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.

With 73% of human-use antibiotics also used in food-animal production, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a pressing global health concern, particularly in contexts where humans and animals are in close proximity, such as in animal production facilities. This issue is exacerbated by the widespread use of antibiotics in livestock farming, which not only promotes resistance in bacteria but also poses direct risks to farm workers.

Antimicrobial resistance in farm workers in Denmark

In Denmark, a country renowned for its robust agricultural monitoring systems, significant strides have been made in tracking AMR. A comprehensive report from 2015 emphasized the occurrence of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, particularly in livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (LA-MRSA). The Danish Integrated Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring and Research Program (DANMAP) highlighted that farm workers frequently came into contact with these resistant pathogens, which posed occupational hazards and public health challenges (Bager et al., 2015). The program found that 88% of pigs carried LA-MRSA, and farm workers had significantly elevated exposure risks, particularly in intensive swine operations (DANMAP 2015 Report).

Antimicrobial resistance in farm workers in the US

Studies in the United States have revealed even more alarming statistics. Farm workers in intensive animal farming environments were found to be 32 times more likely to develop antibiotic-resistant infections than the general population. This increased risk was attributed to prolonged exposure to resistant bacteria and antibiotic residues in animal feed and the environment (Silbergeld et al., 2008). The close interaction between humans and animals in confined spaces fosters the transfer of resistant genes, making these workers a vulnerable group.

Mechanisms of resistance spread

The spread of AMR from livestock to humans can occur through several pathways:

• Direct contact: Handling animals and exposure to manure or bodily fluids.
• Airborne transmission: Dust particles containing resistant bacteria.
• Contaminated food: Consumption of undercooked or improperly handled meat products.
• Environmental contamination: Water and soil contaminated with antibiotics or resistant bacteria.

What can be done?

Even in countries where antimicrobials reduction legislation has been in place for almost two decades, such as Germany or Sweden, new resistance cases are constantly discovered. In supermarkets around the world, meat contaminated with antibiotic-resistant superbugs is still a common occurrence. And in antibiotic resistance hot spots, “from 2000 to 2018, P50 increased from 0.15 to 0.41 in chickens—meaning that 4 of 10 antibiotics used in chickens had resistance levels higher than 50%. P50 rose from 0.13 to 0.43 in pigs and plateaued between 0.12 and 0.23 in cattle” (Dall, 2019). These hot spots are spread across the globe, from south and northeast India, northeast China, north Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey, to the south coast of Brazil, Egypt, the Red River Delta in Vietnam, and areas surrounding Mexico City, Johannesburg, and more recently Kenya and Morocco.

Globally, antimicrobial use in animals is projected to increase by 67% by 2030, especially in low- and middle-income countries where regulatory frameworks are weaker. Denmark provides a successful model for mitigating these risks. Policies such as the “Yellow Card” scheme have reduced antibiotic use in pigs by promoting alternative husbandry practices and strict monitoring. This approach has also reduced the prevalence of resistant bacteria in animal populations, offering a replicable strategy for other nations (Alban et al., 2017).

Recommendations for mitigation

• Strengthening surveillance: Programs like DANMAP should be implemented globally to monitor antibiotic usage and resistance trends in animals and humans.
• Reducing antibiotic use: Phasing out non-therapeutic uses of antibiotics, particularly as growth promoters, and avoiding Critically Important Antimicrobials for Human Medicine.
• Protecting workers: Providing personal protective equipment (PPE) and regular health screenings for farm workers.
• Public awareness: Educating communities about the risks of AMR and promoting safe food handling practices.

The evidence from Denmark and the U.S. underscores the urgent need to address AMR in animal production settings. Protecting farm workers from AMR not only safeguards their health but also prevents the spread of resistant pathogens across the wider public.

References

Bager, F., et al. (2015). DANMAP 2014: Use of antimicrobial agents and occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from food animals, food, and humans in Denmark. Retrieved from DANMAP Report.

Industrial food animal production, antimicrobial resistance, and human health. Annual Review of Public Health, 29(1), 151-169.

Alban, L., et al. (2017). Assessment of the risk to public health due to use of antimicrobials in pigs—An example of pleuromutilins in Denmark. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 4, 74. DOI.

Magnusson, Ulf et al. (2024). Chapter 3: Antimicrobial Resistance in Farm Workers and Its Public Health Implications. Advances in Animal Health and Welfare, SpringerLink, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-51788-4_3.

Dall, Chris. (2019) Antibiotic Resistance in Farm Animals Tied to Global Hot Spots. Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP), https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/antimicrobial-stewardship/antibiotic-resistance-farm-animals-tied-global-hot-spots.

Vaughan, Adam. (17 June 2024). Superbugs and E. coli present in Lidl chicken, campaigners find. Retrieved from The Times. https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/superbugs-and-e-coli-present-in-lidl-chicken-campaigners-find-0cncb6s0n

World Animal Protection. (2021). Antimicrobial resistance: The global threat of livestock antibiotic misuse. Retrieved from https://www.worldanimalprotection.us/siteassets/reports-programmatic/amr-2021-report.pdf

Mycotoxin Team EW Nutrition

Most grains used in feed are susceptible to mycotoxin contamination, causing severe economic losses all along feed value chains. As skyrocketing raw material prices force producers to include a higher proportion of economical cereal by-products in the feed, the risks of mycotoxin contamination likely increase. This article reviews why mycotoxins cause the damage they do – and how effective toxin-mitigating solutions prevent this damage.

