sixth year. I started in 2015. I came over from Oak Ridge National Laboratory and I had worked there a couple years. But my background is in chemical engineering. So I graduated with my PhD from the University of Colorado. And they're I studied chemical engineering and I looked at materials polymer science for biomedical applications. And then I hung around in Colorado, it's where I'm from, and I went to the Colorado School of Mines, which is also where I did my undergrad. And I kind of went more than the biomedical route for a while. And I developed blood diagnostics. So tests that could actually diagnose bleeding disorders. And so I did that for a few years. And then my career took a turn to the National Lab scene. As I said, I was at Oak Ridge National Lab before coming to K State and I was there for a little over a little over two years, two and a half years. And there I got to do a lot of things, but it actually got me into some environmental microbiology. And I was also able to use some of the skillset that I had developed in my previous research, which was focused on developing and designing devices for, for measuring and biological systems or characterizing biological systems. So I got to apply that at Oak Ridge and do a lot there. For those of you that don't know about a national laboratory, it's funded by the Department of Energy. I was able to pick up some aspects and microbiology some aspects of design devices, micro nanofabrication. So these are all I would say very different fields, but it was really unique because I got to combine them and really participate in a very new area of research and I really liked that. And while I was there at Oak Ridge I I decided that it was really fun to do my own research. And I really enjoy the the freedom of research that I was able to do at Oak Ridge. But that was certainly a temporary situation. So that got me thinking about faculty positions, and I had been out, I would say, Yo, boy, six, maybe more than six years, from my PhD to that point. So I've been out a long time. But I really thought at that point, boy, it would be fun to be a faculty member. And I, you know, I jumped around, I had quite a few experiences, but I saw K State, and was really interested in case state. And one of the big reasons was, because I could see myself fitting in with their emphasis on food, and their emphasis on biosecurity, and their emphasis on environmental research, as well. And you know, those are some of that was new to me. But I knew that being at Oak Ridge, where we were looking at some environmental microbiology, it would be somewhere where I could expand my research and grow. And so I really liked K State. For that reason, I really liked the Department of Chemical Engineering as well, it was a nice size, there wasn't it wasn't really big, there was enough faculty there that were all really, really good and very welcoming. And I realized that I would fit in just very well with the culture here. So I started in 2015, and have been here since. So that's a little bit about my career progression. 

What are your research areas? What are you hoping to end up with, and at the end of the day, all of those.

So my research is really at the intersection of microbiology, and material science. And so we look at interfaces and using interface using materials to characterize microbes to separate microbes. We study how microbes interact with their environment, how they interact with surfaces with membranes and with each other, basically. And what we do is we're developing devices, we're developing materials that really help aid the microbiologist and making new measurements and progressing their research. What I found, when I started was that the tools that the microbiologist actually has are, are fairly limited and have been around for decades. And microbiology is just this field of exploding knowledge. There's, there's all sorts of new organisms that are being discovered all the time. And there's so much more out there. And I saw that and I said, you know, it would be for someone to come and develop new tools that can help a microbiologist, do what they're doing and study these organisms at a higher, a higher level, learn more, that would be great. That would be a lot of opportunity there. And so that's what I've been doing. I've been basically developing new tools, new systems, new materials that are geared towards studying microbes, and how they interact in their environment.

 Interesting. So it's, it's not more it's not a quantification it's more of a characterization of behaviors?

Yeah, I mean, currently, you Yeah, well, there's there's quantitative aspects, for sure. And in my research, but it is, it's it's characterizing, characterizing how microbes interact, how they, how they work with each other to survive, how they inhibit each other. And I think we'll get into this, I think when we get into our, you know, some of the global food system work, but it's really trying to characterize, okay, how are these organisms interacting together and natural systems, bacteria, microbes, the, you know, they don't, they don't interact in a vacuum, right? They're there, they interact in these very complex environments. And it's because it's so complex, it's been very difficult for a microbiologist with the standard tools, they have to piece together these, these small pieces of information and get a bigger picture of what's going on. And that's, that's a broad statement. But you see that in any system, any kind of ecological system, whether it's soil or plant or in the ocean, simply there's a lot that's unknown, that needs to be discovered. So yeah, so that's, that's what we're doing. And you know, there's quantitative parts of our work, certainly with that, but yeah, a lot of a lot of instrument development and a lot of engineering actually.

So, I know when I first met you, when I first came on board at K State, what came to my mind my background, pretty heavily focused on the food safety area, and the first thing I thought of when I saw what you were working on is food safety, specifically, and the potential of some of these types of activities being carried out. You were talking about the complexity of microbiology and the systems that they are that they're growing in, and the ability to, to measure and test but food systems, food matrices are incredibly complex. And just thinking of the possibilities of what you're doing, and where that would fit into these complex systems was just, it certainly hit the mark with me. And I understand that, you're probably well, you can speak to this a little more I'm from, from my background, people are looking for something fast and cheap, something that they can take out onto a floor and work on and do the tests. And it's done. I know you're not there yet. But is that something that would be an ultimate focus? Or?

Yeah, so I certainly think that there are some ties in industry to what we have been doing and what we're going to continue to do. And we want rapid detection, for example, or rapid characterization of a sample to save time to save money to prevent, for example, contaminated food from being put into distribution. And these all require better techniques for detection, right, if we're going to go with foodborne pathogens, right? Being able to detect contamination without having to culture is a big deal. Right. And so, yeah, we're working on materials and interfaces that capture pathogens, foodborne pathogens, specifically, and isolate them from their environment so that they can be detected. You know, one, one important step that people often forget is there's a separation component here, where you have to separate out oftentimes a pathogen from everything else in this complex matrix. And to do that, you need materials. And that's actually where the chemical engineer comes, comes in. Because a lot of people are listening to this thinking, Okay, this is a lot of microbiology, but there's the separation aspect, where you're trying to pull out a certain organism, in this case, a pathogen, and you need that to detect it or to characterize it. And so that's really one thing we're doing. And one, one way we're using these materials and these interfaces is to, to pull out pathogens from a sample, it might be water, it might be food, and then characterize it. So yeah, and, you know, certainly I think, from the industry perspective, that's one area where we're, I think we have a lot of ties into what companies need. You know, the other thing that we're doing is also looking at this at a fundamental level. One project that we have starting up, this is an NSF project that I have, and it is focused on isolating foodborne pathogens that have what's called a viable but non culturable phenotype. Basically, these are pathogens that are a small, a small subset of an overall population, but they have a unique phenotype. And what they do is they actually can turn off their metabolism go into this dormant state where they can't be treated with antibiotics, for example, but what happens is that they can resuscitate over time and then come back. And so obviously, that causes a lot of problems. That causes a lot of problems in clinical settings that causes problems also, potentially with foodborne pathogens. And so we're interested in separating out those types of cells so that we can study their, their genetic makeup study their their RNA that they're being expressed, find biomarkers that will allow us to detect that that specific population of cells because right now, that's really hard to do, you're looking for, it's very hard to separate out these cells that are that look very similar, but are behaving differently. And so yeah, so that's one example where that would certainly improve food safety. And it also ties into clinical applications as well. 

So it appears, at least in thinking a bit and actually, I'll have to admit to coming from a biology background from a developmental biology background, are you are you focused in on dealing with the cell surface architecture or chemistry as a way to as a way to remove the selectively two from the rest of the from the rest of the matrix?

So in some applications, yes, some applications you can actually go back to this just idea of separating out a pathogen from let's say, a water matrix or a food matrix. There are antibodies that you can use to target individual pathogens. And so what we're doing is we're developing interfaces that allow us to orient those antibodies and not only combine the antibody, but we with a surface but also provide a structure on the surface that allows that cell to interact with the surface in a very high level. Contact lenses so that you actually can improve how efficiently you capture these organisms. Once you get efficient capture, that translates to sensitivity. And so that's, and that's key, because sensitivity is everything right? If it's there, right, and it's, we'll say one cell per milliliter, right? That's a really low concentration. But in some cases, that might be what you need. Well, if you need it, if you have an application like that, you really need an efficient separation process. So yeah, that's certainly one way of doing this is to look at the surface and target the cell surface and make an engineered surface so that that cell is going to stick on that surface. Once it comes in contact with it.

I was just looking at some of the information background on what you've been working on. And you may have just spoken to this, but there's a mention of a photo degradable hydrogel application that you're working on. Can you explain a little bit about what that is?

Yeah, I'm so excited about this. So this actually, the way that came about was actually interesting, because I work on photo degradable hydrogels, or they're more generally photo polymer. So these are polymers that are either formed by light or degraded by light. And that was my background. And I put that on the shelf for, you know, six or seven years. But then when I started working here, I realized that I could use a lot of those materials I worked with in grad school for some of these applications. And so what we have done is we've designed these polymers, we, and they're hydro gels. And so basically, hydro gels are these really water absorbent. polymers, they're these cross linked polymers that absorb water. So just, you know, just like material you would find in a diaper, right, that's super water absorbent. These materials do the same thing as far as being very compatible with an aqueous system. And we decided to try to actually capture cells into these hydro gels. And what that does is basically hold these cells in place, so that you can look at them and look at a lot of them at the same time. And then what we do is we take a pattern light source, and if we see a cell that we want, so let's say that we see a cell and it's behaving oddly, but let's say it has this, this culturable. But non-viable phenotype, right behavior. And when we if we see that, right, that might be a needle in a haystack, we want to get that out and separate it so we can study its genetics. And so what we're doing was we're designing these polymers so that we shine light right over that cell that's trapped in this hydrogel, and it pops out. And we were what we can now do is, we can now just take that out in a little droplet, and isolate it and then study its genetics, at least that's where we're going and what we're doing. So it's a separation technique again, and it's, you know, it's hopefully going to be a very, very practical type of technique that a lot of people can do. And so that's, that's the idea of the materials and the photo degradable hydrogels. You know, the other thing with that, and this gets more into the medical side of things is people are really interested in using bacteria as therapeutics. So there's this initiative from the NIH bugs is drugs, that's basically looking at using bacteria, oftentimes engineered bacteria to deliver therapeutic agents to a tumor site, or simply to colonize in a tumor site and kill that tumor. And so they're seeing that some types of bacteria can do that. Well, the challenge there is that you also have to deliver it into a tissue. And so just like they do this with drug delivery, what they do with drugs is they'll encapsulate them in a protective coating. And then they'll shine light on it, and it releases the drug in that specific site. What we saw that we said, well, we could probably do the same thing with bacteria, because people are really interested now and using bacteria to deliver a drug to a cancer site. So we also are kind of moving that direction where we're saying, Okay, let's, let's encapsulate these potentially therapeutic bacteria into these polymers that fall apart in life. And then if they can fall apart in near IR light, so this is really, really low energy light source, and it penetrates through tissue. So if you can do that, and if you could get the chemistry, right, you could actually have this on demand release of bacteria into a tumor site or into some type of disease site. So it's, again, it's this intersection of microbiology and material science towards a new direction now towards more of the clinical side of things. I know that gets off of the food application. It brings up kind of a new area we're going.

It's fascinating and actually, I may be stretching this just a bit but on the health side of things, I could see probably applications Then in meat animals or in, you know, in the veterinary side of things, so things come full circle, one point or another.

They do I found that to be true in my career as well, because I, I started out in environmental, doing environmental work in industry, and then I went to biomedical and then I circled all the way back around to the environmental side when I got K State. So yeah, things always come back around. It's interesting how that works.

Yeah, absolutely.

Is there an organism that you're using as I don't want to say a test but sort of a model.

Yeah, there's, there's a few organisms that we have experience with. I mean, the one that everybody uses is e coli. Because you can, you can manipulate that very easily on a genetic level. People can do all sorts of things with e coli. So when we're thinking about drug delivery, right, equalize the first thing that they think about. But you know, certainly. And of course, there's a strain of e coli. That's a foodborne pathogen. And so that's an organism that makes sense for not only me, but most people that are developing these materials to start with, standardized as an organism. In the past, I had a student who worked with Campylobacter Did you know, which is a common foodborne pathogen, and that is actually an organism that has this culturable, but non viable phenotype. And it causes problems and infection. And so we're looking at potentially working with that organism, and then certainly, you know, I will probably get into this, but I, you know, I'm not just looking there, I'm also really interested in what's going on underground in the soil. And so there, we're looking at classes of beneficial bacteria. So moving away from the pathogens and looking at beneficial organisms, we're working with axis beryllium, specifically axis beryllium bracante. So this is a bio fertilizer, it's a commercially available bio fertilizer that fixes nitrogen into plants. And so we're studying that organism a lot. And that kind of moves us underground and around the plant and gets us into bio fertilizer. So those are, those are a few organisms that we've recently been working with. And you know, but it's, we're always it's interesting, because, what we're doing when we go back to looking at these environmental systems is that we're uncovering new organisms nor characterizing new organisms. So we're always, you know, we're always out finding new organisms and pairs of organisms that interact in certain ways and that have new applications. Great. Yeah.

Ryan, I find it so interesting, you know, the first when you first started talking about your work, and you made it really clear for you to understand what the the need and the challenges for that you're trying to meet, the way that these microbes are so variable, the complex interactions that change the way that the fact that many of them have been discovered yet really, really fascinating. And now for the last few minutes, talking about how your work takes you to so many different kinds of little miniature ecologies, I realized, wow, you have to go from the soil to an animal gut to all kinds of different plants. I'm just thinking about this from a practical perspective. As you know, running your lab, how do you do that? How do you move from all of these different contexts, and yet be able to do work that is useful in all of these different ecologies? I mean, just does that make sense at all? It seems like it would be a real reality.

Yeah, so that's a good question. I so you know, it's the, the link for me is that all these areas, they really need, they have the same problems. There's so much that's unknown in any system, whether we're looking in the soil, or whether we're looking at plant roots, whether we're looking in our gut, there's many organisms that are unknown, and, and their function is unknown. So we're really developing these generalized tools that hopefully translate from one we call it a microbiome. So this is basically a community of organisms from one microbiome to the next to the next. And hopefully, they translate. So if we develop something that's useful in the soil, maybe that applies to the gut, and maybe, you know, we're looking at studying interactions between beneficial bacteria in the soil. Somebody that has a biomedical background and is into more medical microbiology can pick that up and apply it to the gut. Right. And so I think the uniting theme here is that there's similar needs in all these areas of microbiology, and there's Just so much that's unknown in each area. So let me put that into context. I looked up some numbers before we were talking. So I'll look at the soil. So the soil, if you take one gram of soil, you could ask, what are you going to find in that sample? Well, one gram of soil can harbor up to 10 billion organisms, 10 billion, so I didn't, I didn't misspeak there 10 billion. And with that, there's about 60, anywhere from 60 to 40,000, difference, different types of organisms with different species. So what I do when I present this type of work to my class is all simply way out. eight grams, 10 grams of bacteria. And I'll ask my students, how many organisms do you think are present here, then, and you think there's actually more organisms here than people on Earth? And of course, people don't think that. But in fact, there are, there's 10 billion organisms and about 10 grams of soil. And so I think it's really fascinating, just all the unknown information that's there. It's just very ripe for discovery. So, so anyways, I think, you know, the uniting theme there, though, is that people need new tools everywhere in microbiology. And so for me, that's great, because I can go a lot of different places, especially when I'm looking for funding. And I can say, Okay, this might tie to energy, this might tie to food, this might tie to health. But at the end of the day, microbes shapes so much of our life, energy, food health environment, that, you know, I think the possibilities are endless for, you know, what we what we can do, and and I think there's a need for the engineer in here, as well, it shouldn't just be isolated to the microbiologists.

I attempted to follow up on that idea that there's real value for you. Because you are interdisciplinary and have to be in the kind of work that you're doing. But speaking from my own perspective, I know that comes with its own challenges, too. But let me just go back to a minute for this idea that the 10 billion in one gram of oil, I mean, it reminds me, I have found really inspiring as I've listened to you talk to the last few minutes, I mean, just the idea of discovery of the unknown and pure discovery is just so comfortable in what you're talking about. And then the idea that there could be enough commonalities between these very, very different settings. It's also sort of it gets that it's kind of a really inspirational quality about science in general. I wonder, yeah. Because the work that you're dealing with is on such a tiny, tiny scale that, you know, some like me from outside the science has no idea how to envision it, that you're 1 billion in one gram. That's a great example. Do you have other examples of the ways that you try and help either your students or the general public understand and envision what's going on in this little tiny, tiny scale that you work with?

Yeah, that's a great question. I do. And I do it from a chemical engineering perspective, because those are my students. And so for example, we, in chemical engineering, we talk a lot about reactors and reactor design, right? And so you would look at that, and you'd say, okay, that has nothing to do with what I'm working on, right? Well, that's actually not true. So you think about a big reactor, right, and we design a reactor to, you know, operate at a temperature and pressure and volume to do a reaction? Well, our devices are really scaled down file reactors, what we do is we take we our devices take organisms, and we put them together in little, little reactors, not big ones. And when you do that, you can you can miniaturize the whole process and basically have 10,000 reactors and do that in a single test. And so I think, you know, I think for me, it's, it's, it's kind of finding the commonalities with my traditional discipline and what we're doing, because oftentimes, it can feel a little disconnected, but really the principles of what we teach you can find in the research we do, and so I think it's just especially for engaging undergrads saying, hey, you know, what you're learning. You know, this was done. Some of this was done decades ago, but we're still using these principles, and they translate what we're doing now. The course I teach is called transport phenomena. So it's, fluid mechanics and heat mass transfer, well, mass transfer, which is the study of diffusion of chemicals through time and space. That's how bacteria communicate with each other. They send the soluble chemical signals to one another, so you can apply a lot of what we learned to new systems. And so I think I think just making sure that you have that connection with students and you say, you know, you're learning stuff that we're actually applying, and we're making discovery with, and I've really engages students, students really want to, I think take ownership of material, they want to have an impact, they want to know what they're doing isn't just, you know, what was done in the 50s, or 60s or 70s, or whatever, right. It's having an impact now. So I think always connecting research for me, keeping research and teaching, integrated and, and not separating the two is really important for this type of engagement. And so I think that gets that what you were what you were saying, and so just some examples there 

It just seems that this is a sort of a type of science and discovery that it's almost a step change, it's the, it reminds me of the the initial development of radio immuno acids, where all of a sudden people had, you know, magnitudes, greater sensitivity and many magnitudes greater specificity. And after that, the work on that, once that work got out and into the general scientific public, where it ended up being applicable was incredible. In terms of GE, I never thought it, I never thought of using it for, you know, X, Y or Z. And do you think this technique, is that that powerful at this point? Or at least potentially? 

Yeah, I really do. I mean, I think that it made certainly, the tools and the methods were developing, they have their challenges, and they're not, we're not there yet. But we've seen some really promising results. I think there are some hurdles that are still there that we have to overcome. But if we can do that, and it's, you know, it's this field of kind of these, these engineers and microbiologist working together, you know, if we can do that, I think that this field is just going to continue to progress in a very rapid manner. So for example, one limitation that's very common is that most microbes in environmental systems don't grow. And so, you know, we talk about, okay, there's, there's 10 billion organisms in the soil. Well, the problem is 99.7% of those organisms don't grow, we're getting wood and to study then you have to grow them in microbiology. So we get that point. 3%. Right, that's a small fraction of what's actually there. And so the rest of it is dark matter. We don't know what it is. And, recently, they're great. 

I love that characterization. Dark matter? 

Yeah, yeah, that's what they call it, it's biological dark matter. And then recently, there's, there's a field, you know, in the past decade, I would say that's taken off, and it's called meta genomic. And so basically, meta genomic, you're actually able to get an idea of everything that is in a community of organisms without having to grow it. But, you know, from application side of things, you have to be able to grow an organism to use it, right? If I get one or two cells, and I'm, and they're producing an antibiotic, I can't, you know, I have to, I have to amplify that right, I have to grow that dramatically, to actually produce something. So the trick is figuring out how to culture these uncultured uncoachable. And I use that in quotations, uncoachable microbes, or bacteria, in this case, grow in a laboratory setting is a new challenge, right. And so, engineers and microbiologist are addressing this, how do we, what tricks can we do to recover new organisms? There's one group that actually, this is years ago now. But they were actually able to take a device and isolate individual organisms and then put it back in the soil where the soil contain all the metabolites that were needed, and start growing organisms that they could never grow before. And when they did, that, they were able to actually take new organisms that were producing new antibiotics, and isolate those. So that that gets at antibiotic discovery. And obviously, there's a need for new antibiotics. And so, you know, so that's a technical hurdle. But I think that's something that we're making progress on. And we continue to make progress on how do we recover organisms. And it's not just soil, you can look at any ecosystem, whether it's freshwater, you know, whether you're in the ocean, or in the soil, or any environment, most organisms you can't recover right now. So, but to me, that dark matter that's out there, it's just exciting, because, because I think that there's going to be more technological innovation that's going to get us there and get us to recover new organisms that do things that we've never thought of or that are producing new molecules that could be very, very useful. 

Sounds fascinating. Really. 

We'd have a really exciting pieces that we you had been involved in a, a workshop that we did earlier on on microbiome, and I appreciated the presentation that you did there. But it was it was one where we had speakers from a variety of different areas on campus that are doing research in the microbiome area. And I was, I was so excited to see there were a few people that presented there that I don't think knew what you were doing, understood the kind of work you were doing. And I'm hoping that that interface connected for you on campus, but it's, it just brings out the criticality, the importance of having this interdisciplinary understanding and work going on. You've, you've touched on so many different areas that just reach out into agriculture, that reach out into biology and reach out into so many areas of research on campus, and that that interaction is so critical.

It is it is, you know, and I think K State is a great place for that. I mean, we have an emphasis on food, but we have veterinary medicine, right. We have biosecurity applications all over. You know, and as we said, the microbiome, it touches all of these areas. And so, you know, I think that, you know, that was some of the motivation of having that microbiome research was to get people on the same page in the same venue, and really see how we can work together. You know, the other thing with the microbiome is that it's, it really does require great range of skills, it's not just going to be one person that can do, you know, genetics, or, you know, one person that makes these cool devices, right, or one person that specializes in bioinformatics, it's a combination of biologists, computer science, computer scientists, chemists, engineers, right. And so it really does require, you know, it takes a village, if you will, right, it's going to be a very big interdisciplinary effort. And so really getting, you know, we can do so much more, you know, this, the sun will be so much greater than, than the individual parts, if we can come together and tackle these big problems, because it's very complex. It really is. And I don't think there's one, you know, I've never met one single scientist that can do all of this. 

Well, it sounds like a great hunt really does that, that that would be the sort of thing that would get me up and back in the lab, I think, 

I do think it's really, we haven't talked too much about my global food project. But you know, there's similar things going on there, where it's understanding the interactions and plant roots. And using that to improve crop growth to improve drought, stress and crops. And that gets towards, you know, agriculture, obviously, and, and making plants resilient in the face of drought in the face of climate change. You know, relying less on chemical fertilizers, more and bio fertilizers. And so you know, there, there's another and I really think that's, you know, one of the, one of the big applications that I that we can do and do well here at K State with our emphasis on food. And so, yeah, I mean, I think I think for me, this is the fun part of research is that you, you don't always know where it's gonna go, but it can, it can, and you can end up in some really exciting and cool places. True.

Ryan, I would love to hear more about that particular work. I mean, when I when I read about the fact that you are interested in interactions and caring in the axis beryllium binome I thought, I wonder roots of what plants I wonder. So yeah, now, I love the idea that you might be able to promote plant growth without synthetic fertilizers. So please tell me more.

Yeah. So this is a global food systems project that kicked off last May. And we the goal of it is to understand important interactions between axis beryllium. And I mentioned that this is a well known bacteria, it's probably one of the most well known class plant growth promoting bacteria. What it does is it fixes nitrogen and provides ammonia to the plant for growth. So that's important, that's important specifically, while it's important for many crops, I'm focusing on corn and you know, corn is obviously a very valued commodity here. And so I think people some people use assel sprung alone for recording growth, but the problem is that these bio fertilizers really aren't very reliable. And and there's sort of this this issue of, well a plant growth promoting bacteria, will it be successful there? Or how reliable will it be when I implement it when I inoculate it into the soil or on a seedling and then there's a lot of risk associated with that from the producer standpoint. It when you know you have chemical for lasers that are going to give you a lot of bang for your buck initially, right? But, but long term are obviously very environmentally bad, you know, can degrade soil quality have a lot of environmental issues, there's really a need for transitioning to bio fertilizers. But there's a perception that bio fertilizers aren't very reliable. And so what we're trying to do is improve that and in the way we can improve that, I think is if you can understand the interactions that are going on between your beneficial bacteria. So in that case, that would be a axis beryllium on and the organisms that are already there, right, so the plant rises here. So this is the area just outside the root, where there's a very rich assortment of bacteria, and all sorts of microbes on that root surface. So that's where these cells interact. And for plant growth, promoting bacteria to interact with a plant, they have to establish themselves into these rhizosphere communities. Well, what interactions are important for that bacteria to survive in the root? We don't know, people don't know those questions. We're out to find those and to uncover important interactions. And if we can, and we've already actually done that, and have some really promising results. Just very recently, last few weeks on this, if we can understand those interactions, we can basically profile plants, we can look at the microbiome of the plant and say, okay, these organisms are present. And we know that this organism does well when those organisms are already there. And so that is kind of this site specific approach to bio fertilizer, where we already have some knowledge, we're not just blindly dumping in bacteria into the soil, we have some knowledge of what's already there. And we can match it to what we're putting in the soil. And that might improve the reliability, and hopefully, the perception of bio fertilizers. And so you know, we're very interested in that idea. We have a tool that we can use that can uncover these interactions very efficiently now. And so certainly, that's where we're going with that. And again, we're looking at corn and axis beryllium, because that's kind of a high impact application. I think. So but it wouldn't stop there. I think we could use it for all sorts of systems. And so that's where we're going on on that one. And then ultimately, what we want to do is if we find these sets of organisms that worked really well together, can we actually start putting these over a seedling and then showing that they're improving plant growth? Because what people are interested in, in this area is not just one organism, it's a consortia. They always say, microbial consortia. So is there a collection of organisms that can do the job better than just one in isolation? And most people will say yes, but we they don't know what that collection is. So we're looking for those networks, those interactions that can improve these bio fertilizers. And again, we think we have a tool that can do a good job at that.

So Ryan, the global food system, seed grant activity is based obviously, on the quality of the research that's put in and that type of thing. But we're also focusing heavily on interdisciplinary. So who are you working with on that particular project?

Yeah, so I have a strong collaboration with Assistant Professor in Department of Biology, I guess, which is Tom Platt, Dr. Tom Platt. So he actually is a microbial ecologist, and he knows a lot of the genetic side of things. And he works. He's traditionally worked with Agrobacterium tumor patients, which is a plant pathogen, but he gives us a skillset that we don't have as far as genetics and sequencing and understanding bacteria on a molecular level. And so you know, certainly for me, I'm an engineer, I'm doing devices, I making materials, I don't have that skill set. So that's one collaboration. And we've been actually working together for four years now. And so we have a, and we develop this device together. So we have that collaboration. And then also, I think important is industry and industry ties. And so we've engaged Bayer crop science. And so they've shown some interest in this work for developing bio fertilizers for improving drought stress in crops, and certainly are working on that in that engagement. And, you know, having them are more more or less an advisory role for us right now. But we hope that it leads to more and we hope that it leads to interest from Bayer. I mean, certainly they have a good relationship with Kstate. And you know, I think beyond that there's a lot of other companies that are smaller startup companies that are interested in that are developing these bio fertilizers, these these consortia of microorganisms that you can add to the soil or that you can amend the soil with So, you know, we're always out for collaboration we work with with KSURF, and they help us find some of these industry contacts. But I think certainly, keeping that strong tie is important. And I think industry sees a lot of potential here, because, you know, we talked about some of these devices, they can, they can screen, they can look at a lot of different interactions. At the same time I had mentioned, we can make 10 to the fifth small reactors on a single chip right on one test, from an industry perspective, you know, you're going to find that that combination rapidly and quickly and cheaply, the alternative to that is you're looking at how organisms interact by traditionally spotting them together, maybe looking at 10s of interactions at a time, whereas we're looking at 10,000 interactions at a time. And so just the time and the money that you can save from doing that rapidly from an industry perspective, I think is very valuable. And is you know, something that for a company that invests in this type of technology, which would really offer a lot 

Plus, and give you much more powerful data when you go to analyze. You can have 10 to the fifth on the thing. 

Yeah. So yeah, so we can look at that, you know, you're thinking about these different combinations of organisms trying to find the right combination, we can assemble 10, to about 10,000, I believe, right now, it's the number of 10,000 different different combinations of organisms and find that right combination, I say this, this shows the most promise, I almost, I almost liken it to an interview process. Let's say that you have, you know, you have 10,000 candidates, right, and you have to figure you got to get the candidate that fits in the most and does the job that best right? Well, I want to do that really rapidly, I don't want to go one by one, right and do that I want to do that at one at a one one shot, right. And so our devices designed to do that to where you can, you can consider 1000s of different organisms, you take the top one, and you are the top combination of organisms and you combine it with the bacteria that you already know, is beneficial. And you have your consortium, you have your mixture that you can then add to your crop. So that's the idea. Again, there's not many technologies out there that can do that. And that's certainly something we think we have we have an advantage with.

This is absolutely fascinating. 

I have many more questions, but we've got not long right. Yeah, maybe you can help me in a relatively short amount of time understand this. I think that you've gotten this last little bit, it's really helped me understand the sort of the leak that you're making with your tests of being able to take a number of. Is it something about the tests that you're doing themselves? Or there's something about the computing of the actual looking at all the different combinations? What allows you to make that jump, Ryan?

That's a great question. So what allows us to make that jump is basically miniaturizing everything. So what we do is, if we, you know, cells are about one micron, so your hair is about 10 microns, 100 microns in diameter cells, one might affect common bacteria. So this variation here, we'll just say it's one micron in length, well, that basically means we can scale down all these reactors into these little small reactors, and put 10,000 on a ship that's, that I can hold in my hand. And when I do that, I can look it with a microscope, we have a force of microscope, and I can look at everything at the same time. So this is called high throughput, high throughput study. So we can basically, when you miniaturize everything into these small devices, observation of all these different reactions, if you will, again, going to chemical engineering language here, all these different reactions are reactors going on at the same time. So it's making things small. And when you make things small, you increase the throughput. So that's, that's probably the answer, I would say to your question.

Thanks. That really helps me pull it back to you know, the nanotechnology.

Yeah, that's the connection.

It might feel testing messages is so much easier because of computing power. But there's also a little bit of analogy here. And that when you've got little tiny political messages on Facebook, for example, as opposed to a 30 second commercial, there are much greater combinations to be tested at once out there. So it's not exactly the same, but I get it.

Yeah, right. These ideas, you know, they can translate to different different fields. I will just say it's, it's been, it's really defining, you know, for professors to talk about their research. It's, I'm sure you, you get this with everybody. It's always really fun. And you can go on a long time, but I do want to thank you guys for the opportunity. I think that's, it's great to get the word out there as far as what we're doing, not only in my lab, but in K state as a whole. I think we're just, we're doing a lot of great things here. And so You know, thanks to the Global Food Systems for, you know, not only the opportunity that you guys give us, but also the messaging and the communication that we can do through that program. So, thank you guys very much.

I will continue to follow you Ryan. I just I'm your work just fascinates me to know and so great. Great, so exciting. I really appreciate the time from all of you. And again, welcome Colene. This was a lot of fun. Thanks a lot.

All right. Thank you, everybody. Thanks, everybody.

If you have any questions or comments you would like to share check out our website at https://www.k-state.edu/research/global-food/ and drop us an email.

Our music was adapted from Dr. Wayne Goins’s album Chronicles of Carmela. Special thanks to him for providing that to us. Something to Chew On is produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. 

In this episode, we discuss the importance of what is in our soil and how its nutrients or contaminants affect plant growth and the food we eat. Dr. Ganga Hettiarachchi, is one of the world’s leading scientists in the fields of trace metal and nutrient chemistry in soils. Hettiarachchi's research at K-State focuses on understanding the chemistry of both nutrient and contaminant elements in soils, with the goal of developing solutions to agricultural or environmental problems.

Soil Chemistry: What’s In It For Us? – food science from the ground up, with Dr. Ganga Hettiarachchi, professor in the Department of Agronomy at Kansas State University

I think current practices. Most of the time if you think about farmers, they try to do the best they can do to protect their soil. I mean, that doesn't really, they do not want to do things to harm their soil.

Something to chew on is a podcast devoted to the exploration and discussion of Global Food Systems produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. I'm Maureen Olewnik, coordinator of Global Food Systems.

I’m Scott Tanona. I'm a Philosopher of Science.

And I'm Jon Faubion. I'm a Food Scientist.

Hello everybody and welcome back. The food we eat is a product of many factors including seed quality and variety, weather conditions during the growing season, and processing and storage. But one of the most critical aspects of growing food is what it is grown in the soil. Soil provides nutrients to the growing plants through its components, which include minerals, water, organic matter and microorganisms. Additionally, soil provides a critical avenue for carbon dioxide sequestration, a major factor in reducing greenhouse gas. In this podcast, we will be talking with Dr. Ganga Hettiarachchi, Professor in the Department of Agronomy in Kansas State University's College of Agriculture. Ganga is one of the world's leading scientists in the fields of trace metal and nutrient chemistry and soils. Her research at K State focuses on understanding the chemistry of both nutrient and contaminant elements in soils with the goal of developing solutions to agricultural or environmental problems. I'd like to welcome Ganga to Something to Chew On and look forward to hearing more about you personally and about your profession.

Thank you for inviting me. So I was born and raised in a suburb of Colombo, Sri Lanka. And then when I was about to go to university, I had opportunity either to go into Agriculture Science to go into geo sciences. And my mom was leaning towards geosciences, because that means that I could go to university from home, because it was a university, the base we noted before that was in Colombo, and then the Agricultural Sciences, it was in a different city, my dad thought that doing Agricultural Sciences, more like applied sciences would be beneficial. So he encouraged me to actually take opportunity, although it was in a different city and go and do that. And then while I was doing my Bachelor's, third year, we get an opportunity to so we do sort of agriculture courses, starting from Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural Economics, to Soil Science, Food Science, Animal Science, everything pretty much. And then third year, we get a chance to select what area we want to specialize in. And then finally a fourth year we do only that and then we have six months research projects as a bachelor student during doing like 100 on a degree BSC honors degree. So I chose Soil Science, I could have gone and do some other things. Because the prospects job prospects for Soil Science wasn't that great at that time in Sri Lanka, but because my desire for Soil Science, I stick with that and I did my specialization in soil science, and I did a project related to phosphorus chemistry to my final year. And then I got a opportunity to come to US on a Fulbright scholarship to do my Masters. And I came to Kansas State University and did my Masters and stayed at Kansas State University. Same progresses. Dr. Gary Pierzynski and did my PhD in soil chemistry as well. Only difference was when I was doing my master's I did again Phosphorus Chemistry, but I changed my focus and did more like Environmental Chemistry focusing on contaminants and how to handle soil contamination, remediation focus, more specifically, incident stabilization of soil lead, cadmium and zinc. And then I took a I did a postdoctoral fellowship at USBC National Risk Management laboratory at Cincinnati, Ohio. And I went back to my university because I was actually when I was doing my Masters and PhD, I was on study leave as an assistant lecturer at the same university. I did my bachelor's, so I went back and work as a Senior Lecturer over there for two years, and took a position as a research scientist and Adelaide, Australia. So I was at the University of Adelaide and the CSIRO, Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organization for three years before came on to this position. So I actually replaced since Dr. Pierzynski, decided to go to Administration, I was the replacement for his position.

So you shifted when you started your masters, it was you shifted into more of the environmental side and looking at the chemistry of environmental contaminants what led to that shift?

