August 4, 2023 • 67 mins
A conversation with Henry Rowlands, CEO of Soil in Formation (SIF) about how to measure a holistic set of parameters related to soil risks and soil health accurately, in-situ and in real time by using electrochemical sensors and more. Soil in Formation (SIF) is on the verge of making it possible to measure a holistic set of parameters related to soil risks and soil health accurately, in-situ and in real-time by using electrochemical sensors that are set to enable the auditable measurement of soil carbon and soil health.
A 7-year research journey around the world into accurate, auditable, cheap, and real-time soil health data. And what all of that has to do with the chemical residues in our food, containments and testing the hairs of Japanese parliamentarians and their children.
---------------------------------------------------
Join our Gumroad community, discover the tiers and benefits on www.gumroad.com/investinginregenag.
Support our work:
- Share it
- Give a 5-star rating
- Buy us a coffee… or a meal! www.Ko-fi.com/regenerativeagriculture
----------------------------------------------------
More about this episode on https://investinginregenerativeagriculture.com/henry-rowlands.
Find our video course on https://investinginregenerativeagriculture.com/course.
----------------------------------------------------
The above references an opinion and is for information and educational purposes only. It is not intended to be investment advice. Seek a duly licensed professional for investment advice.
Thoughts? Ideas? Questions? Send us a message!
https://investinginregenerativeagriculture.com/course
Find out more about our Generation-Re investment syndicate:
https://gen-re.land/
Thank you to our Field Builders Circle for supporting us. Learn more here
Feedback, ideas, suggestions?
- Twitter @KoenvanSeijen
- Get in touch www.investinginregenerativeagriculture.com
Join our newsletter on www.eepurl.com/cxU33P!
Support the show
Thanks for listening and sharing!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What a sever year research journey around the
world into accurate, auditable,cheap and real-time soil health
data, specifically soil carbonbut also other aspects of soil
health, led to finding a verypromising technology in Texas,
of all places, and co-founding acompany to bring this
technology to market.
But what does it have to dowith chemical residues in our
(00:21):
food contaminations and testingthe hairs of Japanese
parliamentarians and theirchildren?
Enjoy?
This is the Investing inRegenerative Agriculture and
Food podcast investing as if theplanet mattered, where we talk
(00:41):
to the pioneers in theregenerative food and
agriculture space to learn moreon how to put our money to work
to regenerate soil, people,local communities and ecosystems
, while making an appropriateand fair return.
Why my focus on soil andregeneration?
Because so many of the pressingissues we face today have their
roots in how we treat our land,nrc, grower food, what we eat,
(01:04):
where and consume, and it's timethat we as investors, big and
small and consumers, startpaying much more attention to
the dirt slash soil underneathour feet.
To make it easy for fans tosupport our work, we launched
our membership community And somany of you have joined us as a
member.
Thank you.
Our work created value for youand, if you have the means, and
only if you have the means,consider joining us.
(01:26):
Find out more on gumroadcomslash investing in Regenag.
That is gumroadcom slashinvesting in Regenag, or find
the link below.
Welcome to another episodetoday with soil information.
They are on their way of makingit possible to measure an
(01:48):
holistic set of parametersrelated to soil risks and soil
health accurately in situ, whichI think means on site and in
real time, by using electric,magnetic or no electric chemical
sensors that are set to enablenoticeable measurement of soil
carbon and soil health.
Welcome, ceo Henry.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Thank you.
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
And I should really practice interest more, but I
always mess them up.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
But we're going to have to go.
I think that was fantastic.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
I'm going to unpack most of that, but first let's
start with the personal questionI always like to ask How did
you end up focusing on soil somuch?
Speaker 2 (02:26):
It's been a lifelong thing with me.
So I grew up on a farm in WestWales and have been connected to
farming in some way all my life.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
So the soil.
I think it also meant that yourun away very far, because I
know quite a few that grew up onfarms and they chose very
different career paths.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
I did run away, so that's a good point.
I did run away.
I ran away all the way acrossEurope, ended up in Bulgaria,
which is where I live most ofthe time, and became a
journalist meanwhile.
But farming has always beenpart of my life, even when I was
a journalist.
The soil has been key at everystage and the farm always drags
(03:15):
me back.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
And when did, let's say, soil regeneration or soil
health come into play?
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Actually growing up, we have a sheep farm here A
sheep and we used to grow barleyas well, so there was a lot of
connection to keeping sandy soilspecifically healthy, sandy
soil being pretty difficult togrow many things on, and so that
(03:48):
was where the source ofinterest in how to keep soil
healthy began.
But actually, through otherwork, led me back into the kind
of regenerative space, most ofit being involved with anything
related to contaminants in soil,to the soil structure itself.
(04:16):
My work, when I left the familyfarm I became a journalist and
I was looking at agriculturalcontaminants for many years to
see how we could reduce inputs.
So when we've been looking as ajournalist at exactly how to
(04:42):
reduce inputs in differentEuropean agricultural systems
and the main effects of inputs,such as pesticides, being on the
soil, microbes and on humanhealth, Was that the angle like
the human health angle or thesoil health angle?
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Because I can imagine I mean now maybe more, but soil
health and the connection topesticides wasn't really a big
story.
I'm imagining As a journalist,it's not that you pitched that
story.
Let's look at the effect ofpesticides on the soil
microbiome.
I mean, maybe now you get someinterest, but I'm imagining a
few years ago not so much.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Yeah, it was definitely first related to
human health and then led to thesources of effects on human
health.
So, whether that be from foodor from water, and that
obviously all leads back to thesoil.
So, yeah, definitely that pathfrom a point of view of how we
(05:43):
looked at the effects of thingslike glyphosate and other
herbicides on human health andthen looked back to see what was
causing those issues.
But the general focus hasshifted from just human health
(06:06):
to all of the different aspects,soil health being the main one.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
That was at least when I was a journalist What
triggered I mean, maybe this istoo personal, but what triggered
that focus on health and theconnection to pesticides?
Was there, or was it aninteresting story, an
interesting threat, let's say,to start pulling and ended up,
of course, falling down therabbit hole or into the rabbit
hole?
but what was that initial sparkto go into that?
(06:33):
Because it's not that you grewup on a, let's say, a large GMO
corn-soy rotation farm in theMidwest and you've been exposed
to those pesticides at least, orherbicides.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Yeah, it's a personal story, but in a different way,
because my family's been reallyinvolved with trying to keep
contaminants at low levels,especially in food and in water,
for four generations.
My great grandfather, whoinvented the neon light and he
(07:10):
was also one of the scientistswho discovered the Nobel gases
And, after working as a chemistall his life, after the Second
World War, he started one of thefirst movements against the
overuse of toxic chemicals inEurope.
I think it was in 1955 orsimilar, sometime around that
(07:34):
stage, and since then myfamily's basically been obsessed
with this whole topic, right,yeah, yeah, my parents
campaigned against things likePCBs and GMOs, and that led me
into working in the journalistspace to try and get as much
(07:59):
concentration on that area aspossible.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
And then somehow I'm not saying you switched, but it
definitely switched gears, orpaths at least, and focusing on
the soil health side and alsothe regeneration of or restoring
of, and not saying that thecampaigning and the activist
role there isn't important, butit's a very different role to
(08:24):
choose On the venture side andon the sensor side and like it
feels like almost a differentworld, although we didn't need
both.
What triggered that?
Speaker 2 (08:34):
It was actually because I was advising some of
the governments in Europe.
I was working with some of theauditors as well on looking at
agricultural metrics as a whole,so that one of those parts,
although a very small part, wascontaminants through agriculture
(08:55):
.
But then we startedconcentrating more in our small
company in Bulgaria,concentrating on looking at what
other aspects need to beinvolved in sustainable
agricultural metrics so thatmoney can flow back to farmers
(09:17):
as much as possible, who aredoing a good job at reducing
inputs, at keeping their soilhealthy, at making sure that the
water use on their farm issustainable.
But many metrics, so I'veadvised different groups across
(09:37):
industries, so from pensionfunds to governments, on which
metrics are important.
And I remember one specificmeeting that was with a couple
of auditor groups about sevenyears ago One auditor group who
was connected to Ernst Young andanother one actually was the
(10:03):
PWC themselves, who were in ameeting talking about soil
carbon, and I hadn'tconcentrated much myself on soil
carbon up until that stage,other than knowing that organic
matter was vital for keepingcrops healthy and keeping
(10:23):
systems healthy on farms.
And they were in a meeting witha bank about carbon credits And
it was shocking to me that alot of their conversation was
about the inaccuracy of soilmeasurement as a whole, but
(10:45):
specifically soil carbon, andthat they had been using
different methods for the fouryears previous to that to try
and start auditing soil healthand had failed on pretty much
every angle, which makes thecredit part a bit difficult.
Yeah, it was credits.
It was also how to integratewith government subsidy systems,
(11:08):
all of these things, and thebank had lost a lot of money on
a system because of a lack ofaccurate measurement.
And so after that meeting Italked to my friend at PWC who
said, henry, you're good atinvestigating stuff.
I wonder if you take on a pathof looking at different
(11:34):
agricultural metrics, andspecifically soil carbon, and
how you measure them and withwhat technologies.
So it sounded like fun.
Of course, it sounded like alot of fun And it has been.
When was this?
Speaker 1 (11:55):
More or less.
like you know, it was aboutseven years ago.
Oh wow, so they were alreadytalking about carbon credits,
soil carbon credits at that timeand not getting what they
wanted.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Yes, and a lot of that was actually related to
things like Australian carboncredits that I know had come in
at that stage, but in differentparts of the world.
So I've then set off looking attechnologies specifically for
soil carbon and specifically forsoil organic carbon in
(12:24):
different places around theworld.
It's taken me on trips todifferent parts of the globe,
looking at differentuniversities, whether that be in
the Netherlands or in Moscow orin Sao Paulo, to look at
infrared Gamma technologies,satellite technologies, and I'd
(12:49):
say, probably after about threeor four years of concentrating
on looking at different methodsa lot of that in my spare time.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Yeah, because I was going to ask did PW use No, no,
no, So you'll pay you for this.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
No one was paying me to do it, so it was definitely
in my spare time And Soundedmore fun than it was.
Yeah too good.
And then I was becoming alittle bit despondent to the
truth with this mission, justbecause of what was out there
from a technology point of viewAnd the levels of accuracy
(13:23):
against what has always been thegold standard being soil cores,
and then trying to compare itwith different things.
We looked at satellites indetail and found them somewhere,
just because of how they workand how they only look at
probably the first 10centimeters.
(13:44):
On average They were coming upanywhere between 50 and 70
percent accurate against soilcores most of the time.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
Doesn't sound good enough.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Which just wasn't good enough from an auditability
standpoint, which is what I wascoming at it from.
And we also looked at infrared,which was really great in lab.
It was getting better andbetter in lab over that period,
but when you started taking itout of lab there were issues
(14:16):
with things like moisture andhumidity and the need for a
technician always to be goingalong and taking the readings,
and the same with gamma.
So those were the kind of mainthree technologies that I've
looked at.
And then I got onto a piece ofluck actually because I called a
(14:40):
professor from Texas who wasstudying electrochemical sensors
for contaminants Actually I wasatrazine, specifically atrazine
pesticide, and they werelooking at atrazine using these
(15:01):
sensors.