Mycotoxin contamination of cereal by-products requires solutions

Cereal by-products may become more important feed ingredients as grain prices increase. However, from a sustainability point of view and considering population growth, using cereal by-products in animal feed makes much sense. Distiller’s dried grains with solubles (DDGS) are a good example of how by-products from food processing industries can become high-quality animal feed.

 

Still, research on what happens to mycotoxins during food processing shows that mycotoxins are concentrated into fractions that are commonly used as animal feed (cf. Pinotti et al., 2016; Caballero and Heinzl, 2022). To safeguard animal health and performance when feeding lower-quality cereals, monitoring mycotoxin risks through regular testing and using toxin-mitigating solutions is essentialy.

Problematic effects of mycotoxins on the intestinal epithelium

Most mycotoxins are absorbed in the proximal part of the gastrointestinal tract. This absorption can be high, as in the case of aflatoxins (ca. 90%), but also very limited, as in the case of fumonisins (< 1%); moreover, it depends on the species. Notably, a significant portion of unabsorbed toxins remains within the lumen of the gastrointestinal tract.

Importantly, studies based on realistic mycotoxin challenges (e.g., Burel et al., 2013) show that the mycotoxin levels necessary to trigger damaging processes are lower than the levels reported as safe by EFSA, the Food Safety Agency of the European Union. The ultimate consequences range from diminished nutrient absorption to inflammatory responses and pathogenic disorders in the animal (Figure 2).

1. Alteration of the intestinal barrier‘s morphology and functionality

Several studies indicate that mycotoxins such as aflatoxin B1, DON, fumonisin B1, ochratoxin A, and T2, can increase the permeability of the intestinal epithelium of poultry and swine (e.g., Pinton & Oswald, 2014). This is primarily a consequence of the inhibition of protein synthesis.

As a result, there is an increase in the passage of antigens into the bloodstream (e.g., bacteria, viruses, and toxins). This increases the animal’s susceptibility to infectious enteric diseases. Moreover, the damage that mycotoxins cause to the intestinal barrier entails that they are also being absorbed at a higher rate.

2. Impaired immune function in the intestine

The intestine is a very active immune site, where several immuno-regulatory mechanisms simultaneously defend the body from harmful agents. Immune cells are affected by mycotoxins through the initiation of apoptosis, the inhibition or stimulation of cytokines, and the induction of oxidative stress.

3. Alteration of the intestinal microflora

Recent studies on the effect of various mycotoxins on the intestinal microbiota show that DON and other trichothecenes favor the colonization of coliform bacteria in pigs. DON and ochratoxin A also induce a greater invasion of Salmonella and their translocation to the bloodstream and vital organs in birds and pigs – even at non-cytotoxic concentrations.

It is known that fumonisin B1 may induce changes in the balance of sphingolipids at the cellular level, including for gastrointestinal cells. This facilitates the adhesion of pathogenic bacteria, increases in their populations, and prolongs infections, as has been shown in the case of E. coli. The colonization of the intestine of food-producing animals by pathogenic strains of E. coli and Salmonella also poses a risk to human health.

4. Interaction with bacterial toxins

When mycotoxins induce changes in the intestinal microbiota, this can increase the endotoxin concentration in the intestinal lumen. Endotoxins promote the release of several cytokines that induce an enhanced immune response, causing inflammation, thus reducing feed consumption and animal performance, damage to vital organs, sepsis, and death of the animals in some cases.

The synergy between mycotoxins and endotoxins can result in an overstimulation of the immune system. The interaction between endotoxins and estrogenic agents such as zearalenone, for example, generates chronic inflammation and autoimmune disorders because immune cells have estrogen receptors, which are stimulated by the mycotoxin.

Increased mycotoxin risks through by-products? Invest in mitigation solutions

To prevent the detrimental consequences of mycotoxins on animal health and performance, proactive solutions are needed that support the intestinal epithelium’s digestive and immune functionality and help maintain a balanced microbiome in the GIT. This becomes even more important as the current market conditions will likely engender a long-term shift towards including more cereal by-products in animal diets.

Trial data shows that EW Nutrition’s toxin-mitigating solution SOLIS MAX 2.0 provides adequate protection against feedborne mycotoxins. The synergistic combination of ingredients in SOLIS MAX 2.0 prevents mycotoxins from damaging the animals’ gastrointestinal tract and entering the bloodstream and additionally acts as antioxidant and liver-protecting:

In-vitro study shows strong mitigation effects of SOLIS MAX 2.0 against a wide range of mycotoxins

Animal feed is often contaminated with two or more mycotoxins, making it essential for an anti-mycotoxin agent to be effective against a wide range of different mycotoxins. A trial with SOLIS MAX 2.0 was conducted at an independent laboratory in Spain with an inclusion level of the product of 0.10% (equivalent to 1 kg per ton of feed). A phosphate buffer solution at pH 7 was prepared to simulate intestinal conditions in which a portion of the mycotoxins may be released from the binder (desorption). The following mycotoxins were evaluated in the test (see Table 1):

Table 1: Mycotoxin challenges

Each mycotoxin was tested separately by adding a challenge to buffer solutions, incubating for one hour at 41°C, to establish the baseline (table). At the same time, a solution with the toxin challenge and Solis Max 2.0 was prepared, incubated, and analyzed for the residual mycotoxin to find the binding efficacy. All analyses were carried out using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with standard detectors.

