the future
of hunger:
How animal science
supports global food security
By Madeline McCurry-Schmidt
American Society of
Animal Science
struggle to find food powered evolution; from amoebas to
cheetahs, organisms evolved to fill niches where they could
find the most food and survive long enough to reproduce.
is not unprecedented. We can see one example of agriculture
advancing to feed the world in the nineteenth century response
to the “Industrial Revolution.”
The human population is growing rapidly, and animal
scientists are working to fight not wars but empty stomachs.
One in seven people worldwide suffers from hunger, and that
number includes many Americans. According to a 2011 USDA
report, one in eight Americans was “food insecure” in 2010,
“meaning that the food intake of one or more household
members was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted
at times during the year because the household lacked money
and other resources for food.”
In the 1800s, advances in engineering, transportation and
manufacturing led to the “Industrial Revolution.” New
industries meant economic growth. In many places, the
standard of living rose and so did birth rates. Many people
moved away from farms and settled in cities to be closer to
manufacturing jobs.
In the United States, the Industrial Revolution, combined
with massive immigrations and advances in medicine, led
to a population explosion. Between 1800 and 1850, the U.S.
population increased from 5,308,483 to 23,191,876 people. By
1900, the United States population was at 76,212,168 people.
The predicted population boom of 2.3 billion people by 2050
is an overwhelming number, and that number includes an
additional 100 million Americans. In the words of agriculturalnews blogger Andy Vance, “We are standing on the razor’s edge
of a potential food crisis the likes of which modern society has
never known.”
But the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)
estimates that more than one billion people in the world are
“suffering from chronic hunger.” That is one in seven people
going hungry.
“We run the risk of assuming that because there is plenty of
food in the U.S., it’s the same situation around the world,” said
Kola Ajuwon, an associate professor at Purdue University who
studies nutrition and obesity.
People are starving, we know that. But what many do not
realize is that access to food is predicted to get much, much
worse.
According to the Population Division of the Department of
Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat,
the world population will increase from 7 billion people
today to 9.1 billion people by 2050. That is 2.1 more humans
on this planet, and FAO predicts that we will need 70 percent
more food for that population. The current amount of food
produced will not be enough to feed the world population.
Increased demand for food includes an increased demand
for animal protein: the meat, milk and eggs that keep people
healthy.
“These pressures are coming,” said Ajuwon. “We need animals
that are very efficient, more efficient than they are now in
using the nutrients we are feeding them.”
Ajuwon is not alone. Many researchers believe animal
science is an important tool to achieve global food security.
In the early 1800s, farmers started using the portable engines
that later became tractors. In 1831, a Virginia blacksmith
named Cyrus McCormick invented the first mechanic corn
reaper, and in 1834, Hiram Moore invented the first combine
harvester.
In his book The Next Million: America in 2050, Joel Kotkin
writes that supporting the next 100 million will require
advances in food production.
The history
The grocery store is an illusion. Towering shelves of Rice-aRoni and Ragu project the idea that we have an abundance of
food.
All this time, farmers and agricultural engineers and scientists
were working to keep the population fed.
Already, advances in fields like animal nutrition, breeding,
genomics and veterinary medicine have led to increased food
production. Cattle today produce more meat using less water,
feed and fuel than they did in the 1970s. Today, scientists used
genomic tools to breed chickens that stay healthier and fish
that grow faster.
The technology is there. Now animal scientists are looking to
legislators and the public for support. This five part series will
look at the history and challenges of global food security and
the scientific advances that will help feed the world by 2050.
“The razor’s edge”
“American will inevitably become a more competitive place,
highly dependent, as it has been throughout its history, on its
people’s innovative and entrepreneurial spirit,” Kotkin writes.
A history of innovation
The coming population boom may be overwhelming, but it
Innovation and food security:
U.S. agriculture and
population growth 1800-1900
Brahman cattle, known for their
parasite resistance and drought
tolerance, arrive in the U.S.
Second Morrill Act passes,
establishing many
Refrigerated rail
historically black land
Hereford cattle
cars begin
grant universities
brought to the U.S.,
transporting
reportedly by
politician Henry Clay Hiram Moore invents the meat across
Angus cattle
combine harvester
the U.S.
brought to U.S.
The concern over food production is nothing new. In 1909,
animal scientist H.P. Armsky addressed a crowd at the annual
meeting of American Society of Animal Nutrition (the original
name for the American Society of Animal Science):
“There is to be, in the very near future, a struggle for land
and the food it will produce such as the world has never yet
beheld,” said Armsky.
The struggle for food has shaped history. Hunger led to the 19th
century immigration of the Irish to America. The Nazis used
hunger as a weapon against the Russians during the famous
Seige of Leningrad. Hunger led to the French Revolution.
In the mid 1800s, British politician Lord Macauley reportedly
told a friend, “The day will come when the multitudes of
people, none of whom has had more than half a breakfast
or expects to have more than half a dinner, will choose a
legislature…Either civilization or liberty will perish.”
Hunger is a prehistoric, pre-Homo sapien concern. The
There were also advances in animal agriculture. In 1817, the first
Hereford cattle were brought to the United States, followed
by Brahman cattle in 1854 and Angus in 1873. These breeds
and their crosses quickly became popular in beef production.
The expansion of the railway system meant more meat could
be transported to heavily-populated cities, and food traveled
1817
1800
U.S. population at
5,308,483
1834
1831
1854 1860
1873
1890
1900
1862
Lincoln approves creation of USDA,
Cyrus McCormick
U.S. population at Homestead Act and Morrill Land Grant
invents the
Colleges Act.
23,191,876
U.S. population hits
mechanical reaper
76,212,168
First grain elevator built
1842 1850
Population data from the U.S. Census Bureau
even farther when producers started using refrigerated boxcars
in the 1860s. With a growing population, it was important to
increase the shelf life of animal products. In the 1880s, German
chemist Franz von Soxhlet suggested using the pasteurization
method to kill bacteria in milk, and that method caught on
around the world.
The need to produce more food also led to improvements
in animal health. In the 1850s, veterinarian George Dadd
published The Modern Horse Doctor and The American Cattle
Doctor, in which he advocated for better animal medicine on
farms.
“The farmers have must begun to see the absurdity of bleeding
an animal to death with a view to saving its life; or pouring
down their throats destructive agents with a view of making
one disease cure another,” Dadd wrote.
The nineteenth century also saw the founding of the American
Veterinary Medical Association in 1863 and the U.S. Animal
Health Association in 1897.
These advances in animal science and agriculture came with
legislative support.
In an 1859 speech to the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society,
presidential candidate Abraham Lincoln expressed his concern
over food security:
will be the art of deriving a comfortable subsistence from the
smallest area of soil,” said Lincoln.
Three years later, President Lincoln approved the creation of
the United States Department of Agriculture. That same year,
he signed the Homestead Act, which gave farm land to many
settlers who moved west. Lincoln supported the agricultural
sciences when he signed the Morrill Land Grant College Act,
which provided public land for agricultural colleges. A second
Morrill Act was passed in 1890. Together, the Morrill Acts
helped establish more than 70 universities with agricultural
research programs, including many historically black
universities.
In an essay on “Lincoln’s Agriculture Legacy,” Wayne
Rasmussen, former chief of the Agricultural History Branch of
the USDA wrote, “Although Lincoln’s primary problem during
his Presidency was preserving the Union, the agricultural
legislation that he signed was to transform American farming.”
During the early years of the agricultural revolution, just like
today, pressure fell on farmers to produce more food for the
new generations. The history of agriculture from 1800 to 1900
is not always rosy. Field labor fell to slaves in some regions, and
some people still went hungry. But the advances in agriculture
and animal production supported a growing population
through the 1800s and continued into the 20th century.