And so I called them up on thephone just out of the blue and
said Still in your spare time.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
Just to be clear.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
And I called Dr Shalini Prasad,who's a professor there, and
she said I've been working onbasically the biomedical area
for the past 15 years, so kindof next generation biomedical
sensors for things like bluecoes and cortisol, for the
(15:31):
measurement of these substancesin the human body in real time
and totally noninvasive.
And what piqued my interest wasthe fact that she was doing it
without the need for very muchmoisture at all for the
electrochemical readings.
And she said this is started tobe used in the environmental
(15:57):
space for the first time,literally a few months before I
spoke to her for pesticides AndI said well, what about soil?
Do you think that soil would beeasy to measure using this type
of sensor?
because they're affordable,they're very accurate, they're
medically accurate for themedical space.
And her reaction was great.
She said yes, in fact, itshould be easier than
(16:23):
measurements for the human body.
So since then, partly becausethere's so much change
constantly in the human body,like some of these hormones and
some of these, ionic substances.
(16:45):
Yeah, i mean, you can have achange every second.
So that's basically the thoughtprocess, and she came up with a
protocol for looking at whatwas possible.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
Still thinking on the pesticide side, I think.
Or you've already triggeredyour own say let's look at.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
Thinking across the environmental space for
contaminants to soil health, towater.
So probably about three or fourmonths later she got back in
touch regarding soilspecifically, and we have been
talking most day since regardinghow to measure lots of the
(17:35):
different aspects of soil healthusing electrochemical sensors,
which to my knowledge had notbeen done before that stage in
any format.
So that led to the start ofsoil information a year and a
half ago, where we we got, weraised a round of funding back
(18:00):
back at that time to do a fullresearch and development project
with the University of Texas atDallas, which is where Dr
Shalini Prasad works, and whatled to that?
Speaker 1 (18:15):
because you could also have reported back to like
look, i've done a long researchbut I came up with a potentially
valuable and relevant path todo soil health measurement at
scale and accurately to.
at that point, maybe the bigaccountancy forms or others
(18:36):
because at that point I think ayear and a half ago or two years
ago, the attention of the soilcarbon credits had exploded
completely What made you decideto start a company?
Speaker 2 (18:49):
I think the aspect of being able to imagine because
it was only in the imaginationat that time to imagine the
ability to measure soil carbon,ph, moisture, other soil health
aspects in real time from apoint of view of leaving a
(19:14):
sensor in the ground so that youcould almost measure the
heartbeat of the soil, was justtoo interesting for me.
And after I'd reported to anumber of the people I was
working for as a consultant andthey all showed so much interest
in the idea, i thought it wasit was time to take the next
(19:36):
step and to launch a companywith my co-founders, who have
also been in the space for along period of time, working at
the carbon underground, andthere's my two fellow
co-founders actually launchedthe carbon underground over a
decade ago, so we'd all had alot of interest in the space and
(19:58):
hadn't really seen anythingthat could create auditable soil
health data for this moment,because that would be my
non-expert question.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
We, with the podcast and also others, we get
approached quite a bit withsensors here, sensors there that
promise a lot, or a bit withinput companies that promise
like, if you only use this,everything will change.
I'm always very skepticalbecause I just don't know enough
about the input space tounderstand what is, what is the
(20:32):
snake oil and what is reallyinteresting.
So please don't say thatanymore.
But for the sensor space aswell, what makes this unique and
why hasn't it been done untilnow?
Why is now the moment We'retalking May 2023.
What makes this period uniqueto do this compared to maybe
(20:53):
five years ago, when also therewas attention for this?
Or why are we ready now And whythis specific technique and
approach?
Speaker 2 (21:01):
Yeah, and just to say , I'm the ultimate skeptic
myself, so that's why it took meso long to do due diligence on
so many different methods and tobe so disappointed at that
stage.
Actually, and I think thereason to do this now is purely
(21:24):
because it's become available.
This should have been done many, many years ago, and I think a
lot of focus in the architectworld especially is on improving
the methods that already exist.
So there's been infrared andgamma and satellites around for
many years in the architectspace for looking at things, and
(21:50):
there's been a constant need toimprove those methods and not
much looking outside of the box.
And so, because this comes fromthe biomedical space only and
has literally not really beenused in agriculture before,
there's kind of a moment herethat can meet what the market
(22:19):
needs without using an improvingtechnologies that will never,
in my opinion, get to where theyneed to be.
Mainly on that accuracy piece.
Speaker 1 (22:30):
Is that like how it's about being able to roll?
Speaker 2 (22:34):
I'd say three pieces.
So this accuracy is key.
Also affordability, so theability to use sensors that are
going to, or some methods aregoing to, cost a really small
amount of money.
And also on the ease of use, sowithout the need for
(23:00):
technicians to be involved orlabs to be involved.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
Like I mentioned before, I didn't use the
technician all the time toinfrared.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
Because all of those harm scalability, and so I don't
even know how you scale some ofthese technologies at all,
because they might be able to bescaled, for example, in the
Midwest, as you mentionedearlier, but to be scaled
(23:29):
outside and around the world andin areas in the global south.
I just can't see how you scalea lot of these technologies at
all.
So, yeah, i'd say the time isnow, because there's a need for
accurate, affordable, auditablesoil data for so many different
(23:51):
stakeholders now And I thinkthere's lots of these
stakeholders are building likedata platforms and all sorts of
other things on top of a base,but the base is very weak, which
is actually the measurementpart of this whole picture.
So, yeah, that's hopefullywhere we fit in there.
Speaker 1 (24:15):
And take us to the field.
I mean, you mentioned we werein a research phase to we raised
some funding for that and didthat for the last.
I think you mentioned 80 months, but maybe I got the number
wrong.
But now, as you're partlycoming out of stealth, i think
as well.
What do we need to imagine?
(24:36):
How does your sensor look?
How does it work?
Of course, we're in an audioformat.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
I can't show you.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
You have to talk about it as if you're showing it
to us And, just for us toimagine, we all close our eyes
and you take us to a field tolike how does it work?
Or how should we imagine asensor taking these kind of
measurements, and where do weread it?
What do we do with it?
Speaker 2 (25:02):
Sure, i'll start from the fact of where these sensors
came from, again in thebiomedical space.
So if you can imagine at themoment, what these sensors were
used for in a commercial way isto be stuck.
These are similar sensors Okay,not the same, but they're
(25:24):
similar sensors that are stuckunderneath a patch onto the skin
and they read passive sweat, sothe sweat that we sweat 24
hours a day, not the sweat thatyou sweat when you're exercising
.
So they sit there and theyrecognize a very specific
(25:46):
substance 24 hours a day.
They're about one centimeter byone centimeter And they have in
the center of them an evensmaller area which picks up the
(26:07):
passive sweat and reads whatthat substance is.
Now all we've done is createnew sensors that are similar
size.
In the middle of that sensor,it will just recognize one
specific soil parameter.
Now, if you're picturing thisone centimeter by one centimeter
(26:33):
sensor, how do you make thatinto a product that can be used
and left in the field is thetrick.
We did a lot of work in the labwith just the sensors and we
did that for about a 12-monthperiod, making sure that they
(26:55):
were only recognizing theparameter that we were
interested in.
They at the moment concentrateon soil organic carbon, on
actually soil organic matter,specifically on soil inorganic
carbon, so that you can get thetotal carbon picture.
(27:17):
We've got a sensor for moisture.
We've got a sensor for bulkdensity as well, so you can get
tons per hectare output ofcarbon.
We're developing other sensors,but they're all in the same
format one centimeter by onecentimeter.
Then we moved out of the laband we started doing field
(27:39):
trials.
In a Gen 1 prototype We slotthese one centimeter by one
centimeter sensors intosomething that looks like a USB
port on a computer That goesonto a probe which we then put
into the soil.
(28:00):
At the moment our Gen 1 probesare about 40 centimeters in
depth.
We would imagine that whenfurther development takes place
on probes they'll be down to ameter, but these sensors could
measure pretty much any depth.
So the sensor is connected tosome wires which currently go up
(28:27):
to an SD card, and we get areading every eight hours.
At the moment We just leavethese probes in the soil to take
readings over a period of time.
So I hope that gives you a goodpicture of what these things
look like.
The probe is currently lookinglike a plastic tube.
On the end of that probe?
(28:49):
is these sensors stuck intothings that look like USB ports?
Speaker 1 (28:54):
How different.
I mean, you don't need atechnician, i imagine, to put
them at 30 centimeters.
It's literally that you putthem in the soil up to the
wanted depth and that's it.
You leave them.
Of course, now you might needto read the SD card at some
point, etc.
But I'm imagining that theywill be sending it wireless at
some point, but that's it.
You don't need to find aspecific spot on the soil or a
(29:18):
specific spot on your field.
Speaker 2 (29:21):
Yeah, so I mean, the idea is that when this is fully
developed, that satellites willbe used to identify for a farmer
exactly where they should putthe probes, and we're working on
that.
But, yes, you would just leavethese probes in the soil for a
certain period of time.
(29:41):
Our aim overall is that whenprobes are developed for
commercial use, they would stayin the soil for, for example,
two to three years And theywould just be giving results,
for example for carbon, maybeonce every three days, for
(30:02):
example, so that you could get areading and, as you said,
probably wirelessly up into thecloud.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
And how many do you need?
You remember that of coursedepends on the soil, but are
there per hectare or acre?
is that a large amount orrelatively limited?
Speaker 2 (30:23):
It really depends on what kind of system you're
looking at, But as an estimateyou could say like one every two
or three acres in horticulture,one every 10 acres in broad
acre crops and maybe even oneevery 50 acres in grassland,
depending.
Again, it depends on the hugenumber of things, But that's
(30:45):
just an estimate that we've got,not 100 per hectare.
No, not 100 per hectare.
And again, we don't see these,these probes, as being something
that will be used on its own.
We would imagine that thecombination between satellite
technology and ground truth inusing these probes over the
(31:11):
globe would enable us to get toa very, very scalable system
over time.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
Yeah, because who do you imagine being or who do you
think your customers will be?
Is that the farmer that wantsthe inside?
or, which might be tricky,because selling stuff to farmers
is very difficult rightfully so.
Their margins are super thinand everybody tries to sell
stuff to farmers.
What do you imagine your marketand your customers looking like
(31:40):
?
Speaker 2 (31:41):
Sure, Our general concentration is to create the
core technology.
So the concentration from ahardware point of view is that
we will concentrate on producingchips, much like Intel does for
the computer world, And we willlicense the use of these chips
(32:05):
and the algorithms to thirdparties who have global
distribution and can use currentor new technology to get these
out to a scalable angle.
But from a market perspectivethose clients we will also be
helping those clients because wehave a lot of connections in
(32:26):
the CPG world.
Cpgs obviously want such dataat the moment.
But carbon credits, governmentsubsidies, even land valuation
there are multiple markets thatwe will hopefully be licensing
this technology into.
But we don't imagine ourselvesas a hardware company that will
(32:52):
be selling farmer to farmer.
That has never been the model.
We'd rather create a coretechnology that can be used
really widely and scale throughcurrent systems and through new
systems that are developed.
The problem has always beenthat core technology has not
been there And we hope to bethat provider who provides the
(33:17):
soil health world with somethingthat is widely usable and
vastly affordable.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
And how long does it take until we get there, in the
sense of until this is widelyavailable?
What are timelines looking at?
What timelines are we lookingat?
