EU Agricultural Outlook 2024-2035: Projected Trends and Challenges
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.
Antimicrobial resistance in animal production workers, a serious challenge
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.
Contaminated food: Consumption of undercooked or improperly handled meat products.
Environmental contamination: Water and soil contaminated with antibiotics or resistant bacteria.
What can be done?
Even in countries where antimicrobials reduction legislation has been in place for almost two decades, such as Germany or Sweden, new resistance cases are constantly discovered. In supermarkets around the world, meat contaminated with antibiotic-resistant superbugs is still a common occurrence. And in antibiotic resistance hot spots, “from 2000 to 2018, P50 increased from 0.15 to 0.41 in chickens—meaning that 4 of 10 antibiotics used in chickens had resistance levels higher than 50%. P50 rose from 0.13 to 0.43 in pigs and plateaued between 0.12 and 0.23 in cattle” (Dall, 2019). These hot spots are spread across the globe, from south and northeast India, northeast China, north Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey, to the south coast of Brazil, Egypt, the Red River Delta in Vietnam, and areas surrounding Mexico City, Johannesburg, and more recently Kenya and Morocco.
Globally, antimicrobial use in animals is projected to increase by 67% by 2030, especially in low- and middle-income countries where regulatory frameworks are weaker. Denmark provides a successful model for mitigating these risks. Policies such as the “Yellow Card” scheme have reduced antibiotic use in pigs by promoting alternative husbandry practices and strict monitoring. This approach has also reduced the prevalence of resistant bacteria in animal populations, offering a replicable strategy for other nations (Alban et al., 2017).
Recommendations for mitigation
Strengthening surveillance: Programs like DANMAP should be implemented globally to monitor antibiotic usage and resistance trends in animals and humans.
Reducing antibiotic use: Phasing out non-therapeutic uses of antibiotics, particularly as growth promoters, and avoiding Critically Important Antimicrobials for Human Medicine.
Protecting workers: Providing personal protective equipment (PPE) and regular health screenings for farm workers.
Public awareness: Educating communities about the risks of AMR and promoting safe food handling practices.
The evidence from Denmark and the U.S. underscores the urgent need to address AMR in animal production settings. Protecting farm workers from AMR not only safeguards their health but also prevents the spread of resistant pathogens across the wider public.
References
Bager, F., et al. (2015). DANMAP 2014: Use of antimicrobial agents and occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from food animals, food, and humans in Denmark. Retrieved from DANMAP Report.
Industrial food animal production, antimicrobial resistance, and human health. Annual Review of Public Health, 29(1), 151-169.
Alban, L., et al. (2017). Assessment of the risk to public health due to use of antimicrobials in pigs—An example of pleuromutilins in Denmark. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 4, 74. DOI.
EU publishes Short-term Outlook for Agricultural Markets (Autumn 2024)
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.
EU’s Short-term Outlook for Autumn 2024 highlights the following key findings collectively shaping EU agricultural markets:
Weather conditions: Severe drought in Southern and Eastern Europe and excess rainfall in Northwestern regions have reduced cereal and oilseed yields.
Energy and input costs: Inflation is stabilizing but remains high, with elevated prices for inputs like fertilizers and energy.
Geopolitical tensions: The ongoing war in Ukraine and trade disputes are disrupting supply chains and impacting exports.
Global demand: While global agricultural demand is recovering, trade flows face disruptions due to regulatory changes and volatile market conditions.
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.
Sustainable livestock farming: Progress since 1950
by Ilinca Anghelescu, Global Director Marketing Communications, EW Nutrition
Summary
Global GHG Emissions and Agriculture:
Agriculture-related emissions account for 31% of global anthropogenic emissions, with a growing share coming from food-related activities outside traditional farming, such as processing and transportation.
This represents a significant decrease from the 1950s when agriculture contributed to 58% of global emissions, a decrease largely due to the increased use of fossil fuels.
Population Growth and Emissions:
The global population has increased by 220% since 1950, leading to a threefold increase in agri-food emissions, now totaling 9-10 billion metric tons of CO2-equivalent annually.
