Blog

The animal feed industry is complex. While the man in the street believes that livestock eats a mixture of grass, hay, grain, and (in the case of pigs) general waste, feed producers know that modern farm nutrition is a scientific combination of bulk fibres, proteins, minerals, salts, phosphates, sodium tripolyphosphate, and potassium carbonate.
With these complex biochemical mixtures it is the responsibility of the animal feed industry to help feed a growing, hungry world. But as in many industries, animal feed producers must also share their responsibility for climate change.

It has long been known that mankind’s hunger for meat and dairy products is having a negative impact on the environment. Not only is wildlife cleared for grazing areas, but cattle also have an impact on the environment in the amount of methane they produce. This has led to the public perception of an environmentally destructive farming and animal feed industry. A concept fuelled by stories such as this, “the world’s top destroyer of the environment, is not the car, or even the plane: it is the cow.” And that was from the respected British newspaper the Independent.

This story, and many others like it, was based on “A United Nations report [by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, called Livestock’s Long Shadow] which has identified the world’s rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.”

Meanwhile, other reports in the press or on social media paint an equally gloomy picture. For example, a YouTube video called Cow Farts and Climate Change, states how, “Each cow’s emissions are about the same as burning 1,000 litres of petrol every year.” Explaining how, “Cow’s are mostly responsible for 18% of the total greenhouse gases world-wide, which is more than the entire transportation system put together.”

Impressive as the statistics may be, science is now looking at ways to lessen the impact of livestock. Part of this process includes analysing even basic animal feedstuffs, such as grass; for it now seems that climate change is impacting even grazing.

A recent study by a research team from the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, Scotland’s Rural College, and the Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre in Frankfurt, have found that warmer average temperatures is making plants tougher. When the tougher vegetation is eaten by livestock, it then produces even more methane, which in turn adds to global warming.

Reporting on the study, the online industry journal FarmingUK, states that, “There are several reasons why rising temperatures may make plants tougher for grazing livestock to digest. Plants have adaptations to prevent heat damage, they can flower earlier, have thicker leaves or in some cases, tougher plants can invade into new areas replacing more nutritious species – all of which makes grazing more difficult.” Adding that the problem is a, “pressing concern, because climate change is likely to make plants tougher for grazing cattle, increasing the amount of methane that the animals breathe out into the atmosphere.”

Dr Mark Lee, a research fellow in Natural Capital & Plant Health at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew who led the research says: “The vicious cycle we are seeing now is that ruminant livestock such as cattle produce methane which warms our planet.
“This warmer environment alters plants so they are tougher to digest, and so each mouthful spends more time in the animals’ stomach, producing more methane, further warming the planet, and the cycle continues. We need to make changes to livestock diets to make them more environmentally sustainable.”

Fortunately, the study, which is downloadable here via the open access biogeosciences website, also offers suggestions on how this problem can be solved, stating that, “Cattle methane production can be reduced by growing more nutritious forage plants, adding N fertiliser, adding feed supplements (e.g. macroalgae and fats), adjusting rumen pH, increasing concentrate feeding, practicing genetic selection and feeding methane inhibitors.” However, it continues by adding that, “implementing many of these measures is not feasible at a global scale and is unlikely to result in sufficient reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to meet ambitious reduction targets.”

While the industry is looking into some ways to tackle the problem of cow gas, for example researchers in Canada are experimenting with selective breeding, in an effort to find ‘cows that burp less’. It is clear that many of these ideas will take a lot more research, time, and money before a global solution will be found.

For example, the technology website FastCompany, is reporting that, “[Researchers] are experimenting with vaccines that fight the microbes that make cows produce methane, or backpacks that cows wear to capture their gas for energy.”

It also adds that, “Many others are experimenting with plant-based supplements that can be added to cow feed to help. A byproduct of cashew nut processing, for example, can reduce emissions by 8%. Furthermore, if cows graze in pasture, adding plants like legumes can make them burp less.” The report also notes that, “Researchers in Denmark are working on a ‘super grass’, bred after analyzing the genetics of which grasses are easiest to digest.”

However, the fact remains that the farming industry has a problem that few feed manufacturers or suppliers wish to talk about. The world is demanding more meat and dairy, but wants more sustainable products with lower carbon footprints, and yet even the most basic of animal feeds, grass, is proving more toxic for the planet.

Added to this is the fact that protein additives from fishmeal are also widespread, continuing to put huge pressure on ocean fish stocks. While other feedstocks, such as inorganic rock phosphate, are also unsustainable and yet remain a vital pillar of agriculture. When these factors are added in to the news that simple grazing is also having a worse impact on the environment, then the environmental credentials of the entire livestock industry is under scrutiny.

For if the study is validated, and proves that even grass and natural grazing is an increasing hazard to the environment, then is there anything the feed industry can do to become more sustainable?
Is there any way to avoid the environmental impact of cow gas?

Photo credit: MotherEarthNews

There have been numerous reports of an impending crash in the price of monocalcium phosphate of late. But given the growing demand for food, is it really likely that the price of MCP will fall?

World renowned experts such as Juan von Gemet, one of the principal consultants at CRU Group, stated recently that he foresees much weaker prices for phosphate products. He is not alone. Many in the animal feed sector also envisage a price drop in the short to medium-term, such as industry journal FeedNavigator, which recently reported that, “The inorganic feed phosphate (IFP) market is suffering due to multiple factors including over-capacity, low feed demand, the rise of substitute products, and growing environmental concerns.”

These thoughts are supported by expected drops in beef prices in US markets. As the American industry journal CattleNetwork, reports, “Profits will be harder to find for cattlemen in 2017, but there will be opportunities. That’s the consensus of economists who see an industry struggling to cope with increasing supplies, volatile markets, and meddlesome regulations.”