Speaker 2 (33:37):
Sure, i mean, we've done a lot of the hard yards, to
tell you the truth, which ismaking sure that the sensors
work, making sure that they canbe incorporated in a field and
that the in-field results arecoming back over 90% accurate
against gold standard.
The in-lab results are becomingcoming back over 90% accurate
(33:57):
against gold standard, which issoil cause, and so we're now
actually already inconversations with possible
licensees who can make sure thatthis technology gets to market
much quicker than we were justdoing it on our own Right.
(34:18):
So we hope that this technologyis widely available in 2024.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
Wow, which is basically tomorrow.
Yeah, and what are mainbottlenecks, what are main
barriers you see in general forthis kind of technology to have
the impact we all hope it willhave?
Speaker 2 (34:41):
I think for us, the correct partners are key here.
So one of the angles of makingsure that we get out to as many
groups as possible in a shortperiod of time and so that they
can all come at this from ahardware perspective with their
(35:02):
different vision that's probablythe main bottleneck is making
sure that we can have as manygreat groups involved in this as
possible in a short period oftime, because those
conversations do take time right.
Speaker 1 (35:18):
When you say the right partners, is there a
danger, like are there puttingyour skeptical head on pathways
that this could be misused ornot used in the most
regenerative way?
Speaker 2 (35:33):
Yeah, we don't want this to be shelved, right?
I've been through my years as ajournalist looking at different
technologies many, manydifferent times, looking at
really great looking technologyand core technology like this,
which really gets brought upearly exclusively and then gets
(35:54):
shelved because it could bedisruptive.
So that's one of the mainthings we want to avoid at this
stage.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
Yeah, no, of course, but are there?
I mean, that would be a verydark scenario which happens.
Speaker 2 (36:11):
It happens far too much.
Speaker 1 (36:14):
But are there scenarios of I'm just seeing,
like what like in time superaccurate or sort of in situ
super accurate real time soilhealth data?
is there a dark side to that aswell?
Like are there potential risks,or I cannot come up with any.
But are there unknown?
(36:35):
unknowns We don't want to like?
what could that lead to?
Speaker 2 (36:38):
on the wrong side of things, Well, i think one thing
that I've always wanted myself,and I know that lots of creeps
in the regenerative world havealso wanted, is really full
transparency as much as possible.
And then I think, rather thansuggesting that a specific
(37:02):
system is always going to workfor improving soil health in
every single area, and say everysingle crop in every single
region, the ability toagnosticly measure output based
results from a technology thatis accurate and affordable cuts
(37:28):
through the possibility of therebeing dark sides.
right, because the dark side tome is the ability basically to
greenwash regenerative becauseof a lack of accurate, scalable
data that shows where the soilhealth is improving or not, and
(37:48):
so, if that great area stayswhere it is now, regenerative is
in danger of becoming theeasiest thing for people who are
not being soil friendly andusing the systems that have
damaged the soil for so manyyears, to greenwash as much as
(38:11):
possible.
Speaker 1 (38:12):
Yeah, i've seen the what is it?
the Glidefusade renewable,renewable group in Europe
hosting, i think, an event inBrussels.
We should actually all go andjust ask really difficult
questions.
Speaker 2 (38:24):
Now seriously like in their invite.
Speaker 1 (38:26):
It says conservation agriculture and regenerative
agriculture are ways to have notill, of course, very specific
language use and then tomaximize the impact or something
of pesticides inside The momentthey start using that language.
It just gets very tricky.
It also means we're gettingsomewhere, but it also means it
gets very tricky.
Speaker 2 (38:45):
Yeah.
So I would say that this kindof hopefully cuts through that
possible dark side of what'shappening at the moment.
The closer we can get to fulloutcome based transparency, the
better.
Speaker 1 (39:00):
So I have the exact language here.
Conservation agriculture andregenerative agriculture are two
of the systems based on no tillfarming, which is not always
true, but okay that dramaticallyreduce the carbon footprint by
transforming the soil from acarbon image to a carbon sink.
Okay, so far, so good.
Counteracting soil threats andincreasing soil's capacity to
retain nutrients and water,optimizing the amount of
fertilizer needed to feed plantsand the pesticides applied to
(39:22):
them.
At least they didn't hide theiragenda.
I mean, the group is literallycalled glyphosate renewal group,
but it's still a bit scary.
Speaker 2 (39:32):
Yeah, no, absolutely.
The strange thing is that someof the methods that are
currently used may be morebeneficial to soil health and
that we don't understand yetright, But we all know that
regenerative methods and othersystems which really improve
(39:53):
soil health don't involve hugeinput, huge levels of inputs.
Speaker 1 (40:00):
I think we're all aware of that, and over time in
many cases especially thechemical ones to zero.
And so it's yeah, it'sfascinating, but I do agree with
.
If soil health was easilymeasurable, then a lot of these
interesting claims could becountered very soon.
I put the link to the eventbelow, by the way, if somebody
(40:22):
wants to, in the show notes, ifsomebody wants to go, let me see
if the date still makes sensewhen it comes out.
I know it's in 11 days.
I don't think the interviewwill be out there, but I hope
somebody will go and askcomplicated questions about
health and things like that.
But it could counter thingslike that.
It does mean that we're gettingsomewhere.
But, yeah, the transparency isjust the same on the nutrient
(40:43):
side and the health side Likewhat's in our food also has
basically nothing research ornot, very, very poorly, and also
there I think we're going tosee a lot of development.
Speaker 2 (40:55):
Yeah, yeah, got it.
Yeah, 100%.
Speaker 1 (40:58):
I think there's going to be all sorts of things going
on in that space, and is thistechnology potentially usable
for that as well, or that's justtoo far down the line to know
what's in your food, to measurecertain phytonutrients and all
the things we're getting excitedabout now in the region space
on nutrient density and soilhealth.
Speaker 2 (41:19):
I'll just simply say there's a lot of potential.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
As you come from the medical space.
Yeah, okay, so let's leave itthere.
And so what?
I mean?
how excited are you Or what'sthere?
Because this has come from avery skeptical journey and deep
dive into this space, leading tofinding a company and coming
out of research mode, it seems.
What is your current mood?
Speaker 2 (41:45):
It's kind of euphoric at the moment.
I'll just to be clear that Iwas skeptical, even going into
research and development, thatwe could meet our targets within
a specific timeline.
Right, and so when we startedgetting results back within
(42:10):
three or four months of the R&Dphase, starting for soil
information, it was just, it wasincredible to see the in lab,
the in lab accuracy, so and thenand then there's that there's
always that stage right Whereyou get to the end of the in lab
phase, or the validation of inlab, because we screen lab, but
(42:32):
yeah, and.
I've seen this so many timesmyself and this is part of my
skeptical nature.
I'm like, yeah, it works in labbut it's not going to work out
in the field at all.
And so when we got, we got tothe, the phase of validating,
because we got Texas A&MUniversity to be our third party
validators for the UTD sensorsAnd they, they validated the,
(42:57):
the, the in lab work And we weregetting you know our values of
something like 0.97 and 0.95.
And it was just fabulous.
So we then went into our firsttwo field trials.
One was on the UTD, theUniversity of Texas at Dallas
(43:18):
campus, and one was in CostaRica.
We picked Costa Rica to be kindof our stress test, let's say,
because the Costa Rican soil wasmountainous, it was in the
middle of the rainforest And itwas on the side of a volcano,
basically.
So volcanic soils are reallydifficult for electrochemistry
(43:44):
in general.
And so we did our first twofield trials, waited for the
results that came, come backagain, validate, validated by
Texas A&M University third party.
And yeah, the most euphoric I'vebeen in the last two years was
to see that the results werevery similar to the in lab
(44:10):
results, which means to me,after looking at data for far
too long that we had somethingthat could change how we look at
soil and can actually reallycreate average data over a long
period of time so that you canactually create auditability.
(44:31):
Because something I can clearlysay now, after looking at the
data from these sensors, is thatif you take a time point
measurement once or twice a yearwhich is as much as a
technician or a farmer orwhoever else is going to get out
into the field and take soilcause or with another method you
will never get a proper averageof what's really the levels are
(44:56):
over the year.
And so the excitement of seeingwhat looks like because when
I've seen this in the biomedicalspace, basically you see the
heartbeat of glucose or theheartbeat of cortisol in the
body.
Now to see the heartbeat ofcarbon, and because we're
measuring not just soil, organiccarbon, also total carbon.
(45:17):
What's the difference?
Speaker 1 (45:20):
just for listeners and myself.
Speaker 2 (45:23):
Sure.
So soil organic matter is whatwe're measuring, which is one
whole pool of carbon.
It's all based on multiplethings like leaf matter and
microbes and all of these thingsthat go into the soil and they
form soil organic carbon.
So that's one thing we'remeasuring is the soil organic
(45:45):
matter part, which is one pool,and then there's the other pool,
which is soil inorganic carbon,which is the mineralized form
of carbon.
So now with these sensors wecan see the flow between both
pools and we can also see whatboth pools equal.
So I'm going to go ahead andshow you the flow between both
pools and we can also see whatboth pools equal, so how much
(46:07):
carbon as a whole is in the soil, which we call total carbon.
So we've also got a totalcarbon sensor which picks up
both inorganic carbon andorganic matter on the same
sensor, which gives you a betterpicture of permanence and
sequestration as a whole.
Speaker 1 (46:26):
Which is what everybody's looking for.
Yeah, the permanent side ofthings.
Speaker 2 (46:31):
And so seeing that heartbeat has made me excited,
because as soon as you startseeing what's happening on a
daily basis or a weekly basis,with multiple things that
involve soil health, that's whenwe can hopefully start to
change things properly.
Speaker 1 (46:50):
And what would be your main message to the
investment world, to the financeworld?
obviously, without givinginvestment advice, i always like
to say let's say we're doingthis in a theater and the room
is for the audience is filledwith people managing their money
or other people's money, and wewant them to leave the, leave
(47:11):
the theater and go to worksomewhere or invest somewhere,
or at least research somewhereand dig deeper.
What would be your main message, after this long research
journey and, of course, forminga company into, into the soil
space, where we're excited,spaces to look where?
Where should people really digthe deeper or where should
people maybe not focus so much?
Speaker 2 (47:33):
Yeah, i would.
I would say this, this The keyis a whole And this is not
related to soil informationnecessarily Is to invest in the
in two things.
One is the core technologiesthat will give us a base to
(47:54):
build outcome based solutions.
Right, and there are manypossibilities right across
Nutrient density to contaminants, to biodiversity, to soil
health.
Every single one of those areas, and more involved in the kind
(48:18):
of ESG space, have really poorFocus on the core technologies
form, the measurement of them.
Right, there's lots of workthat's gone on on top, but very
little Work has gone on ininvesting in those core
technologies, and those are theones that will allow the system,
the whole system above it, towork.
And then there's something outthe other side of that, right,
(48:42):
so there's, you know, there'sall of that data that comes in,
and then there's that data isused for carbon credits and
subsidies and all of these otherthings.
But there's also out of the,out of this raw data, that that
comes out of these coretechnologies that hopefully
being built at the moment Is theability to give that data
(49:05):
context.
And at the moment there's a lotof trying trying to
oversimplify so that you can getthings to market quicker.
But all of these systems arecomplicated in their nature,
right?
So what?
do you have an example?
Speaker 1 (49:19):
of that.