Meat Production Growth:
Meat production has seen a 690% increase since 1950, driven by population growth, economic development, urbanization, technological advancements, and intensification of livestock production.
Technological improvements have significantly increased livestock yield, including higher carcass weights, improved feed efficiency, and greater output per animal.
Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) as a Sustainability Metric:
FCR, which measures the efficiency of feed conversion into body mass, has improved dramatically for poultry, pigs, and cattle since the 1950s.
Improved FCR contributes to more efficient resource use, reduced environmental impact, better animal welfare, and economic viability.
Livestock Emissions and Land Use:
Livestock-related emissions have increased by 14% since 2000, with a significant portion coming from enteric fermentation in ruminants and land use changes.
Pasture and grazing land have expanded slightly, while the land for feed crops has increased substantially due to intensified livestock production.
Food Loss and Its Impact on Sustainability:
Food loss, occurring primarily before the consumer stage, remains stable at around 13%. Reducing food loss is critical for improving food security, economic efficiency, and minimizing the environmental footprint of livestock production.
Future Strategies for Sustainability:
The article emphasizes the need for ongoing investment in technology, optimization of feed efficiency, sustainable land use, and improved methods for tracking and reducing emissions to ensure the future sustainability of livestock farming.
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)
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.
– Food Security: Efficient livestock systems contribute to food security by maximizing the output of animal protein relative to the input of resources.
Improving FCR is essential for achieving sustainability in livestock production. It leads to more efficient resource use, reduced environmental impact, enhanced economic viability, and supports the well-being of animals. As global demand for animal products continues to rise, optimizing FCR will be crucial in balancing production with the need to protect and preserve natural resources.
“The eight warmest years on record since 1961 (and in fact since the beginning of observations in 1880) are all within the eight-year period of 2015–2022. Europe is the region where the temperature change has been the highest in 2022 (and also for most of the 2000–2022 period), with 2.23 °C, followed by Asia (1.75 °C), the Americas (1.05 °C), Africa (1.01 °C) and Oceania (0.8 °C). The average temperature change in the 2010s was 1.25 °C, compared to 0.96 °C in the 2000s.” FAOSTAT 2023
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.
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 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 definesfood 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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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/
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
Global antimicrobial use in livestock farming: A revised estimate
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)
Figure 1: Distribution of global antimicrobial use among cattle, pigs, and chickens.
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.
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.
The Global and European Pork Industry: An Overview from IFIP
Institut du Porc (IFIP), the French pork research and development institute and a key player in the French agricultural sector, has recently published its 2024 report, titled Porc par les Chiffres 2023-2024. The document provides a comprehensive overview of the global, European, and French pork industries and is a critical resource for all industry professionals.
The Global Pork Industry
The global pork industry has experienced significant changes over recent years. In 2021, global pork production reached approximately 108 million tons of carcass weight equivalent (CWE), largely driven by China’s recovery from African Swine Fever (ASF). By 2022, global production continued to rise, though at a slower pace due to the stabilization of China’s pig herd. However, the global landscape remains varied with notable regional differences.
In Asia, China dominates pork production, contributing 47.5 million tons in 2021. Other significant producers include Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines. In Europe, the EU-28 collectively produced 24.6 million tons, with Germany, Spain, and France being the leading producers. In the Americas, the United States and Brazil are major contributors, with the U.S. producing 12.6 million tons and Brazil 4.4 million tons. The production in other regions like Africa and Oceania remains relatively small in comparison.
The global pork trade is equally dynamic. In 2022, the major exporters included the European Union, the United States, and Canada. Key importers were China, Japan, and Mexico. The shifting demands and production capacities have led to fluctuating trade patterns, impacting global pork prices and market stability.
Figure 3. Evolution of global pork production (GDP in 1000 tons)
Pork Industry in the European Union
The European pork industry faced a challenging year in 2022, marked by a decline in production and various economic pressures. The EU’s pork production fell by approximately 5%, equating to a loss of over 12.6 million pigs for slaughter. Germany, historically one of the largest producers, saw a significant 10% reduction in output due to ongoing economic and sanitary crises. Spain, while typically a growing market, experienced its first production decline since 2014 due to increased piglet mortality rates from health issues.
