Livestock and global food security with special focus on the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Livestock and global food security

with special focus on the feed/food debate

Some alternative facts by Cees de Haan

Presentation at SKOV 16/11/2017

My background

• Born and raised on a dairy

farm;

• Studied tropical animal

production at WUR;

• Career in livestock

development;

• But also critical on the

sector:

– Livestock’s long shadow;

• Thus only limited pro-

livestock bias

Champion of vegetarian groups with 3223 citations

Main messages

• The livestock sector makes important positive

contributions to global food security;

• There are undoubtedly a number of negative effects,
• ften pushed by anti-livestock groups:

– Less drain on human plant-based food than often assumed; and

• There is a good pool of technology and policy

measures to mitigate the negative effects.

THE LIVESTOCK SECTOR’S CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE

Livestock’s positive contributions to food security

• Produces over 1 billion million ton (meat and milk combined) of highly

nutritious food (25 % of global protein consumption, main source of some vitamins); – Test scores primary school students increase by 5 and 20 % with small amount of meat (Neumann, 2007)

• 40% of Agricultural GDP and growing…..
• Income/food/drought resilience tool for 1.5 billion people, of which 750

million below poverty line and the majority women;

• Essential for arable farming (traction, manure, fertilizer);

– (15-80 % of farms in Africa with traction and key organic fertilizer almost everywhere else)

• Stabilizes grain markets; and
• Key component of a circular economy;

– Reduces land requirements without resource depletion (Fresco, 2017)

Global animal product demand continues to grow (million tons)

100 200 300 400 500 600

1961/1963 2005/2007 2050 Eggs Poultry Pork Red meat

SOME ALTERNATIVE FACTS ON THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS

CLIMATE CHANGE, WATER, COMPETITION FOR LAND AND FOOD/FEED

But:

51 % is based on document that:

• Uses starting point first version of Long Shadow (18%)
• Lower(13.5%)—more correct-- share almost never quoted
• Compares complete chain with muffler emission only
• Adds all livestock respiration; and
• Double counts: all livestock related emission of world with and then adds without

livestock

26000 Liters per kg meat

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Netherlands

• Av. 4

countries Cowspiracy

Water use/kg meat

• Pimentel (2004) even higher

(120,000-200,000 kg meat) by allocating all precipitation on rangeland to meat

• Mekonnen et al (2012)
• Only halve of what quoted in

fake news;

• 94 % is green water (part of the

evapotranspiration flux);

Source Mekonnen et al 2012

Meat/plant-based diet choices The main focus of this presentation

Financieel Dagblad 08/25/2017

Chickens and pigs convert grain into meat at rates of two or three to one (ie, it takes 2kg of feed to produce 1kg of chicken). The ratio for lamb is between four and over six to one and that for beef starts at five to one and goes as high as 20 to one

The Economist 31/12/2013 Similar high grain/meat ratios spread through scientific literature (see paper)

But, these data:

• Doesn’t recognize the

wide variety of production systems and

• ther services of

livestock; and

• Gives only the conversion

rate of beef cattle at feedlot stage:

– Accounts for only between 7% (FAO, 2009) and 13 % (our study) of global beef production; and – Cover only the final stage

• f the fattening period.

The Feed/Food Debate

From champion to villain of the vegetarian community

Inputs/outputs GLEAM model used in this paper

Ruminants Non- ruminants

• Industrialized: national

inventories, surveys, lit.

• Developing: modeling feed

availability (crops and fodder) and animal requirements, expert knowledge

For each production system calculates ration in each pixel and aggregated to global level

Swill and scavenging Local and non local produced feed: Yields, literature and local knowledge.

Feed

Validated with 121 publications Land use potential for food production Spatial distribution of pasture and rangeland maps( FAO, Henderson) and ILASA/FAO actual/potential yield ratio(25%) for unsuitable crop land

Livestock distribution More information: see paper (supplemental information) and Gerber et al (2013)

Gridded Livestock of the World (GLW) Robinson/FAO

RESULTS

Land use, feed intake and feed conversion (global and by species/region)

Current global land use for livestock

27% 50% 11% 5% 7%

Grassland suitable for food crops Grassland unsuitable for crops Grain for livestock Oil seed crops Other crops Source Mottet et al 2017

Source: Robinson et al 2014

Global grassland suitable and unsuitable for crop production

Global livestock feed intake

Crop residues 19% Oil seed cakes 5% By-products 5% Grains 13% Other edible 3% Grass and leaves 47% Fodder crops 8%

6 Billion ton Dry Matter

Source Mottet et al 2017

Human edible food to animal source food conversion

To Produce 1 kg boneless meat To Produce 1 kg animal protein Kg DM human edible feed Kg human edible food protein needed Kg human edible food protein (including all soybean) needed