Speaker 2 (49:20):
Yeah, i mean with, with, with soil health.
concentrating on just SOC As afocus for everyone's work is, in
my opinion, totally insane.
Right, because it is not anoutcome of improving soil health
just on its own.
There are many differentaspects, like things like fungal
(49:44):
bacterial ratio and microbialbiomass and so many different
aspects of soil health that need.
Speaker 1 (49:52):
Carbon is not a proxy for part of it.
Speaker 2 (49:56):
Yes, it's a proxy for part of it.
So you need a holistic viewfrom the measurement
technologies Otherwise,otherwise we'll go down a path
of oversimplification, whichactually won't lead to much
improvement, in my opinion.
Speaker 1 (50:13):
But you pick this specific?
I mean, you had to, obviously,but at the same time you did
pick a number, like a limitednumber of things you are
measuring.
Yes, is that also in danger ofoversimplification?
Speaker 2 (50:27):
Yeah, i mean one of the.
it is, and I think one of thefocus is has to be on on on
making sure that we can have anagreement surrounding the core
parameters that need measuring,which obviously is not one right
, but it can't be probably 70either, because that will also
(50:48):
be too difficult and tooexpensive to be able to scale.
So there's some sort of balancethat has to be hit, and I hope
that that's something that cancan be done using
electrochemical sensors as well.
Speaker 1 (51:04):
And so you said that that's one of the key ones, is
the core technology, and thenhow do we give it context?
And then I interrupted you atthe simplification one.
Speaker 2 (51:14):
But continue that thought, yeah so one of the one
of the things that we realizedwhen we were building these
sensors, and when we werethinking about the sensors to
begin with, was that it's greatto have all of this raw data
coming in.
What do you?
do with it, what do you do withit And how do you give it
(51:36):
context, right?
And so I remember aconversation with the guys in
who were some of the MEPs whowere talking about the Green New
Deal and soil and all sorts ofthings surrounding sustainable
agricultural metrics And two ofthe the main things that came up
in that conversation OK, ifwe're going to include soil in
(52:01):
any structures, we need to beable to compare farm to farm and
apples to apples, right?
So the ability to have ahistorical baseline for some of
these parameters so that we cansay we can see where farmers are
on a journey And we can comparetheir current data with
(52:26):
historical baseline data, it'sreally interesting because then
they can say, yes, this farmerhas been doing a great job for
20 years.
Let's make sure we give themmoney, even though they've you
know, they've achieved what'sclose to an attainable level of
soil health, or even though thatprobably can never happen, but
(52:47):
it's at least they're close toan attainable level because
they've been using good systemsand not only reward those
farmers who are increasing froma very low level to a higher
level.
And so to give context to theaverages and to also find out
what is attainable Right.
So, in other words, what isattainable on a specific farm in
a specific region, with aspecific crop, in a specific
(53:10):
climate.
And so and that's, by the way,the same in any of these areas,
whether it's soil, health,biodiversity It would be great
to have historical baselinescompared with what's attainable
so that we can reward farmerscorrectly with whatever system,
whether it's credits orsubsidies or whatever else, and
(53:31):
so that we in the background,with Texas A&M, have created a
historical baseline andattainable system for carbon,
which is all over.
We're doing it all over theglobe.
We've got hundreds of thousandsof data points that Texas A&M
have collected, and so the wholeway, using the gold standard of
(53:56):
lab.
Speaker 1 (53:56):
Yes, yes, of course There's no other tech.
Speaker 2 (53:59):
Yeah, Exactly So.
They've created what I believeis one of the largest ever
historical base databases whichwe're working with them on, and
so I hope that will give contextto all the raw data, not just
soil information sensors, butany other raw data that can go
(54:22):
into the system, which is whichis a vital piece to add that
context.
Speaker 1 (54:33):
And if we switch the position a bit and put you on
the invest store side and youhad, say, a billion dollars or a
billion euros to put to work Ofcourse not asking exact euros
amount or dollars amount Butwhat would you do?
Speaker 2 (54:48):
I would invest pretty much all of it in creating a
base for, for core technologiesfor measurement and and
contextual data platforms acrossthe board, right Across the
regenerative board, whether it'sregeneration in forests,
whether it's regeneration inagriculture.
there needs to be a strongerbase for any of our work as a as
(55:13):
a as a whole regenerativemovement to scale, and so I
would entirely focus on thatwhole space.
Speaker 1 (55:22):
if if I was just given a billion dollars tomorrow
as a gift, which would be nice-And do you see some efforts in
that space, like, do you seeothers that say agreeing or
joining you on that?
Like, look, we really miss, ofcourse, investors on board, but
also beyond that.
We really miss that core baseto to start working from.
Speaker 2 (55:48):
I think people have started to realize, but it's
come very recently.
So, a lot of the focus was onhow to, for example, get CPGs to
start shifting acres over howmany acres could be under a
management for an agtech company.
You know, all of these thingsrather than looking at this as a
holistic, a holistic problemand what the solutions to that
(56:13):
problem is.
And so a lot of these groups,and I know a lot of the
financial institutions, havecome at this looking at the
whole space and saying, ok, we'dlove to invest in it, but we
can't, and the reasons that wecan't is because there's no core
core base to it that can makesure that it goes forward.
So I've, just as I said, i'vespent the last seven years
(56:37):
basically looking at that corebase.
This, the focus of soilinformation, has been entirely
on the core base for soil.
But there's there's so muchwork to be done on on making
sure that we have a platform toscale off of, and I think there
is some.
There's some shift in theinvestor sentiment towards
(56:58):
understanding that, but but it'sonly come, probably in the last
year, maybe.
Speaker 1 (57:04):
And is there a risk that, ok, we have this full
transparency and can see thesoils beating hard, basically
that we just don't care or wejust don't, we just ignore?
I mean, i have the feelingthere is a lot of data not
cheaply available, not maybe soaccurately, but in many cases on
the nutrient side as well.
(57:24):
There is quite a bit of dataout there And we choose to
ignore most of it.
It is fairly like we createthis full transparency, we can
map any soils on the planet andalso properly reward farmers for
even the work they didhistorically, and then we just
don't do it.
Speaker 2 (57:42):
I am.
That's the one thing I'm notskeptical about, And the only
reason for that is because whenI've been working in the
contaminant space for pesticidesand looking at pesticide
certification and non-GMOcertification and the massive
increase in transparency in thefood sector on contaminants over
(58:06):
the past 10 years, I would havesaid 10 years ago that I
wouldn't have expected thatconsumers and everyone would be
focused on reducing contaminantsand all of the brands would get
on board And I would have beenskeptical back then.
But once you get the ability tobe transparent, it's difficult
(58:30):
to go back to tell you the truth.
So I'm really not skepticalthat people wouldn't act on core
data as long as that data isnot controlled by the same
people who destroyed theagricultural system in the first
place.
Speaker 1 (58:48):
Of course yeah.
And then is there an argument,or a scared of an argument, to
say look, we just need asignificant level of this to
feed the world or to keep theseagriculture systems going.
It's just necessary evil.
Is that something you're notworried about, but an argument
you hear?
Speaker 2 (59:08):
Yeah, all the time.
Speaker 1 (59:11):
What's your response?
I don't know.
Asking for a friend.
Speaker 2 (59:16):
Yeah, no, absolutely.
I think there's a balance rightAgain, I hope, and whether this
is gonna happen or not, but Ihope that some of the groups who
have been involved inmonoculture systems that have
reduced soil health will now beinvolved in the solutions to
(59:38):
rebuild things as well.
I don't think that you can justsay, okay, let's exclude lots
of these groups, because younever know how much of a part of
the solution groups are gonnabe going forward.
So I'm on the fence on that one.
Speaker 1 (59:58):
And I wanna be conscious of your time as well
and let you go with one lastquestion, which usually ends up
not being the last one.
So just listeners' warning wemight go down a rabbit hole
sometime.
But if you had a magic wand andcould change one thing
overnight, i mean, i have anidea what you're gonna say, but
you might surprise and saysomething completely different.
(01:00:18):
It could be anything.
It's literally magic power, butit's only one thing.
What would that be?
Speaker 2 (01:00:25):
I would totally change the way that our food
system currently works andreplace it with a system that is
both healthy and beneficial tothe world that all farmers rely
(01:00:46):
on, which is soil, biodiversityand everything to do with
regeneration.
And I also can.
I have two wishes.
Is that okay?
Yeah, because this person is abit vague.
Speaker 1 (01:01:02):
We have to get a bit more of a deeper decision.
I wanted to go a bit deeperhere.
Speaker 2 (01:01:05):
I think it would be really vital to have the ability
for consumers to fully connect,through transparent data, to
the food and agricultural system, so that everyone understands
(01:01:26):
that things can be actuallypersonal, because I find one of
the biggest problems at themoment is that there's a massive
disconnection between peopleand how their food is grown and
the systems that they're grownin and what's going into their
body as a whole.
So the ability to make surethat consumers could connect and
(01:01:46):
push the system in the correctdirection And this involves not
just consumers but financialinstitutions and everyone
Because when you start to makethings personal, things change.
Until it's personal, it's justa load of more information that
just floats through one ear andcomes out the other.
So the more personal we canmake this whole process, the
(01:02:10):
better.
So I'd like to personalize thefood system, if that makes sense
.
Speaker 1 (01:02:14):
Yeah, and I think the angle there of health at least
that's what I'm saying we areall but many are hoping for the
health and the chemical side, orthe non-chemical side and the
initial density and, of course,the soil health that's connected
to that, is so exciting becauseit makes it personal for most
people.
even if you don't really careor don't have time to care about
(01:02:36):
soil health and biodiversityand water quality, capacity and
carbon and all of that, youstill in many cases care greatly
, of course, about your and yourfamily's health, and that group
is a lot bigger than the soilgeeks, i think.
Speaker 2 (01:02:50):
I think you're completely right And I'll give
one example of that ofpersonalizing data.
I was part of one group who didtesting on most of the Japanese
parliament members here fordifferent toxic.
Speaker 1 (01:03:08):
I really didn't know where that sentence was going.
Speaker 2 (01:03:10):
For different toxic chemical contaminants.
Speaker 1 (01:03:13):
Because you can see it in your hair, of course.
Speaker 2 (01:03:15):
Yeah, and so we tested many of the members of
parliament who had been veryslow on shifting policies on
contamination.
Speaker 1 (01:03:26):
And, of course, when you offer them, let's cannot
test your hair.
Most people say yes, of course,because we'd like to know.
Speaker 2 (01:03:30):
Exactly exactly.
And so we did that and we cameback with all sorts of
interesting results, for them.
All was kept confidential.
We didn't publish without theirauthority.
Most of them said, yes, fine, topublish our results, but some
of them didn't.
And the shift in regulationsafter that testing came out
(01:03:55):
after lots of the consumergroups, lots of the agricultural
groups in the regenerativespace, having campaigned on all
sorts of subjects as immediatelyyou made it personal to each
and every one of those Japaneseparliament members, things moved
a hundred times faster.
That's a fascinating approach.
Speaker 1 (01:04:16):
I hope the people of Regenerative America are
listening.
I mean, it's amazing to bringWill Harris to the Capitol etc.
But there's the hair.
Who would say no to that firstof all, and then second, who
wouldn't like to know results?
That's very interesting on thefarm bill that's coming up And
of course, cup as well in acouple of years in Europe.
