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

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

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

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

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT HERE.

CHAPTER 1: HPAI & DISEASE LANDSCAPE 

 

1.1  The Ongoing H5N1 Crisis – Scale & Impact

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

 

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

 

1.2  2025-Specific Developments

United States: Early-Year Severity, Policy Response

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

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

 

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

 

Brazil: First Commercial HPAI Outbreak – May 2025

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

 

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

 

Europe: Persistent Pressure

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

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

 

1.3  Other Priority Diseases in 2025

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

 

 

CHAPTER 2: GLOBAL POULTRY PRODUCTION 

 

2.1  Global Output – 2025 Performance

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

 

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

 

OECD-FAO 10-Year Outlook (2025–2034)

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

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

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

 

2.2  Egg Production – Crisis Sector

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

 

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

 

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

 

CHAPTER 3: FEED INGREDIENT MARKETS 

 

3.1  Grain & Oilseed Prices – 2025 Summary

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

 

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

 

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

 

3.2  Global Feed Market Overview

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

 

3.3  Key Ingredient Trends to Watch

Fertilizer Cost Relief

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

 

Soybean Oil Competition: Biodiesel vs. Feed

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

 

Alternative Proteins: Insect Meal, DDGS, Algae

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

 

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

 

CHAPTER 4: TRADE POLICY DISRUPTIONS 

 

4.1  The 2025 US Tariff Regime – Agricultural Impact

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

 

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

 

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

 

4.2  Impact on US Agricultural Trade Flows

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

 

4.3  Strategic Trade Lessons

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

 

CHAPTER 5: REGULATORY CHANGES 

 

5.1  EU: Feed & Food Safety Legislation Simplification

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

 

5.2  EFSA 2025 Guidance on Microorganisms

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

 

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

 

5.3  Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) – Regulatory Pressure

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

 

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

 

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

 

5.4  US Regulatory Developments

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

 

 

CHAPTER 6: FEED ADDITIVE & NUTRITION STRATEGIES 

 

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

6.1  The Post-AGP Transition: Where the Industry Stands

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

 

6.2  Heat Stress – A Growing Production Challenge

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

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

 

6.3  In Ovo Technology

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

 

CHAPTER 7: MARKET TRENDS & CONSUMER SHIFTS 

 

7.1  Poultry Gaining Share vs. Other Proteins

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

 

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

 

7.2  Cage-Free & Animal Welfare Commitments

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

 

7.3  Antibiotic-Free, Organic, and Specialty Products

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

 

7.4  Sustainability Pressure

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

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

 

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

 

CHAPTER 8: STRATEGIC LESSONS & ACTION PRIORITIES 

 

8.1  Summary: Top 10 Lessons of 2025

 

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

 

8.2  Action Priority Matrix for Management Teams

 

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

 

8.3  Key Indicators to Monitor in 2026

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

 

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

 

 

 

  KEY SOURCES & REFERENCES 

 

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

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

 

 

Reporting Period: November 6-12, 2025

Extracted Data by Disease Category

1. ASF in Domestic Pigs

Country	Number of Outbreaks
Romania	15
Moldova	1
TOTAL	16

2. ASF in Wild Boar

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

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

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

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

Country	Number of Outbreaks
Norway	1
TOTAL	1

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

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

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

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

---

Summary Statistics

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

 

Author: Ajay Bhoyar, Sr. Global Technical Manager, EW Nutrition

As the poultry industry seeks economical and nutritious feed ingredients, distillers’ dried grains with solubles (DDGS), a co-product of grain-based ethanol production, presents a valuable option providing beneficial protein, energy, water-soluble vitamins, xanthophylls, and linoleic acid. However, the inherent variability in DDGS nutrient composition and high fiber content can pose challenges for consistent inclusion in poultry feeds. The strategic use of feed enzymes has become a significant area of focus to overcome these limitations and further enhance the nutritional value of DDGS in poultry diets. This article will explore the optimization of DDGS utilization in poultry feeds by emphasizing the inclusion of xylanase enzyme that can efficiently degrade the insoluble arabinoxylans. By understanding the factors affecting DDGS quality and strategically employing xylanase, poultry producers can potentially achieve higher inclusion rates of this readily available byproduct, aiming to reduce feed costs while maintaining or even improving production performance and overall health.

Price competitiveness of DDGS

The price of DDGS relative to other feed ingredients, primarily corn and soybean meal, is a significant factor in its global utilization. DDGS often partially replaces these traditional energy (corn) and protein (soybean meal) sources in animal feeds, leading to significant diet cost savings for poultry producers. DDGS contains a high amount of a combination of energy, amino acids, and phosphorus. However, it is usually undervalued as its price is mainly determined based on the prevailing prices of corn and soybean meal.

Variability in the nutritional quality of DDGS

The nutrient composition of DDGS varies based on the starting grain, ethanol production methods, and drying processes. Generally, DDGS contains high levels of protein, fiber, and minerals, with varying amounts of fat and starch depending on the type of grain used and how it is processed. DDGS has a reputation for having variable nutrient composition, protein quality, and a high content of mycotoxins (Stein et al., 2006; Pedersen et al., 2007; Anderson et al., 2012). High quantities of DDGS in feed increase dietary fiber, adversely affecting nutrient digestibility.

The variations in production methods lead to significant differences in the following nutritional components of DDGS:

Crude Fat: This is one of the most variable components, ranging from 5 to 9 percent in reduced-oil DDGS and greater than 10 percent in traditional high-oil DDGS.