How is it actually it's the same principle a lot of people ask me that, because I focus on soil contamination remediation, that came for my PhD and then when I was in Australia, I was again working on nutrient chemistry, phosphorus and micronutrients. It same principles only saying is, when it comes to nutrient as a soil chemist, I tried to find ways I can maximize nutrient availability to plant and synchronize nutrient availability to replant update, who couldn't have enough is again understanding chemistry of that, and then trying to minimize the bioavailability of it. For example, when I was doing my PhD, I was looking at things in Southeast Kansas and the tri-state mining area, we are seeing wholesale issue concentration was too high. So that seemed was causing phytotoxicity. We cannot get any plants to grow in those mining materials. So I was trying to see how we can minimize zinc bioavailability so that we can get grass growing and the with growing grass minimize contaminated material moving from by being by water. And then when I was in South Australia, I was looking at zinc as a nutrient, because in most of the strain in South Australia has lot of high pH, high Calcareous area soils, so zinc is not available for plan to take up. Most crops are suffering from zinc deficiency. So I was looking at things over there are two ways to maximize things bioavailability so I think it's the same principle, same understanding, just looking at depending on situation, looking at either to increase bioavailability you decrease bioavailability.

And the results of your research get promulgated out through by what way how do they actually reach the people that might benefit by it?

Yeah, so in various ways. So the when we were dealing with so the first project after I moved to K State as a faculty member, it was funded by US EPA, and that's to looking at Urban gardening, sustainable gardening at brownfield sites. So brownfields are actually sometimes not necessarily contaminated, maybe mildly contaminated, but because of perceived contamination is abandoned or underutilized. So looking at those kind of soils, and then how to get those to put into urban gardening or some other use. So in that project, we actually directly dealt with communities. We chose the Brownfield sites to establish our test plots, working with communities, so we had that direct community involvement, as well as other part of it for research, research, technical assistance, kind of programs to we needed to work with communities, we made a lot of the factsheet for people to use, as well as we did lots of workshops, different places. So through workshops and things like that when I was in Australia working on micronutrient and ways to enhance micronutrient availability. We use again, journals that, oh, the magazines actually goes to farmers. So I remember when I receiving sometimes directly phone calls from farmers, actually, just before they are deciding to apply fertilizer, asking me why I think that liquid would work better for their soils compared to granules. And I had that similar experience over here. After one of my PhD students, like most recent papers, Jay Weeks will know Him. And then I got an email from a farmer named Brisca. Asking about, again, the same type of questions. So I think sometimes it's great again, that that person like that was published in the recent paper was published in Science Society of America journal, that's not what actually reads the farmer, based on that case are the key sorry, the the kind of intervene, I think that was what elegent farmers so I think they we do need to be do we should not think that publishing in, although that is our goal, progressional goal to publish in peer reviewed journals. But at the same time, we do need to do those kinds of interviews, those kinds of workshops and things like that, so that information will get to farmers, gardeners, who in uses.

I was just going to ask you were talking about the Brownfields and identifying contaminants in inner cities and those types of things. Did you get to the point to where you were working with actually cleaning those up? How does that happen? How do you clean up an area once it's contaminated that way?

So the then doing brownfields work, we were supposed to actually not just go to any brownfields. The EPA grant required us to actually go to brownfields where communities intend to have decided you can convert that to transform that into an urban garden or a community garden. So we work with those communities to assess thing when we were doing that process, since we cannot actually test everything under the sun to we do some kind of history information, trying to gather industry information, using Sanborn map, talking to neighbors talking to community and then then trying to kind of narrow down what things need to be tested. And we had seven sites within that project. And first site was in Kansas City, Missouri and then the second site was Tacoma, Washington, Seattle, Washington, and then site was Indianapolis, Indiana, one was Pomona, California, and then we had a sighting feeling as well to all those places after talking to them we sometimes we only tested for inorganic contaminants, because we found that the most common contaminants most common contaminant been those brownfields thats lead. Sometimes it was lead and arsenic sometimes it was we thought that cadmium is also another common contaminant, but we did did not find it by contaminated with all three and Indian qualified we found in addition to lead arsenic, we found polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentration to be elevated as well. So, depending on site see what we found were different. And then if it is organic contaminant more and then we try to see what other ways to degrade that enhance degradation of that, but with inorganic contaminants, we were not trying to remove thee they are not degrading they are they are most of these inorganic contaminants are persistent. Only thing we can do is we can look at ways to transform the those into less mobile for more or less bioavailable form. So useful amendments and use other understanding about that particular chemical and that particular soil and treat are try best way to keep it in place. So that it will not move from soil to plant. And in any way. The something like lead is not something easily moving from soil to plant. Even if it's more it actually stays in growth rather than moving from room to shoot. So the understanding how they behave in soil and how they behave in plan, like the uptake and all that we can decide what's the best approach?

And do you set when you go into a site? Do you set specific thresholds that you would consider these sites that ought to be remediated? Or how are those…

So how that works. So we do know that when soil lead concentration, so if you look at EPA, the residential swill lead limit is 400 milligrams per kilogram. But that was determined, we decided, based on 10 micrograms per deciliter of children's blood lead concentration. In 2012, the CDC had a group of scientists looking at all the health sciences looking at all the effects of a bad lead on children health. And the recommendation was that no blood level is safe for children. CDC cannot go, I mean, going forward two micrograms per deciliter is not practical. So they went with this 95th percentile, which was five micrograms per deciliter limit. And currently CDC is in considering to actually bring it down further to three micrograms per deciliter. So, after CDC is the change from 10 to five, actually, EPA did not do any kind of change to the residential soil lead limit. But we all know that based on to whom we talk to me know that this this concentration of soil lead could be 150 200. But again, as a soil scientist, I know that the what really matters is not the total concentration, you could have even 400 to 400 or higher, so lead by the city is not bioavailable, then it might be safer than a soil with 159 milligrams per kilogram of lead. But but but the lead is bioavailable. So I know, I think that what we use is not the total concentration, we look at total concentration because that's what mostly people want to know. But at the same time we make decisions based on bio accessibility. Because bio accessibility is we do have tests, proven tests with animal to animal feeding studies, that we can mimic gastro intestinal dissolution of soil lead, and then determine what's the the amount of lead that can be bio the maximum amount of lead that can be bio accessible to human child or the adult human if they accidentally ingest that soil to other decisions we made based on both?

And are these treatments, radiation treatments that you would apply to the soil? Are they if this were to roll down to the level of the producer? Would it be the gardener or the farmer or the land owner or teller would they be the ones that would be having the responsibility of doing these treatments?

Yeah, so yeah. And then most of the time these soil amendments as is towns are things that province will gardeners use. For example, when it comes to that it's it is phosphorus to all of us use phosphorus as fertilizer and fertilize other garden I mean loans and everything with phosphorus. So, the reason phosphorus is the most effective treatment for to reduce lead bioaccessibility phosphorus can induce formation of lead phosphate and specific group of lead phosphate known as Title Five and that has very little solubility even if it is subject to very acidic summer conditions. So So phosphorus or either depending on soil properties, we may not be directly recommending to use straight fertilizer. It may be that the organic source of phosphorus, organic source of phosphorus that slowly releasing phosphorus and maintaining phosphorus in a high enough level to promote these kinds of transformation and reduced bioaccessibility of lead, because you know that phosphorus has two sides. So these kinds of benefits are they are it's a fertilizer plant with two compete their lifecycle to we need to maintain good, good phosphorus levels. But at the same time, the phosphorus nitrogen ending up in surface water can cause eutrophication. Considering all that some of those sides, if we find that the extractable levels of phosphorus is already high than what we recommended could be slow releasing fertilizers mostly like organic, like, like compost. Did I answer your question?

Yes, you did. Thank you very completely.

I know that you had mentioned the Dr. Jay Weeks a little bit earlier. And I've visited with him in the past, actually, he was one of our hosts for a period of time. And we talked a lot about sequestration of co2 and with global warming and everything we know about co2 in the atmosphere. Can you tell us a bit about how that system works? And is that something that you're working on as well?

Yeah, I work on it. And before I had a PhD student and actually working on entirely that over PhD, and then if we look at why we are interested in a carbon soil carbon sequestration and so it depends on the AVI looked at what the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and what's the carbon dioxide concentration and a carbon concentration in the an organic carbon specifically in the top one meter of soil. And then you see that the top one to one meter of soil contains organic carbon two to three times higher than what we have in the atmosphere. And then simply will do we know that the geologic carbon tools can be much high and then the other marine and environment carbon and can be high, but if you consider why we consider as soil carbon sequestration as a mitigation efforts, the soil is in direct contact with the atmosphere. So soil can be a simple source for carbon. So I do know that the soil can be your thing to the photosynthesis and photosynthesis processes using carbon dioxide and water, when sunlight is there to convert inorganic carbon to organic carbon, and then this organic carbon gets into soil. And then the part of it can be composed and release carbon dioxide back. And at the same time, there can be waste with this carbon this because the organic carbon actually going to be part of what we consider as soil organic carbon or the humors. And then finding ways to keep this carbon in soil longer, longer. We consider the call as carbon sequestration. So the I was interested in like, I'm always interested in understanding basic, like mechanisms. My whole research interest is understanding mechanisms of any processes that I'm interested in. So, we were interested in looking at the temperate soils like Mali soils from that was Dr. Chuck Rice's Long Term field study is actually close to 30 years now. And at the time we sample it, it was over 23 years, and I post on the continuous court. And they had these treatments, different levels of nitrogen fertilizer, and also to two different sources of nitrogen fertilizers. And then looking at the carbon sequestration mechanisms, like how carbon getting sequences, how soil mineralogy can impact that sequestration. And then also we compare that system with a long term field studies about that long, more than 22 years long study from Brazil as well, because soil types are different. So no farm soil that was a Mali soil. And then we consider those soils that are relatively younger. And then when we consider the Brazil that soil goes and oxic souls and that was highly weather and high in iron, aluminum and manganese, oxy hydroxide. So there are mechanisms. When we look at carbon sequestration mechanisms, you could see that more influence from a mineralogy and it doesn't mean that when you go to moleculer levels and looking at that level, even in Mali soil they're both in their contribution from mineralogy. So initial contribution from mineralogical evidence And in both systems, again, you know that the all of us as researchers, we have interest. And then sometimes depending on funding, we move from one to another to at the moment I do not have active projects that looking at carbon sequestration. But I am always interested in that aspect of the potential of soil to the carbon soil carbon sequestration to be mitigation efforts for climate change.

Is this something that takes a little bit of doing to get farmers to buy into the idea of changing their methods to to help enhance co2 sequestration? Is it something where they're going to have to change what they're doing? Or are there current practices that will work well into that?

I think current practices, most of the time. If you think about farmers, they try to do the best they can do to protect their soils. I mean, that doesn't really they, they do not want to do things to harm their soils. So the those both those studies, I mentioned, one in North farm and the one in Brazil, actually both had killed and Northfield system that we compare. So you know that no note here low reduce tail is something that farmers moving towards most farmers, it's hard for us to find feel sometimes that continuously. So the no till practices, adding the residue back into soil, use cover crops, and all sorts of those things that you mean opportunities for farmers to increase, soil carbon levels increase, as well as not just increase temporary but but maintaining good soil carbon levels. That's something farmers actually willing to do, I think, not just you know, having incentives by having an incentive, definitely will help. But you can see the incentive, I actually read recent articles related to getting prairies to enhance carbon sequestration, and Texas and they were talking about how that can work, how the farmers to keep those things or how people to maintain those kind of natural areas, as is goodwill college, because the public company is they are looking for ways to get carbon clean. So maybe they can work with people who are maintaining prairies and contribute into this carbon sequestration, reclaiming carbon so they can work together. So there can be not not just government incentives, there can be like private entities that are willing to work with and do this kind of creating carbon trading. So those kinds of things could work, I think farmers why they would consider doing this because they know that if they can maintain good organic carbon concentration in soil that would enhance microbial activity. So that is promoting nuclear cycling, and then promoting nuclear cycling, meaning that the amount of fertilizer inputs are going to be reduced over time. So there are a lot of positive things that farmers going to gain by doing it. And then this carbon sequestration is actually part of soil aggregation as well, too. If you improve soil aggregation to the then that will improve a lot of other physical properties as well. So the the AI and water movement in soil so I think it's a win situation for farmers. It's something that's going to improve their soils and into their soil productivity in the long run.

Are there parts of the world that have a greater need for this kind of approach than others if we you know, we talk about the Southeast important part of Kansas, but if we look globally, are there areas?

Yeah, I think if we look at like Africa and the other soils like, very deficient in carbon, the end then they may not have that many sources, but they could consider the conservation type of agriculture management practices to preserve carbon in soil and enhance carbon in soils. So yes, the highly weathered soils and then the drier areas, the arid and semi arid climates. If you find less carbon in soil to that will be more beneficial, even more beneficial for those farmers to do those kinds of practices.

So I was wondering back to thinking about contaminants, I was wondering if you're talking about processes to do to make inorganics less bioavailable, I was wondering if there are things that people do to their soil that actually do the reverse that make things worse. You know, that set up the mechanisms set up mechanisms that actually make those inorganics uptake into uptake into the crops more than they would have otherwise.

Yeah, so the we sometimes do it intentionally. So we call it pride extraction. That's a method of phyto remediation. phyto remediation is in general, meaning like using plants to remediate soils, sediments or water, sometimes we intentionally try to remove use plants to remove contaminants from soil, it does work for some contaminants, but not folk, highly mobile contaminants like lead. So for something like lead, it's more effective to try to introduce stabilize it, for them trying to extract it. So the attempt to enhance lead uptake by adding EDT, to the key leading the enhanced lead solubility by acylation and getting plants a carb, but no matter what, since plants are not taking lead, that much what happens when you add something like that to enhance the photo extraction, you would put that I mean, that lead can be subject to maybe moving downward or moving elsewhere to so that could be problematic. So that's why we do need to understand how we can deal with each of these contaminants. And each of those situation like what's the best way to handle it, but the something like arsenic for example, they are raw group of plants, we call that like hyper accumulators, that means they can accumulate these contaminants higher than normal plants would do. And then, so, those kinds of hyper accumulators would allow us to do that clean up, like use plants and grow plants for some time to do the cleanup. But if you do, but unfortunately, that doesn't work that well for most trace elements, contaminants, most trace elements are the zone to soil follow is very strong. So they uptake is very low. And then even if you find a hyper accumulator, you know that the removal is going to be dependent on not only how much they can accumulate in their plant, but also the biomass. So, most hyper accumulators will do their high packing laters meaning that they can have like a high concentration in their tissue, but they are not really a large biomass producers. So, if you do calculations, it can take a long time to do the cleanup, it may take 20-30 or more years to do the cleanup, but still, if you want to do that kind of cleanup, so, that would be the situation where we tried to do enhance availability, so that plants will take up and to your question, if you asked like can we make it more bioavailable, so, it ended up being food crops or something which we do not find? It can happen if we do it without understanding that particular soil. I think it can happen if we try to just do it without understanding the situation of soil. I can give you a example if you look at arsenic, arsenic is something that we are very much concerned about. And you see that people talking about some moss and it came out but Jews or somebody making apples or making rice and things like that. And then one thing I want to tell you that arsenic, lead and all other potentially toxic trace elements, they are naturally present in soil. So there's nothing called like positive lead positive, arsenic positive or negative because it's everywhere in various, you know the concentrations that are not harmful to us in most cases. And then in the air we breathe Again, if what matters is the concentration, is it a ball concentration that's going to harm us. So, if it is not higher than that, then then we are not concerned. So, same thing in waters in water you find these three potentially toxic trace elements in very small quantities. So, consolidation, so, we are concerned if it is a bottom the drinking water who the that motor quality standards. So, if you take arsenic is less bioavailable under oxic conditions. So, that means like the urban gardening Oh, we are the corn no we to any kind of gardening we do the latest soils in the biome because arsenic under that condition arsenic is going to stay as arsenic five and we do know that arsenic five species do chain by soil colloid and then they are by they are not bioavailable, but if you consider rice paddies and that is grown and then soils underwater. So, when soils and the water then the there's less oxygen going in and then the the whatever the oxygen labs can be consumed by microorganisms and then soon after about 10-14 days after the submergence, so it will become in like sub toxic to anoxic, under that as some toxic or non toxic environment those these Robotnik because I am Iron is a good Kevin iron oxide is a good scavenger for arsenic. So, the iron oxides and hydroxides can undergo reductive dissolution, the dissolution actually induced by reduction of irons. So, that these arsenic can really and then actually cool So, this release arsenic in five form can reduce into arsenic three, and then the arsenic retention to soil Polo is less than the arsenic five and even if it's routine, it's not actually retained via stronger the mechanisms. So, they can be they can become easily more bio available and then under under toxic conditions the arsenic availability can be high, but then again soils turning into an anoxic conditions more or less no oxygen under that conditions arsenic can get the sunlight and it can get people to the into sulfides and become a less available. So, so, so, I so, I think we do need to understand what the situations we are dealing with, and then understand the chemistry of soil understand the behavior of that particular contaminant. So, organic or inorganic contaminants of interest, and then then then think about things through that, how we can better manage it better, better manage it,

When you've got a contaminated soil, and you've talked about a few ways of mitigating some of that contaminants being taken up into the plant. Do you have when the soil is taken care of? And you're, you're mulching it? You're adding composted soil on top of that and working it in? Do you have a dilution effect over time there that will help mitigate just total quantities of material that's in there.

Thank you for bringing that back point. That's one thing I forgot to mention before. So, the things about why we sometimes go with those organic sources other than direct fertilizers, if you think about composed to any other organic source, we add in high quantities. So sometimes like 1/3 or one food by volume to offer 15 centimeter soil so and then mix it well. So, the immediate benefit that farmers get from that kind of application is the dilution effect. Sometimes dilution effect can be very high, and depending on the amount you make, and it can be to the 40% of dilution, then you do it that so and then maintaining that not by adding every year, but adding it every three months in every meal. So farmers can maintain that dilution in two years, the adding high quantities of organic matter will that would be the immediate benefit that farmers going to get and then the transforming into less bioavailable forms. Sometimes take time. And if it is a soluble P we are adding, we know that it can be quiet. I mean, it's relatively fast, but again, it depends on wheels. Late availability, because a lead is not available for plan to take off, could be the lead is not available for phosphorus react either. So because of that leads and those reaction can take place, take time. But the immediate benefit of adding something like organic matter would be dilution.

Well, as John said, this is a very, very complicated topic, but it's probably as critical to our food supply as any soil, if the soil quality is not there, the crops are not going to grow appropriately. And so that's just a fascinating area.

If you look at, we are looking at so we were originally going with a FAOW2 standard and those cortex limit, who lead concentration in any type of vegetables, but if the started looking at those by themselves, but at the same time, sometimes you see that these initial numbers coming out of scientifically, there's no base. Unfortunately, those could be completely decided by like toxicology tanpoint. And as some of you have food scientists, so you know that everything in food is not bioavailable, so we have to kind of consider that as well, especially when you are developing these types of standards. So that's a complete subject area that we can talk.

That is that is another complete subject area. And yeah, many times regulations are set, not necessarily based on based on the science that that's needed to set them behind it.

Yes, absolutely. Very intense learning situation. For me, certainly, like, I was probably one of those people that thought that soil was just something that held the plants, you know, physically.

I've learned I've learned with soil scientists, you do not call it dirt do not call it. So,

I was going to say that soil is very important for environmental quality. So the one of the causes I am teaching environmental quality, something that I tell my students this school is you can expect to learn about environmental quality, from the perspective of a soil scientist to how soil can how much may rely on soils, you know, not only to like group plans, and you know, provide that way but and then sometimes our objectives could be like holding a building or some something completely different. But at the same time, a lot of if we look at like these recycling, we expect soil to do lot of things, you know, feel the contaminants, degrade contaminants, and protect, cover groundwater, and then protect cover surface waters, and then with carbon mitigation and other efforts, and then help with global climate change. I think I think there's a lot that we can do,

And much more dynamic system that people appreciate.

Yes, speaks nicely to the global food systems approach towards interdisciplinary research. It touches on so many things and there's so many areas that work into it.

If you have any questions or comments you would like to share check out our website at https://www.k-state.edu/research/global-food/ and drop us an email.
Our music was adapted from Dr. Wayne Goins’s album Chronicles of Carmela. Special thanks to him for providing that to us. Something to Chew On is produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University.

In this episode, we will visit with Dr. Marcellus Caldas, a self-described economic/environmental geographer. Dr. Caldas research focus remains on the analysis of land use and land cover change, environmental processes, spatial patterns, and its effect on policies and governance at different scales. Dr. Marcellus Caldas, is the Assistant Provost, International Collaboration and Educational Programs, Office of International Programs.  

Transcript:

Food Production and Environmental Challenges in the Rain Forests of South America - with Dr. Marcellus Caldas, Assistant Provost, International Collaboration and Educational Programs, Office of International Programs

Trying to see their perspective how they feel about that now what's going on with him and try to see know where the problems come from. It try to work with policymakers to show for instance and that also there is that helping is create much more problem for the be part of the population that they didn't consider.

Something to Chew On is a podcast devoted to the exploration and discussion of Global Food Systems produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. I'm Maureen Olewnik, coordinator of Global Food Systems.

I’m Scott Tanona. I'm a Philosopher of Science.

And I'm Jon Faubion. I'm a Food Scientist.

Hello everyone, and welcome back to the Kansas State University Global Food Systems podcast Something to Chew On. In today's podcast, we will visit with Dr. Marcellus Caldas, a self described economic environmental geographer. Some of Dr. Caldas past research included the study of the cocoa economy, and effects of that economy on the Atlantic Rainforest of Brazil. This work evaluated the attitudes of cocoa farmers and implications on the environment. Dr. Caldas research focus remains on the analysis of land use and land cover change environmental processes, spatial patterns, and its effect on policies and governance at different scales. Dr. Caldas is a Professor of Geography and Geospatial Science. Marcellus carries PhDs in Applied Economics from the College of Agriculture at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, and in geography from Michigan State University. Welcome, Marcellus. And thank you so much for joining us today on this podcast. We're looking forward to learning a lot more about your background and about the work that you do in the food related area. But before we get started down that path, could you give us a little background on yourself? And how you got interested in moving into this kind of activity?

Yeah, good morning everyone. I think my story is not so different from many people that work within the environment was a small boy in the Amazon. So I was born in the Amazon, the Brazilian Amazon, and was our boys. It was a boy scout, I had a trip in the summer of 1968, or 69. So the idea of the trip was to go and learn about the trans Amazon highway, the trans Amazon highway was a federal road that the Brazilian government was building, you know, crossing the Amazon from east to west. The idea was to bring people to the land, and connect with land the people. So in that trip, now, I had chance to see no, what was the Amazon going outside the big city, and see the jungle and see the population that live in the end. So. So in that trip, instead of seeing that the development that they go over there was proposing, now, as a young boy, what I saw was a bunch of destruction, you know big trees, erosion, you know Native American pushing out of their lands, and so on. So that was very touching for me, you know, seeing that type of seeing it wasn't what I was expecting to see. No, I was expect to see wildlife. And I saw by doing that. And when I went to college, I decided to become environment values. But not this sense. But in the sense of this study, you know, I'm an economist by background. I have a PhD in applied economics, by the College of Agriculture at the University of San Paolo. And I have a PhD in geography where I work with GIS remote sensing, and my idea was to learn how to preserve forests conservation for us. Now, that's what I do work with Phil in the US political change. I do environmental studies, and trying to implement and change policy. That's basically some of my background.

As I was reading through in your background, you mentioned that working in the Amazon, you had done work on cocoa plantations or cocoa growing activities in that area. Can you expand a little on what that was about?

Yeah, one of the things that we had done, in fact, wasn't Amazon was that the Atlantic forest was when there was a professor in the College of Agriculture. In one of the university in Brazil, we had a grant from Conservation International, to look at the farmland, his decision of the cocoa farmers. Now, the Atlantic forest is one of the most degraded forests in the world, probably Brazil has now just 4% of that forest, the rest was completely logged the Forest, for globalization, in agriculture, and so on. But the cocoa plantation it's very interesting because they have a production system where they use the shades of the big trees, known to protect the trees, the cocoa trees. And what happened is that Brazil was one of the biggest producers will number one, in terms of cocoa. And the state of Bahia the place that I was working, he was the number one for the country. And cocoa is like any other commodities that are boom bust, and we are going through a very good boom. However, in a 1986 and seven, know the cocoa price went down, at the same time that he sees that which boom to seize, will start to appear in the cocoa farms, and in this state of Bahia. So there was a perfect storm for the farmers. Simple reason, cocoa, the disease wasn't damaged from the Amazon. And nobody could understand how that this is appeared in this stage of my year that was more than 3000 miles for that place. So many tourists appears we were interesting to understand now how the farmers were responding to this crisis. So we got this grant phone Conservation International to interview farmers and try to figure out what they were doing. And what we saw was a big change. No, the cocoa was basically a transition in the state of Bahia, especially in the south part of the state and very conservative area in the farmers that completely changed land use. So we start to see farmers selling farms that they had for more than 100 years now selling to pay the debts that the fees and the price would cause them to them. So we start to see the cutting of the whole plantation, the bigger trees into grass land, in some place, we saw coffee in someplace, we saw a coconut. So it was very interesting to see how they change the perception, you know, they said that they couldn't support know what the trees was doing. They have in the area Research Center that diversity specifically for coco but with we saw the economic deprives the sending could do much to help them so now is different. So after 30 years, we start to see that they get injection of money, they develop new wires that are more resistance to disease and you start to see now the cocoa come back. But what was done was done so they lost many areas of forest that will protect very protected by the cocoa farm for the brokers system. That's what they call their one day clean underneath the big trees plant cacao. So that was the study to understand the formula to use disease, how that was changed. Now, the lands changed in the region.

Is there any resistance amongst any people or groups to the approach that you're using as a work that you're doing? Are you, is it pretty well generally seen as a good thing?

Well, no depends where you are in the country. So if you are in the Atlantic Forest, no, we don't have much forest there. So there are a huge interest in protect that there are endemic animals that are they gold monkey on the Beco lounge or the small monkey with His face is completely, no big the bite is almost a gold. That is another one that's the face is gold and the body is black. So designing them for their so people like when you do this type of work, but you cannot say the same when you go to the Amazon. Now, when you go to the Amazon do this type of work? No, it's you got to make sure that you are well connected with people that work there, especially farmers. No, we don't go in just to start to do your work with contact all these. No Association cooperative is make sure that people understand well, your work. If not, you can get in trouble I'm going to give an example was in 97, I think I was with a professor for Michigan State. And we're looking at we'll try to identify lightning areas and Amazon use remote sensing. So the idea was to go to the field, collect some points, some polygons using GIS, and use that to help us to validate the classification of the image. We got lost, you know, in the jungle going around, and we decided to stop and to get some points put in map to see where we are. Well, we saw that two guys came in a horse with rifles, guns and asked us what we are doing there. So we had to explain what we're doing. And the guy Yes, What's this gringo doing here as to what my colleege it was me? And so, we had to explain it. We have to give a name say well, we work with these. And we know this people say yeah, but okay, but next time, don't don't come to this side. Now, and we can understand when we were driving because there are so many logging roads inside the forest, when we had to drive we saw that this group that actually they were doing illegal logging there. So depends where you are, you are going to see no these type of things happening. So, it's interesting work. But it's a little dangerous if you are not prepared to work with disputes. So that's what I tell my clients that never go to this place alone. No, never go without contact people talk to people, let's do the baseboard first before we can go to the field. Now, if people don't have any idea how much danger is stored in some parts of the Amazon, a lot of gold mining, illegal gold mining, you can no work with could be driving around. And suddenly you get in a place that nobody knew. We have these big people, villages or whatever you want to call. Now we could use all kinds of people there working, logging, mining is kind of dangerous. So

It brings to mind what you recently got a seed grant through the global systems here. And part of the topic is assessing rural perception of Land Management, what you just described is kind of scary. I mean, in there, there are a lot of things. What have you learned there that relate to the work that you're doing here? Or are they just totally different landscapes that really don't overlap with one another.

Yeah, they are totally different landscapes for many reasons, one of the things that we see here. We are in an area that is very well developed now, people are very well informed themselves, the management of the landscape. We are looking at fire Conservation Reserve programs now. So people knows how to manage the fire. What happens he that sometimes the fire gets out of control because of the wind, you know, and that's going to affect the perception or some farmers around say, well, these are going to affect me, I'm going to just know, do this type of things to avoid this by coming to my property. Now they're very, very informative. They are the owners of the land, now going to places in Brazil like the Amazon. There are a lot of public land and people are grabbing land. Now, imagine that Oklahoma and Kansas in the beginning where people would come grab land. That's what happened in the Amazon. That’s what is happening right now. Now people are there is a law in Brazil that say that you use the land for five, five years in one day. You are the owner of the land. So that's kind of thing that people do in the Amazon. People don't want to use to go around and start asking questions about what we're doing. It's kind of dangerous if we go to the middle of the jungle start. It's kind of compared to what you see here. Now, it's a jungle there. And here it's completely developed. Now, if you go to the savanna there in Brazil, in the middle of the country where the agribusiness in general are working, it's completely different. Now, they're gonna treat you the same way. So enforcing the works. Governance works. Not completely like here but works, they not gonna kill you, like in the Amazon. So that's the big difference that I see. No, people don't like to talk about this. But this is the reality. If you look at indicting aiders, they, we had a bunch of kills that will not say, a word, a highlight in the newspaper or the world environmentalists being killed in the Amazon. So, no, I think that there are some places that we can see that it's similar, but places that are completely closed.

I see part of the activities that you head up at K State includes coordinating and collaborating initiatives to do research internationally. Can you explain a little bit what that brings to the state of Kansas? What is the importance of that kind of international collaboration? And, you know, what's the value to the food system within the United States and certainly within the state of Kansas?

Yeah, that's, I think the one of the things that my position we strive to do is to create more opportunities for faculty to work in problems that don't have boundaries. You know, what, let me give you an example. We produce soybeans in the United States, Brazil lost produce soybeans. Now, which kind of problem both countries are facing that could be solved in benefit both countries. So the idea is to develop collaboration help affects develop preparation is that gonna help both countries, we have a disease in soybeans, and in Brazil, that we don't have any United States, or develop a collaboration for them, can help us to stay one step ahead. Now, look at the problem of the wishbone that happened in the state of Bahia, Brazil, if Brazil had been working with orders, now, maybe they wouldn't be suffering what they know suffered, because of the disease. So the idea of this, which kind of collaboration would benefit us and others, of course, there are people's there are some people with more interest in doing or no local regional state work at the international work. But there are also people that would like to do a little bit more international work, because they can no benefit for injection of funds. In some regions, for instance, now we have a lot of interest in helping African countries. So there are funds available now for people that want to work. But we need to know which countries so it's very important to see what are the problems in my office in helping them to learn about that opportunity to that country and connect people. For from that country with people from here in developing this type of proposal that can benefit both countries. That's the idea of the resource.

Would you say that the problems that you're addressing in well, in all this work, are they you think of them as like people problems? Or do you think of them as you know, economic problems or something else?

I think that both I think for instance global warming. So that's a societal problem that we need to face in there are problems that are problems that we created. Now, for instance, a bad manager of your soil in your farm. Now, if you're not aware, if you don't know how to do it, even to just increase the problem. I think that the thing is that separates these problems, what are the problems that we create? What are the problems that is the government that creates? What's the problem that society in general creates, it's look at the case of Brazil. Now, these were what's known big problem of inequality. There are 1% of the population. Very, very rich, and there is a middle class in the middle That's not to big and the majority population is poor. So no its a problem that society creates. So depends on what you are analyzing. And we can separate these problems.

When you look at, like any of these things that you've described, and going back to the cocoa production in Brazil, and there was a disease was one major factor here. Right? So the price in general is another factor, who, for problem like that, how do you think about like the different stakeholders and the like, how do you go about addressing sort of the challenges that you've got? Right? You know, is this work where you're talking in interviewing lots of different people? Are you looking, you know, more at the system's point of view? Where do you intervene? And, you know, what do you do?

Yeah, yeah, that's a good question, what I tried to do I try to connect the different scales, what try to look at the local scale the Farmer, Know, what are the problems he's facing, and try to connect these to a large scale, like a regional scale, or national scale for global scale. Now meaningful, the problems that you face at a larger scale, were sometimes developed at the module, B, a large scale, and it was a national policy that was created to prevent now, some things to happen. And that's affecting different farmers in different ways. So the idea is to review. Now my working to view this farm and trying to see their perspective, how they feel about that now, what's going on with him, and try to see know where the problems come from. It tried to work with policymakers to show for instance, and that also there is that helping is create much more problem for the be part of the population that they didn't consider now, and how to change that or how to create other policies that can benefit the majority of the population, not just the 60 groups. Now, that would be benefit from their policy, and so on. So it's my work that works at the different scales, now try to understand, I do a lot of work for the field. I do fieldwork, interview farmers, lens less people, policymakers in try to understand how this system works, you know, what can be done now to adjust and create policies to benefit society?

How often is it that there are groups of people that have just been entirely overlooked in the policy decisions that are made? And often are you actually finding? Well, look, we know who the stakeholders are, but we just didn't know what they what they wanted. And when we do this fieldwork, we discover new things about them. Are you also pointing out, you know, new pockets of people and stakeholders? And, that if that should have been included in part of the process and weren’t?

Yeah, that's one of the things that's very important doing this type of field work now is to look at groups and think that through and see it? No. I'd like to use some example of Brazil, people can compare now with the United States, and being in the United States now we see now that business the industry, it's very well organized in doing pressure and developing for their own interest. This is a very different thing in South American Latin America in general. Now, some places like Brazil, the agribusiness for instance is very strong business, and they have a very group very well organized compress of the government. But if you look at the other part of the society, like small farmers that they don't have all the support, they leave it for resistance, it just produced to eat now, they don't have this lobby. And many of the policies that are developed now, it's going to focus on one part of the supply chain. Now, general commodities, and forget from the other part, that the people that produce just resistance to survive. Now, and that's one of the things so the idea is to know look at these different agents in the supply chain, and see how these policies are affected by these different agents.

So in many ways the farming system in the US is changed over time, a lot recently, right but but we understand sort of all the parts in some ways and it may be less the case Is that where there's less overall organization? Or like you said the different lobbying partners are not, you know, not as well developed and not as well established? And hasn't everybody? Or they're still missing pieces, though here in the US have voices in the food systems that are just sort of not not being represented? Do you think?

I think they are very well represented. They are not too strong. No, that's the difference for me, they are represented different from Brazil, what they are, some pieces are not represent are not part of the analysis. Here they had part of the nest, although they are not too strong. Now, that's one of the big differences that I see. Now, if you look at, if you ask you, what is the agricultural frontier in the United States? People are gonna tell me, we don't have it. Right. So by saying that we don't have a it we say, Well, we know we are. We are now using everything that we have, we know everything that's going on, and so on. But if you look at countries like Brazil, or countries in Africa, where the agricultural frontier is to moving now, there are a bunch of piece that you are learning when you move to these frontiers. Now, sometimes people know, have made a mistake in my perception say, well, but we don't have any agricultural frontieres anymore. No, we do know there are places in the Amazon known place in Africa that nobody's living there just now in case of Brazil, some indigenous people there. So from Brazil we are still moving. And there are a bunch of things that we we don't understand how that works. Let me give you an example here. Now that I see, for instance, if you look at scientific papers, no research has been done in the last nine years about Linda COVID changed Amazon. The you're going to see that people blame the agribusiness for what's going on in terms of deforestation far so well, but when you look at how they interpret ag business, in fact, they are talking about large farmers. No data classify activities by the type of the crop is the commodity by the size of the farm, by how intense now is the use of inputs that and to facilitate, know the analysis, they call agribusiness. However, know the classical definition of agribusiness, is the whole agents. Reform gate, the production to the tables for there. I like to say from the fuel to the fork, but it's not there to this issue that they apply when they're in why and what's missing there. Now all those so far, they cannot capture these peak definition was the organisms from pre farm gate to post farm gate. And we always consider agribusiness equation variables modeling. So but in fact, it's very endogenous because no in frontier areas, when do I buy a chainsaw? No, when do I buy seeds to put grass, the agribusiness, they're working for you and how can you comment for that in the modeling. So there are a lot of things that we are trying to understand now in this process of development, that here we are marching now informed because these are happening now. 1800 1900s. Now, if this happened and is still happening now.

Can you give us any specific specifics on the impact that you have had directly on policy and governance related to these to these activities? I may have missed something that you said prior to but are there any are there any specific detail or specific activities that you point to that were impacted?