“Population must increase rapidly — more rapidly than in
former times — and ere long the most valuable of all arts,
“There’s no question that improving feed efficiency will
improve feed security,” Patience said. “If we can produce either
the same number of pigs on a smaller amount of feed, or if we
can feed more pigs on the same amount of feed, then obviously
that puts less pressure on feedstuffs that are available around
the world.”
Better ingredients, better pigs
Patience is a swine nutritionist, and his research focuses
on how pigs turn nutrients into energy. By studying the
right combinations ingredients like amino acids, sugars and
minerals in a diet, scientists can improve feed efficiency.
“We’re becoming more sophisticated in how we design our
diets,” said Patience. “Pig carcasses are getting larger. That’s
really a function of efficiency.”
Monty Kerley, a professor of nutrition in the college of
agriculture, food and natural resources at University of
Missouri, explained how energy metabolism works in cattle.
Kerley has spent a lot of time studying mitochrondria, the tiny
structures that produce energy in cells. This energy, called
ATP, is dependent on the nutrients an animal consumes.
“An efficient animal can generate that ATP quicker,” said
Kerley.
Kerley sees cattle gain the same amount of weight on different
amounts of food. In every herd Kerley has studied, he has
measured about a 1.4-fold difference in intake between the calf
that eats the least and the calf that eats the most.
“Yet there won’t be a difference in the weight of those calves
or the rate of gain,” Kerley said. “The thought, at least now,
is that efficient animals have figured out how to make energy
quicker, more efficiently. They reach satiety quicker. That sort
of explains the difference we’re seeing in intake.”
Kerley recommended that animal producers use tools to
measure individual feed intake for their animals. That way, they
will know which animals are more efficient. Once producers
identify efficient animals, they can adjust how much feed they
give their animals and not waste feed or money.
Some pig producers are improving feed efficiency by using
computerized technology. At the International Conference
on Feed Efficiency in Swine, held November in Des Moines,
researcher Kees de Lange described how computerized liquid
feeding systems are useful for producers who want to adjust
feed amounts and nutrients on a pig-by-pig basis.
“You can really separate, quite conveniently, little batches of
feed,” said de Lange, a swine nutritionist at the University of
Guelph.
He said that though systems are expensive to install, liquid
feeding can improve pig health and weight gain. Lange
cited data showing that liquid feeding can benefit swine gut
microflora. Gut microflora are the beneficial microorganisms
that live in the digestive tract. These microflora help pigs—
and humans—synthesize nutrients like vitamin A and B12.
Microflora also convert undigested sugars and fiber into
energy. The computerized systems store feed in tanks, which
promotes fermentation and the development of beneficial
microbes. A pig with healthy microflora can be more efficient,
and in Lange’s studies of weaning-aged pigs, a liquid diet
improved health in portions of the intestines.
New technology can also help with Kerley’s goal of measuring
individual feed intake. Recently, equipment company
GrowSafe Systems Ltd. unveiled a feeding system that weighs
individual animals when they walk up to feed at a trough. The
“Greener” beef
Data from “The environmental impact of beef production
in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007” by J.L. Capper
Feed efficiency
On a 30-year graph of corn prices, the year 2011 looks like
Mount Everest. According to the United States Department
of Agriculture, corn prices reached $318.74 per metric ton in
April 2011, an all-time high. There are many reasons for that
spike; 2011 also saw a severe drought in the southern United
States and more demand for corn in the ethanol market.
For those in animal agriculture, that spike in corn prices came
with a spike in blood pressure. For years, corn has been a
crucial ingredient in animal feed in the United States.
“Nobody else in the world was in a position where they could
afford to do that [feed corn] previously, and now we’re in a
position where we cannot afford to do it either,” said Iowa State
University animal scientist John Patience in an interview.
For Patience, rising corn prices are a sign that scientists and
farmers need to produce more animal protein, like meat and
eggs, while using less animal feed. This concept is called feed
efficiency.
% used per 1 billion kg of beef produced
compared to 1977
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1977 2007
animals
1977 2007
feedstuffs
1977 2007
water
1977 2007
land
% of waste produced per 1 billion kg of beef produced
compared to 1977
By improving efficiency of the beef production process, U.S.
farmers have reduced their environmental impacted over
the last 30 years.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1977 2007
manure
1977 2007
methane
1977 2007
1977 2007
nitrous oxide total carbon
footprint
system uses special ear tags to track how much an animal eats
and how much that animal weighs.
Green meat?
Improving feed efficiency does not just mean more animal
protein; feed efficiency also benefits the environment.
“If it takes less feed to feed the animals, then there’s less
waste that’s going to be produced by the animals, whether it’s
gaseous waste like methane or solid waste,” said Kerley.
In December, Washington State University animal scientist
Jude Capper published an article in the Journal of Animal
Science showing that beef production has become more
efficient and reduced pressure on the environment since 1977.
“Consumers often perceive that the modern beef production
system has an environmental impact far greater than that of
historical systems, with improved efficiency being achieved at
the expense of greenhouse gas emissions,” wrote Capper.
In fact, green house gas emissions from beef production have
decreased over the last 30 years. To produce 1 billion kilograms
of beef, producers now use 69.9 percent of the animals, 81.9
percent of the feedstuffs, 87.9 percent of the water and 67.0
percent of the land that they did in 1977. Along with that
increase in efficiency came an 18.1 percent decrease in manure,
a 17.3 decrease in methane and a 12 percent decrease in nitrous
oxide emission.
The decreased environmental impact is a combination of
many factors, from better disease management to better
transportation systems, but feed efficiency was important.
“Gains in productive efficiency allow increases in food
production to be achieved concurrently with reductions in
environmental impact,” wrote Capper. “As the U.S. population
increases, it is crucial to continue the improvements in
efficiency demonstrated over the past 30 years to supply
the market demand for safe, affordable beef while reducing
resource use and mitigating environmental impact.”
Overall, the carbon footprint per billion kilograms of beef
decrease 16.3 percent between 1977 and 2007.
“It’s sort of a double-whammy,” said Nancy Morgan, a liaison to
the World Back and economist with the Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the United Nations. “If you could increase
productivity, rather than increasing the number of animals,
you’re producing less green house gases.”
Patience said feed efficiency is crucial for feeding the world.
By learning more about animal diets and embracing new
technology, feed efficiency, at least in swine, should continue
to improve.
“It’s just an evolution of our industry,” Patience said.
Feed efficiency from another angle
Any classy beer drinker knows to check a pint for clarity. After
all, no one wants to drink sediment from barley mashed in the
brewing process.
Many don’t realize that when brewers make beer, they do not
just throw away the mashed barley. By-products from the
brewing process, which can also include grains like sorghum
and wheat, often go into the food supply for livestock animals.
For years, distillers grains, or dried distillers grains with
solubles (DDGS), have been an important part of farm animal
nutrition.
“Some that do not believe in the consumption of meat
products will always argue that we are a drain on resources,”
said Patience. “But the fact of the matter is that there are a lot
constituents of the pig’s diet that people would not want to eat
under any circumstances.”
As the price of corn goes up, more and more animal producers
are looking to DDGS as an inexpensive feed, and DDGS are
a hot topic in feed efficiency research. Animal scientists are
curious about how nutrient concentration and digestibility of
DDGS affect weight gain.
In a 2009 Journal of Animal Science paper, scientists from the
University of Illinois and University of Minnesota reported
that DDGS contain greater levels of amino acids and fats than
regular corn feed.
