Poultry Breeding Sector Kate Barger, DVM Director of Animal Welfare - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

“Embracing the Demands of Consumers & Society…. A Perspective from the Poultry Breeding Sector” Kate Barger, DVM Director of Animal Welfare at Cobb-Vantress, Inc. EPIC – November 2013

Topics • Evolution of Perspectives in Animal Agriculture – Poultry industry & primary breeders – Customers & society • Challenges in the future for poultry production – Sustainability – Balancing values, costs, and demands – Innovation and technology possibilities

Evolution of Agriculture • Historically : farmers set the ‘rules’ – Welfare: Take good care of animals = good production – Most have personal knowledge & connection • Transformed agriculture : companies set ‘ rules ’ – More animals/farm(er), increased technology available – Larger public body with less knowledge/connection

Industry: Evolution in Animal Ag • Lower mortality • Less culls • Less injuries (skin/bone)  Primary Breeder • Better health & welfare  Poultry Industry • Better production and  Company better efficiency  Farmers – More meat (yield) – More eggs & chicks – Better use of natural resources & energy

Industry: Evolution in Animal Ag 96.40% 6.40 96.20% 6.20 96.00% 6.00 95.80% 5.80 95.60% 5.60 95.40% 5.40 95.20% 5.20 95.00% 5.00 94.80% 4.80 94.60% 94.40% 4.60 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1/2 '12 Livability Live Wt. (Lbs.) US Broiler Livability and Live Weight Trends 2001-2012

Industry: Evolution in Animal Ag 6.50 2.10 6.00 2.05 5.50 2.00 5.00 1.95 4.50 1.90 4.00 1.85 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1/2 12 Average Bird Weight Actual Feed Conversion Ratio US Broiler Feed Conversion & Live Weight Trends 1988-2012

1° Breeder: Evolution in Animal Ag • Better livability • Better health & welfare – Cardiovascular – Skeletal integrity, gait – Skin, feathers, gut health • Better production and better efficiency – Eggs per HH – Hatchability, fertility – Feed conversion, meat

1° Breeder: Evolution in Animal Ag 1957 vs. 2012 Broiler (6wks)

Customer: Evolution in Animal Ag • Safe, affordable protein • Nutritious food • Choice options – Fresh, frozen, RTE – BLSL, whole, parts – Kid & family appropriate • Cultural options – Live or min. processed – Color & presentation – Variety available

Customer: Evolution in Animal Ag • Certification for market – Origin – Production system – Care & nutrition • Labeling of product – No added hormones – All natural – Humane – Cage-free – Veggie diet

Societal Perspectives about Agriculture Top 3 Areas for Consumers Safe Food Affordable Nutritious Environment: #4 and #6 AW: #5, but is ahead of productivity & profitability of farmer

Attitudes about Animal Agriculture If consumers lose TRUST: • Change buying habits • Brand or store • Product or origin • Stop or reduce buying • Social Outrage is quick

Society: Evolution in Animal Ag • Questions • Opinions • Exposure • Experience/background • Influence of Social Media • Educational level ~56% do not have a ‘source’ for info • Information source ~25% list source as HSUS, PETA, Facebook **Industry, professional grps, universities are not a primary source of information

Why the Change? Customers/General Public Advocacy Grps Govt/Policies Poultry Industry

Why the Change? • Social expectations are changing for agriculture & food choices due to ethical/cultural views, political pressure, public opinion, science and economics – The Disney Factor – Human Animal Bond • Disconnects:

Future of Agriculture • Future agriculture: challenge with rules & expectations – Direct involvement from govt, companies, NGOs – Efficient large farms with effective use of resources – Huge public body with limited knowledge, but demand for safe, affordable and natural food supply • Future agriculture: challenge with supply & demand – 50% increase in global population – 70% increase in demand for food production – 1 of 7 are malnourished currently (hunger/malnutrition = #1 risk) 2000: 6.1Billion 2050: 9.2Billion

Future of Agriculture (ex: different models for broiler farms) Consumers Government Conclusions? NGOs - % of mortality & culling? - Growth rate? - Expresses natural behavior? - Sustainable (efficient)? - Better welfare results? - Cost vs. values? Industry

Future of Agriculture ??