Yeah, I think that as a professor, one of the my main goals was to call attention for problems now helping advance the leader at work in my field that led us when the COVID change or land use science. I think that the leader of land use science talks a lot about drivers of political change. And one of our demands that we had now I don't, it's not just me. But the group that I have been worked with for many years. It was trying to show new drivers offline for a change that people can. We didn't have a leader to. For instance, I have a colleague and co author for him one paper that talks about to contention, let to COVID change. No. And before nobody can understand what what was contention when COVID change and the idea was to show that fight for land No, in the Amazon was leading to deforestation. And one of these The was a consequence of the Brazilian law. No, the Constitution that was not pay attention for this details. Let me give you an example of they're now in the in the presidency of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, he was a leftist president in Brazil, he was supporting social movements organization for land reforms. And these organizations, they were in occupying large profits. In many parts of the country, especially in the Amazon. The Amazon, we had large farmers, when they say large farmers the big they are 30,000 hectares 60,000 acres. And it's very difficult to monitor them on the field, a large property like there. So search movement organization where we occupy these lands now and try to force the government to appropriate the property and transform the property in small farm for them. So we start to look at satellite image, and we start to see different patterns in the landscape now and we'd like to grant for our National Science Foundation, we get some grants or get together and delete scam. Now, see how those lender forms settlements are affect Linda COVID change. One of the things that we learned with this proposal was that because of this law, that say that if you work in land for five years in a day, now you get the right to the land, and the government has the ability to this is appropriate, your land in give to others, we start to see that these movements they occupy, know this part of the land, these old properties properties, large profit, and they're the own it to protect the land. They will create militias. Now to monitor the land. So we start to see a lot of crime in some locations and the Amazon. At the same time we start to see a lot of deforestation. Well, people ask, How come the deforestation, the land reform and they create a encampments inside the forest to produce foods force of resistance, and the owner of the property, because a lot of the propets now are for land speculation. When they saw that they would lose the land. What they did was to occupy the land, cleaned the land for the grassland and wait for the ground to disappropriate and pay the value of all the infrastructure that he developed on the farms that had developed in the land. So with that, we start to see this contention now be a factor in political change. So that's one of the big advances. You know, I'm showing that the way there is contention can lead to clinical change in the Amazon. Another one and was separate know, this type of movement for spontaneous settlements. Let me give an idea what that means. There are two types of settlements for land reform in the Amazon one that is a consequence of social movement organization, they occupy the land. So Ricky, I'm usually turned off by the land, because that's the perception off of the land, the less people that want the land, they finally, but if you ask the owner of the farm, they say no, they are not occupied. They are invading my property. So it's a very interesting, you know, definitions that you need to work on. Talk to the people. In the case of the Amazon when the Brazilian government was opening the trans Amazon highway, bring people without land, to learn to talk people what they did was to develop settlements. Now in the 1970s. Now for these people they gave, they're gonna gave 100 hectares now, for families 300 hectares to 500, for people that want to create the business in develope it even more, no more advanced agriculture. Well, after four years, the kids of that family that moved to the Amazon, they became adults, they start to look for them, or land to create the farm on the acre bears. Now, this is a small piece of land, to be honest in the Amazon for a family, especially because of the soil that's nice roared and so on. So this perspective moves deeper in the forest to create their own settlements. Now, no social movement organization or behind your just little, what they call the life cycle of the household, they start to open trails and the forest, mark their own land, and use for five years after they have enough people, you know, around them, they decide to go to the ground, say, hey, we have this therapy for living here. We're living here for 10-15 years. So we need this for you need to legalize need to take off the land so we can get credit. You know, and so to improve the farm is completely different. The similarities in terms of the deforestation that they did in the air on the land was the forest like in this social movement organization. So now the governor didn't know that. And we have to show the data, Turing's talk to policymakers to see now how they can help this group for no increase the deforestation. So this is one of the consequences of the work.

What are the different ways that you can make your research and the results aware? I know as a faculty person I, you know, published in scholarly journals, are there additional ways that you need to get that information out to different groups?

Yeah, yeah, I wonder you're working places like that. No real need to make sure that to have a broad impact? No, the idea is to prepare the information, not just the cost for us, but also for the farmers development workshops, develope talks, now where you're going to educate them about the problems that they face policy makers the case of Brazil, no, they are in Brasilia, the capital or in the capital city in the state. Now and we have connections, we need to you need to develop this connection to people so that you can present reports you can present, make your case, to show why these need to change. Sometimes we need to work off nouns for known nongovernmental organization to present report then because they have the larger genes and so on. So let's think there are many different ways to do that depends on what you know, if you want to create too much, no. First, sometimes going to the newspaper is a good one. Just want to call it data flows. Sometimes you just want to work with for the policymakers directly now in this state, and show them the importance of that let them fight for that thing for you. Now, depends on what you are looking for. How important is that thing, no perspective for that side. In particular. I'm what the most important thing is, I promise you, it's not to be afraid to show what you are doing, how important that for society.

Great, thanks.

The work you're doing with Dr. Joslin out of out of geography and Dr. Bergtold out of Ag Econ on the title of this is “Agricultural Food Production and Conservation Reserve Programs in the Context of Wildfire”. Can you explain a bit about that particular project? And if there are things that you've just discussed that tie into this or how does this project play out in the overall perception of what you're working on today?

Yeah, that's a good question. You we look at the perceptual of farmers for a while, you know, try to understand how they perceive the danger of fire in their property, how that can affect food system. And values, norms, beliefs are very important ways to look at these now how much I value no conservation my profit. Now these thought to that is very difficult. Because we it's the way health measure is this for a modeler How to measure these things into models. And that's the most important thing that they're trying to figure out how to look at the various how to look at perception. How to look at normals how these is important for a farmer? No, that's producing to make money. No, that's, that's awesome. He in the West, now we start to see people associate in some location, well fires to conservation. Where are these, these, this guy was responsible for this big fire, he doesn't take care of this E CRP. And there why I don't have any here, no, in my profits, because I don't want to take the risk of no fire that come to my property, you know, it this. That's one of the things that I think that my work has do that's components, trying to understand, at the same time, try to develop known ways to create policy, understand how to influential policymakers for, you know, for change in that thing. So it is a work that is still in the beginning, we had the first data collection, but because of the COVID. Now, we couldn't move much, because some students tabulate the data for us. And they had to ask was, when you finished the collection of the data? No, it was in March of this year. And we know it is rolling, going back to that is to is that create modular proposal to submit for some fund agents to try to understand the influence of fire in the perceptions of the farmers and land use of us.

Yes, I recall the I don't know if this is what prompted this particular study. But there was just an absolutely devastating fire wildfire in the southern portion of Kansas.

Yeah, not just in Kansas, we know, after we start to look at these, we start to see no immediate differential location that goes from Nebraska, all the way down to Texas. So wildfires, so fire that became wildfires, and sometime we know no lack of management, no. And all they do is try to figure out the perception of the farms, how this is going to affect for CRPS in the United States, into effects conservation and so on. Yeah, I think that's, it's interesting and would be great maybe in the future to have, instead just one, but another one speaker, with a little more expertise in the West to do a comparison. Like I am not an expert in the United States, my work is in land use land cover change in Latin America, and tropical countries. You know, and it's sometimes difficult to do the comparison with the United States because my field now, but I see that's important is the environment economist, because that's where no changes that are occurring, the hands of no natural resources. So if we look at Brazil 4% of the GDP in Brazil, come for the agriculture sector. Now, the agriculture sector since 2008, now inject $350 billion in the Brazilian economy. So you know, it's 10% of the labor force was on that field. And because I was born there, now, I have interest to understand this process ologies affect the use of resources. Especially, if you look at climate change, how these change can affect society in general. So in maybe another person from the West will have a different perspective. Now I look at a the company compatible. Now inside production, like US are the biggest oil producer. And Brazil is the second one and they compete but there are the other thing is that they complement each other so that we wouldn't be making the maybe it is a little bit more interesting for the larger means.

Yeah, it'd be interesting sometime.

So it was a pleasure to talk to you guys and I hope that I have answered your questions.

You have!

My insight, I hope it is interesting for people. Learn a little bit more about what I do and why it is important, my perspective.

If you have any questions or comments you would like to share check out our website at https://www.k-state.edu/research/global-food/ and drop us an email.
Our music was adapted from Dr. Wayne Goins’s album Chronicles of Carmela. Special thanks to him for providing that to us. Something to Chew On is produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University.

In this episode, we discuss the highly dynamic area of food safety as it pertains to food processors, regulators, and technology providers. Dr. Randall Phebus’ area of study focuses on improving food quality and safety through laboratory and processing-based research. He also specializes in food microbiology as it relates to food safety, food biosecurity and defense and public health. Additionally, Dr. Phebus works with undergraduate and graduate students, helping to provide the knowledge needed for the next generation of food-safety experts.

Transcript:

At the Intersection of Industry and Academia – Food safety, interdisciplinary research and technology integration, with Dr. Randall Phebus, professor in animal science and industry at Kansas State University

This is really exciting to me. You know, it's kind of opening up a new era of integrated food safety and a lot of it is based on machine learning and artificial intelligence and food safety culture developments.

Something to Chew On is a podcast devoted to the exploration and discussion of Global Food Systems produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. I'm Maureen Olewnik, coordinator of Global Food Systems.

And I'm Jon Faubion. I'm a food scientist.

Hello everybody, and welcome back to the K State Global Food Systems podcast something to chew on. The food we eat comes to us from a variety of sources, some through a complex international food chain, and some from our local farmers. Regardless of the source, the safety of that food is paramount in protecting the well being of you, your family, your friends, or your customers. In this podcast, we speak with Dr. Randall Phoebus. Professor in the Department of Animal Science and Industry here at K State. Randy specializes in food safety education research, where his teaching and study spans most food categories. He works closely with food processors, regulators and technology providers across the country focusing on food safety process validation. Randy's research has taken him from the biosecurity Research Institute at K State where to scale food safety studies have been carried out on beef processing, to the study of bakery products in proving that the oven is an effective microbiological kill step. Well, thank you so much for agreeing to do this. I've been wanting to get you on here for a while. And we've finally gotten around to doing it. And looking forward to the discussion. Welcome, Randy.

It's great to be with you guys. Today.

I've had the opportunity of working with Randy for many, many years. Your focus is on food safety, and certainly you're known around the world for a lot of the work that you've done in that area. We'll look forward to learning more about the research and understanding where your focus is and how that information has been used. But I'd like to start out with getting a little bit of background on you, who you are and what got you interested got you started in the area of food safety of microbiology and all of the things that go along with that.

Well, I'll tell you what, that they answer that it goes way back. My family. I'm from a little town in Tennessee called Waverly and my father and mother had been in the grocery business since before I was born, which was before 1968. We'll leave it at that. And so, you know, I grew up in the retail side of the food industry with my parents working at the unknown in the grocery store. And all through school and even college, I worked and supported that family business. But during that time, I also had a very keen interest. I have a lot of young folks pursuing a degree in veterinary medicine. And that's what I went to the University of Tennessee to study. And after I got my undergraduate degree in animal sciences, their University of Tennessee, and with discussion with some of the close friends in the veterinary field that I worked with, I made the decision that really wasn't what I wanted to do and just pure fortune, I was able to connect with a actually a Kansan, Dr. Jim Riemann, who was a meat scientist, specialist, that professor there at the University of Tennessee, and he convinced me in one meeting, basically that food science, and particularly food safety, which is my area would kind of be my calling in. So I was somewhat familiar with it just from my family heritage, but I really got into the food science and got my master's degree there at University of Tennessee and then state owned for PhD in food safety, which I got in December of 1992. And I actually came to K State and began my assistant professor position here and food safety and in the Animal Science and Industry department a month before I got my degree, my PhD degree actually. So I was here in November of 92. And although I've had numerous opportunities to go to industry or even to go back to my home university over the years, I have chosen to stay at K State. And I think pretty much I'm going to complete my long career here at K State. So I'm in my 28th year as being a professor of food safety. And it's been a really dynamic ride, I guess we would say, to participate and watch how food safety has evolved and progressed across the globe, actually, in this last three decades is phenomenal. But then to look at where we are today, and look like we're going to be doing in the future, relative to public health and food safety, I think, I think the next decade is just going to be off the charts and in terms of what we have to do and can do to improve public health and food safety. So here at K State, yes, I'm on a 70% of research appointment. But I also, my 30% teaching appointment is just as exciting to me, where I'm mostly interacting with undergraduates, I teach the Introduction to Food Science course here, with so I'm the person who gets the students coming into the food science program on their very first year. So I try to instill enthusiasm and excitement in those students and really help them get off to a good start in our food science program through that course.

And you do that really well.

Well, thank you, Jon, I appreciate that.

I'll step back and ask kind of a global question on where you are on the work that you're doing these days. But what do you think are some of the most critical food safety issues in the food supply chain today?

Well, you know, we always in food safety, we're always focused on those pathogens that continue over the last several years, could be 100 years, causing us grief, things like salmonella, and E. coli, Listeria, they're not going away, we've got data showing that some in some cases, they're expanding. So that is still the big focus, I guess, just from pure food safety. But as we sit back and watch what's happened, just you know, over the last four months, COVID it's not per se a food safety issue, or we don't think it is at this time. But you never know what's going to come down the pike. I mean, today, you're working with salmonella. Tomorrow, you need to convert and work with a virus, you never know what's going to be on the agenda, you know, even the next day, but particularly in the next couple of years out. And to me, that's an exciting, you have to be adaptable and flexible and nimble to make sure that you can, you know, address what is, you know, the real focus point of any particular time and food safety. But looking ahead, I really think what's going to be exciting going forward and in hopefully we can even talk about that is we are integrating other technologies at a very rapid rate into our food safety, traditional type food safety programs. So here I'm talking about machine learning and blockchain and artificial intelligence and all of these things that us microbiologists really didn't think much about in the past. We are now coming up with great ways, probably just scratching the surface to make very good advancements that probably weren't thought about 10 years ago in terms of public health. So that's kind of what drives me in terms of excitement getting up every day is Yeah, and I know a lot about salmonella. I don't know much about blockchain. But I do know that I'm going to get left in the dust if I don't learn, because it's going to happen. It is happening right now. So hopefully that answers your question. But you know, you never know today, it's the integrated dynamic aspects of things that, you know, we look at things like nanomaterials, and they're using the food system. Well, they have so many implications, whether it's food safety, or nutrition, or personal safety of the people handling them. And so you can't just be any kind of one type of a scientist that anymore, you get to kind of span or cross disciplines, which to me, you know, I'm one of these people who's kind of like a sponge when it comes to wanting to get new knowledge every day. And whether that's in my field or outside of my field. That's what excites me.

Is there an issue a potential problem that you think that academic scientists or industrial food science are missing? That are they're ignoring or they're not wanting to face? I mean, are we kidding ourselves, in some cases, are just ignorant?

Well, you know, that's probably always going to be the case, try to take the optimistic approach to most things. We've got all the hurdles that are always there in terms, particularly in academia, of finding out and learning who's doing what, whether it's on campus or out in the industry or in another country, it doesn't matter, but breaking down those silos and those information barriers. That to me is where we are we continue to have difficulty even as much as we try to go interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary in our approaches to solving problems. I think we're making progress. But we still have a lot to do there. And, you know, that's one of the things that's always even before Maureen came to campus was exciting to me about our Global Food Systems Program is that's the goal, you know, is to get people out of their box and to get them talking across disciplines. So that we can bring new tools or new remedies to the table in an applied way, you know, not just dream up, but actually get them to work.

Do you think the university and this is a loaded question? So are there roadblocks that the university has to that interaction, or particularly to that interaction that might drive grant or contract? Reception to the faculty?

Well, that's kind of a difficult question and ganas guy even thought so much about it as a focused thought process. But you know, just being here so long I, Jon, you're one of the few people been here longer than me, I think. So you kind of pick up on what some of those barriers are to make this happen. And yes, we have differences in ways we approach things or rules and whatnot, across different colleges. Or if we're working at, for instance, the Biosecurity Research Institute, which is where I do a lot of my work. Sometimes I, you know, I value that facility like crazy, because I can do work that nobody else in the world can do at scale and that facility, including things like COVID, but you know, some of the barriers to getting in there and doing work efficiently and making it you know, there's not enough hours in the day to do all the paperwork and the IBC approvals and the IRB approvals in the biosafety training, I just think all of those things are important that we need to find ways to maximize the efficiency and take out some redundancy.

Yeah, and I think intellectual property has become an important factor or in some cases, almost a holy grail. And that certainly slows the process down in getting that resolved, if in fact, we do get it can get resolved between an industry funder and a university, doer or recipient.

All of that intellectual property and everything. And, you know, really, the root of all of that discussion is our budgets, you know, we continue to have budget issues, they are increasing as we were on the phone here. But to me, a lot of what I just went through in that list, for instance, training, I got a big staff, lab staff, and to have them trained and medically cleared through Via Christi here in town. And some trainings, we've probably got 20 modules, we have to go through each person each year. And I have to pay for that. And really, you know, there's not many budgets that you can cover all of that with not, you know, not even to mention the managing of all of that. So, right. I've always been looking, you know, just outside of the scope of science in my research program, but how can I do things more efficiently so that I'm not trying to do the paperwork as much as I am doing the pipetting. And in spreading plates and generating data? That's what my passion is, you know, right.

Randy, you were a recipient of a pretty major grant over the last couple of years. Can you talk a bit about that? You mentioned BRI, and the capabilities that you have there, and I think that grant opportunity took you into the facility. Can you give us a bit of background on what that was? And maybe some of the outcomes?

Absolutely. You know, even in my career that that has been a defining grant, defining program, that we got back in? Well, we submitted it in 2011. And were awarded the grant in 2012, through the US Department of Agriculture's NIFA program, and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. And we were the recipient of what's called a cap grant, which is Coordinated Agricultural Projects grant. And that grant was $25 million over a five year duration. And it was multi institutional. I think we ended up with 17 Different institutions and two or three different agencies, government agencies working under that grant, there was five of us that managed it on a daily basis. The grant with to no cost extensions turned into a seven year effort. And K State was extraordinarily important in the overall $25 million grant we brought about nine in a little over 9 million to K State directly of the funding, which we were by far the largest recipient, recipient of the subcontract now that grant and it was focused on understanding and controlling ShiGa toxigenic E Coli across the entire beef system. So here we're talking about counting Production, Water and Environmental Management, beef processing, particularly, and then all of the things that happen as far as training the next generation of food safety specialist and doing teacher education in our K through 12. So it spanned everything you can imagine, for I'll tell you what I was tired at the end of it, it just ended in December of this past year. But to see what we accomplished in terms of working with the industry, it wasn't just us academics, even the beef industry was majorly involved letting us work in their facilities, helping us teach serving on advisory boards, and it was just a very big public private partnership effort. And, you know, we gained an understanding through all of this at a level that probably wouldn't have happened with your normal granting process of say, you know, a couple 100,000 to this project, and to that project, to be able to pull all that government funding together, pull the team together and make them work together toward defined goals really was efficient, I don't think you're going to see any more of the cap grants at the level of 25 million per project anymore, they've indicated that's probably not going to happen. But the concept of getting people, you know, interdisciplinary type people working together toward a common set of objectives, really did work. And so right now, you know, we've published manuscript and abandon manuscripts, and probably 100 grad students are out there working in the industry out of the project. So I think, you know, over the years, you're going to see substantial evidence of the importance in the work output that that grant generated for food safety, particularly the safety in this country. That's incredibly incredible.

You know, I think that the everyday listener knows about E coli. But the other half of that name of that bug is probably unfamiliar to you guys. Why is it? Why is that a big deal?

Well, that's a great point. Everybody in school hears about E coli. It's on the news all the time. And it is generally a, you know, very beneficial, required healthy organism for our GI tract. It's the most common organism in our GI tract, but there is a subset of E coli that is what we refer to as Shiga toxigenic e coli. That means they produce a toxin that's similar to the toxin Shigella dysenteriae. A produces that's the organism that causes dysentery all around the world. And it's extremely potent, can be extremely deadly knocks out your kidneys, and particularly in young adolescent type people, causes hemolytic uremic syndrome and bloody diarrhea. We also refer to this group or not getting into much science here, but we call them Entero Hema Rages, which means that they produce bloody diarrhea. So it's a major issue. And it's been particularly related to the beef industry for quite some time now since about 1992. When we had the Jack in the Box outbreak and kind of made its rise to fame during that time. Even during that time K State was very in my group and was extremely focused on controlling chicken toxigenic E Coli worked with Cargill and Freekeh, Skandia. And we developed here at K State, the steam pasteurization process, where a very large percentage of the US beef processors adopted and installed these big steam cabinets for major manufacturing, food safety in the beef industry. I remember that. Yeah, that organism, you know, continues to cause problems. We talked about it in beef, but as far as manure and water runoff from feedlots and dust and things like that, we have problems with fresh produce, whether it's leafy greens or sprouts or whatever it might be that organism, you know, crosses several different food commodities, we've had problems with it in wheat, which is then transferred to raw flour coming out of your, your area, Jon. And that's one area that I'm working on right now is working with the industry to develop interventions to kill or control, she can talk to unique e coli and salmonella in flour in baked goods. So you know, you can't just focus on one commodity these organisms span the gamut basically melons, and peppers and spices and all kinds of things.

Yeah, we've certainly seen recalls and all of those areas over the years based on those organism organisms. Yep.

And I might add that it's not just human food, you know, we're doing The same scientific research validation projects we call them for pet foods. And pet foods now under the Food Safety Modernization Act are basically regulated to the same standards as human foods. And so they'd have to have those validated processes in place, which is kind of my specialty is validating commercial manufacturing processes for their ability to control these organisms. So we've been doing almost as much pet food work as we have been human food work here at K State for the last few years.

It's a huge business that a lot of people don't know anything about.

Well, that's true. And you know, here in Kansas, you know, we have all of the agriculture and the meat processing. So that means we have a lot of byproducts that go into the pet foods. Yeah, so if you look at the pet food industry, here in Kansas, and Missouri, especially, we are probably the biggest in the nation. So it is a huge issue for our state.

Manhattan was chosen several years ago, as the new home for the National bio and agro defense facility with the M bath is what we call it, will there be an intersection with the kinds of work you're doing? And that facility? That's not I know, directly associated with the university, but it certainly physically directly associated with university and very, very close to the other laboratories you've worked in? What kind of communication and overlap Do you see with that facility once it's completed?

Well, I think it's going to be a tremendous positive impact on our community in our region, not just our community, but our region, but especially Kansas State University, because what's really going to happen, I think, is we're going to have a lot of opportunities for scientists, particularly the vet animal, you know, oriented type scientists, to work with the NBAF government scientists. And I really think it will spurn or found a lot of innovation. And, particularly, you know, like, for me, I do a lot of applied research, which means I'm taking technologies, maybe they were already developed by the technology industry, but they need to be either adapted or validated for the food industry. And so I take those, and I'm not necessarily developing the technology, I am proving it, the proving its effectiveness in a lot of times, that's either done here at Call Hall, or over in the BRI. So that's applied research, but I think NBAF will help with a lot of basic research interactions where, you know, we're understanding the molecular side of things or generating physiological responses to vaccines and things like that. And you know, that'll strengthen both the government program and the case they program us working together. In terms of food manufacturing, food processing, I don't think there's a major connection there, per se that you immediately see, I guess, it because it's mostly animal health, and for an animal disease control type focus, if we take COVID as an example, you know, they they invest in DOD and all them understand that that is a threat to our national security. And they are interested in helping in whether that turns whether COVID There turns out to be a food safety risk or impacts the food chain or whatever else, it has something to do with massive security. We do have right now in existence as NBAF is being built. There are some transition funds that the government has provided to kind of foster the work in the interconnection with K State as that building is being built. I see that as being really big because it helps us leverage additional funding. When we go after other you know, government funds. For instance, a group of it's just submitted a USDA NIFA grant, we're waiting to hear back from controlling COVID in meat and poultry processing. Well, you know, the NBAF transition fund was very valuable in saying, you know, we can leverage this amount of money towards your grant, if you get it to improve what you do, you know, to get more out of the government funding. So that's kind of where we, I hate to say play the game, but it's play the process of pulling money together opportunities and resources together from across different groups, so that we can do better, more complex, more integrated projects, and do them quickly and get data out there. Obviously, we need to know how to control COVID and meat and poultry processing where it's such an issue right now.

Let me let me just skip back. You use the term validation or when to validate a process. What does that mean? In the real world? 

In the real world? It's actually a process that's mandated it began back in 1994 when HACCP by Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points was mandated for producing or manufacturing a meat and poultry products, which is a science based system where you actually have to understand your process and demonstrate that it is capable of controlling whatever food safety hazard is related to your product. And then there's a kind of a connected term called verification. So you got validation, which is scientifically proving the capability of a process. And then verification means that on an ongoing basis, you are proving that your system is working, the way it was validated, so they go hand in hand, you know, so half up was mostly for seafood and meat and poultry. But now with the Food Safety Modernization Act, it basically brings that same risk based scientifically based mindset to preventive controls. That hasn't been. So now we're basically doing that approach across all of the food categories. And so validation means specifically that I go in, and I will, under our bio containment Facilities and Operations, I will actually inoculate the food product with the organism of interest. And then I will apply whatever technology we're interested in, in quantify the impacts of that in terms of reducing the level of that organism, generally, we try to depending on what part of the process where if it's an animal harvest situation like a carcass wash, we would like to see two to three logs, which would be 99.9% reduction of what we put on there. As far as reducing that particular pathogen. If we're doing maybe sub primals, like loins or roast, which wouldn't have very much own it, by the time it gets to that point, if we can show one log reduction, that's a major advance that would be 90% reduction. So again, that kind of tells you it's not just one point in the process that we try to control this, it's at multiple points and kind of have an additive effect of microbial protection throughout the whole process. And you know, that whole process includes restaurants and consumers, you know, they're just as reported in the food safety chain as, as the manufacturers are. So that's kind of how we operate is looking at the systemic reduction that we can get when we mimic a full production process. And not universities can do that. But with our BRI facility, we can follow all the way from a live animal through harvest, through fabrication through manufacturing of hotdogs, and hook it all together under one roof.

Excellent. If I remember, HACCP, it grew originally out of the US space program, I think,, yeah, that's correct.

That was it was actually invented by the Pillsbury company, back in the early days of NASA to ensure that none of the food that the astronauts would be consuming would make them sick. I teach this in my intro to food science course. And I try to keep people laughing a little bit. But can you imagine being in your spacesuit and having diarrhea or throwing up, you know, that would be kind of a math, it would be deadly? And so perhaps up was, its predictive management, basically, you are anticipating what could happen, and then instituting controls to make sure it doesn't happen?

Significant difference in approach to what a lot of people think, yeah.

You talked about the criticality of interdisciplinary research and, you know, the, need to understand things that are outside of your current area of expertise. And you've also talked about and providing some basic research in some of these areas. We've got several departments on campus that really just focus on basic research, you know, whether it's physics or biology or chemistry or some of these, how do you see these groups? How do you see the intersection between interdisciplinary and the fundamental sciences on campus and the need for that kind of interaction from the basic research perspective?

Well, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. And Maureen is the manager of our Global Food Systems Program, I'm looking for you to make that happen. A lot of the technologies that we are dealing with in food safety today, particularly the what we call intervention technologies, those like carcass washing or cooking or whatever else. The way the industry and consumer preferences are everything's going to minimal processing or clean labels where you don't use preservatives or chemicals, ingredients in the product. And yeah, that may appease people who are looking for all natural and things like that. But, you know, from a scientific standpoint, it can cause challenges in terms of food safety, and shelf life and food quality. And so, as we Look to develop these technologies, for instance, high pressure technology, which just applies, you know, high 80 psi 80,000 Psi to per square centimeter to a product, it kills the organism, you know, I need someone like in our physics department or in our engineering department to figure out how to make that technology work in a high paced food production scenario. So, you know, that's where we team up and I heard some other podcasts that you've done. And just knowing who is on campus, doing what, or even who has an interest in doing something is where our Global Food Systems program can really help. You know, I just found out and we actually was able to get an internal grant recently, um, controlling organisms in wheat. And a part of that grant was rapid detection of the organism based on using these extremely one atom thin layers of graphene. Well, until we had the Global Food Systems program, I really didn't know we had someone on campus, looking at that, you know, and so we were able to hook up and get a seed grant. And as soon as we get our labs open back up this week, we're going to be, you know, addressing that. So to make the answer a little bit shorter is we need the engineering we need the basic sciences mathematicians, the IT people, big data people to partner up with us microbiologist and, you know, predictive models, people and actually pull it together and address the food system, not say the automobile system, you know, that sort of thing. Can I just point one thing out that happened this week that I think it's going to be really important for the future of food safety in the US and probably the world. But starting here in the US, as the Food and Drug Administration just released their what they call blueprint, that the title is the New Era of Smarter Food Safety, it's a blueprint that the FDA is going to follow, that really takes us into the next decade of food safety. In particular, they point out four pillars of things that they're going to address, but it basically comes down to advancing technologies, managing things that we haven't managed before, to any degree, which is the food supply chain, in looking at how we document and digitize the food supply chain, so that instead of doing a trace back because of an illness, that's going to take, you know, three months, we can do it in three minutes, based on big data and blockchain technology. And then, a piece of that is food safety culture, you know, we can have the world's most wonderful technologies in place. But if we have a cook, or a person working on the processing line, that when the supervisor is not looking they don't they cut corners, then we're always going to be at risk. And so developing a culture where that doesn't happen, is part of it. And, you know, this is coming out of the FDA, but one of my very close friends over many years, Mr. Frankie honest, as the deputy director of the Food and Drug Administration, he was formerly at Walmart, and before that, at Walt Disney World, running their food safety programs. And this is really exciting to me, you know, it's kind of opening up a new era of integrated food safety, and a lot of it is based on machine learning and artificial intelligence and food safety, culture development. So, you know, what we're doing here at K State is the reason I get so excited is right in line with what the FDA blueprint is calling for. And as long as we, you know, continue to develop that and formalize it and get more people involved with it, including more students, then we're going to be leading the way I think you're in a state or one of the institutions that leads the way.

I listened to Frank Yiannas's presentation at the virtual IFT meeting. He certainly covered exactly the topics that you've that you that you mentioned. And he's been trying, he's been working on those topics for some years, I think even before he got to FDA. So it's interesting to see how some of that is starting to play in and interestingly enough, the last blockchain series that I attended at K State was in the business department. So again, the interdisciplinary approach to things is critical and connecting, connecting you all and getting those discussions going along is going to be a fun, fun challenge over the next years, but I there's a lot to be done.

I just really appreciate you guys doing these podcasts and getting our messages out and, you know, instilling some interest in the public, whether it's our students or what other people around the country listening to our podcasts, so I encourage you to keep it up.

If you have any questions or comments you would like to share check out our website at https://www.k-state.edu/research/global-food/ and drop us an email.

Our music was adapted from Dr. Wayne Goins’s album Chronicles of Carmela. Special thanks to him for providing that to us. Something to Chew On is produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. 

In this episode, hosts talk with Dr. Gordon Smith, professor in the Department of Grain Science and Industry and head of the International Grains Program Institute at Kansas State University.  Professor Smith has worked in food processing areas as diverse as hot dogs, breakfast sandwiches and baked goods. Through his passion for understanding the science behind food, supporting research and providing guidance to the next generation of scientists, Smith is focused on helping to solve critical challenges in food production and food safety.  

Transcript:

Perspectives On Food Chemistry - the importance of understanding the fundamental and applied science of food, with Dr. Gordon Smith, professor in grain science and industry, head and IGP Institute Director

The results can be much, much less positive and much less impactful to the society that we live in.

Yeah there can be a lot of thought roadblocks there. Yeah. So how often do you think these things work? Quite well, right. So where you've got the right personality. Together, I think most of the people were searching out. And most of the departments who look for these partnerships sort of know what they're getting into and doing it and they're ready?

Something to Chew On is a podcast devoted to the exploration and discussion of Global Food Systems produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. I'm Maureen Olewnik, coordinator of Global Food Systems.

I’m Scott Tanona. I'm a Philosopher of Science. 

And I'm Jon Faubion. I'm a Food Scientist.

Hello everybody, and welcome back to the Global Food Systems podcast Something to Chew On. Food System professionals are trained to study and better understand many aspects of the food we eat. Production, nutrition, logistics, ethics, social implications, and sustainability all play an important part. However, an underlying need in the understanding of a food system begins with fundamental science. It is that research that provides the foundational building blocks for understanding food science. In this podcast, we talk with Dr. Gordon Smith, professor and department head in the Department of Grain Science and Industry, and director of the KSU International Grains Program. Gordon is a Chemist by training, and with a deep understanding of the science and interest in its applications. Those fundamentals led him to work in commercial food safety, large scale production of meats and bakery goods, as well as processing of fruits and vegetables. Prior to coming to K State, Gordon worked at the intersection of industrial and academic research and product development with ConAgra Foods, Sara Lee, and other food industry manufacturers. Gordon, welcome to the podcast. I'm really excited about bringing someone in from my home department at Kansas State University. I spent many, many years working on my Master's and PhD in the Grain Science department. And it's really a special pleasure for me to introduce Dr. Gordon Smith, and share more about him and the programs currently carried out in the Department of Grain Science and Industry. Gordon, can you give us a little background on yourself, how you ended up studying chemistry and how that all led you to the food industry.

Thanks for having me. It's my pleasure. We do have a unique situation here within the department of K State. And I'm looking forward to telling your audience about that. And so for my background, I was raised as the son of a college professor. And what that means, among other things is you're exposed to college professors from a very, very young age, and that you live in college towns. And so I was born in Pullman, Washington, moved to Corvallis, Oregon to Oregon State, and then to the University of Tennessee, where my father retired after 25 or 30 years. And so, you know, I guess I was raised as a purebred academic education was important. Science was important. I was in the laboratories, you know, as young as I can remember five or six with my dad. And that translated kind of in high school over to a love of chemistry, thanks to a just phenomenal high school chemistry teacher. You know, I had a great teacher in high school, I had great teachers in college. And it translated into a love of chemistry that continued on through my master's. And so I have a master's in organic chemistry. Then I moved to the more applied side of things and have a PhD in food chemistry and food science that led me in the beginning to make the choice, the conscious choice not to be an academic because I saw, you know, kind of the life of my dad and I wanted to do something a little bit different, but with a love for academia. And so I spent 25 years in the food industry. And then almost six years ago made the move back to academia and it's been a it's been terrific ride from graduate school or undergraduate to this point forward. And it's just been a terrific adventure and I've really quite tickled that I choose science and did I choose food science in specific.

That's great when I look through and actually I've known this I've known you for many years now and looking back your background is in need science more than in grain science. Can you talk a bit about about that background in that the work that you did over the years in the meat area? And kind of how you transitioned out of that into the grains and milling and baking side of things?

Yeah, funny I would. The way I think about myself is my background is I'm really a chemist, first and foremost. And chemistry is chemistry, regardless of what the substrate is, or the discipline, or the food type. And so I always prided myself in having a very strong fundamental chemistry background. And it just so happened, you know that I went to meat science section within the animal science department at Texas A&M To get my PhD. But my PhD was in food science, even though I was better than a meats group. And the specific area of my study was meat, protein chemistry. And so it's what I've done in chemistry, it just turned applied. But that, you know, adventure into meat proteins led me into an industry job was Sara Lee, which in the beginning was about meats. So I was hired by the meats group at Sara Lee, which was a massive, publicly traded corporation at the time, and half non food and half food. And so you know, again, obviously, most people know the sara lee brand, but also ballpark and Jimmy Dean and Hillshire farms and products like that, and champion, and playTex bras and legs and coach leather, and kiwi shoe polish. And Annika, as you know, hired by Sara Lee did pure meats for about two or three years. And it became obvious again, you know, almost 30 years ago that what consumers wanted was convenience, convenient nutrition, especially for breakfast. And you know, what has become commonplace sense was not commonplace at all at all at the time, which was breakfast sandwiches. And so we started working on breakfast sandwiches for the Jimmy Dean brand. I got the opportunity to work for Jimmy specifically, which is really interesting purebred entrepreneur. But the work on sandwiches put me in a bunch of bakeries, both sara lee bakeries and Kopec bakeries, especially around specialty breads. So bagels and baguette and French toast and pancakes and on agos croissants. And so again, I get a whole lot, especially baking experience by being responsible for the breakfast sandwiches initially for Jimmy Dean, but that obviously spread beyond that brand to other Sara Lee brands. But that's how it started. So introduced to bakery goods through you know, through sandwiches. And then when I made the move from, from Sara Lee to ConAgra, you know, then my, I became truly a food scientist. So I did little meats at ConAgra and did tomatoes and potatoes and popcorn and you know, on it goes so, so not too radical to be here after some of what's happened since my early career days.

