by Ilinca Anghelescu, Global Director Marketing & Communications, EW Nutrition

2025 was a year defined by four converging forces for the global feed and animal production industry: an unprecedented HPAI crisis that cost American consumers alone $14.5 billion extra in egg expenditures; historic record corn production driving feed ingredient prices lower; a highly disruptive US tariff regime that reshuffled global trade flows for soybeans, corn, chicken, and pork; and accelerating regulatory pressure on antimicrobial use across Europe and globally.

The strategic imperatives from 2025 are clear: biosecurity investment is no longer optional, ingredient price volatility demands agile procurement strategies, trade compliance is a weekly operational concern, and antibiotic-free production transitions require credible, phased plans now.

KEY METRIC: Global chicken meat production reached approximately 105 million MT in 2025 (+2%), even as egg production suffered severely. The global feed market is valued at $542 billion in 2025, growing at 3.3% CAGR. Corn hit record production of 17 billion bushels in the US alone – the highest since 1936 in terms of harvested area.

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT HERE.

CHAPTER 1: HPAI & DISEASE LANDSCAPE 

 

1.1  The Ongoing H5N1 Crisis – Scale & Impact

The H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b strain of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) continued to dominate animal health headlines in 2025. Since its reemergence in February 2022, the US outbreak alone has resulted in the confirmed loss of over 175 million birds across 1,700+ flocks – the costliest poultry disease event in recorded history.

 

Metric	Data Point	Source
Total US birds affected (2022–2025)	175+ million	USDA APHIS, May 2025
US flocks confirmed positive	1,704+	USDA APHIS, May 2025
Proportion of affected birds: layers	75%	USDA / Congressional Research Service
US egg layer flock deficit vs. 2022	–8% fewer birds	CoBank / USDA
Consumer egg overspend (May 2024–Apr 2025)	$14.5 billion extra	Innovate Animal Ag analysis
Peak US retail egg price	$6.23/dozen (March 2025)	BLS / USDA
HPAI-related US taxpayer response costs	$1.8 billion+	Innovate Animal Ag
Global HPAI mammal outbreaks (2024)	1,022 (vs. 459 in 2023)	WOAH 2025
Countries self-declaring HPAI freedom (May 2025)	25	WOAH

 

1.2  2025-Specific Developments

United States: Early-Year Severity, Policy Response

The first six weeks of 2025 saw 28 million layers depopulated – the worst start to any calendar year on record. Ohio, Indiana, and Missouri bore the brunt. The USDA launched a five-pronged approach in February 2025 including:

• Gold-standard biosecurity assessments (948 completed Jan 20–June 26)
• Indemnity increase from $7 to $17 per lost layer hen
• Importation of 26+ million dozen shell eggs from Brazil, Honduras, Mexico, Turkey, and South Korea
• Removal of select regulatory burdens to accelerate flock repopulation
• $793 million in HPAI research proposals received in response to USDA Innovation Grand Challenge

 

⚠  Price Manipulation Investigation: In April 2025, the DOJ Antitrust Division launched an investigation into the largest US egg producer after it reported a 247% increase in quarterly net income. Egg producers and retailers face ongoing scrutiny over whether crisis pricing exceeded what supply constraints warranted.

 

Brazil: First Commercial HPAI Outbreak – May 2025

On May 15, 2025, Brazil – the world’s largest poultry exporter, responsible for nearly 30% of global exports – confirmed its first-ever commercial HPAI case at a breeder facility in Montenegro, Rio Grande do Sul (17,000 birds). This was a watershed event for global poultry trade.

 

Consequence	Detail
China (#1 buyer of Brazilian chicken) suspended imports	Trade suspended as of May 2025; Chinese delegation visited RS in Sept 2025 to assess resumption
Brazil’s monthly poultry exports declined	Exports fell 12.9% to $655 million; volume down 14.4% to 363,100 MT (May)
UAE replaced China as Brazil’s top buyer	First time China dropped from #1 buyer since 2019
WOAH new 10-year global HPAI strategy launched	Prevention and Control of HPAI (2024–2033), February 2025
Regionalized trade bans helped contain damage	Bans limited to affected regions, not all of Brazil

 

Europe: Persistent Pressure

HPAI continued to circulate widely in European poultry and wild bird populations. Key 2025 events include recurrence in Australia (February), ongoing outbreaks in Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, UK, and France, and the first confirmed domestic cat HPAI death in the Netherlands (H5N1, November 2025).

CRITICAL RISK: HPAI is now classified as enzootic (endemic) in wild birds across North America by the CDC. The virus circulates year-round in wildlife reservoirs, making seasonal recurrence in commercial flocks a structural, not episodic, risk. US egg producers are 8% below their 2022 flock baseline.

 

1.3  Other Priority Diseases in 2025

Disease	Region/Status	Operational Impact
Avian Metapneumovirus (AMPV)	USA – significant in turkey sector	Reduced breeder egg production; compounded HPAI losses; estimated 18.7M turkeys affected alongside HPAI in 2025
Salmonella (all serovars)	EU-wide – statistically significant increase trend 2020–2024 per EFSA/ECDC joint report, March 2025	AMR pressure in broilers and layers; genomic surveillance being mandated by EU
Newcastle Disease (NCD)	Brazil – outbreak July 2024, RS state	First commercial NCD in Brazil since 2006; adds biosecurity burden on top of HPAI protocols
H5N1 in Dairy Cattle (USA)	Ongoing – cross-species spread to 50+ US states	Cattle-to-poultry transmission confirmed; biosecurity interfaces between dairy and poultry operations must be reviewed
HPAI – Antarctica	First confirmed case March 2024 (South Polar Skua)	Indicates virus reached every continent; unprecedented in poultry disease history

 

 

CHAPTER 2: GLOBAL POULTRY PRODUCTION 

 

2.1  Global Output – 2025 Performance

Despite HPAI disruptions, global chicken meat production grew approximately 2% in 2025 to around 105 million MT (ready-to-cook), driven by demand resilience and lower feed costs for broiler production. Total global poultry meat (including turkey, duck, and others) is forecast to exceed 152 million MT for 2025, per FAO Food Outlook June 2025.

 

Country / Region	2025 Production Forecast (MT)	Year-on-Year Change	Key Driver
USA – Broilers	21.7 million MT	+1.4% vs. 2024	Strong hatchery data; lower feed costs; HPAI minimal in broilers
China	15.3 million MT	Positive growth	Rising domestic demand; pork sector recovery stabilizing
Brazil	15.1 million MT	Positive growth (despite HPAI)	Export demand; improved margins; population-driven domestic growth
European Union	Slight increase	Modest growth	Domestic demand; reduced Ukrainian imports
USA – Turkey	Decline –2.5%	vs. –6.35% prior year	HPAI + AMPV pressure; wholesale prices +40% YoY
Global Total (chicken)	~105 million MT	+2%	Affordability vs. beef; consumer demand in developing markets

 

OECD-FAO 10-Year Outlook (2025–2034)

The OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2025–2034, released in July 2025, projects global poultry meat production will grow by over 19% to 173.4 million MT by 2034 compared to the 2022–24 average. Poultry will account for the majority of additional meat consumption globally, driven by:

• Affordability relative to beef and pork, especially in price-sensitive emerging markets
• Population and income growth in Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa
• Rapid urbanization and expansion of Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) chains
• Superior feed conversion ratio (FCR) and lower greenhouse gas emissions per kg of protein

STRATEGIC NOTE: In high-income countries, per capita poultry consumption growth is flattening as consumers focus increasingly on welfare, environment, and health attributes. Growth opportunity is almost entirely in middle-income markets. Product premiumization (antibiotic-free, cage-free, organic) is the North American and European story.

 

2.2  Egg Production – Crisis Sector

Egg production was the sector hardest hit by HPAI globally. In the US, 75% of all HPAI-affected birds were table-egg layers, despite layers comprising less than 4% of the total poultry population. This structural vulnerability reflects longer flock lifespans and, increasingly, cage-free housing adoption.

 

Indicator	2025 Data
US retail egg price peak	$6.23/dozen (March 2025)
US retail egg price decline from peak	–27% by June 2025 (wholesale –64%)
US retail egg price (January 2025)	$4.95/dozen – 96% higher than January 2024
USDA full-year 2025 egg price forecast	+41.1% vs. 2024 average
% of US laying flock in cage-free systems	~40% (120+ million birds)
Global hen egg production (2023 baseline)	91 million tonnes (~1.7 trillion eggs)
Global egg trade volume (2024)	Nearly doubled from prior years

 

⚠  Cage-Free Transition & Disease Vulnerability: Some analysts link cage-free housing to higher HPAI susceptibility. Regardless of epidemiological debate, the US cage-free market is now structurally undersupplied relative to corporate commitments made in 2014–2017. Producers face a squeeze: comply with welfare commitments while managing disease risk.

 

CHAPTER 3: FEED INGREDIENT MARKETS 

 

3.1  Grain & Oilseed Prices – 2025 Summary

From a feed cost perspective, 2025 was broadly favorable for livestock and poultry producers. Record US corn production and generally adequate global grain and oilseed supplies put downward pressure on the major feed commodities, offering partial relief from the margin pressure of recent years.

 

Commodity	2025 Price Direction	Key 2025 Data	Implication for Feed
Corn (US)	DOWN –3.9% (3rd consecutive annual decline)	Record US crop: 17.0 billion bu; yield 186.5 bu/acre – record; harvested area highest since 1936	Favorable for poultry/swine FCR cost; season avg ~$4.15/bu projected
Soybean Meal	DOWN –4.3% (3rd consecutive decline)	Prices at lowest since early 2016 at one point; large South American supply weighing on markets	Significant reduction in diet protein cost; amino acid supplementation cost-competitive
Soybeans	UP slightly +3.3%	After 22.9% collapse in 2024; still well below historical peaks; US acreage declining	Bean oil +20.8% (energy diet component); meal-to-bean ratio remains attractive for crushers
Wheat (Chicago)	DOWN –4.3% (4th consecutive year)	Abundant global supply; Russia/Argentina record crops; increased feed use	Wheat competing with corn in feed formulations globally – inclusion rising in EU/Asia diets
Soybean Oil	UP +20.8%	Driven by biofuel demand (US 45Z renewable fuel credits)	Energy ingredient cost pressure; may affect fat inclusion rates in formulations

 

PROCUREMENT SIGNAL: The US/China trade tensions created windows of soybean buying opportunity as prices swung on trade deal news. China agreed to purchase US soybeans in late 2025 as part of a limited trade deal, causing a price uptick. Procurement teams should monitor US-China negotiations as a lead indicator for soybean pricing in 2026.

 

3.2  Global Feed Market Overview

Metric	2025 Data
Global animal feed market value	$542.36 billion
CAGR (2026–2034)	3.3%
Largest feed segment by additive type	Amino acids (33.6% share)
Largest feed segment by species	Poultry (dominant share)
Asia Pacific regional status	Dominant region (largest market)
Top feed ingredient challenge	Fluctuating prices for corn, SBM – still key risk for margin management

 

3.3  Key Ingredient Trends to Watch

Fertilizer Cost Relief

Fertilizer prices have declined significantly from their 2022 peak. A basket of N, P, and K fertilizers averaged $437/tonne in May 2025, down from the $815/tonne peak in April 2022, per FAO Food Outlook. This benefits grain production economics and should support adequate grain supplies into 2026.

 

Soybean Oil Competition: Biodiesel vs. Feed

US soybean oil demand from renewable fuel programs (the 45Z credit) competed directly with feed-grade fat supplies, pushing soy oil prices up 20.8% in 2025. Feed mills formulating with added fats should evaluate alternative lipid sources. Poultry fat and palm olein remain cost-competitive in some markets.

 

Alternative Proteins: Insect Meal, DDGS, Algae

While adoption remains limited in volume, regulatory acceptance of insect meal in EU poultry diets continues to expand. Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles (DDGS) remain a strategically important co-product, particularly in the US and EU. Feed formulators should have up-to-date matrix values and be prepared to use them when corn prices favor inclusions.

 

⚠  Tariff Risk for Feed Inputs: US feed manufacturers faced effective tariff rates averaging 12%+ on key agricultural inputs from China and other countries in 2025, including herbicides, pesticides, and some micro-ingredient precursors. Amino acid supplies (predominantly Chinese-origin lysine, methionine, threonine) faced added cost and supply uncertainty.

 

CHAPTER 4: TRADE POLICY DISRUPTIONS 

 

4.1  The 2025 US Tariff Regime – Agricultural Impact

The Trump administration’s tariff policies beginning January 20, 2025, represented the most significant disruption to global agricultural trade in decades. The three largest US agricultural export markets – Mexico ($30.3B in 2024), Canada ($28.3B), and China ($24.7B) – were all targeted, triggering retaliatory measures that hit feed, grain, poultry, and pork exports.