Energy: The apparent metabolizable energy (AMEn) for poultry varies among DDGS sources. Fiber digestibility and the digestibility of the extracted oil also contribute to this variability. The high temperatures during the drying stage of DDGS production accelerate lipid peroxidation, forming breakdown products from the fats. This peroxidation contributes to the changes and variability observed in the fat component of DDGS and is a factor that can affect nutrient digestibility and overall energy value.

Crude Protein and Amino Acids (especially Lysine): While crude protein content might not always increase inversely with fat reduction, the digestibility of amino acids, especially lysine, can be affected by drying temperatures. Lysine digestibility of DDGS is a primary concern of poultry nutritionists due to the susceptibility of this amino acid to Maillard reactions during the drying process of DDGS, which can reduce both the concentration and digestibility of lysine (Almeida et al. 2013). Prediction equations have been developed to accurately estimate actual AMEn and standardized ileal digestible amino acid content of DDGS sources based on chemical composition.

Phosphorus: The phosphorus content can vary depending on the amount of Condensed Distiller’s Solubles (CDS) added. The bioavailability of phosphorus can also be influenced by processing. The phosphorus content in the corn DDGS may vary from 0.69 to 0.98 % (Olukosi and Adebiyi, 2013).

Fiber: The neutral detergent fiber (NDF) content is another variable component. Differences in processing conditions among ethanol plants can lead to variations in fiber digestibility.

Table 1. Variation in composition of corn DDGS sources (dry matter basis; adapted from (Pederson et al., 2014)

Analyte	Average	Range
Moisture %	8.7	6.5 – 12.5
Crude protein %	31.4	27.1 – 36.4
Crude fiber %	7.7	6.4 – 9.5
Ether Extract %	9.1	6.5 – 11.8
NDF %	35.1	30.2 – 39.7
ADF %	10.1	8.9 – 11.9

Nonstarch Polysaccharides (NSP) in DDGS

Non-starch polysaccharides (NSP) are a significant component of DDGS. The NSP profile of DDGS is crucial for understanding its digestibility and energy content.​ The corn DDGS has a complex fiber structure that may limit its digestibility in swine and poultry. NSPs in corn DDGS represent 25-34% of its composition, primarily insoluble (Pedersen et al. 2014). The complexity of the fiber structure in corn DDGS makes it more challenging to degrade with enzymes than wheat DDGS. Therefore, while including DDGS in the poultry feeds, choosing an exogenous xylanase enzyme that is highly efficient in breaking down both soluble and insoluble arabinoxylans is essential for maximum energy utilization.

Use of xylanase in DDGS diets for poultry

Supplementing exogenous enzymes in swine and poultry diets have numerous potential benefits including: reduction of digesta viscosity to enhance lipid and protein digestion; increase the metabolizable energy content of the diet; increase feed intake, growth rate and feed conversion; decreased size and alter the microbial population of the gastrointestinal tract; reduce water consumption and water content of excreta in poultry; reduce the amount of excreta as well as ammonia, nitrogen and phosphorus content (Khattak et al., 2006). The selection of a specific enzyme must be based on the type and availability of the target substrate in the diet.

The improved energy utilization of DDGS in poultry can be achieved through the enzymatic degradation of fiber (NSP). Nonstarch polysaccharides within DDGS exist in matrices with starch and protein, so NSP degradation via exogenous enzymes can also release other nutrients for subsequent digestion and absorption (Jha et al. 2015).

The cell wall matrix in corn DDGS is more complex. Moreover, the most readily degradable arabinoxylan for the fiber-degrading enzymes is modified during DDGS production (Pedersen et al. 2014). Many studies reported a greater branch density and complexity of corn arabinoxylan than wheat (Bedford, 1995; Saulnier et al.,1995a; Jilek and Bunzel, 2013; Yang et al., 2013). These observations indicate that the fiber-degrading enzymes applied for the degradation of corn DDGS need to be targeted towards highly complex substrates. This calls for selecting xylanase, which effectively breaks down the insoluble arabinoxylans in diets.

Axxess XY: Highly effective xylanase in breaking down soluble and insoluble arabinoxylans

A bacterial GH10 family xylanase, like Axxess XY, is more beneficial in animal production due to their efficient mechanism of action, broader substrate specificity, and better thermostability. Generally, the GH10 xylanases exhibit broader substrate specificity and can efficiently hydrolyze various forms of xylan, including soluble and insoluble substrates. GH10 xylanases exhibit higher catalytic versatility and can catalyze the cleavage of the xylan backbone at the non-reducing side of substituted xylose residues, whereas GH11 enzymes require unsubstituted regions of the xylan backbone (Collins et al., 2005; Chakdar et al., 2016).

Fig.1. Activity of a bacterial GH10 xylanase against soluble and insoluble arabinoxylans

Axxess XY facilitates DDGS use and reduces the cost of broiler production.

Including xylanase enzyme, which is highly effective in breaking down soluble and insoluble arabinoxylans in poultry feeds, can reduce feed costs, allowing higher inclusion of DDGS while maintaining the bird’s commercial performance.

In a recently conducted 42-day trial at a commercial farm, Axxess XY maintained broiler performance with a 100 kcal/kg reduction in metabolizable energy and 8% use of Corn DDGS in a corn-SBM based diet (Figure 2). This significantly reduced feed cost/kg body weight.

Incorporating DDGS into poultry diets presents a sustainable and cost-effective solution, but its full potential is often limited by variability in nutrient composition and high fiber content. Xylanase enzymes, particularly those in the GH10 family like Axxess XY, can overcome these barriers by breaking down complex arabinoxylans and unlocking inaccessible nutrients. With proven benefits in energy utilization, nutrient digestibility, and overall production efficiency, xylanase inclusion emerges as a strategic approach to optimize DDGS usage, ultimately supporting economic and environmental sustainability goals in poultry production.