So what's it like to be moving from the different food product areas? Alright, so from me to tomatoes and brains. So chemistry is in common between all these but tell us something a little bit about what that's like sort of switching to a different subject area like that.

Yeah, you know, that journey, I think all of us learn at some point, and I certainly learned it younger in life. You know, I like to do challenge sports. I like to mountain climb early on. And you know, and what you kind of discover is, it's about the journey much more than it is about the summit. Staying on top of the mountain is really rewarding and beautiful and all kinds of things. But the trial to get there is much more meaningful in a lot of ways. And I would tell you that my career's been the same way. You know, it's been about the journey. And I, I would I like many academics, I am a lifelong learner, I value education, both formal and informal. And I always found the challenge of taking the biology to chemistry and about chemistry the new and applying it to something new, just terrific, really, really rewarding and meaningful. And so you know, a lot of things you can teach yourself if you have the fundamental, you know, kind of basics and if you have an environment where learning is critical or important to the business as well and I was blessed that places I worked valued, someone who's capable of becoming technically competent about the new subject areas.

Can you give us a little notion of what the industry experience brought to the academic setting? A lot of times those things are, are considered quite different from one another. But obviously, you've been here for a while now. And we're able to bring something to that program that may not have seen in the past. How does that change work?

Yeah, so, you know, I guess the first kind of caveat is I value both experiences really deeply. And so the industry people think that I'm an academic that play the industry guy, and the academics that I'm an industry person who plays my academics, I've been a misfit for the majority of my existence. And the organic chemists that turned out to be the food scientist. And so I'm used to that, of having a news show background. And so I love the fact I've been able to do both. And, you know, both sides believe they understand the other side first. So industry thinks they understand academia, and academics think they understand industry. And the truth is, unless you've lived, truly lived in both places, while you may intellectually kind of understand what's going on, you certainly have no emotional connection, or no, you know, heart connection with what, what really happens in the other world. You know, this, you know, now, after nearly six years in academia, I'm sort of kind of imagining that I know a little bit about what it's like to be a true academic, but I would say it still will take four or five more years. You know, it's, again, another journey that's slow, to truly, you know, embrace what this is all about. But you know, the things that are different between the two, and what a industry person or an academic can bring to the other world is, I had faculty tell me when I first came here, they understood industry, I go, Well, I have a litmus test. So my litmus test is, have you ever had a job and so these are lifetime at academics, they do? Have you ever had a job when someone could walk in today, and fire you on the spot? Go thanks for your service, we just don't need you anymore. We're not going in that direction. We've sold the business, there are 100 different reasons. But you would go home to your family and not have a job. And to most academics, certainly the who have never been an industry at all, they've never been in a position like that. The system just doesn't work like that. There's more worrying to longer term, you know, those abrupt decisions, just not so common, and place. And so it's difficult to understand the industry into you understand how fragile your position or your existence is, regardless of how good you are, you can be the best there is and the best rocket scientist on the planet, right to the point where we decided we're not making rockets anymore. And the minute you do that, the need for rocket scientists has gone to zero. And so I think that's a, you know, this idea of, you know, industry people, or the business is a kind of fragile world. And it can change really, really quickly. And so we deal with industry, people, you're trying to solve industry problems, and you need to keep those realities in mind. You know, that kind of sense of the business, fragile nature of business, and the sense of urgency that business has, if we don't do it, we're losing money. If we don't do we're leaving money on the table. If we don't do it, someone else will do it before us and be the first mover into a new category. And so those are things that, you know, industry person certainly understands that can bring to this environment. Some of the things. 

I was just going to ask how much you think that those different kinds of approaches to problems, but shapes the kind of work that's done, like the kinds of problems, the kinds of questions that get asked or the kinds of solutions that the people are looking for. I was wondering if you maybe have an example you can pull out of your hat or just say something a little bit more about, you know, about, yeah, how these different kind of backgrounds and shape? What gets done.

Yeah, it's a really interesting question. And you kind of hear it in some of the pure stereotypes of both groups, like academics like to go deep and it's esoteric, and it has no meaning in the real world. And if you can't do you teach and all those kind of stereotypical comments about academia and the inverse for industry, people, industry people really don't know very much. They're, you know, everything is shallow, everything is fast. They have no interest in the deeper understanding of things. And so of course, Like many things as stereotypes are based somewhat in reality. And to your question, you know, one of the realities is this idea that because speed, as I talked about earlier is so critical to business. And it is. And science, in many cases just isn't fast. You know, no matter how bad you want a cure to the Coronavirus, viral cures just take time, they take time to develop, they take time to prove small scale, they take time to prove on larger scale, they take time to develop and essentially extend out and execute. And so the speed is what drives not necessarily unwillingness for industry people to want to understand things deeper or better, or, you know, more thoroughly, they just simply don't have the time to do it. And funny, what they do have in many cases is the money. So industry scientists have money that academics may never see. And yet they have no time and the academics have the time to understand problems more deeply. But they don't have the funding often to be able to do that. So you're absolutely right, the simple reality is the base constraints of the two environments affect how problems and solutions are developed every day, no doubt about it.

So what happens at the intersection, then, sort of when you've got academics working with industry?

I was talking to a friend of mine a week ago, and there are a number of us who've worked at the intersection most of our lives. So when I worked for Sara Lee, I managed a budget, where we were allowed to work with academic and do research with academia, when I moved to ConAgra, that became a more formalized position with a much larger budget. And when I came here, this department is Maureen well knows is heavily connected to industry. So it had the good fortune to live at the interface. And the answer is the activity at the interface, the productivity, maybe that's even a better word, right? The productivity of the interface depends completely on who the people are, who are interacting there. It's all dependent on the attitude and the personalities and the tolerance for looking at problems differently. And if you put the right people at the interface, the results are just can be spectacular, have a huge heart for public private industry government University consortium, I think they can be very, very effective. But it's completely dependent upon the players that are involved. And without the right people in the right attitude and the right respect for others, the results can be much, much less positive and much less impactful to the society that we live in.

Yeah, there can be a lot of roadblocks there. Yeah. So how often do you think these things work? Quite well. All right. So where you've got the right personality? together? I think most of the people were searching out. And most of the departments who looked for these partnerships sort of know what they're getting into and doing it and they're ready. Are there a lot of challenges there?

Yeah, I think there are challenges. There are certainly professionals on both sides. People in industry, who are very skilled at working with academia and academics who are very skilled with working with industry, and I have some of my favorites, I won't name them. But I mean, there are some people in my mind who are the textbook, you know, academics in my industrial experience, people who provided high value, and timely results and insight into our business that we would not have gotten otherwise. So there's no doubt that those people exist on both sides. And there are people on both sides who want to do what they want to do. And they really don't want to be very connected or very inhibited by the constraints that come with projects. And one of the simplest constraints. Again, we're back to you here. The semblance of theme is time based industry, there's a critical path. There's a development timeline, there are deliverables, you know, certainly, you know, certain times during the month, you know, or monthly deliverables, probably not weekly in many cases, but I mean, their deliverables are things you're expected to accomplish. And again, I didn't say things you were supposed to get done and things you were supposed to accomplish. And so getting to a point and going well, I just didn't have time or my graduate students on vacation or the universities closed is simply and inadequate. To answer for why the timeline didn't get met, and no one in industry has a concept of that, you know, they don't have graduate students have employees and employees are salaried employees, and they're being paid to do a job. And it's as simple as that. And so thinking that in either environment is the same across the aisle, is not just unfortunate, it's counterproductive. And I've had to, you know, shockingly, you know, I've set with the CEO of, you know, gazillions of billions of dollars in earnings company, and had to try to explain why academics were failing to deliver against the time and expectations that were agreed upon at the beginning of projects. And that is a very unpleasant situation to be in if you're an industry scientist.

So Gordon, the Grain Science Department at K State is unique in a lot of ways. Can you give us a bit of background on the department itself, and where you see the unique value and what it offers?

Absolutely. So this is the only department in the country that is kind of comprised, and with a mission and the kind of ecosystem to deliver on that mission. So we're one of a kind in this country, there are some international universities that look similar, sort of most of universities in China that have patterned with a lot of influence from students back and forth against this department. But essentially, you know, this is a grain products based department that specifically is the Department of Grain Science and industry. So it's just not a Grain Science department. And that an industry is a nod to our reliance and our partnership with industry and everything that we do. And so we look to work with industry professionals, as a matter of practice, we try to solve industry problems, we try to be relevant. We try to train students who are prepared for industry jobs, and certainly as undergraduates. And against that we have kind of, we confer three degrees. So we don't, we actually confer four if you count the graduate degree, but we have three undergraduate degrees, a BS and bakery science, a BS in knowing science, and a BS in feed manufacturing science. And the feed science also, in the modern world includes pet food, which is a obviously critical industry in the US and abroad. And so the graduate degrees here are all in Grain Science. And so there's a number of K State individuals who are Grain Scientists, with master's and with PhDs as Maureen’s one, and they're all over the world. So not just in this country, but the reach is quite impressive. And so with those degrees, you have a department that is kind of unique, and its approach to things. And you also have a massive diversity of students. So Feed science student doesn't look like a Mill science student, and they don't look like a graduate student from Europe or from China, or from India, working on a Grain Science degree. And so the diversity in this department, not just within students, but within faculty is simply incredible. You know, we have the four major religious groups representative within faculty, we have six different nationalities, again, male and female faculty, these programs, which historically were male dominant, are not male dominant anymore. So the idea that, you know, if you think about flower Miller's being male is simply untrue. And so now it more and more looks 5050. For bakery science students, it's female dominated and has been for a long time. And feed scientists is about half and half. And so again, it's a very diverse, very interesting group. And unlike almost any other unit at K State, we compile the industry experience. So if you look at the 18 or 19 faculty members that we have within grain science, we have about 150 years of industry experience. And so the norm here is for high class, high respect. academics who also have spent time in industry. And so we have some purebred academics, but the majority of our faculty has spent time in industry and I think that really is good for our students.

What I was just going to mention is the recent seed grants, Global Food System seed grant programs, there have been a few of those that have been one are provided. To to some of the folks in in your area. Do you want to talk a bit about some of the research activities that are going on in Grain Science these days? And one of the other questions that I like to throw out there, because I think it's such a critically important piece at this point in time is the importance of interdisciplinary approaches to tackling some of these problems.

Yeah, exactly. So I will start with any summary of research will be a smattering. And it will undoubtedly leave somebody out. I would refer people to the department's website, if they were really interested in a date, comprehensive review of the research that going on because I'll never get all of it. I always get criticized for leaving something out. But but a few of the highlights that kind of demonstrate the diversity, if you will, is we have a number of faculty who are experts in a lot of different areas. And so if you look at connectivity to the industry, Dr. Greg Aldridge has been a consultant for the pet food, he's a pet food nutritionist, and has been connected to the pet food industry. We're working for them. He's an older IMEs scientist for a number of years. And, you know, he has a large research large international research group that essentially is plugged in to industry funded projects, because there's not a lot of competitive funding for, you know, pet food or pet food science. And so, again, we're we've kind of become the go to place for pet food manufacturing and the interface between manufacturing and engineering. I heard and another feed science professor Dr. Chad Pollack had the dissertation defense for his first PhD candidate this morning, and she was working on processing, you know, essentially the impact of processing on enzyme levels and the way that enzymes in feed affect digestibility in poultry feed. And so now, that is a more traditional kind of feed science project that ties processing the chemical, the chemistry or the chemical components of the feed and nutrition to the animals all into one place. And so you can go from there to several of our more chemistry more dear near and dear to my heart, Yong Kim, she and Yonghui Li are both chemists, Dr. Li is a world renowned starts chemist, and one of the best that there is. And he continues to work on modified starch and the impact on product acceptability, quality, nutrition stability, that he is a start to modification expert. And as the world moves to a more full cleaner labels, all natural, then some of the modification technology that has existed in the past becomes less desired by the industry. And all natural, you know, non chemical sounding, non complicated. Starch modification is actually very technically difficult. And then Dr. Li, again, another chemist is more of a protein chemist. And he has benefited from some of the seed money grants, but he is working on how you might extract natural antioxidants from either grains or spent grain material. And so, you know, how do you add value. Antioxidants are extremely expensive, expensive chemicals, historically, they've been both natural and chemically made. And so this idea that we could take extracts from grain products is a very natural sort of way of getting to antioxidants, all natural antioxidants, and cereals. And those are desired greatly by the food industry. And so, you know, again, the kind of basic, you know, basic chemistry, and then we have others working in the interface of flour milling and safety, certainly the e coli and the salmonella concerns and flour, which are, you know, when Maureen and I were in school, there was zero, you know, so I say it facetiously, right, there was zero risk. Microbial contamination.

There was certainly much less focus on it. 

Yeah, yeah. And we were taught that I mean, again, the way food micro and we were taught it was it's a low water activity, shelf, stable, dry bake, you know, for finished goods, and they're just not much risk. And what we've seen is the world we live in constantly surprises us, scientists included and microorganisms change and the manufacturing systems change. And so now we have an emerging threat to the industry and our third to consumers. And that's then met, enforced by the industry and by the university complexes. And so we have a number of scientists. Here, Dr. Kelly Silveru, myself, Randy Phoebus, in food science, who have a great interest in microbial safety, flour and baked goods. And so we've gotten some good industry support for those projects. There were some grants out to the federal funding agencies, again, around grain flour, grain safety. So those are some examples, again, not nearly all the research that we're working on, but it does give you kind of a feel for what the department is up to.

As you said, it's a broad, it's a broad based number of categories that you are impacting and touching and some very interesting, interesting work. Dr. Silveru’s, his work I found fascinating, because, as you said, is, when you and I were in school, there's a kill step on bread, it's not an issue, don't worry about it. And as we both worked in the area of food safety over the last many years, it has become a big problem and a big issue. And it's been really interesting watching the kinds of activities that are going on on the milling side in approaching this problem.

Yeah, I agree. And it's, it's a world. You know, again, I have a soft spot for food safety, it's critical to consumers and critical to the consuming public. And it's a world where whatever you think you knew, or think, you know, you can be sure that it will change. Yep, those organisms evolved, the world becomes different as I had an old friend that talks all the time that unintended consequences as you try to make the system better, or products better for consumers, you create new challenges. And that is part of what makes food science so exciting, is it's not static at all. It's ever changing. And you and I both could tell story after story after story where some of the stuff that I was taught, you know, in high school and college and even in graduate school simply has been proven to be found not to be true, or to be significantly modified by the scientific process.

Or, by the way things are handled in the world today. It's exactly things morph and change. And as I was, I've been listening the last couple of days to some of the IFT convention presentations and looking and discussing the way the food system is set up today. Is it appropriate? Are there things that we should be going back to but that's a sidebar comment, but it's interesting to watch the way things are changing. And as you said, the some of the things that we were taught back in the day are just either not correct or not relevant to the situation we're in today. Yeah. A question I had to I wanted to probably give you a pat on the back if nothing else, but the milling department at K State and you guys put together a flour giveaway recently. You want to talk a bit about that.

Yeah, we did. So all of us, as human beings had been affected by the COVID crisis. And, you know, again, I went away for a vacation myself at Spring Break, as the students were out and I never came back like everyone else, nobody would have predicted it, again, really kind of uncharted territory. And so as a consumer, much like both of you, I was met by the same things at retail, you know, first not interested really going around a bunch of people. Number one, and number two, once it became apparent that we had to shop for groceries, then the lack of what I could buy was just unprecedented for living in the US. I've traveled all over the world. I've been in markets where, you know, we're good for very limited. So I had seen it before, but I had never in this country walked into a grocery store and not been able to buy flour or toilet paper or hot dogs or it's simply almost unfathomable really interesting philosophic, philosophical kind of conversation where you go just to happen to us, but it did and the kind of impact it made to our faculty was for flour you know, again, I can't imagine in there not being flour on a retail shelf in this country. And yet there was you know, store after store for sure you couldn't buy a flour if you wanted it not five pounds, or 50 pounds. And so that is one of those things that we have the capacity to do something about. So we have a flour mill much like any manufacturing facility, you know, not running for a while is fine not running for a long period of time is actually counterproductive. And so there's a point at which running the mill is good for the mill is good for the faculty. And so this kind of convergence of us getting the mill back operating, and there being a need that we're uniquely suited to kind of address. And with the really gracious kind of support we have from the Kansas wheat commission and others to provide, we then print shop at the university run by one of my one of my buddies, Jason Ellis, and that communications provides the labels. And so there are other people who are interested in participating allowed, essentially four of us to run the mill to produce product. So as you might suspect, the mill is not set up to produce 10 bag, 10 pound bags of flour. So those are very small, that becomes a very hand done process. physically challenging, but nonetheless, you know, we manufactured about 15,000 pounds of flour, and we distributed to the local community, with no expectation of how much we might give away, it could be five pounds, or it could be all of it. And, you know, in the end, we gave away every pound that we manufactured, we in fact, almost we had agreed that we're going to pass flour out from three to seven at about 645. We ran out of product, it really worked out very well, I think people were people, we're pleased to help them understand once again, kind of what the department can do. And we do value our place in the community. But it was something that we could do. We're also extremely well supported by the Dean, the Provost and the President. And so the President came out and pack some flour himself. And then he drove by on his way out of town to see how things were going when we passed the flour out. So again, I am thankful to work at a place where, you know, these kinds of faculty administration initiatives are so well appreciated and supported by the senior administration of the University.

It was such a nice outreach to the community at a really tough time.

We appreciate it. It's, you know, we've heard nothing but positive feedback. And so, you know, it's one of those things where you take a chance, and you hope it works out, proceed in the spirit of wish it was given? And in this case, I think it was so.

Do you have a specific area of research that you're involved in at this point in time?

Yeah, so my my interest has for a long time, and then really in, you know, a couple of areas. So years ago, when I was at Sara Lee by force of situation, I was turned into a food safety professional. So we had a major outbreak, one of the first Ecoli outbreak, Listeria outbreaks, and then meat processing facilities, and that forced kind of all hands on deck and changed me from being a product developer to being a listeria E Coli salmonella expert for a number of years for about three years. And so it put me at the interface between the science and technology, the regulators, and the operations of large scale meat processing plants. And so I think it's funny people think about hot dogs, and you go, how hard can it be make to make hot dogs need to go it's really not that hard. All of us could do it in our kitchen. Sara Lee wasn't making a hot dog or to Sara Lee was making a million pounds of hotdogs a day out of one facility and we had five or six. And so, the sheer number of volume gets to be kind of impressive. So, I got to work at the interface. I got good at it, I got where I knew the community and understood the science and that carried over to my responsibilities at ConAgra and it also carried over to my interest when I came here. And so not just microbial safety, but also chemical safety. And so, krill amide is a process induced toxic and I worked on it extensively at ConAgra it has a place in and baked product safety, cereal safety. And so I remain interested you know kind of microbial contaminants and process induced process induced chemistry as it relates to baking grain products. And I continue to be interested in ingredient in chemistry, especially protein chemistry. And so you know, my as both of you might have spec you know, my day job keeps me plenty busy, especially during these times. And so I, you know, I have co advised students I haven't had, I haven't tried to carry a research program that was standalone, I haven't tried to carry my own students, because I found the demands of being a good department head just don't allow the time that would be necessary to have the kind of quality of research program I would expect of myself. But I do have collaborators both within this department and beyond, who are willing to have me as part of teams and to be on committees for students, even to co advise. So I have got to do some of that. And I really, really enjoy it.

That's great. If you had stated, I think it may have been a letter when you were first, or a little overview when you're first hired. But there's a statement that you said that you would like to make the department more relevant to students? How do you approach that question? How? How do you make this thing? I mean, the department itself is, we talked about the uniqueness of the moment, we've talked a bit about some of the offerings within what is the relevance coming out of that group?

Yeah, so there are two kinds of related components or pieces to this. You know, I would argue that we, we remain relevant to the industries where we provide employees to the academics that we provide research, and also in industry as well. But our peer reviewed, research remains outstanding, our ability to be competitive, and very competitive money, national sound science, foundation, money and Department of Defense money, we still are very competitive with highly competitive federal dollars. And so no way, and we're certainly sought, our students are so sought after by employees, we still have a near 100% placement rate for undergraduates. So I would argue that we're doing pretty good at being relevant and actually feel pretty good that we have young faculty who are just outstanding, by any metric that you would use good teachers, good researchers are publishing or productive or finding funding, where I would be more critical, would be not relevance. But awareness. We remain after nearly six years of me being here, a much too well kept secret, you know, really well known in a small circle, not as not as well known broadly. And it's a problem is shared by many food science departments, not just this kind of more specialized Food Science Group. And so, you know, the challenge is, how do you make people aware of, you know, first that we're here, and secondly, what we do, and third, about the opportunities that most of us believe are terrific ones, for careers and for impact on society, and for fulfillment and self fulfillment, is just a real challenge. And we have tried, and I know, you know, Maureen, we have tried and tried. We've had high school, high school groups here on the weekends, we have a open house KSU open house, present, that's almost unprecedented for trying to get people in our facilities and connected with our students. We have tried to big and small one on one and with peer students, and we still have a great opportunity to drive awareness of grain science and awareness of you know, career possibilities, an impact, and that we should have the answer. But will you certainly continue to try hard to unlock the unlock the puzzle?

It's a problem with a lot of really great departments and a lot of great broad truths. Right? There's, lots of people who like do great things on how do you get people to understand it, and how to get people to know it and see it and join? Yeah, right.

Yeah, yeah, that's exactly right. And in a world where, you know, it's, you have to be accepting of kind of the, the professional careers that these are, you know, and so if you're, if your dream is to sit in an office, and look at a computer screen all day long, that's really not what we're training people to do. And that's why I decided to be a food scientist, right? Is I had worked in a chemistry laboratory since I was a freshman in high school, all the way through college in a federal lab and all the way through my master's degree. And it finally occurred to me that spending the rest of my life in a chemistry laboratory with no windows and no connection with other than my peers might not be my calling in life. You know, that I mean, the biggest, the biggest joke was I go to parties, and people would ask me what I do for my graduate research in chemistry, and I tell them and they gloss over and go, Well, that's nice. And I go, so this is gonna be my whole life. Yeah, I pour my life into something that's completely unrelatable to anyone who's not in the field. And what brain science allows you to do is work on things that everyone, like it or not, bread is everywhere, and either you love it, or you're afraid of the gluten, but you know what bread is. And I think that's terrific. And I think it's, you know, again, it's very relatable, everything we do here, you know, involves talking working with people involves working with your hands, involves using your mind. And it's kind of the perfect interplay of those three, three aspects.

I wonder whether there's some parallels, though, there are still because, you know, chemistry is everywhere, too, right. So, you know, everybody knows bread, but everybody knows. Chemicals, too, right? So if you say, like, you know, that you're a chemist, right, it's a lot about the difference between what a, what a chemist on a day to day, basis does, right, which is, which is different from what people understand. And the same is true for bread and Grain science and grain production. Right. So the data, you know, what you're doing in terms of food sciences, still somewhat removed from? Right, the product that people are familiar with? So, you know, yeah. 

Well, what do you think of that perspective? And I would go yes, and no, you know, certainly for industry people. And so it goes back to you know, my mixed background is everything you do in food science industry is designed to put a product into the marketplace. It can be great dissertation level science, it certainly I've done dissertation level food safety work. But in the end, it isn't about the work, it's about the product. And I would argue in many things we do within the department again, Maureen has kind of seen it that there's there's hardcore science going on here that I could explain to a non scientist and they would glaze over and have no idea what I was talking about. But when I was talking about, but when I said, Well, you know, this science ends up in making bread that tastes better over time, or bread that has better color or bread that has is better for you nutritionally, then everyone could relate to that. And so again, I have one of my favorite organic books is sitting on the shelf above my phone. So I look at it, it's a one I learned a lot out of. And I'm I mean, it's hardcore chemistry. And unless you're a chemist, there's nothing in that book, that would be very relatable, but most of what we do here, even the hardest core science has a tangible foot, and practical, you know, products, processes, experiences of consumers.

It's a, it's a general question about, you know, applied versus pure science, right, and everybody does some sort of Applied Science, whatever, whatever it's in gets to, you know, the more applied you are, the more you get to say that he worked and, you know, for medicine, or, you know, whatever sort of other safety applications or whatever, you can explain it to people, and the further and further away you get from that, the more work you have to do to explain things, and then that's the application right there. And, you know, in everything you do, right.

Yeah. And that's in funny, is your role aware, right? Is historically, the more applied you are, the less real science you are, is the people who are the real scientists, the nuclear the rocket, you know, physics are the people who are highly theoretical, and as you move to applied, then people go that really isn't science. And of course,

There at least, historically has been that kind of view about things. Yeah. Yeah. And Maureen and I thought that I would vehemently oppose that kind of, yeah, yeah, that kind of thing. And, you know, the bottom line is, it's all science. And, you know, it all works along the scientific method. It's where we teach our students and what I believe you know, with all my heart is, if you want to be a great applied scientists, then you better understand the fundamentals. And the more you understand the fundamentals, the better of doing applied science you'll be and so we this department again, another unique thing is we have a feed mill and a flour mill and a bakery, where you can practice your craft, and you can use your hands and you can exponentially experience. You know, the science we teach you and we have, you know, world class scientist who can teach you the fundamentals. So the, you get both. So that you get the basic, and you get the, you get the kind of foundation. And then we teach you how you think about that foundational learning in terms of real life problems. You know, one of my old meat experiences as we're running a product in the large manufacturing facilities are getting the hot dog story. And the hot dogs are turning green, green, green, like really impressive green, and you go, so we, nobody's made the green hot dog. So it's not it's not microbiology, that's causing the hot dog to be green, it's not some kind of contaminant. So there's not copper or, you know, some kind of trace material that's making it green. And so we we look and look and look and thought and thought and thought and finally, what we figured out was the the water coming through the pipes into the plants that was potable, that was for consumption, human consumption, had enough trace minerals in it, that it was that was interacting with the iron in the meat, the iron is indigenous to the meat cells. And it was converting the iron pigment to a green color. And you go, man, incredibly, you know, kind of complicated science, to get to a very practical consumer consumer outcome right brain on dogs not good. You know, that's, that's an example of it's the, the foundational understanding of the system that allowed the solution of a very practical problem. 

And there is something I was going to jump in a little bit ago and state there was, there's something about as you said, you spend hours working in laboratories have spent many, many classroom times working in laboratories. And then when you walk out of that, and walk into a bakery, we'll walk into a mill, it's fun, it's fun to see that the basic science that you had been studying and learning is applied right there in doing things that that will impact the population that are going to feed the world and those types of things. So going into those labs, I remember the first time walking into the mill, it was like, wow, this is this is pretty cool. Just seeing how it functioned and how it ran. 

And, yeah, yeah, that's it. That's exactly right. So you know, it's an is something like we talked about earlier, that changes with the wheat that you use, and the products that you're trying to manufacture. And it's really quite a, an amazing spread of different kinds of technical challenges. And that's the world that our students kind of join in, join up for, which I think is just terrific.

And one of the things too, that, that I loved when I was working in that side of the industry, was the opportunities to get together with there, there was one meeting I would go to every year where we had, we had wheat breeders, we had millers, bakers, and and consumer groups all in the same meeting talking to one another, and you never really ever get at least before now you wouldn't get that kind of interdisciplinary interaction with a group they the languages were always a challenge and getting each other to understand what each other wanted. But that was always such an interesting piece. And that kind of goes back to the question I'd asked you earlier on interdisciplinary and the importance of that. But at a university here, you've got the breeder sitting right there, you've got the baking experts sitting right there, you've got the milling experts, and how all of those things come together and interact with one another is, is within your grasp in doing research. Okay, state.

Absolutely.

Very exciting.

I love the, you know, the use of the platform to try to get the word out. And having a philosopher involved is just terrific. It would be fun to, to come back sometime and talk about the philosophy of science, because I'd love to do that. I greatly appreciate your both your willingness to do this. I think it's a terrific public service. And, you know, the more we can get people to think that you know, demystify the science. Everybody wants to think science is unknowable. And that, of course, is ridiculous. All of us start at some point where, you know, we knew two plus two, and that's about all we knew, and everything else I know about science I've learned through a lifetime, not from yesterday or from 20 years ago, but it's a it's a continual and gradual process and it's accessible to everyone. I refuse to believe that science is the purview of the few chosen, special people. It does require hard work and harder work for some of us and others of us, but it's an accessible world. That's just You know, kind of a glorious Swan to be a part of, for people who are called to do it. You're here. Very good.

I'd like to thank you again for for agreeing to sit down and chat with us.

Yeah, thank you very much. And if any of your listeners would want to contact me the website is the best entrance way to there it has my contact information and the way to kind of get in contact with the department.

If you have any questions or comments you would like to share check out our website at https://www.k-state.edu/research/global-food/ and drop us an email.

Our music was adapted from Dr. Wayne Goins’s album Chronicles of Carmela. Special thanks to him for providing that to us. Something to Chew On is produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. 

In this episode, we switch gears to shine some light on an area of the food system that may not be overtly understood as critical by many. Dr. Matthew Sanderson, Randall C. Hill Distinguished Professor in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work and professor of sociology at Kansas Statue University joins our three hosts in discussion. Sanderson's research aims to better understand the social aspects of human nature as major drivers in approaches to relations between people and the ecosphere. His research includes a focus on social processes that integrate economies, politics, and cultures into an increasingly shared — but sometimes contested — space.

Transcript:

Human Dynamics Within Systems - The Sociological Application in Globalization, Development, Migration and Environment, with Dr. Matthew Sanderson Professor of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work.

We want those students also engaging with two other groups, right? We want them not just engaging with each other in their academic silos, which we are very good at doing, but to get them out of their comfort zone and be able to sit take the engineer and the sociologist and the agricultural economist and the agronomist, take them out into the field with the farmer and have them understand the system, the agricultural food energy water system from the perspective of the stakeholder. That may seem simple, but that's a pretty radical move for a PhD science science level training.

Something to Chew On is a podcast devoted to the exploration and discussion of Global Food Systems produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. I'm Maureen Olewnik, coordinator of Global Food Systems.

I’m Scott Tanona. I'm a Philosopher of Science. 

And I'm Jon Faubion. I'm a Food Scientist.

Hello everybody, and welcome back to the K State Global Food Systems podcast something to chew on. In today's podcast, we are switching gears to shine some light on an area of the food system that may not be overtly understood as critical by many. But in many ways human interactions and relationships within a given culture will guide people on how they eat, accept scientific findings in producing food and interact with one another in economic, political and sometimes contested spaces. The social aspects of human nature are major drivers in approaches to critical questions, willingness to adjust lifestyles are working norms, and interest in social drivers of using natural resources in a much divided time. Today's guest is Dr. Matt Sanderson. The Randall C. Hill Distinguished Professor of Sociology, Anthropology and social work, and professor of sociology at Kansas State University. Matt is currently exploring social drivers of natural resource use. This work concentrates especially on agricultural production, and water consumption in the High Plains Ogallala Aquifer region of the United States, our guest today is Dr. Matt Sanderson. Matt is coming to us from the sociology department at Kansas State University. And we're really excited to have you here today Matt, and understand better where the sociological aspects of your research into the global food system overall, before we get started in a discussion, as we normally do, I'd like to hear from you a little background on who you are, and what brought you to the point of your area of study what got you interested in sociology and, and working in this area?

Oh, gosh, well, thank you for having me on today. It's a real pleasure, glad to be here. And I usually, most people that know me know, I don't really like talking all that much about myself. But how I got interested in sociology and sort of how that connects with the global food system. Long story short, I was an undergraduate major here at K State. In business, I was a finance major with a minor in economics and decided after right around 911. It was 2001, 911. And I decided, there were some big questions that I still had after completing that the bachelor's degree. And so I made a big shift and went back to try to study something that I thought would give me more insight into humans, and how humans work and why the world sort of works the way it does. I was very interested. I didn't know what at the time I didn't have the language or the way of framing these questions, but I was very interested in questions about the market, and about power and about inequality and about how that works to shape human behavior and influence things like culture and social structure and norms and values around us and so on. So, sociology, I took a jump, I applied and looked at different programs in political science and sociology. I landed in sociology mainly because if I didn't have a great reason other than it seemed broad enough to answer the questions that I had, which were very big. And, you know, that's a strength and a weakness of the field. Its breadth But I loved it. And so I thought, well, I could do anything for four semesters. And if I don't like it, you know, trying a master's degree I can, I can go back and find a job in the banking world, the banking sector, the finance sector, and after two years, it'll still be okay. And I did the Masters, I loved it. I said, Well, I never really set out to get a PhD. I never thought about being a college professor. But here I am. So I guess this is the next step is to try. Look at the PhD. So did that. And long story short, I went to a small but very focused, concentrated, pretty respected program at the University of Utah, in Salt Lake City, and comparative international sociology. And I was really studying what is now called Global comparative sociology was comparative international then. And so I'm a comparativist. I'm a historical comparative sociologist, I'm very interested in making comparisons, analyzing social change over long periods of time, and across cases or across places. So sort of longitudinal comparative designs, finished a PhD, I got my first job in the middle of the right at the onset of the Great Recession in 2008. August of oh eight, I started my job first job at Lehigh University. In Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, was a joint appointment and as a sociologist, and they're global studies, new initiative and Global Studies, which is this interdisciplinary center that tried to integrate different types of work going on at the university, around issues of global importance around health, environment, community, social change, those sorts of things. And I love that. And I left that job only, because there was an opening back at Kansas State, my alma mater, and it was this was 2011. And I decided that if I was offered the job, I'd come back, and here I am. So I've been back at K State back home and my alma mater, since 2011. As my parents would probably tell you, they were very pleased. But they were also very surprised that we brought the grandkids back home and everything back home, because I had spent most of my life trying to escape Kansas, and especially rural Kansas, where I had grown up. And so to come back in your 30s, I had never thought I'd come back ever. And here I am. But I decided that what would give me the most meaning is something that's driven me since the very beginning, is not the attempt to not the chance to make the most money, I could have done that with my business degree, because I made a lot more money. But the chance to really try to impact have positive change impact the place that I places I call home and in Kansas, and especially rural Kansas, and with the knowledge and skills that I have. And so it was time to come back home. And since 2011, I've been engaged in a number of areas. A number of different types of work in Kansas and the broader Great Plains, but mostly engaging with rural communities around food, agriculture, rural community change. So in a nutshell, I mean, that's the last what 25, you know, 20-25 years? Yeah. That's that's how we ended up on this call. And and, you know, a couple minutes.

That sounds great. Just a curiosity. We're in rural Kansas, did you grow up?

Yeah, it's not so rural anymore. But I'm from Spring Hills where I went to high school, Spring Hill, Kansas. Southern Johnson County, northern Miami County on the line there. It's now a bedroom community for Kansas City. 40 years ago, it was the friend rural, outlying area of Kansas City, but it's changed a lot, a lot of subdivisions around now and so on. And my parents, my folks still live there, and my brother still lives in that area, as well. So still call at home. And I've been watching the change, kind of, you know, sort of urban encroachment into that space for a long, long time and seeing that change. And I also have family, you know, throughout the Great Plains, Nebraska, Lester, Kansas, Oklahoma. So this region really is home in a number of ways.

How was your training up to this point and your experience up to this point, or has it conditioned, the way you look back at those times? 40 years ago, when you were in Spring Hill, do you come to different conclusions now?

That's a great question. I mean, I one thing that sociology gets view that I'll never be able to fully repay my teachers and professors, but it gives you what we come to call the sociological imagination. And so what that means is that it gives you a lens through which you can understand yourself in the context of the larger society around you. And you understand much better about the forces and factors around you that shaped you and are in your head and have interacted with you're literally the DNA in your body to help shape how you see and interact with the world and vice versa. It shows you how you change that very context that shapes people, the society that you have an impact through every thought, and every action that you have every day, there are literally 1000s we don't think about them. But every thought every action is consciously remaking the very structures around us that make people that shaped people of who they are and who they can become. And so, as I've gotten older and approaching, you know, middle age now, I definitely look at home and think about home differently. And I can't unsee what I've learned about the society around us and how that shapes people, so to have more sort of theoretical or even philosophical view, yes, for sure. Having sociological training has reshaped how I think about home and what it what that means. And also given me an analytical lens to diagnose and think about what's happening there, and why and what to do about it.