 

Country	US Tariff (2025)	Retaliation on US Agriculture	Key Products Impacted for Feed/Poultry Industry
China	Reached 145% (paused to 30% via May 2025 truce)	15% on chicken, corn, wheat; 10% on soybeans, sorghum, pork – applied from March 2025	Chinese poultry buyers shifted away from US; US corn/soy export disruption; amino acid supply chain uncertainty
Canada	25–35% (escalated to 35% in Aug)	25% on US dairy, poultry, meat products ($21B)	Canada imports ~45% of US poultry exports; feed grain flows affected
Mexico	25–30% (USMCA-compliant goods largely exempted)	Retaliatory tariffs threatened on agricultural goods	Mexico is #1 market for US turkey exports; ongoing uncertainty
EU	14% (paused under negotiations)	Planned retaliation announced April 2025	Potential impact on US soy meal exports; EU feed ingredient costs

 

CHINA TRADE DEAL (MAY 2025): A 90-day tariff truce agreed May 12, 2025 reduced US tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30%, and China’s tariffs on US products from 125% to 10%. China agreed to purchase US soybeans. No permanent deal was signed. The limited agreement provided short-term stability but medium-term uncertainty remains.

 

4.2  Impact on US Agricultural Trade Flows

Product	Trade Flow Change (2025)	Implication
Corn exports	UP >20% YoY	Record US production driving export competitiveness despite tariff uncertainty
Soybean exports	DOWN – China shifted to South America	Brazil and Argentina taking larger share of Chinese soy imports
US chicken exports	Maintained overall (6.8B USD)	Despite China restrictions, other markets (Middle East, Mexico) absorbed volume
US turkey exports	At risk – 10% of production exported; Mexico = 65% of turkey exports	HPAI + AMPV supply squeeze threatened export volumes at peak holiday season
Brazil chicken exports	Down 12.9% month of May impact; year-end positive	HPAI disruption in May/June; recovery in H2 2025 after regionalization
US egg imports (temporary)	26M dozen shell eggs imported	Emergency imports from Brazil, Honduras, Turkey, South Korea, Mexico to fill supply gap

 

4.3  Strategic Trade Lessons

• Supply chain diversification is no longer a luxury: concentration of US soy exports to China created a single-point-of-failure vulnerability that became fully exposed in 2025.
• Regionalized disease zoning is a trade-preserving tool: Brazil’s rapid implementation of regionalized HPAI bans (rather than country-wide) preserved most of its export access; this is the model the industry should support with regulators globally.
• USMCA dependency is real: 70% of US corn, 60% of soybeans, 45% of poultry exports go to Mexico, Canada, China – the same three countries targeted by 2025 tariffs.
• US government announced $12B in emergency farm compensation in 2025, repeating the pattern from Trump’s first term – indicating persistent trade disruption risk.

 

CHAPTER 5: REGULATORY CHANGES 

 

5.1  EU: Feed & Food Safety Legislation Simplification

In 2025, the European Commission proposed a package to streamline EU food and feed safety legislation while maintaining high health standards. The initiative, announced mid-2025, is intended to boost competitiveness of EU producers by reducing regulatory complexity – a direct response to competitive concerns vs. non-EU producers.

 

5.2  EFSA 2025 Guidance on Microorganisms

On September 24, 2025, EFSA’s Scientific Committee adopted new harmonized guidance on the characterization of microorganisms in the food chain. This is a landmark shift with major implications for feed additive manufacturers, probiotics suppliers, and novel food applicants.

 

Key Element	Operational Implication
Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) now mandatory for strain-level ID of all bacteria, yeasts, fungi, viruses in applications	All existing microbial feed additive dossiers must be reviewed; WGS data cannot be more than 2 years old at time of submission
Genomics-first approach to AMR assessment	Any AMR gene hit in curated databases triggers mandatory case-by-case assessment; significantly raises the regulatory bar for probiotics and fermentation products
Replaces multiple previous guidance documents	Companies must align R&D, QC, and regulatory documentation to new unified standard immediately
GM microorganisms: clearer differentiation	Products ‘produced by GMO’ now distinguished from ‘GMO active agents’ – critical for enzyme and probiotic positioning
Non-compliance = application rejection risk	Early non-alignment causes ‘clock-stops’ or formal rejection at EFSA suitability check stage

 

5.3  Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) – Regulatory Pressure

AMR remains the defining long-term regulatory risk for the animal feed and production industry. Key 2025 actions:

 

• EFSA/ECDC Joint Report (March 2025): Highlighted persistently high resistance to critical antimicrobials in poultry, especially Campylobacter and Salmonella, with ‘statistically significant increasing trend 2020–2024.’ This directly fuels EU legislative pressure.
• EU Regulation 2019/6 (Veterinary Medicines) – Article 118: Banning import of animal products containing antimicrobials used for growth promotion. Application delayed to 2026, raising questions about enforcement timelines – and competitive fairness regarding imports from countries still allowing AGPs.
• EU AMR Implementation Decision 2023: New harmonized monitoring requirements for AMR in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from food-producing animals – effective January 1, 2025. All EU Member States now required to collect and report standardized AMR surveillance data.
• WOAH 10-Year HPAI Strategy (2024–2033): Promotes surveillance, vaccination programs, and timely reporting as cornerstones of international HPAI management.

 

BOTTOM LINE ON AMR: The regulatory trajectory is clear and irreversible – sub-therapeutic antibiotic use for growth promotion is being eliminated globally. The timeline varies by region (already banned in EU since 2006; US voluntary approach from 2017; global WHO action plan). Companies that have already invested in transition are ahead; those that have not face increasing compliance risk and market access restrictions.

 

5.4  US Regulatory Developments

Action	Status / Detail
USDA Five-Pronged HPAI Response Plan (Feb 2025)	Biosecurity assessments, indemnity increases, import flexibility, vaccine research funding, regulatory burden removal
HPAI Innovation Grand Challenge	$793M in proposals received (417 submissions); awards expected by fall 2025; covers prevention, vaccines, therapeutics
DOJ Antitrust Investigation – Egg Producers	Launched April 2025; examining price-fixing allegations amid 247% profit increase by largest producer
Meat & Poultry Special Investigator Act (S.1312)	Proposed creation of Office of Special Investigator for Competition Matters within USDA – pending
Food Security & Farm Protection Act (S.1326)	Would prohibit states from imposing certain standards on preharvest agricultural production sold in interstate commerce – relevant to cage-free mandates

 

 

CHAPTER 6: FEED ADDITIVE & NUTRITION STRATEGIES 

 

PRECISION NUTRITION SIGNAL: The industry’s shift to reduced crude protein (CP) diets, precisely supplemented with industrial amino acids (L-Lys, DL-Met, L-Thr, L-Trp, L-Val) remained the dominant reformulation strategy in 2025. Lower CP diets reduce feed cost, lower N excretion (environmental benefit), and reduce substrate for pathogenic bacteria. With amino acid prices remaining favorable, there are few economic arguments for maintaining high CP diets.

6.1  The Post-AGP Transition: Where the Industry Stands

The antibiotic-free (ABF) production movement accelerated further in 2025. With the EU ban on AGPs in place since 2006 and the US moving toward voluntary phase-out, the entire industry is in active transition. The key challenge: AGP removal creates enteric health gaps that must be addressed with alternative tools. Without effective management, removal of AGPs leads to increased necrotic enteritis, Campylobacter colonization, and poorer FCR.

 

6.2  Heat Stress – A Growing Production Challenge

Climate-related heat stress was a highlighted research and production topic in 2025. Modern high-performance broiler genetics have been selectively bred for rapid growth under thermoneutral conditions. Heat stress impairs feed intake, FCR, immunity, meat quality, and reproduction. Management strategies:

• Dietary electrolyte balance adjustment (increase K, Na, reduce Cl where appropriate)
• Vitamin C and E supplementation at heat stress periods
• Betaine inclusion as an osmolyte; reduces supplemental methionine requirement under heat stress
• Feed schedule adjustment (limit feeding during hottest hours; early morning/evening feeding)
• Housing design investment: tunnel ventilation, evaporative cooling, adequate air velocity

 

6.3  In Ovo Technology

In ovo vaccination and nutrition delivery continued to advance in 2025. Key developments include high-throughput systems (3,000 eggs/hour at 99% accuracy) for in ovo vaccination and nutritional interventions. Early-life gut programming through in ovo delivery of probiotics, nutrients, and vaccine antigens is becoming an increasingly important hatchery-level biosecurity and performance tool.

 

CHAPTER 7: MARKET TRENDS & CONSUMER SHIFTS 

 

7.1  Poultry Gaining Share vs. Other Proteins

Elevated beef prices throughout 2025 – driven by tight US cattle supply (herd at decades-long lows) and high demand – continued to push consumers toward poultry as a cost-effective protein. This dynamic is a structural tailwind for the broiler industry globally.

 

Market Dynamic	Detail
US broiler net cash farm income 2025	+27% YoY – livestock sector outperforms crop side
Global poultry market value (2025)	$316.77 billion; projected $433.98B by 2034 (CAGR 3.56%)
Global poultry export growth 2025	+1.8% to 16.9 million MT
Supermarkets poultry market share	42.1% of poultry distribution (2024)
Online poultry retail growth rate	CAGR 11.4% (fastest growing channel)
Italy – poultry share of total meat consumed	>44% in 2025
FAO Meat Price Index – poultry	Decreased in 2025 from mid-2024 high (broiler ample supply)

 

7.2  Cage-Free & Animal Welfare Commitments

The cage-free transition is structurally undersupplied in the US. Corporate commitments made in 2014–2017 implied a need for 220 million cage-free layers by 2025–26. Current production is well below that target. This creates both a market opportunity (premium pricing) and a risk (HPAI vulnerability concerns in cage-free systems). Producers must balance welfare compliance with biosecurity protocols.

 

7.3  Antibiotic-Free, Organic, and Specialty Products

Consumer and corporate buyer demand for ABF, No Antibiotics Ever (NAE), organic, and pasture-raised products continued to grow in premium markets in 2025. The pasture-raised egg segment reported 30% annual growth rates despite high price points. For integrated producers, this requires dedicated production lines with separate management protocols, supply chain segregation, and robust documentation systems.

 

7.4  Sustainability Pressure

Feed manufacturers and integrators are under growing pressure from retail and foodservice customers, NGOs, and regulators to demonstrate reduced environmental footprint. Key metrics under scrutiny:

• GHG emissions per kg of chicken meat produced (Scope 1, 2, and 3)
• Deforestation-free supply chains for soy (EU Deforestation Regulation – EUDR)
• Feed conversion ratio improvement as a sustainability lever
• Nitrogen and phosphorus excretion reduction (enzyme use, reduced CP diets, phytase)
• Water use per unit of animal protein produced

 

EUDR NOTE: The EU Deforestation Regulation requires companies to ensure that soy used in feed does not originate from recently deforested land. Implementation deadlines have been debated, but traceability requirements for soy origin – particularly from Brazil – are operationally significant for EU feed manufacturers and importers.