“DDGS can be included in diets fed to growing pigs in all
phases of production, beginning at two to three weeks
postweaning, in concentrations of up to 30 percent DDGS, and
lactating and gestating sows can be fed diets containing up to
30 and 50 percent, respectively, without negatively affecting
pig performance,” wrote the researchers.
Though the ethanol industry in the United States has driven
up corn prices, the industry also contributes the DDGS supply.
In 2008, ethanol production plants in the United States
produced an estimated 18 million tons of DDGS. Animals can
also eat by-products like wheat middlings left over from grain
milling and pea chips left over when field peas become split
peas for human consumption.
“These are all ingredients that can be put into pigs’ diets,” said
Patience. “They are cast off from the human food market.”
Breeding and genetics
We know very little about the first human to keep a wild ox
in a pen. Whoever that person was, he lived in an area of the
Middle East called the Fertile Crescent about 10,000 years
ago. This discovery, that humans could manage wild animals,
helped make early human civilization possible. People could
settle into cities and learn new trades thanks to the steady
source of food from nearby pastures.
Once humans realized they could domesticate animals
like wild oxen or goats, they began managing animals on a
genetic level. Even without scientific knowledge of genes and
inheritance, it made sense to breed together the best males
and females in a herd.
“It is not clear which genes were the first ones to be selected,
but those related to behavior must have been subject to
early selection pressure. The wild ox was a fearsome beast
and docility must have been a very desirable trait,” said Dan
Bradley, a professor of molecular population genetics at Trinity
College Dublin.
Bradley studies DNA from ancient animals, like the first
domesticated oxen, to see how humans influenced animal
genetics over time. Bradley is especially interested in
mitochondrial DNA, which is passed through the maternal
line in animals.
The use of distillers grains and other by-products is not just
about providing nutrients for pigs. By using by-products from
human food production, animal scientists and producers
reduce competition for resources and improve food supplies
for all. Making the most out of limited resources is what feed
efficiency is all about.
By studying mitochondrial DNA, Bradley has discovered
that European cattle and zebu cattle, two types of common
domesticated cattle, came from separate wild populations
thousands of years ago. He has also found that mitochondrial
DNA is not very diverse in populations of Near Eastern,
European and African cattle breeds, suggesting that relatively
few wild females served as the foundation of modern cattle
breeds.
“Certainly, anything we do to decrease feed costs or feed usage
allows us to produce product at a lower price,” said Kerley.
“It gives a particular perspective; a sort of postcard from the
past,” Bradley said.
And more food, at a lower price, is a good step in feeding the
growing population.
Over thousands of years, humans have used selective breeding
to domesticate the animals that feed the world. Genetic
selection has led to larger pigs and more docile cattle, cows
that make more milk and chickens with more meat on their
breasts. Ask a child to draw a cow, and that cow will not be a
wild ox, it will be a black and white splotchy animal not found
in the wild.
Genetic selection continues today. Tools for genetic
sequencing can make animals more productive. Advances in
biotechnology have allowed scientists to create faster-growing
fish and more environmentally friendly pigs through genetic
modification. Animal genetics has helped feed the world for
the last 10,000 years, and new research into animal genetics
could help feed the growing population.
Breaking the code
In animal breeding, there is a lot talk about potential. Pick
out animals with the right traits, breed them together, and
you are, potentially, breeding for better offspring. But with
modern genetic sequencing tools, scientists can look beyond
the potential benefits of breeding and pinpoint the exact genes
responsible for certain traits.
“We are reading the DNA of the animals to know which are
best for selection,” said Andre Eggen, a genomics researcher
with Illumina Inc., a company that provides tools for genetic
analysis.
With genetic sequencing, scientists take DNA and break it
into units called base pairs. The order of base pairs is passed
down through generations, and they instruct cells to make
proteins for traits like hair color and body size. There are
natural genetic variations in animal herds, and scientists
can compare those variations in base pairs to differences in
traits of animals, like fertility, and determine which base pair
sequences cause which traits.
In a paper for the magazine Animal Frontiers, Eggen wrote that
genomic selection has an advantage over traditional selection.
Traditional breeding relies on observation of traits, which can
limit accuracy. It is easy to see if one animal is bigger than
another, but some traits are less obvious.
“Such difficult-to-measure traits are often critically important,”
Eggen wrote. “They include fertility, longevity, feed efficiency
and disease resistance.”
In an interview, Eggen said scientists have had success in using
genetic selection to breed better cattle.
“We can screen the population, and then we can start selecting
from those for meat quality,” said Eggen.
Genomic selection has already increased productivity in the
dairy industry. Dairy cows are bred for high milk yield, and
it is easier to measure genetic potential for high yield in a
female cow: just measure the milk. But selecting a bull is more
difficult. Bulls do not make milk, so breeders have to wait for
a bull to have daughters and then measure milk production
from those daughters. This process, called progeny testing,
can be effective, but it also means time and food can be used
on unproductive bulls. With genetic analysis, all that could
change.
“Genomic selection gives AI [artificial insemination]
companies the ability to carry out accurate selection decisions
at a young age by using DNA testing,” wrote scientist Jonathan
Schefers, from Alta Genetic USA, and scientist Kent Weigel,
from the University of Wisconsin-Madision, in an Animal
Frontiers paper.
According to Schefers and Weigel, more than 90 percent of
bulls in certain dairy breeds have been DNA tested. They
believe that as scientists and producers test more and more
animals, predictions for offspring milk yield will be even more
accurate. With accurate predictions, producers can cut down
the time between generations and breed productive cows
more quickly.
“Many breeders have embraced genomic selection and
routinely use GEBV [genomic estimated breeding values]
when purchasing semen or deciding which cows and heifers
merit investment,” wrote Schefers and Weigel.
The poultry industry is structured differently than the dairy
or beef industry. Janet Fulton, a molecular biologist at HyLine International, a breeding company for the egg-laying
chicken industry, explained that the value of a single male
chicken is not as high as that of a bull, but the cost of genetic
analysis for one individual is the same. This make recovering
the costs of genetic analysis trickier. Instead of buying semen
from a valuable bull and inseminating a herd of cows, poultry
producers buy “commercial chicks.” Commercial chicks are
bred from four “pure lines” of chickens chosen for valuable
traits.
Poultry breeders base decisions on the observable, or
phenotypic, traits. In the egg-laying hen industry, breeders
consider traits like egg size and feed efficiency when breeding
chickens. Fulton said genomics tools are used together with
this traditional quantitative selection breeding program.
For example, some chickens inherit genes that make them
produce eggs with a fishy odor. Through the use of comparative
genomics, scientists identified the genetic mutation that
causes fishy odor. Several breeding companies have now
eliminated this defect from their lines.
Fulton believes genetic analysis could also keep chickens
healthier, not only by selecting for disease resistance in the
birds themselves, but by analyzing the microbes inside of
them. Chickens, like humans, live with a beneficial population
of gut microbes. With genetic analysis, said Fulton, scientists
could identify the microbes in chickens and promote the
growth of microbes that aid digestion.
“It could have a great influence on feed efficiency,” Fulton said.
The tools for genetic sequencing and analysis have become
less expensive as technology has improved and scientists have
sequenced more animals. Fulton thinks genomics could go
even further.
“We know there’s a difference from one line to the next. The
question we’re trying to answer is: what genes are different?”
Fulton said. “How do all the genes interact together? How do
proteins fold together? No one really knows that yet.”
Genetic sequencing is a high-tech tool, but Eggen said it is a
natural step forward if scientists and the animal agriculture
industry want to produce more food.
