For years I have touted the Global Salmon Initiative (GSI) as a precompetitive approach that other sectors should emulate. Recently, our research on the range of performance for each animal protein sector and feed ingredients suggested that there may be more to GSI’s success than just CEOs working together to reduce the reputational risk of the worst performers. A couple of years ago, I saw that the GHG emissions of some animal proteins had just one or two clusters of performance globally, while others were spread almost evenly across a much larger range, e.g., 20x or more. Salmon was the most concentrated of all, followed by eggs, poultry, and pork, with shrimp and dairy more spread out, while beef and lamb were relatively flat lines by comparison. NB: Our research shows that the performance curves for other impacts are similar in terms of concentration. A recent piece published in Nature suggests that the reason some sectors are more efficient is because the animals are monogastric and this allows managers to intensify production while conserving feed inputs and addressing key environmental and climate challenges. The study used data from 166 countries to model the impacts of pig and chicken intensification by reducing nitrogen and GHG emissions, which translated to less nitrogen fertilizer for feed production and resulted in producer savings. Such optimization under more intensive management could release 27 million hectares of cropland and provide additional food for 310 million people. As the global demand for livestock products continues to increase, meeting demand with less land and grain will require increased efficiency at speed and scale. Strategies that achieve both speed and scale will allow production to be achieved through quicker time to market, lower feed costs, reduced livestock and crop impacts, and increased producer income. Monogastric animals, such as pigs and chickens, are well suited to intensive production due to their dependence on grain-based feeds. Today, however, 35% of global pigs (~419 million) and 5% of chickens (~1.3 billion) are not being raised in intensive production systems. Intensification would bolster food security and reduce environmental impacts. Intensifying livestock farming is contentious. It could decouple crops and animal rearing and produce manure levels that exceed what local fields can absorb. Research on intensification to date focuses on livestock rearing. Few studies report on nitrogen and greenhouse gas emissions. A more comprehensive view of livestock production reveals that intensification, through more efficient feeding practices, can reduce the amount of feed needed and manure produced compared with traditional production methods, suggesting that one way to reduce global pollution, achieve carbon neutrality, and maintain food security is to optimize livestock-rearing strategies that encompass the entire production chain. https://lnkd.in/eSQd4UYF
Leslie Behrends
1mo
What if we all just stopped eating meat😳
Kari Onyancha
1mo
Danielle Niedermaier/David Harvey - add this to the list of growing research on climate-smart poultry and pig production.
I agree
--
1moActually from a nutritional perspective ruminants (herbivorous milk producing terrestrial animals like cattle, sheep, goats etc) are the most successful (in my opinion from a nutritional standpoint) because of their ability of being able to convert generally non-edible plant materials (hay, grass, leaves) into high-grade bacterial proteins within their rumen through bacterial fermentation - now that is smart as long as we still have plants to feed them - the issue of methane though is another matter! However, if we continue on our current feeding trajectory then the production of monogastrics is the other avenue. The good news about aquaculture is that 85% of farmed fish production are still mainly herbivorous freshwater fish species feeding low on the aquatic food chain!