Despite these challenges, some regions showed resilience. France managed a relatively smaller production decrease of 2%, maintaining its position as a key player in the European market. The economic environment, characterized by rising inflation and high feed costs, pushed pork prices to record levels across the continent, with French pork prices ranking high in Europe, just behind Spain.
The consumption patterns within the EU also varied significantly. Countries like Denmark and Spain exhibited high per capita pork consumption rates, while others like the United Kingdom and Italy showed more moderate consumption levels. This disparity reflects both cultural preferences and economic conditions across the region.
Figure 4. Evolution of pork production in the main EU countries (tons, from a base of 100 in 2005)
The French Pork Industry
In France, the pork industry in 2022 faced a year of significant adjustments. The country produced 2.19 million tons of carcass weight equivalent, a 3% decrease from the previous year. This decline was attributed to reduced slaughter weights and lower export volumes of live pigs. Despite these challenges, France remained the third-largest pork producer in the EU, following Spain and Germany.
Regionally, pork production is concentrated in areas like Brittany and Pays de la Loire. Brittany alone accounts for a substantial portion of the national production. The distribution of pork farms across France highlights the regional specialization, with significant variations in production volumes from one region to another.
Figure 5. Suppliers to France (percentage of total imports)
French pork exports faced hurdles due to reduced demand from China, which saw a 35% drop in imports from France in 2022. However, increased sales to other Asian markets like the Philippines and Japan partially offset this decline. In terms of value, the higher pork prices helped mitigate the impact of lower export volumes, with total export values reaching 1.76 billion euros.
Figure 6. Export targets for France (percentage of total exports)
Economic and Production Challenges
The pork industry globally and within the EU faces several ongoing challenges. Rising feed costs, largely driven by global commodity price increases, have significantly impacted production costs. In Europe, the economic downturn and ongoing health crises like ASF and PRRS (Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome) continue to challenge producers.
In France, inflation and high production costs have led to a tightening of profit margins for pig farmers. The high costs of feed and energy, coupled with lower production volumes, have made it difficult for many producers to remain profitable. The industry has responded with efforts to improve efficiency and sustainability, though these measures take time to implement and yield results.
Future Outlook
In Asia, China’s recovery from ASF will likely stabilize, but the focus will shift towards improving biosecurity and production efficiency. In Europe, the industry will need to navigate economic challenges and health crises while adapting to changing consumer preferences towards more sustainable and ethical production practices.
For France, the key to future success will lie in balancing production efficiency with market demands. Investments in technology, biosecurity, and sustainable practices will be crucial. Additionally, expanding export markets beyond traditional partners will help mitigate the risks associated with market fluctuations.
The pork industry, both globally and within the EU, is at a pivotal point. The combination of economic pressures, health challenges, and shifting market dynamics necessitates strategic adjustments. By focusing on efficiency, sustainability, and market diversification, the industry can navigate these challenges and continue to thrive in the coming years.
Overcoming Challenges of Xylanase Inhibitors in Animal Feeds
By Dr. Ajay Awati, Global Director Enzymes, EW Nutrition
In recent years, the scientific understanding of xylanase inhibitors (XIs) and their impact on animal nutrition has grown significantly. Xylanase, a crucial enzyme used to enhance nutrient availability in feed, can face challenges from XIs present in cereal grains. This article explores the evolution of plant protection mechanisms, the economic impact of XIs, and the development of a novel xylanase, Axxess XY, resistant to these inhibitors.
Xylanase inhibitors – an evolutionary protection mechanism of plants
Xylanase inhibitors (XI) are a classic example of the evolutionary development of protection mechanisms by cereal plants against pathogens. Microorganisms, such as fungal pathogens, involve the degradation of xylan as one of the mechanisms in pathogenesis (Choquer et al., 2007). There are also other mechanisms by which microorganism-produced xylanases affect plants.