 

CHAPTER 8: STRATEGIC LESSONS & ACTION PRIORITIES 

 

8.1  Summary: Top 10 Lessons of 2025

 

#	Lesson	Key Data Point
1	HPAI is now a permanent structural risk, not a cyclical one. Biosecurity investment must be treated as core capital expenditure.	CDC: H5N1 now enzootic in North American wild birds; US flock 8% below 2022 baseline
2	Egg production is structurally more vulnerable than broiler production – different biosecurity and business continuity protocols are required.	75% of HPAI losses = layers; broilers grew 1.4% in 2025
3	Vaccination for HPAI is the central unresolved debate of the decade – expect DIVA strategies to become standard within 3–5 years as industry and regulators align.	417 vaccine/research proposals submitted to USDA Grand Challenge
4	Trade concentration is a strategic vulnerability. Diversify export markets actively; do not allow 70%+ of any product to go to one trading bloc.	China + Mexico + Canada = 70% of US corn exports; 60% of soy; 45% of poultry
5	Grain prices are favorable NOW – lock in contracts and assess forward pricing opportunities while corn and SBM are at multi-year lows.	Corn -3.9% in 2025; SBM -4.3%; both 3rd consecutive annual decline
6	AMR regulations are accelerating everywhere. Transitioning to ABF production is no longer a ‘maybe’ but a ‘when’ – plan now.	EU: AMR in poultry ‘persistently high’ per EFSA/ECDC March 2025 report
7	EFSA’s 2025 WGS guidance fundamentally changes the cost and timeline of getting microbial feed additives authorized in the EU.	WGS now mandatory for all microbial characterizations; legacy dossiers need revision
8	Amino acids and precision nutrition remain the most cost-effective tool for diet optimization: lower CP, better FCR, lower N excretion, reduced enteric pathogen substrate.	Amino acids = 33.6% of global feed additive market by value
9	Brazil’s HPAI outbreak demonstrated both the vulnerability of global trade and the effectiveness of regionalized response protocols.	Brazil exports fell 12.9% in May but year-end positive; China temporarily banned; UAE stepped up
10	Climate/heat stress is an underappreciated production risk that compounds disease susceptibility and reduces performance in high-performing genetics.	IPCC: global surface temperature +0.9°C since mid-20th century; impacts on poultry FCR, immunity, mortality increasing

 

8.2  Action Priority Matrix for Management Teams

 

Priority Area	Immediate Actions (0–6 months)	Medium-Term (6–18 months)
HPAI Biosecurity	Complete USDA-style biosecurity assessments; audit wild bird access; upgrade water and air biosecurity; train all staff	Evaluate in-house monitoring technology; develop scenario plans for flock loss; build supplier contingency agreements
Feed Ingredient Procurement	Lock in corn and SBM forward contracts at current low prices; audit mycotoxin levels in incoming grain batches	Diversify supplier base; develop cost-switching matrices for corn/wheat/sorghum substitution as prices change
AMR / ABF Transition	Audit current antibiotic use protocols; identify critical intervention points where antibiotics can be replaced	Pilot ABF production line with full additive support program (organic acids, probiotics, phytogenics, prebiotics)
Regulatory Compliance (EU)	Review all microbial feed additive dossiers against EFSA 2025 WGS guidance; identify gaps requiring new data	Update all submission dossiers; ensure AMR surveillance data matches new 2025 EU requirements
Trade Policy Monitoring	Assign responsibility for tracking tariff changes weekly; map top 5 export customers and their import restrictions	Develop export market diversification plan; qualify 2+ alternative markets for each key product
Cage-Free / Welfare	Review corporate cage-free commitments vs. current supply; align with customer timelines	Design biosecurity protocols specific to cage-free environments; review insurance and contingency planning

 

8.3  Key Indicators to Monitor in 2026

• HPAI detection frequency in fall-winter 2025–26 migration season – predictor of next egg price cycle
• USDA HPAI vaccine grand challenge awards – signals timeline for commercial vaccine availability
• EU feed safety simplification package progress – potential relief on additive authorization timelines
• EUDR deforestation enforcement timeline – soy traceability compliance clock
• Brazil HPAI market re-entry for China – recovery of the world’s #1 poultry export relationship
• US corn/soy 2026 planting intentions (March) – USDA Prospective Plantings report is the key 2026 procurement signal

 

2025 demonstrated that the feed and animal production industry operates in an environment of simultaneous, compounding risks – biological, geopolitical, regulatory, and climatic. The companies that performed best were those with robust biosecurity infrastructure, agile procurement teams, clear AMR transition roadmaps, and diversified market exposure. There is no single silver bullet. Systematic risk management, not reactive crisis response, is the competitive differentiator going forward.

 

 

 

  KEY SOURCES & REFERENCES 

 

This article draws on data and analysis from the following sources:

Organization	Document / Resource Referenced
USDA APHIS / FAS	HPAI flocks data (2025); Livestock & Poultry World Markets (Dec 2025); WASDE reports; Five-Pronged HPAI Strategy
FAO	Food Outlook June 2025; OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2025–2034; FAO Meat Price Index
OECD	OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2025–2034 (July 2025)
WOAH	HPAI Report #68 (Feb 2025); State of World Animal Health 2025; HPAI 10-Year Strategy 2024–2033
EFSA / ECDC	Joint AMR Report (March 2025); 2025 QPS updated list; EFSA 2025 Guidance on Microorganisms (Nov 2025)
PAHO / WHO	Epidemiological Update H5N1 in the Americas (Jan 2025)
US Congressional Research Service	HPAI Outbreak 2022–Present (April 2025); Egg Prices and HPAI (May 2025); 2025 Tariff Actions
American Farm Bureau Federation	Retaliatory Tariffs Report (March 2025); Turkey Market Intel (Oct 2025)
CoBank / NAMA	AgriFood Policy Update (Oct 2025); Farm Income Forecasts 2025
WATTPoultry.com	HPAI 2025 Layer Roundup; Broiler Production Outlook; Demand Drives Poultry to New Highs (2025)
The Poultry Site	Weekly Global Protein Digest; HPAI Global Spread (2025)
AviNews	Global Poultry Meat Output 151.4M Tons 2025 (Dec 2025)
Innovate Animal Ag	HPAI Supply Constraints Cost Americans $14.5B (2025)
DTN / PF	Grain Futures 2025 Annual Review (Jan 2026)
USDA ERS	Corn & Other Feed Grains Outlook (2025–26 WASDE updates)
Frontiers in Veterinary Science	Phytogenic feed additives – gut health modulation (Aug 2025); Antibiotic alternatives – One Health (Jul 2025)

 

 

Visbek and Curitiba, 3rd February 2026 – EW Nutrition and GRASP are pleased to announce a significant strengthening of their collaboration through a new agreement that will see EW Nutrition increase its ownership stake in GRASP from its current position to full ownership over the next four years.

This strategic move reflects both companies’ commitment to long-term growth and their shared vision for expanding EW Nutrition’s market-leading position in the industry. The phased transition will ensure business continuity while supporting GRASP’s ongoing operations and development initiatives in Brazil.

“This agreement represents a natural evolution of our successful partnership,” said Jan Vanbrabant, CEO of EW Nutrition. “We are excited to deepen our investment in GRASP and its exceptional team, products, and operations in Brazil.”

GRASP’s portfolio includes world-leading products for toxin mitigation (Mastersorb), gut health management (Activo) and other industry-recognized solutions. The company’s dedicated team will remain focused on delivering the quality and innovation that have established GRASP as a trusted name in the market.

“We look forward to this next chapter in our partnership with EW Nutrition,” said Alysson Hoffmann Pegoraro, GRASP Managing Director. “I am confident that this agreement will help to not only continue producing and delivering innovative solutions for our customers worldwide but further increase significantly the global footprint of GRASP.”

The gradual transition to full ownership will be completed by the end of 2029, ensuring a smooth integration process that preserves GRASP’s operational strengths and further solidifies EW Nutrition’s market position.

 

About EW Nutrition

EW Nutrition is an animal nutrition company that offers integrators, feed producers, and self-mixing farmers comprehensive animal nutrition solutions for gut health management, feed quality, digestibility, and more. With production facilities, offices, and development centers on 6 continents, EW Nutrition researches, manufactures, markets, and services its products and programs to support customers wherever they are.

 

About GRASP

GRASP was founded in 2001 to provide the animal nutrition and health market with cutting-edge technological, natural, and functional products. Investment in industrial processes, manufacturing expansion, obtaining international certification (GMP+) and development and production units in Curitiba and in São Paulo ensure seamless quality and service for customers in around the world. Since 2011, it has been majority owned by EW Nutrition.

 

Media Contact

marketing@ew-nutrition.com

By Ilinca Anghelescu, Dr. Andreas Michels, Predrag Persak

Our understanding of how nutrition influences growth and resilience in poultry has greatly expanded in recent years. It is now clear that animal performance stems to a large extent from a balance between metabolism, immune function, and the gut microbiome. These systems interact continuously, and even small nutritional or environmental changes can shift the animals’ physiological response. This growing knowledge has encouraged the development of nutritional strategies and feed components that work through adaptive, non-antibiotic mechanisms. One recent proposed explanation for these responses has rapidly gained ground: hormetic modeling.

Hormetic modeling describes how small or moderate doses of nutritional components can activate beneficial adaptive responses (improved resilience or metabolic efficiency), while excessive doses become harmful. This idea parallels, largely speaking, Paracelsus’s famous principle: “The dose makes the poison.” In poultry nutrition, such hormetic patterns are well recognized in nutrients like trace elements (selenium, zinc) and specific amino acids (for example, arginine). At optimal levels, these nutrients support antioxidant defense, growth, and immune balance, whereas excessive intake may cause oxidative or metabolic stress

This review examines the hormetic principle and its application to modern poultry/swine feeding concepts, exploring how balanced nutrient design and controlled inclusion of bioactive compounds can strengthen cellular adaptation, improve stress tolerance, and enhance production efficiency.

How do AGPs actually work?

Despite AGP’s widespread historical use, the precise mechanisms by which subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics enhance animal productivity remained poorly understood. Recent advances in systems biology and mitochondrial research propose new answers, much needed to develop future advanced nutritional systems.

The traditional explanations for AGP efficacy have focused primarily on antimicrobial effects:

• reducing nutrient competition from microorganisms
• decreasing harmful bacterial metabolites
• improving gut wall morphology (thinner gut wall ➡ better nutrient absorption)
• preventing subclinical infections

However, these mechanisms alone could not fully explain why different classes of antibiotics with diverse mechanisms of action produce similar growth-promoting effects (Gutierrez-Chavez et al., 2025).

Niewold (2007) hypothesized that the primary mechanism of AGPs is non-antibiotic anti-inflammatory activity, reducing the energetic costs of chronic low-grade inflammation. Inflammation diverts nutrients from growth toward immune responses, with cytokine production (particularly IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α) suppressing anabolic pathways (Kogut et al., 2018). AGPs appear to selectively inhibit pro-inflammatory cytokine production without completely suppressing immune function.

A paper published in 2024 by Fernandez Miyakawa et al. proposes that antibiotics at subtherapeutic levels act primarily through mitochondrial hormesis and adaptive stress responses, and not simply through antimicrobial activity. In this model, mitochondria act as bioenergetic hubs and signaling centers. Low-dose antibiotics trigger mild mitochondrial stress, which triggers the activation of adaptive protective pathways.  This in turn induces mitokine release, leading to systemic adaptive responses improving growth, feed efficiency, and disease tolerance.

Mechanism of action in the hormetic model of AGP efficiency

Hormesis is a biphasic mechanism whereby high doses are toxic, but low doses stimulate adaptive responses and are beneficial. In the case of AGPs, Fernandez Miyakawa et al. propose that low doses stimulate growth, stress resistance, and cellular repair.

Key signaling pathways

As Bottje et al. (2006, 2009) shows, efficient animals often have mitochondrial inner membranes that are less permeable to protons and other ions, allowing for more effective coupling between electron transport and ATP synthesis, which reduces energy loss through proton leak and maximizes the production of ATP per oxygen molecule consumed. Lower membrane permeability is influenced by factors like decreased membrane surface area per protein mass, specific membrane protein content (such as adenine nucleotide translocase), and fatty acid composition in the membrane phospholipids, all contributing to a tighter barrier that prevents unregulated electron or proton flow and supports higher energetic efficiency. Such features make mitochondria in efficient species more capable of maintaining membrane integrity and ATP generation, especially when facing environmental stress, as seen in freeze-tolerant animals whose mitochondria do not undergo damaging permeability transitions under extreme conditions.

Nrf2

Many AGPs interfere with mitochondrial protein synthesis and electron transport chain. At subtherapeutic levels, they cause a mild ROS increase, which triggers the activation of redox-sensitive transcription factor Nrf2. Since Nrf2 regulates over 250 antioxidant, detoxification, and anti-inflammatory genes, the result is improved cell survival, redox balance, and tolerance to stress.

Mitokine production

Mitokines are “signaling molecules that enable communication of local mitochondrial stress to other mitochondria in distant cells and tissues” (Burtscher 2023). Through fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21), growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15), adrenomedullin2 (ADM2) etc, these stress signals are released systemically and coordinate tissue-wide responses, leading to improved growth and resilience.

Inflammation and disease defense

While the negative side of antibiotic growth promoters is well researched and understood (Rahman et al., 2022), science can advance by isolating the positive effects and attempting to offer different pathways to the same benefits. One such lesson can be derived from understanding inflammation pathways and responses.

Chronic low-grade intestinal inflammation is common in modern poultry production, due to diet, microbiota shifts, high metabolic demands etc. This inflammation diverts energy from growth to immune responses.

AGPs reduce the energy costs of this inflammation in three main ways:

• Reduces inflammation through adaptive stress response
• Raising the threshold to trigger inflammation
• Promoting overall resilience, rather than simply killing pathogens

Fernandez Miyakawa et al. suggest, in this emerging model, that disease defense can operate two different actions: resistance to health challenges through reduction of the pathogen load (which is driven by the immune system and is energy costly); and overall resilience by reducing host damage without reducing the pathogen load. AGPs, the authors claim, mainly promote resilience by enhancing mitochondrial stress responses and tissue repair, i.e. more precisely:

• Direct mitochondrial stimulation in intestinal epithelial cells
• Systemic mitokine signaling coordinating organism-wide adaptive responses
• Selective microbiota modulation enhancing beneficial host-microbe interactions
• Improving resilience without immune system costs
• Metabolic optimization supporting growth and feed efficiency

In this context, “metabolic optimization” refers to the enhancement of metabolic processes within livestock or poultry to support efficient growth, feed conversion, and physiological resilience, without relying on immune-mediated pathways that are energetically costly. Scientific evidence shows that metabolic optimization involves improving nutrient assimilation, promoting more efficient energy production in tissues (such as mitochondrial ATP synthesis), and minimizing wasteful metabolic byproducts, resulting in reduced feed intake per unit of growth and better utilization of dietary nutrients (Rauw 2025, El-Hack 2025).