I noticed that a lot of your work focuses on migration and the impact of migration in various, obviously globally, various parts of the world. Focusing down in on Kansas and the agricultural economy in Kansas view, have you done any work? Or do you focus it all on that aspect, that migration aspect on agricultural economy in Kansas?

Yeah, sure, sure. So I'll back up a little bit and tell you how I got into this spot. I seem to I don't think of myself, as you know, trying to be very comfortable with very controversial things. But I sort of end up in the middle of these things.  I think I'm more so now because I study migration, and I study water. And those are those things in rural Kansas, are can be very tension can generate tension and be, you know, controversial. So, but I am a social scientist, or I think of myself that way. And so I try to understand and analyze with the lens and the tools that science gives us. And so with migration, yes, that was actually my entry point into studying rural environment issues, real water issues, caught up with groundwater conservation, so on. I wrote my dissertation on the relationship between migration and development. And this was a very across national study and playing, you know, overnight, 92 countries and over the past 50 years looking at, statistically what are the drivers of why people are moving across boundaries? And secondly, what are the consequences of those movements of those migrations, those inflows on communities? How do we measure that? Is it quote, good or bad? And for whom? And for what and over what time period? These are the questions that I was motivated with in the dissertation, I didn't start studying migration because I was thought of myself as a necessarily an immigration expert. I study it from the aspect of development. That's first and foremost, what I'm interested in this idea of social change, this idea of incessant growth economically, socially, culturally, for positive benefit, this idea of development, that's what I was really, fundamentally after, by going in sociology. And so I started becoming more interested in migration because everywhere I looked with development, you see people moving and they're either moving out or they're moving in people move that is the, it's endemic to human societies. It goes back south is it is the human story, it goes back to the beginning of humanity, people move now. The difference now is that we have things called national boundaries that never existed. So we have something called international migration that didn't exist 2000 years ago, for that matter, even 600 years ago, or 500 years ago. And so now International, the movement of people seems more complex because we are fixed by national boundaries in places. But that is, by far the anomaly of the human condition. I mean, most humans have never lived, most humans that have ever lived in the face of the earth have never lived in one place their entire life. Most humans have walked around figure moved around across all kinds of borders, and so on all through all that. So I was very interested in migration that way. And that led me Of course, from my experience in Kansas, I began being becoming very interested in southwest Kansas, because that was where growing up and throughout my childhood, and youth and so on, I had heard about all the stories of immigration. So I naturally went to the place I was most comfortable with. And that was southwest Kansas, I tried to understand, given the tools I had, what's going on here, why in Kansas, of all places, do we have this, these inflows of immigrants, particularly Latino immigrants, but in the early 80s, also Southeast Asian immigrants as well, and today, Somalis, Burmese and so on? How can we explain that? And what are the consequences of that? So I started looking at that published a lot of work on that I was trained as a social demographer. So I'm trained to look at population change, fertility, mortality, and migration. And found a lot of things about that, some of which are interesting, and some of which are not probably, but I'm fascinated in all of it. And that we could talk later if you want to, but that's what led me ultimately into looking into groundwater conservation issues as well. On the environment side, because I was trained in population and environment, those were the two substance barriers of training. On the population side, I looked at migration, that was the first part of my career up through tenure, I looked at migration issues. And then the sort of second part of my career now is looking more on the environment side and water, groundwater conservation, and food and agriculture, integrated food system sort of stuff. And it all comes together. For me out there in western Kansas, we have, it's just a fascinating place. It's got, there's water challenges, it has rural community challenges, it has population challenges, and also lots of opportunities and these things as well. So I'm naturally find myself constantly, although people are leaving that area, and they have been for a long time, I find myself going in the opposite way with my students. I'm traveling out in the middle of nowhere, Western Nebraska, western Kansas, panhandle of Oklahoma, spending a lot of time out there trying to figure out what's going on. And really, how do we, how do we encourage, how can I help facilitate a more regenerative, resilient rural community in these places?

What's the if you had to pick, two or three top limiting factors to flourishing of those communities flipped over? What might those be? Yeah, wow, too much. I mean, there's, there's immigration, but then there's diversity within the spot that has they've been immigrating to, if you will, are migrating to?

Yeah, well, I think, I think 10 years ago, I would have said, the limiting factor is something on sort of the population side, the human side, so something around immigrant density, and those sorts of things trust, those sorts of things in the community. Today, I think, I think actually less and less about, and this may be an estimate to as a social scientist to say, but today, I think less and less about the human side than I do the limiting factor of water, quite frankly. Because without water out there, none of that exists. Period. You don't have anything like a garden city without the Ogallala Aquifer underneath that period. So you'll have a lot fewer people. As the groundwater levels decline, and we shift back to dry land on dry land agriculture out there with something is inevitable. And we're arguing over the timeline over which that happens, and more importantly, why that might be worth why the water might be worth saving. But I spend less and less time actually out there talking about community level dynamics, People to People relationships, than I do, thinking about people to nature, people to environment, people to water relationships, and why that's so difficult. For a lot of sociologists environmental sociology, which I'm sort of a part I guess, is a real challenge to the field and my discipline because sociology developed as a purely, it was developed in the late summer. There's a question over when I developed but 19th century post enlightenment, right industrial revolution, there's a lot of change going on the transition from a rural to an urban society is fully in place in the late 19th century. Sociology really arises, you know, is birthed in that transition from a rural agricultural society to a modern, quote, modern industrial, manufacturing based society and all the tensions and traumas that, that brought about, that's really what sociology focuses on. And we're still there. It and one of the founders, Emile Durkheim, a French Swiss sociologist, was really trying to set sociology apart from psychology, and from some other social sciences that were emerging. So really think he went too far in trying to remove humans from the natural environment and make everything about humans themselves. So environmental sociology emerges in the mid late 20th century very recently, to try to re embed put humans back in the natural environment and talk about things like physics, and chemistry and biology, and these sorts of things, to sort of re re wed the human component that we've been looking about to these kind of biological chemistry, physics, relationships that we're looking at.

I know that at least one part of the state in the South East has been depopulated, and had significant problems because of their success in mining and the consequence of of them there is this sociology, seek to understand those horses as well, and any attempts at finding other ways for those communities to if not prosper, at least continue to stay together and not self disperse.

Yeah, so that's a good question. And the analogy, the analogy, or the case you bring up of mining communities, is for better or worse now being applied to groundwater dependent communities. Why and so, yes, and that's controversial as well. I know, I know that. But if you talk with more than a few irrigators, they'll tell you, yeah, we're miners, we mined the water. This is not, this is not a renewable resource out here. This is a finite resource, just like a coal seam. And when it's gone, it's gone. You know, and then we get into some really deep stories about what that means for human values and why that's happening and whether that should happen. But more than a few also say, You know what, no, we need to pull back. And we can extend the life of this thing, unlike a mining community in Southeast Kansas, or West Virginia for that matter. And we should have communities out here as long as we possibly can, because I or whoever goes back four or five generations, this place has meaning it's worth saving. And the water allows us to live out here. So let's get organized and try to figure out how we extend the life of this. So I can pass it down to my kids and so on. And that's the conversation going on, in a lot of these communities is even though it's not talked about that explicitly, it's do we want to look like this will be controversial, but do we want to look like a rural West Virginia? Or do we want to look like a more scaled down version of a sustainable version of, you know, eastern Nebraska type rural community? What do we want to do and those conversations that's active right now, in western Kansas, in church basements, in home now, maybe not as much with COVID? Because we can't get face to face patient. So we'll say, oh, we'll say over zoom, or wherever. I mean, those are the conversations that are taking place out there. And they're not only talking explicitly like that, but they're really talking about in a number of conversations, you know, who do we want to be? Where are we going humans are always trying to figure out what this means and who I am, and where are we and how are we good? Where are we going forward? And we do as sociologists I do as a sociologist work on issues of transition. So there are a number of tools, you know, what do we want this place to look like? And who do we want around us? And why? And are we troubled by who's around us and why and what gives us meaning and, and hope, and what challenges that and so on? So we work with those very issues. And I was struck by your mining example, because there are increasingly examples being drawn between southeast Kansas and southwest Kansas. Yeah,

It's hard to imagine the difference between Coffeyville and I don't know. Yeah, right. Southwestern Kansas. Amazing.

Yeah, or a place like the Ullyses. Syracuse. So, yeah, some place out over the over the aquifer where or if you go north right around west of Scott City where the water and in that area is already pretty low, what's left and some wells are off now or so on at Northwest Kansas, you've got some areas too that are that are having some challenging times. So working on a USDA project and on the Ogallala, and a number of us are starting to think about given we've been on this project, well, this will be the fifth year we're going to be wrapping it up this year, but a number of us are looking ahead and thinking about what's next. And a lot of the work that I did on that project is pointing to really pointing to this idea of transitions, that some places are going to want to save the water as best they can conserve it as best they can extend the life as best they can. And some are not. And that's community lead change choice, sort of self determination, right? So how do we facilitate how do we ease the transition back into a dry land form of agriculture with that base, with a lot fewer people operating a lot more land when a lot less capital? And in other areas, we're going to still have water to go after for 150 years or so it looks like so highly variable places to place to.

Yeah, sounds interesting. I spent a number of years in Minnesota. And in that case, it was communities redefining themselves, when there was no longer a timber industry to rely on. Were they going to keep an alive or further north when taconite mining was no longer profit. Yeah, but they Yeah, they stay there. They have to leave and it's there. In each case, the solution was somewhat similar, but somewhat different. And they were well underway by the time I got there. But it would have been interesting to, to see before to see the before side of that.

Yeah, exactly, another interesting comparison in with the forestry industry, the logging industry. And also think about, think about how to transition really what that means for the people that are living through those changes. And it's the same sort of dynamics, but the sort of population environment relations aren't exactly analogous. But the same sort of process here is in people's minds, because we're talking really there about culture, about norms, values and beliefs. And those don't change very easily or rapidly. And that's really what I think, you know, we've come to find out and a lot of areas in our, in our world in our in our society is the economy moves, the population shifts, things, it's a very dynamic market driven economy, it shifts quickly, the structures change, but culture does not culture lags. It does not automatically change when the economy changes. And that tension or that slippage between the economic change. And the cultural lag is really the source of a lot of tension and contradiction and confusion, argument in our society a lot. 

Stigmatization people are tagged with, with being adverse to whatever play ever amounted to progress or old fashioned or inflexible, there you go in their views.

Yeah, yeah. Right. And then we argue over how fast should the change be? or not, and who benefits from those changes. And that's, that's really what we're, I think we're looking at over a lot of dimensions of society is a very dynamic market driven economy, if we're going to have that we're going to have incessant continual change, transformation. But humans, that's a very new thing in human affairs, if you go back over the scope of human history, 150-180,000 years, most humans, most humans that have ever walked on the earth, right? They were born into one family, they had one role in that group, and then they died and their kids would likely have the very same status. Right? And so we don't we don't live in that world. We live in a world that is much more open dynamic. I'm worrying about unsustainable on the resource side, but it's a much more dynamic, fast paced change world. But evolutionarily, I mean, we evolved in groups that were changed was very slow and incremental over time. 1000s of years. So we haven't caught up our culture lags the things in our head around our values, norms and beliefs. Those things get shaped In a context, but the economy and the material parts are always moving forward and outpacing us. So we're arguing over where we should be and who we are all the time. And that's a new idea for human humans, those who are given those are given questions for most of our species history, who you are and what you were was, where you were born and where you are. Now, we now we invent now we have to invent those things, and they're constantly being changes. And so we have identity crises. And we have them at various stages of our life, kids middle age. So anyway, well,

So Matt, you talked a little bit about some projects that you had worked on at K State one that was wrapping up, can you give us some notion of some of the interdisciplinary research activities you've been involved with maybe some specifics of different groups you're working with and some of the outcomes that you're looking for in those works?

Yeah, sure. So just real quick rundown of those there was there's a USDA cap, coordinated ag project cap led by Chuck rice here at K State and Megan Szczepanski and Regan Alaska met Colorado State involving collaborators. I think there's I mean, the team is huge. It's 70 to 80 people total, across the seven states over the aquifer, that project is you know, in the in the no cost extension, fifth year right now, it'll wrap up. And really what we're looking at there is, on the social side, I can't speak to the natural side of things, the agronomy side, and so on, but on the social side, trying to understand and build an integrated model of, of producer decision making. So under conditions of climate change, under conditions of market change, and under conditions of social change, and trying to build with a team of agricultural economists, and agronomist and hydrologist, and sociologists, and a single model that can A predict what has explained what has happened in this region, but also B look ahead a little bit and say, Okay, if these things change, then we can expect these sorts of scenarios going forward in this region. And bottom line, we can expect these scenarios to affect groundwater levels, over this time, time horizon, that's really the outcome we're trying to get is, is what will this do to the groundwater levels, if we change this price, this quantity, this value, this social cultural component, what happens to groundwater levels, that is a fascinating project to have been involved with. And to some degree, five years feels like we're just getting started. I mean, it's crazy. But that's a massive, massive undertaking. And that's why it hadn't been done it these, you know, I worry about the timeframe we're up against with some of these challenges. In the in the material world, but five years, we just, we built the dataset, we've got the model running, but it feels like we need another five years. And I'm not just you know, trying to ask USDA for more money, although we're going to be doing that. But five years feels like you know, now we need to see how this works, really, because it took that long to build this thing and communicate with people and learn how they these other folks how they talk and how we think as a team. So been involved with interdisciplinary things a long time. That's, one example. 

Another example I worked on was with Marcellus Callidus and Jessica Heier Stamm, and many others, some of them have left K State on an NSF project on couple of natural human systems, where we were looking in the Smoky Hill River Basin to try to again develop an integrated model of how humans in the environment interact with water over time, in this particular place, and what that means for levels in the Smoky Hill water and what that means for biodiversity in our in our streams and river and Smoky Hill River and our creeks and tributaries. And what that means for farmers who are farming over this particular area, trying to build a model of how if you change the some factors on the human side, what happens to the environmental aspects of that system, the water levels, the fish levels and so on. Vice versa, if you have some external forcing event, like a changing climate under different scenarios, what happens to the environment side? And how does that feed back into effect the human dynamics of that system in a feedback loop? Right? So we're trying to build this integrative loop model of how this thing works over time in this in that particular region of the smoky hills. So that's another project I was involved with.

 And another project I'm involved with, and I'm involved with right now is is called the NRT. It's a national research traineeship award to Melanie Derby from the National Science Foundation, Melanie, Dr. Derby in engineering, and the team was Stacy Hutchinson and Nathan Hendricks and others, big team as well, where we're trying to now it's a graduate traineeship award. So all most all the money goes into funding graduate students in an interdisciplinary approach to science. And the top the focus of that project is the Ogallala Aquifer and farming systems over the Ogallala. So it's it has a bunch of acronyms, but it's R cubed rural resource resiliency, national research, traineeship, and we're trying to figure out with students, And a little sort of sketch together curriculum that we're still building and developing as part of this project. How do we train the next generation of students scientists, to work with each other on very complex problems to try to get some traction on the things actually, so NSF putting money into this sort of a program as as a spearhead to kind of, I think, okay, my own interpretation, really to try to get people out of their disciplines and into rooms thinking about complex problems together as a part of their graduate training, so that when they leave the world, they leave that their PhD, they're ready to talk with an engineer is ready to talk with a sociologist, and may not know be an expert, but but at least can have a conversation about what a model should look like and what sort of things a sociologist brings to the table and vice versa, how a sociologist could understand how an engineer what they bring to the table? And what are their how do they look at the world as a starting point, as another extract to that project, we want those students also engaging with two other groups, right? We want them not just engaging with each other in their academic silos, which we are very good at doing. But to get them out of their comfort zone, and be able to sit take the engineer and the sociologist and the agricultural economist and the agronomist, take them out into the field with the farmer and have them understand the system, the agricultural food energy water system from the perspective of the stakeholder. That may seem simple, but that's a pretty radical move for a PhD Science, Science level training, is to actually have people talking with stakeholders who are acting out the system that we're studying, but that's a part of it. So these students will spend time in southwest Kansas with the research and extension folks out there, Jonathan Aguilar and Garden City, they'll spend time with farmers for a week or so this summer, and again, a little later. And then another group, we want them interacting with our policymakers in Topeka. So these students, graduate students, PhD and Master's students will spend time during when the legislature is in session. And with COVID, that has been a real interesting deal. But try to get them together with you know, have face time with policymakers to learn vice versa, about how policymakers look at food, energy, water issues, as well, to get some understanding of really trying to get between the farmers, the policymakers and the scientists trying to get some traction on what this system actually looks like, from what depending on the position you're in, in the system, if that makes sense.

So involved there to what this nerd I'm very excited about it. And it's high risk, high reward is challenged me in a number of ways when I teach in that PhD seminar, some sessions go well, some, some don't go well, because we have a very diverse group of people all very smart. But we it forces us as instructors, professors to say, how do we teach this? How do we, how do we how do we have to go back to basic pedagogy? Like, how do we, you know, where do we start trying to teach systems thinking? And how do we get people seeing this from different angles so that we can actually use science to solve problems and not just study them? That motivates me. And so that challenge is very, the big challenge, but it's very exciting. It motivates. So those are the three projects on interdisciplinary things. 

The last thing I'll say there so I don't turn this entirely into a monolog is that with interdisciplinarity I've increasingly finding myself spending less time in sociology and and that I don't like that some days because I feel very like much like a fish out of water a lot of days, swimming with the engineers and so on. But, but but but when you are in that world, it's also a exhilarating because it's refreshing, it's new. And you really have to have a committed group of people that are willing to sit with each other and endure lots of communication problems. And, yeah, you got to be dedicated to learning how another person thinks, because we will not get anywhere, if you just sit down and, you know, give the traditional spiel that you give to, you know, your sociology students or your engineering students. So that's been challenging in this kind of second part of my career. But it's been a lot of fun working in interdisciplinary teams. And, I think that's really how we're going to if we're going to solve any of these big problems, we're going to have to get outside of our department, I think.

I was wondering, yeah, if you could give an example of one of the kinds of things about the human environment interaction that really, really matter, for understanding these systems. Right. So what were the kinds of values or beliefs or norms that that you're talking about, that that come up that are, you know, maybe interesting or surprising about the effects they have? Or about the ways the changes in the environment are affecting those? Because that's, you know, you're studying both ways, right?

That's right. So that's a great question. So one of the things that I've sort of zeroed in on over the years and narrowed the focus on is culture, I didn't set out to study culture, but I'm open like to think I'm somewhat open minded about, as a social scientist, I sort of am driven, led down the path that the data lead me and they've increasingly led me to culture. When I opened up that box of culture, it was a black box. It there are a lot of moving parts, but I don't know how they all work theory, there's theories about how culture works at the collective level, at the group level, but also at the individual level within the mind itself. And as I've sort of focused more on culture, I've become very interested in how culture responds to environmental changes, both in the social environment, but also in the natural environment, and vice versa. How culture human ideas, really non material ideas in their head, shape, the landscape, shapes, the atmosphere, shapes, the water systems. Right? So I'm very interested in that two way feedback and looking at culture and these relationships. So there are a lot of findings coming out from this work. I'll point to a few, I think, I think one of the bigger ones is the this idea that values held values affect natural outcomes. Right? So with held values, we're talking about fundamental ideas, guiding principles about right and wrong, good and bad, just unjust, fair, unfair. These are human constructs. These are made up ideas. They all come from somewhere. But ultimately, they're held in human minds and humans can change them. And we do. We change these things on various timescales, and they are malleable. That gives us some hope. That change is possible in our relationship with the natural environment, that change is possible in our relations with other humans. These things, these values, while they're very deeply held, and they don't change quickly, often, they can change and they do change on varying timescales and varying spatial scales. So what we found what I found with a bunch of graduate students, and I would listen, Steven Lauer just graduated fantastic graduate students, and Mariah Fisher in the Geography Department working with her lots of good students working on these things. What we found is that there are different types of values. First of all, not a huge surprise. But more importantly, that these value sets seem to drive worldviews, ideas about the world. And those values and worldviews together really shaped something as material as the flow of water in a stream. Okay, that sounds maybe far out, far fetched. But you can see these effects in the models in the statistics and the data, right. So people there are different types of values. They're really like five different types of values set. From this perspective, I'm working within their environmental or biospheric values. There are more humanistic altruistic values, there are values that are oriented more towards traditionalism. There are values oriented towards self interest, egoistic values, we call them and their values around openness to change and change itself, these five types of values that really shaped landscapes, and they also shaped interactions in group settings. What we found in a nutshell is that people not surprisingly, holding stronger environmental values, more deeply held values around relations between humans and the environment, right and wrong, what we should or should not do with, or to the natural environment. People holding stronger environmental values farm differently. When they farm differently, that as different as clear effects on things like land use, and land cover change, that has very clear effects on water levels, that has very clear effect at a scale way beyond the farm level, or even western Kansas that has very clear effects on atmospheric levels of carbon. So people, vice versa, that have, and I'm speaking generically here the day to get more nuanced and complex. And that's all in journal articles. But people that hold more strong traditional values, and self interest values, farm differently than people with stronger altruistic and environmental values.

 I'll step back and say that in a couple things about that. People over the Ogallala Aquifer, the producers, the farmers, and so on, they hold each of these values to varying degrees. No one scores zero on any of these five values. And I talk a lot about that with students in a world where we polarize ourselves and put ourselves into camp, I'm a Republican, I'm a Democrat, I'm a progressive, I'm a conservative, I'm a farmer, I'm a urban citizen, you know, we have all these values we put on people, I give these tests, these values, tests, often the students in class, and one thing that always strikes them is that nobody scores zero on any of the values, we all hold them to varying degrees. And so in that there's a lot of commonality in shared values, there's just different degrees of commonality or difference. And that breaks down a lot of barriers, when you can start thinking about values that way, and shared values in that way, that breaks down a lot of barriers to trust and, and and in trying to produce some sort of positive change. So nobody holds no farmer holds these zero on any of them or or five on all of them, for that matter, all of our high levels on all of them, either. They're all sharing them to some degree, and there's some difference. The next thing I'll say is that in places that get labeled as flyover country, and more pejoratively is redneck land, and places where there's just a lot of backwards, people and so on and conservative in this that the other, ie much of rural America, when you actually give when you actually look at values, when you actually look at beliefs, you actually look at norms, you measure them, you see a lot of diversity out there, that's struck. There's a lot of diversity. And yeah, and you can see it in the data in the data, right? And we look at we talked with urban folks as well. And we give them the same questions. And we look at the data. Yes, there is a rural urban difference on sort of conjunctions or groups of these clusters. But there's also a lot of shared values between these two groups that I think get drowned out in the noise and the day to day sort of were different, or they're backward or were better, or whatever it is, right? So And here, I'm just talking about farmers. I'm not I just surveyed farmers, and there's tremendous diversity and farmers in western Kansas who would have known. They're not all the same. They have different ideas, and they have different worldviews. And some of them are operating under more constraints, financial social than others. But there is a degree of shared values operating there amidst diversity is one thing. So long way of answering that was we sort of look narrowed down on culture and especially on values and worldviews to try to understand how that shapes landscape change, how that shapes environmental change, and vice versa, how those changes then come back and reshape culture, reshape the ideas that are in humans heads about farming over long time periods, right.

So yeah, so what's the best way to be? Or what are some different ways about thinking about that diversity, right? Instead of looking at the map and seeing, you know, off Kansas or all of Western Kansas, like, one color, right, but once you see the diversity and everybody's views? How should that shift? Our thinking about land use about water use? And how to how to like adjust policy, because you're talking about, on the one hand, like individual values, right, but then we're also talking about, you know, collective decisions and general policies and individual actions that affect other people. So how do you translate that, that understanding of the diversity of views into thinking about water use and farming?

Well, yeah, so it's a good question. And it really gets back to this agency structure debate that's been going on in sociology, social science. Sure, Humanities philosophy, as well for a very long time. And that debate basically is about individual and society, self and society. How To what degree are these aligned or misaligned and when we when we talk about natural resource management, there have a common pool resource, which is what we have with the Ogallala, they're all drawing, essentially, from the same bathtub, they each put a straw, right each irrigator put the straw down into the, into the tub, and when they pull it out, it lowers the levels, other places. So we have a common pool resource problem, where one person's actions affect another person. And in some degree in unknown ways, still, now the hydrogeology geology has gotten a lot better about that. We can measure love well levels, and so on. And Kansas geological survey does that very well annually, and so on. Not my area. But my understanding is Kansas is really a leader in being able to measure this resource, this water compared to places like California, Central Valley, and so on. But we do have a common pool resource raises questions about fairness, about power of any one actor and what they can do to other actors in the system, fairly or unfairly. And so, enter, you know, a project where we're asking questions about, what should we do with the water that's left? And that raises all these questions of, well, if Joe or Jill, or Susie or Bob pulls this water out, you know, I'm out, I'm out of luck, and they've got more wells, and they've got more money and so on. These people working on these have been wrestling with these questions long before a little, you know, token sociologist comes along and starts asking these questions. I think what a sociologist can bring to that conversation is to try is that is the skills to try to make our values more explicit, and put them on the table in a structured discussion facilitation environment, and allow people who are at the table to make decisions about this shared resource that they otherwise wouldn't make in their own house or with their own farm family, or they'd otherwise, I don't want to say we're facilitators or adjudicators, like, you know, mediators are legal process by any means, but where otherwise, you would resort to, you know, you know, suing the neighbor or doing this, that or the other, make sure that your water was protected, say, okay, as a community level, at a community level, what, what do we want to happen? And why? And there, as you just heard from the discussion about values, there's a lot of diversity in the responses about what should happen with that water and why it should happen. But very few people are explicitly acknowledging their fundamental ideas about right and wrong in those conversations. They're drawing on what we call a cultural toolbox that they're given. And they don't really question it, because it's so deep in their mind. They've been so socialized, they don't. It's just not their opinion is right. And it's natural, because it just is that's the only thing that they know it's right. It's fair, you know, when you open up that box and allow conversations about, well, why do we want to save water? For who? Who benefits about that? And why do why would we want to conserve this? Why would we not want to conserve it? You don't you do start up discussions about tradition, and convention and outreach And toward others, or lack thereof, and the environment, and you really more deeply at the deepest level. And this is what we've been looking a lot at over the past year to really open up bigger conversations about identity, and who people are, and what gives their life meaning. And the water out there is really allowing these things to have these conversations, these feelings, these ideas about who they are to, to manifest sort of on the landscape, but they're asking questions about fundamentally about who I am I, and what am I doing? And those are questions in turn about. And this gets very provocative, but about humans and the natural world, at the deepest level about God, and about your idea of reality. And about often, as I said, in some public talks, whether you ultimately think that God put the water in the ground for you to use it, or whether that's not the case. And those discussions are rarely happening in policy circles. Those are never happening. We're arguing there about rights and legalities underlying all that what I'm trying to say underlying all that is a whole nother level that isn't talked about, but is really driving those discussions. And that's where I want to be, I want to be at the underneath level of the real driving motivations for people to action. Right. And that's what we're trying to do with this with these in very humbly and with these projects.

That's incredibly hard work. But I guess the idea, yeah, right, then. But yeah, you make these underlying things a little bit more explicit. And then you're also able to point out where, where there are commonalities, right, and give a place for discussion. So that there's a possibility for agreement to another level, I guess.

Yes. And so Exactly. So who am I to say whether we should conserve water in Western Kansas? That's a controversial statement as well, because of course, Kansas water law says the water in the under the ground, again, is to be used for the benefit of all Kansans. And I'm not maybe not a lot of people are aware of that. But Kansas has a very, very interesting water law that Texas does not have, Texas has right of capture, which says if the water is under your ground, you do with it what you want. And for your benefit. Kansas doesn't say that Kansas water law says the water under your ground is to be used for the it's called the beneficial use clause. The water under your property is your right property, right. But it is to be used for the benefit of the citizens of the state of Kansas. Right. So bringing people together. And at least making explicit why we're doing what we're doing with water in this place. is I think the least that should be done. Because if even if it does, we it's pumped dry, we will know why we did it. There will be no mistake about why it was done if we talk about our values. Otherwise, if we never if we never have that conversation, it'll be which we may never get to that level on the scale we need. But if we never have that conversation, we're going to argue a lot about this water law or that water law or this, this, this farmer or that farmer. And the conversation I'm much more interested in is about why we did why we're doing what we're doing. And if we collectively, as a group, decide that it's not we're saving or we're not we don't think it's this is there's a reason why this isn't the ground, it's the US and so on. At least our heirs and our ancestors will know why we did what we did. Whether we conserved it or not. And we'll be explicit about that. I don't think it's too much to ask, but it's very controversial and very hard work for sure. 

Fascinating.

I really appreciate the input that you gave us. This was very, very interesting discussion and brought to light a lot of areas to consider when we are looking at some of the hard science problems. You know, water usage is obviously one of the areas that you've been most heavily focused on, but I really appreciate your time and this has been really great.

No, this has been a great conversation. Thanks so much for joining us.

No, I'm glad to have the opportunity to share something about what I've learned and what we've been doing and, and why we're doing it. One last thing, Maureen and not to get on you, this is a very common thing, but you listen to what I been talking about and so on, I think we'll have to start talking about all sciences as the hard sciences now. Engineering into it's always like hard science and soft science. And I'm not at all opposed that many things about what I do are soft in the sense that they're fuzzy. They're unknown. There's a lot of uncertainty. We don't have a lot of precision in the measures and so on. I feel like what we're doing is maybe the hardest science, I never missed an opportunity to point out so I'm not calling you out directly. I'm just saying in general, hard and soft sciences. I don't know maybe we need a new dichotomies ation of our Science. But more on that later for another podcast.

Very, very fair. Fair comment. Yeah, no, the conversation. You guys helped me out here. You'll have to help me come up with the right word to differentiate between the two approaches, but Well, again, I really appreciate your time. This has been an enlightening conversation. 

It's been really great. Keep up the good work.

 Thanks so much. 

If you have any questions or comments you would like to share check out our website at https://www.k-state.edu/research/global-food/ and drop us an email.

Our music was adapted from Dr. Wayne Goins’s album Chronicles of Carmela. Special thanks to him for providing that to us. Something to Chew On is produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. 

On this episode, Dr. Dustin Pendell, professor of agricultural economics, and host of Kansas State University's Beef and Cattle Institute podcast Cattle Chat and returning guest Dr. Jessica Heier Stamm, Kennedy Cornerstone Teaching Scholar in the Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering join hosts for a timely discussion. Both Pendell and Heier Stamm study supply chain at Kansas State University, but from different perspectives. The discussion focuses on the COVID-19 situation and reviews ways in which product moves today and how that may change in the future. 

Transcript:

Preparation and Management of Challenging Situations - The Bottleneck Effects of the Widely Defined and Critical Supply Chain, with Dr. Dustin Pendell, Professor in Agricultural Economics and Dr. Jessica Heier Stamm, Associate Professor in Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering

What happens if this was an African swine fever or mostly foot and mouth disease where humans don't necessarily get impacted but it's the animal side?

Something to Chew On is a podcast devoted to the exploration and discussion of Global Food Systems produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. I'm Maureen Olewnik, coordinator of Global Food Systems.

I’m Scott Tanona. I'm a Philosopher of Science. 

And I'm Jon Faubion. I'm a Food Scientist.

Hello everybody and welcome back to the K State Global Food Systems podcast Something to Chew On. In last week's podcast we talked with Dr. Jessica Heier Stamm about her work on methods to continuously monitor and improve the widely defined and critical supply chain. This week Dr. Heier Stamm agreed to come back and talk about this important area with Dr. Dustin Pendell, whose work is more focused in the area of agriculture. Dr. Pendell, Professor of Agricultural Economics and Director of the Graduate Programs carries out broad research activities in the areas of livestock and animal health issues that span from the producer to the meat supply chain and into the final consumer. Good morning, everyone and welcome back to Something to Chew On. Today's guests, we have Dr. Jessica Heier Stamm and Dr. Dustin Pendell. You will recall that last week's podcast we had a good discussion with Dr. Heier Stamm and she gave us a little background on who she was and what her area of focus was. This morning. I think we'll start with Dustin Pendell and have Dustin, could you give us a little background on who you are, what you do and what got you interested in this area of study?

Absolutely. First off, I'd like to thank you for inviting me today to participate in your podcast. And a little bit about myself. My name is Dustin Pendell. I'm an agriculturalist here in the Department of Agriculture Economics at K State. I've been here on campus for five years. Prior to me joining here at K State. I spent nine years at Colorado State University, the faculty member there where I conducted research and teaching. And then I spent four years at K State get my PhD, grew up in a small cow calf operation in west central Illinois, growing up in Illinois, and they grew up on a cow calf operation. So that's where my interest in the cow calf industry in the beef industry also have degree in Agronomy, so interested in crops as well. So that's a little bit about me, and a lot of my work here at K State is very interdisciplinary. I spend a lot of my time working with that veterinarians, epidemiologist, folks over in animal science. And with my upbringing in the cow calf industry and my background undergraduate education in Agronomy. I've always had this appeal to work on issues, relevant timely issues. And it's not just me being an agricultural economist trying to solve it. It's me being an economist trying to work with the animal scientist trying to work with the the crop scientists, the soil scientists, the Ag engineers, etc. So that's a little bit about me, like I said, I'm currently here at K State, I teach a undergraduate class called data analysis and optimization. I teach a graduate level class called economics of animal health and food safety. That's part of my appointment. Another part of my appointment is outreach extension. And then I'm also have a research appointment where I conduct research mostly related to issues related to animal health. I'm also the director of our graduate program in the Department as well. 

What do you do in your spare time?

Yeah, my spare time I pretty much travel wherever my kids are and do what they are doing. So.. 

yeah, yeah.

So Dustin, just kind of launching into the topic that we're here to talk about today, which is a follow up from Jessica's podcast on the supply chain. Can you give us a little high level background on what does it take to get product from the farm to a consumer these days?

Yes, so the supply chain that in the food industry is quite complex, I believe. Pick a product Pick a cow calf, for example, a calf that is calf born, which takes months, planing it, you know, through the gestation and breeding etc planning process through that calf is born, raised on it operation till a certain weight, maybe 500 pounds, it's weaned from there, it could stay on the operation, maybe as the background here stocker, or it could be sold through a sale barn. And then it could be taken to another farm, potentially raised for a while till I get to a certain weight, maybe 6-7-8-900 pounds from there, it could be sold again through sale barn, or it could be taken to a feedlot to be put on feed for, you know, 120 to several 100 days, 100 days. From there, it goes to the processing plant, where it's processed, and made into a whole bunch of different, I guess, pieces. From there, it can be shipped either locally, in the US internationally, maybe to different warehouses, where their distribution, it can be further processed, once it gets to wherever it is, then that could go into the retail outlets, or it could be diverted to the food service. And of course, every step along the way, you've got other actors or other players, whether it's transportation, other people providing inputs into this food system. And so that's just one particular example, using beef industry. I mean, every industry is going to be slightly different. You've got perishable or non perishable products. And so there's a lot of different complexities, I guess, a lot of steps.

A lot of steps. 

One of the things that we've been talking with Jessica before was about individualized decision making versus kind of top down organization. And one aspect of that also is how many different paths there are through through systems and through supply chains, like you're just discussing and how centralized they are. So you say something about, or Jessica jump in sort of about in general, you know, how centralized these chains are, how, right versus how local they stay, or how they something about all that sorry, that's a lousy question, but I guess you get what I'm asking.