To protect themselves, plants evolved xylanase inhibitors to prevent the activities of xylanases. XIs are plant cell wall proteins broadly distributed in monocots. There are three classes of XIs with different structures and inhibition specificities (Tundo et al., 2022):
1. Triticum aestivum xylanase inhibitors (TAXI)
2. Xylanase inhibitor proteins (XIP), and
3. Thaumatin-like xylanase inhibitors (TLXI).
Xylanase inhibitors have an economic impact
In animal nutrition, xylanases are widely used in diets containing cereal grains and other plant materials to achieve a higher availability of nutrients. The inhibitory activity of XIs prevents this positive effect of the enzymes and, therefore, makes them economically relevant. Studies have reported that higher levels of XIs negatively impact broiler performance. For example, in one of the studies, broilers fed with grains of a cultivar with high inhibitory activity showed a 7% lower weight on day 14 than broilers fed with grains of a cultivar with less inhibitory activity (Madesen et al., 2018). Another study by Ponte et al. (2004) also concluded that durum wheat xylanase inhibitors reduced the activity of exogenous xylanase added to the broiler diets.
Xylanase inhibitors can withstand high temperatures
Even though XIs can impact the performance of exogenous xylanase in different ways, only minor attention was paid to the reduction of xylanase’s susceptibility to xylanase inhibitors during the xylanase development in the last decades. Firstly, the issue was ignored mainly through the assumption that XIs are denatured or destroyed during pelleting processes. However, Smeets et al. (2014) showed that XIs could sustain significant temperature challenges. They demonstrated that after exposing wheat to pelleting temperatures of 80°C, 85°C, 92°C, and 95°C, the recovery of inhibitory activity was still 99%, 100%, 75%, and 54%, respectively. Furthermore, other studies also confirmed that conditioning feed at 70-90°C for 30 sec followed by pelleting had little effect on the XI activity in the tested feed, showing that xylanase inhibitors are very likely present in most xylanase-supplemented feeds fed to animals.
Do we only have the problem of xylanase inhibitors in wheat?
No. After first reports of the presence of xylanase inhibitors in wheat by Debyser et al. (1997, 1999), XIs were also found in other cereal grains (corn, rice, and sorghum, etc.), and their involvement in xylanase inhibition and plant defense has been established by several reports (Tundo et al., 2022).
In most of the countries outside Europe, exogenous xylanase is used not only in wheat but also in corn-based diets. Besides broiler feeds, also other animal feeds, such as layer or swine feed being part of more mixed-grain diets, are susceptible to the inhibitory activity of XIs. Nowadays, the situation is getting worse with all the raw material prices increasing and nutritionists tending to use other feed ingredients and locally produced cereals. They need a xylanase which is resistant to xylanase inhibitors.
Xylanases’ resistance to XIs is crucial – Axxess XY shows it
To prevent xylanases from losing their effect due to the presence of xylanase inhibitors, the resistance of new-generation xylanases to these substances is paramount in the development process, including enzyme discovery and engineering.
In the past 25 years, scientists have learned much about XI-encoding genes and discovered how xylanase inhibitors can block microbial xylanases. Additionally, there has been a significant increase in understanding the structural aspects of the interaction between xylanases and XIs, mainly how xylanase inhibitors interact with specific xylanases from fungi or bacteria and those in the GH10 or GH11 family. With such understanding, a new generation xylanase, Axxess XY, was developed. Besides showing the essential characteristics of intrinsic thermostability and versatile activity on both soluble and insoluble arabinoxylan, it is resistant to xylanase inhibitors.
Axxess XY takes xylanase application in animal feeds to the next level.
Axxess XY outperforms other xylanases on the market
Recent scientific developments (Fierens, 2007; Flatman et al., 2002; Debyser, 1999; Tundo et al., 2022; Chmelova, 2019) and internal research can be summarized as follows:
Figure 1: Schematic summary of the susceptibility of different xylanase to xylanase inhibitors from three main groups.
The high resistance to xylanase inhibitors is one of the reasons that a novel xylanase with bacterial origin and from the GH-10 family was chosen to be Axxess XY. EWN innovation, together with research partners, made an interesting benchmark comparison between xylanases that are commercially sold by different global suppliers and Axxess XY. For these trials, all xylanase inhibitors from wheat were extracted. The inhibitors, together with the respective xylanase, were incubated at 400C (to mimic birds’ body temperature) for 30 mins. Then, the loss of xylanase activity was calculated by analyzing remaining activity after incubation. Results are shown below in Figure 2. There were varying levels of activity loss observed in the different commercially sold xylanases. In some xylanases, the losses were alarmingly high. However, Axxess XY was not inhibited at all.