Speaker 2 (01:04:39):
Yeah, actually those parliament members who tested
their kids as well were the oneswho took the most action.
Speaker 1 (01:04:44):
So there we go, ok so lesson learned Make sure you
include the children as well.
Absolutely, that's fascinating.
Thank you so much for that, forthe whole thing, but also for
that last little nugget.
And thank you so much fortaking the time to come on the
podcast and share on a longjourney but still feels very
(01:05:05):
early in a new phase of that, soI hope to be following that
over time And thank you for thework you do.
Speaker 2 (01:05:11):
Thank you very much, it's been a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (01:05:20):
Thank you so much for listening all the way to the
end.
For the show notes and links wediscussed in this episode,
check out our website Investingin regenderveggerculturecom.
Forward slash posts.
If you liked this episode, whynot share it with a friend or
give us a rating on ApplePodcasts?
That really helps.
Thanks again and see you nexttime.
What a sever year research journey around the
world into accurate, auditable,cheap and real-time soil health
data, specifically soil carbonbut also other aspects of soil
health, led to finding a verypromising technology in Texas,
of all places, and co-founding acompany to bring this
technology to market.
But what does it have to dowith chemical residues in our
(00:21):
food contaminations and testingthe hairs of Japanese
parliamentarians and theirchildren?
Enjoy?
This is the Investing inRegenerative Agriculture and
Food podcast investing as if theplanet mattered, where we talk
(00:41):
to the pioneers in theregenerative food and
agriculture space to learn moreon how to put our money to work
to regenerate soil, people,local communities and ecosystems
, while making an appropriateand fair return.
Why my focus on soil andregeneration?
Because so many of the pressingissues we face today have their
roots in how we treat our land,nrc, grower food, what we eat,
(01:04):
where and consume, and it's timethat we as investors, big and
small and consumers, startpaying much more attention to
the dirt slash soil underneathour feet.
To make it easy for fans tosupport our work, we launched
our membership community And somany of you have joined us as a
member.
Thank you.
Our work created value for youand, if you have the means, and
only if you have the means,consider joining us.
(01:26):
Find out more on gumroadcomslash investing in Regenag.
That is gumroadcom slashinvesting in Regenag, or find
the link below.
Welcome to another episodetoday with soil information.
They are on their way of makingit possible to measure an
(01:48):
holistic set of parametersrelated to soil risks and soil
health accurately in situ, whichI think means on site and in
real time, by using electric,magnetic or no electric chemical
sensors that are set to enablenoticeable measurement of soil
carbon and soil health.
Welcome, ceo Henry.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Thank you.
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
And I should really practice interest more, but I
always mess them up.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
But we're going to have to go.
I think that was fantastic.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
I'm going to unpack most of that, but first let's
start with the personal questionI always like to ask How did
you end up focusing on soil somuch?
Speaker 2 (02:26):
It's been a lifelong thing with me.
So I grew up on a farm in WestWales and have been connected to
farming in some way all my life.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
So the soil.
I think it also meant that yourun away very far, because I
know quite a few that grew up onfarms and they chose very
different career paths.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
I did run away, so that's a good point.
I did run away.
I ran away all the way acrossEurope, ended up in Bulgaria,
which is where I live most ofthe time, and became a
journalist meanwhile.
But farming has always beenpart of my life, even when I was
a journalist.
The soil has been key at everystage and the farm always drags
(03:15):
me back.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
And when did, let's say, soil regeneration or soil
health come into play?
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Actually growing up, we have a sheep farm here A
sheep and we used to grow barleyas well, so there was a lot of
connection to keeping sandy soilspecifically healthy, sandy
soil being pretty difficult togrow many things on, and so that
(03:48):
was where the source ofinterest in how to keep soil
healthy began.
But actually, through otherwork, led me back into the kind
of regenerative space, most ofit being involved with anything
related to contaminants in soil,to the soil structure itself.
(04:16):
My work, when I left the familyfarm I became a journalist and
I was looking at agriculturalcontaminants for many years to
see how we could reduce inputs.
So when we've been looking as ajournalist at exactly how to
(04:42):
reduce inputs in differentEuropean agricultural systems
and the main effects of inputs,such as pesticides, being on the
soil, microbes and on humanhealth, Was that the angle like
the human health angle or thesoil health angle?
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Because I can imagine I mean now maybe more, but soil
health and the connection topesticides wasn't really a big
story.
I'm imagining As a journalist,it's not that you pitched that
story.
Let's look at the effect ofpesticides on the soil
microbiome.
I mean, maybe now you get someinterest, but I'm imagining a
few years ago not so much.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Yeah, it was definitely first related to
human health and then led to thesources of effects on human
health.
So, whether that be from foodor from water, and that
obviously all leads back to thesoil.
So, yeah, definitely that pathfrom a point of view of how we
(05:43):
looked at the effects of thingslike glyphosate and other
herbicides on human health andthen looked back to see what was
causing those issues.
But the general focus hasshifted from just human health
(06:06):
to all of the different aspects,soil health being the main one.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
That was at least when I was a journalist What
triggered I mean, maybe this istoo personal, but what triggered
that focus on health and theconnection to pesticides?
Was there, or was it aninteresting story, an
interesting threat, let's say,to start pulling and ended up,
of course, falling down therabbit hole or into the rabbit
hole?
but what was that initial sparkto go into that?
(06:33):
Because it's not that you grewup on a, let's say, a large GMO
corn-soy rotation farm in theMidwest and you've been exposed
to those pesticides at least, orherbicides.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Yeah, it's a personal story, but in a different way,
because my family's been reallyinvolved with trying to keep
contaminants at low levels,especially in food and in water,
for four generations.
My great grandfather, whoinvented the neon light and he
(07:10):
was also one of the scientistswho discovered the Nobel gases
And, after working as a chemistall his life, after the Second
World War, he started one of thefirst movements against the
overuse of toxic chemicals inEurope.
I think it was in 1955 orsimilar, sometime around that
(07:34):
stage, and since then myfamily's basically been obsessed
with this whole topic, right,yeah, yeah, my parents
campaigned against things likePCBs and GMOs, and that led me
into working in the journalistspace to try and get as much
(07:59):
concentration on that area aspossible.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
And then somehow I'm not saying you switched, but it
definitely switched gears, orpaths at least, and focusing on
the soil health side and alsothe regeneration of or restoring
of, and not saying that thecampaigning and the activist
role there isn't important, butit's a very different role to
(08:24):
choose On the venture side andon the sensor side and like it
feels like almost a differentworld, although we didn't need
both.
What triggered that?
Speaker 2 (08:34):
It was actually because I was advising some of
the governments in Europe.
I was working with some of theauditors as well on looking at
agricultural metrics as a whole,so that one of those parts,
although a very small part, wascontaminants through agriculture
(08:55):
.
But then we startedconcentrating more in our small
company in Bulgaria,concentrating on looking at what
other aspects need to beinvolved in sustainable
agricultural metrics so thatmoney can flow back to farmers
(09:17):
as much as possible, who aredoing a good job at reducing
inputs, at keeping their soilhealthy, at making sure that the
water use on their farm issustainable.
But many metrics, so I'veadvised different groups across
(09:37):
industries, so from pensionfunds to governments, on which
metrics are important.
And I remember one specificmeeting that was with a couple
of auditor groups about sevenyears ago One auditor group who
was connected to Ernst Young andanother one actually was the
(10:03):
PWC themselves, who were in ameeting talking about soil
carbon, and I hadn'tconcentrated much myself on soil
carbon up until that stage,other than knowing that organic
matter was vital for keepingcrops healthy and keeping
(10:23):
systems healthy on farms.
And they were in a meeting witha bank about carbon credits And
it was shocking to me that alot of their conversation was
about the inaccuracy of soilmeasurement as a whole, but
(10:45):
specifically soil carbon, andthat they had been using
different methods for the fouryears previous to that to try
and start auditing soil healthand had failed on pretty much
every angle, which makes thecredit part a bit difficult.
Yeah, it was credits.
It was also how to integratewith government subsidy systems,
(11:08):
all of these things, and thebank had lost a lot of money on
a system because of a lack ofaccurate measurement.
And so after that meeting Italked to my friend at PWC who
said, henry, you're good atinvestigating stuff.
I wonder if you take on a pathof looking at different
(11:34):
agricultural metrics, andspecifically soil carbon, and
how you measure them and withwhat technologies.
So it sounded like fun.
Of course, it sounded like alot of fun And it has been.
When was this?
Speaker 1 (11:55):
More or less.
like you know, it was aboutseven years ago.
Oh wow, so they were alreadytalking about carbon credits,
soil carbon credits at that timeand not getting what they
wanted.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Yes, and a lot of that was actually related to
things like Australian carboncredits that I know had come in
at that stage, but in differentparts of the world.
So I've then set off looking attechnologies specifically for
soil carbon and specifically forsoil organic carbon in
(12:24):
different places around theworld.
It's taken me on trips todifferent parts of the globe,
looking at differentuniversities, whether that be in
the Netherlands or in Moscow orin Sao Paulo, to look at
infrared Gamma technologies,satellite technologies, and I'd
(12:49):
say, probably after about threeor four years of concentrating
on looking at different methodsa lot of that in my spare time.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Yeah, because I was going to ask did PW use No, no,
no, So you'll pay you for this.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
No one was paying me to do it, so it was definitely
in my spare time And Soundedmore fun than it was.
Yeah too good.
And then I was becoming alittle bit despondent to the
truth with this mission, justbecause of what was out there
from a technology point of viewAnd the levels of accuracy
(13:23):
against what has always been thegold standard being soil cores,
and then trying to compare itwith different things.
We looked at satellites indetail and found them somewhere,
just because of how they workand how they only look at
probably the first 10centimeters.
(13:44):
On average They were coming upanywhere between 50 and 70
percent accurate against soilcores most of the time.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
Doesn't sound good enough.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Which just wasn't good enough from an auditability
standpoint, which is what I wascoming at it from.
And we also looked at infrared,which was really great in lab.
It was getting better andbetter in lab over that period,
but when you started taking itout of lab there were issues
(14:16):
with things like moisture andhumidity and the need for a
technician always to be goingalong and taking the readings,
and the same with gamma.
So those were the kind of mainthree technologies that I've
looked at.
And then I got onto a piece ofluck actually because I called a
(14:40):
professor from Texas who wasstudying electrochemical sensors
for contaminants Actually I wasatrazine, specifically atrazine
pesticide, and they werelooking at atrazine using these
(15:01):
sensors.
And so I called them up on thephone just out of the blue and
said Still in your spare time.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
Just to be clear.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
And I called Dr Shalini Prasad,who's a professor there, and
she said I've been working onbasically the biomedical area
for the past 15 years, so kindof next generation biomedical
sensors for things like bluecoes and cortisol, for the
(15:31):
measurement of these substancesin the human body in real time
and totally noninvasive.
And what piqued my interest wasthe fact that she was doing it
without the need for very muchmoisture at all for the
electrochemical readings.
And she said this is started tobe used in the environmental
(15:57):
space for the first time,literally a few months before I
spoke to her for pesticides AndI said well, what about soil?
Do you think that soil would beeasy to measure using this type
of sensor?
because they're affordable,they're very accurate, they're
medically accurate for themedical space.
And her reaction was great.
She said yes, in fact, itshould be easier than
(16:23):
measurements for the human body.
So since then, partly becausethere's so much change
constantly in the human body,like some of these hormones and
some of these, ionic substances.