The results (Figure 4) demonstrate that SOLIS MAX 2.0 is a highly effective solution against the most common mycotoxins in raw materials and animal feed.

Mycotoxin risk management for better animal feed

A healthy gastrointestinal tract is crucial to animals’ overall health: it ensures that nutrients are optimally absorbed, provides adequate protection against pathogens through its immune function, and is key to maintaining a well-balanced microflora. Even at levels considered safe by the European Union, mycotoxins can compromise different intestinal functions, resulting in lower productivity and susceptibility to disease.

The globalized feed trade, which spreads mycotoxins beyond their geographical origin, climate change, and raw material market pressures additionally escalate the problem. On top of rigorous testing, producers should mitigate unavoidable mycotoxin exposures by using solutions such as SOLIS MAX 2.0 – for stronger animal health, welfare, and productivity.

References

Antonissen, Gunther, An Martel, Frank Pasmans, Richard Ducatelle, Elin Verbrugghe, Virginie Vandenbroucke, Shaoji Li, Freddy Haesebrouck, Filip Van Immerseel, and Siska Croubels. “The Impact of Fusarium Mycotoxins on Human and Animal Host Susceptibility to Infectious Diseases.” Toxins 6, no. 2 (January 28, 2014): 430–52. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins6020430.

Burel, Christine, Mael Tanguy, Philippe Guerre, Eric Boilletot, Roland Cariolet, Marilyne Queguiner, Gilbert Postollec, et al. “Effect of Low Dose of Fumonisins on Pig Health: Immune Status, Intestinal Microbiota and Sensitivity to Salmonella.” Toxins 5, no. 4 (April 23, 2013): 841–64. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins5040841.

Burton, Emily J., Dawn V. Scholey, and Peter E. Williams. “Use of Cereal Crops for Food and Fuel – Characterization of a Novel Bioethanol Coproduct for Use in Meat Poultry Diets.” Food and Energy Security 2, no. 3 (September 19, 2013): 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.30.

Ghareeb, Khaled, Wageha A. Awad, Josef Böhm, and Qendrim Zebeli. “Impacts of the Feed Contaminant Deoxynivalenol on the Intestine of Monogastric Animals: Poultry and Swine.” Journal of Applied Toxicology 35, no. 4 (October 28, 2014): 327–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.3083.

Mani, V., T. E. Weber, L. H. Baumgard, and N. K. Gabler. “Growth and Development Symposium: Endotoxin, Inflammation, and Intestinal Function in livestock1,2.” Journal of Animal Science 90, no. 5 (May 1, 2012): 1452–65. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4627.

Obremski, K. “The Effect of in Vivo Exposure to Zearalenone on Cytokine Secretion by Th1 and Th2 Lymphocytes in Porcine Peyer’s Patches after in Vitro Stimulation with LPS.” Polish Journal of Veterinary Sciences 17, no. 4 (2014): 625–32. https://doi.org/10.2478/pjvs-2014-0093.

Oswald, I. P., C. Desautels, J. Laffitte, S. Fournout, S. Y. Peres, M. Odin, P. Le Bars, J. Le Bars, and J. M. Fairbrother. “Mycotoxin Fumonisin B1 Increases Intestinal Colonization by Pathogenic Escherichia Coli in Pigs.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69, no. 10 (2003): 5870–74. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.69.10.5870-5874.2003.

Pinotti, Luciano, Matteo Ottoboni, Carlotta Giromini, Vittorio Dell’Orto, and Federica Cheli. “Mycotoxin Contamination in the EU Feed Supply Chain: A Focus on Cereal Byproducts.” Toxins 8, no. 2 (February 15, 2016): 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins8020045.

Pinton, Philippe, and Isabelle Oswald. “Effect of Deoxynivalenol and Other Type B Trichothecenes on the Intestine: A Review.” Toxins 6, no. 5 (May 21, 2014): 1615–43. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins6051615.

Conference report

A well-functioning immune system is vital for the survival and performance of animals. It helps piglets cope with challenging periods, such as their first days of life or weaning. Measures can be taken around farrowing to support the piglets during their first days by enhancing the quality and quantity of colostrum and helping them develop their own immune system as fast as possible.

Adequate feeding of the sow before and around farrowing

Feeding of both the sow and the piglet has an important influence on farrowing, the health of the sow, colostrum and milk production, piglets’ development of immunity, and their later performance. A well-functioning immune system is crucial for the piglets to withstand upcoming challenges such as weaning.

Colostrum quality can be influenced by feeding

Newborn piglets have no functioning immunity system. They rely entirely on immunoglobulin G (IgG) absorption from colostrum within the first few hours after birth to establish their immunity shield. Dr. Megan Edwards, Animal Nutrition Consultant from Integral Nutrition (S) Pte Ltd, highlighted the payback of adequate colostrum quality and intake: Adequate colostrum intake can positively affect whole-of-life immunity and, ultimately, growth performance. The contained IgG is essential for providing passive immunity to piglets, protecting them from infections during their early days of life when their immune systems are still developing. There is a positive correlation between the amount of IgG they absorb from colostrum and their performance. This benefit of colostrum intake is independent of birth weight.