Ruminants 2.8

0.6

1.0 Non ruminants 3.2 2.0 4.2 All species

3.1

1.3 2.6

Source Mottet et al 2017

Breakdown by region and system of key feed conversion data

Species System Kg DM human edible food/kg deboned meat KG protein from human edible feed/kg protein product NON OECD OECD NON OECD OECD Cattle Grazing 0.9 3.9 0.2 0.5 Mixed 3.1 6.0 0.5 0.7 Feedlot 7.9 9.4 3.5 4.1 Poultry Broilers 3.5 3.6 5.2 5.0 Pigs Industrial 3.9 4.0 4.6 4,4

Source Mottet et al 2017

Limitations of the paper

• Limited data (rations, livestock numbers, feed use

efficiency);

• Land allocation lacks opportunity costs criteria;
• Assumptions on actual/potential yield in

grassland convertibility:

– A change from the currently used 25% to 10 % would increase are of grassland suitable for cropping by about 20%

• Changing consumption patterns and policies.

??????

POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS

Production side:

• Land use and GHG emission.

Consumption side:

• Alternative sources of protein, reduction of consumption

Effect of increasing feed conversion efficiency on changes in human edible food intake by livestock and area needed to grow human (2010-2025)

Meat Production Intake Area Low FCR increase (a) High FCR increase (b) Low FCR increase(a) High FCR increase(b) Non OECD +24% +20% +14%

• 4%
• 10%

OECD +14% +12% +7% +1%

• 4%

Total +21% +17% +15%

• 2%
• 8%

a: 0-5 % improvement in FCR, depending on the species b: 7-15% improvement in FCR, depending on the species Source Mottet et al 2017

GHG emission reduction potential

Whole sector applying the practices of the 10th percentile of producers with the lowest emissions intensities, while maintaining constant output. http://www.fao.org/gleam/results/en/

Effect of Intensification on GHG emission in milk production

GHG sequestration and emission reduction

Silvo-pastoral systems

• Annually 5 ton CO2 eq./ha sequestered

Methane and nitrous oxide reduced by 21 percent and 36 percent respectively. Average price US $ 9 per ton;

• Bio-diversity in birds and butterflies increased

by 40 and 94 percent respectively;

• Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) water

improved from 11 ppm in 2003 to less than 1.2 ppm in 2007;

• Average annual net farmers income in Costa

Rica and Nicaragua increased from US $ 136 to US $ 216 per ha; and

• Poor farmers earned a higher payment per

ha than the wealthier groups.

Other technologies

A fast moving field

• Rumen manipulation

– Inhibitors, enzymes, etc.

• Feed quality improvement;

– Crude protein and fiber.

• Genetic improvement

– Selection for low methane emission, productivity.

• Manure management

– Storage, biogas, etc.

CONSUMER SIDE

Alternative sources of protein

OR

Protein consumption/person (g/day) Livestock protein as % of recommended of total “safe” consumption meat dairy eggs total (not butter) Region year Africa 1995 5.3 3.1 0.6 9 2005 5.9 3.4 0.6 9.9 17 Americas 1995 26.1 14.3 2.7 43.1 2005 28.1 14.1 3.1 45.3 78 Asia 1995 7.5 3.8 2.2 13.5 2005 9.2 4.7 2.7 16.6 29 Europe 1995 24.1 17.9 3.6 45.6 2005 24.7 19.2 3.8 47.7 82 Oceania 1995 24.9 18 1.9 44.8 2005 39.3 15.8 1.7 56.8 98 Least developed countries 1995 3.3 2.2 0.2 5.7 2005 4.1 2.7 0.3 7.1 12

FAO SOFA (2011)

Reducing consumption

• Reducing consumption in OECD countries:

– Healthy diet 500 gram red meat per week (WHO) – EU (28) now 800 gr. – Processed meat.

• Veganism:

– Only 1 percent of OECD population (5 percent vegetarianism); – Increases but from very low basis; – Flexitarians strongest increase.

• Meat substitutes:

– 5 % of meat market; increasing over past decade – But still major important challenges ahead.

Carrots

• Further shift EU/GOV subsidies

from production to environmental services;

• Increase research funding on

efficiency and GHG reduction;

• Increased support for

veterinary services in non- OECD; and

• Educate public on trade-offs:

– Intensification and efficiency

• vs. animal welfare

Sticks

• Polluter pays, provider gets:

– Meat tax; – GHG tax.

• Stricter regulation (zonation);

and

• Institutional reform veterinary

services.

Policy measures

Key messages

The situation

• Livestock sector has positive and negative impacts of global food

security

• Many of the information in the press is “cherry-picked” and often

biased; But:

• Global consumption of animal source food will increase, in particular

in the non-OECD countries. It is there where arguably the biggest gains can be in mitigating GHG and land use expansion;

• Livestock is of crucial importance to the poor in non-OECD countries;

There is no silver bullet:

• Combination of carrots and sticks needed at consumer and producer

side

Crucial is the political and human will..