(16:45):
Yeah, i mean, you can have achange every second.
So that's basically the thoughtprocess, and she came up with a
protocol for looking at whatwas possible.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
Still thinking on the pesticide side, I think.
Or you've already triggeredyour own say let's look at.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
Thinking across the environmental space for
contaminants to soil health, towater.
So probably about three or fourmonths later she got back in
touch regarding soilspecifically, and we have been
talking most day since regardinghow to measure lots of the
(17:35):
different aspects of soil healthusing electrochemical sensors,
which to my knowledge had notbeen done before that stage in
any format.
So that led to the start ofsoil information a year and a
half ago, where we we got, weraised a round of funding back
(18:00):
back at that time to do a fullresearch and development project
with the University of Texas atDallas, which is where Dr
Shalini Prasad works, and whatled to that?
Speaker 1 (18:15):
because you could also have reported back to like
look, i've done a long researchbut I came up with a potentially
valuable and relevant path todo soil health measurement at
scale and accurately to.
at that point, maybe the bigaccountancy forms or others
(18:36):
because at that point I think ayear and a half ago or two years
ago, the attention of the soilcarbon credits had exploded
completely What made you decideto start a company?
Speaker 2 (18:49):
I think the aspect of being able to imagine because
it was only in the imaginationat that time to imagine the
ability to measure soil carbon,ph, moisture, other soil health
aspects in real time from apoint of view of leaving a
(19:14):
sensor in the ground so that youcould almost measure the
heartbeat of the soil, was justtoo interesting for me.
And after I'd reported to anumber of the people I was
working for as a consultant andthey all showed so much interest
in the idea, i thought it wasit was time to take the next
(19:36):
step and to launch a companywith my co-founders, who have
also been in the space for along period of time, working at
the carbon underground, andthere's my two fellow
co-founders actually launchedthe carbon underground over a
decade ago, so we'd all had alot of interest in the space and
(19:58):
hadn't really seen anythingthat could create auditable soil
health data for this moment,because that would be my
non-expert question.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
We, with the podcast and also others, we get
approached quite a bit withsensors here, sensors there that
promise a lot, or a bit withinput companies that promise
like, if you only use this,everything will change.
I'm always very skepticalbecause I just don't know enough
about the input space tounderstand what is, what is the
(20:32):
snake oil and what is reallyinteresting.
So please don't say thatanymore.
But for the sensor space aswell, what makes this unique and
why hasn't it been done untilnow?
Why is now the moment We'retalking May 2023.
What makes this period uniqueto do this compared to maybe
(20:53):
five years ago, when also therewas attention for this?
Or why are we ready now And whythis specific technique and
approach?
Speaker 2 (21:01):
Yeah, and just to say , I'm the ultimate skeptic
myself, so that's why it took meso long to do due diligence on
so many different methods and tobe so disappointed at that
stage.
Actually, and I think thereason to do this now is purely
(21:24):
because it's become available.
This should have been done many, many years ago, and I think a
lot of focus in the architectworld especially is on improving
the methods that already exist.
So there's been infrared andgamma and satellites around for
many years in the architectspace for looking at things, and
(21:50):
there's been a constant need toimprove those methods and not
much looking outside of the box.
And so, because this comes fromthe biomedical space only and
has literally not really beenused in agriculture before,
there's kind of a moment herethat can meet what the market
(22:19):
needs without using an improvingtechnologies that will never,
in my opinion, get to where theyneed to be.
Mainly on that accuracy piece.
Speaker 1 (22:30):
Is that like how it's about being able to roll?
Speaker 2 (22:34):
I'd say three pieces.
So this accuracy is key.
Also affordability, so theability to use sensors that are
going to, or some methods aregoing to, cost a really small
amount of money.
And also on the ease of use, sowithout the need for
(23:00):
technicians to be involved orlabs to be involved.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
Like I mentioned before, I didn't use the
technician all the time toinfrared.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
Because all of those harm scalability, and so I don't
even know how you scale some ofthese technologies at all,
because they might be able to bescaled, for example, in the
Midwest, as you mentionedearlier, but to be scaled
(23:29):
outside and around the world andin areas in the global south.
I just can't see how you scalea lot of these technologies at
all.
So, yeah, i'd say the time isnow, because there's a need for
accurate, affordable, auditablesoil data for so many different
(23:51):
stakeholders now And I thinkthere's lots of these
stakeholders are building likedata platforms and all sorts of
other things on top of a base,but the base is very weak, which
is actually the measurementpart of this whole picture.
So, yeah, that's hopefullywhere we fit in there.
Speaker 1 (24:15):
And take us to the field.
I mean, you mentioned we werein a research phase to we raised
some funding for that and didthat for the last.
I think you mentioned 80 months, but maybe I got the number
wrong.
But now, as you're partlycoming out of stealth, i think
as well.
What do we need to imagine?
(24:36):
How does your sensor look?
How does it work?
Of course, we're in an audioformat.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
I can't show you.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
You have to talk about it as if you're showing it
to us And, just for us toimagine, we all close our eyes
and you take us to a field tolike how does it work?
Or how should we imagine asensor taking these kind of
measurements, and where do weread it?
What do we do with it?
Speaker 2 (25:02):
Sure, i'll start from the fact of where these sensors
came from, again in thebiomedical space.
So if you can imagine at themoment, what these sensors were
used for in a commercial way isto be stuck.
These are similar sensors Okay,not the same, but they're
(25:24):
similar sensors that are stuckunderneath a patch onto the skin
and they read passive sweat, sothe sweat that we sweat 24
hours a day, not the sweat thatyou sweat when you're exercising
.
So they sit there and theyrecognize a very specific
(25:46):
substance 24 hours a day.
They're about one centimeter byone centimeter And they have in
the center of them an evensmaller area which picks up the
(26:07):
passive sweat and reads whatthat substance is.
Now all we've done is createnew sensors that are similar
size.
In the middle of that sensor,it will just recognize one
specific soil parameter.
Now, if you're picturing thisone centimeter by one centimeter
(26:33):
sensor, how do you make thatinto a product that can be used
and left in the field is thetrick.
We did a lot of work in the labwith just the sensors and we
did that for about a 12-monthperiod, making sure that they
(26:55):
were only recognizing theparameter that we were
interested in.
They at the moment concentrateon soil organic carbon, on
actually soil organic matter,specifically on soil inorganic
carbon, so that you can get thetotal carbon picture.
(27:17):
We've got a sensor for moisture.
We've got a sensor for bulkdensity as well, so you can get
tons per hectare output ofcarbon.
We're developing other sensors,but they're all in the same
format one centimeter by onecentimeter.
Then we moved out of the laband we started doing field
(27:39):
trials.
In a Gen 1 prototype We slotthese one centimeter by one
centimeter sensors intosomething that looks like a USB
port on a computer That goesonto a probe which we then put
into the soil.
(28:00):
At the moment our Gen 1 probesare about 40 centimeters in
depth.
We would imagine that whenfurther development takes place
on probes they'll be down to ameter, but these sensors could
measure pretty much any depth.
So the sensor is connected tosome wires which currently go up
(28:27):
to an SD card, and we get areading every eight hours.
At the moment We just leavethese probes in the soil to take
readings over a period of time.
So I hope that gives you a goodpicture of what these things
look like.
The probe is currently lookinglike a plastic tube.
On the end of that probe?
(28:49):
is these sensors stuck intothings that look like USB ports?
Speaker 1 (28:54):
How different.
I mean, you don't need atechnician, i imagine, to put
them at 30 centimeters.
It's literally that you putthem in the soil up to the
wanted depth and that's it.
You leave them.
Of course, now you might needto read the SD card at some
point, etc.
But I'm imagining that theywill be sending it wireless at
some point, but that's it.
You don't need to find aspecific spot on the soil or a
(29:18):
specific spot on your field.
Speaker 2 (29:21):
Yeah, so I mean, the idea is that when this is fully
developed, that satellites willbe used to identify for a farmer
exactly where they should putthe probes, and we're working on
that.
But, yes, you would just leavethese probes in the soil for a
certain period of time.
(29:41):
Our aim overall is that whenprobes are developed for
commercial use, they would stayin the soil for, for example,
two to three years And theywould just be giving results,
for example for carbon, maybeonce every three days, for
(30:02):
example, so that you could get areading and, as you said,
probably wirelessly up into thecloud.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
And how many do you need?
You remember that of coursedepends on the soil, but are
there per hectare or acre?
is that a large amount orrelatively limited?
Speaker 2 (30:23):
It really depends on what kind of system you're
looking at, But as an estimateyou could say like one every two
or three acres in horticulture,one every 10 acres in broad
acre crops and maybe even oneevery 50 acres in grassland,
depending.
Again, it depends on the hugenumber of things, But that's
(30:45):
just an estimate that we've got,not 100 per hectare.
No, not 100 per hectare.
And again, we don't see these,these probes, as being something
that will be used on its own.
We would imagine that thecombination between satellite
technology and ground truth inusing these probes over the
(31:11):
globe would enable us to get toa very, very scalable system
over time.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
Yeah, because who do you imagine being or who do you
think your customers will be?
Is that the farmer that wantsthe inside?
or, which might be tricky,because selling stuff to farmers
is very difficult rightfully so.
Their margins are super thinand everybody tries to sell
stuff to farmers.
What do you imagine your marketand your customers looking like
(31:40):
?
Speaker 2 (31:41):
Sure, Our general concentration is to create the
core technology.
So the concentration from ahardware point of view is that
we will concentrate on producingchips, much like Intel does for
the computer world, And we willlicense the use of these chips
(32:05):
and the algorithms to thirdparties who have global
distribution and can use currentor new technology to get these
out to a scalable angle.
But from a market perspectivethose clients we will also be
helping those clients because wehave a lot of connections in
(32:26):
the CPG world.
Cpgs obviously want such dataat the moment.
But carbon credits, governmentsubsidies, even land valuation
there are multiple markets thatwe will hopefully be licensing
this technology into.
But we don't imagine ourselvesas a hardware company that will
(32:52):
be selling farmer to farmer.
That has never been the model.
We'd rather create a coretechnology that can be used
really widely and scale throughcurrent systems and through new
systems that are developed.
The problem has always beenthat core technology has not
been there And we hope to bethat provider who provides the
(33:17):
soil health world with somethingthat is widely usable and
vastly affordable.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
And how long does it take until we get there, in the
sense of until this is widelyavailable?
What are timelines looking at?
What timelines are we lookingat?
Speaker 2 (33:37):
Sure, i mean, we've done a lot of the hard yards, to
tell you the truth, which ismaking sure that the sensors
work, making sure that they canbe incorporated in a field and
that the in-field results arecoming back over 90% accurate
against gold standard.
The in-lab results are becomingcoming back over 90% accurate
(33:57):
against gold standard, which issoil cause, and so we're now
actually already inconversations with possible
licensees who can make sure thatthis technology gets to market
much quicker than we were justdoing it on our own Right.
(34:18):
So we hope that this technologyis widely available in 2024.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
Wow, which is basically tomorrow.
Yeah, and what are mainbottlenecks, what are main
barriers you see in general forthis kind of technology to have
the impact we all hope it willhave?
Speaker 2 (34:41):
I think for us, the correct partners are key here.
