Recently, The Poultry Site’s Sarah Mikesell interviewed Predrag Persak, EW Nutrition’s Regional Technical Manager for Northern Europe. The conversation covered topics as wide as sustainability and challenges in poultry production, and as narrow as intestinal permeability. Thanks to The Poultry Site for the great talk!

Watch the video

Sarah Mikesell, The Poultry Site: Hi, this is Sarah Mikesell with The Poultry Site, and today we are here with Predrag Peršak. He is the Regional Technical Manager for Northern Europe with EW Nutrition. Thanks for being with us today, Predrag.

Predrag Peršak, EW Nutrition: Nice to be here, Sarah. Thank you for inviting me.

SM: Very good. It’s nice to visit with you. And today, Predrag and I are in Berlin, Germany, at an exclusive event for the poultry industry called Producing for the Future, which is sponsored by EW Nutrition. You are one of our speakers today, Predrag, so I’m going to ask you just a few questions to let everybody know a little bit about your presentation.

You’ve described animal nutrition as “never boring and never finished.” What makes this field so dynamic and constantly evolving for you?

PP: I’ve been in animal nutrition for about 25 years. And in those 25 years, I would say that not even half a year passed without something extraordinary happening. From genetics to animal husbandry, especially here in Europe, we also have a lot of pressure from consumers and slaughterhouses to adapt production to the needs of the customers.

Sustainability, sourcing raw materials, and the variety of raw materials available in Europe – and the constant development of new ones – make life for an animal nutritionist very, very interesting. It’s also very challenging, and through these challenges you learn a lot.

So, applying what we learned 20 years ago is simply not enough anymore. For someone who wants to be challenged every day with new things, this is definitely the right industry to be in – especially now.

SM: Excellent. Can you explain your holistic approach to animal nutrition and how considering multiple factors benefits practical applications on farms?

PP: The concept of a holistic approach in animal nutrition is not new. But for me – being both a veterinarian and a nutritionist – it means having deeper insight into the animal itself, into all the metabolic processes, and also into the external influences: husbandry, genetics, diseases, and management. Looking at how all of these interact, we can only really solve problems by looking at the animal as a whole system.

The same applies to feed production. You cannot look at a feed mill as just one compartment. You have to look at sourcing raw materials, their quality, how they are processed – milling, pelleting, and other technologies – and then see how that feed performs on the farm.

So, a holistic approach can be applied both from the animal perspective and from the feed production perspective, across all steps and processes. This is something we use and promote daily in our work with customers.

SM: Very good. You’ve worked with unconventional protein and fiber sources. We’re hearing a lot more about that recently. What are those, and what potential do they bring to animal nutrition?

PP: When I talk about unconventional protein and fiber sources, we need to remember that the global feed production scene is very diverse. What applies in the U.S. or Brazil does not necessarily apply in Europe or the Far East.

Here in Europe, we try to use not by-products but co-products of food production. For example, different fractions of rapeseed or sunflower meal, which are widely produced in Europe but not often used by mainstream nutritionists due to certain limitations. By finding the right processing methods and combining them with technologies, we can make these unconventional materials usable in mainstream nutrition.

The same goes for fiber sources. Both fermentable and structural fibers are increasingly important for intestinal and digestive development, as well as for overall animal health. So, processing fibers in ways that maximize usability while minimizing negative effects is a big part of my work.

SM: From a cost standpoint for producers, are those lower-cost inputs, or just alternatives they need to look at?

PP: In Germany we have a perfect expression for this: “yes and no.” There is always pressure on price, especially in poultry, because food must be accessible to everyone. But at the same time, food must not harm the environment or human health, and we should use all resources not fit for humans but still usable for animals.

So, it’s not only about cost – about availability and sustainability. Working with just two, three, or five raw materials for a long time is not the way forward. The way forward is to think of everything that can be used properly, for the benefit of the animals, and ultimately to produce enough food for the world.