Fig. 2: Extracted total xylanase inhibitors from wheat incubated with the respective xylanase at 40°C for 30 mins. – Loss of activity after incubation with xylanase inhibitors
Conclusion:
Xylanase inhibitors are present in all cereal grains and, unfortunately, heat tolerant (up to 900C, still 75% of inhibition activity was retained). Regardless of the diets used, there is a possibility that the xylanase used may come across xylanase inhibitors, resulting in a loss of activity. More importantly, this can lead to inconsistent performance.
For effective, consistent, and higher performance of NSP enzyme application, it is a must to use xylanase that is resistant to xylanase inhibitors.
Literature:
Chmelová, Daniela, Dominika Škulcová, and Miroslav Ondrejovic. “Microbial Xylanases and Their Inhibition by Specific Proteins in Cereals.” KVASNY PRUMYSL 65, no. 4 (2019). https://doi.org/10.18832/kp2019.65.127. LINK
Choquer, Mathias, Elisabeth Fournier, Caroline Kunz, Caroline Levis, Jean-Marc Pradier, Adeline Simon, and Muriel Viaud. “Botrytis CinereaVirulence Factors: New Insights into a Necrotrophic and Polyphageous Pathogen.” FEMS Microbiology Letters 277, no. 1 (2007): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2007.00930.x. LINK
Debyser, W, WJ Peumans, EJM Van Damme, and JA Delcour. “Triticum Aestivum Xylanase Inhibitor (Taxi), a New Class of Enzyme Inhibitor Affecting Breadmaking Performance.” Journal of Cereal Science 30, no. 1 (1999): 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1006/jcrs.1999.0272. LINK
Organic acids can play a crucial role in zinc oxide replacement
Dr. Inge Heinzl, Editor EW Nutrition & Juan Antonio Mesonero Escuredo, GTM Swine/GPM Organic Acids EW Nutrition
The use of high levels of Zinc Oxide (ZnO) in the EU before 2022 was one of the most common methods to prevent postweaning diarrhea (PWD) in pig production. Pharmacologically high levels of ZnO (2000-3000 ppm) increase growth and reduce the incidence of enteric bacterial diseases such as post-weaning diarrhea (PWD)( Carlson et al., 1999; Hill et al., 2000; Hill et al., 2001; Poulsen & Larsen, 1995; De Mille et al., 2019).
However, ZnO showed adverse effects, such as the accumulation of heavy metal in the environment, the risk for antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and problems of mineral toxicity and adverse growth effects when feeding it longer than 28 days (Jensen et al., 2018; Cavaco et al., 2011; Vahjen, 2015; Romeo et al., 2014; Burrough et al., 2019). To replace ZnO in pig production, let us first look at its positive effects to know what we must compensate for.
ZnO has a multifactorial mode of action
ZnO shows several beneficial characteristics that positively influence gut health, the immune system, digestion, and, therefore, also overall health and growth performance.
Figure 1. Beneficial effects and ZnO mode of action in postweaning piglets
1. ZnO acts as an antimicrobial
Concerning the antimicrobial effects of ZnO, different possible modes of action are discussed:
ZnO in high dosages generates reactive oxygen species (ROS) that can damage the bacterial cell walls (Pasquet et al., 2014)
The death of the bacterial cell due to direct contact of the metallic Zn to the cell (Shearier et al., 2016)
Intrinsic antimicrobial properties of the ZnO2+ ions after dissociation. The uptake of zinc into cells is regulated by homeostasis. A concentration of the ZnO2+ ions higher than the optimal level of 10-7 to 10-5 M (depending on the microbial strain) allows the invasion of Zn2+ ions into the cell, and the zinc starts to be cytotoxic (Sugarman, 1983; Borovanský et al., 1989).