So one of the angles of makingsure that we get out to as many
groups as possible in a shortperiod of time and so that they
can all come at this from ahardware perspective with their
(35:02):
different vision that's probablythe main bottleneck is making
sure that we can have as manygreat groups involved in this as
possible in a short period oftime, because those
conversations do take time right.
Speaker 1 (35:18):
When you say the right partners, is there a
danger, like are there puttingyour skeptical head on pathways
that this could be misused ornot used in the most
regenerative way?
Speaker 2 (35:33):
Yeah, we don't want this to be shelved, right?
I've been through my years as ajournalist looking at different
technologies many, manydifferent times, looking at
really great looking technologyand core technology like this,
which really gets brought upearly exclusively and then gets
(35:54):
shelved because it could bedisruptive.
So that's one of the mainthings we want to avoid at this
stage.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
Yeah, no, of course, but are there?
I mean, that would be a verydark scenario which happens.
Speaker 2 (36:11):
It happens far too much.
Speaker 1 (36:14):
But are there scenarios of I'm just seeing,
like what like in time superaccurate or sort of in situ
super accurate real time soilhealth data?
is there a dark side to that aswell?
Like are there potential risks,or I cannot come up with any.
But are there unknown?
(36:35):
unknowns We don't want to like?
what could that lead to?
Speaker 2 (36:38):
on the wrong side of things, Well, i think one thing
that I've always wanted myself,and I know that lots of creeps
in the regenerative world havealso wanted, is really full
transparency as much as possible.
And then I think, rather thansuggesting that a specific
(37:02):
system is always going to workfor improving soil health in
every single area, and say everysingle crop in every single
region, the ability toagnosticly measure output based
results from a technology thatis accurate and affordable cuts
(37:28):
through the possibility of therebeing dark sides.
right, because the dark side tome is the ability basically to
greenwash regenerative becauseof a lack of accurate, scalable
data that shows where the soilhealth is improving or not, and
(37:48):
so, if that great area stayswhere it is now, regenerative is
in danger of becoming theeasiest thing for people who are
not being soil friendly andusing the systems that have
damaged the soil for so manyyears, to greenwash as much as
(38:11):
possible.
Speaker 1 (38:12):
Yeah, i've seen the what is it?
the Glidefusade renewable,renewable group in Europe
hosting, i think, an event inBrussels.
We should actually all go andjust ask really difficult
questions.
Speaker 2 (38:24):
Now seriously like in their invite.
Speaker 1 (38:26):
It says conservation agriculture and regenerative
agriculture are ways to have notill, of course, very specific
language use and then tomaximize the impact or something
of pesticides inside The momentthey start using that language.
It just gets very tricky.
It also means we're gettingsomewhere, but it also means it
gets very tricky.
Speaker 2 (38:45):
Yeah.
So I would say that this kindof hopefully cuts through that
possible dark side of what'shappening at the moment.
The closer we can get to fulloutcome based transparency, the
better.
Speaker 1 (39:00):
So I have the exact language here.
Conservation agriculture andregenerative agriculture are two
of the systems based on no tillfarming, which is not always
true, but okay that dramaticallyreduce the carbon footprint by
transforming the soil from acarbon image to a carbon sink.
Okay, so far, so good.
Counteracting soil threats andincreasing soil's capacity to
retain nutrients and water,optimizing the amount of
fertilizer needed to feed plantsand the pesticides applied to
(39:22):
them.
At least they didn't hide theiragenda.
I mean, the group is literallycalled glyphosate renewal group,
but it's still a bit scary.
Speaker 2 (39:32):
Yeah, no, absolutely.
The strange thing is that someof the methods that are
currently used may be morebeneficial to soil health and
that we don't understand yetright, But we all know that
regenerative methods and othersystems which really improve
(39:53):
soil health don't involve hugeinput, huge levels of inputs.
Speaker 1 (40:00):
I think we're all aware of that, and over time in
many cases especially thechemical ones to zero.
And so it's yeah, it'sfascinating, but I do agree with
.
If soil health was easilymeasurable, then a lot of these
interesting claims could becountered very soon.
I put the link to the eventbelow, by the way, if somebody
(40:22):
wants to, in the show notes, ifsomebody wants to go, let me see
if the date still makes sensewhen it comes out.
I know it's in 11 days.
I don't think the interviewwill be out there, but I hope
somebody will go and askcomplicated questions about
health and things like that.
But it could counter thingslike that.
It does mean that we're gettingsomewhere.
But, yeah, the transparency isjust the same on the nutrient
(40:43):
side and the health side Likewhat's in our food also has
basically nothing research ornot, very, very poorly, and also
there I think we're going tosee a lot of development.
Speaker 2 (40:55):
Yeah, yeah, got it.
Yeah, 100%.
Speaker 1 (40:58):
I think there's going to be all sorts of things going
on in that space, and is thistechnology potentially usable
for that as well, or that's justtoo far down the line to know
what's in your food, to measurecertain phytonutrients and all
the things we're getting excitedabout now in the region space
on nutrient density and soilhealth.
Speaker 2 (41:19):
I'll just simply say there's a lot of potential.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
As you come from the medical space.
Yeah, okay, so let's leave itthere.
And so what?
I mean?
how excited are you Or what'sthere?
Because this has come from avery skeptical journey and deep
dive into this space, leading tofinding a company and coming
out of research mode, it seems.
What is your current mood?
Speaker 2 (41:45):
It's kind of euphoric at the moment.
I'll just to be clear that Iwas skeptical, even going into
research and development, thatwe could meet our targets within
a specific timeline.
Right, and so when we startedgetting results back within
(42:10):
three or four months of the R&Dphase, starting for soil
information, it was just, it wasincredible to see the in lab,
the in lab accuracy, so and thenand then there's that there's
always that stage right Whereyou get to the end of the in lab
phase, or the validation of inlab, because we screen lab, but
(42:32):
yeah, and.
I've seen this so many timesmyself and this is part of my
skeptical nature.
I'm like, yeah, it works in labbut it's not going to work out
in the field at all.
And so when we got, we got tothe, the phase of validating,
because we got Texas A&MUniversity to be our third party
validators for the UTD sensorsAnd they, they validated the,
(42:57):
the, the in lab work And we weregetting you know our values of
something like 0.97 and 0.95.
And it was just fabulous.
So we then went into our firsttwo field trials.
One was on the UTD, theUniversity of Texas at Dallas
(43:18):
campus, and one was in CostaRica.
We picked Costa Rica to be kindof our stress test, let's say,
because the Costa Rican soil wasmountainous, it was in the
middle of the rainforest And itwas on the side of a volcano,
basically.
So volcanic soils are reallydifficult for electrochemistry
(43:44):
in general.
And so we did our first twofield trials, waited for the
results that came, come backagain, validate, validated by
Texas A&M University third party.
And yeah, the most euphoric I'vebeen in the last two years was
to see that the results werevery similar to the in lab
(44:10):
results, which means to me,after looking at data for far
too long that we had somethingthat could change how we look at
soil and can actually reallycreate average data over a long
period of time so that you canactually create auditability.
(44:31):
Because something I can clearlysay now, after looking at the
data from these sensors, is thatif you take a time point
measurement once or twice a yearwhich is as much as a
technician or a farmer orwhoever else is going to get out
into the field and take soilcause or with another method you
will never get a proper averageof what's really the levels are
(44:56):
over the year.
And so the excitement of seeingwhat looks like because when
I've seen this in the biomedicalspace, basically you see the
heartbeat of glucose or theheartbeat of cortisol in the
body.
Now to see the heartbeat ofcarbon, and because we're
measuring not just soil, organiccarbon, also total carbon.
(45:17):
What's the difference?
Speaker 1 (45:20):
just for listeners and myself.
Speaker 2 (45:23):
Sure.
So soil organic matter is whatwe're measuring, which is one
whole pool of carbon.
It's all based on multiplethings like leaf matter and
microbes and all of these thingsthat go into the soil and they
form soil organic carbon.
So that's one thing we'remeasuring is the soil organic
(45:45):
matter part, which is one pool,and then there's the other pool,
which is soil inorganic carbon,which is the mineralized form
of carbon.
So now with these sensors wecan see the flow between both
pools and we can also see whatboth pools equal.
So I'm going to go ahead andshow you the flow between both
pools and we can also see whatboth pools equal, so how much
(46:07):
carbon as a whole is in the soil, which we call total carbon.
So we've also got a totalcarbon sensor which picks up
both inorganic carbon andorganic matter on the same
sensor, which gives you a betterpicture of permanence and
sequestration as a whole.
Speaker 1 (46:26):
Which is what everybody's looking for.
Yeah, the permanent side ofthings.
Speaker 2 (46:31):
And so seeing that heartbeat has made me excited,
because as soon as you startseeing what's happening on a
daily basis or a weekly basis,with multiple things that
involve soil health, that's whenwe can hopefully start to
change things properly.
Speaker 1 (46:50):
And what would be your main message to the
investment world, to the financeworld?
obviously, without givinginvestment advice, i always like
to say let's say we're doingthis in a theater and the room
is for the audience is filledwith people managing their money
or other people's money, and wewant them to leave the, leave
(47:11):
the theater and go to worksomewhere or invest somewhere,
or at least research somewhereand dig deeper.
What would be your main message, after this long research
journey and, of course, forminga company into, into the soil
space, where we're excited,spaces to look where?
Where should people really digthe deeper or where should
people maybe not focus so much?
Speaker 2 (47:33):
Yeah, i would.
I would say this, this The keyis a whole And this is not
related to soil informationnecessarily Is to invest in the
in two things.
One is the core technologiesthat will give us a base to
(47:54):
build outcome based solutions.
Right, and there are manypossibilities right across
Nutrient density to contaminants, to biodiversity, to soil
health.
Every single one of those areas, and more involved in the kind
(48:18):
of ESG space, have really poorFocus on the core technologies
form, the measurement of them.
Right, there's lots of workthat's gone on on top, but very
little Work has gone on ininvesting in those core
technologies, and those are theones that will allow the system,
the whole system above it, towork.
And then there's something outthe other side of that, right,
(48:42):
so there's, you know, there'sall of that data that comes in,
and then there's that data isused for carbon credits and
subsidies and all of these otherthings.
But there's also out of the,out of this raw data, that that
comes out of these coretechnologies that hopefully
being built at the moment Is theability to give that data
(49:05):
context.
And at the moment there's a lotof trying trying to
oversimplify so that you can getthings to market quicker.
But all of these systems arecomplicated in their nature,
right?
So what?
do you have an example?
Speaker 1 (49:19):
of that.
Speaker 2 (49:20):
Yeah, i mean with, with, with soil health.
concentrating on just SOC As afocus for everyone's work is, in
my opinion, totally insane.
Right, because it is not anoutcome of improving soil health
just on its own.
There are many differentaspects, like things like fungal
(49:44):
bacterial ratio and microbialbiomass and so many different
aspects of soil health that need.
Speaker 1 (49:52):
Carbon is not a proxy for part of it.
Speaker 2 (49:56):
Yes, it's a proxy for part of it.
So you need a holistic viewfrom the measurement
technologies Otherwise,otherwise we'll go down a path
of oversimplification, whichactually won't lead to much
improvement, in my opinion.
Speaker 1 (50:13):
But you pick this specific?
I mean, you had to, obviously,but at the same time you did
pick a number, like a limitednumber of things you are
measuring.
Yes, is that also in danger ofoversimplification?