Also, using locally available products is important. Feed production is very diverse around the world—raw materials in Southeast Asia differ completely from those in Europe, Brazil, or the U.S. Using technologies to enable the use of locally produced by-products makes production not only sustainable, but also economically viable for local communities. That’s really the core of the feed industry: using what is produced locally.

SM: Interesting. Very cool. How does your interdisciplinary work across poultry, pigs, and ruminants give you unique insights that might be missed with a narrower focus?

PP: I come from a small feed mill in a small country, Croatia. There, you don’t have deep specialization by species or even by category, as you find in larger markets. Specialization has its advantages, but it can also limit creativity and “outside-the-box” thinking.

By working with ruminants, I learned about fermentation processes – knowledge that can be applied to pigs and even to poultry. For example, fermentation can reduce anti-nutritional factors, allowing higher inclusion levels of certain raw materials in poultry diets.

With pigs, fermentation of fibers – especially in piglets – is crucial, and some of that knowledge could be applied to turkeys, where we still face health issues.

So, working across species demands a lot – it leaves little time for other things – but it opens up unique perspectives and cross-species applications that benefit the entire livestock industry.

SM: I was talking with someone yesterday about mycotoxins – there’s a lot of research in pigs but less in poultry. That’s kind of what you’re talking about, right? Applying knowledge across species?

PP: Absolutely. We’re focused now on poultry, but we can learn from poultry too – not only about feeding but also about farm management, biosecurity, and more. These lessons can also apply to pigs or ruminants.

It’s all holistic – you cannot solve everything with nutrition alone. It’s always a package.

SM: You presented today about the importance of intestinal permeability. Why is it important, and how can understanding it impact animal health and performance outcomes?

PP: Intestinal permeability is one of the key features we use to describe gut health. Personally, I’m very practical. For 20 years we’ve talked about “gut health,” but the real question for veterinarians and nutritionists is: what do we actually do with that knowledge?

In my presentation, I explained intestinal permeability as a “point of no return” in gut health. When leaky gut develops, everything else can deteriorate – faster or slower – but it won’t return to normal without intervention.

By comparing how different stressors or pathogens impact intestinal permeability, we can better understand severity and decide where to focus. Nutritionists already pay attention to thousands of factors, but we need to identify the most impactful ones. That was my key message: focus on the most important drivers.

SM: And leaky gut has really become something the whole industry is talking about, right? I’ve even seen it in human health – my doctor has posters about it.

PP: Exactly. Across cows, pigs, and poultry, leaky gut is getting a lot of attention. It’s a physiological or pathophysiological feature that marks the point of no return.

We can talk about dysbiosis and all the causes, but once you reach leaky gut, you understand where intervention is needed. And it’s not just hype. For example, recently Nature published research showing certain types of human bone marrow conditions are linked to leaky gut and microbial influence on blood processes.

So, this is not a passing trend. It’s fundamental. And once we solve one issue, another door opens. That’s why this industry is never boring.

SM: Very good. Well, thank you for all the information today, Predrag.

PP: Thank you, Sarah. It was a pleasure to talk with you.

Watch the video on The Poultry Site.

Conference Report

Nowadays, climate change is an omnipresent topic. Extreme weather events, such as high temperatures and heavy rainfall, are becoming more frequent, and there has been a rapid increase in greenhouse gas concentrations since the 1850s. Climate change will also have consequences for the pig industry. Dr. Jan Fledderus, Schothorst Feed Research, discussed upcoming issues for the pig industry at EW Nutrition’s Swine Academy.

Shift in mycotoxin-producing fungi

Climate change is likely to expand the geographical range of mycotoxin-producing fungi, exposing new crops and areas previously considered low risk to higher contamination levels. For instance, regions in South and Eastern Europe have reported increased occurrences of aflatoxins due to hotter and drier conditions favoring Aspergillus flavus over Fusarium species.