Function of feed additives and feed components

Feed additives and feed components in many ways represent the complete other side of the spectrum from antibiotics, but are there some features where antibiotics and feed additives come close in their functions? There is a good case to be made for certain feed additives ultimately working in the animal to achieve similar benefits to the desirable, non-medicinal usage of AGP´s. Especially with the emergent model of AGP mechanism described above, it is worth discussing how certain feed additives can support the same end goal: promoting animal resilience.

Lillejhoj et al (2018), Gutierrez-Chavez et al. (2025) and others outline the end-results such products must achieve:

• Growth performance & feed conversion efficiency
• Promotion of animal productivity under real-world conditions
• Support gut homeostasis
• Non-adverse effect on the immune system
• Reduction of oxidative stress
• Support organism in mitigation of enteric inflammatory consequences

Within the hormetic model, possibly the most important systemic benefit is, in one phrase, promoting resilience. Phytomolecules have long been used, in human and animal medicine, for the same end goal. The mechanisms described below should naturally be seen with caution, as phytomolecule microbiome effects can be subtler and context-dependent. However, the substantiating literature has been increasingly accumulating on these specific topics.

1. Immunometabolic regulation

Phytomolecules demonstrate remarkably similar anti-inflammatory effects to what Niewold (2007) suggested was a primary mechanism of AGPs: non-antibiotic anti-inflammatory activity, reducing the energetic costs of chronic low-grade inflammation. Inflammation diverts nutrients from growth toward immune responses, with cytokine production (particularly IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α) suppressing anabolic pathways (Kogut et al., 2018). AGPs appear to selectively inhibit pro-inflammatory cytokine production without completely suppressing immune function. A similar effect can be observed with various types of phytomolecules, which significantly reduced pro-inflammatory and/or increased anti-inflammatory cytokine expression in animals challenged with several pathogens. The anti-inflammatory mechanism appears to involve inhibition of NF-κB activation and modulation of MAPK signaling pathways (Kim et al., 2010; Long et al., 2021).

2. Mitochondrial hormesis and energy metabolism

Fernández Miyakawa et al. (2024, see above) proposed that AGPs exert growth-promoting effects through mitochondrial hormesis – subtherapeutic antibiotic doses induce mild mitochondrial stress, triggering adaptive responses that enhance mitochondrial function, energy metabolism, and cellular resilience. This mechanism, while requiring further validation, explains why different antibiotics with diverse targets produce similar growth outcomes.

The mitochondrial stress response involves activation of the IL-6 receptor family signaling cascade, which regulates metabolism, growth, regeneration, and homeostasis in liver and other tissues (Perry et al., 2024). Subtherapeutic antibiotic exposure activates proteins involved in growth and proliferation through IL-6R gp130 subunit signaling, including JAK, STAT, mTOR, and MAPK pathways.

Phytomolecules demonstrate similar mitochondrial effects. Perry et al. (2024) showed that increased activity of AMPK, mTOR, PGC-1α, PTEN, HIF, and S6K can also be available via phytomolecule activity, suggesting enhanced anabolic metabolism.

Capsicum oleoresin supplementation in broilers increased jejunal lipase and trypsin activity, enhanced ileal amylase activity, improved jejunal morphology, and modulated immune organ development, indicating enhanced digestive efficiency and nutrient utilization (Li et al., 2022).

Compounds such as vanillin, thymol, eugenol have been shown to improve glucose and lipid metabolism through TRPV1 activation and mitochondrial function enhancement (Gupta et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2017).

3. Gut microbiota modulation

AGPs selectively reduce specific microbial populations, particularly Lactobacillus species that produce bile salt hydrolase (BSH). Since BSH reduces fat digestibility and thus weight gain, AGP-mediated reduction of BSH-producing bacteria enhances energy extraction and growth (Lin, 2014; Bourgin et al., 2021).

Recent research by Zhan et al. (2025) using single-molecule real-time 16S rRNA sequencing demonstrated that therapeutic antibiotic doses (lincomycin, gentamicin, florfenicol, benzylpenicillin, ceftiofur, enrofloxacin) significantly altered chicken gut microbiota composition, with Pseudomonadota and Bacillota becoming dominant phyla after exposure. Different antibiotics produced distinct temporal effects on microbial diversity and community structure.

Phytomolecules exert targeted antimicrobial effects while promoting beneficial bacteria. Dietary supplementation with 800 mg/kg Capsicum extract in Japanese quails reduced cecal counts of pathogenic bacteria (Salmonella spp., E. coli, coliforms) while modulating Lactobacilli populations (Reda et al., 2020).

In pigs, 80 mg/kg natural capsicum extract increased cecal propionic acid and total volatile fatty acid concentrations, with increased butyric acid in the colon – indicating enhanced fermentation by beneficial bacteria (Long et al., 2021).

Capsicum and Curcuma oleoresins altered intestinal microbiota composition in commercial broilers challenged with necrotic enteritis, reducing disease severity through microbiome modulation (Kim et al., 2015).

Capsaicin demonstrates selective antimicrobial activity, inhibiting pathogenic Gram-negative bacteria while favoring development of certain Gram-positive bacteria. The antibacterial mechanism involves induction of osmotic stress and membrane structure damage (Adaszek et al., 2019; Rosca et al., 2020).

4. Intestinal barrier function and gut health

AGPs have been associated with improved intestinal morphology, including increased villus height and reduced crypt depth, which enhance absorptive capacity (Gaskins et al., 2002).

Phytomolecules produce similar or superior effects. Capsicum extract (80 mg/kg) in pigs increased ileal villus height and upregulated MUC-2 gene expression, indicating enhanced gut barrier function and integrity. The improved barrier function correlated with reduced diarrhea incidence (Liu et al., 2013; Long et al., 2021).

Allium hookeri extract increased expression of tight junction proteins (claudins, occludins, ZO-1) in LPS-challenged broiler chickens, demonstrating direct enhancement of barrier integrity (Lee et al., 2017).

5. Oxidative stress mitigation

Oxidative stress impairs growth by damaging cellular components and triggering inflammatory responses. AGPs reduce oxidative stress indirectly through anti-inflammatory effects and microbiota modulation (Bortoluzzi et al., 2021).

Phytomolecules possess direct antioxidant properties. Capsicum extract (50 mg/kg) in heat-stressed quails reduced serum and ovarian malondialdehyde (MDA) while increasing superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT) activities. Ovarian transcription factors showed decreased NF-κB and increased Nrf2 and HO-1 expression (Sahin et al., 2016).

A mixture of herbal extracts including pepper reduced thiobarbituric acid reactive substances and MDA in broiler liver and muscle, while increasing glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) activity and improving antioxidant enzyme expression (Saleh et al., 2018).

Capsicum extract (80 mg/kg) in pigs increased total antioxidant capacity, SOD, and CAT while reducing MDA levels, demonstrating robust antioxidant effects (Long et al., 2021).

Standardization and controlled release: Critical success factors

A major criticism of phytomolecules has been inconsistent efficacy across studies. However, this variability largely reflects differences in:

• Active compound concentrations
• Bioavailability and stability
• Dosing precision
• Product quality and standardization

Microencapsulation is one of the technologies that address the standardization and bioavailability challenges. It protects volatile compounds from degradation during feed processing and storage, with encapsulated essential oils showing significantly higher retention compared to unprotected forms (Stevanović et al., 2018). By creating a protective barrier around active ingredients, microencapsulation enables controlled release in specific regions of the gastrointestinal tract, improving absorption efficiency and reducing dose variability (Bringas-Lantigua et al., 2011). The technology also masks unpalatable flavors that can reduce feed intake while standardizing active ingredient concentrations through precise manufacturing processes (Gharsallaoui et al., 2007). Studies demonstrate that spray-dried microencapsulated essential oils achieve encapsulation efficiencies exceeding 93% with minimal loss during storage (Hu et al., 2020), and can be engineered for enzyme-mediated release to ensure bioactive delivery at optimal intestinal sites (Elolimy et al., 2025).

Mechanistic synthesis: An integrated model

The evidence indicates that both AGPs and phytomolecules operate through an integrated network of effects:

1. Primary Level: Selective antimicrobial effects modify gut microbiota composition
2. Secondary Level: Reduced microbial metabolites (ammonia, endotoxins) decrease inflammatory signaling
3. Tertiary Level: Reduced inflammation conserves energy for growth; enhanced barrier function improves nutrient absorption
4. Quaternary Level: Mitochondrial hormesis and metabolic optimization increase energy efficiency
5. Systemic Level: Improved immunometabolic homeostasis supports optimal growth

This integrative model explains why multiple antibiotics with different mechanisms produce similar growth outcomes: they converge on common pathways regulating immunometabolism and mitochondrial function (Fernández Miyakawa et al., 2024).

Phytomolecules operate through the same mechanistic framework but with potential advantages:

• Multiple bioactive compounds providing redundancy
• Antioxidant effects enhancing stress resilience
• Lower AMR selection pressure
• Potential prebiotic-like effects supporting beneficial microbiota

Safety and antimicrobial resistance considerations

Antibiotic exposure significantly disrupts gut microbiota diversity and stability, with effects persisting beyond withdrawal periods. The study by Zhan et al. (2025) demonstrated that different antibiotics produce varying degrees of microbiota disruption, with florfenicol and gentamicin showing the strongest and most persistent effects.

In contrast, phytomolecules generally do not generate resistance through the same mechanisms as antibiotics. Some phytochemicals may actually enhance antibiotic efficacy and resensitize resistant bacteria through structural modifications of bacterial membranes (Khameneh et al., 2021; Suganya et al., 2022).

However, one study reported increased correlation between antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) and mobile genetic elements in pig feces after mushroom powder supplementation, suggesting that certain phytogenic compounds may increase ARG mobility (Muurinen et al., 2021). This emphasizes the need for continued surveillance of phytomolecule effects on resistance gene dynamics.

Capsaicinoids and capsinoids have well-established safety profiles. Capsiate, a non-pungent analogue of capsaicin, exhibits substantially lower toxicity while maintaining similar metabolic and growth-promoting effects (Gupta et al., 2022). No adverse effects on animal health or product quality have been reported at recommended dosages in reviewed studies.

Future directions and research needs

Despite substantial progress, several areas require further investigation:

1. Mechanistic refinement: Detailed characterization of signaling pathways, particularly the IL-6R/gp130 cascade and mitochondrial stress responses
2. Precision formulation: Development of combinations optimized for specific production stages, environmental conditions, and disease pressures
3. Bioavailability optimization: Advanced delivery systems ensuring consistent active compound release and absorption
4. Microbiome-host interaction mapping: High-resolution characterization of microbial community shifts and their functional consequences
5. Economic validation: Large-scale production trials assessing cost-effectiveness compared to AGPs and disease management costs

Conclusions

The scientific evidence demonstrates that standardized phytomolecules operate through well-characterized biological mechanisms that substantially replicate those of AGPs:

1. Anti-inflammatory effects reducing energetic costs of immune activation
2. Mitochondrial hormesis enhancing energy metabolism and cellular resilience
3. Selective microbiota modulation supporting beneficial bacteria while controlling pathogens
4. Intestinal barrier enhancement improving nutrient absorption and reducing translocation
5. Antioxidant activity mitigating oxidative stress and supporting immune function

When properly standardized and formulated for controlled release, phytomolecules deliver growth promotion, feed efficiency improvements, and disease resistance comparable to AGPs, while potentially offering advantages in AMR risk profile, stress resilience, and consumer acceptance.

The mechanistic convergence between AGPs and phytomolecules, coupled with demonstrated efficacy in controlled trials, provides producers with confidence that science-based phytomolecular interventions represent legitimate alternatives to AGPs. Success depends on product standardization, appropriate dosing, and understanding that phytomolecules work through fundamental biological pathways rather than undefined or mystical mechanisms.

As the livestock industry continues to navigate the post-AGP era, standardized phytomolecules offer a scientifically sound, mechanistically validated approach to maintaining animal performance, health, and welfare while addressing antimicrobial resistance concerns.

References

Adaszek, Ł., et al. “Properties of Capsaicin and Its Utility in Veterinary and Human Medicine.” Research in Veterinary Science, vol. 123, 2019, pp. 14 – 19.

Bottje, W., et al. “Mitochondrial proton leak kinetics and relationship with feed efficiency within a single genetic line of male broilers”. Poultry Science, Volume 88, Issue 8, 1 August 2009, p. 1683-1693.