References

Almeida, F.N.; Htoo, J.K.; Thomson, J.; Stein, H.H. Amino acid digestibility of heat-damaged distillers’ dried grains with soluble fed to pigs. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2013, 4, 2–11.

Bedford, M.R., 1995. Mechanism of action and potential environmental benefits from the use of feed enzymes. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 53, 145–155.

Chakdar, Hillol, Murugan Kumar, Kuppusamy Pandiyan, Arjun Singh, Karthikeyan Nanjappan, Prem Lal Kashyap, and Alok Kumar Srivastava. “Bacterial Xylanases: Biology to Biotechnology.” 3 Biotech 6, no. 2 (June 30, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-016-0457-z.

Collins, Tony, Charles Gerday, and Georges Feller. “Xylanases, Xylanase Families and Extremophilic Xylanases.” FEMS Microbiology Reviews 29, no. 1 (January 2005): 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.femsre.2004.06.005.

Jha, R.; Woyengo, T.A.; Li, J.; Bedford, M.R.; Vasanthan, T.; Zijlstra, R.T. Enzymes enhance degradation of the fiber–starch–protein matrix of distillers dried grains with solubles as revealed by a porcine in vitro fermentation model and microscopy. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 93, 1039–1051.

Jilek, M.L., Bunzel, M., 2013. Dehydrotriferulic and dehydrodiferulic acid profiles of cereal and pseudocereal flours. Cereal Chem. J. 90, 507–514

Jones, C.K., Bergstrom, J.R., Tokach, M.D., DeRouchey, J.M., Goodband, R.D., Nelssen, J.L., Dritz, S.S., 2010. Efficacy of commercial enzymes in diets containing various concentrations and sources of dried distillers’ grains with solubles for nursery pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 88, 2084–2091.

Khattak, F.M., T.N. Pasha, Z. Hayat, and A. Mahmud. 2006. Enzymes in poultry nutrition. J. Anim. Pl. Sci. 16:1-7.

Olukosi, O.A., and A.O. Adebiyi. 2013. Chemical composition and prediction of amino acid content of maize- and wheat-distillers’ Dried Grains with Soluble. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 185:182-189.

Pedersen M. B., Dalsgaard S., Bach Knudsen K.E., Yu S., Lærke H.N., Compositional profile and variation of Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles from various origins with focus on non-starch polysaccharides, Animal Feed Science and Technology, Volume 197, 2014, Pages 130–14.

Saulnier, L., Vigouroux, J., Thibault, J.-F., 1995a. Isolation and partial characterization of feruloylated oligosaccharides from maize bran. Carbohydr. Res. 272,241–253.

Yang, J., Maldonado-Gómez, M.X., Hutkins, R.W., Rose, D.J., 2013. Production and in vitro fermentation of soluble, non-digestible, feruloylated oligo- andpolysaccharides from maize and wheat brans. J. Agric. Food Chem.

Yoon, S.Y., Yang, Y.X., Shinde, P.L., Choi, J.Y., Kim, J.S., Kim, Y.W., Yun, K., Jo, J.K., Lee, J.H., Ohh, S.J., Kwon, I.K., Chae, B.J., 2010. Effects of mannanase and distillers’ dried grain with solubles on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and carcass characteristics of grower-finisher pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 88,181–191.

by Ajay Bhoyar, Global Technical Manager, EW Nutrition

Gut health is critical for profitable poultry production, as the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) plays a dual role in nutrient digestion and absorption while serving as a crucial defense against pathogens. A healthy gut enables efficient feed conversion, robust immune function, and resilience against diseases, reducing reliance on preventive and therapeutic antibiotics. Optimum gut health has become increasingly important in poultry production to combat antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a pressing global challenge threatening animal agriculture and public health.

AMR arises when bacteria develop antibiotic resistance, often due to overuse or misuse in human and animal settings. Predictive models suggest that by 2050, AMR could result in 10 million annual deaths and a 2.0%–3.5% reduction in global gross domestic production, amounting to economic losses between 60 and 100 trillion USD. In poultry, AMR compromises flock health, leading to higher mortality, reduced growth performance, and elevated treatment costs, directly impacting profitability. Additionally, resistant pathogens increase the risk of zoonotic disease transfer, posing serious food safety concerns.

Stricter regulations and rising consumer demand for antibiotic-free poultry products drive a shift toward sustainable, antibiotic-free production systems. However, A lack of understanding about strategies to replace AMU and their effectiveness under field conditions hampers change in farming practices (Afonso et al., 2024). Addressing AMR requires a holistic approach, encompassing enhanced biosecurity, innovative health-promoting strategies, and sustainable management practices. This paper explores practical dietary interventions to support poultry gut health while reducing dependency on antimicrobials, offering solutions for the long-term sustainability of poultry production.

Gut Mediated Immunity in Chickens

The gut is a critical component of the immune system, as it is the first line of defense against pathogens that enter the body through the digestive system. Chickens have a specialized immune system in the gut, known as gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), which helps to identify and respond to potential pathogens. The GALT includes Peyer’s patches, clusters of immune cells in the gut wall, and the gut-associated lymphocytes (GALs) found throughout the gut. These immune cells recognize and respond to pathogens that enter the gut.

The gut-mediated immune response in chickens involves several mechanisms, including activating immune cells, producing antibodies, and releasing inflammatory mediators. GALT and GALs play a crucial role in this response by identifying and responding to pathogens and activating other immune cells to help fight off the infection.

The gut microbiome is a diverse community of microorganisms that live in the gut. These microorganisms can significantly impact the immune response. Certain beneficial bacteria, for example, can help stimulate the immune response and protect the gut from pathogens.