European Green Deal

The European Commission has adopted the European Green Deal, a comprehensive policy initiative to address climate change and promote sustainability within the European Union (EU). It sets ambitious targets and outlines a roadmap for reducing greenhouse gases by at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels, and achieving climate neutrality by 2050. The EU’s primary goal is to ensure food security while reducing environmental and climate footprint.

The EU regulation on deforestation-free products includes soybeans and palm oil. The objective is to guarantee that the products EU citizens consume do not contribute to deforestation or forest degradation worldwide. Effective 1 January 2026, all imported soy must be free of deforestation. This means soybeans must be from areas not deforested since 1 January 2021.

The Green Deal will affect pig production

While it is still early to fully assess the impacts of the European Green Deal on pig farmers, it is clear that regulatory changes, economic pressures, and shifts in consumer behavior will shape the future of pig farming in the EU. Several potential consequences are still being assessed, including:

• Halving nutrient losses, particularly nitrogen, influences the eutrophication of natural areas and surface water, which will likely require pig farmers to adjust their feeding strategies and potentially reduce herd sizes.
• The use of food waste and by-products, such as wheat bran, in pig diets will be encouraged, promoting a circular economy approach that minimizes waste and enhances resource efficiency.
• Costs (notably related to feed) are likely to increase due to manure management and a reduction in crop production due to stricter environmental regulations.
• Farmers may need to invest in more sustainable practices and technologies to comply with new regulations, which could strain finances unless supported by subsidies or compensatory payments.
• Reduced supply and higher consumer prices for pigmeat products.
• Encouraging a shift towards plant-based diets in humans, which may reduce demand for pork (and other animal proteins).
• There may be opportunities for the pig industry to develop premium products that meet sustainability criteria or cater to specific consumer preferences.

Defining sustainability

It is necessary to apply a uniform method to calculate sustainability parameters and define objectives for “sustainable pig feed.” The Global Feed LCA Institute (GFLI) is the global standard for raw material parameters. It gives data by different methods to calculate carbon dioxide (feed/food), with detailed data per country of origin, including peat oxidation. It includes 16 environmental impact categories.

Climate-neutral pig production

How does this impact pig production? Firstly, feed contributes 50-70% of CO₂ equivalents/kg of pigmeat. Secondly, it is essential to have a uniform method to calculate the CO₂ equivalents/kg of pigmeat. Currently, there are no financial benefits for pig farmers to improve sustainability.

Based on scenario calculations, Dr. Fledderus concluded that it is challenging to realize ‘zero emissions’ and that improving on all environmental impact parameters is not realistic. Formulating pig diets to reduce CO2 equivalents to produce ‘green pork’ increases feed costs. The obvious question is, who will pay for this?

 

EW Nutrition’s Swine Academy took place in Ho Chi Minh City and Bangkok in October 2024. Dr. Jan Fledderus, Product Manager and Consultant at the S&C team at Schothorst Feed Research, one of the founders of the Advanced Feed Package and with a strong focus on continuously improving the price/quality ratio of the diets for a competitive pig sector, was a reputable guest speaker in these events.

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.

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.

Silbergeld, E. K., Graham, J., & Price, L. B. (2008). 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

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.

 

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.

 

The European Environment Agency (EEA) has recently published a briefing detailing the impact of veterinary antimicrobials on Europe’s environment. Positive developments are to be applauded, however they do not tell the whole story.

The use of antimicrobials for farmed animals and in aquaculture decreased by around 28% between 2018 and 2022. Nonetheless, the rate of antimicrobial resistance continues to rise around the world, including as an important cause of death in the European Economic Area (the EEA includes all EU countries, as well as Norway, Lichtenstein, and Iceland). At present, antimicrobial-resistant infections are estimated to caused 35,000 deaths per year in the European Union. For reference, in the EU, traffic accidents cause around 20,000 deaths per year.

A large number of EU guidelines, policies, and regulations attempt to control and monitor the use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals. This makes the regulatory landscape somewhat confusing, especially that many implementation details are still left to the states.

