Conference report

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

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

Weaning factors that influence a successful weaning

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

Social dynamics

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

Environmental management

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

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

Targets for gas, dust, and bacteria levels

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

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

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

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

Nutritional support

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

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

Hygiene and biosecurity

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

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

Routine monitoring

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

Pig positive people

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

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

Collaborative approach

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

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

Conference report

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

Pre-weaning measures help improve weaner performance.

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

Genetics

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

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

Gestation and farrowing influencers

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

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

Environmental conditions

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

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

Hygiene

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

Lactation phase

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

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

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

Nurturing the gut

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

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

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

Collaborative approach

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

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

By Dr. Inge Heinzl

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

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

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

Symptoms of foodborne diseases may vary

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

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

Possible sources of contamination

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

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

Countermeasures to protect consumers

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

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

A path forward: Strengthening food safety standards

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

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

Cereals

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

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

Milk and Dairy Products

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

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

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

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

Meat Products

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

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

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

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

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

Volatility and challenges persist

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

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

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

1. Temperature and ventilation

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

The following temperatures are recommended for successful piglet rearing:

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

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

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

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

2. Nutrition

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

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

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

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

3. Housing and Space

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

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

4. Hygiene and Health

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

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

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

5. Weaning Practices

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

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

6. Minimizing Stress

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

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

7. Supportive functional feed ingredients

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

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

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

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

The results are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

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

7.2 Phytomolecules can even show improvement under optimum conditions

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

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

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

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

8. Conclusion

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

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

by 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 Vesna Jenkins, Global Product Manager, Biomin BioStabil

Silage quality directly impacts animal health and farm profitability. This guide delves into the scientific principles and practical steps necessary to produce silage of the highest caliber.

Optimal Dry Matter

The journey to exceptional silage begins with harvesting at the ideal dry matter percentage. This critical timing ensures the preservation of yield and energy content. Striking the right balance is key; harvesting too early can lead to nutrient-poor silage, while too late can compromise the forage’s structural integrity. Aim for a dry matter content of 32-38% depending on forage type for optimal results.

Wilting Wisdom

When wilting is part of the process (e.g. grass, clover or alfalfa silage), efficiency is paramount. Achieving the desired dry matter in just a few hours help to prevent spoilage and retain the forage’s nutritional value. It’s a delicate dance between removing excess moisture and maintaining the feed’s quality.

Ensiling Excellence

Post-harvest, the clock is ticking. Compacting and sealing the forage within 24 to 48 hours is vital to create an anaerobic environment. This step is crucial to ensure anaerobic conditions for optimal fermentation. Pack the silage in thin layers with heavy enough machinery such as dual wheeled heavy tractors to achieve optimal dry matter density of around 250 kg per cubic meter. Pay special attention to the edges for even compaction. Once filled, seal the clamp with high quality overlapping sheets ensuring the edges are weighted down to prevent air ingress.

Rapid Acidification

The role of silage inoculants cannot be overstated. The proven science of the silage inoculant Biomin® BioStabil accelerates the pH drop, locking in dry matter, energy, and protein. This rapid acidification is a defense mechanism against pathogenic bacteria and mycotoxin producing fungi, ensuring the silage remains safe and nutritious.

Feed-Out Finesse

Proper management of the clamp face is crucial to prevent spoilage and ensure livestock health. Cut sufficient depth from the clamp face daily to prevent newly exposed silage near the face from having time to spoil. Maintain a smooth and clean silage face to minimize spoilage. Spilled debris on the ground can easily go moldy, presenting hazards for animals if fed out. Use the proven silage inoculant Biomin® BioStabil for longer aerobic stability in the silage and TMR.

Silage making is both a science and an art. By following these guidelines and choosing the right inoculant, farmers can secure the nutritional integrity of their forage.

Consult with an EW Nutrition representative to select the perfect BioStabil inoculant tailored to your forage type and conditions, and elevate your silage from good to great.

by Ilinca Anghelescu, Global Director Marketing Communications, EW Nutrition

 

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

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

How bad is 31%?

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

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

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

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

Figure 2. Source: Statista

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

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

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

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

But where did these increased emissions come from?

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

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

Global meat production: 1950 vs. Present

Then…

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

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

…and now

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

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

Factors contributing to increased meat production

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

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

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

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

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

Livestock yield increase, 1950 to the present

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

Beef

1950s

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

Present Day

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

Increase in Beef Cattle Yield

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

Dairy

1950s

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

Present Day

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

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

Chickens (Layers)

1950s

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

Present Day

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

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

Chickens (Broilers)

1950s

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

Present Day

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

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

Factors contributing to yield increases

Genetic Improvement:

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

Nutrition:

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

Management Practices:

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

Technological Advancements:

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

Feed Conversion Efficiency:

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

Why Feed Conversion Ratio is a sustainability metric

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

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

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

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

Figure 4. Evolution of FCR from 1950

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

1. Resource efficiency

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

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

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

2. Environmental impact

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

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

3. Animal welfare

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

4. Economic viability

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

Livestock emissions

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

Farm-gate emissions

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

Land use for livestock

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

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

1. Pasture and grazing land

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

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

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

2. Land for Feed Crops

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

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

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

The role of food loss in livestock sustainability

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

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

Key aspects of food loss

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

Importance of reducing food loss

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

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

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

What’s next?

Improving production practices and technology

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

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

Optimizing Feed Efficiency

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

Promoting Sustainable Land Use

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

Reducing Food Loss

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

Enhancing Emission Tracking and Reporting

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Ilinca Anghelescu, Global Director Marketing Communications, EW Nutrition

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

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

Changes are already seen in food consumption

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

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

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

Potential implications for agriculture

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Still: It’s not all bad news!

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

 

Further reading

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

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

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

 

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.