Overall, the gut microbiome, GALT, and GALs work together to create an environment hostile to pathogens while supporting the growth and health of beneficial microorganisms.

Key Factors Affecting Poultry Gut Health

The key factors affecting broiler gut health can be summarized as follows:

1. Early gut development: Gut-associated immunity responds to early feeding and dietary nutrients and is critical for protecting against exogenous organisms during the first week of life post-hatch.
2. Feed and Water Quality: The form, type, and quality of feed provided to broilers can significantly impact their gut health. Consistently available cool and hygienic drinking water is crucial for optimum production performance.
3. Stressors: Stressful conditions, such as high environmental temperatures or poor ventilation, can lead to an imbalance in the gut microbiome and an increased risk of disease.
4. Infections and medications: Exposure to pathogens or other harmful bacteria can disrupt the gut microbiome and lead to gut health issues. A robust immune system is important for maintaining gut health, as it helps to prevent the overgrowth of harmful bacteria and promote the growth of beneficial bacteria.
5. Biosecurity: Keeping the poultry environment clean and free of pathogens is crucial for maintaining gut health, as bacteria and other pathogens can quickly spread and disrupt the gut microbiome.
6. Management practices: Best practices, including proper litter management, can help maintain gut health and prevent gut-related issues.

Dietary Interventions for Optimum Gut Health

Gut health means the absence of gastrointestinal disease, the effective digestion and absorption of feed, and a normal and well-established microbiota (Bischoff, 2011). Various dietary measures can be taken to support the healthy functioning of the GIT and host defense. Water and feed safety and quality, feeding management, the form the feed is provided in (e.g., pellets), the composition of the diet, and the use of various feed additives are all tools that can be used to support health (Smits et al., 2021).

Various gut health-supporting feed additives, including organic acids, probiotics, prebiotics, phytochemicals/essential oils, etc., in combination or alone, have been explored as an alternative to antimicrobials in animal production. There were differences in the impacts of the strategies between and within species; this highlights the absence of a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution. Nevertheless, some options seem more promising than others, as their impacts were consistently equivalent or positive when compared with animal performance using antimicrobials (Afonso et al., 2024). Including insoluble fibers, toxin binders, exogenous enzymes, and antioxidants in the feed formulations also play a crucial role in gut health optimization, which goes beyond their primary functions to combat AMR challenges.

Fig. 1: Multifactorial approach to gut health management in reduced antimicrobial use

Organic Acids

The digestive process extensively includes microbial fermentation, and as a result, organic acids are commonly produced by beneficial bacteria in the crop, intestines, and ceca (Huyghebaert et al., 2010). Organic acids’ inclusion in the poultry diet can improve growth performance due to improved gut health, increased endogenous digestive enzyme secretion and activity, and nutrient digestibility. Butyrate is highly bioactive in GIT. It increases the proliferation of enterocytes, promotes mucus secretion, and may have anti-inflammatory properties (Bedford and Gong, 2018; Canani et al., 2011; Hamer et al., 2008). These effects suggest that it supports mucosal barrier function. Butyrate is becoming a commonly used ingredient in diets to promote GIT health.

Including organic acids in the feed can decontaminate feed and potentially reduce enteric pathogens in poultry. Alternately, the formaldehyde treatment of feed is highly effective at a relatively low cost (Jones, 2011; Wales, Allen, and Davies, 2010).

Organic acids like formic and citric acid are also used in poultry drinking water to lower the microbial count by lowering the water’s pH and preventing/removing biofilms in the water lines. By ensuring feed and water hygiene, producers can minimize pathogen exposure, enhance bird health, and significantly reduce their reliance on antibiotics.

Probiotics, Postbiotics, Prebiotics and Synbiotics

Probiotics and prebiotics have drawn considerable attention to optimizing gut health in animal feeds. Probiotic supplementation could have the following effects: (1) modification of the intestinal microbiota, (2) stimulation of the immune system, (3) reduction in inflammatory reactions, (4) prevention of pathogen colonization, (5) enhancement of growth performance, (6) alteration of the ileal digestibility and total tract apparent digestibility coefficient, and (7) decrease in ammonia and urea excretion (Jha et al., 2020). Certain Lactobacilli or Enterococci species may be used with newly hatched or newborn animals; single or multi-strain starter cultures can be used to steer the initial microbiota in a desired direction (Liao and Nyachoti, 2017). Apart from using probiotics in feed and drinking water, probiotic preparations can be sprayed on day-old chicks in the hatchery or immediately after placement in the brooding house. This way, the probiotic strains/beneficial bacteria gain access to the gut at the earliest possible time (early seeding). Postbiotics are bioactive compounds produced by probiotics during fermentation, such as short-chain fatty acids, peptides, and bacterial cell wall components. Unlike live probiotics, postbiotics are stable, safer, and provide consistent health benefits.

Prebiotics like mannan-oligosaccharides (MOS), inulin, and its hydrolysate (fructo-oligosaccharides: FOS) play an important role in modulating intestinal microflora and potential immune response. Prebiotics reduce pathogen colonization in poultry and promote selective stimulation of beneficial bacterial species. Synbiotics are a combination of probiotics and prebiotics. This synergistic approach offers dual benefits by promoting the growth of beneficial bacteria and directly combating pathogens.

Dietary Fibers (DF)

The water-insoluble fibers are regarded as functional nutrients because of their ability to escape digestion and modulate nutrient digestion. A moderate level of insoluble fiber in poultry diets may increase chyme retention time in the upper part of the GIT, stimulating gizzard development and endogenous enzyme production, improving the digestibility of starch, lipids, and other dietary components (Mateos et al., 2012). The insoluble DF, when used in amounts between 3–5% in the diet, could have beneficial effects on intestinal development and nutrient digestibility.