We have a 3-week window to influence colostrogenesis. However, the fat content of colostrum is determined in the last 48 hours before farrowing. According to Dr. Edwards, influencing colostrum quality is generally easier than affecting quantity. She identified several compounds that can serve as immunomodulators, such as MCFAs, yeast extracts, and butyrate. However, by moving IgG to colostrum and milk in late gestation and lactation, the sow compromises her immunity status by depleting her own reserves for about two weeks.

Feeding at farrowing

Sow body condition has been shown to have more impact on colostrum yield than feeding level. The highest colostrum yield was achieved when sows entered the farrowing unit with a moderate body condition (3-3.25 – the ribs, spine, and hip bones can only be felt with firm pressure but are not visibly prominent). Overfeeding should be avoided to prevent sows from becoming excessively fat pre-farrowing.

Sows experience increased energy demands during farrowing due to the physical demands of parturition and the physiological changes occurring in their bodies. Dr. Edwards does not encourage withholding feed on the day of farrowing and suggests offering up to 3kg if the sow has the appetite. Feeding just below the energy requirement helps the sow to mobilize her own body fat.

Many producers mistakenly withhold feed on the day of the farrow to reduce the incidence of constipation. Feeding, however, stimulates gut motility. Withholding feed can slow down gut transit time and actually increase the likelihood of constipation.

Piglet feeding for developing intestinal tract and immune system

In piglet feeding, two strategies are decisive: the early intake of immunoglobulins via colostrum to protect the piglets against pathogens during their first days of life and the offering of creep feed to stimulate their intestinal development.

High-quality colostrum as much and as soon as possible

When the piglets are born, it is of the highest importance that they ingest colostrum as much and as soon as possible. The piglet can only absorb intact large IgG molecules, the primary source of passive immunity, before gut closure, which begins about 6–12 hours after birth and progresses rapidly to completion in about 24 hours. In any case, the sow will start producing milk by this time and no more colostrum. The concentration of colostrum IgG decreases by 50% within 6 hours after the birth of the first piglet. The target is for piglets to consume 250 g of colostrum within the first 24 hours, ideally within the first 6 hours. However, about 30% of sows produce insufficient colostrum.

Split suckling jump-starts weak piglets

Split suckling is an effective management strategy to improve piglets’ access to colostrum and milk, particularly in increasingly common situations where sows give birth to large litters. This involves temporarily separating the more vigorous piglets from the sow to allow smaller or weaker piglets better access to the teats. This method helps ensure that all piglets receive adequate nutrition during the critical early hours after birth.

Large litters provoke energy deficiency in piglets

Piglets are born with limited energy reserves (glycogen and brown fat tissue). Ingestion of colostrum is associated with a considerable increase in the metabolic rate, contributing to maintaining body temperature. About 70% of the piglets’ energy requirement in the first 72 hours is provided by colostrum. “Most piglets that die within this period do so primarily due to energy deficiencies rather than immune-related issues. The trend towards larger litter sizes has exacerbated the issue of energy deficiency,” stated Dr. Edwards.

Creep feeding

The primary role of creep feed is to accelerate the development of the piglets, their digestive and immune systems, and their gut microbiome, not for weight gain. Creep feeding helps evolve digestive enzymes and acid secretion necessary for breaking down complex carbohydrates and proteins. This early feeding supports piglets in adapting to solid diets, mitigating stress during weaning.
Creep feeding also helps piglets develop an oral tolerance to avoid transient hypersensitivity due to various dietary ingredients. This process is essential for preventing allergic reactions and hypersensitivity, which can occur when the immune system mistakenly identifies harmless substances as threats. It takes about two weeks for the piglet to recognize an ingredient as a nutrient, not a pathogen. To facilitate this process, she recommends that creep diets contain a broad range of ingredients at low doses. This approach gradually exposes piglets to various nutrients, allowing their immune systems to adapt without overwhelming them with high concentrations of any single ingredient.

Mycotoxins must be managed – even in piglets

The significance of mycotoxins in piglets is often underestimated due to their relatively small feed intake. However, there is substantial evidence that mycotoxins can be transferred from sows to piglets through colostrum and milk, which can have profound health implications.

Dr. Edwards is convinced that managing mycotoxins is managing immunity. Mycotoxins are transferrable via the placenta, colostrum, and milk. There is a positive correlation between the mycotoxin levels in feed and colostrum. For example, adverse effects seen in piglets consuming colostrum with low doses of deoxynivalenol (DON) include:
• Decreased villus height
• Reduced mucosal integrity
• Increased inflammation
• Alternated immune response
The bottom line is that mycotoxins are a real and everyday risk to the immune quality of your piglets.

Nutrition influences piglets’ immune development

Dr. Edwards summarized that adequate nutrition is fundamental for developing a strong immune system in pigs, which is the basis for high performance. By focusing on the appropriate nutrition of the sow, ensuring an adequate intake of high-quality colostrum intake in piglets, and implementing creep feeding strategies, producers can significantly enhance the lifetime health and productivity of their piglets from an early age.

EW Nutrition’s Swine Academy took place in Ho Chi Minh City and Bangkok in October 2024. Dr. Megan Edwards, an Australian animal nutrition consultant with global research and praxis experience and a keen interest in immuno-nutrition and functional nutrients, was an esteemed guest speaker at this event.

Conference report

To optimize weaner performance, it is helpful to understand the stressful situation the piglets are facing. In contrast to weaning in nature, which occurs gradually until completion at approximately 4-5 months, weaning in intensive pig operations is an acute process, typically occurring at 3-4 weeks of age. This critical phase subjects piglets to multiple stressors, which can have cumulative effects on their health and development.