Figure 1. Overview of the EU regulatory framework applicable to antimicrobials used in food-producing animals

One of the results of unequal implementation is that there is no standardized way of tracking the actual use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals. To collect the numbers, the EEA has used proxy numbers, especially antimicrobial sales data and self-reported data. With such broad strokes, it is to be expected that the actual figures might be higher.

Lower numbers…

According to the European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption (ESVAC) database, in the European Economic Area countries, plus Switzerland and the UK, total antimicrobial consumption for farmed animals and aquaculture was estimated at 73.9 mg/PCU* in 2022. This signifies a 30% reduction over 5 years.

In numbers: 4,458 tons of active substances were sold in one years for farmed animals & aquaculture.

*PCU represents a population correction unit (PCU). The PCU takes into account the population and relative weight of animals and “is used the normalize antimicrobial sales data for the size of the animal population that could potentially be treated with these substances. Using this methodology, 1 PCU corresponds to 1 kilogram of animal biomass”.

…But higher risks

In 2021, total antimicrobial consumption in humans – measured in 28 European countries – was estimated at 125.0 mg/kg. This number has unfortunately not gone down. What is worse: a much larger volume of antimicrobials is sold for food-producing animals than for human medicine. Which means that, relative to the total population, the impact of veterinary-use antimicrobials remains disproportionately large.

Moreover, two outliers (Poland and Lithuania) exhibited a worrying increasing trend, showing that no good development is irreversible. The EEA also highlights this danger, in the context of growing global consumption of animal protein. Increased demand “may put pressure on farmers to adopt intensive production practices that require increased use of antimicrobials”. The use of antimicrobials elsewhere in the world may lead to impacts in Europe, “not just by theoretically exposing consumers to antimicrobial residues but also by contributing to rising global rates of drug-resistant pathogens and infections”.

Figure 2. Sales by EU Member States in 2018 vs. 2022

Because of declining livestock populations in the last few years, while demand remained constant, EU-27 imports of animal products more than doubled between 2002 and 2022. There are no reliable global data on the veterinary use of antimicrobials, however it is generally believed that over 70% of antimicrobials sold globally may be used in for animal protein production.

Data collected by the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) from its member countries suggest that, between 2017-2019, “the use of antimicrobials in animals decreased by 25% in the Asia, Far East and Oceania regions, while it increased in Africa (+45%) and the Americas (+5%). Despite these partial improvements, a recent study forecasted that global use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals could rise by 8% in 2030, compared to 2020 levels (Mulchandani et al., 2023)”.

Quick summary

Reduction in Antimicrobial Use: There has been a significant reduction in the use of antimicrobials in farming and aquaculture across the EU. From 2018 to 2022, there was a decrease of approximately 28%, which aligns with the EU’s Farm to Fork strategy targeting a 50% reduction by 2030.

Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR): Despite the decrease in use, antimicrobial resistance remains a severe public health threat, causing an estimated 35,000 deaths annually in the European Economic Area. The resistance is attributed to the use of antimicrobials, which – as has been widely documented and discussed – can promote the evolution of resistant microorganisms.

Environmental Impact: The briefing underscores significant knowledge gaps in monitoring antimicrobial residues, resistant bacteria, and resistance genes in the environment. Improved surveillance could help identify pollution hotspots and assess the impact of reduction measures.

Regulatory and Policy Framework: The EU has implemented several policies to regulate the use of antimicrobials, including banning their use as growth promoters and setting stricter conditions for prescriptions. These measures are crucial for managing the risk of AMR.

Further efforts are needed to decrease the reliance on antimicrobials in food production. These include enhanced monitoring, promoting alternative practices in animal farming, and better animal welfare and biosecurity measures.

While improvements are clear and commendable in the EU-27 states, increased antimicrobial usage in some EU countries and in various areas around the world represent a significant concern.

For further details on the use of veterinary antimicrobials in Europe’s environment, you can refer to the EEA’s full report.