Bortoluzzi, C., et al. “A Protected Complex of Biofactors and Antioxidants Improved Growth Performance and Modulated the Immunometabolic Phenotype of Broiler Chickens Undergoing Early Life Stress.” Poultry Science, vol. 100, 2021, p. 101176.

Bourgin, M., et al. “Bile Salt Hydrolases: At the Crossroads of Microbiota and Human Health.” Microorganisms, vol. 9, no. 1122, 2021.

Bravo, D., et al. “A Mixture of Carvacrol, Cinnamaldehyde, and Capsicum Oleoresin Improves Energy Utilization and Growth Performance of Broiler Chickens Fed Maize-Based Diet.” Journal of Animal Science, vol. 92, 2014, pp. 1531 – 1536.

Bringas-Lantigua, M., et al. “Influence of Spray-Dryer Air Temperatures on Encapsulated Mandarin Oil.” Drying Technology, vol. 29, 2011, pp. 520–526.

Burtscher, J., et al. “Mitochondrial Stress and Mitokines in Aging.” Aging Cell, vol. 22, no. 2, 2023, e13770.

El-Hack, M. et al. “Integrating metabolomics for precision nutrition in poultry: optimizing growth, feed efficiency, and health”. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, Sec. Animal Nutrition and Metabolism, Volume 12 – 2025. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1594749

Elolimy, Ahmed A., et al. “Effects of Microencapsulated Essential Oils and Seaweed Meal on Growth Performance, Digestive Enzymes, Intestinal Morphology, Liver Functions, and Plasma Biomarkers in Broiler Chickens.” Journal of Animal Science, vol. 103, 2025, p. skaf092, https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaf092.

Fernández Miyakawa, Mariano E., et al. “How Did Antibiotic Growth Promoters Increase Growth and Feed Efficiency in Poultry?” Poultry Science, vol. 103, no. 2, 2024, article 103136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2023.103136

Gaskins, H. Rex, C. T. Collier, and D. B. Anderson. “Antibiotics as Growth Promotants: Mode of Action.” Animal Biotechnology, vol. 13, no. 1, 2002, pp. 29 – 42.

Gharsallaoui, A., et al. “Applications of Spray-Drying in Microencapsulation of Food Ingredients: An Overview.” Food Research International, vol. 40, no. 9, 2007, pp. 1107-21.

Gutiérrez-Chávez, Vanesa, et al. “Capsaicinoids and Capsinoids of Chilli Pepper as Feed Additives in Livestock Production: Current and Future Trends.” Animal Nutrition, vol. 22, 2025, pp. 483 – 501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2025.03.014.

Gupta, A., et al. “Capsaicin and Capsinoids: Recent Updates on Their Health Benefits and Mechanisms of Action.” Phytotherapy Research, vol. 36, no. 5, 2022, pp. 1898 – 1912.

Hu, Q., Li, X., Chen, F., Wan, R., Yu, C.-W., Li, J., McClements, D. J., & Deng, Z. (2020). “Microencapsulation of an essential oil (cinnamon oil) by spray drying: Effects of wall materials and storage conditions on microcapsule properties“. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 44(11). https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.14805

Khameneh, B., et al. “Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance Resensitization by Phytochemicals: Review.” Phytomedicine, vol. 85, 2021, p. 153529.

Kim, D. K., et al. “Effects of Capsicum and Curcuma on Necrotic Enteritis in Broilers.” Poultry Science, vol. 94, 2015, pp. 2314 – 2321.

Kim, J. S., et al. “Anti-inflammatory Effects of Plant-Derived Molecules via NF-κB and MAPK Pathways.” International Immunopharmacology, vol. 10, no. 3, 2010, pp. 306 – 314.

Lee, S. H., et al. “Allium Hookeri Extract Enhances Tight Junction Proteins in Broilers.” Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, vol. 101, no. 1, 2017, pp. e48 – e56.

Li, X., et al. “Capsicum Oleoresin Supplementation Improves Digestive Enzyme Activity and Gut Morphology in Broilers.” Poultry Science, vol. 101, no. 7, 2022, p. 101844.

Lin, J. “Effect of Antibiotics on the Intestinal Microbiota and Their Role in Animal Growth.” Animal Biotechnology, vol. 25, no. 3, 2014, pp. 149 – 157.

Lillehoj, H., et al. “Phytochemicals as Antibiotic Alternatives to Promote Growth and Enhance Host Health.” Veterinary Research, vol. 49, no. 76, 2018.

Liu, Y., et al. “Dietary Capsicum Extract Enhances Intestinal Barrier Function and Growth in Pigs.” Journal of Animal Science, vol. 91, 2013, pp. 518 – 525.

Long, L., et al. “Phytogenic Feed Additives Modulate Intestinal Immunity and Antioxidant Status in Pigs and Poultry.” Frontiers in Veterinary Science, vol. 8, 2021, p. 620998.

Muurinen, J., et al. “Mushroom Powder Supplementation Increases Antibiotic Resistance Gene Mobility in Pig Feces.” Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 12, 2021, p. 676678.

Niewold, T. A. “The Non-antibiotic Anti-inflammatory Effect of Antimicrobial Growth Promoters, the Real Mode of Action? A Hypothesis.” Poultry Science, vol. 86, 2007, pp. 605 – 609.

Perry, F., C. N. Johnson, L. Lahaye, E. Santin, D. R. Korver, M. H. Kogut, and R. J. Arsenault. “Protected Biofactors and Antioxidants Reduce the Negative Consequences of Virus and Cold Challenge by Modulating Immunometabolism via Changes in the Interleukin-6 Receptor Signaling Cascade in the Liver.” Poultry Science, vol. 103, no. 9, 2024, article 104044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.104044

Rahman, Md, et al. “Insights in the Development and Uses of Alternatives to Antibiotic Growth Promoters in Poultry and Swine Production.” Antibiotics, vol. 11, no. 6, 2022, p. 766, https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11060766.

Rauw, W.M. et al., “Review: Feed efficiency and metabolic flexibility in livestock”. Animal. Vol. 19 (2025) 101376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2024.101376

Reda, F. M., et al. “Capsicum Extract Supplementation Modulates Gut Microbiota and Performance in Japanese Quails.” Animal Feed Science and Technology, vol. 265, 2020, p. 114507.

Rosca, I., et al. “Capsaicin Induces Osmotic Stress in Gram-negative Pathogens.” Veterinary Sciences, vol. 7, no. 4, 2020, p. 172.

Sahin, K., et al. “Dietary Capsicum Extract Reduces Oxidative Stress in Heat-stressed Japanese Quails.” Poultry Science, vol. 95, no. 2, 2016, pp. 231 – 240.

Saleh, A. A., et al. “Herbal Extract Mixtures Improve Antioxidant Status and Performance in Broilers.” Poultry Science, vol. 97, no. 11, 2018, pp. 3927 – 3936.

Stevanović, Z. D., et al. „Essential oils as feed additives—Future perspectives”. Molecules, 23(7), 2018, pp1717.

Suganya, R., et al. “Phytochemicals in Combination with Antibiotics: Antimicrobial Resistance Breakers.” Antibiotics, vol. 11, 2022, p. 123.

Zhang, Benyuan et al. “Mitochondrial Stress and Mitokines: Therapeutic Perspectives for the Treatment of Metabolic Diseases.” Diabetes & Metabolism Journal vol. 48,1, 2024, pp. 1-18.

Zhan, Ru, et al. “Effects of Antibiotics on Chicken Gut Microbiota: Community Alterations and Pathogen Identification.” Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 16, 2025, article 1562510. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1562510

Zhang, Y., et al. “Effects of Vanillin, Thymol, and Eugenol on Glucose and Lipid Metabolism via TRPV1 Activation.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 65, no. 13, 2017, pp. 2719 – 2727.

Reporting Period: November 6-12, 2025

Extracted Data by Disease Category

1. ASF in Domestic Pigs

Country	Number of Outbreaks
Romania	15
Moldova	1
TOTAL	16

2. ASF in Wild Boar

Country	Number of Outbreaks
Bulgaria	32
Germany	25
Estonia	8
Croatia	14
Hungary	8
Italy	7
Latvia	21
Lithuania	4
Poland	4
Romania	12
North Macedonia	1
TOTAL	136

3. HPAI (NON-P) in Captive Birds / H5N1

Country	Number of Outbreaks
Bulgaria	1
Czech Republic	2
Germany	4
France	3
Netherlands	1
TOTAL	11

4. HPAI (NON-P) in Wild Birds / H5 (N untyped)

Country	Number of Outbreaks
Norway	1
TOTAL	1

5. HPAI (NON-P) in Wild Birds / H5N1

Country	Number of Outbreaks
Austria	8
Belgium	4
Germany	462
Denmark	15
Spain	16
Finland	3
France	25
Ireland	1
Italy	1
Lithuania	1
Luxembourg	8
Latvia	3
Netherlands	22
Poland	2
Slovakia	1
Slovenia	2
Sweden	5
Switzerland	1
Norway	1
Ukraine	1
TOTAL	581

6. High Pathogenicity Avian Influenza Viruses (Poultry) (Inf. with) / H5N1

Country	Number of Outbreaks
Bulgaria	1
Czech Republic	3
Germany	26
France	7
Hungary	1
Ireland	1
Italy	2
Netherlands	3
Poland	3
Sweden	2
United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)	2
TOTAL	51

---

Summary Statistics

Disease Category	Total Outbreaks
ASF in Domestic Pigs	16
ASF in Wild Boar	136
HPAI(NON-P) in Captive Birds / H5N1	11
HPAI(NON-P) in Wild Birds / H5 (N untyped)	1
HPAI(NON-P) in Wild Birds / H5N1	581
High Pathogenicity Avian Influenza Viruses (Poultry) / H5N1	51

 

by Ilinca Anghelescu, Global Director Marketing and Communications

In a rare move that betrays urgent concerns, the EU is moving to address its economic weaknesses and close competitiveness gaps. Among the targeted changes are burdensome Sustainability regulations.

The release of the European Commission’s “Competitiveness Compass” last week aims to “urgently tackle longstanding barriers and structural weaknesses”, which, the Commission admits, are caused in part by heavy regulatory burdens. One point addressed is “closing the innovation gap”, i.e. investing in AI and digital infrastructure and removing heavy administrative obligations that hinder fast innovation. Another proposal is to diversify dependencies and increase security, in terms of defense and preparedness as well as security in front of climate change threats.

However, of particular importance to agriculture is the list of “horizontal enablers”, i.e. actions to be taken soon that reduce the regulatory burden for farmers and food producers. Policies will thus be recalibrated to balance productivity with environmental goals, particularly under the green and digital transitions. The EU plans to release an “omnibus” package by the end of February, suggesting rolling back or reframing some of the key regulations and policies. Especially under the lens are the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. These were about to receive implementation deadlines at the end of 2025 and 2026, compelling companies to take specific steps to curb and/or offset contributions to climate change.

See below the areas highlighted for change in the EC’s Compass.

Streamlining sustainability regulations for agriculture

One major focus is simplifying the regulatory environment to support farmers’ ability to adopt eco-friendly practices without facing administrative overload. Key initiatives include:

• Reducing excessive administrative processes linked to sustainability reporting, thereby making it easier for small and medium-sized farmers to participate in carbon reduction or biodiversity schemes.
• Encouraging voluntary measures rather than mandatory requirements where possible, ensuring that sustainability practices can be phased in gradually with adequate support.

Scaling back costs through regulatory flexibility

Proportional application of environmental rules: Regulations will be tailored based on farm size and production type, alleviating the burden on small farms and cooperatives. For instance:

• Farms participating in carbon farming or agroforestry will benefit from simplified eligibility criteria and streamlined evaluation processes.
• Less frequent monitoring and audits are proposed for farms demonstrating long-term sustainability commitments.

Additionally, digital compliance tools will play a role in reducing paperwork. Farmers can use online platforms to track and report environmental performance, cutting costs related to inspections and administrative filings.

Sustainable practices supported by innovation incentives

Rather than relying solely on regulations, the EU plans to incentivize eco-friendly practices through funding mechanisms and access to innovation:

• The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) will expand its financing options for farms transitioning to organic methods, renewable energy usage, or improved nutrient recycling systems.
• Green technology access: Subsidized programs will help farmers adopt technologies like precision irrigation and AI-driven crop management, reducing both environmental impact and operational costs.

Integration of environmental goals without compromising competitiveness

The policy framework emphasizes that climate-neutral agriculture must remain productivity-focused. Key mechanisms for achieving this balance include:

• Carbon offset programs allowing farmers to generate income by implementing carbon-sequestering practices such as cover cropping and reduced tillage.
• Support for sustainable fertilizer alternatives: The EU aims to cut synthetic fertilizer use while promoting domestic production of bio-fertilizers to avoid dependency on imports.