Furthermore, the weaning process usually coincides with a decline in the levels of maternally derived antibodies. As these antibody levels decrease, piglets become increasingly susceptible to infections, particularly during the stressful transition to solid food and movement from the sow to the new nursery environment. Managing the weaning process carefully is crucial to minimize stress and support immune function.

Weaning factors that influence a successful weaning

Several aspects must be considered to provide the weaning piglets with the best conditions, and diverse measures must be taken. These measures range from the social environment to nutrition, hygiene, and the people dealing with the pigs.

Social dynamics

When forming nursery groups, aim to keep pigs in these groups as long as possible. Moving all pigs to their new environment at the same time can promote a more rapid establishment of social stability. If possible, once weaning groups are selected and placed in the nursery, keep these groups together to harvest. Any change in the pig group will again result in the need for a new hierarchy to be established, along with fighting and disrupting the group. “Allow newly selected nursery groups to establish their hierarchy by avoiding interventions during the first 48 hours, except to treat sick or injured pigs”, recommends Dr. Parke. “A well-enriched environment, such as chewable ropes and toys, can help reduce stress levels and may reduce the frequency of abnormal behaviors such as tail biting and aggression.”

Environmental management

The piglets should be kept at an optimal temperature between 27-30°C – depending on floor type, weight, and age of piglets. Adding a heat lamp/floor mat warm area for just-weaned piglets will further assist thermoregulation and minimize stress through the weaning transition.

Proper ventilation is crucial for maintaining air quality and preventing the buildup of harmful gases like ammonia. Good airflow helps regulate temperature and humidity, reducing stress on the pigs. However, care must be taken to avoid drafts that can chill young pigs. For example, a draft of 0.5 m/second can ‘feel’ like an 8°C drop for the piglet.

Targets for gas, dust, and bacteria levels

Risk factor	Gas			Total dust	Respirable dust	Bacteria
	Ammonia	Hydrogen sulphide	Carbon dioxide
Target levels	<10ppm (20ppm max.)	<5ppm	<3,000ppm (aim for <1,500ppm)	2.4mg/m3	0.23mg/m3	100,000 CFUs/m3

 
Flooring and pen materials should be robust, in good condition, and easily cleaned to reduce the risk of skin abrasions and subsequent infections.

Provide sufficient space (recommended 0.19 m2/8 kg pig on slat/solid floor) in pens to minimize competition for feed and water and to reduce social stress among piglets.

Weaner pigs benefit from using the same type of feeder in the nursery as in the farrowing room. This consistency can help to reduce stress and anxiety during the transition to the nursery and increase the feed intake during the first few days post-weaning.

Nutritional support

Weaning stress and poor feed intake post-weaning commonly result in dysbiosis and a decrease in villus height in the small intestine of piglets. Associated digestive impairment and altered gut morphology can lead to decreased nutrient absorption, as well as enteric and systemic health issues. A palatable transition diet, from 7 days pre- to 7 days post-weaning, is recommended to keep piglets eating. The composition or form of the transition diet should remain the same during this period. Consider using functional feed additives, such as phytomolecules or egg immunoglobulins, to support microbial modulation and gut integrity.

Ensure piglets have access to fresh, cool, and clean water (minimum water flow of 0.5-0.7L/minute), with enough drinking space (maximum of ten piglets per drinker). Consider providing additional water supply points (e.g., bowls) in the first week.

Hygiene and biosecurity

All-in, all-out management avoids the mixing of different age groups. It is particularly beneficial for weaner pigs, as it helps minimize disease transmission. After removing each batch of weaners, the nursery must be thoroughly cleaned, disinfected, and dried. This includes not just the floors but also feeders, waterers, and any equipment used in the room.

There should be strict rules for everything that comes through the external perimeter fence. Internal biosecurity is also essential, e.g., changing into clean, disinfected boots and thoroughly washing hands when moving between rooms/buildings.

Routine monitoring

Regular and proactive monitoring of weaner pigs, including carefully observing their behavior, is essential for ensuring their health and optimizing growth performance. By implementing effective monitoring strategies, producers can identify potential challenges early and take timely interventions to minimize negative impacts.

Pig positive people

Dr. Parke emphasized that the attitude and skills of stockpersons play a significant role in reducing stress during this vulnerable weaning transition period. Positive handling can improve piglet welfare and their future response to human contact, which is crucial for their short and long-term production performance.

Piglets that receive positive handling are likelier to demonstrate affiliative behaviors towards humans, facilitating smoother transitions during weaning and enhancing their overall development. Stockpersons should be trained to recognize signs of stress or discomfort in pigs.

Collaborative approach

“Collaboration is critical for successful weaning; we can’t have silos in pig production unless it’s to store feed,” joked Dr. Parke. “By adopting a proactive approach that emphasizes collaboration and comprehensive management strategies across the production system, pig welfare and long-term productivity of the herd will be enhanced,” she concluded.

EW Nutrition’s Swine Academy took place in Ho Chi Minh City and Bangkok in October 2024. Dr. Merideth Parke, Global Application Manager, Swine, was one of the highly experienced speakers of EW Nutrition. She is a veterinarian who strongly focuses on swine health and preventive medicine.