“It is just an extension of what we have been doing for
centuries,” Eggen said.
Tweaking the code
Research into genetic selection can make it sound like DNA is
law; whether an animal is big or small, sickly or healthy depends
on genes. But new research shows that DNA is flexible, and
environmental pressures can influence gene expression. The
emerging field of epigenetics, or “fetal programming,” could
help the animal industry raise healthier animals and produce
more food.
To understand how epigenetics works, it is important to
understand that organisms have a very large array of genes
and not all these genes are expressed. Research shows that
animals begin adapting to the environment while still in the
womb. Epigenetic research is important because it shows that
environmental pressures, like disease or nutrition, can trigger
the expression of certain genes and affect efficiency in animal
production.
Even in the warmth of the womb, fetuses can be harmed by
exposure to chemicals or maternal malnutrition. The DNA of
a growing fetus is meant to adapt, so it takes cues from the
outside environment. If the mother is undernourished, for
example, the fetus is “programmed” to go into a world where
food is scarce.
“This research was started in humans, but there was no reason
to think that it wouldn’t affect other species,” said Steve Ford,
professor of animal science and Director of the Center for the
Study of Fetal Programming at the University of Wyoming.
The biotechnology boom
Ford studies how pregnant sheep react to changes in nutrition.
He wants to see if maternal nutrition will affect their offspring
later in life. Ford said there is a common misconception
among farmers that fetuses are too small to demand additional
nutrition early in development.
At the University of Guelph, a traditional Yorkshire sow gave
birth to the first “Enviropig.” The Enviropig was created by
splicing mouse DNA and E. coli DNA into the pig genome.
The Enviropig looked exactly like a normal pig, but its new
genes made it better at digesting phosphorus.
“People tend to under-nourish their females, be that sheep or
cattle, during early gestation,” said Ford.
The genetically modified Enviropig was a solution to a big
problem: how to raise enough food to feed the world without
damaging the environment. Grain fed to pigs contains
large amounts of phosphorus, but the pig digestive system
cannot digest all that phosphorus. As a result, pig manure
contains excess phosphorus that can run into fresh water, kill
wildlife and contaminate the human water supply. To reduce
phosphorus in pig manure, many producers buy supplemental
phytase, an enzyme that breaks down phosphorus, and add it
to their pig feed.
He said that producers tend to only increase maternal nutrition
later in gestation, but this is a big mistake. Calves and lambs
fattened up during late gestation weigh a normal amount, but
their organs and muscles will be underdeveloped because of
undernutrition early on. Ford has found that undernutrition
in the womb leads to the underdevelopment of the structures
that filter blood in the kidneys. These underdeveloped animals
look the same as their fully-developed counterparts, but their
behavior and organ function is very different.
“Even with the same genetics, two animals can express different
phenotypes,” said Ford.
Ford said underdeveloped cattle are “programmed” in the
womb to behave as though food is scarce, and they have
unstoppable appetites throughout life. Underdeveloped
cattle gain weight, but it goes to fat deposits, not muscle. Less
muscle on the animal means less meat harvested for human
dinner tables.
Ford said he sees similar effects when he over-feeds gestating
animals. Again, the offspring are born with huge appetites
but do not gain weight efficiently. This behavior and growth
is regulated through epigenetics. Under or over-nutrition in
the womb prompted the expression of genes for fat deposition
and poorer feed efficiency. Epigenetic changes are a way to
influence an animal’s genes without changing the actual DNA
sequence.
Even though an animal’s genotype appears normal, Ford has
found that animals programmed in the womb to express
certain genes can pass those traits on to the next generation.
In one trial, Ford took underdeveloped sheep from a previous
trial and fed them 100 percent of their required diet, an amount
which did not promote obesity. He then studied the changes
in their offspring. Like their parents, the offspring showed
differences in appetite and body fat.
By understanding the role of maternal nutrition, Ford hopes
farmers can adjust how they feed their animals. Animals with
proper maternal nutrition have normal appetites, meaning
farmers can conserve animal feed. The healthy animals then
produce more meat using less feed.
With epigenetics, scientists can tweak animal genetics and
produce more food for the world.
In 1999, a very special pig was born.
But in the 1990’s, University of Guelph scientist Cecil Forsberg
thought there might be a better way. Forsberg studied the
physiology of microbes living in ruminant animals like cattle.
He noticed that the microbes helped cattle better digest grain.
“We came up with the idea of converting a pig into a cow—in
other words, helping it digest cellulose,” said Forsberg in an
interview.
The cellulose project did not work out, but it inspired Forsberg
to look into phosphorus digestion. The goal was to engineer
a pig that could naturally produce the enzyme phytase in its
saliva.
“As a consequence, the phosphorus in manure is decreased,”
Forsberg said.
The project worked, and the first Enviropig was born. Forsberg
found that the genes for better phosphorus digestion were
passed down to the pig’s offspring. Today, the University
of Guelph works with the tenth generation of Enviropigs.
Through genetic modification, Forsberg created an animal
that could help farmers increase food production without
increasing the environmental impact.
The science behind genetic modification, or “genetic
engineering,” falls into a broader field called biotechnology.
Scientists working in biotechnology apply new technologies,
like gene-splicing, to living organisms to create new products.
Biotechnology has led to new vaccines, a steady source of
antibiotics and even treatments for diseases like diabetes.
Many animal scientists think biotechnology can increase
global food production while increasing food safety and
decreasing environmental impact.
“Genetically engineered animals have the potential to produce
food more efficiently,” said researcher Allison Van Eenennaam.
Van Eenennaam has worked in the field of biotechnology for
many years. She began researching cattle cloning even before
the birth of Dolly the Sheep. Today, she works as an extension
specialist at University of California, Davis. In a guest
lecture last year at Oregon State University, Van Eenennaam
highlighted the benefits of genetically modified animals like
the Enviropig.
Van Eenennaam explained how engineering chickens that do
not transmit avian influenza could save human lives. When
avian influenza hits a poultry farm, the disease can wipe out
flocks. Farmers often kill potentially healthy birds just to
stop the spread of disease. And avian influenza is not just a
threat to the food supply, it is a huge risk for human health.
In 1918, more than 20 million people died during an influenza
outbreak that started with transmission from birds to human.
“That was in the days when we had very little air travel and
very little international commerce,” said Van Eenennaam.
A disease like the 1918 avian flu virus would probably spread
faster today, but geneticists have found a way to stop it. Last
year, a team of scientists from Scotland and England reported
that they had genetically engineered chickens that could not
transmit avian flu.
Van Eenennaam also discussed the creation of the
AquAdvantage salmon by biotechnology company
AquaBounty. The AquAdvantage salmon has genes from two
other fish species, and this combination allows it to grow to
market size in one-half the time of conventional salmon.
Through genetic modification, scientists have increased feed
efficiency.
Scientists have used genetic modification to create healthy,
productive animals. Yet, after years of research, these animals
are far from our dinner plates.
The ethical obstacle
At the outset of a worldwide population boom, animal
producers are applying genetic sequencing and epigenetic
research to their herds. These products are seen in our grocery
stores and widely accepted by the public.
Genetic modification for disease resistance could expand
beyond chickens.
Biotechnology has not had the same success. Despite years of
research, there are no genetically modified animals available for
human consumption. Though products like the AquAdvantage
salmon are proven safe for human consumption, some people
have ethical and environmental concerns. Scientists in the
field of biotechnology could help feed the world, yet they
have struggled for public and legislative acceptable of their
products.
“You could modify pigs so they could become resistant to
swine influenza,” said Forsberg.
“While science has shown we can do it, society is unsure if we
should,” said Van Eenennaam.