Striking a balance between economics and environmental concerns

By reducing administrative burdens, offering financial incentives, and prioritizing flexibility, the EU attempts to achieve sustainability without hindering productivity. However, according to The Wall Street Journal, some groups – either investors or large companies – have already protested the proposed changes. These are the groups that have made massive internal changes to prepare for the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, and who made them an important part of their reporting and positioning.

The omnibus package is due at the end of February, after which it will have to undergo several rounds of reviews and approvals before becoming effective in any way. It remains to be seen if the heavy administrative apparatus of the Commission is able to put these changes in motion with the same urgency that the Compass indicates.

by Ilinca Anghelescu, Global Director Marketing & Communications, EW Nutrition

The European Union (EU) agricultural sector is confronted with challenges and uncertainties stemming from the geopolitical risks, extreme weather events, and evolving market demand. The EU Agricultural Outlook 2024-2035, published last month, highlights the anticipated trends, challenges, and opportunities facing the sector over the medium term, given several considerations likely shaping the future.

Initial considerations for EU agricultural trends

Macroeconomic context

The EU’s real GDP growth is expected to stabilize, contributing to a stable economic environment for agriculture. Inflation rates are projected to return to the European Central Bank’s target of 2% by 2025. Exchange rates will see the Euro slightly appreciating against the US dollar, and Brent crude oil prices are anticipated to stabilize in real terms at approximately $102 per barrel by 2035.

However, despite optimistic declarations in the recent past, we have not solved world hunger. Population growth in lower-income parts of the world is leading to an unequal distribution and, after an initial dip, the number of people going to bed hungry is expected to rise again. Moreover, in the next ten years some improvements are foreseen but no massive changes are expected in the percentage of food groups and calories available per capita.

Climate change impact

Climate change is reshaping EU agriculture by affecting critical natural resources such as water and soil. Agroclimatic zones are shifting northwards, with implications for crop cultivation patterns. For example, regions traditionally suitable for wheat may increasingly shift focus to other crops better adapted to new climate conditions.

Consumer demand

Consumer awareness of sustainability is driving significant shifts in dietary preferences in the EU. The demand for plant proteins like pulses is increasing, while meat consumption, particularly beef and pork, is declining due to environmental and health concerns. Conversely, demand for fortified and functional dairy products is on the rise.

What are the projected agricultural trends in 2024-2035?

Arable crops

• Land use: While the total agricultural land in the EU remains stable, a shift in crop focus is anticipated. Land allocated for cereals and rapeseed is expected to decline, making way for soya beans and pulses due to reduced feed demand and policy incentives for plant proteins.
• Cereals: Production of cereals, including wheat, maize, and barley, is forecast to stabilize with minor yield increases due to advancements in precision farming and digitalization. Wheat production is set to recover after an expected dip in 2024.

Dairy Sector

• Milk production: Although milk yields are projected to increase due to improved genetics and farming practices, the decline in the dairy cow herd will result in a slight overall reduction in milk production by 2035.
• Dairy products: The production of cheese and whey will grow steadily, driven by domestic and international demand. Conversely, the consumption of drinking milk is expected to decline, while demand for fortified and functional dairy products grows.

Meat Sector

• Beef and veal: Beef production is expected to decrease by 10%, with the EU cow herd shrinking by 3.2 million head by 2035. This decline is attributed to sustainability concerns, high production costs, and changing consumer preferences. Beef consumption is also projected to decline, driven by high prices and a preference for plant-based alternatives.
• Pig meat: The sector faces a projected annual production decline of 0.9%, equating to a reduction of nearly 2 million tons compared to 2021-2023 levels. This trend is largely influenced by concerns over sustainability and a declining preference for fatty meats.
• Poultry: In contrast, poultry production is forecast to increase due to its healthier image, lower cost, and minimal cultural or religious constraints. However, the growth rate will be slower than in the previous decade.

Upcoming challenges in agriculture

Climate Resilience

The increasing frequency of extreme weather events requires investments in resilient farming practices. Adoption of precision farming and crop diversification is critical to mitigate climate impacts. However, if existing policies are further implemented, greenhouse gas emissions are expected to see a significant decline.

Policy Frameworks

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) plays a pivotal role in steering the sector toward sustainability. However, farmers face challenges in adapting to stricter environmental regulations and securing sufficient funding for transitions. The recent Mercosur agreement has already stirred dissent in EU countries that fear unfettered competition without similar policy regulations.

Market Dynamics

Global trade tensions and competition in agricultural markets pose significant risks. While the EU remains a net exporter, dependence on imports for certain crops, such as soya beans, highlights vulnerabilities in supply chains.

In a weather-shock scenario for the EU feed supply chain, the report highlights that increased feed prices would drive up retail meat prices by 10% for poultry and pork producers, and 5% for beef and veal producers. The increase would be less abrupt for retail prices, rising by 3% for pork, and 4% for poultry meat. Producers need to be mindful of the absorbed costs of these potential shocks.

Conclusion

The EU agricultural sector must continue to balance productivity, sustainability, and consumer preferences. While advancements in technology and policy frameworks offer pathways to resilience, addressing challenges such as climate change and market dynamics will be critical to achieving long-term goals.

By Dr. Inge Heinzl

Globally, unsafe food leads to 600 million cases of foodborne illnesses each year, resulting in 420,000 deaths, with 40% of these deaths occurring among children under 5 years of age. Especially for immunocompromised elderly and children, the pathogens can be dangerous.

In 2019, 27 European Union (EU) member states reported a total of 5,175 foodborne outbreaks, leading to 49,463 cases of illness, 3,859 hospitalizations, and 60 deaths. This year, e.g., salmonella-contaminated arugula from Italy caused 98 cases in Germany, 16 in Austria, and 23 in Denmark (Whitworth, 2024).

In the United States, the E. coli outbreak recently reported by 13 states and linked to McDonald’s is just one of the foodborne disease incidents this year. Several salmonella infections have also spread nationwide, with pathogens detected in various foods, including eggs, cucumbers, fresh basil, and charcuterie meats (CDC, 2024 LINK).

Symptoms of foodborne diseases may vary

The most common symptoms of food poisoning include stomach pain or cramps together with diarrhea and vomiting, nausea, and probably fever. In severe cases, diarrhea can get bloody and/or last more than 3 days. Fever (temperature over 38°C within the body) can occur, and vomiting can get so severe that the sick person cannot keep liquids inside and suffers from dehydration.

E. coli contamination, particularly from pathogenic strains like E. coli O157:H7, can pose serious health risks to consumers. It has been associated with symptoms ranging from mild gastrointestinal distress to severe conditions like hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), which can lead to kidney failure.

Possible sources of contamination

Usually, food is not sterile. It contains beneficial microorganisms such as lactic acid bacteria or cultured molds, but also unwanted ones such as E. coli or salmonella. The crucial point is the proliferation of the harmful ones. Food poisoning is often the result of poor hygiene or wrong processing. Here are some possible causes of getting a foodborne disease.

1. Undercooked meat products or eggs: Undercooked meat and eggs are primary sources of, e.g., E. coli or salmonella. If these foodstuffs are not cooked to a high enough internal temperature (meat: 70 – 80°C for at least 10 min.), the bacteria can survive and pose risks to consumers. High-speed cooking processes, standard in fast-food restaurants, can lead to unevenly cooked food, increasing the risk of contamination. However, the more probable origins of food poisoning are
2. Raw vegetables and fresh produce: Leafy greens and other raw vegetables are increasingly associated with E. coli outbreaks. Contamination often occurs during harvesting, processing, or transportation. When vegetables are served raw, such as in salads, the pathogens present might not be eliminated, which can lead to consumer exposure.
3. Cross-contamination in preparation areas: E. coli can spread easily in food preparation areas if strict separation between raw and cooked foods is not maintained. For example, if raw beef juices come into contact with salad ingredients or utensils, the risk of cross-contamination increases significantly.
4. Cross-contamination in the slaughterhouse: If infected animals are slaughtered together with healthy animals, the meat of the healthy ones can be contaminated with the juices of the ill ones.
5. Inadequate supplier protocols and traceability: The complex supply chains used by fast-food companies often involve multiple suppliers across various locations. A lack of strict hygiene and safety practices among suppliers can introduce contaminated food into the restaurant chain’s supply, leading to potential outbreaks.

Countermeasures to protect consumers

To prevent future E. coli outbreaks, implementing a range of countermeasures in food-providing businesses such as restaurants, fast-food chains, and suppliers, focusing on safe food handling, better biosecurity, and improved oversight throughout the supply chain, is vital. Food safety is broader than that, however. It has a critical role in ensuring that food stays safe at every stage of the food chain – from production to harvest, processing, storage, distribution, all the way to preparation and consumption.

1. Enhanced Cooking Standards and Temperature Monitoring: Ensuring meat is cooked to a safe internal temperature is crucial.
2. Routine Microbial Testing of High-Risk Foods: Routine microbial testing, particularly of high-risk items like ground beef and fresh produce, can detect E. coli contamination before the food reaches consumers. Testing can be carried out at the supplier level and within restaurants. In cases where contamination is detected, affected products can be removed from circulation promptly, minimizing the risk to customers.
3. Separation of Raw and Cooked Food Handling Areas: Cross-contamination can be reduced by establishing dedicated areas and utensils for handling raw and cooked foods. For instance, separate workspaces for salad preparation and burger assembly can prevent contact between potentially contaminated raw ingredients and ready-to-eat items. Staff training on the importance of these practices is essential to their successful implementation.
4. Supplier Standards and Transparent Audits: Supplier chains must ensure that suppliers adhere to strict food safety protocols, including regular sanitation and testing practices. Supplier audits conducted by independent third parties can help verify compliance and identify any gaps in food safety practices. Transparency in these audits can also build consumer trust, as customers are more likely to feel reassured when they know safety checks are in place.
5. Implementation of High-Pressure Processing (HPP): High-pressure processing (HPP) effectively reduces bacterial contamination in foods without using heat, which can be particularly beneficial for items like fresh produce that are often served raw. HPP uses high levels of pressure to kill pathogens, including E. coli. However, as HPP provokes changes in the structure of vegetable cell walls, it is unsuitable for salads and other leafy greens.
6. Enhanced Employee Training on Hygiene Practices: Proper hygiene practices are fundamental in preventing contamination. Employees must wash their hands frequently, especially after handling raw foods. Fast-food chains should provide thorough training on proper food safety protocols, including how to handle food items safely and maintain a clean working environment.
7. Crisis Response Protocols and Traceability Systems: In the event of an outbreak, rapid response is critical. Fast-food companies should have crisis protocols in place that include steps for immediate product recalls, customer notifications, and investigation procedures. Improved traceability systems can also allow companies to track the source of contamination quickly, limiting the spread and reducing the impact on consumers.
8. Preventing infections with harmful enteropathogens already in the animal: To get “clean” animals arriving at the slaughterhouse, already the farmer must aspire to prevent/treat infections of the animals with pathogens possibly provoking foodborne diseases. For this purpose, the farmer can resort to vaccines and feed supplements supporting gut health, both for prevention and on medicine such as antibiotics when treatment is needed.

A path forward: Strengthening food safety standards

This new E. coli outbreak in the fast-food industry highlights the ongoing challenges of maintaining food safety standards at all food preparation and distribution stages. By implementing stricter cooking standards, enhancing biosecurity measures, enforcing supplier compliance, and improving traceability, fast-food chains like McDonald’s can significantly reduce the risk of E. coli contamination. Ultimately, consumer protection depends on a multifaceted approach that integrates strong hygiene practices, supplier oversight, and advanced technology in food safety. Through these measures, companies can work to restore consumer confidence, minimize health risks, and set a standard for food safety across the industry.

The EU’s Short-term Outlook for Agricultural Markets (Autumn 2024) reveals significant challenges in agriculture, with adverse weather, geopolitical instability, and fluctuating trade conditions impacting production. The report identifies declining cereal and oilseed outputs, particularly for soft wheat and maize. Meanwhile, milk production is expected to remain stable despite a shrinking cow herd, and the meat sector shows mixed trends, with poultry production rising but pigmeat and beef facing structural challenges.

Cereals

The EU cereal production in 2024/25 is projected at 260.9 million tons, approximately 7% below the 5-year average. This marks the lowest production in the past decade, driven by unfavorable weather conditions, including excessive rain in Northwestern Europe, which impacted planting, particularly for soft wheat, and drought in Southern and Eastern regions, severely affecting maize yields. Production of soft wheat and maize is expected to decline year-on-year by 9.5% and 4%, respectively. On the other hand, barley and durum wheat production are increasing by about 6% and 3%, respectively, compared to the previous year.

EU cereal exports are projected to decline by 22% year-on-year due to reduced production and quality issues. At the same time, domestic demand remains relatively stable, with animal feed consumption holding steady as livestock production stagnates. In terms of prices, cereal prices fell throughout 2024, pressuring farmers’ cash flow, which could hinder their ability to afford inputs such as fertilizers in the coming year.