By Ilinca Anghelescu, Global Director Marketing Communications, EW Nutrition

This may be the year that climate change has arrived in humanity’s backyard, driving home the repercussions of human action and the finite nature of our planet’s resources. More than ever, it is also becoming clear that we cannot fight climate change in our own backyard but that long-term cross-border action is imperative.

With the visible threat of extreme events nearer than ever, companies and countries feel pressured to show their commitment to sustainable practices. The shape this commitment takes is, however, very different. The slew of regulations and policies directly or indirectly aimed at promoting sustainability may take the shape of water or energy management, environmental protection, specific business practice regulations, and may or may not include reporting obligations and monitoring bodies. Some international initiatives are attempting to impose such obligations, with varying degrees of success. Reading between the lines, the number of regulations is not the problem; it is the competencies in standardizing and enforcing these regulations that prove more difficult.

Sustainability regulations in the European Union

The European Union is both the fastest warming region (with the exception of the Arctic) and probably the most advanced in terms of regulatory pressure. It has been steadily developing not just specific regulations aimed at green growth, but also specific reporting tools to avoid greenwashing and standardize the monitoring and measuring of this commitment.

The largest sustainability initiative, the EU’s Green Deal, unveiled in 2019, is a comprehensive policy framework aimed at making Europe the world’s first climate-neutral continent by 2050. Among its objectives are reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing energy efficiency, and promoting circular economy practices. Key regulations include:

• European Emissions Trading System (EU ETS): The EU ETS is a “cap and trade” scheme that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union. It is the first and largest carbon market, covering around 45% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions, and is operational across the EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway. The system works by setting a cap on the total amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted by all participating installations. Within this cap, operators buy or receive emissions allowances, which they can trade with one another as needed. The fourth phase started in January 2021 and is to continue until December 2030, however the reduction target for 2030 needs to be reassessed.
• Single-Use Plastics Directive: This regulation aims to reduce single-use plastics and their impact on the environment by banning certain products and promoting recycling.
• Circular Economy Action Plan: Designed to reduce waste and promote recycling, this plan outlines initiatives to make products more durable and easier to repair. The plan includes measures on product design, waste management, and resource efficiency.
• Taxonomy Regulation: This regulation establishes an EU-wide classification system for environmentally sustainable economic activities. The taxonomy defines which economic activities can be considered environmentally sustainable, based on their contribution to environmental objectives such as climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity, and water protection.

More recent but directly concerned with regulating and reporting sustainability in business practices are the following:

• Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR): The SFDR requires financial market participants and advisers to disclose information about how they integrate sustainability risks into their investment decisions, consider and disclose the adverse impacts of their investments on sustainability factors.
• Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD): This requires companies to report on a wide range of sustainability issues, including environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors. The reporting requirements will be phased in, starting from January 1, 2024, for certain large EU and EU-listed companies, and will apply to all in-scope companies by January 1, 2028.

In addition to these regulations, the EU also provides financial support for sustainable projects through its Horizon Europe research and innovation program. Horizon Europe has a budget of €95.5 billion for the period 2021-2027, and a significant portion of this funding will be used to support research and innovation in areas such as climate change mitigation, renewable energy, and sustainable agriculture.

Sustainability regulations in the United States

The United States traditionally has a more decentralized approach to regulations, with federal, state, and local governments all playing important roles. Key federal regulations and initiatives in the field of sustainability include:

1970. Clean Air Act: Enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), this law aims to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. This law regulates air pollution from a variety of sources, including power plants, factories, and vehicles. The Clean Air Act has helped to reduce air pollution in the US by over 70% since it was passed in 1970.
1971. Clean Water Act: Also administered by the EPA, this act sets standards for water quality, aiming to protect aquatic ecosystems. This law regulates water pollution from a variety of sources, including factories, farms, and sewage treatment plants. The Clean Water Act has helped to improve water quality in the US by over 70% since it was passed in 1972.
1972. Renewable Energy Tax Credits: Also called Residential Clean Energy Credits, these incentives encourage the development and use of renewable energy sources like solar and wind power.