Forsberg said he tried, early on, to get the Enviropig approved
by the FDA.
“Though we have submitted it for regulatory approval in the
United States, we are only partway through the process and it
is not approved,” said Forsberg.
Without approval, the scientists can raise the pig, but no one
can eat it. Forsberg said the lack of approval is not a matter of
food safety.
“Based on extensive chemical analysis, there seems to be
no difference between the Enviropig pork and pork from a
traditional pig,” Forsberg said.
Misinformation also fuels debates over the environmental
impact of genetically modified animals. For example, some
argue that if AquAdvantage salmon were to escape into
the ocean, they would compete for food with smaller wild
salmon, potentially driving the smaller salmon to extinction.
But scientists have considered these risks. AquaBounty, the
company producing AquAdvantage salmon has engineered
the population to be all female and incapable of breeding. The
company also plans to raise salmon in inland tanks so they
cannot escape into the wild—if they are ever approved for
consumption, that is.
The public perception of biotechnology is frustrating for
many animal scientists. Van Eenennaam said worries over
and genetic modification have left AquAdvantage salmon to
languish in FDA review.
“There’s no science-based reason why we should prohibit this
technology,” said Van Eenennaam in an interview.
Part of the problem, Van Eenennaam said, is how genetically
modified animals are represented. For example, the GE
AquAdvantage salmon is nicknamed the “Frankenfish.” During
her lecture at Oregon State University, Van Eenennaam showed
a slide of a photo she found when Googling “AquAdvantage
salmon.” The slide was a Photoshopped image of Frankenstein’s
monster combined with a dolphin.
“How can you have a rational discussion after calling something
‘Frankenfish’?” asked Van Eenennaam.
Forsberg said he thinks the public perception problem will
fade as the world population increases. At a recent conference
in Argentina, Forsberg got a chance to talk with scientists,
sociologists and ethicists from around the world. He said
speakers from heavily populated countries like China seemed
to embrace the idea of genetically modified animals.
“In those countries where there are hungry people, there is
less concern about transfer of genes between species,” said
Forsberg.
In her lecture, Van Eeneenaan explained that genetic
modification is not some huge revolution. Since the early days
of human civilization, we have produced animals through
genetic selection. Genetic modification is just the newest tool.
Traditional pig
Corn, soybeans, barley,
and other grains contain
indigestible phosphorus.
Enviropig
A combination of mouse and E. Coli
DNA in pig genome prompts phytase
production in the salivary gland. Even with
the new DNA, Enviropig
pork is chemically the
same as traditional
pork.
Pig fed the same grains
as traditional pigs.
Pigs excretes phosphorus that
can run into fresh water, kill
wildlife and contaminate
the human water supply. Managing
this waste is expensive for producers
and limits the amount of pork they
can produce.
Salivary phytase breaks down
phosphorus in the pig’s stomach.
The pig can then absorb the phosphorus
as phosphate. A small amount of phosphate
is excreted in urine.
Enviropig waste contains
less phosphorus. With genetic
modification, scientists created
a pig that can be raised with less
environmental impact.
Animal health
Getting into the swine facilities at the University of Illinois
requires a sort of costume. Visitors are given disposable white
jumpsuits and clear plastic boots. In the end, they look more
like astronauts than farmers.
This odd get-up is a form of biosecurity. Biosecurity steps
minimize the risk that swine will be exposed to disease.
Other steps include building swine facilities away from roads
where other animals are transported and building strong
fences around facilities to keep wild animals out.
Preventing disease is a challenge in all animal species, not
just swine. Drive by a poultry farm, and you’ll probably see a
sign with stop-sign red lettering:
“Help us maintain flock health. PLEASE KEEP OUT.”
The battle against livestock diseases is a worldwide concern.
Travel outside the continental United States, and customs
will ask if you “have been on a farm/ranch/pasture” during
Getting into the swine facilities at the University of Illinois
requires a sort of costume. Visitors are given disposable white
jumpsuits and clear plastic boots. In the end, they look more
like astronauts than farmers.
To eradicate Bluetongue virus, scientists and producers
vaccinate animals, quarantine the sick, and work to control
the insect population. Government support and funding for
these eradication efforts is also important.
tives and vaccines in controlling infection.
territory, new hosts.
“A single management strategy will not be sufficient to consistently reduce pathogen colonization,” Bearson said.
And sometimes, those new hosts are humans.
This odd get-up is a form of biosecurity. Biosecurity steps
minimize the risk that swine will be exposed to disease.
Other steps include building swine facilities away from roads
where other animals are transported and building strong
fences around facilities to keep wild animals out.
Salmonella is another kind of pathogen that scientists are
working to eradicate. Salmonella is a genus bacteria that live
naturally in the environment, and scientists work hard to
protect animals from the disease.
A second reason to study animal diseases is the need to
protect human health. Pathogens like Salmonella can have
devastating effects on human health.
Preventing disease is a challenge in all animal species, not
just swine. Drive by a poultry farm, and you’ll probably see a
sign with stop-sign red lettering:
“Help us maintain flock health. PLEASE KEEP OUT.”
The battle against livestock diseases is a worldwide concern.
Travel outside the continental United States, and customs
will ask if you “have been on a farm/ranch/pasture” during
your trip.
Animal producers have good reason to be strict about biosecurity. In recent years, farmers have fought off diseases like
foot and mouth disease (FMD), bovine tuberculosis and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome. Pathogens can
evolve quickly, and global trade can spread emerging diseases
to vulnerable animal populations. Each disease outbreak is a
challenge to the world’s food supply.
Healthier animals produce more food for animal consumption. Healthy pigs grow faster and produce more meat.
Healthy cows produce more milk, and healthy hens produce
more eggs. Animal diseases also have the ability to spread to
humans. By studying animal diseases, animal scientists can
increase the world’s food supply and protect human health.
The threat to animals
Bluetongue virus is an ugly disease. Sheep with Bluetongue
virus can get high fevers, they drool and their faces swell up.
Some get lesions on their feet and resort to walking on their
knees. A lack of oxygenated blood to the tongue can cause
the trademark blue tongue, making it difficult for sheep to
breathe or swallow. The sickest sheep die within a week of
showing symptoms. Most sheep survive, but it can take several months for survivors to recover.
Bluetongue disease is spread from animal to animal by biting
midges that live in warm climates, like Africa and Southern
Europe. The disease affects sheep, goats, buffalo, deer, cattle,
dromedaries and antelope.
Bluetongue is just one of many diseases that animal scientists
face when they work to keep animals healthy. These diseases
threaten food security around the world. Evidence shows that
when animal scientists have the resources to prevent diseases, they can improve agriculture. In July 2011, Great Britain
was officially declared “free” of Bluetongue.
Bradley Bearson, a microbiologist with the USDA Agricultural Research Service, said Salmonella can colonize a variety of
animals, not just swine. In many cases, Salmonella infections
do not cause symptoms.
“Often, Salmonella can colonize swine without causing obvious signs of disease,” said Bearson.
On rare occasions, pigs infected with Salmonella will have
diarrhea, dehydration, septicemia or even death. But even
without obvious symptoms, there are two major reasons why
scientists want to stop Salmonella infections in swine herds.
“Whenever pathogen exposure occurs due to Salmonella being present in food, water, or the environment, there is a risk
of spread to other animals as well as a potential risk of human
disease,” Bearson said.
Animal producers work to prevent Salmonella in herds, and
food producers take specific, government-mandated steps to
keep meat, milk and eggs safe. But sometimes, contamination reaches the public. According to Centers for Disease
Control statistics, Salmonella infections were the cause of 62
percent of hospitalizations due to food-borne illness in 2008.
