Evolving demand for animal feed
research for sustainable
intensification of agriculture
Michael Peters and Michael Blummel
Topics
• Global importance of livestock and its
positive and negative effect
• Feed resourcing and feeding at he
interface of positive and negative effects
• Key intervention and mitigation strategies
Global importance of (forage/roughage
based) crop-livestock systems
• Nearly one-third of the global human
appropriation of net primary production
occurs on grazing lands
• Livestock account for 40% of global
agricultural gross domestic product
• Livestock production supports livelihoods of
more than 1 billon globally, including 600
million of the world’s poorest
• Livestock products supply one-third of
humanity’s protein intake
Global land use
Land use
(ice-free) in 2000
(Mkm2)
%
Forests under use
35.0
26.8
Agricultural land
62.1
47.6
- Permanent pastures
34.1
26.1
- Cropland
15.2
11.6
. Used as feedstuff
3.9
3.0
. Fodder crops
1.4
1.1
52.2
40.0
130.5
100.0
Land use class
Livestock feeding
Total ice-free
Peters et al., 2013
Livestock Production & Smallholders
Importance of livestock in developing countries:
• Smallholders predominate
• Livestock: smallholders…
‐ produce 50% of beef, 41% of milk, 72% of mutton, 59% of
pork, and 53% of poultry
‐ provide food for at least 830 million food insecure people
Global meat consumption pattern
Country/category
Developed countries
Developing countries
Africa
Latin America
Gram per day
224
47
31
147
Adopted from: McMichael et al., 2007
Livestock sector & GHG “hoofprint”
Global greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production
Percent
100% = 6.5 GT CO2 e in 2010
Ruminant Enteric
Fermentation
34%
Manure
Management
7%
Ruminant
Wastes on
Pastures
12%
Rice
10%
Energy
17%
Soil Fertilization
20%
Sources: WRI analysis based on EPA 2012 and FAO 2012 with adjustments
GHG emissions from livestock sector
By main animal species and
commodities
Per unit of protein
3000
2500
2495
2128
Kg CO2 e / Kg protein
Mton CO2 eq
2000
80
1500
1000
668
618
612
500
40
474
25
30
20
72
0
Beef
Source: Gerber et al, 2012
Pork
Eggs
Milk
Poultry
Source: DeVries (2009)
Spatial distribution of GHG emission intensities by livestock
In most of the developed world, emission intensities are
low, due to more intensive feeding practices, feed
conversion-efficient breeds of livestock, and temperate
climates where feed quality is mostly higher
low animal productivity across large
areas of arid lands where feed is
scarce and of low quality and animals
have low productive potential
Moderate emission intensities
occur throughout the
developing world, in places with
important beef production
Source: Herrero et al. 2013. Global greenhouse gas efficiency
per kilogram of animal protein produced
Liters of water needed to produce one
kilogram of product
16000
14000
12000
10000
Liters of water per kilogram of product
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Source: Waterfootprint.org, Gleick 2009
Crop-livestock integration to increase animal live weight
gain (kg/ha/year) in the acid soil savannas of Colombia
1000
600
450
27
Rincón, 2009
110
Native savanna
Degraded pasture
Grass/legume pasture with fertilizer
Improved pasture with maize
Pasture after 3 years of maize-soybean rotation
Need for sustainable intensification to
improve eco-efficiency
Transition from extensive systems towards mixed more intensive
crop-livestock systems could allow for mitigating GHG emissions
without compromising food security
Reduced methane (CH4) production can result from land sparing
Almost landless, grain-fed livestock systems have economic
advantages in terms of production rates and scale effects, but can
lead to direct competition for food
Livestock convert low nutrient dense roughage into highbiological-value foods that are highly nutrient dense
Comparing the environmental footprint of systems requires not
only analysis of their direct GHG emissions but the environmental
costs of feed production
Opportunities through forage-based
systems to reduce GHG emissions
1) Increasing C stocks
2) Reducing CH4 emissions per unit of livestock
product and net CH4 emissions by reducing animal
numbers
3) Reducing nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions
Improved pastures & C accumulation
Depth (cm)
Soil organic carbon (SOC) under
pastures of Brachiaria humidicola
alone (Bh) and with Arachis pintoi
(Bh/Ap) and native savanna (NS) on a
clay loam Oxisol on the eastern plains
of Colombia
(Fisher et al., 1996)
% C (modified Walkley-Black)
180
Improved
pasture
Pasto Mejorado
Improved
pasturedegradado
(degraded)
Pasto mejorado
Native
Savanna
Sabana
Nativa
-1
Almacenamiento
de-1C
C stock (t ha
) (t ha )
160
SOC in three predominant land-use
systems in the eastern plains of
Colombia
(Castro et al., 2012 unpublished)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
(a) Puerto López
(b) Puerto Gaitán
(c) Average
Promedio
Benefits from BNI
Effects of BNI from
Brachiaria humidicola
pasture on subsequent
maize crop
(CIAT-JIRCAS-Corpoica, 2013)
Maize grain yield (kg ha-1)
N fertilization (kg N ha-1)
Preceding land use
Feed resourcing and
feeding : the
interface
Water intake (kg/kgDM feed/day)
Water: where does it go?