Speaker 2 (50:27):
Yeah, i mean one of the.
it is, and I think one of thefocus is has to be on on on
making sure that we can have anagreement surrounding the core
parameters that need measuring,which obviously is not one right
, but it can't be probably 70either, because that will also
(50:48):
be too difficult and tooexpensive to be able to scale.
So there's some sort of balancethat has to be hit, and I hope
that that's something that cancan be done using
electrochemical sensors as well.
Speaker 1 (51:04):
And so you said that that's one of the key ones, is
the core technology, and thenhow do we give it context?
And then I interrupted you atthe simplification one.
Speaker 2 (51:14):
But continue that thought, yeah so one of the one
of the things that we realizedwhen we were building these
sensors, and when we werethinking about the sensors to
begin with, was that it's greatto have all of this raw data
coming in.
What do you?
do with it, what do you do withit And how do you give it
(51:36):
context, right?
And so I remember aconversation with the guys in
who were some of the MEPs whowere talking about the Green New
Deal and soil and all sorts ofthings surrounding sustainable
agricultural metrics And two ofthe the main things that came up
in that conversation OK, ifwe're going to include soil in
(52:01):
any structures, we need to beable to compare farm to farm and
apples to apples, right?
So the ability to have ahistorical baseline for some of
these parameters so that we cansay we can see where farmers are
on a journey And we can comparetheir current data with
(52:26):
historical baseline data, it'sreally interesting because then
they can say, yes, this farmerhas been doing a great job for
20 years.
Let's make sure we give themmoney, even though they've you
know, they've achieved what'sclose to an attainable level of
soil health, or even though thatprobably can never happen, but
(52:47):
it's at least they're close toan attainable level because
they've been using good systemsand not only reward those
farmers who are increasing froma very low level to a higher
level.
And so to give context to theaverages and to also find out
what is attainable Right.
So, in other words, what isattainable on a specific farm in
a specific region, with aspecific crop, in a specific
(53:10):
climate.
And so and that's, by the way,the same in any of these areas,
whether it's soil, health,biodiversity It would be great
to have historical baselinescompared with what's attainable
so that we can reward farmerscorrectly with whatever system,
whether it's credits orsubsidies or whatever else, and
(53:31):
so that we in the background,with Texas A&M, have created a
historical baseline andattainable system for carbon,
which is all over.
We're doing it all over theglobe.
We've got hundreds of thousandsof data points that Texas A&M
have collected, and so the wholeway, using the gold standard of
(53:56):
lab.
Speaker 1 (53:56):
Yes, yes, of course There's no other tech.
Speaker 2 (53:59):
Yeah, Exactly So.
They've created what I believeis one of the largest ever
historical base databases whichwe're working with them on, and
so I hope that will give contextto all the raw data, not just
soil information sensors, butany other raw data that can go
(54:22):
into the system, which is whichis a vital piece to add that
context.
Speaker 1 (54:33):
And if we switch the position a bit and put you on
the invest store side and youhad, say, a billion dollars or a
billion euros to put to work Ofcourse not asking exact euros
amount or dollars amount Butwhat would you do?
Speaker 2 (54:48):
I would invest pretty much all of it in creating a
base for, for core technologiesfor measurement and and
contextual data platforms acrossthe board, right Across the
regenerative board, whether it'sregeneration in forests,
whether it's regeneration inagriculture.
there needs to be a strongerbase for any of our work as a as
(55:13):
a as a whole regenerativemovement to scale, and so I
would entirely focus on thatwhole space.
Speaker 1 (55:22):
if if I was just given a billion dollars tomorrow
as a gift, which would be nice-And do you see some efforts in
that space, like, do you seeothers that say agreeing or
joining you on that?
Like, look, we really miss, ofcourse, investors on board, but
also beyond that.
We really miss that core baseto to start working from.
Speaker 2 (55:48):
I think people have started to realize, but it's
come very recently.
So, a lot of the focus was onhow to, for example, get CPGs to
start shifting acres over howmany acres could be under a
management for an agtech company.
You know, all of these thingsrather than looking at this as a
holistic, a holistic problemand what the solutions to that
(56:13):
problem is.
And so a lot of these groups,and I know a lot of the
financial institutions, havecome at this looking at the
whole space and saying, ok, we'dlove to invest in it, but we
can't, and the reasons that wecan't is because there's no core
core base to it that can makesure that it goes forward.
So I've, just as I said, i'vespent the last seven years
(56:37):
basically looking at that corebase.
This, the focus of soilinformation, has been entirely
on the core base for soil.
But there's there's so muchwork to be done on on making
sure that we have a platform toscale off of, and I think there
is some.
There's some shift in theinvestor sentiment towards
(56:58):
understanding that, but but it'sonly come, probably in the last
year, maybe.
Speaker 1 (57:04):
And is there a risk that, ok, we have this full
transparency and can see thesoils beating hard, basically
that we just don't care or wejust don't, we just ignore?
I mean, i have the feelingthere is a lot of data not
cheaply available, not maybe soaccurately, but in many cases on
the nutrient side as well.
(57:24):
There is quite a bit of dataout there And we choose to
ignore most of it.
It is fairly like we createthis full transparency, we can
map any soils on the planet andalso properly reward farmers for
even the work they didhistorically, and then we just
don't do it.
Speaker 2 (57:42):
I am.
That's the one thing I'm notskeptical about, And the only
reason for that is because whenI've been working in the
contaminant space for pesticidesand looking at pesticide
certification and non-GMOcertification and the massive
increase in transparency in thefood sector on contaminants over
(58:06):
the past 10 years, I would havesaid 10 years ago that I
wouldn't have expected thatconsumers and everyone would be
focused on reducing contaminantsand all of the brands would get
on board And I would have beenskeptical back then.
But once you get the ability tobe transparent, it's difficult
(58:30):
to go back to tell you the truth.
So I'm really not skepticalthat people wouldn't act on core
data as long as that data isnot controlled by the same
people who destroyed theagricultural system in the first
place.
Speaker 1 (58:48):
Of course yeah.
And then is there an argument,or a scared of an argument, to
say look, we just need asignificant level of this to
feed the world or to keep theseagriculture systems going.
It's just necessary evil.
Is that something you're notworried about, but an argument
you hear?
Speaker 2 (59:08):
Yeah, all the time.
Speaker 1 (59:11):
What's your response?
I don't know.
Asking for a friend.
Speaker 2 (59:16):
Yeah, no, absolutely.
I think there's a balance rightAgain, I hope, and whether this
is gonna happen or not, but Ihope that some of the groups who
have been involved inmonoculture systems that have
reduced soil health will now beinvolved in the solutions to
(59:38):
rebuild things as well.
I don't think that you can justsay, okay, let's exclude lots
of these groups, because younever know how much of a part of
the solution groups are gonnabe going forward.
So I'm on the fence on that one.
Speaker 1 (59:58):
And I wanna be conscious of your time as well
and let you go with one lastquestion, which usually ends up
not being the last one.
So just listeners' warning wemight go down a rabbit hole
sometime.
But if you had a magic wand andcould change one thing
overnight, i mean, i have anidea what you're gonna say, but
you might surprise and saysomething completely different.
(01:00:18):
It could be anything.
It's literally magic power, butit's only one thing.
What would that be?
Speaker 2 (01:00:25):
I would totally change the way that our food
system currently works andreplace it with a system that is
both healthy and beneficial tothe world that all farmers rely
(01:00:46):
on, which is soil, biodiversityand everything to do with
regeneration.
And I also can.
I have two wishes.
Is that okay?
Yeah, because this person is abit vague.
Speaker 1 (01:01:02):
We have to get a bit more of a deeper decision.
I wanted to go a bit deeperhere.
Speaker 2 (01:01:05):
I think it would be really vital to have the ability
for consumers to fully connect,through transparent data, to
the food and agricultural system, so that everyone understands
(01:01:26):
that things can be actuallypersonal, because I find one of
the biggest problems at themoment is that there's a massive
disconnection between peopleand how their food is grown and
the systems that they're grownin and what's going into their
body as a whole.
So the ability to make surethat consumers could connect and
(01:01:46):
push the system in the correctdirection And this involves not
just consumers but financialinstitutions and everyone
Because when you start to makethings personal, things change.
Until it's personal, it's justa load of more information that
just floats through one ear andcomes out the other.
So the more personal we canmake this whole process, the
(01:02:10):
better.
So I'd like to personalize thefood system, if that makes sense
.
Speaker 1 (01:02:14):
Yeah, and I think the angle there of health at least
that's what I'm saying we areall but many are hoping for the
health and the chemical side, orthe non-chemical side and the
initial density and, of course,the soil health that's connected
to that, is so exciting becauseit makes it personal for most
people.
even if you don't really careor don't have time to care about
(01:02:36):
soil health and biodiversityand water quality, capacity and
carbon and all of that, youstill in many cases care greatly
, of course, about your and yourfamily's health, and that group
is a lot bigger than the soilgeeks, i think.
Speaker 2 (01:02:50):
I think you're completely right And I'll give
one example of that ofpersonalizing data.
I was part of one group who didtesting on most of the Japanese
parliament members here fordifferent toxic.
Speaker 1 (01:03:08):
I really didn't know where that sentence was going.
Speaker 2 (01:03:10):
For different toxic chemical contaminants.
Speaker 1 (01:03:13):
Because you can see it in your hair, of course.
Speaker 2 (01:03:15):
Yeah, and so we tested many of the members of
parliament who had been veryslow on shifting policies on
contamination.
Speaker 1 (01:03:26):
And, of course, when you offer them, let's cannot
test your hair.
Most people say yes, of course,because we'd like to know.
Speaker 2 (01:03:30):
Exactly exactly.
And so we did that and we cameback with all sorts of
interesting results, for them.
All was kept confidential.
We didn't publish without theirauthority.
Most of them said, yes, fine, topublish our results, but some
of them didn't.
And the shift in regulationsafter that testing came out
(01:03:55):
after lots of the consumergroups, lots of the agricultural
groups in the regenerativespace, having campaigned on all
sorts of subjects as immediatelyyou made it personal to each
and every one of those Japaneseparliament members, things moved
a hundred times faster.
That's a fascinating approach.
Speaker 1 (01:04:16):
I hope the people of Regenerative America are
listening.
I mean, it's amazing to bringWill Harris to the Capitol etc.
But there's the hair.
Who would say no to that firstof all, and then second, who
wouldn't like to know results?
That's very interesting on thefarm bill that's coming up And
of course, cup as well in acouple of years in Europe.
Speaker 2 (01:04:39):
Yeah, actually those parliament members who tested
their kids as well were the oneswho took the most action.
Speaker 1 (01:04:44):
So there we go, ok so lesson learned Make sure you
include the children as well.
Absolutely, that's fascinating.
Thank you so much for that, forthe whole thing, but also for
that last little nugget.
And thank you so much fortaking the time to come on the
podcast and share on a longjourney but still feels very
(01:05:05):
early in a new phase of that, soI hope to be following that
over time And thank you for thework you do.
Speaker 2 (01:05:11):
Thank you very much, it's been a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (01:05:20):
Thank you so much for listening all the way to the
end.
For the show notes and links wediscussed in this episode,
check out our website Investingin regenderveggerculturecom.
Forward slash posts.
If you liked this episode, whynot share it with a friend or
give us a rating on ApplePodcasts?
That really helps.
Thanks again and see you nexttime.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!