In 2008, 13 people in the United States died after contracting
Salmonella.
One reason is that even infections without noticeable symptoms, called “sub-clinical” infections, can hurt swine production. An infected animal may look normal, but fighting off an
infection takes energy. Studies show that swine with subclinical infections do not gain body weight as quickly as uninfected swine. Lower body weight means less meat produced
for human consumption.
Officials tell consumers to wash their hands and cook food
thoroughly. Food safety experts agree, and many say it is
important to take prevention a step further; to keep food
production safe, scientists need to understand how diseases
spread between animals and humans.
Swine producers are particularly concerned with subclinical infections in newborn piglets. At the 7th International
Congress on Farm Animal Endocrinology (ICFAE), in Bern,
Switzerland last August, researcher Jeff Carroll explained that
piglets face extra immune challenges because they are also at
risk for hypothermia. Piglets get cold easily, and sick piglets
have to divide their energy between fighting infection and
staying warm.
As mentioned above, pathogens evolve. They look for new
The human toll
Zoonotic diseases are pathogens that have jumped between
humans and animals. Most of these come from wild animals.
In 2001, a team of researchers from the University of Edinburgh found that of the 1415 species of infectious organisms
“known to be pathogenic to humans,” 868 were zoonotic.
Sometimes the name of a disease makes it obvious: cowpox
virus, European bat lyssavirus 2, Baboon cytomegalovirus.
Zoonotic diseases are not a new phenomenon. Long before
humans knew about viral diseases, they knew that mad dogs
could pass on rabies. The bubonic plague was a zoonotic
disease that was originally passed between rodents. And scientists have identified armadillos as a potential source of the
bacterium that causes leprosy in humans. Recently emerged
zoonotic diseases include SARS and H1N1.
“More than two new species of human virus are reported
every year,” wrote researchers from the University of Edinburgh Centre for Infectious Diseases in a 2008 paper for the
Proceedings of the Royal Society B. “Recently discovered viruses are even more likely to be associated with a non-human
reservoir.”
Scientists tracking emerging diseases pay close attention to
how pathogens are transmitted between individuals. A “Stage
1” pathogen is only passed between animals and does not
affect human health. Bluetongue disease is an example of a
stage 1 pathogen. After stage 1, epidemiologists get nervous.
The five stages of zoonotic diseases
Stage 1
The pathogen is present in animals, but it does not infect humans under natural conditions.
Example: feline distemper
Carroll, a research leader for the USDA Agricultural Research
Service Livestock Issues Research Unit, conducted an experiment where piglets were given injections of Lipopolysaccharides as an immune “challenge.”
Stage 2
“The pigs that were maintained in the warm environment
exhibited no visual signs of illness.” Carroll said. But the cold
pigs “redirected any nutrients they had toward survival.”
The pathogen can be transmitted from animals to humans and can pass between humans.
However, the pathogen is not well adapted to humans and the pathogen will die out after
a few cycles of transmission. Example: Ebola virus
Carroll said it is important to study how temperature affects
immune response. Carroll has also found that cattle face immune challenges when subjects to high temperatures.
It is important for animal scientists to study the cases when
subclinical infections affect growth. With healthier animals,
producers can raise more food to feed the world.
Bearson said good Salmonella control measures should
include a biosecurity program. He said it is also important to
understand gut health in animals and the role of feed addi-
The pathogen can be transmitted from animals to humans, but it cannot spread from
human to human. Example: Nipah virus
Stage 3
Stage 4
The pathogen can be transmitted from animals to humans and can pass between humans.
It can adapt to living in humans for long periods of time without going back to animal
hosts. Example: cholera
Stage 5
A pathogen that exclusively infects humans. The pathogen may have co-evolved with
humans or colonized humans recently and evolved into a specialized human pathogen.
Example: HIV
Info from “Origins of major human infectious diseases” by Nathan D. Wolfe, Claire Panosian Dunavan and Jared Diamond, Nature, May 2007
At stage 2, an animal pathogen can be transmitted from
animal to human but does not have the ability to spread
from human to human. At stage 3, an animal pathogen can
be passed from human to human, but it does not last long
in the human population. Ebola is a stage 3 pathogen. Ebola
outbreaks originate in the non-human primate population
and can cause devastating, but short-lived, outbreaks in human populations. Stage 4 pathogens are gung-ho for humans.
Stage 4 diseases like yellow fever enter the human population
from animals and cause extended outbreaks in humans.
Meng discovered that swine and human HEV were related by
analyzing the strains genetically. Since the discovery of swine
HEV, Meng has used blood tests to track the prevalence of
the disease.
“You have to talk to producers about changing their behavior and changing their management systems,” said Nancy
Morgan, a liaison to the World Back and economist with the
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
“In some herds, up to 80 percent of the pigs are infected with
the Hep E virus,” Meng said.
Morgan said many animal producers kill sick animals to stop
the spread of disease, also called “culling,” when they do not
have to.
“We do not pay much attention to Stage 1 pathogens until
they become stage 2, 3 or 4,” said X. J. Meng, a professor of
molecular virology at Virginia Tech.
When humans get the swine strain of HEV, it is usually
through contaminated water or food. Like with Nipah virus,
humans close to infected animals are at the greatest risk.
Meng has found that HEV is common in swine veterinarians
in the United States.
That lack of attention is a problem if epidemiologists want to
stop stage 1 pathogens from adapting to humans.
By tracking the spread of swine HEV through genetic analysis
and blood tests, scientists have identified at-risk populations.
Meng spoke in March at the Farm Animal Integrated Research (FAIR) conference. The conference focused on the
future of animal agriculture, and Meng argued that successful animal production requires disease control in animals and
humans.
The treatment
“Infectious disease is the second leading cause of death
worldwide,” Meng said. He explained that the risk of zoonotic
disease is greater in developing countries. “The veterinary
services in those countries are usually very limited.”
Many diseases do not spread to humans; our physiology and
immune systems fight them off. But when animal pathogens
do infect humans, certain groups are particularly vulnerable.
Infants, pregnant women and the elderly are “immunocompromised,” meaning it is harder for them to fight off infections. People with HIV or AIDS or those undergoing cancer
treatments are also vulnerable.
Proximity to wild animals is also a risk. According to Meng,
wild animals are the sources of 75 percent of zoonotic diseases. That was the case in 1999, when a group of pig farmers in Malaysia fell ill with Nipah virus. Scientists eventually
identified a population of cat-like palm civets as the likely
source of that strain of Nipah virus. The disease probably
spread from the civets to the pigs to the pig farmers. This case
reveals another factor in catching zoonotic diseases: when a
disease finds a way to hit humans, animal producers are often
the first ones affected.
“They share their whole environment with farm animals,”
Meng said.
Meng said advances in animal science can minimize future
zoonotic disease outbreaks.
In his talk at FAIR, Meng talked about his experience studying the hepatitis E virus [HEV]. In 1997, Meng discovered
that swine were one reservoir of a strain of HEV that can
affect humans. Though HEV does not have a high mortality
rate, it can cause acute, severe liver disease in some people,
particularly in pregnant women.
Controlling the spread of zoonotic and animal diseases
requires balance. Time and money go toward treating
outbreaks as they emerge, but resources are also needed to
prevent outbreaks before they happen.
Many scientists are working on vaccines for zoonotic diseases. In 2006, a team of researchers from the College of
Veterinary Medicine at Iowa State University reported the development of a vaccine against avian HEV. Some are working
to stop pests that spread disease. In Texas, animal scientists
are working with entomologists to better treat cattle and deer
infested with ticks that transmit deadly “cattle fever.”