More recent, targeted sustainability actions and regulations in the US include:

• Executive Order 14057: Issued by President Biden in 2021, the Executive Order on Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability requires federal agencies to take steps to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and promote clean energy.
• ESG Disclosure Simplification Act: This bill, passed by the House of Representatives in 2021, would require public companies to disclose more information about their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices.
• Methane Emissions Reduction Plan: The White House Action Plan, together with the Supplemental Methane Proposal put forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2022, would require primarily oil and gas companies to reduce methane emissions from their operations.
• Sustainable Electricity Plan: This plan, released by the Department of Energy in 2022, outlines the Biden administration’s goals for increasing the use of renewable energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector.
• SEC Climate-Related Disclosures/ESG Investing: Prompted by the Climate Risk Disclosure Act of 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has issued a rule proposal that would require US publicly traded companies to disclose annually how their businesses are assessing, measuring, and managing climate-related risks. This would include climate-related risks and their material impacts on the registrant’s business, strategy, and outlook; governance of climate-related risks; greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions; certain climate-related financial statement metrics and related disclosures; information about climate-related targets and goals, and transition plan, if any. Some companies would have to already start reporting in 2023 for 2023. However, it is likely the proposal will undergo several rounds of revisions.

In addition to these federal laws, there are also a number of state and local sustainability regulations. U.S. regulations generally lack cohesion, with the federal government’s role fluctuating depending on the administration in power. Still, there is growing momentum towards sustainability, driven by grassroots movements and corporate initiatives.

Sustainability regulations in China

China, the world’s largest polluter, faces significant sustainability challenges as it grapples with rapid industrialization, urbanization, and economic growth. It has made substantial progress, particularly in renewable energy adoption, but still faces challenges of implementation.

• Carbon Neutrality Commitment: In September 2020, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced China’s commitment to achieving carbon neutrality by 2060. This ambitious goal involves reducing carbon emissions to net-zero by mid-century.
• Renewable Energy Development: China is a global leader in renewable energy deployment. It has set targets for increasing the share of renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and hydropower in its energy mix. Initiatives include the National Renewable Energy Development Plan and the 13th Five-Year Plan for Energy Development.
• Emissions Trading System (ETS): China has launched a national carbon emissions trading system, which is the world’s largest such program. It caps emissions from certain industries and encourages emission reductions through trading of carbon allowances.
• Green Finance Initiatives: The country is promoting green finance to support sustainable development. Initiatives include green bond issuance, guidelines for green lending, and incentives for sustainable investment.
• Air Quality Improvement: The “Blue Sky” campaign aims to reduce air pollution in Chinese cities through stricter emissions standards, promotion of cleaner energy sources, and transitioning from coal to natural gas. The campaign appears to have had significant impact.
• Sustainable transportation and circular economy: Initiatives to promote electric vehicles (EVs) and public transportation include subsidies for EV purchases, charging infrastructure development, and incentives for green vehicle production. China is also working on promoting a circular economy by reducing waste, improving resource efficiency, and encouraging recycling. The Circular Economy Promotion Law was passed in 2008.
• Environmental Protection Laws and Regulations: China has strengthened its environmental laws and regulations to address pollution and environmental degradation. This includes revisions to the Environmental Protection Law and stricter enforcement.

These sustainability regulations, plans, and actions reflect China’s efforts to address pressing environmental challenges, transition to a more sustainable and low-carbon economy, and contribute to global efforts to combat climate change. Results are varied but the sheer scale of China’s pollution make the success of these initiatives a matter of global concern.

Sustainability regulations in India

Prompted by very tangible threats, India, recently crowned the world’s most populous country, has been fighting climate change for several decades, although not necessarily under one umbrella of sustainability. Moreover, there are currently no regulations that mandate sustainability reporting in India. However, Indian regulators are revising its existing environmental laws and plans, which will likely result in more stringent requirements for companies.