Milk and Dairy Products

The EU milk market is expected to see relatively stable supply, despite a continuously shrinking cow herd. Milk yields have increased, compensating for the herd’s decline. Milk prices are forecast to stabilize after a period of volatility in the past few years, remaining above historical averages, and input costs for farmers, such as feed and energy, are showing signs of stabilizing, allowing for a potential improvement in farmer margins.

Despite the stability in milk supply, demand for dairy products continues to show mixed trends, influenced by shifts in consumer preferences and trade dynamics. The balance of milk supply and prices could provide an opportunity for dairy farmers to recover some profitability after several challenging years.

In the dairy products sector, cheese and butter continue to dominate EU production, with butter production projected to rise slightly in 2024, driven by stable milk supplies and strong domestic demand. The demand for butter in the global market remains relatively strong, although competition is rising.

Cheese production is also expected to remain stable, reflecting a balance between domestic and export markets. The cheese sector has seen steady growth over the years, supported by increasing consumer demand for premium and specialty cheeses. The demand for skimmed milk powder (SMP) and whole milk powder (WMP) is projected to remain subdued due to fluctuating global demand, particularly from key markets such as China, although some growth is expected in non-European markets.

Meat Products

The meat sector in the EU remains a mixed picture, with structural changes and external factors shaping production and trade in 2024.

Beef and Veal: Beef production continues to face structural decline due to a shrinking herd size, with the sector stabilizing but at lower levels of production. The demand for EU beef remains relatively high, and exports are increasing, but domestic production is likely to remain constrained by environmental and economic pressures. Additionally, the number of animals has been declining consistently, reflecting longer-term trends within the EU beef industry.

Pigmeat: The EU pigmeat sector is facing diverse challenges, with some countries recovering from production setbacks, while others struggle with ongoing disease outbreaks and economic issues. The overall EU pigmeat production is expected to decline slightly, and exports have become less competitive, particularly with reduced demand from key markets such as China. However, opportunities exist in other Asian countries, where EU exporters are gaining ground. Domestically, consumption is forecast to decrease slightly, reflecting shifting consumer preferences toward plant-based alternatives and poultry.

Poultry: Poultry production is expected to rise, driven by strong domestic demand and favorable export conditions. The EU poultry sector has shown resilience, with increasing production and exports, despite higher input costs. Poultry remains a preferred source of protein for consumers, especially as prices for other meats rise. The sector continues to grow in competitiveness on the international stage, with exports expected to increase in 2024 despite the challenges posed by higher EU prices.

Sheep and Goat Meat: Production of sheep and goat meat continues to decline due to the structural reduction of flocks across the EU. High EU prices have made sheep and goat meat less competitive on the global market, reducing export opportunities. Domestically, consumption remains stable but at lower levels than other meat types. The ongoing structural decline in the sector highlights long-term challenges related to animal health, productivity, and market competitiveness.

Volatility and challenges persist

The report highlights the ongoing challenges faced by the cereals, dairy, and meat sectors. Weather conditions and global trade dynamics are shaping the future of EU agriculture, with many sectors grappling with production declines and shifting market demands. Despite these challenges, opportunities exist for some areas of growth, particularly in dairy and poultry, where rising consumer demand and stable supply conditions offer optimism for the future.

by Ilinca Anghelescu, Global Director Marketing Communications, EW Nutrition

 

As the global demand for animal products continues to rise, so do various claims about the impact of agriculture on greenhouse gas emissions. A study commissioned by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concluded that, according to the most recent data, agri-food system emissions totaled 16.5 billion metric tons of CO₂ equivalent, representing 31% of global anthropogenic emissions.

Of these 31%, the most important trend highlighted by FAO was the “increasingly important role of food-related emissions generated outside of agricultural land, in pre- and post-production processes along food supply chains”. The food supply chain (food processing, packaging, transport, household consumption and waste disposal) is thus set to become the top GHG emitter, above farming and land use.

How bad is 31%?

While 31% is a large figure, even this estimate represents a significant decrease from the 1950s, when agri-food emissions constituted approximately 58% of total anthropogenic emissions: “From 1850 until around 1950, anthropogenic CO2 emissions were mainly (>50%) from land use, land-use change and forestry”, states the latest IPCC report.

Figure 1. Source: IPCC AR6 Report, 2023. LULUCF = Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry

As the IPCC graph in Figure 1 indicates, the percentage decrease is mostly due to the rising prevalence of oil and coal in CO₂ emissions over the recent decades, as shown in Figure 2 below.

Annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions worldwide from 1990 to 2022, by sector (in million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent)

Figure 2. Source: Statista

Total population and agri-food emission changes, 1950 – today

The global population increased by approximately 220%, from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 8 billion in 2023. In the meantime, estimates suggest that, in the 1950s, agri-food systems were responsible for approximately 2-3 billion metric tons of CO₂-equivalent (CO₂e) emissions per year. This figure includes emissions from livestock, rice paddies, fertilizer use, and land-use change (e.g., deforestation for agriculture).

Assessments generally agree that today’s agri-food systems contribute approximately 9-10 billion metric tons of CO₂e annually, a threefold increase from 1950. This includes emissions from agriculture (e.g., livestock, crop production), food processing, transportation, and land-use changes.

This increase is consistent with FAO’s new findings, of food chain climbing to the top of agri-food emitters.

But where did these increased emissions come from?

A look at the graph below gives us an indication: world poverty rate decreased massively between 1950 and today. While COVID brought a setback, the historical data would clearly indicate a correlation between the increased output in agri-food systems and the decreased rate of poverty.

How did poverty rates decline so steeply? The reasons lie, to a large extent, in technological innovation, especially in genetics and farm management, and in the increased apport of plentiful and affordable meat protein to the world. The numbers below build an image of an industry that produces better, more, and cheaper.

Global meat production: 1950 vs. Present

Then…

In 1950, the estimated total meat production was of approximately 45 million metric tons.

Key Producers: The United States, Europe, and the Soviet Union were the primary producers of meat.
Types of Meat: Production was largely dominated by beef and pork, with poultry being less significant.

…and now

Now, the total meat production lies somewhere around 357 million metric tons (as of recent data from FAO)., representing a 53% increase from 2000 and a staggering 690% increase from 1950.

Key Producers: Major producers include China, the United States, Brazil, and the European Union.
Types of Meat: Significant increases in poultry production, with pork remaining a leading source of meat, especially in Asia. Beef production has also increased, but at a slower rate than poultry and pork.

Factors contributing to increased meat production

Population Growth: The world population has grown from approximately 2.5 billion in 1950 to over 8 billion today, driving increased demand for meat.

Economic Growth and Urbanization: Rising incomes and urbanization have led to shifts in economic power and dietary preferences, with more people consuming higher quantities of meat, especially in developing countries.

Technological Advancements: Improvements in animal breeding, feed efficiency, and production systems have increased the efficiency and output of meat production.

Intensification of Livestock Production: The shift from extensive to intensive livestock production systems has allowed for higher meat yields per animal.

Global Trade: Expansion of global trade in meat and meat products has facilitated the growth of production in countries with comparative advantages in livestock farming.

Livestock yield increase, 1950 to the present

The increase in livestock yield for cattle, pigs, and chickens between 1950 and the present has been significant due to advances in breeding, nutrition, management practices, and technology.

Beef

1950s

• Average Carcass Weight: In the 1950s, the average carcass weight of beef cattle was about 200 to 250 kilograms (440 to 550 pounds).
• Dressing Percentage: The dressing percentage (the proportion of live weight that becomes carcass) was typically around 50-55%.

Present Day

• Average Carcass Weight: Today, the average carcass weight of beef cattle is approximately 300 to 400 kilograms (660 to 880 pounds).
• Dressing Percentage: The dressing percentage has improved to about 60-65%.

Increase in Beef Cattle Yield

• Increase in Carcass Weight: The average carcass weight has increased by about 100 to 150 kilograms (220 to 330 pounds) per animal.
• Improved Dressing Percentage: The dressing percentage has increased by about 5-10 percentage points, meaning a greater proportion of the live weight is converted into meat.

Dairy

1950s

• Average Milk Yield per Cow: Approximately 2,000 to 3,000 liters per year, depending on the region.

Present Day

• Average Milk Yield per Cow: Approximately 8,000 to 10,000 liters per year globally, with some countries like the United States achieving even higher averages of 10,000 to 12,000 liters per year.

Increase in Milk Yield:: Milk yield per cow has increased about 4-5 times due to genetic selection, improved nutrition, technological advancements, and better herd management.

Chickens (Layers)

1950s

• Average Egg Production per Hen: In the 1950s, a typical laying hen produced about 150 to 200 eggs per year.

Present Day

• Average Egg Production per Hen: Today, a typical laying hen produces approximately 280 to 320 eggs per year, with some high-performing breeds producing even more.

Increase in Egg Yield: The average egg production per hen has increased by approximately 130 to 170 eggs per year.

Chickens (Broilers)

1950s

• Average Yield per Bird: In the 1950s, broiler chickens typically reached a market weight of about 1.5 to 2 kilograms (3.3 to 4.4 pounds) over a growth period of 10 to 12 weeks.

Present Day

• Average Yield per Bird: Today, broiler chickens reach a market weight of about 2.5 to 3 kilograms (5.5 to 6.6 pounds) in just 5 to 7 weeks.

Increase in Yield: The average weight of a broiler chicken has increased by approximately 1 to 1.5 kilograms (2.2 to 3.3 pounds) per bird. Additionally, the time to reach market weight has been nearly halved.

Factors contributing to yield increases

Genetic Improvement:

• Selective Breeding: Focused breeding programs have developed chicken strains with rapid growth rates and high feed efficiency, significantly increasing meat yield.

Nutrition:

• Optimized Feed: Advances in poultry nutrition have led to feed formulations that promote faster growth and better health, using balanced diets rich in energy, protein, and essential nutrients.

Management Practices:

• Housing and Environment: Improved housing conditions, including temperature and humidity control, have reduced stress and disease, enhancing growth rates.

Technological Advancements:

• Automation: Automation in feeding, watering, and waste management has improved efficiency and bird health.
• Health Monitoring: Advances in health monitoring and veterinary care have reduced mortality rates and supported faster growth.

Feed Conversion Efficiency:

• Improved Feed Conversion Ratios (FCR): The amount of feed required to produce a unit of meat has decreased significantly, making production more efficient.

Why Feed Conversion Ratio is a sustainability metric

Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) is a critical metric in livestock production that measures the efficiency with which animals convert feed into body mass. It is expressed as the amount of feed required to produce a unit of meat, milk, or eggs. Advances in nutrition and precision feeding allow producers to tailor diets that optimize FCR, reducing waste and improving nutrient uptake. Also, breeding programs focused on improving FCR can lead to livestock that naturally convert feed more efficiently, supporting long-term sustainability.

Poultry (Broilers): From the 1950s, improved from approximately 4.75 kg/kg to 1.7 kg/kg.

Pigs: From the 1950s, improved from about 4.5 kg/kg to 2.75 kg/kg.

Cattle (Beef): From the 1950s, improved from around 7.5 kg/kg to 6.0 kg/kg.

Figure 4. Evolution of FCR from 1950

FCR is crucial for livestock sustainability for several reasons, as shown below.

1. Resource efficiency

– Feed Costs: Feed is one of the largest operational costs in livestock production. A lower FCR means less feed is needed to produce the same amount of animal product, reducing costs and improving profitability.

– Land Use: Efficient feed conversion reduces the demand for land needed to grow feed crops, helping to preserve natural ecosystems and decrease deforestation pressures.

– Water Use: Producing less feed per unit of animal product reduces the water needed for crop irrigation, which is crucial in regions facing water scarcity.

2. Environmental impact

– Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Livestock production is a significant source of greenhouse gases (GHGs), particularly methane from ruminants and nitrous oxide from manure management. Improved FCR means fewer animals are needed to meet production goals, reducing total emissions.

– Nutrient Runoff: Efficient feed use minimizes excess nutrients that can lead to water pollution through runoff and eutrophication of aquatic ecosystems.

3. Animal welfare

– Health and Growth: Optimizing FCR often involves improving animal health and growth rates, which can lead to better welfare outcomes. Healthy animals grow more efficiently and are less susceptible to disease.

4. Economic viability

– Competitiveness: Lowering FCR improves the economic viability of livestock operations by reducing input costs and increasing competitiveness in the global market.

Livestock emissions

Livestock emissions can be direct (farm-gate) or indirect (land use). Pre- and post-production emissions are considered separately, since they refer to emissions from manufacturing, processing, packaging, transport, retail, household consumption, and waste disposal.

