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

Over the past decade, the food industry witnessed a surge in the popularity of alternative proteins, driven by growing consumer awareness of environmental issues, animal welfare concerns, and health considerations. However, recent trends indicate a decline in both consumer interest and investment in alternative proteins. This article explores the challenges in producing viable replacements for traditional meat, the status of sales investments, and the global outlook for protein consumption.

 

Figure 1. Uncompetitive prices of artificial meat are a critical factor in the market downturn

Challenges in artificial meat production

Producing artificial meat, also known as cultured or lab-grown meat, has been widely hyped and substantially funded over the last decade. However, many challenges remain on several levels.

Cell Culturing and Growth

Cell Source: Obtaining high-quality animal cells is crucial. Researchers typically use muscle cells (myocytes) from animals like cows, pigs, or chickens.

Cell Proliferation: Culturing cells in the lab requires precise conditions, including the right nutrients, temperature, and oxygen levels. Ensuring rapid and efficient cell growth is essential.

Scaffold Development

3D Structure: Creating a meat-like texture involves growing cells on a scaffold that mimics the natural 3D structure of muscle tissue. Developing suitable scaffolds is challenging.

Biocompatibility: The scaffold material must be biocompatible and support cell attachment, proliferation, and differentiation.

Nutrient Supply

Medium Formulation: The nutrient-rich medium used to feed the cells must provide essential amino acids, vitamins, and minerals. Designing an optimal medium is complex.

Cost Efficiency: Developing cost-effective and sustainable nutrient solutions is critical for large-scale production.

Scaling Up Production

Bioreactors: Moving from small-scale lab experiments to large-scale bioreactors is a significant challenge. Bioreactors must maintain consistent conditions for cell growth.

Energy Consumption: Scaling up production while minimizing energy consumption and environmental impact is essential.

Flavor and Texture

Taste and Aroma: Artificial meat would be expected to taste and smell like traditional meat. Achieving the right flavor profile is an ongoing challenge.

Texture: Mimicking the texture of different meat cuts (e.g., steak, ground beef) requires precise engineering.

Safety and Regulation

Food Safety: Ensuring that cultured meat is safe for consumption is critical. Contamination risks, such as bacterial growth, must be minimized.

Regulatory Approval: Cultured meat faces regulatory hurdles related to labeling, safety assessments, and consumer acceptance.

Cost Reduction

High Initial Costs: Currently, producing artificial meat is expensive due to research, development, and infrastructure costs. Reducing these costs is essential for commercial viability.

Acceptance and Perception

Consumer Perception: Convincing consumers that cultured meat is a viable and ethical alternative to traditional meat remains a challenge.

Cultural and Social Factors: Cultural preferences and traditions play a role in consumer acceptance.

Challenges in alternative protein production

As opposed to artificial meat, which still involves animal cells, alternative proteins usually designate plant-based meat imitations. However, producing alternative proteins comes with its own set of challenges.

Diverse protein sources are one challenge that is not easy to overcome. It turns out, it is quite hard to replicate the availability, as well as the diversity of health and nutritional benefits of traditional meat. While plant-based proteins have made significant progress, there’s still room for improvement in terms of variety and availability.

Procuring the technology needed to extract protein efficiently and sustainably is another hurdle. Innovations in extraction methods are essential for scaling up alternative protein production.

Lower nutritional benefits of alternative proteins represent a major hurdle. Not only is it hard to mimic the entirety of meat’s benefits, but plant nutritional values are notoriously fickle depending on region, soil, production type, season, and so on.

Flavor and texture remain extremely elusive. Contenders are closer to a meat-feel than before, yet this remains a major factor skewing negative in consumer perception.

Figure 2: Alternative protein producers have been unable to replicate the taste and texture of traditional meat

Scaling and Supply Chain Challenges are getting more, not less complicated. Achieving affordability at scale is essential for alternative meats to compete with traditional meat products. Additionally, ensuring a robust and efficient supply chain for alternative proteins is a concern that has not found a sustainable solution.

The Status of Alternative Protein Sales and Investment

Sales Trends

According to the Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA), overall plant-based meat units have declined by 8.2% in 2022, while dollar sales decreased by 1.2% following a significant growth phase in previous years. Similarly, Euromonitor International reported that global sales of plant-based meat substitutes grew by only 1% in 2022, a stark contrast to the double-digit growth rates seen earlier in the decade.

Beyond Meat, one of the market leaders, reported a decline in net revenues of 13.9% in the third quarter of 2022 compared to the same period in 2021. This decline reflects broader market trends where consumer enthusiasm appears to be waning.