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
10
15
20
25
Temperature (oC)
30
35
Water for fodder and milk :
Gujerat in India
Gujerat
Global
3,400 l of water per kg of milk
10,000 l of water for fodder/animal/day
900 l of water per kg of milk
Source: Singh et al., 2004
Requirement for 1 MJ ME ranged from 12.9 liter H2O to 61.5 liter H2O
Source: Blϋmmel et al., 2009
Principles Generalization of ruminal
microbial feed degradation
OMTDR
=
SCFA
+
MBP
Short chain fatty acids (C2, C3, C4)
 supply energy to host animal
SCFA
MBP

Microbial biomass supplies
protein to host animal ( but also
CHO, lipids)
GAS
CH4 und CO2 ,losses to rumen
 Microbes and host animal alike
+
GAS
CH4 (l) produced per kg feed digested
Combined SCFA and EMP effects on
methane production
67.5
62.5
57.5
52.5
47.5
high roughage (high acetate)
42.5
high concentrate (high propionate)
37.5
32.5
27.5
22.5
17.5
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Microbial biomass produced per kg feed digested (g/kg)
Source: Blümmel and Krishna 2003
Actual average across herd milk yields (3.61 kg/d) and
scenario-dependent
ME requirements for total milk production (81.8 million t/y)
ME required (MJ x 109)
Milk (kg/d)
Maintenance
Production
Total
3.61 (05/06)
1247.6
573.9
1821.5
6 (Scenario 1)
749.9
573.9
1323.8
9 (Scenario 2)
499.9
573.9
1073.8
12 (Scenario 3)
374.9
573.9
948.8
15 (Scenario 4)
299.9
573.9
873.9
Effect of increasing average daily milk yields on
overall methane emissions from dairy in India
Source: Blϋmmel et al., 2009
Livestock revolution: Impact on energy and
feed requirements
Milk (million tons)
yield/day (kg)
Numbers (000)
2005-06
2020
2020 fixed LP
91.8
3.6
69759
172
5.24
89920 *
172
6.76
69759
Metabolizable energy requirements (MJ x 109)
Maintenance
Production
Total
1247.64
573.94
1821.58
1608.22
1075.00
2683.22
1247.6
1075.0
23266.6
Feed Requirements (m tons)
247.50
364.57
315.6
* Calculated based on CAGR
CR becoming more important
Kahsay Berhe (2004) study in Yarer Mountain area
Area under different land use categories
Area in 1971/72
(ha)
%
Area in
2000 (ha)
%
Agriculture
7186
25.00
16204
56.38
Forestry
2581
8.99
2696
9.37
190
0.66
312
1.09
0
132
0.46
Land cover types
Water reservoirs
Wetlands
0
Pasture
18784
65.35
9397
32.70
Total
28741
100.00
28741
100.00
 Cultivated land has doubled at the expense of pasture in 30 years
 Switch in source of nutrition for livestock from grazing to CR
Implications for feed resources and feed work
 Feed demand is not a “constant” but dependent on the level of
intensification besides amount of ASF production
 Effect of intensification ie reduction in livestock numbers on water
use and GHG emission more drastic and realistic than some
proposed high end science intervention
 Feed resourcing need to take shrinking arable land and water
availability serious