Dietary fibers influence the development of the gizzard in poultry birds. A well-developed gizzard is a must for good gut health. Jiménez-Moreno & Mateos (2012) noted that coarse fiber particles are selectively retained in the gizzard, ensuring a complete grinding and a well-regulated feed flow. Secretion of digestive juices regulates GIT motility and feed intake. Including insoluble fibers in adequate amounts improves the gizzard function and stimulates HCl production in the proventriculus, thus helping control gut pathogens.

Toxin Risk Management

Mycotoxins may have a detrimental impact on the mucosal barrier function in animals (Akbari et al., 2017; Antonissen et al., 2015; Basso, Gomes and Bracarense, 2013; Pierron, Alassane-Kpembi and Oswald, 2016). Mycotoxins like Aflatoxin B1, Ochratoxin A, and deoxynivalenol (DON) not only suppress immune responses but also induce inflammation and even increase susceptibility to pathogens (Yuhang et al., 2023). To avoid intestinal health problems, poultry producers need to emphasize avoiding levels of mycotoxins in feedstuffs and rancid fats that exceed recommended limits (Murugesan et al., 2015; Grenier and Applegate, 2013).

Bacterial lipopolysaccharides (LPS), also known as endotoxins, are the main components of the outer membrane of all Gram-negative bacteria and are essential for their survival. In stress situations, the intestinal barrier function is impaired, allowing the passage of endotoxins into the bloodstream. When the immune system detects LPS, inflammation sets in and results in adverse changes in gut epithelial structure and functionality. Dietary Intervention to bind these endotoxins in the GIT can help mitigate the negative impact of LPS on animals. Given this, toxin risk management with an appropriate binding agent able to control both mycotoxins and endotoxins appears to be a promising strategy for reducing their adverse effects. Further, adding antioxidants and mycotoxin binders to feed can reduce the effects of mycotoxins and peroxides and is more necessary in ABF programs (Yegani and Korver, 2008).

Essential oils/Phytomolecules

Essential oils (EOs) are important aromatic components of herbs and spices and are used as natural alternatives for replacing antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) in poultry feed. The beneficial effects of EOs include appetite stimulation, improvement of enzyme secretion related to food digestion, and immune response activation (Krishan and Narang, 2014)

Essential oils (EOs), raw extracts from plants (flowers, leaves, roots, fruit, etc.), are an unpurified mix of different phytomolecules. The raw extract from Oregano is a mix of various phytomolecules (Terpenoids) like carvacrol, thymol and p-cymene. Whereas the phytomolecules are active ingredients of essential oils or other plant materials. Phytomolecule is clearly defined as one active compound.

These botanicals have received increased attention as possible growth performance enhancers for animals in the last decade via their beneficial influence on lipid metabolism, and antimicrobial and antioxidant properties (Botsoglou et al., 2002), ability to stimulate digestion (Hernandez et al., 2004), immune enhancing activity, and anti-inflammatory potential (Acamovic and Brooker, 2005). Many studies have been reported on supplementing poultry diets with some essential oils that enhanced weight gain, improved carcass quality, and reduced mortality rates (Williams and Losa, 2001). The use of some specific EO blends has been shown to have efficacy towards reducing the colonization and proliferation of Clostridium perfringens and controlling coccidia infection and, consequently, may help to reduce necrotic enteritis (Guo et al., 2004; Mitsch et al., 2004; Oviedo-Rondón et al., 2005, 2006a, 2010).

Antimicrobial properties of phytomolecules hinder the growth of potential pathogens. Thymol, eugenol, and carvacrol are structurally similar and have been proven to exert synergistic or additive antimicrobial effects when combined at lower concentrations (Bassolé and Juliani, 2012). In in-vivo studies, essential oils used either individually or in combination have shown clear growth inhibition of Clostridium perfringens and E. coli in the hindgut and ameliorated intestinal lesions and weight loss than the challenged control birds (Jamroz et al., 2006; Jerzsele et al., 2012; Mitsch et al., 2004). One well-known mechanism of antibacterial activity is linked to their hydrophobicity, which disrupts the permeability of cell membranes and cell homeostasis with the consequence of loss of cellular components, influx of other substances, or even cell death (Brenes and Roura, 2010; Solórzano-Santos and Miranda-Novales, 2012; Windisch et al., 2008; O’Bryan et al., 2015).

Apart from use in feed, the liquid phytomolecules preparations for drinking water use can prove to be beneficial in preventing and controlling losses during challenging periods of bird’s life (feed change, handling, environmental stress, etc.).  Liquid preparations can potentially reduce morbidity and mortality in poultry houses and thus the use of therapeutic antibiotics. Barrios et al. (2021) suggested that commercial blends of phytomolecule preparations may ameliorate the impact of Necrotic Enteritis on broilers. Further, they hypothesized that the effects of liquid preparation via drinking water were particularly important in improving overall mortality.

In modern, intensive poultry production, the imminent threat of resistant Eimeria looms large, posing a significant challenge to the sustainability of broiler operations. Eimeria spp., capable of developing resistance to traditional anticoccidial drugs, has become a pressing global issue for poultry operators. The resistance of Eimeria to traditional drugs, coupled with concerns over drug residue, has necessitated a shift towards natural, safe, and effective alternatives. It was found that if a drug to which the parasite has developed resistance is withdrawn from use for some time or combined with another effective drug, the sensitivity to that drug may return (Chapman, 1997).