Others are researching better ways to control animal waste
and minimize water and food contamination.
“If you suddenly have an outbreak of avian influenza, the response is automatically to cull the animals and try to contain
the disease,” Morgan said.
But culling, said Morgan, is a short-term solution. To keep
animal agriculture viable in many areas, it more important
to focus resources on preventing diseases before culling is
needed.
“It’s about looking at where along the chain are the risks to
animal health or to human health. The risks along the chain
make a difference,” Morgan said.
Those risks might be gaps in biosecurity, poor water management or a lack of funding for veterinarians. Morgan said
these “value chain assessments” are a long-term solution.
“That is the type of applied research that is very useful for
policy makers,” Morgan said.
John Clifford, deputy administrator and chief veterinary officer for the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Veterinary Services program, agrees with Morgan regarding
culling.
“It is wasteful,” Clifford said in a talk at FAIR.
Clifford said what the world really needs is better diagnostic tools. Then, instead of culling potentially sick animals,
producers can remove only the sick animals from the herd.
He calls this technique “strategic depopulation.” Clifford said
it is also vital for the animal health community to stockpile
vaccines in areas where disease risk is greater.
According to Clifford, education is also important. For example, foot and mouth disease (FMD) is a dreaded disease in
animal agriculture. Animals like cattle, goats and sheep with
FMD suffer from high fevers and get painful blisters in their
mouths and on their feet. Animal producers will cull entire
herds to stop the spread of FMD. Yet, Clifford pointed out,
many animals eventually recover, and meat from these animals is safe for human consumption. If people understood
the disease better, they could prevent unnecessary culling.
Advances in animal agriculture can feed the growing world
population by the year 2050. However, changing agricultural
practices and global trade can also increase the risk of animal
and zoonotic diseases. With better diagnoses and understanding of diseases, producers could increase improve food
safety and feed the growing population
“Clearly, there’s a lot of work that needs to be done,” Meng
said.
“Microbial contamination of surface water can originate from
both extensive [e.g. grazing] and intensive [e.g. feedlot] livestock production systems,” wrote Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada animal scientists Tim McAllister and Ed Topp in the
April 2011 issue of the review magazine Animal Frontiers.
“Proper water treatment measures are critical to ensuring
that infection levels of viable pathogens do not enter the
drinking water supply.”
Use of growth-promoting antibiotics is another way livestock
producers keep animals healthy and meet the global demand for food. In 2002, Gary Cromwell, a professor of swine
nutrition at the University of Kentucky, published a paper in
Animal Biotechnology showing that antibiotics dramatically
improved pig growth. Cromwell analyzed the results of more
than 1,000 growth experiments in swine over a 25-year period.
In young pigs, antibiotics improved the growth rate by an
average of 16.4%.
“It’s really a health promotant,” said Rodney Preston, a retired
animal scientist and member of the Federation of Animal
Science Societies’ Committee on Food Safety.
But it can be a challenge to apply this research in commercial
facilities.
Conclusion: Applying the science
Waste not
This series focused mainly on research related to animals “preharvest.” That means research on live animals, not the meat,
milk or eggs that come from animal production.
To improve global food security, it is also important to study
food post-harvest. Bacterial contamination of animal products
leaves many people hungry worldwide. Animal scientists are
studying ways to track and prevent microbes like Bacillus that
curdle milk or the gram-negative bacteria that cause meat to
spoil.
“The loss of meat is a consequence of the growth of gramnegative rods,” said Kathryn Boor, professor of food science
and dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at
Cornell University.
Boor worries that animal producers in developing countries
do not have the resources to keep the food supply safe
from pathogens. Boor said better education and access to
technology could lead to “really good sanitation in the foodhandling chain.”
Better education is an important part of feeding the world.
The public needs to know how advances in fields like
biotechnology can increase food production. That way,
customers can make educated decisions at grocery stores and
they can make educated decisions when voting on agriculturerelated legislation.
“The majority of our population does not really understand
where food comes from,” said Boor.
Boor thinks the public could learn a lot from scientists and
producers.
With better agricultural education, animal production could
be safer and more efficient. With more global trade and
domestic production of animal products, healthy foods could
more readily reach hungry people around the world.
Want not
In addition to filling stomachs, animal agriculture plays
several important roles in communities. According to the
2009 FAO report “Livestock in the Balance,” expanding animal
production in developing countries improves more than just
food security.
“Beyond their direct role in generating food and income,
livestock are a valuable asset, serving as a store of wealth,
collateral for credit and an essential safety net during times
of crisis,” wrote FAO. “Livestock are also essential to mixed
farming systems. They consume waste products from crop
and food production, help control insects and weeds, produce
manure for fertilizing and conditioning fields and provide
draught power for ploughing and transport.”
Animals support communities financially. In developing
countries, economic development means a growing middle
class. Nancy Morgan, a liaison to the World Bank and
economist with the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the
United Nations, said that this growing middle class demands
even more animal products.
“Increasingly, they’re moving away from grain consumption
and increasing demand for livestock products,” said Morgan.
“The growth and demand for milk and meat products has
probably exceeded all other commodities,” said Morgan.
Export markets are constantly changing to meet this demand.
According to the April 2012 “Livestock and Poultry: World
Markets and Trade Circular Archives” report from the USDA
Foreign Agricultural Service, “India is forecast to become the
world’s leading beef exporter in 2012 due to an expanding
dairy herd, efficiency improvements, increased slaughter and
price-competitiveness in the international market.”
This is an example of innovation in animal agriculture. The
beef exported from India is actually buffalo meat, which is
counted as beef in USDA estimates. The buffalo beef is sold at
lower prices than beef from cattle, and it is prepared to meet
the dietary laws of Muslims. By increasing buffalo production,
India can export more beef to huge markets in the Middle
East, North Africa and Southeast Asia. Improvements in herd
health and efficiency made that expansion possible.
around the world. For example, said Morgan, embryo
transplants are a common practice in the U.S. cattle industry.
But the embryo transplant process requires special technology
and understanding of reproductive biology. Doing embryo
transplants in developing countries is not practical, said
Morgan.
Animal scientists studying disease could help India expand
their export market even more. According to the USDA report,
foot and mouth disease is a “significant hurdle” for India’s
animal producers.
Morgan said it is important for governments to get involved
in animal agriculture. She said governments need to shape
legislation to encourage agriculture-related businesses. That
way, animal producers will have options, and they can invest
in the technology they can really use.
The U.S. is also expanding its global market. In 2012, U.S. beef
and veal exports are predicted to increase by 166,000 tons.
Pork exports are predicted to increase by 95,000 tons. Poultry
exports are predicted to increase by 125,000 tons.
Increased exports do not always mean increased production.
According to the USDA report, even though poultry exports
are increasing, poultry production in the U.S. is expected to
decrease.
“Relatively higher feed costs will dampen expansion despite
rising broiler meat prices,” wrote USDA officials.
With better animal feed efficiency, animal production around
the world could increase. Countries could become more selfreliant and contribute more to global food security.
Starting at home
Global trade is important, but improving access to food also
means improving local markets. With help from animal
scientists, local producers can feed their communities.
Ermias Kebreab, professor of Sustainable Agriculture and
Sesnon Endowed Chair in the department of animal science at
the University of California, Davis, said biotechnology will be
crucial for future animal production in developing countries.
Through better breeding and a better understanding of
animal genetics, producers in developing countries could
improve feed efficiency and reduce the environmental impact
of animal agriculture.
“Those increases are going to happen in developing countries,”
said Kebreab.