So thinking about this, kind of here is maybe this concept of centralized versus decentralized, we're talking about your individual actors. And we think, across time, we've started to see a lot more the structure of maybe certain industries in agriculture, where they become more consolidated. As an example, over the last two decades or so 80% of the beef industry 80% of the animals slaughtered are controlled by four companies. And so the structure has went from a number of maybe smaller, packing plants to a few really large individuals, maybe that's becoming more centralized. Now, I think, people you want to ask yourself, why is that happening? What are some of the benefits? And what are some of the costs of that, thinking about some of the benefits, we see, probably a lot of it comes back to costs. There's a lot of cost efficiencies that might be saved by becoming larger when you've got cold storage, for example. This is one example when you process a beef, you have to keep that beef in a cooler after you've done that. And so the more animals or the more pounds of meat, you can run through that cooler, you're going to lower those average costs. And so I think, as we've seen across time, the structure of the industry change. Again, I'm using just the livestock industry. I think costs have driven some of that. But I also think there's other factors that come into play when we think about this notion of a centralized maybe versus a decentralized system, not just cost. But it could be environmental issues that could be public health, probably international training. There's a lot of things I think that come back into this notion of a centralized versus a decentralized system. Now, I think as we're going through what we're currently going through with COVID If you follow anything on social media, there's a lot of comments, a lot of maybe pushback of people saying, you know, the current system that we're in this large, having a few large actors, a few large players, control a lot of the system maybe isn't necessarily a good thing, and maybe we should do a lot of have a lot of smaller, local, more regionalized either packing plants or food distribution? And so I think that's, that's a question that we need to look at and we need to answer is, what are the trade offs between where we've evolved to today versus what some people are calling for now is more mauler regionalised, distribution or packers? So I guess that's what I what I've heard what I'm seeing what I've been thinking about recently about this notion of centralized versus decentralized, or, you know, are we wanting to go back to where we were 20-30-40 years ago, I guess I'd like to get maybe what Jessica's take is, on this tour, this idea of individual versus kind of a centralized?

Well, I see a lot of parallels between what Dustin just described for the supply chain, let's say, for beef products, and other supply chains over time, because of cost and other pressures, supply chains in all kinds of industries have gotten very lean. So think about buzzwords like just in time delivery, or, you know, lean manufacturing, operating with the very least amount of inventory being held as can sustain the production line for whatever product that is, and concentrating operations in a small number of firms or locations. We see this on the pharmaceutical supply chain. Right now, that's also creating some some challenges with the COVID response. Because there are drugs in shortage, there are personal protective equipment items that are in shortage, because those supply chains have been designed to provide just the routine amount of supply and any disruption at any point in the supply chain can create havoc in other places. And so I think, across industries, this question that Dustin raised about what are the trade offs? What are the costs and benefits of a lean supply chain of consolidation of concentration in a small number of firms is one that we will very carefully need to study. There are obviously costs to carrying stockpiles of inventory of n95 respirators. But there are also as we're seeing very real costs of not having those stockpiles. Likewise, there are costs of consolidating beef production among four major players, but there are costs of not having a resilient and redundant systems that can be responsive to shocks or vulnerabilities or disruptions in other places in the supply chain.

So what I think what I'm hearing is that the major changes that have taken place in supply chain using cow calf, as an example, has been a consolidation and increase in scale. Is that correct? Or are there more?

No, I definitely the increase the scale. Economies of Scale is a big factor. I mean, it's not probably the only factor though. But it is most definitely in these economies of scale, allowing them to come back to these cost efficiencies. I also think that, you know, sometimes, when you have not only cost efficiencies, I think there are some other things that probably play into whether it be you know, think about slaughter plant, we have a few really large slaughter plants from where are they located at? Well, we know here in Kansas, we have some right southwest Kansas, Texas Panhandle, Oklahoma Panhandle, eastern Colorado. Who wants a packing plants we have a bunch of these throughout the country, really small, regional, how many people want these in their backyard? I think there's a reason why we've seen them in Kansas and western Kansas, for example, there's not a lot of population. So I think their kinds of scale are driving it is Jessica kind of pointed out. But I think there are some other things that we also need that one needs to also consider when they think about this from the bigger picture through all these different trade offs.

So I'm curious about what sort of process would be a good one for thinking about these different trade offs and thinking about how what goals we want out of our system, what we, what we want to achieve how much we care about Say you know that resiliency and how much we're willing to pay for it. Either you have thoughts about how to approach, thinking about these things.

I think modeling is a great tool to be able to examine different systems designs and understand the trade offs and dialogue with stakeholders about the trade off. So I think there are two really important components to considering what a next generation supply chain might look like. The first is understanding the perspective of all the stakeholders and understanding, you know, what, what does each one want out of the supply chain, or what's not working in the current supply chain, you know, if you talk to cow calf operators, today, they're very concerned about your concentration in the packing part of the supply chain, they're very concerned about being able to sell their animals for a fair price. You talk about the Packers, obviously, they're very concerned about the welfare of the workers, the continued operations, being able to sell their product as well. And so having an of course, the consumers interested about what prices they're paying at the grocery store, the welfare of the workers, the safety, health of their communities, and so forth. So understanding what's working or what's not working in the current system, and then taking that to a model to represent, you know, what are the costs and the benefits? If we configure the supply chain in this way? What are the costs and the benefits if we configure it in this way, I'm not an expert in policy or markets or economics. And so there are also some social science aspects of enacting those changes that need to be accounted for as well. And so I think, you know, what Dustin said at the outset of these challenges, interdisciplinary is going to be absolutely critical to us re envisioning what supply chains can look like.

Just to add to that real quick, I agree, we need to talk to the stakeholders, figure out, wait, first of all, who are stakeholders, it is going to be your producers, it's going to be everyone throughout the entire supply chain all the way to your final consumer, and figure out what what are their wants, and their needs. If you take a look at any research that has looked at what consumers want in the food side. And there's generally three or four attributes that always come out on top, you know, price, they want, you know, food that is affordable. Here in the United States, I believe we spend less than 10% of our disposable income. It's down around six or 7% of our disposable income on food. You compare that to some of your third world countries from developing countries, they might pay upwards of 50% 50% of their income, their supposable income is spent on food. So price is one of the attributes, generally food safety, safe, tasty and nutritious. Are your other attributes that consumers typically want to see. But then I also think you need to take into account what those producers and then all your other actors throughout that supply chain is, Jessica brought up another good point about modeling, rather than trying to change the system. And then we'll figure out what all the impacts are. We could use the modeling that Jessica talked about. And that can give us a better idea of what would work what wouldn't work. How much would those costs be by changing the various systems? That way it gives us a better idea of kind of those those benefits and costs that we've talked about. And so I agree with what Jessica said there in terms of thinking about how might we go forward with the supply chains?

In the current situation that we've got with food and challenges in the supply chain? We've been hearing, as you said social media on television, that there's a lot of food being dumped produce milk, are there long term impacts of something like that happening? Is that going to be a flash in the pan? Or do you think going back to some of the other comments that you made a little bit earlier? Is that going to have some force change on the decentralization or the way we look at getting food moved around?

Well, what I think in the short term what that is doing is that is you're starting to see that show up on social media, whether it's Twitter, Facebook, what etc. And I think that's really upsetting some people and I think those could be vocal could be asking for change. We start to see possibly some Are policymakers starting to do investigations? Wanting to know more? What should we be doing different how we should be doing different? Which kind of leads back to that last question that Jessica talked about, maybe we should model look at what a different structure would look like and take a look at those costs associated with possible different structures. And so there's a lot of things I guess, one could think about in this.

Just gonna follow up to that, I think we have seen some changes in policies and practices and supply chain operations, as news of the food waste has gotten out, right. So you all may be more familiar with the nuances and the details of this than I am. But USDA changed some guidelines to allow restaurants to sell the produce the eggs, the meat and things that they had would have received through their regular channels, even when they were not serving customers in the dining room. And so they could sell those products as if they were a grocery store, which is not typically allowed, right. And so redirecting some of that food that would have been potentially wasted back to consumers through a different channel, right. So they're not getting it through the grocery store, but they're getting it through the restaurant channel, and other ways to reconfigure that supply chain that had been designed to send products to restaurants, products to schools to now get to, to grocery stores, or direct to consumer in a way that hadn't been done before the pandemic. And so I think some of those short term changes, will maybe remain short term changes, others may be candidates for consideration about ways that we can adapt the policy more permanently going forward. So I think it'll be interesting to see what some of those responses may be.

And I would concur with that I just don't know long run, what will happen or if, if anything will happen. But I think, you know, some of what we're seeing in the media, social media, I'm just not sure if it'll just die out. And then as we think about the supply chains, how they should or maybe what they should look like in the future, that will then be incorporated into some of those potential policy changes that Jessica mentioned.

That relates to a question that I had, which is basically how easy is it to change these things? You know, how themes as if these supply chains develop, and the sins are made by industry, in ways that, you know, are not going to make it straightforward for us all this sort of say, hey, look, let's do something a little differently, everybody. So like, how stable are is the way things are set up right now? And how easy is it to change?

Some supply chains might be a little easier to adapt, and change. Others are going to be like we pointed out right at the very beginning, the food system is very complex. And so I don't think these are things that you can change very easily, especially overnight. Going back to the live animal, or fruits and vegetables. You know, we've got biology that gets that comes into play here, this is good, that's gonna be a little different to maybe a manufacturing sector. And because of the biological lags or the biology that gets involved in the animal agriculture, or I guess fruits and vegetables, that in itself is one complexity that maybe other industries don't have that don't see. I think that's a complexity right there. That's gonna be very hard to change. And it's not in the whole, there's so many players are so many people are so many other industries are that are involved in the supply chains. It's not just talking to the Packers in the feed yard, that maybe your cow calf producers, it's all these other industries that impacted, right, you've got your pharmaceutical industries that provide, you know, the medications to the industry, you've got your feed industry, so you get your grain producers. And so you've got a whole bunch of different players that might not actually produce the calf or produce the chicken. But you've got all but they're definitely involved in that chain. So changing this, the supply chain, I don't think it's very easy at all. I think it's going to be extremely complex. I think it will take a while to think through alternatives. And if we want to implement them, they'll have to be implemented slow as there's so many other people that are being impacted, and they will have to adjust and change their supply chains as well. So my initial initial reaction to your question.

I echo what Dustin shared and just chime in with a small anecdote that others may have seen. So this is from the healthcare side. It's so there's a shortage in hand sanitizer and distilleries, you know, mobilized to produce hand sanitizer instead of whiskey. And now there's a shortage in plastic bottles to put the sanitizer in so it can be dispensed. Right. So, health care supplies, supply chain personnel, you know, hospital resource managers have been trying to find out who are the producers of small plastic bottles, so they can dispense the hand sanitizer that they're getting in, you know, really, really big jugs in practical ways throughout their system. So just something as small as what bottle Do you dispense it in, can throw a wrinkle into even a creative solution. And so if you compound that through the entire supply chain, whether it's pharmaceutical, medical supplies, or food, fruit, vegetables, meat proteins, every one of those supply chains has those little nuances, those complexities all the way through. And so thinking about those implications is certainly tackling a complex problem.

In some cases, you have the cost of success when you have a critical ingredient. And the product is so highly desired that you've lost full access or appropriate access to, to the critical ingredient. Not enough blueberries for McDonald's yogurt, or whatever. And so now they have one component that's missing, and they can't, they can't sell the product at all. So it ramifies out even further into the mind of very minor ingredients in the system.

I guess another complexity to add on top of that is that the consumer and certainly in the United States is used to being able to get whatever they want, whenever they want it and not having eating locally, obviously, that's going to be very seasonal. That's really not what the consumer is used to.

And I think that's just probably a temporary. I mean, we're just we had such a huge shock to the system, right? You think about the demand side, we have people scared. And so they're all going out, rushing out buying products, whether that be meat, because we saw the pictures of the meat cases, for bare in the social media in the news, or, you know, Clorox wipes toilet paper. So you’ve seen this initial huge shock that we're not used to seeing, from demand side, on the demand side, thinking about groceries, on the restaurant side, now suddenly, everybody stays home, nobody's going out to eat. And so you got restaurants that are in there that are shut down, at least temporarily. And so that's a huge shock to their system as well. And thinking back to earlier questions about dumping milk, or this or that, in comments about the supply chains, how we've got them, we can't just change them overnight. Right? So we're making the same milk that's going in these little cartons that go to school, where you can't just turn on take the little cartons and sell them in a grocery store. You can't change our supply chain overnight, like Jessicas has talked about. It's I think that is some of these issues that we're seeing right now. Now, are they changing? Will they be able to adapt? Absolutely. But they just can't do that, that change, I can't make that change overnight. And so I think it is a short term shock, as we start to gradually open up as we start to go, you know, open up the economy start to go out to restaurants, etc. I think as demand builds back up, we'll start to, you know, we'll start to things will start to get back to, quote unquote, normal, if you will. And so I think it's just gonna take some time. But I think this is just a short term shock to the system will advance and then we can talk about the supply side shock as well.

What's the least likely factor to change? What's going to be? What might be different out there? Is there something that just is now have we learned something that makes it impossible to go back to some part of the system?

That's a good question. I’ll have to think about that one.

Or is it was it going to be a trial and error? What will we find out? When we have go back the way it was and find the problem? 

That's a good question.

I’ve been really interested in the question and I don't have an answer off the top of my head. Think about it. 

I've been pondering it as well in a different context in the context of some spice industry, if you will, or the flavor industry. Some of those very minor ingredients are quite unusual and susceptible to alteration, and susceptible to contamination, and we have problems with sanitizing them, because you know, that they're difficult, and it might change them. So we might, we might find that what we've what we've decided to do, might be very, very difficult to do at least one step, perhaps. So I think it's just gonna have to be a learning experience.

Yeah, your, your might be right there. Yeah. What, as we tried to go back to some things and realize that maybe it didn't work. Maybe it doesn't work, maybe we've improved, we've learned or maybe what we're doing now isn't working, we have to go back. And there's really no other way to around it.

As far as as for nosocomial diseases are concerned, for example. Would it be possible? Or would it be in the realm of possibilities that that certain strains or certain varieties or certain genetic compositions of a feed animal or a bird or whatever might be selectively susceptible to those or? or pass that disease more readily on to a human? Or am I asking the wrong? The right question? Maybe?

Yeah, I might want to leave that to an epidemiologist or public health, not not an economist.

I had a bigger picture thought on what may or may not revert to the previous normal with respect to supply chains. This may be my optimistic side talking, but I'm a perpetual supply chain educator, my hope is that we don't go back to a scenario where we only think about supply chain when it's broken. You know, so now everybody knows about the disruptions in the food supply chain in the Lysol wipes supply chain in the PPE supply chain. We know about supply chains now, because they're not working the way that we expect them to. I may be overly optimistic, but I hope that we continue to think about supply chains and how they impact our lives. And, I hope that people get excited about solving those problems.

Do you think there's a ways in which we can be more attentive to different kinds of risks to the supply chain coming on? Now? I mean, I think, I don't know that much about this. But I have a sense that, right. I mean, farmers are sensitive to the possible diseases that their animals have and their crops have. Right. And so when we thought about and heard about bird foods, etc, before, I mean, sort of from the general population side, I think, you know, I mean, we worry about the transfer over to humans, and we're all going to get sick, but we're also, you know, aware that that's the ag industry is worried about this with respect to their animals, and then sort of, you know, perhaps diseases, etc, the same right, but, now we're looking at and that would disrupt, right, sort of, like a major, major disease amongst all right, you know, amongst livestock, you know, we know that's going to disrupt the agriculture industry, right, but we haven't, it seems to me then, like intentive to like how, how major things like this economically would, would shift. Right, so people getting sick, right, would totally mess up the supply chain the same, this kind of way, right? Does this just raised like new issues that we haven't been attentive to, and maybe thinking about enough? Are these are these things people have been thinking about? And then just like we weren't, we weren't ready for it?

That's a really good question. You know, question that I've asked myself over the last couple, two, three weeks, is we're talking about we're seeing COVID-19 which is a human and animals aren't impacted. mean, they are being impacted now, because we've seen that the bottleneck with packing plants, not having a labor force to keep their packing plants open. Thus, we don't have a place for our live animals to go. And so if you see in the news, how they've been euthanizing animals for welfare reasons. What happens if this was an African swine fever or mostly foot and mouth disease where humans don't necessarily get impacted, but it's the animal side, which is exactly what you're talking about. Because it's going to enter deuce, I think a whole others. There'll be some similar issues that we're seeing now. But I think it's going to open up a whole lot of other issues that we haven't experienced, from the fact that you're gonna have a whole bunch of animals that are sick. So we're going to have to think about depopulating potentially lots and lots of animals. What do we do with those animals? Some of the things I think that could be similar, as you know, we've seen the federal government and maybe state and local governments as well pass legislature that legislation that provides relief, economic relief, stimulus funds, I guess, you could say. So that would be something similar, I could see that happening already on the maybe if it was a different disease, helping out maybe producers who are losing livestock, which I think we're seeing that now, I think that could be a similarity, I think you're going to probably see similar issues in the supply chain, except now there's just not enough animals going into the supply chain. So it's not enough animals bid up the price. So prices, I think at the retail level will be extremely, could be pretty high, we could start to see issues with international trade, where maybe we're wanting to import more. But same time, maybe some people don't want to maybe don't want to ship product out of maybe they're scared? It's an interesting question, I guess I'd have to think a little bit about all the different differences between what we're currently seeing on the human side versus an animal. But absolutely, I think you're gonna see a lot of there will be a number of things that are the same. But there will be certain maybe it's disease specific things that are different. That one might have to think about to kind of think through kind of trace out the impact who's being impacted, and then subsequently up and down the entire supply chain.

I think I heard somewhere in your question, a thread about whether this has been on the radar of the public, the policymakers, the researchers, this kind of an outbreak. Yeah, yeah. So I'll pick up on that thread. It has been the potential for a global pandemic, whether human animal or zoonotic. So across species, is the subject of a great deal of, research and study much of it at K State. And what's been interesting to see play out in this particular event, is that this is a perfect storm, that is sort of the worst case scenario that a lot of these researchers have considered. And as much as we would like to say, you know, couldn't we have been more prepared for XYZ? It's, you know, some of that preparation was there, some of it's a matter of, of managing the situation in the moment, and some of it is a matter of every possible scenario is playing out here in terms of impact on on human health impacts on the economy, impact on supply chains, and all of those components at once. And so yes, there has been attention paid to this, but there's certainly opportunity for us to learn, because I think, you know, the science is pretty clear that these kinds of events are going to become more common, not less. And so this isn't the last major event, whether human animal or both, that we'll need to deal with and so whatever we can learn from this event, can only help us be more prepared for what's coming down the road.

So now that you've had chance to interact you to? Do you see areas that that in your areas of interested overlap that you are that you didn't know before or…

Not I think we've served on one PhD students committee, we looked at kind of a systems approach, building a model. And as a director of the grad program, a lot of what we as economists do, is we look at optimization. And I know Jessica, teaches some supply chain classes. She's teaching a game theory class for which we've got one of our grad students already enrolled in that this upcoming semester. And so I think there is probably a lot more overlap on what both on the teaching side, as I teach, I teach an optimization class as well, in the spring term, teaching, but I think from a research standpoint, I think Jessica and some others, just had a paper came out recently, if I'm not mistaken, that looking at some agent based modeling, in southwest Kansas, thinking the beef industry livestock. So I think there's some interesting things with that particular research. And I think they could easily adapt that to other parts of the industry aspect, whether it's Packing Plant Industry, or others. And so I think there are probably a lot of overlap and interests, whether it be from a teaching, or especially a research side, as well.

Is it your sense that the work that you two are doing and how many other people number doesn't matter, that are producing these results? And these recommendations, are they being effectively communicated to the actors that can actually make a difference in the, for example, in the supply chain? Are we doing an effective job of communicating up and out?

I think we can always do better with that aspect of research, we get excited about the results. And we get excited about the student successes. And when we're able, we also engage with stakeholders to make sure that we're informing our modeling and our research at the front end, and evolving with their feedback through the middle and delivering those recommendations out. But I think that those pieces always can be improved. That's my perspective. And that's a priority of mine, in my current research, going forward, just partnering with state and local health departments, and so forth, but there are challenges in that as well, from the perspective of what's appreciated and rewarded in the university structure. But also just the bandwidth of the practitioners and finding the ways to engage that are best for them. And I think, you know, extension does a lot better job of this, in terms of engagement than other parts of the university.

And to follow on that, if we go back and look at maybe 15 years ago, when I started where we are now, you know, there was a lot of emphasis on, you just got to publish publishing your top in journals, work with other economist. Fast forward to today. It's, it's all about, are you having an impact, not necessarily in a top journal, but who are you helping? And one way to look at that is, you know, if you're in try to solve real world problems, you work with economists, engineers, and maybe a Veterinary Epidemiologist. And so I think we're starting to see a lot more of that. I think that we can do better, as Jessica pointed out, but I think we have seen a lot of that, you know, in my short 15 years and at the university. I also think what we've seen just within the last 2-3-4 weeks, I think we at the university, I think the our K State Extension has done an outstanding job putting out those relevant resources as timely resources, whether that be financial planning, whether that be in the public health, or whether that be helping model transportation in a particular region, for maybe livestock, and so I think we're starting to see a lot more of that communication, a lot more of the outreach, a lot more of the extension. And these last several weeks showing everything all the great things that we're doing at K State. And I hope going forward, that we will continue to communicate that information, whether that be a podcast or whether that be short factsheets or a radio interview, to the necessary people, whether the leadership at university leadership in Topeka, or in Washington, DC.

Well, Jessica and Dustin, I want to thank you both for your time here today. This has been a really interesting conversation. Each time I talk to somebody on campus, I realized how much more in depth research is being done in areas that impact people on a daily basis. And I think this, this added some clarity to some of the things that we're dealing with today and gives us a little insight on what we may be looking forward to in the future. So thank you so much for joining us today. 

Yes, thanks for the opportunity.

Yes, thank you very much.

If you have any questions or comments you would like to share check out our website at https://www.k-state.edu/research/global-food/ and drop us an email.

Our music was adapted from Dr. Wayne Goins’s album Chronicles of Carmela. Special thanks to him for providing that to us. Something to Chew On is produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. 

Dr. Jessica Heier Stamm, Kennedy Cornerstone Teaching Scholar in the Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering at Kansas State University, explains the applications of supply chain engineering in the humanitarian response of the current pandemic. Dr. Heier Stamm develops quantitative models and algorithms to designs and improve humanitarian relief and public health systems. Her work has modeled the impacts of facility location decisions on cholera response in Haiti and earthquake response in Nepal. 

Transcript:

Demand for Humanitarian Response – How to Apply Industrial Engineering Toolbox to Solve Problems Related to the Humanitarian Response, with Dr. Jessica Heier Stamm, Associate Professor in Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering

The transdisciplinary perspective and having multiple kinds of expertise at the table is critical to making the model the right model, whether that's in the public health and humanitarian sphere, rather in the animal environmental health sphere.

Something to Chew On is a podcast devoted to the exploration and discussion of Global Food Systems produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. I'm Maureen Olewnik, coordinator of Global Food Systems.

I’m Scott Tanona. I'm a Philosopher of Science. 

And I'm Jon Faubion. I'm a Food Scientist.

Hello everybody and welcome back to the K State Global Food Systems podcast Something to Chew On. COVID-19 has affected all areas of our everyday life. One of the things that we rely on the most but rarely consider is the supply chain. Do you buy locally produced products. Even if an effort is made to do that many of the things needed for everyday life come to us through a complicated and many times an international supply chain in a time of crisis, a functioning supply chain is critical in getting essential materials to where they are needed. Today's guest is Dr. Jessica Heier Stamm Associate Professor in industrial manufacturing systems engineering and the Gisela and Warren Kennedy Cornerstone teaching scholar. Dr. Heier Stamm uses operations research and game theory tools to analyze supply chain systems in which decisions about systems control are made in a decentralized way. This work is addressing two central research questions. What is the impact on systems effectiveness as a result of decentralization? And how can systems be designed to mitigate the adverse effects of decentralization? Answers to these questions can help us gain a better understanding of the supply chain and will have direct implications for participants in that supply chain in designing and managing those process systems. In the last few podcasts, we've been discussing viruses and research dealing with the physical nature of the organism, and computer aided models that help us to understand how viruses spread. Modeling can also be used to establish methods of getting help to those that need it the most. Again, from our socially distance homes and offices, we would like to welcome Dr. Jessica Heier Stamm to the podcast. The logistics systems are critical in the movement of people and supplies. Logistics modeling can apply to medical situations like we're seeing today with COVID 19 outbreak, or Congestus will be used in the critical movement of food and supplies. I'm excited to learn more about this area of study. Jessica, before we get started on research that you're currently involved with, can you give us a little background on yourself on who you are and how you become interested in this area of work? 

Certainly, first, let me say thank you for the invitation to be on the podcast. I think it's never been more important to examine Global Food Systems challenges from transdisciplinary perspectives. And I agree with what you said Maureen that the logistics are a big part of that. So I'm a native Kansan. I grew up in Quinter, on a small farm there. And early on, I enjoyed using math to solve problems. But I also had this deep desire to make a difference in people's lives. So that through a somewhat circuitous path led me to earning an industrial engineering degree at K State. And at the time that I was entering college, I didn't meet an engineer until I was a senior in high school, let alone know what most engineers did or what industrial engineers did. But I came to learn that industrial engineers design, improve and manage systems that produce goods and services. And I was really drawn to the opportunities to use math and statistics and business skills to make things better. But the examples that I saw in the standard curriculum about the systems that traditional industrial engineers were working with, were not the examples that I wanted to see myself working in through my career. I was really excited about using the same tools in that industrial engineering toolbox. To solve problems related to humanitarian response to getting the goods and services to people in need people that have been affected by disasters or long term public health challenges. And so at the conclusion of my undergraduate studies, I decided to go on to graduate school and really focus on becoming an expert in supply chain engineering, but with the intent to apply those skills in the humanitarian domain. So I earned my PhD at Georgia Tech. One other fact that I didn't mention is that I knew that I wanted to be a teacher, before I knew that I wanted to be an engineer. And so a faculty role really helped me mash up those two interests that I had, I had an opportunity to come back to K State, and I just couldn't turn it down. So I joined the faculty about nine years ago. And about three years ago, I became a graduate faculty member in the K State, interdisciplinary master's in public health program. So now I have what I tell my students is the best job in the world, I get to work with them on important challenges that the world is facing. And I get to interact with stakeholders who are making decisions about logistics systems and help them find ways to solve those problems.

And how would you over the nine years that you've been here? How have the problems or circumstances or situations that you're bringing your expertise to have they changed? Have they shifted? I sense there's going to be sort of a tidal shift coming up. But has there been a change over the last few years any otherwise? 

The predominant area where I'm focusing my work continues to be in disaster preparedness and response for human public health systems. At the same time, since I've been at K State, I have worked on a number of projects that touch animal health that touch environmental health, water, decisions around water and land use. And I really see those things holistically, right, I think about myself as a person who studies supply chain systems that support human animal and environmental health. And at K State, we really prioritize and recognize this notion of One Health, how all of these components are linked together. And in studying them together from a multidisciplinary perspective, we can have a greater impact on those problems. So I do think that my focus has broadened to think about how that tool set is applicable to a wide variety of domains.

In reading through the work you've done in the recent past, your focus has been on decentralized systems. What are the pluses and minuses, the differences between looking at this type of activity from a centralized system in a decentralized as the decentralized? Better? Is it just more common? What is the focus for that perspective?

Certainly, I would say that the majority of systems if we think about these complex supply chain systems that support human animal environmental health, they really are comprised of multiple stakeholders, all the way from the private sector, to the government, to the nonprofit organizations. And so these, these systems in practice are more often decentralized than not. On the other hand, most of the tools in the toolbox that we bring to bear to model these systems have been built from a centralized perspective, the perspective that we can optimize a single function to achieve the goals of the system, that one person can, or one entity can determine what the constraints and boundaries of the system are, and make the decisions to control actions within that system to achieve the goals. And that's fine. But those kinds of models really end up optimizing components, isolated components within this broader system. To get a bigger picture and a better fidelity to the real world. We need to account for that decentralization for the different levels of decision making for the different objectives and information that stakeholders have, and for the ways in which decisions are actually made. If we think about it from that system's perspective, we may have been optimizing sub components, but the result is not a system optimal solution. And so it's very important to think about how do we adapt our traditional modeling approaches to account for that real decentralization? And then what insights can these new models give us to better understand to better design to better manage those systems, Maureen, you also asked a broader question about whether decentralization or centralization is better. I think, you know, from a philosophical perspective, the answer is it depends a lot on on the nature of the system

That makes total sense is we know, the food system, the medical system, whichever you want to look at is made up of a lot of parts. And it would not, there would not be a centralized focus on how to do that. And it's interesting to understand that you've got a lot of centralized focus is put together and that is the decentralization.

Could you give an example of a centralized system and how some of the techniques that are traditionally used would address optimization there, and then, you know, example of just how different it is once things are not centralized?

Sure. So we think about a single, let's say, transportation for optimizing the deliveries, that it needs to execute in a given timeframe, let's say a day, that single transportation firm owns the assets that it's using or contracts with its drivers in their assets, and can make decisions, how to deploy those resources to meet the demands that it's facing from its customers. A traditional optimization model works well at that scale, to be able to deploy those resources to maximize on time delivery, or maximize profit or minimize cost, whatever the objective function might be for that firm. But if we think about the ecosystem that that firm works in, even within other segments of that same company, they are serving different markets, they are serving different consumer segments, maybe one branch of that company is operating, truckload delivery, and another branch of that company is operating, express air freight with last mile, local truck delivery. In a lot of our major transportation companies, those two branches of the same company operate as independent entities. And the resources, the drivers, the pilots, the planes, the trucks that belong to one of those entities are not necessarily shared or even visible to the other part of the same company. Could there be synergy? By pooling those resources and allocating them to the pooled demand across those two different segments of the same company? Absolutely. Are there costs associated with collaborating across those two divisions of the same company? Yes. And so one thing that we focus on in in the research that my group does is how do we think about allocating the costs and benefits of collaboration of making this decentralized system function a little bit more closely to the centralized one, in a way that makes those two separate entities more likely to want to collaborate, so that they both come out ahead. And that's it, that's a hard problem to figure out how to allocate costs and benefits across entities to to move towards achieving the system wide objectives that you might achieve with a centralized approach. But recognizing the realities that those two segments of the company are still going to make their own decisions according to their own profit objectives or market objectives.

So that is the main issue there that there is not centralized decision making between the two? Or is it that there are different sets of interests, that you're not looking to optimize for a single thing, but these different subunits are trying to accomplish different things?

Both and. Right, so there's not centralized decision making. And the reason that centralized decision making may not be realistic to achieve is that there are different objectives. Even if the bottom line objective for the overarching company is profitability, the way in which each organization sees itself contributing to that, and the metrics may be different for each. I can take this a bit more specific to challenges that we've seen in public health emergency response. So we think about one project that my students and I worked on was looking at the response to the cholera outbreak in Haiti that followed the 2010 earthquake there. And so about 9-10 months after the earthquake occurred in January of 2010. In the October timeframe, cholera was discovered in Haiti. For those who may not know cholera is a serious bacterial disease that can be easily treated with routine methods. But if those treatments are not readily available, people with significant illness can die within hours. So that makes easy access to treatment facilities a high priority and combating the disease and the consequences of that disease for the population. Many international and and local non governmental organizations, health organizations, United Nations agencies were involved in the response to cholera in Haiti, the publicly available data that we accessed through the World Health Organization and the Pan American Health Organization identified more than 100 unique entities that were operating cholera treatment facilities in Haiti, at the peak of the operation, there was some degree of communication between many of those entities that operating facilities via the United Nations cluster system that tries to bring together independent organizations who are operating in the same space, to share information to share objectives, and so forth. But there was not a centralized agency who had the authority to direct these NGOs and other responders about where color treatment facilities needed to be located. And so the actual system was quite decentralized, individual organizations made decisions about where to set up their color treatment facilities. And what we saw was that there was a great concentration and services and facilities available in the capital city. But there were many rural areas where there was no cholera treatment facility available within any reasonable transportation distance for the population, or based on the conditions. And so the result of that decentralization was redundancy in some areas, so duplication of service, and disparity so complete in availability of service in other areas. We don't believe that we could achieve complete centralization, there is no entity with the authority in many of these international disasters to dictate what Non Governmental Organizations will do and where they will operate. But what we were able to do with our models was to demonstrate the potential benefit of reallocating the same resources in different locations, and how that would impact the accessibility of treatment of cholera for the population across all of Haiti. And we see those results as a starting point for saying, you know, what are some mechanisms that could encourage this still decentralized system to behave more like one that we could achieve if we did have this hypothetical centralized control, things like providing additional resources to organizations that are willing to operate in remote communities, because obviously, that operation has additional costs. Those organizations are not as visible to their funders and to donors if they're operating in rural areas. And so what are some mechanisms, even information sharing about where demand is not being met, and how organizations might be able to better use their resources, recognizing that organizations will still make those decisions independently. But providing information or providing financial support to help them make those decisions more readily could be a mechanism to moving towards this more centralized outcome?

It is very interesting. I'm kind of curious about how, how to think about modeling, this independent decision making. In some sense, everybody, all the organizations that are down there have some set of common goals. Right. You know, they're trying to address the humanitarian crisis, and they have different focuses, probably for sure. Right. But they've got some common set of goals, but you're just talking about costs and such as cost of money, but costs too, while funding right sort of through their donors. Could you say a little something else about like, what, what the incentives and what the goals of like different individual organizations are in a crisis like this and how you think about them and how you think about what's driving their decision making?

Certainly. So a number of scholars have looked at what some of those objectives are, we have not specifically been investigating the components of those objectives but have benefited from the work that others have done. There are the missions of the individual organizations, right? What is their priority? What is their organizational purpose. And to the extent that that can be captured in a model, you know, that that goes into their decision making, there is also the need to secure continued funding. And for many of these organizations, that does mean demonstrating to their donors that they're being financially responsible, that the funds that the donors are giving, are going directly to the cause to the mission. And so anything around management or logistics, or investing in systems that might make some of these practices more efficient, goes into that overhead category that is not counted as direct investment in mission. And so it can be an opportunity to educate donors about the metrics that are used to evaluate the operation of nongovernmental organizations. So there's that the need to continue to receive donations, and then to demonstrate financial stewardship of those donations. So how many people are they serving per dollar that they invest or? And so there, it gets to some very nuanced mathematics, right? If you choose the wrong metric for any optimization model, or a decision maker is not solving a mathematical model, they're using a heuristic decision process in their heads to make that decision. So if you back out what those criteria are, we can get a model to give lots of different answers depending on which metric we put in that objective function. And so thinking carefully about whether we're measuring efficiency, right outputs over inputs, or effectiveness, did we accomplish the goal that we set out to do which was to minimize the number of cases and minimize morbidity and mortality? Or even equity? Did we serve the people across the country at the same level? Or were we prioritizing people that lived in urban areas over rural areas, so how you choose those metrics, and then how you combine or balance those metrics can have a big impact on what the outcome is.

Since the stroke of the COVID pandemic, we are starting to hear more and more examples of large organizations, both private and public, that are making huge changes in what they do, what they make, what they, you know, essentially, who they are, and going from, you know, forwards going from making radiator pumps to ventilators or whatever. And are, are these the sort of models that those folks could apply to optimize this change, in course, this change in process that they're putting themselves through.

Certainly, there is a role for models to help with that. If you think about changing from producing automobiles to producing ventilators. That's potentially a subset of the suppliers, the raw material suppliers or the parts and equipment suppliers could be similar, but a variety of them are going to be different. And so identifying procurement strategy for the new parts and equipment that are necessary identifying an efficient and effective production process or how are you going to need to retool, reconfigure the factory. What does that physical space look like? And then what is the the distribution chain look like once the ventilators have been produced? They're not going to be going out through the the regular distribution chain that Ford has. So who are the other partners that need to be at the table to think about what is the end target for these new products? Yes, the kinds of supply chain models that we use to improve the traditional automobile supply chain can be reconfigured and re adapted to design manage and improve this adapted supply chain for ventilators.

Thanks.

I see that you use game theory tools to do some of the research that you're working on and analyzing these systems. Can you tell me what game theory is and how that works in the analysis that you're doing? 

Yes, game theory is a formal way to represent decisions of multiple stakeholders when those decisions have strategic interaction. So if I'm making a decision, and it doesn't impact you, and it's not impacted by any decision that you make, there's no strategic interaction between those decisions. But the minute that something that you decide impacts, the options available to me are the outcomes for me based on my decisions, then there's a potential to model that as a game. The name comes from formalizing the strategies, the actions and the outcomes in table games, board games, and so forth. But it's been applied to economics, supply chains, political science across a variety of different disciplines. The purpose is to model and then better understand the behavior of decision makers in these strategic environments. The way that it comes into play in the research that I do on supply chains, is to overcome the limitations of the traditional optimization models that have taken this centralized perspective where there's a single decision maker. So if we use game theory, we can bring in the perspective and objectives of multiple decision makers and identify the impacts and the outcomes of decisions by each of those decision makers and then predict what what they would do in practice, and what actions would be beneficial or detrimental to the overall system based on on those decentralized actions.