Several phytogenic compounds, including saponins, tannins, essential oils, flavonoids, alkaloids, and lectins, have been the subject of rigorous study for their anticoccidial properties. Among these, saponins and tannins in specific plants have emerged as powerful tools in the fight against these resilient protozoa. Botanicals and natural identical compounds are well renowned for their antimicrobial and antiparasitic activity so that they can represent a valuable tool against Eimeria (Cobaxin-Cardenas, 2016). The mechanisms of action of these molecules include degradation of the cell wall, cytoplasm damage, ion loss with reduction of proton motive force, and induction of oxidative stress, which leads to inhibition of invasion and impairment of Eimeria spp. development (Abbas et al., 2012; Nazzaro et al., 2013). Natural anticoccidial products may provide a novel approach to controlling coccidiosis while meeting the urgent need for control due to the increasing emergence of drug-resistant parasite strains in commercial poultry production (Allen and Fetterer, 2002).

Role of Feed Enzymes Beyond Feed Cost Reduction

Feed enzymes have traditionally been associated with improving feed efficiency and reducing feed costs by enhancing nutrient digestibility. However, their role can extend well beyond economic benefits, profoundly impacting gut health and supporting reduced antimicrobial use in poultry production. Exogenous enzymes reduce microbial proliferation by reducing the undigestible components of feed, the viscosity of digesta, and the irritation to the gut mucosa that causes inflammation. Enzymes also generate metabolites that promote microbial diversity which help to maintain gut ecosystems that are more stable and more likely to inhibit pathogen proliferation (Bedford, 1995; Kiarie et al., 2013).

High dietary levels of non-starch polysaccharides (NSPs) can increase the viscosity of digesta. This leads to an increase in the retention time of the digesta, slows down the nutrient digestion and absorption rate, and may lead to an undesired increase in bacterial activity in the small intestine (Langhout et al., 2000; Smits et al., 1997). Further the mucosal barrier function may also be adversely affected. To solve this problem, exogenous enzymes, such as arabinoxylanase and/ or ß-glucanase, are included in feed to degrade viscous fibre structures (Bedford, 2000). The use of xylanase and ß-glucanase may also cause oligosaccharides and sugars to be released, of which certain, for example, arabinoxylan oligosaccharides, may have prebiotic properties (De Maesschalck et al., 2015; Niewold et al., 2012).

New generation xylanases coming from family GH-10 are known to effectively breakdown both soluble and insoluble arabinoxylans into a good mixture of smaller fractions of arabino-xylo-oligosaccharides (AXOS) and xylo-oligosaccharides (XOS), which exert a prebiotic effect in the GIT. Awati et.al. (2023) observed that a novel GH10 xylanase contributed to positive microbial shift and mitigated the anti-nutritional gut-damaging effects of higher fiber content in the feed. With a substantial understanding of the mode of action and technological development in enzyme technology, nutritionists can reliably consider new-generation xylanases for gut health optimization in their antibiotic reduction strategy.

 

Conclusions

The challenge of mitigating antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in poultry production necessitates a multidimensional approach, with gut health at its core. Dietary interventions, such as organic acids, probiotics, prebiotics, phytomolecules, toxin binders, and feed enzymes, promote gut resilience, enhance immune responses, and reduce reliance on antimicrobials. These strategies not only support the health and productivity of poultry but also address critical global issues of AMR and food safety.

While no single solution fits all circumstances, integrating these dietary tools with robust biosecurity measures, sound management practices, and continued research on species-specific and field-applicable strategies can pave the way for sustainable, antibiotic-free poultry production. The transition to such systems aligns with regulatory requirements and consumer expectations while contributing to global efforts against AMR.

Ultimately, embracing holistic and innovative dietary strategies ensures a resilient gastrointestinal environment, safeguarding poultry health and productivity while protecting public health and environmental sustainability for future generations.

 

References: The references can be made available upon request to the author.

 

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

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 Dr. Inge Heinzl, Editor EW Nutrition

For optimum health, the content of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) is decisive. On the one hand, they act locally in the gut, on the other hand, they are absorbed via the intestinal mucosa into the organism and can affect the whole body. Newer studies in humans show a connection between the deficiency of SCFAs and the occurrence of chronic diseases such as diabetes type 2 or chronic inflammatory gut diseases.

SCFAs – what are they, and where do they come from?

SCFAs consist of a chain of one to six carbon atoms. They are crucial metabolites primarily generated through the bacterial fermentation of dietary fiber (DF) in the hindgut. However, SCFAs and branched SCFAs can also arise during protein fermentation. Short-chain fatty acids predominantly include acetate, propionate, and butyrate, which together account for over 95% of the total SCFAs, typically in a 60:20:20 ratio.

Acetate is produced in two different ways, via the acetyl-CoA and the Wood-Ljungdahl pathways where Bacteroides spp., Bifidobacterium spp., Ruminococcus spp., Blautia hydrogenotrophica, Clostridium spp. are involved. Additionally, acetogenic bacteria can synthesize acetate from carbon dioxide and formate through the Wood-Ljungdahl pathway (Ragsdale and Pierce, 2021). Acetate counts for more than 50% of the total SCFAs in the colon and is the most abundant one.

Propionate can also be produced in two ways. If it is produced via the succinate pathway involving the decarboxylation of methyl malonyl-CoA, the essential bacteria are Firmicutes and Bacteroides. In the acrylate pathway, lactate is converted to propionate. Here, only some bacteria, such as Veillonellaceae or Lachnospiraceae, participate.

Butyrate is produced from acetyl-CoA via the classical pathway by several Firmicutes. However, also other gut microbiota such as Actinobacteria, Proteobacteria, and Thermotogae, which contain essential enzymes (e.g., butyryl coenzyme A dehydrogenase, butyryl-CoA transferase, and butyrate kinase) can be involved. Butyrate can also be produced via the lysine pathway from proteins.