Farm-gate emissions

Global farm-gate emissions (related to the production of crops and livestock) grew by 14% between 2000 and 2021, to 7.8 Gt CO2 eq, see below. 53% come from livestock-related activities, and the emissions from enteric fermentation generated in the digestive system of ruminant livestock were alone responsible for 37 percent of agricultural emissions (FAOSTAT 2023).

Land use for livestock

Land use emissions contribute a large share to agricultural emissions overall, especially through deforestation (~74% of land-use GHG emissions). The numbers have declined in recent years, to a total of 21% reduction between 2000 and 2018.

The other side of the coin is represented by the increased land usage for livestock, either directly for grazing or indirectly for feed crops.

1. Pasture and grazing land

1950: Approximately 3.2 billion hectares (7.9 billion acres) were used as permanent pastures.

Present: The area has increased to around 3.5 billion hectares (8.6 billion acres).

Change: An increase of about 0.3 billion hectares (0.7 billion acres).

2. Land for Feed Crops

1950: The land area dedicated to growing feed crops (such as corn and soy) was significantly less than today due to lower livestock production intensities and smaller scale operations. Feed crops likely accounted for about 200-250 million hectares of the cropland, although figures are evidently difficult to estimate.

Present: Of the approx. 5 billion hectares of land globally used for agriculture, about 1.5 billion hectares are dedicated to cropland.

The increase in cropland hectares is a direct consequence of the intensification of demand for livestock production. To keep these numbers in check, it is essential that producers strive to use as little feed as possible for as much meat yield as possible – and this directly relates to a key metric of the feed additive industry: Feed Conversion Ratio, mentioned above.

The role of food loss in livestock sustainability

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations defines food loss as the decrease in quantity or quality of food resulting from decisions and actions by food suppliers in the chain, excluding retail, food service providers, and consumers. Food loss specifically refers to food that gets spilled, spoiled, or lost before it reaches the consumer stage, primarily taking place during production, post-harvest, processing, and distribution stages.

Food loss is currently estimated to be relatively stable over the last decades, at around 13%.

Key aspects of food loss

1. Stages of Food Loss:
   • Production: Losses that occur during agricultural production, including damage by pests or diseases and inefficiencies in harvesting techniques.
   • Post-Harvest Handling and Storage: Losses that happen due to inadequate storage facilities, poor handling practices, and lack of proper cooling or processing facilities.
   • Processing: Losses during the processing stage, which may include inefficient processing techniques, contamination, or mechanical damage.
   • Distribution: Losses that occur during transportation and distribution due to poor infrastructure, inadequate packaging, and logistical inefficiencies.
2. Quality and Quantity:
   • Quality Loss: Refers to the reduction in the quality of food, affecting its nutritional value, taste, or safety, which may not necessarily reduce its quantity.
   • Quantity Loss: Refers to the actual reduction in the amount of food available for consumption due to physical losses.
3. Exclusions:
   • Retail and Consumer Level: Food loss does not include food waste at the retail or consumer levels, which is categorized as food waste. Food waste refers to the discarding of food that is still fit for consumption by retailers or consumers.

Importance of reducing food loss

Every step along the production chain, each action taken to preserve feed, increase yield, ensure stable and high meat quality, can contribute to reducing food loss and ensuring that animal protein production stays sustainable and feeds the world more efficiently.

• Food Security: Reducing food loss can help improve food availability and access, particularly in regions where food scarcity is a concern. Where we thought we were on our way to eradicate world hunger, recent upticks in several regions show us that progress is not a given.
• Economic Efficiency: Minimizing food loss can improve the efficiency and profitability of food supply chains by maximizing the utilization of resources.
• Environmental Impact: Reducing food loss helps to decrease the environmental footprint of food production by lowering greenhouse gas emissions and minimizing land and water use. This is all the more important in regions where world hunger shows signs of going up. Perhaps not by coincidence are these regions some of the most affected by climate change.

By understanding and addressing the causes of food loss, stakeholders across the food supply chain can work towards more sustainable and efficient food systems.

What’s next?

Improving production practices and technology

Investment in research and development of new technologies that enhance livestock production efficiency and reduce environmental impact is vital for the future sustainability of the sector.

India is a good illustration of room to grow. If we look at cow milk alone, India, with a headcount of approximately 61 million animals, has a total milk production that is neck-and-neck with the United States, whose dairy cow headcount is in the neighborhood of 9.3 million. India’s milk yield sits around 1,600 liters/animal/year, compared to the US’s average of 10,700 liters.

Optimizing Feed Efficiency

Continued focus on improving FCR through genetic selection, optimized nutrition, and advanced management practices will be crucial for reducing the environmental footprint of livestock production.

Promoting Sustainable Land Use

Strategies to balance the need for increased livestock production with sustainable land use practices are essential. This includes adopting agroecological approaches and improving the efficiency of feed crop production.

Reducing Food Loss

Stakeholders across the food supply chain must prioritize reducing food loss through improved storage, transportation, and processing technologies. This will help ensure that livestock production contributes effectively to global food security.

Enhancing Emission Tracking and Reporting

There is a need for standardized methods for collecting and reporting data on GHG emissions in agriculture. This will enable more accurate assessments and the development of targeted strategies for emission reductions.

References

Bell, D. D. (2002). Laying hens in the U.S. market: An appraisal of trends from the beginning of the 20th century to present. Poultry Science, 81(5), 485-490. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/81.5.485

CarbonWise. (2023). Global greenhouse gas emissions by sector. Retrieved from https://carbonwise.co/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-sector/

Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F. N., Leip, A., … & Janssens-Maenhout, G. (2022). Greenhouse gas emissions from food systems: building the global food system emissions database (GFED). Earth System Science Data, 14(4), 1795-1821. https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1795/2022/essd-14-1795-2022.pdf

European Environment Agency (EEA). (2023). Improving the climate impact of raw material sourcing. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/improving-the-climate-impact-of-raw-material-sourcing

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2021). The State of Food and Agriculture 2021: Making agrifood systems more resilient to shocks and stresses. FAO. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/6e04f2b4-82fc-4740-8cd5-9b66f5335239/content

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2021). Food Loss and Waste Database. FAO. https://www.fao.org/platform-food-loss-waste/food-loss/introduction/en

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2021). Greenhouse gas emissions from agrifood systems. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/platform-food-loss-waste/food-loss/introduction/en

Goldewijk, K. K., & Verburg, P. H. (2013). Per-capita estimations of long-term historical land use and the consequences for global change research. Global Environmental Change, 23(4), 1166-1175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.04.001

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2023). AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023. IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/

Kusuma, A. B., Laga, W. R., & Purnomo, H. (2022). Climate Change and Livestock Farming: Strategies for Mitigation and Adaptation. MDPI, 12(10), 1554. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/10/1554

Matthews, D. (2023). Chicken, meat, and the future of global food: Forecasts and predictions for beef, pork, and more. Vox. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/8/4/23818952/chicken-meat-forecast-predictions-beef-pork-oecd-fao?mc_cid=d1a37e53b6&mc_eid=1b5c5e908a

Our World in Data. (2020). Milk yields per animal. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/milk-yields-per-animal

Our World in Data. (2023). Grazing land use over the long-term, 1600 to 2023. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/grazing-land-use-over-the-long-term

Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. (2020). Food greenhouse gas emissions. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions

Roche, J. R., Friggens, N. C., Kay, J. K., Fisher, M. W., Stafford, K. J., & Berry, D. P. (2013). Invited review: Body condition score and its association with dairy cow productivity, health, and welfare. Animal Frontiers, 3(4), 23-29. https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2013-0032

Sharma, V. P., & Gulati, A. (2020). Changes in Herd Composition a Key to Indian Dairy Production. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=99794

The Last Glaciers. (2023). Decarbonizing Food and Agriculture. Retrieved from https://thelastglaciers.com/decarbonising-food-and-agriculture/

Thoma, G., Jolliet, O., & Wang, Y. (2016). National Pork Board. (2016). Greenhouse gas emissions and the potential for mitigation from the pork industry in the U.S. Retrieved from https://www.porkcheckoff.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/16-214-THOMA-final-rpt.pdf

Thornton, P. K., & Herrero, M. (2015). Impacts of climate change on the livestock food supply chain; a review of the evidence. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2, 93. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4686767/

USDA – National Agricultural Statistics Service. (n.d.). Trends in U.S. Agriculture – Broiler Industry. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Trends_in_U.S._Agriculture/Broiler_Industry/

Zuidhof, M. J., Schneider, B. L., Carney, V. L., Korver, D. R., & Robinson, F. E. (2014). Evolution of the modern broiler and feed efficiency. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences, 2(1), 47-71. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-animal-022513-114132

By Ilinca Anghelescu, Global Director Marketing Communications, EW Nutrition

Medications like GLP-1 receptor agonists, such as semaglutide (marketed as Ozempic, Wegovy, Zepbound etc.), have demonstrated startling efficacy in reducing body weight and are now at the forefront of obesity treatment. Since they work primarily by suppressing appetite, an obvious question is being considered across the entire food chain: will weight loss drugs significantly impact the future of agriculture?

More and more voices are answering “yes”. Not only are models showing a significant impact of these drugs over the medium- and long term, but the demand reduction triggered by weight loss drugs will hurt regions where population peak and shifting demand are already lowering the growth potential of certain segments of agriculture.

Changes are already seen in food consumption

Weight loss drugs like semaglutide work by mimicking the GLP-1 hormone, which regulates appetite and insulin secretion. By doing so, these medications reduce hunger and caloric intake, leading to weight loss. They also appear to reduce consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and junk food. While they have been around for more than a decade, they only recently started to be prescribed for the express purpose of weight loss. In the meantime, medical research is yielding increasingly better results at more affordable prices and with easier application, which will lead to much more widespread adoption around the world.

Currently, around 1.7% of the US population is officially prescribed such drugs, although it is hard to know how many people are actually taking this type of medication. Morgan Stanley expects the figure to grow to 7% within ten years – equivalent to well over 23 million people in the US alone. Even with this currently small percentage, retailers are claiming to see effects. Pepsi, Nestle and Walmart are among those preparing to pivot in the face of expected losses.

As more individuals adopt these drugs for weight management, dietary patterns are expected to shift even more, impacting food demand at both individual and population levels. With a 25% reduction in caloric intake for a considerable slice of the world’s over 1 billion obese people, not to mention overweight populations that might take these drugs off-label, the math speaks for itself.

Potential implications for agriculture

1. Crop Production Adjustments: Farmers might adjust crop production to align with changing consumer preferences. Increased demand for fruits, vegetables, and whole grains could lead to a shift in crop priorities, influencing agricultural planning and resource allocation.
2. Livestock Industry: A potential decrease in demand for high-fat meats and increase in demand for leaner meats could impact the livestock industry, leading to changes in breeding, feeding, and marketing strategies. Animal protein, however, remains much less impacted than industries supplying manufacturers of junk food, alcohol, and tobacco.

Changes in consumer demand will inevitably impact food prices and market dynamics, from the field to retail shelves. Increased demand for healthier food options might lead to industry shifts and higher prices initially, but as production scales up, prices could stabilize. This economic transition will require strategic adjustments across the supply chain.

Bonus problem: World population will peak and decline within two generations

To add insult to injury: United Nations demographic models suggest population growth will peak around 10.3 billion in the mid-2080s, then decline. Naturally, the distribution is unequal across the board, with some countries peaking this year and others growing at staggering speeds.

For instance, 63 countries and areas will already see population peaks in 2024 and are expected to decline by 14% over the next 30 years – including China, Russia, Germany, and Japan.

 

These new demographic models should already shape the long-term plans not just for companies, but for countries and alliances as well – and agriculture will represent a major point of impact. In its case, this map is consistent with FAO’s analysis of growth areas and lends even more credence to the idea of major shifts already felt within a generation. Growth in protein demand will move to what are now seen as developing nations, while developed countries should expect shrinking demand. It is, however, in these developed countries where obesity drugs will hit first and most strongly, lowering demand that is already nearing its peak.

Still: It’s not all bad news!

The emergence of weight loss drugs like semaglutide has the potential to influence dietary patterns significantly, thereby impacting agricultural demand and production. While this is undeniably a challenge, there is a major opportunity here as well: The industries that will be most severely hit do not include healthy protein production. A reduced food intake will likely require a higher quality of nutrition in general, with reduced demand for “empty” calories and increased demand for vitamin-, fiber-, and especially protein-packed meals, tasty as well as nutritionally rich.

 

Further reading

Wilding, J.P.H., et al. (2021). “Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Adults with Overweight or Obesity.” *New England Journal of Medicine*, 384(11), 989-1002. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2032183

Astrup, A., et al. (2021). “Semaglutide for the treatment of overweight and obesity: A review.” *Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism*, 23(S1), 39-49. https://dom-pubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dom.14863

Garnett, T. (2011). “Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)?” *Food Policy*, 36, S23-S32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306919210001132