As projections turn into reality and we see our global population begin to increase from its current 6.4 billion today to just over nine billion by 2050 - and the point at which population growth rates are expected to stabilise - we must address the issue of feeding people.
The International Feed Industry Federation believes that the measurement of animal feed output would make a useful yardstick in determining whether or not the world - or for that matter an individual country - is more or less capable of meeting the expected demand for foodstuffs, particularly in the form of meat, milk and eggs, over the coming years.
Comparing a country’s feed production to its changing population growth rate will indicate where food production is likely to be in highest demand while taking into account GDP improvements will identify countries able to improve food supply and diet.
Worldwide we produce approximately 600 million tonnes of compound animal feed annually.
China, Brazil, USA and the EU (treated as one country for the purposes of this report) account for a combined output of 420 million tonnes. Their combined populations approximate two billion people.
Behind China, India supports the world’s second largest population base at approximately 1.2 billion. Despite its high vegetarian population - calculated at some 600 million people - there is only an estimated 13 million tonnes of commercially-produced compound feeds made in India.
Based on global per capita feed consumption - approximately 95 kg of compound feed per individual - it would appear that feed output is stagnated if not declining globally while populations increase unabated.
• Does this not indicate we are storing up problems for the future?
• When and where will the increases in feed production come from - in terms of raw
materials and production locations - if we are to meet future consumers’ demands for
meat, milk and eggs?
Developing feed resources for a growing world population that is increasingly preferring more livestock products in their diets - in my view - is just beginning.
However, the challenges posed by an increasing population lead to the discussion of whether biotechnology should be one of the tools to help us meet the expected increase in feed demand in a growing world.
IFIF was supportive of an FAO Expert Consultation and Workshop (which took place in Bangkok in April-May 2002), which identified protein sources for the animal feed industry worldwide. Its advice to governments concerning biotechnology says, “Modern biotechnology is not the only answer to protein supply, but is one of several important ways or tools of securing sustainable protein production.”
Registered office: Siege - 7 rue Alcide de Gasperi, L-1013 Kirchberg, Luxembourg .Just the same there continues to be critics of biotech and concerns raised about its application. But it's not the first time new agriculture and food technologies have been the subject of controversy. When pasteurisation was first introduced, opponents claimed it was unnatural and adversely affected food quality and the economics of production. Today, it is a preferred process. Then it was directly responsible for a 25% improvement in infant mortality rates when it was introduced a century ago.
Biotechnology has a powerful potential to achieve good.
Unfortunately, many of the critics in Europe and within advocacy groups such as Greenpeace, do not seem to share our focus on feeding the world with livestock products.
There are 800 million people, mostly in developing or undeveloped countries, who do not have enough food to eat - vegetable or animal proteins.
So, here is the heart of the issue.
On one hand, we have wealthy countries demanding a safe food supply with politicians sometimes making questionable decisions in order to appear responsive, while on the other hand, we have poor or developing countries expecting us to produce as much food in the next 40 years as has been produced in all of human history.
As the economies of the developing world improve, their citizens demand a healthier and more varied diet - and that always means more meat, milk, and eggs.
For every one percent increase in disposable income, the developing world will spend two percent more on animal protein. The natural human craving for animal protein is real and undeniable. A human is capable of digesting or utilising 90 to 100% of animal protein, compared to only 60 to 70% of plant protein. There is no scientific doubt that the utilisation of animal protein is highly efficient.
The 1999 CAST report from the USA on ‘Animal Agriculture and the Global Food Supply’ tells us that on a human edible protein basis in the US, milk is 208% efficient; beef 119% efficient. What this means is that for every kg of grain fed to beef cattle, there will be 1.2 kg of beef produced - and more than double the amount of milk. In many other parts of the world, where animals are raised on forage rather than grain, the efficiency basis is even higher.
We in the animal protein supply business do not have to feel guilty about using natural resources to produce meat, milk and eggs!
Those who claim the production of animal protein harms the environment need to rethink their claims. Animals safely and readily digest a variety of plant proteins that humans are physically unable to utilise. The alternative to using these resources in the production of animal protein is to promote a less efficient use of resources and in some cases, to let those valuable resources go to waste. These are choices a hungry world can ill afford.
All of these factors of efficiency, expanding economies and natural human cravings, point to an unmistakable trend. In the next 25 years, the world will need to produce 250% more meat, milk and eggs than it does now. And we believe that biotechnology is a tool that can help.
Biotechnology could add a tremendous array of additional by-products to animal agriculture. Yet, IFIF is also keenly aware of the need to use good judgement about this science. Just because a government has regulated a product doesn’t mean an industry can shirk its responsibility to be good stewards of that product - or the technology as a whole.
Those of us in animal agriculture need to take a leadership role if we truly believe in the benefits of biotechnology.
Kind regards,