Besides the production of SCFAs from dietary fiber, there is another possibility for the synthesis of SCFAs as well as branched SCFAs – the fermentation of protein in the hindgut. This is something we want to avoid, since it´s clear signal of incorrect animal nutrition. It tells us that there is either oversupply of protein or decrease in protein digestion and absorption.

Which roles do SCFAs play?

SCFAs play a crucial role in the maintenance of gut health. Some benefits originate from these substances’ general character, while others are specific to one acid. If we talk about the benefits of all SCFAs, we can mention the following:

1. Primarily, SCFAs are absorbed by the intestine and serve enterocytes as an essential substrate for energy production.
2. By lowering the pH in the intestine, SCFAs inhibit the invasion and colonization of pathogens.
3. SCFAs can cross bacterial membranes in their undissociated form. Inside the bacterial cell, they dissociate, resulting in a higher anion concentration and bactericidal effect (Van der Wielen et al., 2000)
4. SCFAs repair the intestinal mucosa
5. They mitigate intestinal inflammation by G protein-coupled receptors (GPRs).
6. They enhance immune response by producing cytokines such as IL-2, IL-6, IL-10, and TNF-α in the immune cells. Furthermore, they enhance the differentiation of T-cells into T regulatory cells (Tregs) and bind to receptors (Toll-like receptor, G protein-coupled receptors) on immune cells (Liu et al., 2021).
7. SCFAs are involved in the modulation of some processes in the gastrointestinal tract, such as electrolyte and water absorption (Vinolo et al., 2011)

After seeing the general characteristics of short-chain fatty acids, let us take a closer look at the specialties of the single SCFAs.

Acetate might play a crucial role in the competitive process between enteropathogens and bifidobacteria and help to build a balanced gut microbial environment (Liu et al., 2021). Additionally, acetate promotes lipogenesis in adipocytes (Liu et al., 2022).

Concerning general health, acetate inhibits, e.g., lung inflammatory response and the reduced air-blood permeability induced by avian pathogenic E. coli-caused chicken colibacillosis (Peng et al., 2021).

Propionate is thought to be involved in controlling intestinal inflammation by regulating the immune cells assisting and, consequently, in maintaining the gut barrier. Furthermore, propionate regulates appetite, controls blood glucose, and inhibits fat deposition in broiler chickens (Li et al., 2021).

In a trial conducted by Elsherif et al. (2022), birds fed a diet with 1.5 g sodium propionate/kg showed considerably (P<0.05) longer and wider guts, higher counts of lactobacillus(P<0.05) and no colonization of Clostridium perfringens. The immunological state improved significantly (P<0.05), which could be seen by the higher antibody titers when the birds were vaccinated against Newcastle disease or avian influenza.

Butyrate additionally improves the function of the intestinal barrier by regulating the assembly of tight junctions (Peng et al., 2009) and stimulating cell renewal and differentiation of the enterocytes. Butyrate-producing microbes on their side prevent the dysbiotic expansion of potentially pathogenic E. coli and Salmonella (Byndloss et al., 2017; Cevallos et al., 2021) by stimulating PPAR-γ signaling. This leads to the suppression of iNOS synthesis and a significant reduction of iNOS and nitrate in the colonic lumen. Furthermore, the microbiota-induced PPAR-γ-signaling inhibits dysbiotic Enterobacteriaceae expansion by limiting the bioavailability of oxygen and, therefore, respiratory electron acceptors to Enterobacteriaceae in the colon.

In a trial conducted by Xiao et al. (2023), sodium butyrate enhanced broiler breeders’ reproductive performance and egg quality due to the regulation of the maternal intestinal barrier and gut microbiota. Additionally, it improved the antioxidant capacity and immune function of the breeder hens and their offspring.

SCFAs’ production can be managed

The extent of production depends on the diet and the composition of the intestinal flora. Nutritional strategies can be taken to regulate the production of short-chain fatty acids by providing dietary fiber and prebiotics, the respective bacteria but also additives in the diet or, on the other, negative way, use of antibiotics.

One example of SCFA-promoting additives is phytomolecules. Ventar D, a blend of diverse gut health-promoting phytomolecules, shows its SCFAs-increasing effect in a trial with Ross 308 broilers.

Trial design: The 41-day research study was conducted at an R&D farm in Turkey, with 3200 Ross 308 broilers in total. The day-old broiler chicks were randomly divided into two groups with 8 replicates in 16-floor pens (6.5×2 m each), each of 200 chicks (100 males and 100 females). One group was managed as a control group with regular feed formulation, and the other group was supplemented with Ventar D. All the birds were provided feeds and water ad libitum. Temperature, lighting, and ventilation were managed as per Ross 308 recommendation.

Groups	Application dose
	Starter (crumbles)	Grower & Finisher – 1 & 2 (pellet)
Control	No additive
Ventar D	100 gm/MT	100 gm/MT

All the birds and feed were weighed on days 0, 11, 23, and 41. Dead birds were also weighed, and the feed consumption was corrected accordingly. At the end of the experiment, one male and one female chicken close to the average weight of each pen were separated, weighed, and slaughtered. Short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) concentration in the caecum was measured by gas chromatography (Zhang et al. 2003). Statistical analysis of the data obtained in this study was carried out in the Minitab 18 program using the T-test following the randomized block trial design (P ≤ 0.05). The research results were subjected to statistical analysis on a pen basis. Mortality results were evaluated with the Chi-square test.