But it is easy to be overwhelmed by new technology, and
Kebreab said producers need a “progression,” rather than huge
leaps forward.
Morgan agrees with Kebreab. She said it is important to
consider what technology is practical in developing countries.
“One of the constraints in terms of developing countries is the
education to support animal production,” said Morgan.
What works in developed countries does not always work
“It is just too technologically advanced,” Morgan said.
“It has to be a private sector service that people pay for,” said
Morgan.
Boor said that advances in animal production and food safety
can also help developing countries break into global markets.
“Any developing country that wants to move its products into
the global market has to meet the standards of the country
it wants to export into,” Boor said. “Those techniques and
strategies can pay for themselves.”
Kebreab said it is also important to consider social factors
that affect animal agriculture. Farm workers need education
in health and safety. Producers need the resources to handle
potential water and air pollution from their farms.
“I think it can be done,” Kebreab said.
Animal scientists step up
We have looked at a lot of scientific data in this series, but
we need to come back to the most important number: world
population. According to the Population Division of the
Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United
Nations Secretariat, the world population will increase from 7
billion people today to 9.1 billion people by 2050.
That means 2.1 billion more humans on Earth. Those 2.1 billion
people will need the milk, meat and eggs produced through
animal agriculture.
This is going to be a group effort. Animal scientists work hard,
but it will take funding and government support to improve
agricultural production around the world.
“The challenges posed by the livestock sector cannot be solved
by a single string of actions or by individual actors alone. They
require integrated efforts by a wide range of stakeholders,”
wrote Jacques Diouf, director-general of the United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization, in the “Livestock in the
Balance” 2009 report.
And that is what animal scientists do. Animal scientists work
together to solve challenges and feed the world.
With animal science, we can improve food security and meet
the future of hunger.
References
Animal Frontiers http://animalfrontiers.fass.org/content/current
“BOARD-INVITED REVIEW: The use and application of distillers dried grains with solubles in swine diets” by H. H. Stein and
G. C. Shurson http://jas.fass.org/content/87/4/1292.abstract?sid=88d51eaa-e49e-4af7-9a0d-98a3cc7b285a
“Collaboration set to revolutionize feed efficiency in cattle” from The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation http://www.
cattlenetwork.com/cattle-news/Collaboration-set-to-revolutionize-feed-efficiency-in-cattle-138150898.html?ref=898
“Census of Population and Housing: 1800 Census” from the U.S. Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/
decennial/1800.html
“Entomologist works to save cattle in Texas” by Madeline McCurry-Schmidt http://www.asas.org/takingstock/?p=1954
Enviropig http://www.uoguelph.ca/enviropig/
“Foodborne Disease Outbreaks Are Deadly Serious – What You Can Do to Avoid Them” from the Centers for Disease Control
http://www.cdc.gov/features/dsFoodborneOutbreaks/
Forget “Frankenfish.” UC Davis scientist explains the real benefits of genetically engineered animals http://www.asas.org/
takingstock/?p=2408
asp?ID=246
“Reptiles, Amphibians, and Salmonella” from the Centers forDisease Control http://www.cdc.gov/Features/SalmonellaFrogTurtle/
“Researchers Endorse Global Early Warning System to Prevent Pandemics” by Sarah Anderson http://www.universityofcalifornia.
edu/news/article/9217
“Risk factors for human disease emergence” by Taylor LH, Latham SM and Woolhouse ME.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/11516376
“Serious about Salmonella: A guide for pig producers” http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&
ved=0CDUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.food.gov.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Fpdfs%2Fpublication%2Fsalmonellapig1207.pdf
&ei=SCt6T9DzIMSJgwfnxrGLDw&usg=AFQjCNHIWa2mNB_dkzeOG-IhFUZ08e-WDA
“Temporal trends in the discovery of human viruses” by Mark E.J Woolhouse, Richard Howey, Eleanor Gaunt, Liam Reilly,
Margo Chase-Topping and Nick Savill http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1647/2111.full
“The Angle” by Andy Vance: http://www.andyvance.com/?p=512
The Animal Science Podcast: “A closer look at metabolism” http://takingstock.podbean.com/2011/09/28/a-closer-look-atmetabolism/
“The Bluetongue Triangle” from USDA-ARS http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jul99/blue0799.htm
“Genetically-engineered animals could help American farmers” by Madeline McCurry-Schmidt: http://www.asas.org/
takingstock/?p=1687
“The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007” by J. L. Capper: http://jas.fass.
org/content/89/12/4249.abstract?sid=80a0d08a-7b1b-4d6b-8215-861c0e28bb2f
“Hepatitis E virus: a zoonosis adapting to humans” by Florian Bihl and Francesco Negro http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/
content/65/5/817.short
“The Food Supply of the Future” by H. P. Armsky: http://jas.fass.org/content/1910/1/4.full.pdf+html
“Household Food Security in the United States in 2010” by By Alisha Coleman-Jensen, Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and
Steven Carlson: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/err125/
“How to Feed the World in 2050” by the Food and Agriculture Organisation: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/
docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf
“Information Resources on Veterinary History at the National Agricultural Library” by Judith Ho: http://www.nal.usda.gov/
awic/pubs/VetHistory/vethistory.htm
“Lincoln’s Agricultural Legacy” by Wayne D. Rasmussen: http://www.nal.usda.gov/lincolns-agricultural-legacy
Lincoln’s Milwaukee Speech: http://www.nal.usda.gov/lincolns-milwaukee-speech
“Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade Circular Archives” from USDA Foreign Agricultural Service http://www.fas.
usda.gov/livestock_arc.asp
“Maize (corn) Monthly Price – US Dollars per Metric Ton” from indexmundi.com http://www.indexmundi.com/commoditie
s/?commodity=corn&months=360
“Management options to reduce the carbon footprint of livestock products” by John E. Hermansen and Troels Kristensen http://
animalfrontiers.fass.org/content/1/1/33.full
“Market News and Transportation Data” from USDA Agricultural Marketing Service http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.
fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateA&page=FVMarketNews
“Origins of major human infectious diseases” by Nathan D. Wolfe, Claire Panosian Dunavan and Jared Diamond http://www.
nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7142/box/nature05775_BX1.html
“Pasteur’s Veterinary Discipline” by R. Scott Nolen: http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/feb11/110201p.asp
“Pea chips may be a good alternative to corn and soybean meal in swine diets” by Mae Council http://www.asas.org/intsum.
“The pros and cons of computerized liquid feeding” by Madeline McCurry-Schmidt http://www.asas.org/takingstock/?p=1962
“The State of Food and Agriculture 2009: Livestock in the balance” by the Food and Agriculture Organisation: http://www.fao.
org/docrep/012/i0680e/i0680e00.htm
“The Value and Use of Distillers Grains By-products in Livestock and Poultry Feeds” from the University of Minnesota http://
www.ddgs.umn.edu/
“United States History: Timeline: 1800-1900” by Quintard Taylor, Jr.: http://faculty.washington.edu/qtaylor/a_us_
history/1800_1900_timeline.htm
U.S. Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1800.html
“What is Energy Metabolism?” from wisegeek.com http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-energy-metabolism.htm
“Why and how antibiotics are used in swine production” by Gary Cromwell http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12212945
“Within-herd biosecurity and Salmonella seroprevalence in slaughter pigs: A simulation study” by A. Lurette, S. Touzeau, P.
Ezanno, T. Hoch, H. Seegers, C. Fourichon and C. Belloc http://jas.fass.org/content/89/7/2210.full?sid=28f49bb2-0a7b-4a0992e2-ef1cdb4b6880