John Nalivka, president of Oregon-based Sterling Marketing, is even more precise in his outlook for cattle prices, stating that, “in 2017 I’m projecting a loss of $21 per cow.” This low forecast is despite his prediction that, “feed costs will go down sharply.”

Contrary to short-term slump predictions, are predictions of long-term gains.

In a recent interview with the industry journal, FeedInfo, Zorica Popovic, General Manager of the Elixir Group, a key player in animal feed phosphate markets in Europe, said, “We do not see any significant obstacles that can have a negative impact on the growth of consumption of IFP in Europe. Consumption of IFP in South East Europe has its variations related to shifts in volume of livestock production. Those are more or less seasonal, and are affected by fresh meat price fluctuations, which is characteristic for developing markets. Even the trends we are seeing with regard to the use of phytase in the coming years will not significantly affect the current volume of consumption of IFP in South East Europe.”

She similarly down-played future threats to the market, when she said, “In the long term, alternative sources of phosphorus, and technology for its processing, are inevitable because of limited phosphate reserves. If the use of alternative sources of phosphorus is going to increase, this could have a certain impact on the decrease of phosphate ore prices, but at the same time, it would cause increases in alternative raw material prices.”
She continues by optimistically adding that, “The competitiveness of alternative and low grade raw materials also depends on the price of phosphate ore, which has been low in recent years. In a high price environment, competition exists. But in case where low price levels prevail; competition is reduced.”

This long-term optimism is supported by analysis from MarketResearchReport, which states that, “The global monocalcium phosphate market has seen remarkable growth over the past few years, and it is expected that the market will keep on expanding during the forecast period. The growing [number of] applications [for monocalcium phosphate] is resulting in increased demand across the globe.”

The study continues by outlining the healthy growth that is expected for the sector, declaring that, “World consumption of monocalcium phosphate (29% of the world total) is forecast to grow at an average annual rate of 2.5% during 2015–20. Growth will be led by China at about 7% per year during 2015–20, followed by Other Asia (about 3.5% per year), Africa and the Middle East, the United States, and Central and South America.”

Meanwhile, analysis of MCP markets by industry consultants IHS, confirms a comfortable rate of growth, stating, “Consumption of feed-grade calcium phosphates is forecast to grow at 2.0% annually during 2015–20, led by China at 4.6%, Africa and the Middle East at 2.5%, and the United States at 0.9%.”
So what can animal feed manufacturers and traders make of these conflicting opinions? Is there to be a short-term drop in MCP prices, or are the predictions of steady market growth closer to the truth?

The fact is, the monocalcium phosphate market is a complicated one. While there is a great deal of secrecy among phosphate suppliers and agriproduct producers, there is also great desire for cooperation and mutual assistance to make improved animal feed.

Overall, while the number of phosphate handling facilities is due to increase in the next few years, increasing supply, their is still good reason for prices to remain buoyant. Long-term population growth and increased global wealth, especially in emerging economies such as India and China, give good cause for stable and/or increased demand for MCP.

As Popovic says, “Overall, we believe that changes in the market are less likely in the near future, and on that basis, we do not expect a significant shift in the feed phosphates market in the next few years.”
Or can anyone really be that certain about monocalcium phosphate prices?

Photo credit: PAR

In the last few years, the animal feed industry has experienced an amazing period of discovery. Investment in research has been high, governments and international bodies have begun to realise the rising cost (and possible shortage) of food and so have started to step in, animal welfare groups have made great in-roads to improve industry standards, and numerous ground breaking products have been launched. Twenty years ago, the idea of cattle being fed insect meal, or microbial algae pellets would have been seen as pure science fiction, whereas today they are emerging industries.
The need for animal feed innovation was recently summed up by Dejan Miladinovic of the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, who explained the biology behind mankind’s need for improved animal feeds, when he wrote, “Optimally, an adult person needs to consume 60g of protein per day. To feed enough protein to the world’s population by 2050, about 790 million tonnes of protein will be required. This number is 50% more than today’s production. Beef cattle need about 100kg of feed to produce 5kg of body-mass, which could be interpreted as 1.3kg of pure protein.”
By this maths, the optimal protein requirement of a person for 21 days requires 100kg of animal feed.
While the logic in this scenario is rudimentary, the need for the animal feed industry to develop is clear. While non-meat sources of protein are available, the fact remains that our grandchildren’s well-being is dependent on improvements in the way we feed our livestock.
Miladinovic outlined our basic processes of manufacturing animal feed in a recent article for AllAboutFeed, when he said, “Feed raw material sources can be defined through three generations. First generation feed sources are commercially available. However, it is in direct competition with human food supply and depends on vast resources of arable land, irrigation and fertilisers. The second generation is less competitive with human food and not based on arable land and irrigation. Second generation feed sources are based on insects and microbes and its usage is challenging due to getting into new technologies and unknown demand. A third generation of aqua feed source is recapturing nutrients from, for example, dairy and pig farms’ wastewater. Science is already developing technologies that can recover phosphorous and nitrogen from manure. These technologies are economically feasible, however markets are quite immature.”
But while he does note the progress made, and the advancement of ‘immature markets’, he also notes the need to, “start the feed-protein revolution to ensure that the world population will be able to have access to food in the future.”
If his theory is correct, then the animal feed industry has some serious work to do to provide sufficient meat for the world’s growing population. The year 2050 is geologically tomorrow, and although insect feed and high-protein canola meal diets may sound high-spec, in terms of future demand, the animal feed industry is losing ground.
Or is Miladinovic wrong?

Photo credit: soyatech