Results: Ventar D significantly increased the levels of acetate, butyrate, and total SCFAs. The level of propionate was numerically higher. Additionally, higher final body weights (on average 160 g), improved feed efficiency (6 points), a higher EPEF (33 points), and lower mortality (0.5%) could be asserted in this experiment.

One explanation could be the microbiota-balancing effect of Ventar D. Meimandipour et al. (2010), for example, saw in their study that increased colonization of Lactobacillus salivarius and Lactobacillus agilis in cecum significantly increased propionate and butyrate formation in caeca.

Phytomolecules: Balancing intestinal microbiome and increasing healthy SCFAs

By promoting beneficial intestinal bacteria and fighting the harmful ones, phytomolecules drive the microbiome in the right direction and promote the production of short-chain fatty acids. Their gut health-protecting effect, in turn, provides for adequate digestion and absorption of nutrients, leading to optimal feed conversion and growth rates. The support of the immune system and the promotion of the antioxidant capacity additionally enhance the health of the animals. Healthy animals grow better, which ultimately leads to a higher profit for the farm.

References:

Byndloss, Mariana X., Erin E. Olsan, Fabian Rivera-Chávez, Connor R. Tiffany, Stephanie A. Cevallos, Kristen L. Lokken, Teresa P. Torres, et al. “Microbiota-Activated PPAR-γ Signaling Inhibits Dysbiotic Enterobacteriaceae Expansion.” Science 357, no. 6351 (August 11, 2017): 570–75. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9949.

Cevallos, Stephanie A., Jee-Yon Lee, Eric M. Velazquez, Nora J. Foegeding, Catherine D. Shelton, Connor R. Tiffany, Beau H. Parry, et al. “5-Aminosalicylic Acid Ameliorates Colitis and Checks Dysbiotic Escherichia Coli Expansion by Activating PPAR-γ Signaling in the Intestinal Epithelium.” mBio 12, no. 1 (February 23, 2021). https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.03227-20.

Elsherif, Hany M.R., Ahmed Orabi, Hussein M.A. Hassan, and Ahmed Samy. “Sodium Formate, Acetate, and Propionate as Effective Feed Additives in Broiler Diets to Enhance Productive Performance, Blood Biochemical, Immunological Status, and Gut Integrity.” Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences 10, no. 6 (June 2022): 1414–22.

Li, Haifang, Liqin Zhao, Shuang Liu, Zhihao Zhang, Xiaojuan Wang, and Hai Lin. “Propionate Inhibits Fat Deposition via Affecting Feed Intake and Modulating Gut Microbiota in Broilers.” Poultry Science 100, no. 1 (January 2021): 235–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.10.009.

Liu, Lixuan, Qingqing Li, Yajin Yang, and Aiwei Guo. “Biological Function of Short-Chain Fatty Acids and Its Regulation on Intestinal Health of Poultry.” Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8 (October 18, 2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.736739.

Liu, Lixuan, Qingqing Li, Yajin Yang, and Aiwei Guo. “Biological Function of Short-Chain Fatty Acids and Its Regulation on Intestinal Health of Poultry.” Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8 (October 18, 2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.736739.

Meimandipour, A., M. Shuhaimi, A.F. Soleimani, K. Azhar, M. Hair-Bejo, B.M. Kabeir, A. Javanmard, O. Muhammad Anas, and A.M. Yazid. “Selected Microbial Groups and Short-Chain Fatty Acids Profile in a Simulated Chicken Cecum Supplemented with Two Strains of Lactobacillus.” Poultry Science 89, no. 3 (March 2010): 470–76. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2009-00495.

Peng, Lu-Yuan, Hai-Tao Shi, Zi-Xuan Gong, Peng-Fei Yi, Bo Tang, Hai-Qing Shen, and Ben-Dong Fu. “Protective Effects of Gut Microbiota and Gut Microbiota-Derived Acetate on Chicken Colibacillosis Induced by Avian Pathogenic Escherichia Coli.” Veterinary Microbiology 261 (October 2021): 109187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2021.109187.

Peng, Luying, Zhong-Rong Li, Robert S. Green, Ian R. Holzmanr, and Jing Lin. “Butyrate Enhances the Intestinal Barrier by Facilitating Tight Junction Assembly via Activation of AMP-Activated Protein Kinase in Caco-2 Cell Monolayers.” The Journal of Nutrition 139, no. 9 (September 2009): 1619–25. https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.109.104638.

Ragsdale, Stephen W., and Elizabeth Pierce. “Acetogenesis and the Wood–Ljungdahl Pathway of CO2 Fixation.” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) – Proteins and Proteomics 1784, no. 12 (December 2008): 1873–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbapap.2008.08.012.

Vinolo, Marco A.R., Hosana G. Rodrigues, Renato T. Nachbar, and Rui Curi. “Regulation of Inflammation by Short Chain Fatty Acids.” Nutrients 3, no. 10 (October 14, 2011): 858–76. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu3100858.

Wielen, Paul W. van der, Steef Biesterveld, Servé Notermans, Harm Hofstra, Bert A. Urlings, and Frans van Knapen. “Role of Volatile Fatty Acids in Development of the Cecal Microflora in Broiler Chickens during Growth.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 66, no. 6 (June 2000): 2536–40. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.66.6.2536-2540.2000.

Xiao, Chuanpi, Li Zhang, Bo Zhang, Linglian Kong, Xue Pan, Tim Goossens, and Zhigang Song. “Dietary Sodium Butyrate Improves Female Broiler Breeder Performance and Offspring Immune Function by Enhancing Maternal Intestinal Barrier and Microbiota.” Poultry Science 102, no. 6 (June 2023): 102658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2023.102658.

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.