So one of the main games of game theory that maybe people have heard about is the prisoner's dilemma, right? Where two people are making decisions on their own right in cooperating, they're gonna do better off but there's incentives for each of them to, to cheat or to not cooperate, right? And then that drives them to a situation where things are not good for any of them overall, right? So a lot of what I have heard about game theory is the ways in which the equilibrium states that people end up being when they're individually making these decisions on their own interests are often not in their collective best interests. Right. Tell me what kinds of things you see when you apply game theory to these human humanitarian decision making?

Certainly, so you're right, that much of the study of game theory has identified that the outcomes in equilibrium are not those that would be mutually beneficial to the players. And what we see when we apply this in supply chains, particularly with respect to public health, I'll make a couple of points. The first is we used game theory ideas to model decisions of individual patients in seeking where to obtain a vaccine for the h1n1 pandemic, right. So, vaccines were available at a number of different clinics, information was available to the public about how many vaccines were available at each location, people make decisions about where they're going to seek health care, based on their own objectives, we might imagine that those objectives include the distance or the travel time to get to the facility, and the relative waiting time or congestion that they're going to experience at that facility, which is a function of how many other people are there, and how many vaccines are available at that place. And so the traditional optimization approach, if we're thinking about a vaccine distribution problem, is to say, we're going to send out the vaccines and we can tell people where they must go if they want to receive a vaccine. That doesn't work, when people are independently rationally making their own choices about about their health care. And so a more realistic approach is to say, here's where the vaccines are, what decisions are people likely to make? And that gives us a metric for what is likely to happen in the system. And what we saw when we applied game theory in that way, modeling the individual patients decisions was that some facilities had more vaccine than they had people willing to visit the facility to receive the vaccine. Other facilities were overwhelmed and highly congested. And so what that speaks to in turn have, you know backing out some policy recommendations is the opportunity to design that distribution system a priori, having accounted for people's likely decisions. So we would make different decisions about where to send the vaccines. If we assumed up front, that people are going to make their own choices about where to visit, then we would make if we assume that we could tell them where to go. Since we know that the situation is really that people make their own decisions, let's design the system so that it operates effectively under that scenario. So that's one, that's one perspective, that's one thing that we see when we incorporate game theory into those models. And to your original point that the decisions of individual decision makers are not necessarily in their mutual best interest. The idea of game theory is that people are going to make their decisions. And in an equilibrium solution, there's no way that one patient could switch to another facility and be better off in terms of the distance she had to travel, or the waiting time that she experienced, there would have to be collective movement of groups of people who were coordinating. And so that moves to another branch of game theory, where we explicitly model the opportunity for decision makers to collaborate with one another in groups, smaller, large groups. And what we see there is that if the system the incentives, the mechanisms are designed, well, we can actually achieve group decisions that approximate what would happen if we could tell everyone exactly what to do, even when we don't have to tell everyone exactly what to do. What do we mean by that? designing the system and the mechanisms means figuring out a way to allocate costs and benefits. So if we collaborate, that presumes that we have a way of sharing information presumes that we have some binding agreement that we're going to do what we say we're going to do, these kinds of models apply more readily to organizations, necessarily, then to individuals. And so the context where we're exploring this is with healthcare and public health organizations, thinking about their supply chain decisions. So if we work together to procure the supplies that we need, there are supply chain synergies, because we have a greater total demand, we can collaborate on transportation, we can share inventory management costs. But in order for us to collaborate, we have to have information systems that talk to one another, we have to decide when we pay for transportation, do I pay for 50%, and you pay for 50%? Or you pay for 60? I pay for 40? Was that decision based on. And so if those cost and benefit allocation mechanisms are designed in appropriate way, we can achieve those supply chain synergies that we would not be able to achieve otherwise, if individuals were acting just on their own according to their own objective functions. So we see both ends of the spectrum. When we model things with game theory, we see. Yes, the reality that decentralized decision makers can end up in an equilibrium state where none of them is as well off as they would be if they collaborated. But we also see what system design parameters are necessary to achieve that collaboration and move the system to that better equilibrium.

I was just gonna ask how specific those kinds of recommendations are and well, and how general are they right sort of other general things that you can say that about supply chains where you can induce better collaboration, or you can put into place the right kinds of mechanisms that would allow collaboration to work, where you can generalize these policy recommendations to a wide variety of situations like maybe food supply chains, as well as vaccines, supply chains, as well as, you know, humanitarian situations or there's really very specific deep situation.

Great question. We are working toward generalizable insights based on general models that would be translatable across industries. We are not specifically there yet, with respect to the cooperative game models that I described. For a number of reasons we're trying to incorporate the multiple objectives and the decisions over time to be able to make those models generalizable. What we have been able to see with respect to the public health systems that we've studied, is that certain nuances of those decisions depend very heavily on the context. It's a what, what is the form of the objective function for individual decision makers? What are the demographics, the geographic configuration of supply and demand points, and so forth. And so from that perspective, the models can be really useful in identifying areas where we need additional health care providers, or we need to recruit existing health care providers to be able to distribute vaccine, for instance, where we need to account for different demographics in terms of just the underlying healthcare infrastructure in a particular location. So at this stage, we have primarily focused on what specific recommendations can we make for the dataset that we are exploring? Then we're working on backing that out to generalizable models?

At the beginning, you mentioned I think, I think I remember mentioning, interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary work, can you tease out a little more information on the need for interdisciplinary activities and understand how those different facets work into the kind of modeling that you're doing?

Certainly, and to highlight that, I think I'll go to three models that are more closely related to food systems, some work that we have done. And I'll start by saying that the transdisciplinary perspective and having multiple kinds of expertise at the table is critical to making the model the right model, whether that's in the public health and humanitarian sphere, we're in the animal environmental health sphere. I see my role in these teams as somebody that can help the team visualize what the system is as a whole and how the different components of the system linked together and then find the mathematical linkages that we can use to model those connections. But I cannot know what the right for instance, disease transmission model looks like. For that I need an epidemiologist I cannot know for human decisions, how to represent values and beliefs and norms and policy choices. For that I need a sociologist and an economist. And so I see my role as bringing those pieces together and helping them talk to one another, not the people, right, which is another challenge of interdisciplinary work is, is helping the people learn to talk with one another and understand each other. But to make the pieces of the model talk to one another in a way that links everything together. So some specific examples. I've worked on a project to understand some of the interdependencies between the beef cattle industry in the transportation industry. The case study region that we use for that project was southwest Kansas, obviously, a major center for beef cattle operations for the country. And this collaboration involved partners in electrical and computer engineering, in computer science at the Beef Cattle Institute, and in psychology, in addition to myself, to try to understand these interdependencies to try to model the different components of that system and then try to understand some strategies for managing those interdependencies. So when we have infrastructure systems, like the food system and the transportation system that depend on one another mutually they're vulnerable to shocks to cascading shocks and cascading failures in any of those systems. And so one important priority for this project was to identify mitigation strategies. For these disruptions, and understand the potential impact of secure information sharing, let's say, via blockchain technology or something similar, the impact of that secure information sharing on the system outcomes, if there is a disruption in one of these infrastructure systems. And so being able to represent each of those granular pieces in a mathematical model requires those multiple expertise at the table. So the bottom line, that connection to where my work comes in, is really to understand how to allocate these costs and benefits of information sharing across the stakeholders, the cow calf operators, the stalkers, the feeders, the Packers, how do you allocate the costs and benefits of sharing information, let's say via a blockchain technology in a way that can encourage everybody to participate, and can help achieve system resilience if there was a shock in the system, because there's a blizzard, and the transportation is not available, if there's a shock in the system, because there's a suspected foot and mouth disease outbreak. You know, how does that cascade through the system? And what strategies can we put in place to mitigate those impacts?

Interesting, the blockchain technology is something that I had seen introduced to the food system. Oh, probably, in the last five years. There was a gentleman with Walmart that's now with the FDA that really pushed it hard and had a big voice in all of this. Do you see that as being and continuing to grow as a major connector for these systems over time?

I think that it has great potential. I am not personally an expert in blockchain and its specific strengths and weaknesses and opportunities. I defer to my electrical engineering colleagues for some of those specifics. But I do think that systems like it have the potential to overcome some of the challenges that we see with adoption of information sharing and traceability to the extent that it's able to ensure the security and the privacy that stakeholders have been concerned with. And I think it has some of that potential. Again, from my perspective, it comes down to how do you allocate the costs and benefits of that technology in a way that makes it attractive? If there's an upfront investment in deploying the technology across an operation, you know, a herd or a feedlot, or a packing facility? Who bears that upfront cost? And who reaps the benefits? Is there a benefit in routine operations in terms of a premium price for the product? Or is the benefit solely in these low probability high consequence disaster events, and changes the calculation in how you allocate the costs and benefits across stakeholders?

So with the idea of interdisciplinary and partnerships, you did a great job of explaining the criticality of that, is this something that carries forward with you in teaching is this notion of inner interdisciplinary, brought into the classroom?

Yes, and I'm working to increase that as well. So one class that I have really enjoyed developing and teaching is one around quantitative models in health. And so over the the series of times that I've offered this course, we've had students from the College of Veterinary Medicine from the College of Agriculture from palliative engineering, more importantly, had speakers from across different disciplines in on campus and from industries outside to try to, to come around this common topic of using quantitative models to advance human animal and environmental health. And I think it's a really beneficial experience for the students to see how, you know, the statistics or the optimization or the epidemiology or whatever it may be that they're coming to, from their own disciplinary perspective, also has linkages with things that other people are working on. And by bringing those pieces together collaboratively, they're able to tackle problems of growth. Human importance. And I think, you know, I've found even in my undergraduate courses, where the curriculum is much more specific and detailed, and there's certain amount of information about operations research that you must cover in this semester. The more examples that I can bring from multiple industries, from multiple perspectives about ways that these models are relevant, the more excited the students get. They want to know that what they're learning can make a difference in systems that are important to them. And when I was a student, I really was really excited about the tools in this industrial engineering toolbox. I was less excited about the examples that I saw, where those tools were being applied. And so my goal as an instructor is to demonstrate the breadth of systems where these tools really do have an application and have the potential to have an impact in the hopes that that conveys the message to the students that whatever their passion is, there's a way to use these quantitative tools to make a difference in that sphere.

That's great to hear that that's that that's the approach that you're taking. Because I think it's critically important to the students, that they start seeing that broad perspective of how these things interact with one another.

Well, it's the world that we live in, right. So regardless of whether a student is going to leave with a bachelor's degree and go out into industry and begin a traditional career in industrial engineering, where they're going to pursue their own passion and path or they're going to go to graduate school work on research. No matter which of those paths and any that I didn't name they choose, they're going to be operating across multiple disciplines, multiple cultures, and need to understand the role that they play and humbly accept the things that they don't know. And the ways that they need to rely on experts in other domains.

So absolutely critical. So very, very well said. One last bit of discussion here, I wouldn't when we were just starting. Before actually, we started to record here. We mentioned the fact that our most recent podcast was with Dr. Caterina Scoglio,. And you said that you had had the opportunity to do some work with her. Do you want to speak just a bit about some of that interaction? And what kind of research you you carried out with Dr. Scoglio?

Certainly, actually, the example that I gave with the beef cattle and transportation infrastructure systems is a collaboration with Dr. Scoglio. And so far, a very, very productive one drawing on her expertise in network systems. And the expertise of folks at the Beef Cattle Institute and colleague in psychology, Gary Brase, thinking about how people make decisions in these kinds of environments. And so it's been a very fruitful and interesting opportunity to think about the way that each of us brings those perspectives to a common problem. One where I think K State is really uniquely positioned to think about the challenges in that space.

Good, I find myself highly educated, or at least much more comfortable discussing these, these topics than I was before.

It's been interesting. Thank you.

 So. Jessica, do you have any questions for us or any closing comments?

You know, as I think about the role of supply chains and Global Food Systems, especially in light of the challenges that we all are facing right now, in the midst of the COVID 19 pandemic. We see supply chains on display, right? If I had said six months ago that I work on supply chains for human animal and environmental health, I get some nods. Right. But now, the supply chain is at the forefront of our minds. We don't necessarily notice the essential service that supply chains provide in delivering our most basic needs, whether it's food and medicine, or the tools that we need to do our work like a N95 respirators or spare parts for the tractor, right? The supply chain does all of those things. And we don't notice a supply chain until it stops working the way that we expect it to work. And so I think we have a really unique opportunity right now, when supply chain logistics is at the forefront of our minds to take advantage of that, I hope that one outcome of this very trying time is that we think about ways to design supply chains, so that they're more resilient. And I hope secondarily, but equally importantly, that another outcome is that students get really excited about the real impact that they can have, by studying and working on supply chains on things that impact people's lives every day.

Well, that's a great, great way to end the discussion. And I want to tell you, I really very much appreciate your time. And as Jon said, I learned a lot here. I've worked in areas that dealt with a supply chain for years, but you brought a new twist to understanding how some of these things work. So I want to thank you for that.

Thanks for the opportunity. Thank you so much. I really enjoyed talking with all of you and I hope that you stay safe and well. 

Likewise, you as well. Have a great day. 

Thanks. 

Bye bye everyone. 

Bye bye.

If you have any questions or comments you would like to share check out our website at https://www.k-state.edu/research/global-food/ and drop us an email.

Our music was adapted from Dr. Wayne Goins’s album Chronicles of Carmela. Special thanks to him for providing that to us. Something to Chew On is produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. 

This episode brings another timely discussion about the challenges caused by the current worldwide pandemic. Dr. Caterina Scoglio, Paslay chair professor in the Mike Wiegers Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Kansas State University, explains the use of modeling in predicting the spread of epidemics. Dr. Scoligo specializes in developing theoretical models for the spread of disease. By using a generalized epidemic model framework software for the simulation of spreading, she apples models developed by her team to human and animal infectious diseases. Scoglio has developed models for the movement of ebola in Africa and protein corona formation in nanoparticles, which has been validated by experimental data. She has also developed network architectures and protocols for secure communication in smart grids.

Transcript:

How the Analysis of Big Data Joined with Biological and Social Scientific Research Helps in Understanding a Pandemic Spread, with Dr. Caterina Scoglio, Professor in Electrical and Computer Engineering

Now, in my experience, the predictions are very hard. So predictions for what I think are only valid in short term. So maybe it is possible to predict how many cases will be New York tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. But I cannot I think is very hard to say how many deaths will be in total during the epidemic right now. So I think those are whatever, making the comparison about the different scenarios that is the best use of the model.

Something to Chew On is a podcast devoted to the exploration and discussion of Global Food Systems produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. I'm Maureen Olewnik, coordinator of Global Food Systems.

I’m Scott Tanona. I'm a Philosopher of Science. 

And I'm Jon Faubion. I'm a Food Scientist.

Hello, everybody, and welcome back to something to chew on. Managing life within a worldwide epidemic that necessitates both isolation and outreach provides an underlying platform to focus on what we can do in the moment to help. Today's guest, Dr. Caterina Scoglio, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Kansas State University, has been instrumental in developing big data based methods to understand how to help in the moment. An interdisciplinary approach to her work has provided Dr. ScaleIO with the ability through modeling systems to tackle questions of disease outbreak by developing new tools to provide a risk assessment before infection happens and guidance in implementing preventative measures. Dr. Scoglio’s research focuses on developing network based technology and tools in several fields. She conducts research in network theory problems and develop solutions to real world problems in the fields of computer networks and infectious diseases modeling. She has developed theoretical models, and has applied models and tools developed by her team to human and animal infectious diseases. today's podcast is again being recorded through zoom. Jon, Scott Courtney, our guest, Dr. Caterina Scoglio, and I are all practicing social distancing. As we converse through the phone on our computer connections, the current challenges with COVID-19 in the US and around the world are on the upswing, and we're facing ordeals that many of us never considered possible here. However, there are those that have considered this possibility and focus a good portion of their life's work on just this type of situation. Here in Manhattan, Kansas, the National bio and agro defense facility is nearing completion. This facility will focus on protecting the national food system against threats of potential impact of serious animal diseases. Additionally, K State is home to the Biosecurity Research Institute where comprehensive infectious disease research and teaching on threats to plant animal and human health is carried out. Research in the fundamental science of infectious outbreaks is critical but understanding the social science side of how people manage these situations, and the way in which these activities promote the spread of infection is equally critical. K State does have the ability to marry the social aspects with big data analysis and identify potential for the spread of these diseases. Today, I would like to welcome Dr. Caterina Scoglio, to the podcast. Catarina, your training is in electronic engineering, which on the face of it to me seems a long way from research carried out and Biosecurity Research Institute or other science based activities. 

Yes, that is true. That is true. As a matter of fact, many people are surprised by my research topic. There is a reason for that. My work research work when I joined K State in 2005, was on computer networks. And one of the biggest challenges in computer networks was in is still malware propagation. So the fact that there are some viruses that can spread and knock down all our computers. And so I started working and studying that problem. And I understood that the methods that were used in epidemiology were also used for studying computer networks. And so from that, and understanding that K State had a strong emphasis on infectious diseases, I decided in 2007, to start working on the spreading of viruses, among people and animals.

Wow, that's very interesting. As we get started in the discussion and get into more detail on this, I think that there are going to be a lot of questions that all three of us have for you. Could we step back just a little bit and maybe get a little background on you who you are, what your history is, what brought you to, to the kind of work that you're enjoying doing?

Yes. So I was born in Italy. And I studied and worked my first period of my life in Italy in a National Research Center. And in 2000, my husband had the opportunity of moving to us because he was working for IBM, Italy. And he got the job from IBM, US. So we moved to Atlanta. And at that time, my research work was on computer networks. And so I worked for five years at Georgia Tech, Georgia Institute of Technology. After those five years, I applied to many places. And I got the five interviews among those, I like K State the best, and I moved to Manhattan, Kansas. 

Wonderful.

So in your work, you're using the same ideas that you've applied to malware propagation that you're applying to biological virus propagation. Is that correct?

So is just the spreading process. Obviously, the details are completely different. As a matter of fact, I'm not an epidemiologist, I'm not a biologist, and my work is always multidisciplinary. So I need the guidance of biologists, virologists, people that are experts on the specific pathogen. But then the modeling approach has one kind of unique unifying theme that is related to how to simulate stochastic processes of spreading.

So how would then say any immunologist or of our virologist, or an epidemiologist? How would they take the results that you have and add their own particular value? To them? I assume that they're most useful in the context of the larger field of science?

Yes. So we receive the input in the modeling phase, the initial phase is the modeling, how do we model this process? What can we use as the infection rate, the number the how aggressive is this disease? How quickly can people recover? So we get from them a lot of preliminary informations, then we do our simulations. And then we provide them with results normally in different scenarios. So if we do these, for example, then this will happen.

So Catarina could use say whether these models are for application to be used, sort of to deliver information to policymakers to help in their decision making, are you developing new models and doing more theoretical work.

So we are doing work in both directions, for example, we are trying to improve all the time, the models, there are some assumptions for the models that are not supported by empirical evidence. So we try to modify the model in order to be following that empirical evidence. On the other side, we also try the models in different scenarios. So we can tell, for example, what is useful, what is not what to do, for example, and this is something that has been discussed a lot what to reduce our knot, which is the reproductive ratio to a number less than one that will guarantee that an epidemic will die out.

So some of the modeling work that you're doing, it doesn't just input the R naught or zero number, but actually helps determine that?

So, for example, a very recent work we have done for a COVID-19 in in China, because we had the data and we were trying to couple the policies done at a given point in China by the Chinese government, with Viega with the data that we were seeing and saying that there are different strategies that can replicate, replicate the behavior, and for example, If you just do social distancing, but you don't use the masks, for example, you reduce the number of cases, but maybe you don't go to or not less than one.

Or if you include connect, you've got up to four days of asymptomatic infectivity. That changes as well.

Exactly the type of different scenarios. 

So there’s been if you for the people who sort of follow someone who's been out there and look at some models, right, there are these things. We're talking about this separately, right? There's compartmental models, right? Where we've got the susceptible and the infectious and the recovered people, and you treat them as all different groups, right? And then you look at the transmission rate between them. Right? So is this you doing them additional modeling to then determine the figures that go into that? Or is this all sort of one big package, you know, you're working within a model to figure out what happens? And then you're including more variables or more factors, right, besides just sort of some simple assumption about, you know, a standard transmission rate from one area to another?

Yes, yes. So try to include the more and more information, the more data we can in the model more accurate model is going to be. And one specific viewpoint of our modeling is kind of based on understanding the contact network impact on spreading. And the concept is simple, is that in a spreading scenario, not every person has the same role. It depends on the connections, the movement of each person. So if you think about a network of nodes, and links, there are people that have a lot of links. So those are the so called the Super spreads. And it's very important to understand the role and what happens with their, their role in the epidemic. So vaccinating them, or at least educating them is extremely important.

Cool. And so when you mentioned node sort of this is going back to where you came from, right? That this doesn't work analysis type of thing, where you treat each person as a, as a node with different connections between them, right, and human connections, are I take it sort of individual contact of some sort or proximity. Spreading. 

Yes, exactly. 

Interesting. 

And so what kind of other factors are in there that you get from data, you know, the social sciences in terms of how people actually interact and behave sort of how varied are these nodes you were looking in? I mean, I'm curious, just in general, what kinds of things you have to say here, but you were just looking from data in China, you were saying and I'm curious about sort of, you know, what, what other factors you bring in there in terms of in terms of these networks, right, and sort of how to model them and sort of how complex it and how that like translates to other areas?

Yes, exactly. So I think one important experience we had a few years ago was an NSF project. We received, we were awarded in order to study the shape of these networks in rural regions. And so we went to test the and survey people in Clay Center and Channel, so two towns in Kansas. And we had the interesting results, say that is called Magneto. Era regions are very different from the contact nets of urban areas of states. And we got a very interesting result due to that.

Interesting.

 Before COVID-19 came crashing through the door, what kind of were you looking at other specific diseases or other different pathogens?

Yeah, so we will get influenza because was the time when we had the h1n1 outbreak that at that time was a big deal. Now we see that it's nothing compared with this one. Yes, but it was an important thing. So we went there, and we asked them about their contact or their movement, their willingness to follow the directions of radio, TV and governmental agencies. And the end, we got interesting results that I can share with you if you are interested. Yes, so what we saw that, obviously, rural regions, the contacts are much less so people have fewer contacts, but there are very strong ties among people. And what we saw is that 49% of the respondents said that they would still visit at least one or two households outside their home, even there, even if there was a serious effect. Make in the net that we told them to remain at home? I think this is still valid.

Absolutely, you can see that happening. This question may be something that you've already discussed. But there were two models in papers that I was reading through. There are two models, one of them is SIS, and one of them is FAIS. Can you explain a little bit about what those two are? And how they differ from one another? How one may be more appropriate in one situation? And another?

Yes, yes. This is a very interesting question. So one topic that was at the center of the attention a few years ago was how to model the behavior of response of people, because the model the classic models, for example, SIS, or SIR, do not include anything of that. So people become susceptible then become infectious. And at the end, if they receive immunity, they are recovered. So they are outside of the game. But in the case of some for example, sexually transmitted diseases, they recover and they are again susceptible. So that is the difference between si s or SI are at the end, if you are immune or not. However, they don't consider any anything about the response of people. And for this reason, what we did was to include another compartment, which was the compartment of the susceptible but alert person. So a person is still susceptible, but takes some preventive measures to reduce the infectious the risk of becoming infected. And so it is more than we saw how the epidemic threshold moves, somehow given a contact network. And so that is a way to quantify the benefit of alertness.

Where I've seen more and more posts, just in the last few days of people lifting or organizations listing things that you might expect susceptible, but alert individuals to do and specifically saying don't do these things, even if it is your family, don't go visit them. They're no different than anyone else, etc, etc, etc. So I think it's really the first time I've seen this since we started worrying about it so much.

Yeah, so this is a way to model that behavior.

So I don't want to have us dig down too much into the different models. But I find all this kind of stuff. Fascinating. And I'm curious sort of. So you introduce this other compartment. And that's one way of sort of thinking about how to make models more realistic, right? Sort of not all susceptible people are the same, right? There's a difference. And now, but this model, I take it sort of from the two compartment model, right? So it's got the individuals, does it treat all the individuals in the compartments the same? Or do you do modeling different kinds of alertness or alertness, the spatial to like variations and alertness across regions? Or time? Or could you say more about this?

Yes, so our models are network models. So they all the nodes that are susceptible, they are not in the same condition, their risk to become infected, that depends on their position in the network. So our model is an individual based model. Some other the most classic models consider an aggregate of homogeneous susceptible people then homogeneously distributed, in fact, that and so on. So one characteristic of our network of our approach is that is individual base. So each node is in a different position, because of its the role played in the net.

Interesting, too. So and this also indicates one of the reasons somebody like you is involved in doing this modeling, right? Because that is much more complex analysis, right? Because you're treating each person as an individual. And, and you have many, many, many connections, sort of, you know, between the model, whereas the, it's much simpler to do much simple models, right? I can do some back of the envelope kind of calculations looking at information I've got, but that's nothing. And then, you know, an epidemiologist might be able to, you know, do some basic stuff. And then their computational epidemiologists who sort of do more work, could you say, so, and then you've got the more and more complex model gets, the more you really have to be thinking about how you're doing the computing work. So I wonder if you could say something about the range of that complexity and the way the different kinds of ways from simple to complex, you can think about modeling the real world question, you know, that we're dealing with now with COVID. And like, what that whole range looks like.

And I think that includes the jump between data and big data and walking into that realm of how you handle big data.

Right, exactly. So, the more this there is all these range of increasing complexity model starting from the homogeneous differential equations based models, where you have three differential equations system with an equation, and you can easily medically solve them up to what are called agent based simulations. So the agent based simulations are very complexes, very expensive, where you simulate with an agent, which is a simple piece of code each individual. So you need to input the schedule of each individual. And then in that type of teammate simulations, you can have all the details about the community. And you can input in those models, the behavior that you want to represent the to the detail of the single individual's obviously, these are huge simulations and require big computers, high performance computers in order to be to be run. But it's also true that these two complex models require also a lot of data. In order to be meaningful, you need to know really what people are going to do. And so sometimes we do not have that level of data, the more the big data source is available, the more those agent based simulations can be realized.

In what form do you get your data, for example, from China?

Oh, so we got that from the publicly available data. That is they were I think text files published daily. For each location, I believe the something very interesting at this point will be for those people who can obtain the movement tracing of people. So if we have all the data, either through cell phones, or either through other sources, stapler, this kind of internet data of how people move, that will be very, very useful and very interesting.

Now, so one of the projects that you worked on in the past was on Ebola and the movement of that outbreak. Can you talk a little bit about that research?

Yes, we were in that research. Also, there, we were supported by NSF to establish the efficiency and the efficacy of contact tracing, because at the beginning of an epidemic, contact tracing is very effective. So you can really try to detect a person, and if it is effect that isolate immediately and trace, or people that were in contact with that person. And so we were analyzing the conditions of for how fast we need the to detect, and in fact, that person, and how fast we need to follow up with a contact tracing. And the result was that the earlier you do all these steps, the better it is. So at the end, I think and it's true also for unfortunately, we haven't done a good job a for COVID-19. But early mitigation is the most effective policy, because you can see I think, our cylinder control, you can kind of follow be earlier than the epidemic not try to follow up. I think one of these, in these meetings, one of the White House doctors were saying we are kind of trying to follow up with the disease, we should anticipate we should be earlier than then following up.

So right now with COVID-19, we're in a situation where testing is much more limited than what epidemiologists want. Certainly, it's been pretty hard to do the contact tracing and because information comes back and not enough time sometimes and and at this point, we're pretty far spread out. Right, are there lessons we can draw from some of the modeling about sort of where somebody might be trying to still do that. So there are some areas where you're way beyond contact tracing, right, sort of just so endemic in the community that seems that there's probably no point, you know, but sort of at the edge of some outbreaks, you might be able to still stop and and catch it and stop it in that community. Are there lessons from modeling to sort of say where predict here's where you should put your contract tracing efforts? And then here's where you should be doing sort of other mitigation type efforts?

Yes, I think this is a very good point. So a contact tracing is going to be valid where the epidemic is still not in the community in a broad way. So some of the rural communities, I think, are in this condition, not only because they are the beginning of the epidemic, but also because the contact nature is kind of structured. So you have a few contacts, or at least many, much less contacting.

Yeah, right, the public transit in a big city or something like that, right?

Exactly the public transportation, but you have also, so you have a few of these contacts, you have some locations that are very critical, because many communities will have just a few location where they go for shopping or for the pharmacy, where people can get infected, but also they can both tested and educate. And maybe masks can be distributed. So those are, I think, a feasible strategies that if there are resources could be implemented effectively. And they should be also giving giving results.

Yeah, really interesting. Truly, I hate to ask this, but is there any indication that this is going to be happening with COVID-19? 

In many places, politician, I think our governor has been very active. So I think if she can get some of those tests or masks, maybe that could be a good, a good news, because maybe not a lot of those tests will be enough to do a good job in some rural communities.

One of the studies that I also noted you working on there was a mention of development of models of protein, Corona formation, nanoparticles. What's that one about?

So that was a project we did a few years ago when Jim revere started a very interesting and exciting Institute for computational medicine. And so that was a completely different topic about is the following when you use nanoparticles, for example, to deliver some medicine or something in the body of a person, while those nanoparticles that you can imagine like being some spheres go through the blood, some proteins will attach on top of them, making what is called a Corona. So in this case, a corona of a protein around a nanoparticle. And then ending in which proportion different type of proteins will attach on top of the nanoparticles was our research topic.

I think, obviously, the corona word caught my attention as I was reading through that. So different finishes in the modeling that you're working on interest, the same.

You are right, because now we call the Coronavirus is because you have an internal part, which is done by RNA, I believe. And then you have all these proteins on top of that round of the sphere to do the corona. So it's similar.

So one of the things that's interesting about this, was this a network analysis tool for that?

No, it was no, it was just based on these different proportion of proteins that were attaching on top of was, if I can tell is a seal the study of a dynamic process, because the amount of protein change with time and you need to study how that happened. But it was not a network based model.

Interesting. We've also model cattle movement, is that right? Yes. Could you say something about that?

Yes, yes, because another topic of our research is for cattle diseases. And so we have been using similar models for for cattle and for cattle in southwest Kansas, we have been also developing synthetic data for cattle movement, because currently, there is no not a mandatory requirement for the industry, the cattle industry to provide the movement of their cattle that will be very useful in the case of an epidemic because obviously, you want to know where infected animals go and how to understand which farms are infected from those movements. And so what we did was to create a base on some data we had some Synthetic movement of cattle that people can use freely because they are synthetic. They are not the true cattle movement, but they are just simulated.

That's interesting. The podcast that we most recently published was with Dr. Megan Niederwerder, in the veterinary medicine school. I don't know if you're familiar with her at all, one of the things that she talked quite a bit about was the movement of contaminated feed, and places that it goes and how difficult it is to manage understanding the feed coming into the country or where those pigs are where the feed is worldwide. And it sounds to me like what you were talking about just now would fit right into that kind of a study in figuring out how you manage something like that. Yes, that is similar, or any of the, you know, just stepping back to the Ebola work that you had done. Are those modeling systems in use today? Are those things being used in any part of the world looking at things that are happening? Are they on the shelf now to be pulled off when the sign of something maybe starting.

A similar model, and we participated to that was used last year when the Democratic Republic of Congo had a an Ebola outbreak that was risking to be kinda to thread into Uganda. Since we had the collaborators in Uganda, we visited Uganda, we did some work there with our model. And our model was used by the health officials in Uganda to understand that the risk of each of their counties of getting Ebola, so four kinds of risk assessment, and we published the paper, we had also a good intuition a good result on which city county was going to be the most at risk, because there a few cases appeared, actually. And we published that result before those cases appeared. 

So, if you were to be working on what's happening here today, how would you approach that question? So we've got an outbreak here, and I somebody comes to Katherine and says, Could you please help us modeling? What's going on here? How would you approach that problem?

Yes, if using my expertise, the first thing I will do is to try to create a base on data, the contact network of the community. And so understanding how people move and how they get income, and then from that, I will start building the network base models, considering which compartments I need to include. So for this case, I would definitely include the susceptible, but expose the because we have the expose the compartment where you don't show signs, and then I would include the two types of infectious people infectious, symptomatic, and infectious as symptomatic. And so any exposed people can transition to one of these two, and then I will let them transition into either recovered or hospitalized, and from hospitalized either recovered or that and with this model, I will try to do simulations, trying to change something that could for example, represent social distancing, and how to do that by changing the network. So normally, I have 15 contacts, my graduate students, but now I don't. So I have now only two contacts, my daughter and my husband. And so adapting the contact network can give us a different results. And that is one way but I can also reduce the infectious rate. Because I put mask, I wash my hands. So my beater, the probability of becoming infected is a smaller number. So things like that.

One of the things that we haven't quite said, but you mentioned in the beginning talking about using these models for decision making, I think that's people, when we look at sort of models and predictions that come out a model that's very different views, maybe about how out in the public, there are different views about sort of what these things mean. And so I think sometimes when people hear predictions from model, they think that this is, you know, well it's a prediction about what's going to happen. And they are they're their models that make predictions, but you just raised there one of the most important things, I think, come out of models, and this is at least the way I think about it so curious about what you say, right, which is that they're to help us make decisions, right? And in particular, for something like this. Like what kinds of things can we do that are going to make the most difference? And so what you learn from a model, that what you would learn from something like this would be All right, what should we be putting our energies into? Right? Sort of, you know, how much is social distancing going to make a difference? And how much is washing our hands gonna make a difference and let people get the infections like some people were talking about for COVID-19 at one point, like, let people get infected, you know, and raise up herd immunity, but then treat them better or you know, whatever. But then you look at sort of, you look at all the different options, and then you look to sort of see, well, how many people are going to be in the hospitalized bin? If we did that? And oh, well, that won't work, right? Because we don't have enough beds or something. And so then you look at different kinds of entry points for interventions. So I mean, that's at least the way I think about the usefulness of models. Is that how you think about what the modeling that you do should be used for there are other aspects to it, too?

I agree under percent is very models have a big responsibility there was a few days ago, and an article in The New York Times. So I think we have these two possibilities for using model. One is for forecasts, and one is for decision making, looking at different scenarios, and deciding the mitigation strategy. Now, in my experience, the predictions are very hard. So predictions for what I think are only valid in short term. So maybe it is possible to predict how many cases will be New York tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. But I cannot I think is very hard to say how many deaths will be in total, during the epidemic right now. So I think those are whatever, making the comparison about the different scenarios, that is the best use of the model. 

As you said, it's a hard thing, right? Because it's sort of I mean, we need to forecast to this is this one of these things that I find complicated and interesting is that interventions take time and effort and money, and they have other effects, obviously, right? So we're looking at effects on the economy of the blocking down social distancing. And so you have to, you have to look at the forecasts from different different scenarios and take them seriously, right, because how many deaths might we prevent? If we did this? How many things might we prevent if we did something different? So you have to take pieces of the forecasting seriously of sort of but then as you say, the forecast overall is a different thing. Right? So because the forecast overall is so highly dependent on all these other variables, and through all the different actions that we take, and so many other things that we can predict, right, that it becomes hard, but we do still use the forecasting part in small pieces.

Yes, exactly. Exactly. As a comparison, especially in a competitive way.

Fascinating and absolutely timely to what we've, what we're looking at today. It's interesting to get a better understanding of how those models are developed. And just listening to what's on the news every every night, understanding what those workers are doing and putting those models together and understanding a little bit more about what their limitations are as well. Well, this has been a great discussion. Caterina, I very much appreciate your time and willingness to come on for a chat. Hopefully, we can do a follow up one of these days, hopefully, so.

Thank you. I mean, for making what could have been an arcane topic. very understandable and very interesting.

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you.

Thanks so much for talking with us.

If you have any questions or comments you would like to share check out our website at https://www.k-state.edu/research/global-food/ and drop us an email.

Our music was adapted from Dr. Wayne Goins’s album Chronicles of Carmela. Special thanks to him for providing that to us. Something to Chew On is produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. 