Conference report

The abrupt transition from the sow’s milk to solid feed, combined with environmental changes and social restructuring, creates a challenging situation for young piglets. Weaning is a critical phase that subjects piglets to multiple stressors, which can have cumulative effects on their health and development. Weaning stressors are inevitable in the piglets’ development; however, effective pre-weaning management practices can significantly minimize their impact on health and performance.

Pre-weaning measures help improve weaner performance.

“Successful weaning of piglets is a multifaceted process that requires careful management and strategic planning well before the actual weaning event,” says Dr. Merideth Parke, Global Application Manager, Swine, EW Nutrition. She emphasized the following key pre-weaning factors that can significantly influence success during this most critical time.

Genetics

Selecting the right genetics for your specific production system is crucial for ensuring successful weaning outcomes. The genetic traits of sows with a direct impact include sow resilience, litter size, piglet birth weights, and overall growth rates.

Furthermore, it is decisive for piglets’ survival and performance that the sow shows strong maternal instincts, and, to ensure enhanced colostrum and milk uptake, an adequate number of functional teats and high milk production.

Gestation and farrowing influencers

Having an optimal body condition score at farrowing is essential for sows. Being overweight or underweight poses the risk of prolonged farrowing and reduced colostrum and milk production.

On the piglet side, prolonged farrowing negatively impacts their vitality at birth, which correlates with reduced colostrum uptake and increased pre-weaning mortality rates.

Environmental conditions

Newborn piglets are particularly vulnerable to hypothermia and have a minimal critical temperature of 33-35°C. Below this range, they struggle to maintain their body temperature, which can lead to increased mortality rates. Cold piglets are less likely to suckle, compromising their energy reserves and ability to maintain body temperature.

In contrast, lactating sows have an optimal temperature of 18-22°C to maximize feed intake and milk production. Therefore, to balance the temperature needs of sow and piglets, it is essential to create a controlled temperature, draft-free creep microenvironment for piglets.

Hygiene

The hygiene of farrowing crates plays an essential role in the successful weaning of piglets. Maintaining a clean environment significantly impacts the health and growth of piglets, ultimately influencing their survival and weight at weaning. “We must consider the time spent cleaning, disinfecting, and drying farrowing crates an investment, not a cost,” emphasized Dr. Parke. “Doing these routine tasks really well will inevitably reduce the time spent treating sick pigs.”

Lactation phase

The primary objective of pre-weaning measures is to ensure adequate colostrum and milk production throughout lactation while beginning the adjustment to solid feed. Efforts should be directed toward facilitating nursing access for all piglets, with particular attention to smaller or weaker ones probably facing difficulties accessing teats.

Split suckling can be the method of choice for improving their colostrum and milk intake, particularly in large litters. For that measure, larger, more robust piglets are separated, allowing smaller or weaker piglets to nurse first. Once the weaker piglets have had sufficient time, the groups are swapped.

However, according to Dr. Parke, fostering piglets is recommended to be undertaken cautiously. “While it can be beneficial, it can significantly disrupt pathogen stability and teat hierarchy, particularly when it occurs after the first 24-48 hours of birth when piglets have established their preference for specific teats. This can increase fighting among piglets as they establish a new hierarchy. This aggression can result in injuries, especially for weaker or smaller piglets. Fighting can also cause damage to the sow’s udder, leading to infections or mastitis, compromising milk production and overall sow health,” she stated.

Nurturing the gut

Providing creep feed for a minimum of 7 days before weaning significantly boosts litter weight at weaning and reduces the risk of post-weaning fallback. Early exposure to solid feed accelerates the development of digestive enzymes and acid production, both essential for breaking down carbohydrates and proteins.

Combining pre-weaning creep feeding with high-quality, palatable post-weaning diets has been shown to lead to piglets with increased post-weaning feed intake, health, and growth during the critical post-weaning transition.

As the swine sector evolves with larger litter sizes and, therefore, increased competition for sows’ milk, using milk replacers is becoming common practice. Following a “little and often” approach by providing small amounts of fresh milk replacer multiple times a day is most effective. The hygienic preparation and feeding of milk replacers go without saying to prevent the growth of harmful bacteria and molds that can lead to diarrhea and other health issues in piglets.

Collaborative approach

The swine industry is grappling with mounting challenges associated with post-weaning stress and health, exacerbated by the prohibition of AGPs and the use of pharmacological levels of dietary zinc and copper in many regions. Addressing these issues requires a coordinated strategy to improve piglet welfare and optimize production outcomes. “By adopting a proactive approach emphasizing collaboration and comprehensive management strategies across the production system, piglet welfare and long-term productivity can be enhanced,” concluded Dr. Parke.

EW Nutrition’s Swine Academy took place in Ho Chi Minh City and Bangkok in October 2024. Dr. Merideth Parke, Global Application Manager, Swine, was one of the highly experienced speakers of EW Nutrition. She is a veterinarian who strongly focuses on swine health and preventive medicine.

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 I. Heinzl, Editor, and Predrag Persak, Regional Technical Manager North Europe

Optimal rearing conditions for piglets are crucial for ensuring their healthy growth, reducing mortality, and enhancing productivity. These conditions include proper temperature, nutrition, housing, hygiene, and care. Here are the key aspects:

1. Temperature and ventilation

Piglets are sensitive to cold because they cannot regulate their body temperature effectively in the first few days after birth. Proper temperature control is essential to prevent chilling, possibly leading to illness and death. Additionally, regulating the temperature would cost energy, which otherwise could be spent for growth.
Signs of a too-cold environmental temperature are piling on top of one another, tucking the legs under the body, being unable to get up, laying near a corner or wall, or shivering, which may stop if the conditions worsen. Measuring the body temperature shows less than 35°C in the case of chilling.