Instead of reporting requirements, India provides support through various sustainability-related programs and legislation.

• National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC): Launched in 2008, the NAPCC outlines the country’s strategy to combat climate change. It consists of eight national missions focused on various aspects of climate change mitigation and adaptation, including solar energy, energy efficiency, water, agriculture, and forestry.
• Renewable Energy Initiatives: India has set ambitious targets for increasing its renewable energy capacity, including solar and wind power. Initiatives like the National Solar Mission aim to promote clean energy sources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• Sustainable Agriculture Initiatives: Programs like the National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) promote sustainable farming practices, soil health management, and water-use efficiency in agriculture.
• National Clean Air Program (NCAP): India’s NCAP, launched in 2019, aims to improve air quality in major cities by reducing particulate matter and other air pollutants. It includes measures to control emissions from industries, vehicles, and biomass burning.
• National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP): India has developed an NBSAP to conserve biodiversity, protect ecosystems, and promote sustainable use of natural resources.
• Water Resource Management: India has various initiatives and programs to address water-related challenges, including river rejuvenation projects, watershed development, and efforts to improve water-use efficiency in agriculture.
• Sustainable Transportation: The Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (FAME) scheme promotes the adoption of electric and hybrid vehicles to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
• Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations: India has a regulatory framework for conducting EIAs for various development projects to assess and mitigate their environmental impacts.
• Plastic Waste Management Rules: India has implemented rules to manage and reduce plastic waste, including restrictions on single-use plastics.
• National Mission for Sustainable Habitat (NMSH): This mission focuses on promoting sustainable urban planning and development, energy efficiency in buildings, and waste management in urban areas.

India’s approach is comprehensive but at the moment focuses on top-down actions. As in China, market players are at present not required to disclose any climate-related impact or information.

International sustainability regulations

International organizations play a crucial role in coordinating global sustainability efforts. The United Nations and its agencies, particularly the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty and organization established to address the issue of global climate change adopted in 1992, have spearheaded international sustainability regulations, of which the most impactful are mentioned below.

• The Paris Agreement: Signed in 2015, the agreement represents a global commitment to combat climate change by limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and aiming to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius. 196 nations have agreed on its goals, as well as committed to specific targets and standards of accountability. The Paris Agreement is part of the UNFCCC.
• The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): The SDGs are a set of 17 goals that aim to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all. They provide a framework for companies to align their business strategies with sustainable development objectives. These goals were adopted by all United Nations Member States in September 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
• The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD): The TCFD is a voluntary initiative that provides recommendations for companies to disclose climate-related risks and opportunities in their financial filings. The TCFD was founded by the Financial Stability Board (FSB), an international body that monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system, in December 2015. The TCFD encourages organizations to conduct scenario analysis, which involves assessing the potential financial impact of different climate-related scenarios, including both transition risks (related to policy and market changes) and physical risks (related to climate impacts like extreme weather events).
• The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) issued the first two sustainability standards, the IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information and the IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures. They will theoretically become effective on or after January 1, 2024. If jurisdictions challenge or delay bringing them into law, the effective date may well be later. IFRS S1 provides a set of disclosure requirements designed to enable companies to communicate to investors about the sustainability-related risks and opportunities they face over the short, medium and long term. IFRS S2 sets out specific climate-related disclosures and is designed to be used with IFRS S1. Both fully incorporate the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).

Conclusion

China, the US, and India have been, for a while now, the largest polluter nations. However, statistics do not look at the indirect pollution cost of countries that produce abroad for internal consumption. If we take that cost into consideration, it becomes evident that sustainability regulations at both national and international level are crucial for addressing environmental and social challenges.

Regulations alone are obviously not enough. Strict enforcement and monitoring are what is going to transform national and supra-national entities, regional authorities, businesses, communities, and individuals into responsible actors.