This episode of Something to Chew On brings us a timely discussion, the current world-wide Coronavirus challenges the topics discussed with Dr. Megan Neiderwerder are not only timely, but instructional on helping us to understand what a virus is and how they impact the world around us. Megan’s teachings cover viral diseases in swine, equine, avian, bovine and canine species. Dr. Megan Niederwerder, Assistant Professor in the College of Veterinary Medicine here at K-State research investigates control strategies for endemic and foreign animal diseases of swine.

Transcript:

Welcome to the New Normal - What are Viruses and How do they Impact the Animal and Human World with Dr. Megan Niederwerder, Assistant Professor in the College of Veterinary Medicine here at K-State

Most people have been exposed to a Coronavirus. Of course, it's coronaviruses in general are probably the second leading cause of colds in humans, but it's a different Coronavirus. It's different than the one that's currently circulating and so we don't have that underlying immunity to the one that causes the common cold.

Something to Chew On is a podcast devoted to the exploration and discussion of Global Food Systems produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University. I'm Maureen Olewnik, coordinator of Global Food Systems.

I’m Scott Tanona. I'm a Philosopher of Science. 

And I'm Jon Faubion. I'm a Food Scientist.

 Hello, everybody and welcome back to Something to Chew On. There are times when we take stock of our lives, try to better understand where we fit in the natural world, and to find ways where nature manages to provide us with some answers. today's podcast brings us a timely discussion with Dr. Megan Niederwerder, Assistant Professor in the College of Veterinary Medicine here at Kansas State University, with the current worldwide Coronavirus challenges. The topics discussed with Dr. Megan Niederwerder is not only timely, but instructional on helping us to understand what a virus is, and how they impact the world around us. Megan's teachings cover viral diseases in swine, equine, avian, bovine and canine species. Her research investigates control strategies for endemic and foreign animal diseases of swine. She is internationally recognized for her expertise in two primary areas of research, including the role of the gut microbiome on outcomes following viral respiratory infections, and the risk and mitigation of foreign animal disease introduction and transmission through feed and feed ingredients. today's podcast is being recorded in a manner that I certainly never anticipated. Jon, Scott, Megan and I are all in different locations. Courtney is recording via zoom at her home due to the spread of the Coronavirus. Our new normal is to stay connected in an unconnected environment. We've talked frequently about recording podcasts with someone that was off site. But I always figured that Jon and Scott would be in the same room with me chatting with someone else remotely. The time that we're in today is quite different, and the Coronavirus spreads and keep social distancing as part of the new normal. We are each in our own space and hoping for science to help bring a return to a healthy world. With that, I would like to welcome all and specifically welcome Megan to the podcast. The podcast is in this series is focused on the food system at Kansas State University. And certainly animals are a critical part of that system. This is actually the 20th recording in this series. And I was surprised to look back at the list and realize that this is the first podcast that we've done on animal related research between the College of Veterinary Medicine, the College of Agriculture, and the Department of Animal Science and Grain Science and Industry. There's a substantial amount of work being done in this area, whether it's through animal health, or food and feed and just a whole whole bunch of other areas that we touch on in the area of animal health. So, Megan, I've got a ton of questions for you as we go through this. I doubt that we'll get to all of them. But what I'd like to start off with is getting to know a bit about you and understanding how you got interested in this area. And then we can see where the discussion takes us. So Megan, could you tell us a little bit about yourself?

Sure. Well, thanks to everyone for the opportunity and invitation to speak with you and thank you for your work on the global food systems. I think it's really important and like he said, important to talk about animal health and animal diseases as part of the efforts for global food systems. So my name is Megan Neiderwerter and I am a veterinarian. I actually went to Kansas State or veterinary school I've been a veterinarian for about 10 years now. And as part of my veterinary practice, I worked with dogs and cat zoo animals as well as pigs. And when I decided to come back and pursue a career in academic research, it was really based on my desire to provide information or to research questions with regards to population health and livestock. And I've always had an interest in infectious diseases and the ability to ask questions. How do things work? How can we improve animal health? And the opportunities that research affords in an academic setting is to really understand how we can improve animal health at a population level. And even in my case, it's my research is focused on swine health. How do we improve the health of pigs around the world? 

How long have you been on the faculty? 

I've been on faculty now for almost five years at the College of Veterinary Medicine in the diagnostic medicine pathobiology department.

Great. Can you tell us a little bit about what your research is on swine health?

Sure. So there's I have really two main areas of research and both, again, focused on viral diseases and swine. One of the areas that I focus my research on is looking at the utilization of the gut microbiome to improve pig health in the face of respiratory disease. So when we think about pigs after they are weaned pigs are typically weaned about three weeks of age from their mothers. And they have a high incidence and high susceptibility to respiratory disease at that time. So we typically call that poor sign respiratory disease complex, because these respiratory diseases often have a viral component, a bacterial component, and often are due to environmental stressors as well. And so some of the respiratory diseases that are currently challenging pigs throughout the world, have been around for many decades. And so that means, you know, we're at a place where we want to look at alternative approaches for how do we improve the health of these pigs in the face of respiratory disease with alternative strategies. And so the focus of my work has been how do we utilize the DEP microbes, and the beneficial bacteria in the gut, to actually improve or enhance animal health in the face of the respiratory challenge environment. So, again, focused on the main virus that I have done is Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Disease syndrome. It's really considered the most costly disease of swine production in the United States currently. And my work is really focused again on those gut microbes, and how do we improve disease. And the second area of research that I have is looking at foreign animal diseases, and the risk of foreign animal disease entry into the United States through feed and feed ingredients. And so that work has been focused on the fact that we import millions of feed ingredients, millions of kilograms of feed ingredients from all over the world that then are used to feed and provide nutrition for our pigs in the US. And so with the, with the introduction of porcine epidemic, diarrhea virus, we started to recognize that feed ingredients may be a potential route for transboundary, animal disease bred. And so my research is really focused on understanding the risk of other foreign animal diseases, such as African swine fever virus, and V.

Cool. I was interested. So I was going to ask just about the first set of things. So how is it that the gut microbiome for pigs actually affects their health? Does it prevent them from getting things? Are you talking about recovery time? Like, what's the relationship there? And it's curious, because that's not something we totally normally think of. Right? So this is a gut and you're talking about respiratory disease, right?

Yes, yes. It's not an inherent thought, to think about our diet, and the microbes in our gut affecting our health outside of the debt. It's more inherent to think about how those beneficial microbes may help resolve diarrheal disease. But in fact, they really play a role in systemic immunity throughout the whole body. And so what we think happens is that the gut is that really the largest immune organ in our bodies. And so the way that those gut microbes then communicate with the mucosal immune system in the lining of the gut, impacts how the immunity respond to the immune cells respond to pathogens and other areas of the body such as the lungs. So when we think about some of those beneficial microbes, not only stimulate the immune system, but they also communicate with the immune system in different areas of the body, through metabolic products of those microbes. And so we think there's a couple of different ways Oftentimes these, the exact mechanism by which these gut microbes impact disease outside of the gut, is not fully elucidated. But what we see is that pigs respond better to a respiratory challenge. So let's say they have fewer lung lesions, are they gain weight normally, or they replicate the virus to lower levels. So it almost creates a more resilient or resistant pig when they are exposed to these pathogens.

That's fascinating. I'm fortunate to be blissfully ignorant on most of this area, is that confined is that that phenomenon confined to monogastric? Or does it extrapolate to ruminants?

Well, we could assume that it extrapolates to ruminants, but they're really, this is really a new area of research. So a lot of the research that's been done has been done in my phone of respiratory disease. There's a great study with pneumococcal pneumonia, and a few other respiratory disease pathogens, where they will see that the presence of endogenous microbes or fecal microbial transplantation, or maybe those mice that did not receive antimicrobials, and have more diverse microbes actually respond in a better or more robust way when they're infected with respiratory pathogens. And so a lot of this research is fairly new. But you know, when people ask about what impacts the microbiome or what the microbiome impacts outside of the gut, it's sort of easy to go well, probably most things, we're just learning, and we're just at the cusp of learning exactly what those are.

Thanks. Yeah. Thank you new world of science here. And for all that, right. Are there particular strains, you said something about the diversity of the gut microbiome is important? Or what kinds of things in particular are you looking at? Right? So there are particular microbes? You're investigating? Are you your own work? Are you looking at the diversity? Tell us a little bit more about like, what's what's going on there?

Sure. Yeah. So that one of the most interesting things about some of these respiratory diseases in mice models, but also in pigs, is that a fairly common and consistent finding is that the more diverse the microbes are in the gut, the better the animal responds to respiratory disease challenge. So and that's been shown and some of the work that I've done with pig both, let's say, if the microbiome is more diverse prior to challenge, almost like there could be a prophylactic or preventative measure with regards to the microbiome on subsequent challenge, which is somewhat exciting, because it gives you the idea that microbiome modulation may be able to prevent or at least put a pig in a better place to respond to disease prophylacticly, but some of the microbes that we found that specifically seem to be beneficial, we found that a non pathogenic E coli seems to be beneficial in the pig gut, we found that increased in Ruminococcus seems to be beneficial when it's detected in the gut, and then also fecal microbial transplantation. So we've used fecal microbial transplants from older aged fowl that had high histories of health and, and great litter characteristics, took the feces from that those cells transplanted into younger pigs, and actually showed that fecal microbial transplant can provide benefits with regards to respiratory disease, when given prior to challenge.

Wow, that's, fascinating. Absolutely fascinating. And in the things that we're looking at, I hesitate even making this jump at this point in time. But the things that we're looking at going on in the world today with with Coronavirus and these viruses that are in humans, what are the chances that the kinds of things you're looking at now in swine and in animals is the same as what you're going to be seeing in humans is in helping to manage some of these things?

Yeah, I think some of the similar parallels that we've seen is when we talk about foreign animal disease such as porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, when that was introduced into the US swine herd in 2013, within eight weeks of its first identification in a pig herd, it had been detected in almost all of the major swine producing states. And the reason that is is because we have approximately 1 million pigs on the road every day being transported between different farms and everything is fast paced, pigs are moving, we see this you know, even within the country, let alone global distribution. Reach See that, you know, the movement of people and animals happens very quickly. And so we've seen that with the Coronavirus as well, and that the global movement of people makes it difficult to contain these viruses once they're introduced. The other sort of interesting parallels when we talk about African swine fever virus. The USDA released, I think, two years two weeks ago, that if African swine fever virus is introduced into the United States, which, of course, we're doing everything to prevent that, there will be a 72 hour standstill where no pigs will be moved. And so again, if you think about that, in parallel to what we're all currently doing, which is trying to stay in our homes and not be exposed to other humans, there are some similarities. And that just goes back to how these infectious diseases can be spread because of how rapidly humans and animals are moving throughout the world.

So even in cases, almost as though humans are a secondary vector, moving the pigs around 

Well, so pig production in the US is fairly specialized. So when you think about the different age groups of pigs, there are certain farms that specialize in pregnant fouls or guilt, and farrowing. So that they have young piglets that they nursed. And then those piglets may be moved to a nursery facility where they live for several weeks prior to going to a grow finish facility. And then those pigs baby moved once they're ready to go to market. And so this has increased the efficiency by which we can produce pork in the US because of these specialized operations. But it also means that pigs are frequently moved, you know, during production? 

Sure, do you have? Do you have an opinion on that trade off, right, between the efficiency and the basically the security of the food system there to an outside pathogen to a foreign pathogen?

Yeah, I think that you know, is the movement of pigs can sort of unveil the vulnerability of a pathogen being moved, but I think the the focus of course, one is prevention of any pathogen entering the second is rapid identification of pathogens, if they do become introduced, so that if a pathogen is introduced, there are protocols and procedures in place to stop pig movement. So that again, the pathogen can be contained, and eradicated as quickly as possible. So, you know, I think as these diseases are introduced, similarly, when I talk about P dv, it changes people's mindset, and again, can help us learn about the best way to prevent the spread of any virus or bacteria. If it's introduced. 

we sort of moved off in one direction and you'd started to talk a bit about I think it was feed materials or feed ingredients. Yeah, animals as a source. What, what ingredients are the are we particularly concerned with?

Sure. So some of the research that we've done has looked at what's the stability of foreign animal diseases in feed and feed ingredients? Can viruses be transmitted through the natural consumption of plant based feed? And then how do we mitigate the risk of those viruses in feed? And so the first part of this research was really to understand if we inoculate feed ingredients, and subject those feed ingredients to temperature and humidity conditions that stimulate transoceanic shipment? Because is what we're concerned about, if feed ingredients are being imported, from China, or from other areas of the world that have different diseases or foreign animal diseases, could the virus survive? And would it be stable. And so we've looked at various ingredients such as soybean, organic soybean meal, conventional soybean meal, pork, sausage casings, and pet foods. And what we found is that it looks like soybean meal supports the stability of viruses such as African swine fever virus, classical swine fever virus and the rabies virus. And so it looks like there are certain ingredients and I think it has to do with the protein content of these feed ingredients, or the moisture content. But there are certain characteristics of individual feed ingredients that promote stability of these viruses. And of course, those are what were concerning high risk ingredients for import. 

That's truly something that a lot of people wouldn't even think of, you know, when we think classically of viruses, we think that they need some kind of some kind of host to survive unless they're unless they're very, very dried down. low water activity. And yes, this really opens the window on something that needs to get to be figured out at least approaches to controlling it. 

Yeah, and I think that goes back to understanding sort of the global distribution of many commodities. And that includes feed ingredients for our livestock here in the US. So certain feed ingredients that we put into the feed, some of which we do not manufacture in the US, we can only get from China. But there are other feed ingredients that we could locally sourced, that, of course, would reduce the risk with regards to introduction of viruses onto the farm. Right.

Interesting to the comment of only being able to source materials internationally is very true. And in human food consumption, as well. I recall some instances in the past where there were challenges in buying from certain areas, and we realized in the, in the food industry overall, that some of those were the only places you could buy those particular ingredients. And just the idea that those viruses can, can survive on some of these things. Is, is a little scary. And it's as John said, it's going to be something that we really need to better understand the how and why and how to control.

Yeah, I think we've operated with a lot of assumptions that were untested. And that the time was, I guess, the time now has come to really test those and get solutions.

Can we can we take this back probably as much for our listeners as anything to the to the basics of, quote A virus is Can you can you talk a little bit about what a virus is, and what makes it what makes it so special? What makes it different from other organisms in the characteristics that it imparts here?

Sure. So, a virus, one of the biggest differentials from other organisms that have virus recording, is that to replicate a virus requires a host cell. And so when we talk about replication of virus, let's say in a pig, for a pig virus, it requires the pig to actually replicate the virus particles so that there is more virus. There's a good, there's a, there's a important point there when we talk about contamination, because the virus is not replicating when there's no host cells. But if it's a highly stable virus, that's when we can see the virus essentially being maintained as infectious. There's a couple of different characteristics about viruses that I think are important to always think about. One is that viruses can either be made of the genetic material can be either RNA or DNA. And it can be single stranded or double stranded. And then another characteristic of viruses that we typically talk about is it viruses can either be envelope, or have a lipid membrane, or they can be non envelope. And so just general characteristics of viruses. If we talk about a non enveloped viruses, virus is typically much more stable in the environment. It's less sensitive to disinfectants. And then when we talk about an envelope virus, typically those viruses are more sensitive to disinfectants and less stable in the environment. And the other factor that we think about is when we talk about DNA versus RNA viruses, RNA viruses typically have higher mutation rates, because they have less proofreading when they replicate themselves. And so when we talk about RNA viruses, such as influenza, and of course, we know how much influenza changes every year. This is one of the reasons we have to get a new vaccine each flu season. When we compare that to, let's say, a DNA virus, DNA viruses are typically much more stable, less mutations. So there are certain things about different viruses. One of the characteristics of African swine fever virus is that it is a very large virus. So some viruses are, you know, maybe 10,000 faces, you know, we talk about African swine fever virus, it's much larger, much more complex. And when it has much more complexity with regards to the genome, that means it produces more proteins. And that's when we see challenges with regards to vaccine production. So one of the biggest challenges right now with African swine fever that I'm sure you've seen in the news is that there is no currently commercial vaccine that we can use to protect our pigs. Right, right. 

In essence, the viruses takeover they hijack the host cells, enzyme and other systems to make more of themselves. And that's yeah, I think that right, so what are the envelopes made of? Those are those polymeric sugars or I would have expected them to be more resistant to cleaning solutions, for example. 

Yeah, that was my thought as you were describing this.

Yeah, when we think about the envelope, it's mostly lipids, and then has proteins on it. Viruses typically use proteins on the surface glycoproteins on the surface, to actually bind to the host cell receptor, enter into the host cell and then replicate. But when it has that envelope, it often has those lipids that make it more susceptible. When we talk about non envelope, it's proteins that are surrounding the genetic information. And so it's more stable.

I'm just gonna say that one of the reasons so it's particularly effective is that like really just an on the envelope viruses attaching to the lipids and the protein, or as they were just so there's so as effective and non envelope viruses?

Well it depends on the virus, of course, but in general, a lot of the characteristics, of course, when we talk about hand washing, and the importance of handwashing, a lot of it is the mechanical, you know, cleaning of the hands, but of course, it depends. It depends on the different viruses. But yes, in general, these, these soaps are fairly effective against a broad range of viruses. But it again, sort of depends on the virus. Some viruses are very hardy and very difficult to eliminate from the environment.

So this is random. But here's a question. Are viruses alive? In your opinion? I mean, because they're, they're their own little strand, they can't replicate on their own right? When I was a kid, I was taught one of the things of one of the properties of life is that, you know, replication right? I know at the time, people disputed whether viruses are alive, right, because they can't replicate themselves, they you the host, do you have it?

That's sort of like the day one virology question for the students. So if you consider it if you consider alive or not alive, it's interesting, because when you actually talk about it, in, you know, when we talk about diagnostics, and what we think about with viruses, we more use the terminology infectious, versus non infectious, so weak, because one of the biggest diagnostics, one of the most widely used diagnostic tests to detect viruses is PCR polymerase chain reaction. But that test looks for viral genetic material. So it would look for the DNA or the RNA associated with the virus. But if you have a positive PCR test, it doesn't necessarily mean that the virus is infectious. So those are sort of the terminology when we think about infectious viruses, we think about can that virus if it was exposed to a susceptible cell, would it be able to gain entry into the cell and replicate and be infectious to that cell? So really, those are sort of the terminology at least in diagnostics that we think about, but the whole is the virus alive or not alive, I think people have different opinions, I suppose on that, which, which maybe makes it again, a good academic question for the students.

So here's just a random question. And in terms of terminology for disabling a virus, what, what's most often used to sort of kill wood, right?

Yeah, we usually say inactivation of the virus. So that because what could happen is, let's say, and we've done a lot of these experiments in feed, and let's say we expose the feed to heat treatment, or some sort of chemical, that inactivate the virus. If we take that seed and test it on PCR, it may still have viral genome. But if we tested on cells, it wouldn't be able to infect the cell. Maybe that's because lipid envelope has been disrupted. Maybe that's because the glyco proteins now can't find the host cell. There could be some different factors. But what we would talk about that is inactivation of a virus.

One of the areas of study that you had listed there is control strategies for endemic and foreign animal diseases. Can you speak to what some of those control strategies are or things maybe that you're researching?

Sure. So when we think about in general diseases in livestock, we first of course, we would like to eradicate or eliminate the disease from a herd. So we think About Coronavirus, you know, ideal scenario is that we would eliminate that from a herd. But then if you can't eliminate it, or if the herd is endemic for that disease, then you start thinking about can we use a vaccine strategy to improve the response of pigs to the virus? Which there are some vaccines available for the heard? And then sort of third is, Are there alternative strategies to actually improve the response of the pig to the virus when it's exposed? And so some of the strategies that have been looked at in that area is, are there certain genetic properties or genetic aspects of the pig that actually improve its ability to respond to viruses? Are there microbiome characteristics of the pig that improve its ability to respond to viruses? And so the focus of my work in that area goes back to that microbiome? Can we sort of set up the pigs gut health to help the pig respond to any pathogen? You know, it's really the goal. But you know, one of the largest sort of economic losses in pig production is the respiratory disease susceptibility of those young pigs three to five weeks of age, right after weaning. So we think about how do we improve gut health to improve respiratory health? And even as sort of a supplement to all of the other activities that are going on? How do we reduce the stress of the pig so that it can respond better to infection? How do we improve the nutrition of the pig so it can grow? Normally, even under disease challenge? So kind of think about some of those things? With regards to foreign animal disease? We really think about how would the virus be introduced into our country? And how do we mitigate that risk. So some of the big aspects of foreign animal diseases, particularly with African swine fever that we consider his contaminated pork products, we know that the virus survives for long periods in pork. And so that can be a risk factor for infection in pigs. And then, of course, we've talked about feed and feed ingredients, being a risk factor and understanding how we mitigate that risk for disease introduction.

So when you say pork, does that mean that humans are vector transferring the diseases back back to five pigs in the US possibly, or how? From pork? 

So yeah, so importantly, African swine fever virus, humans are not susceptible to that virus. And pork is still safe to consume, even if pigs are infected. So that's an important point to highlight when we talk about pork products, and what we've seen in other areas of the world, is that oftentimes, people, you know, may bring sausage in with them through the airport, and not think about the risks that they are bringing in potentially contaminated pork products into the US. It's illegal. And you know, there have been illegal confiscations with regards to finding the pork products that should not be brought into the United States. And one of the big aspects with regards to foreign animal diseases is educating the public so that they understand that bringing in products from other countries into the US can be a huge risk factor for our animals here, as well as are our crops here.

Fascinating, why and explain the explain the impact on crops, for you just saying if they brought some other crop carrying disease into the US.

Right so, crop carrying disease. So when you talk about products, you have an apple or a banana, or any meat products? You know, the biggest reason for that is that there are certain agricultural diseases pests that we do not have in the United States that we want to maintain our crops are animals free from and so when people bring in agricultural products illegally from other countries, the risk is that those commodities of products could potentially have diseases that we do not have here. Sure. 

So one of the kinds of fundamental differences in approach between scientists who wanted to go around the world finding new varieties of various and sundry crops versus people who wanted to keep them out by inspection. And actually the son of one of the first presidents of Kansas State was one of the folks that was critical in going around the world and bringing in new, new varieties of, of agricultural products.

And shipping them over.

Yeah, I think there's definitely a balance between, you know, learning from different agricultural products that could be beneficial, and then making sure that those agricultural products don't contain microbial pathogens that, yeah, impact the rest of the crop so.

Do we find that the contaminated materials are more frequently sourced in and maybe developing parts of the world? Are there differences in different areas around the world that cause specific problems in products that are moved into the United States? Or is this just kind of is different in different areas around the world, and you just have to be careful, regardless of where you're shipping from?

Yeah, I think you have to be careful regardless, because what we've seen oftentimes is that maybe a product is manufactured in one country, and maybe it's processed in another country. And then maybe it's shipped to a secondary, you know, a secondary country before. So there's all these steps. And again, that goes back to efficiency of the global trade that has been established over years to make these products available to people all over the world. But there's risks with regards to determining where the product came from. And if there was any risk upon its manufacturing or processing, that puts it at risk for contamination of the diseases that are in that country. We know, for instance, that there are crops that are grains and crops that are dried on the roadways in China. And those roadways are of course, shared with trucks and vehicles that could be transporting pigs. And so when you think about that, and the potential for those crops to become contaminated, because of the sort of risky agricultural practices with regards to drying on the roadways, you can imagine how those feed ingredients may become contaminated in the environment, and then could potentially maintain the virus during shipment. So it sort of depends on the ingredient. But it depends on where it's coming from to. 

Sure. That makes total sense. Yeah. I've seen that in India. 

Well, could ask a question back to gut microbiome. Are there any standard practices that you'd recommend if farmers to be putting into place to to improve the health of their herds? Or is there are there particular kinds of things that you would have to do like the fecal transplants? So other standard things that we do that actually that hurt our swine herds? Are there particular? Yeah, that would make it really easy to improve their gut microbiome so or is this something that would be actually kind of complicated to do or require new techniques?

Well, we're really still learning about how something like fecal microbial transplantation or microbiome modulation could be implemented in a broad scale and swine herds. But one of the biggest challenges with regards to fecal transplants, even on the human side when we talk about so in human fecal microbial transplants are most often used for recurrent Clostridium difficile infections that have been already treated with antimicrobials. And so this is somebody who's been treated with antibiotics probably multiple times and then gets the fecal transplant. And oftentimes, it has a fairly high success rate. When we talk about that in humans, and even in pigs and some of the work that I've done, we don't have sort of the foundational knowledge to say, let's take feces from 10 pigs or 10 humans, and based on the microbial characterization within that equal transplant, I can pick out the ideal donor, we don't really have that information. So when you think about is going to be your donor. For fecal transplants, oftentimes you go off of phenotype. So let's say the pig grew really well. The pig has had a great health history. The pig doesn't have certain pathogens circulating. It's very similar in humans, you know, you talk to the donors to say have you had any you know, history of diarrhea Have you had, you know, these infectious diseases we need to screen you for but sort of so you're sort of looking at the the phenotype of the person as opposed to, or the pig, as opposed to the genetic characterization or the microbial characterization of the actual transplant. And I think once we get there, then we'll be able to really sort of implement this more on a broad scale where we go, these are the characteristics of feet transplant, that really provide benefits under these circumstances, or in our, you know, modern day pig production. 

That's fascinating. 

Getting up in front of you. Exciting time. So what's the Chinese proverb for the Chinese curse? You should you should live in interesting times.

Yeah, well, in that, what were you gonna say there, Scott?

Oh, I was gonna ask more about the, the gut microbiome, but you know, I've got another question that's been floating around in the back of my head. And Megan, I was wondering if you could say something about what makes a virus like easily transferable? Right. So one of the things with the novel Coronavirus, right. So this came from a reservoir. And my understanding is that the think of the reservoir was bad, right? And that it was living in, that's then transferred through some other animal and then finally got to humans, right. And so there's something about these kinds of viruses that once they leave that, that reservoir where the animal reservoir where they were hanging out for a while, maybe without actually hurting that population, but they transfer to humans, and they're particularly problematic for us is a bad one, right now. What makes what makes a virus like, first of all, easily transferable like that, and what about that kind of thing makes it dangerous in a way that if some of the viruses that you're studying in swine are, you know, there's no risk of transfer, or infecting humans in a way that's going to hurt us?

Yeah, I think one of the important sort of components to what's going on with the Coronavirus is that, as you said, the way that it was the humans were exposed to it was this very close interaction between humans and wildlife, where we're seeing that maybe a virus that has been around in the wildlife population for decades, and has never caused the problem to that wildlife species or to humans, because of the the lack of close interaction, when a human is then exposed to that virus can become infected. And I think one of the important things about viruses is that they have this high ability to mutate into change. So of course, most people have been exposed to a Coronavirus. Of course, it's coronaviruses in general, are probably the second leading cause of colds in humans. But it's a different Coronavirus. It's different than the one that's currently circulating. And so we don't have that underlying immunity to the one that causes the common cold. And so one of the things that can make viruses transmissible is, of course, that oftentimes viruses are transmitted through the oral nasal route. If you think about respiratory diseases, those are ones that can make you cough can make you sneeze, that can create these aerosols that, again, oftentimes can contain large amounts of virus, if a person is in the acute phase of infection. The other thing about viruses is that even though they require cells to replicate, some of them can survive in the environment for an extended period. And again, that goes back to, you know, DNA versus RNA and versus non envelope. But when we think about touching, handle doors and touching our phones, and we want to be sure that, you know, we're taking the precautions to not only wash our hands, but think about the types of materials that our hands touched throughout the day, and make sure that we have those clean. So those are a couple of the characteristics with regards to viruses.

And those are there. I was just gonna say so is there anything particular about the type of virus or what it is that makes that makes it particularly harmful to humans? Right, sort of like so why is it that the viruses that you're studying that are caused a lot of disease in pigs strikes or don't happen to cause diseases in humans? Is it just kind of, you know, luck, or is there some particular characteristic about them that makes them not dangerous to humans, but something like the novel Coronavirus, right? Transferable and it's gonna infect us and make us sick.

Yeah, they're, they're typically the way that the virus is determined, you know, determines what host to that is susceptible is based on the proteins on the surface of the virus. So those proteins only recognize certain host cells. And then also on the host side, the host has to have the correct receptor, or it's often a protein, again on the host cell. So those interactions are what allow the virus to actually take it, you know, have the receptor bind to the, or the protein bind to the host cell receptor, and enter into the cell and cause infection. But viruses have a wide range of how they cause disease. When you think about a virus like HIV, people have HIV as lifelong infections, because that virus actually integrates itself into the host genome. Whereas you think about other viruses. And the infection is fairly short, maybe it's three to five days. And that's the only time period when you are shedding the virus, and then your immune system clears the virus. Some viruses cause chronic infections, some are very acute, some cause that like African swine fever, in pigs, causes extremely high mortality. So we see almost 100% mortality, whereas other viruses have mortality rates less than 1%. So really depends on the virus and the mechanisms by which that virus has evolved to cause disease. And also sort of this variation that we can see with regards to the length of time that the virus may infect the host. And, again, host susceptibility has a lot to do with the actual cells of the host, and then the proteins on the virus. 

Interesting. That's very interesting. What I was going to ask we were going to be putting on a workshop global food systems is going to be putting on a workshop on microbiome in another month or two, and hopefully, it'll be face to face that if we're still in the situation we're in right now, we may, we may try and take it to a virtual level. But on the microbiome as I was putting the ideas together on this, and Megan, thank you for your help. And in working with me on it. There. There are a whole lot of different areas working on microbiome. And I wonder in my mind, how those things how those areas overlap, or if they do not overlap, what are the similarities and differences between, say, soil microbiome and what you're working on with swine gut or things that are being worked on in I know, in poultry gut? Or is that a fair question to ask you? I mean, it may be that the study areas are different enough?

No, I think I think it's an interesting, it's a good comment to have about the microbiome space. Because when we think about the research, really, it's been over the last decade that we've seen this expansion in microbiome work. And really, the vast majority, I mean, every year, the number of microbiome publications increases on both the human side, and let's say, the swine side, you know, there's probably over 50,000 Publications now on the human side. But the vast majority of those have been in the last three to five years. And even on the swine side, we talk about maybe 1000 publications on the swine side. So it's this, it's this new area of study that is very complex. And when we think about the microbial communities, in soil, or in our guts, or in the guts of pigs, or poultry, and we think about all the interactions of those microbes, it's very complicated. It's very difficult to replicate, let's say outside of the host, because you think about the immune cells of the host impact the microbial replication in the gut. And then the microbes within the gut interact and metabolic products impact what other microbes may do or make, may produce. So I think there's a couple of challenges with microbiome research that is probably fairly consistent in any microbiome research, one of which is replicating what happens in the natural environment in a laboratory setting, but also, how you actually analyze the microbiome. There's many different areas. You can use meta genomics, you can use whole genome sequencing, you can use 16 s ribosomal sequencing.  One thing which is based on bacteria, you can use microarrays to look at populations of microbes, you can look at transcriptome, so maybe what the microbes produce? What, what does what's sort of the response between the host and the microbes. So I think it's such an exciting space, because we have so much to learn, and there's so many different areas. And really, if you look and see, you know, an aspect of the microbiome again, more than likely, it probably has an impact on some sort of disease in the host or in the, you know, in maintaining a healthy crop in the soil. And so I think it's really exciting. But again, it's important for people to sort of wrap their head around the complexity of, of how we research the microbiome true. 

Another term I've heard used in that reference, the microbial ecology of the gut, is that correct?

Yes

Okay, good. Yes, Maureen.

Well, I was just gonna say, with what little life I've probably read and understood enough on the microbiome to be really dangerous in the area. But what I have read has absolutely fascinated me. And it seems, from my limited understanding that it's got the potential of changing the way we look at health in many ways, the way we are looking and understanding what's going on in our systems and how to manage and control healthful activities helpful. Is that a fair? Is that a fair assumption? On my part?

Absolutely, I think one of the most sort of fascinating and exciting things that I think about is, you know, in the future, are we going to be inoculating our young babies, and, you know, on my side, the young pigs with microbes that we know will improve the health of that person, or that animals throughout their lifetime, that's really exciting. Because you go, wow, we can if we learn about these microbes, what they do, and then on on the human side, or on the pig side, understand what diseases they're going to be susceptible to later on in life, and give them those microbes that are going to help them be resistant, or less susceptible to those diseases. That's a whole nother avenue to think about how we can prophylactically or preventatively provide health to people, or HIV or pigs. You know, prior to early on in life, I think it's really, really fascinating and exciting. And we think about, we are what we eat, you know, we haven't really talked about the diet. But you know, the other fascinating thing about the gut is that, you know, everything we eat in talks the microbes, so when we talk about learning about the connection between nutrition and microbes, and overall health and neurologic conditions that may even come in, later on in life. It's really, like you said, I think fascinating and exciting. I think, you know, it'll be very, very cool to see where we're at even, you know, five to 10 years from now in this in the microbiome world?

Absolutely. Absolutely. 

You know, what, what comes to mind with what you just stated was just some reading I did while that's been it's been a while ago, but on, on childbirth, and on the difference in the potential of the child with a vaginal birth, as opposed to a cesarean section and the number of microbes that that child was introduced to, during that process. And just thinking about all of those kinds of things, is, as I said, fascinating, I mean, it just it, it makes your mind kind of swim on all of the areas that those microorganisms are going to be touching and relating to how, how well we are in the long run.

Well, in nature, there's at least one example in nature for that. qualities are born without if they were if they were, there's a transfer of microbiome from the mother to the baby that allows them to eat and digest the eucalyptus, eucalyptus trees, which they wouldn't be able to do otherwise. So there are examples in nature of what we're trying to do. 

Is there a feed of us swine, then studied in terms of the effects on the microbiome and their health right there? How much do we know about like, what the diversity are the type of feed that pigs get affects? affects their gut affects their health?

Yeah, so a lot of the focus of course in the nutrition side is what components of the pigs diet do we need to make the pig gain and have they to gain as much weight and as quickly as possible and maintain maintaining health? I think an area there As we should sort of bridge the gap is, as we understand the best nutritional outcomes with regards to grow. Also thinking about are those the best nutritional aspects is that pig is in certain health challenged conditions. And so oftentimes we do these, the research studies in, in herds that are fairly healthy, that maybe don't have a disease challenge. And then when we get into a disease challenge situation, we understand that pigs, not only eat differently, of course of a pig is not feeling well, they may not eat as much, but they're also able to they also metabolize, and take nutrients from the, from the feed in different ways based on their health challenge. And so I think that's another sort of exciting area where we can maybe bridge the gap in different disease settings, what sort of nutritional aspects of the seeds should we shift to, again, set the pig up for the best possible health outcome?

And does diversity of feed correspond to diversity of microbiome?

I don’t know off the top of my head. I don't know if we know that if we think about you mean, like, if a pig was that different threats throughout its lifetime, increase the diversity of the microbes? Right. Yeah, I think that's an interesting point, because you think about the feed at source, of course, in most high ball security operations is highly standardized, and right and changes as the pig ages. And so most pigs are not fed, you know, different diets, or, you know, a wide range of different diet that you think about maybe in developing world, when people hold pigs in their backyard. We talk about backyard operations. So we talked about this with regards to disease, oftentimes, those families may feed the pigs scraps from their meals. And so of course, I don't know if there's been a good study looking at, you know, if a pig is exposed to a wide range of foods throughout its life, what happens to the microbes? But my assumption would be yes, that the diversity would influence.

Because a lot of the work to this point has been more directed phenotypically, you're trying to change some

entire animal characteristic and improve it or keep it the same, as opposed to going at the genotypic level.

I think this has been a great conversation. very timely. I've learned a lot. It's been great. I've ever seen plastic work.

Yeah. Thank you for the discussion. It's been I've really enjoyed talking with you all. And hopefully we can all meet face to face soon and yeah, thanks for thanks again for the opportunity. 

Well, we'll look forward to the face to face and thank you all for coming online. And yes, I learned a ton here today.

Likewise, likewise. Thanks again.

If you have any questions or comments you would like to share check out our website at https://www.k-state.edu/research/global-food/ and drop us an email.

Our music was adapted from Dr. Wayne Goins’s album Chronicles of Carmela. Special thanks to him for providing that to us. Something to Chew On is produced by the Office of Research Development at Kansas State University.