ZnO shows activity against, e.g., Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, E. coli,Streptococcus pyogenes, and other enterobacteria (Ann et al., 2014; Vahjen et al., 2016). However, Roselli et al. (2003) did not see a viability-decreasing effect of ZnO on ETEC.
2. ZnO modulates the immune system
Besides fighting pathogenic organisms as described in the previous chapter and supporting the immune system, ZnO is an essential trace element and has a vital role in the immune system. ZnO improves the innate immune response, increasing phagocytosis and oxidative bursts from macrophages and neutrophils. It also ameliorates the adaptative immune response by increasing the number of T lymphocytes (T cells) in general and regulatory T lymphocytes (T-regs) in particular. These cells control the immune response and inflammation (Kloubert et al., 2018). Macrophage capacity for phagocytosis (Ercan and Bor, 1991) and to kill parasites (Wirth et al., 1989), and also the killing activity of natural killer cells depends on Zn (Rolles et al., 2018). By reducing bacterial adhesion and blocking bacterial invasion, ZnO disburdens the immune system (Roselli et al., 2003).
ZnO reduces the expression of several proinflammatory cytokines induced by ETEC (Roselli et al., 2003). Several studies have also shown a modulation effect on intestinal inflammation, decreasing levels of IFN-γ, TNF-α, IL-1ß and IL-6, all pro-inflammatory, in piglets supplemented with ZnO (Zhu et al., 2017; Grilli et al., 2015).
3. ZnO improves digestion and promotes growth
Besides protecting young piglets against diarrhea, the goal is to make them grow optimally. For this target, an efficient digestion and a high absorption of nutrients is essential. Stimulating diverse pancreatic enzymes such as amylase, carboxypeptidase A, trypsin, chymotrypsin, and lipase increases digestibility (Hedemann et al., 2006; Pieper et al., 2015). However, Pieper et al. (2015) also showed that a long-term supply of very high dietary zinc triggers oxidative stress in the pancreas of piglets.
By stimulating the secretion of ghrelin at the stomach level and thereby promoting the release of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) and cholecystokinin (CCK), ZnO enhances muscle protein synthesis, cell proliferation, and feed intake (Yin et al., 2009; MacDonald et al., 2000)).
The result of improved digestion is increased body weight and average daily gain, which can be seen, e.g., in a study by Zhu et al. (2017).
4. ZnO protects the intestinal morphology
ZnO prevents the decrease of the trans-endothelial electrical resistance (TEER), usually occurring in the case of inflammation, by downregulating TNF-α and IFN-γ. TNF-α, as well as IFN-γ, increase the permeability of the epithelial tight junctions and, therefore, the intestinal barrier (Al-Sadi et al., 2009).
The enterotrophic and anti-apoptotic effect of ZnO is reflected by a higher number of proliferating and PCNA-positive cells and an increased mucosa surface in the ileum (higher villi, higher villi/crypt ratio)(Grilli et al., 2015). Zhu et al. (2017) also saw an increase in villus height in the duodenum and ileum and a decrease in crypt depth in the duodenum due to the application of 3000 mg of ZnO/kg. Additionally, they could notice a significant (P<0.05) upregulation of the mRNA expression of the zonula occludens-1 and occluding in the mucosa of the jejunum of weaned piglets.
In a trial conducted by Roselli et al. (2003), the supplementation of 0.2 mmol/L ZnO prevented the disruption of the membrane integrity when human Caco-2 enterocytes were challenged with ETEC.
5. ZnO acts antioxidant
The antioxidant effect of ZnO was shown in a study conducted by Zhu et al., 2017. They could demonstrate that the concentration of malondialdehyde (MDA), a marker for lipid peroxidation, decreased on day 14 or 28, and the total concentration of superoxide dismutase (SOD), comprising enzymes that transform harmful superoxide anions into hydrogen peroxide, increased on day 14 (P<0.05). Additionally, Zn is an essential ion for the catalytic action of these enzymes.
Which positive effects of ZnO can be covered by organic acids (OAs)?