Challenges in the Future Innovation & Cost vs. Sustainability Technology Values

Challenge: Sustainability in the Future • Sustainability concerns – Competition for space – Competition for raw ingredients – Competition for efficiency • Challenges – Natural resources (water) – Production (farm) type – Employment vs. technology

Challenge: Sustainability in the Future

Challenge: Sustainability in the Future

Challenge: Sustainability in the Future

Cost vs. Value of Food Produced Sustainably Intensive……………………………………………………………..Extensive Standard Standard Standard Semi Slow Semi Slow Slow Slow Slow Growing Program/ Breed Type Enriched Free Range Enriched Enriched Free Range Organic Indoor Indoor Free Range Indoor Indoor Indoor Free Range Free Range Environment Enriched 1m2/bird Enriched Enriched 1m2/bird 4m2/bird Indoor Stocking Density (kg/m2) a 38 30 27.5 38 30 30 27.5 21 Indoor Stocking Density (Birds/m2) 17.3 13.6 12.5 17.3 13.6 13.6 12.5 9.5 Breeder Performance Broiler Chicks Produced/ Breeder (60 w) 135 135 135 160 160 170 170 170 Broiler Performance to 2,200g Average Daily Gain (g/d) 59.5 59.5 52.4 50.0 50.0 45.0 39.3 31.4 Feed Conversion Ratio (g /g) 1.68 1.68 1.80 1.85 1.85 1.95 2.05 2.65 Mortality (%) 3.25 3.00 3.25 2.40 2.35 2.30 2.45 2.85 Carcass Yield (%) 73.5 73.5 73.5 69.5 69.5 68.0 68.0 66.0 Costs Cost/kg Live ( € / kg) w/o depreciation 0.771 0.806 0.860 0.821 0.859 0.890 0.943 1.241 Cost/kg Processed ( € / kg) w/o depreciation 1.358 1.420 1.503 1.509 1.578 1.659 1.697 2.146 % Cost Increase vs. Standard - 4.6% 10.7% 11.2% 16.2% 22.2% 25.0% 67.3% UK Consumption Capacity Consumption of Chicken per Capita per Year 22.2 17.0 13.7 18.3 14.4 12.9 10.4 6.3 @ a fixed farming base (kg) *** Consumers largely purchase on price. Selling significant volume > 10% above standard cost is difficult

Challenge: VALUES vs. COST VALUES : COST:  Safe origin  Affordable  Ethical system  Value for money  Variety of choices  Wholesome (nutritious)

Challenge: VALUES vs. COST One of the most powerful demands currently: Right to know what is in their food (don’t want to be denied knowledge, especially when what they eat is emotive)

Challenge: VALUES  Safe o Residues? Hygiene status? Antibiotic usage? Preservatives? o Production (farm and slaughter) methods  Ethically raised/produced o Welfare standards? Audited? Health and care standards? o Production (farm/transport/slaughter) system  Variety of choices o Production method: organic vs. non-organic o Farming/housing: standard vs. free-range vs. outdoor access o Slaughter method: standard vs. halal vs. kosher vs. fresh-market  Wholesome (nutritious) o Lean meat? Nutritional levels (sodium, fat, etc.) o Nutritious for variety of health needs

Challenge: COST (Supplier)  Affordable o Breed investment: smart use of research & internal efforts o Breed distribution: cost to deliver egg/chick and service o Direct and indirect distribution o Breed cost per unit: to produce and to sell o Volume of product sold  Value for Money o Breed performance: return on value for breed purchased o “Easy” to raise, hatch, generate next level o Flexibility and robustness of breed under varied conditions o Variety of final product for sale: broiler age/weight, eggs, etc.

Challenge: COST (Customers)  Affordable o Producer: cost for egg/chick/broiler/meat produced o Retailer: cost for meat purchased vs. retail price o Consumer: cost for meat purchased  Value for Money o Ability to feed family with product o Religion, economics, kitchen resources, health restrictions o Easy to produce, to transport, to prepare, to cook, to eat o Flexibility in what and how product is sold

Challenge: Innovation & Technology • Biotechnology : Focus on improved efficiency for the future selection for animal agriculture – Disease resistance – Animals that can cope with changing climate – Efficiency with available resources – Reduce environmental impact – Improve effectiveness and accuracy of selection of animals for specific traits