The following temperatures are recommended for successful piglet rearing:

Farrowing unit (for newborns)	32 – 35°C (90–95°F) during the first few days
After the first week	The temperature can gradually decrease by about 1.5-2.0°C per week until it reaches 25°C (77°F)

For supplemental heating, heat lamps, heated floors, or creep areas (a designated warm spot) can be used to maintain the ideal temperature, especially in cooler climates.

Temperature is often closely related to ventilation. Ventilation is essential to reduce dust, humidity, ammonia, and other harmful substances occurring in the air. However, if fresh/cold air enters the pigsty, the temperature decreases, which can get dangerous for the piglets. Suitable ventilation means finding a good balance between providing fresh air and maintaining temperature to prevent energy losses and chilling of the piglets.

Comfort zones can be a solution. They are an effective way to keep the piglets warm and ventilation rates where needed to maintain proper air exchange and humidity levels.

2. Nutrition

Nutrition is critical for piglet growth and immune system development. Most important after birth is the access to colostrum. Piglets are born with an immature immune system, and the maternal antibodies ingested with the colostrum are vital for their survival. They should consume colostrum within the first 6 hours after birth.

It will take 5 to 7 days for piglets to stabilize and get regular on suckling schedule.

At around seven days of age, it is recommended to introduce a highly digestible, nutrient-dense creep feed that helps transition piglets from milk to solid food. Fresh and clean water of the best quality must always be available.

Never forget most important nutrient, beside sow´s love and care – water. Allow piglets free access to the excellent quality water.

3. Housing and Space

A well-designed, clean, and dry environment is critical for reducing stress and promoting health. Farrowing crates help prevent sows from accidentally crushing the piglets during the first few weeks. However, these farrowing crates should provide enough space for the sow to nurse the piglets while allowing piglets to move freely.

Separate warm and clean areas (creep spaces) for the piglets within the farrowing pen are helpful to help the piglets escape from cooler or potentially dangerous parts of the crate. Straw, sawdust, or rubber mats should be provided to keep the piglets warm and comfortable, and good drainage is essential to maintain dryness.

4. Hygiene and Health

Hygiene is crucial to prevent disease and promote the health of piglets. For this purpose, pens and farrowing units should be thoroughly cleaned. Regular removal of waste and keeping bedding dry helps control pathogens. It is essential to clean and disinfect the farrowing unit from one farrowing to the other to reduce disease risks.

Health: After birth, the piglets’ umbilical cord stump should be disinfected to prevent infections. A further essential precautionary measure to prevent anemia is an oral supplementation or an iron injection within the first three days of life, as piglets are born with low iron levels.

For further health monitoring and management, it should be ensured that the piglets are vaccinated against common diseases, such as E. coli, Mycoplasma, and Porcine Circovirus. Additionally, deworming protocols and monitoring for signs of parasites should be implemented for parasite control.

5. Weaning Practices

Piglets are typically weaned between 3 and 4 weeks of age, but early weaning (around 21 days) can be practiced in intensive systems. Optimal weaning requires gradual adaptation to solid feed and a stress-free environment.

If the piglets are weaned at 21 to 28 days, a high-quality starter diet after weaning is essential to maintain growth rates and minimize post-weaning stress.

6. Minimizing Stress

Stress management is essential to prevent disease and poor growth. For this purpose, minimize handling to the minimum during the first few days and, if necessary, handle the piglets gently to reduce stress.

A new environment also means strain for the piglets, so keep the litter groups together during weaning to reduce fighting and social stress.

7. Supportive functional feed ingredients

Depending on veterinary and managing practices, the availability of feed, and the possible use of antimicrobials or other medicals as prophylactics, there can be high variability in rearing conditions in diverse areas of the world. In the following, two functional feed ingredients with entirely different modes of action are presented that support piglets at different rearing conditions.

7.1 Egg immunoglobulins (IgY) support piglets under poor rearing conditions

Egg immunoglobulins are beneficial if piglets are not raised under the best conditions, meaning lower hygienic standards and higher pathogenic pressure. With egg immunoglobulins coming from hens having been in contact with pathogens relevant to piglets, it is possible to support the young animals. What is the background? Hens are able to transfer maternal antibodies against diseases that they are confronted with to the egg. With this mechanism, they can provide their progeny with a starter kit for the first time after hatching. However, the best thing is that these antibodies are also helpful for mammals.

A trial conducted on a commercial farm in Spain shows the weight development of piglets fed an IgY-containing egg powder product (EP) compared to a negative control. The weaned piglets were fed a two-phase feeding (15 days prestarter, 22 days starter). The control (n=51) received no additional functional feed ingredient, whereas the EP group was fed 2 kg of the product/t of feed during the prestarter phase. The animals were weighed individually on days 16 and 37.

The results are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Explanation of the results: Under poor hygienic conditions, the pathogenic pressure is relatively high, and everything lowering this pressure helps to improve gut health, the utilization of nutrients, and performance. Egg immunoglobulins positively influence the gut microbiome, thus helping reduce diarrhea. By lowering the pathogenic pressure, the organism’s energy can be used for growth and must not be employed for the body’s defense.