1. OAs act antimicrobial
OAs, on the one hand, lower the pH in the gastrointestinal tract. Some pathogenic bacteria are susceptible to low pH. At a pH<5, the proliferation of, e.g., Salmonella, E. coli, and Clostridium is minimized. The good thing is that some beneficial bacteria, such as lactobacilli or bifidobacteria, survive as they are acid-tolerant. The lactobacilli, on their side, can produce hydrogen peroxide, which inhibits, e.g., Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas spp. (Juven and Pierson, 1996).
Besides this more indirect mode of action, a more direct one is also possible: Owing to their lipophilic character, the undissociated form of OAs can pass the bacterial membrane (Partanen and Mroz, 1999). The lower the external pH, the more undissociated acid is available for invading the microbial cells. Inside the cell, the pH is higher than outside, and the OA dissociates. The release of hydrogen ions leads to a decrease in the internal pH of the cell and to a depressed cell metabolism. To get back to “normal conditions”, the cell expels protons. However, this is an energy-consuming process; longer exposure to OAs leads to cell death. The anion remaining in the cell, when removing the protons, disturbs the cell’s metabolic processes and participates in killing the bacterium.
These theoretical effects could be shown in a practical trial by Ahmed et al. (2014). He fed citric acid (0.5 %) and a blend of acidifiers composed of formic, propionic, lactic, and phosphoric acid + SiO2 (0.4 %) and saw a reduction in fecal counts of Salmonella and E. coli for both groups.
2. OAs modulate the immune system
The immune system is essential in the pig’s life, especially around weaning. Organic acids have been shown to support or stimulate the immune system. Citric acid (0.5%), as well as the blend of acidifiers mentioned before (Ahmed et al., 2014), significantly increased the level of serum IgG. IgG is part of the humoral immune system. They mark foreign substances to be eliminated by other defense systems.
Ren et al. (2019) could demonstrate a decrease in plasma tumor necrosis factor-α that regulates the activity of diverse immune cells. He also found lower interferon-γ and interleukin (Il)-1ß values in the OA group than in the control group after the challenge with ETEC. This trial shows that inflammatory response can be mitigated through the addition of organic acids.
3. OAs improve digestion and promote growth
In piglets, the acidity in the stomach is responsible for the activation and stimulation of certain enzymes. Additionally, it keeps the feed in the stomach for a longer time. Both effects lead to better digestion of the feed.
In the stomach, the conversion of pepsinogen to pepsin, which is responsible for protein digestion, is catalyzed under acid conditions (Sanny et al., 1975)group. Pepsin works optimally at two pH levels: pH 2 and pH 3.5 (Taylor, 1959). With increasing pH, the activity decreases; at pH 6, it stops. Therefore, a high pH can lead to poor digestion and undigested protein arriving in the intestine.
These final products of pepsin protein digestion are needed in the lower parts of the GIT to stimulate the secretion of pancreatic proteolytic enzymes. If they do not arrive, the enzymes are not activated, and the inadequate protein digestion continues. Additionally, gastric acid is the primary stimulant for bicarbonate secretion in the pancreas, neutralizing gastric acid and providing an optimal pH environment for the digestive enzymes working in the duodenum.
As already mentioned, the pH in the stomach influences the transport of digesta. The amount of digesta being transferred from the stomach to the small intestine is related to the acidity of the chyme leaving the stomach and arriving in the small intestine. Emptying of the stomach can only take place when the duodenal chyme can be neutralized by pancreatic or other secretions (Pohl et al., 2008); so, acid-sensitive receptors provide feedback regulation and a higher pH in the stomach leads to a faster transport of the digesta and a worse feed digestion.
4. OAs protect the intestinal morphology
Maintaining an intact gut mucosa with a high surface area is crucial for optimal nutrient absorption. Research suggests organic acids play a significant role in improving mucosal health:
Butyric acid promotes epithelial cell proliferation, as demonstrated in an in vitro pig hindgut mucosa study (Sakata et al., 1995). Fumaric acid, serving as an energy source, may locally enhance small intestinal mucosal growth, aiding in post-weaning epithelial cells’ recovery and increasing absorptive surface and digestive capacity (Blank et al., 1999). Sodium butyrate supplementation at low doses influences gastric morphology and function, thickening the stomach mucosa and enhancing mucosal maturation and differentiation (Mazzoni et al., 2008).