Figure 3. Rabobank indicates a downward trend in both sales and investments

Investment Trends

Investment in alternative protein startups also shows signs of slowing, with funding of sustainability food and agriculture startups dramatically declining (see Figure 2 below). According to the Good Food Institute (GFI), global investment in alternative proteins dropped 42% year-over-year to $1.2 billion in 2022, a significant decrease from the $3.1 billion invested in 2021.

The financial challenges faced by some high-profile companies have led to increased caution among investors. For instance, Beyond Meat and Oatly have both experienced substantial stock price declines, leading to a reassessment of the market’s growth potential.

Figure 4: 2023 funding variation for climate and sustainability technologies

Factors Contributing to the Decline

Market Saturation and Competition

The initial surge in demand led to rapid market saturation. Numerous companies entered the market, resulting in intense competition and a proliferation of products. This saturation has made it difficult for individual brands to maintain market share and grow sales.

In the US, for example, plant-based milk remains the largest category, while plant-based meat and seafood sales declined substantially in 2023.

Consumer Preferences and Expectations

While early adopters of alternative proteins were driven by ethical and environmental considerations, mainstream consumers remain price-sensitive and often prefer traditional meat products (to the extent they may choose smaller meat portions over alternative proteins). Additionally, taste and texture remain critical factors. Despite advancements, many consumers still find plant-based alternatives lacking in these areas.

Figure 5: Seems fake? Consumers find it hard to believe the claims of identical taste and texture in non-meat products

Economic Factors

The global economic downturn and inflation have impacted consumer spending power. As a result, many consumers are prioritizing affordability over sustainability, leading to reduced purchases of typically more expensive plant-based products.

Regulatory and Supply Chain Challenges

Regulatory hurdles and supply chain disruptions have also played a role. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated supply chain issues, affecting the availability and cost of raw materials needed for alternative protein production.

Conclusion: Global Outlook for Protein and Alternative Proteins

Traditional meat consumption continues to grow, particularly in emerging markets. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), global meat consumption is projected to increase by 14% by 2030, driven by population growth and rising incomes in developing countries.

Advances in food technology, such as precision fermentation and cell-cultured meat, offer the potential to create products that more closely mimic traditional meat. However, the recent decline in interest in alternative proteins reflects a complex interplay of market saturation, economic factors, and consumer preferences.

High prices, lack of scalability, sustainability concerns, and an inability to recreate the nutritional content, texture, and taste of meat are hurdles that cannot be easily overcome. Instead, perhaps a more accessible long-term solution might be improved sustainability in the livestock sector, accompanied by continued innovation and improvements in the production of both traditional protein and alternative proteins.

 

by Marisabel Caballero and Vinil Samraj Padmini, EW Nutrition GmbH

2023 was yet another challenging year for raw materials. Not only is volatility continuing to impact prices and supply security, but 92% of the 7000+ analyses conducted by EW Nutrition were found above detection limits for at least one of the mycotoxins tested.

See how various regions performed in our report.

29 January 2024, Visbek – German-based company EW Nutrition, a global provider of functional animal nutrition solutions, has appointed Gustavo Carlos Tesolin as its Regional Director for Latin America.

An agricultural engineer by training, Gustavo Tesolin has forged an international career in the Animal Health business during the last 25 years. With different leadership roles in several major international organizations such as Novartis, Elanco, and Erber Group, Mr. Tesolin brings along important experience in Commercial Operations, P&L drive, and Strategy execution, with special emphasis on team development and geographic expansion.

“I am really excited to join a company as innovation-driven and science-focused as EW Nutrition,” Tesolin said. “The recent launch of VENTAR D, a novel phytogenic specifically designed and developed to improve animal husbandry results, will continue to strengthen our position in the region, together with our winning brands PRETECT D and ACTIVO” and added, “I am eager to take on the challenge and better acquaint the market with an excellent portfolio centered on Gut Health Management, Digestibility, and Feed Quality.”

Jan Vanbrabant, CEO of EW Nutrition, noted that Gustavo Tesolin is “the perfect combination of the right experience and the right attitude. We are happy to have found in him a proven leader with not just excellent market knowledge, but with the same values we share in EW Nutrition: a passion for innovation in the service of our customers, and relentless curiosity and energy to find the right solution.”

This appointment comes on the heels of several top-tier global hires over the last 18 months and reflects the company’s commitment to the Latin American market.

Tesolin will move to Mexico to coordinate EW Nutrition’s expansion in Latin American countries.

 

About EW Nutrition

EW Nutrition is a German-based international animal nutrition company that offers comprehensive solutions for animal gut health, toxin risk management, growth performance, and more.

 

Press contact

marketing@ew-nutrition.com

Water is a main nutrient and carrier for vaccines, medicine – including antibiotics, but also for pathogens

Chemistry

Microbiology