7.2 Phytomolecules can even show improvement under optimum conditions

Phytomolecules generally show diverse gut health-promoting effects, from driving the intestinal microbiome in the right direction and strengthening the intestinal barrier to acting as antioxidants or anti-inflammatories or increasing the secretion of digestive juices and, therefore, improving digestion. Which mode of action is relevant if the piglets are raised under already optimal conditions (best hygiene, no prophylactic antibiotics or zinc oxide) and show the highest growth? Is there still room for improvement? Yes, it is. A trial conducted in Germany adduces evidence.

In this trial, 220 piglets weaned on average at 26 days and weighing around 8 kg were housed in 20 pens of 11 castrated males or gilts each. Piglets were blocked by body weight and fed a two-phase feeding program (phase 1 from day 1 to day 13 and phase 2 from day 17 to day 40; pelleted diet). Neither feed or water medication nor therapeutic levels of ZnO were used.

The results of this piglet trial can be seen in Figures 3 and 4.

Explanation of the results: The figures show that the piglets in the control already have an extremely high weight compared to those of a similar age in the previous trial, indicating the best rearing conditions in this trial. But, even here, Ventar D has the capacity to improve performance. Why? High-performing animals stress their body more than low-performing ones. Anabolic processes increase oxidative stress and non-infectious inflammation and burden the immune system. The relevant mode of action of Ventar D is not the gut health-promoting or the antimicrobial one because there is no issue. The relevant modes of action in this case are antioxidant and anti-inflammatory. With these two characteristics, Ventar D still has the capacity to improve the performance of piglets that are already at the top level.

8. Conclusion

For high piglet performance, providing the best possible rearing conditions is essential. However, there are differences concerning these conditions in different areas of the world. Depending on them, different feed strategies can be used. Egg immunoglobulins show the best effects if there is a certain pathogenic pressure. Phytomolecules, however, due to their various modes of action, can be beneficial under different levels in rearing conditions. In a low standard, the antimicrobial and gut health-promoting effect is more relevant; in the case of best conditions, the anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory effects are decisive.

In summary, it could be said that functional feed ingredients have significant advantages in piglet rearing, but the right choice must be made depending on the prevailing conditions.

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

 

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a significant threat to global health, driven by the overuse and misuse of antibiotics in both human medicine and livestock farming. In livestock farming, antimicrobials are still used extensively for therapeutic and non-therapeutic purposes. However, estimates of the quantities used per species are notoriously hard to derive from fragmented, incomplete, or unstandardized data around the world.

A recent article (“Global antimicrobial use in livestock farming: an estimate for cattle, chickens, and pigs”, Animal, 18(2), 2024) attempts to update the figures by estimating global biomass at treatment of cattle, pigs, and chickens, considering distinct weight categories for each species in biomass calculation, and using the European Medicines Agency’s weight standards for the animal categories. With these more refined calculations, authors Zahra Ardakani, Maurizio Aragrande, and Massino Canali aim to provide a more accurate estimate of global antimicrobial use (AMU) in cattle, chickens, and pigs. Understanding these patterns is crucial for addressing AMR and developing strategies for sustainable livestock management.

Key Findings

The study estimates that the global annual AMU for cattle, chickens, and pigs amounts to 76,060 tons of antimicrobial active ingredients. This is a significant revision from previous estimates due to a more detailed evaluation of animal weights and categories:

1. Cattle: 40,697 tons (53.5% of total AMU)
2. Pigs: 31,120 tons (40.9% of total AMU)
3. Chickens: 4,243 tons (5.6% of total AMU)

Methodology

The study utilizes the concept of Population Correction Units (PCU) to estimate antimicrobial usage, taking into account the weight and category of livestock at the time of treatment. This method differs from previous approaches that relied on live weight at slaughter, providing a more accurate representation of AMU.

The PCU is calculated by multiplying the number of animals by their average weight during treatment. This approach allows for differentiation by age and sex, which is particularly important for species like cattle and pigs.

Figure 2: (a) Changes in global PCU (million tonnes), (b) changes in global antibiotic use in mg per PCU, and (c) changes in global AMU (thousand tonnes) for cattle, chickens, and pigs; between 2010 and 2020.  Abbreviations: PCU = Population Correction Unit; AMU = Antibiotic Use.

Study shows lower AMU than previous estimates

The study highlights a significant shift in AMU patterns, with chickens showing a remarkable decrease in antimicrobial use despite increased production. This is indicative of improved management and more responsible use of antibiotics in the poultry industry.

The lower AMU in cattle and pigs, compared to previous estimates, underscores the importance of considering animal age and weight at treatment. These findings align closely with World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) estimates, validating the methodology.

However, the study also acknowledges limitations, including reliance on European standards for average weight at treatment, which may not reflect global variations. Additionally, the lack of comprehensive global data on veterinary antibiotics presents challenges in creating fully accurate estimates.

Corrected estimate highlights improved production advances

This study provides a revised and potentially more accurate estimate of global antimicrobial use in livestock. By accounting for the weight and treatment categories of animals, it offers insights that could guide policy and management practices to mitigate the spread of antimicrobial resistance.

The article also indicates that the industry may have over-estimated antimicrobial usage in livestock and, just as importantly, that antimicrobial use has been kept in check or even reduced, despite increases in farmed animal headcounts. The lower usage is likely due to regulatory oversight and improvements in alternative methods to control and mitigate health challenges.