Studies show that organic acids affect gut morphology, with a mixture of short-chain and mid-chain fatty acids leading to longer villi (Ferrara et al., 2016) and Na-butyrate supplementation increasing crypt depth and villi length in the distal jejunum and ileum (Kotunia et al., 2004). However, the villi length and mucosa thickness in the duodenum were reduced. Dietary sodium butyrate has been linked to increased microvilli length and cecal crypt depth in pigs (Gálfi and Bokori, 1990).
5. OAs show antioxidant activity
The last characteristic, the antioxidant effect, cannot be provided at the same level as with ZnO; however, Zhang et al. (2019) attest to OAs a certain antioxidant activity. Oxalic, citric, acetic, malic, and succinic acids, which were extracted from Camellia oleifera, also showed good antioxidant activity in a trial conducted by Zhang et al. (2020).
Organic acids are an excellent tool to compensate for the ban on ZnO
The article shows that organic acids have similar positive effects as zinc oxide. They act antimicrobial, modulate the immune system, maintain the gut morphology, fight pathogenic microbes, and also act – slightly – antioxidant. Additionally, they have a significant advantage: they are not harmful to the environment. Organic acids used in the proper pH range and combination are good tools for replacing zinc oxide.
References on request
FEFAC: Quick Overview of 2023 EU Compound Feed Production
Total Production 2023: 144.3 million metric tons for farmed animals
Change from 2022: 2% decrease
Factors Influencing Decrease
Political and Market Pressures: Addressing crises and the shift towards sustainable feed.
Climate and Diseases: Effects of droughts, floods, Avian Influenza (AI), and African Swine Fever (ASF) on raw material supply and animal production.
National Policies: Initiatives for greenhouse gas and nitrate emission reduction.
Production Variability: Different trends across EU Member States, with notable decreases in countries like Germany, Ireland, Denmark, and Hungary, and slight increases in Austria, Bulgaria, Italy, and Romania.
Sector-Specific Trends
By Species
Pig Feed: Major decline of nearly 2.5 million tons. Key challenges included:
Loss of export markets, particularly in Asia
Negative media impact in Germany
Significant production drop in Denmark (-13.6%) and Spain (loss of 800,000 metric tons)
Italy’s ongoing struggle with ASF
Poultry Feed: Increase by 0.9 million tons, yet still 700,000 metric tons below 2021 levels. Challenges included declines in Hungary and Czechia due to reduced broiler production.
Cattle Feed: Decrease of 0.8 million tons from 2022.
“Green and animal welfare” policies affecting local production
Summary
The EU’s compound feed production in 2023 faced numerous challenges, leading to an overall decrease. The pig feed sector was most severely hit, while poultry feed showed some recovery. The influence of environmental, economic, and policy factors played a significant role in shaping these trends. Despite the price of feed cereals falling back to the levels seen before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, these challenges will continue to be felt in 2024.
Endotoxins are… toxic, of course. The part “endo” in their name means that they are part of the bacterial cell, or, to specify it, they are part of the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria such as E. coli, Salmonella, Shigella, Klebsiella, and Pseudomonas.
When do they occur?
Always. Endotoxins are released with the lysis of bacteria, e.g., at the end of their life cycle, due to the effective immune defense of the host or treatments. The other possibility is bacterial growth as the membrane gets restructured and the endotoxins (or lipopolysaccharides -LPS-) are liberated.
What is the problem?
The “normal” occurrence (animals and humans always have Gram-negative bacteria in their gut) does not matter, because gut cells do not have receptors to recognize them as a danger in their apical side. However, when the barrier function is compromised, they pass into the bloodstream.
The liver still detoxifies small amounts. The problem comes with higher amounts of endotoxins in the bloodstream. Then, they provoke a strong immune reaction, feed intake drops, and nutritional resources are shifted from growth and production to immunity. These performance drops affect the profitability of the farmer.
What can be done?
Use broad-spectrum toxin binders that
contain clay minerals showing high affinity and selectivity against endotoxins
contain yeast cell walls, which, in addition to their binding capacity, support the immune response through macrophage activation and are involved in modulating microflora and bacterial load from the intestine
.
