Blog

For many years, animal feed manufacturers and feed additive suppliers have been discussing the pros and cons of using insects as a raw material for animal feed. Much of the research conducted focused on the safety aspect of feeding insect protein to farm animals, with the practice generally being agreed as safe.

This has meant that recently, many of the legal barriers preventing the use of insects in animal feed are to be dropped. As AllAboutFeed reported in December 2016, “The EU Member States representatives endorsed a European Commission proposal from the EU Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF). The text is expected to be formally adopted during the spring 2017, which means that insect proteins should be effectively authorised for use in fish feed as from 1st July 2017.”

This was a move that was widely celebrated. For example, Jason Drew, co-founder of South African based AgriProtein (the world’s biggest fly-farmer) stating that. “[The] move by EU regulators [to allow insects to be used in aqua feed] brings insect protein into the mainstream of ingredients permitted in animal feed. This is a big step forward for the environment and for world food security. Trawling the oceans to produce fishmeal is one of the most destructive activities on the planet. Replacing fish protein with insect protein in animal diets allows us to dedicate our oceans to production for human consumption alone.”

Beyond European legislators, last July Enterra claimed a “significant step forward” when it gained Canadian government approval for using, “Dried Black Soldier Fly Larvae as a feed ingredient for poultry broilers.”
Meanwhile, the use of insect meal looks set to expand, because as recently as March 17th, FeedNavigator.com was reporting how, “The International Platform for Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF) is now aiming to step up its lobbying efforts to ensure EU regulatory overhaul to allow insect meal to be used in other non-ruminant species such as pigs and poultry.”

The method is being seen as a saviour for modern farming. A method that will lessen the use of fishmeal as a feedstock, and so aid the recovery of global fish numbers, as well as providing a sustainable source of phosphates and amino acids.

However, it does pose a new problem. What to feed the insects on?

Cattle Manure for Insect Feed

The answer, according to research conducted by a team from Cornell, may be to use cattle dung as a feedstock. In the study, they found that cattle faeces could provide enough energy and nutrients to feed housefly larvae on an industrial scale.

Reporting on the research, the online journal Phys.org stated how, “The researchers – for the first time – analyzed how efficiently housefly larvae recycled nutrients from dairy cattle manure, and they measured the nutritional value of the resulting larva meal as a feed ingredient.”

The report continued by outlining some of the many benefits of using cow dung as a feed for insect larvae, explaining how, “Their analysis showed that fly larvae lessened the overall mass of the manure and reduced total nitrogen by nearly 25% and phosphorus by more than 6%. Reducing levels of these nutrients in manure makes a more suitable compost. Otherwise, untreated manure used as fertilizer leads to runoff of excess nitrogen and phosphorus into streams and rivers, which causes eutrophication in lakes and oceans, contaminates groundwater and can spread disease.”

The study also found that the insect meal was a good source of calcium and phosphorus, and had levels of protein and amino acids that were comparable with fish meal, as well as a 20% fat content that was high in monounsaturated fats.

The research team published their results in full in the journal PLOS One, where they conclude that, “Our results demonstrated that dairy cattle manure presents a balanced substrate for larval growth, and the spent manure showed reductions in concentration of total nitrogen (24.9%) and phosphorus (6.2%) with an overall reduction in mass. Larva yield at an optimum density was approximately 2% of manure weight. Nutritional analysis of M. domestica larva meal showed values comparable to most high protein feed ingredients. Larva meal was 60% protein with a well-balanced amino acid profile, and 20% fat with 57% monounsaturated fatty acids, and 39% saturated fatty acids. Larva meal lacked any significant amount of omega-3 fatty acids. Evaluation of micronutrients in larva meal suggested that it is a good source of calcium and phosphorus (0.5% and 1.1% respectively). The nutritional value of larva meal closely matches that of fishmeal, making it a potentially attractive alternative for use as a protein-rich feed ingredient for livestock and aquaculture operations.”

Explaining the results, Vimal Selvaraj, an associate professor of integrative physiology in the Department of Animal Science at Cornell and a senior author of the research, said, “We concluded from the study that the overall composition of larva meal with respect to all nutrients, including amino acids and minerals, is comparable to fishmeal and would be a good alternative for use as a protein-rich feed ingredient for livestock.”

The current trend to expand the use of insects as a raw material in animal feed is a healthy trend. With an increasingly hungry planet, and depleting fish stocks, any practical alternative that will give animal feed manufacturers more options is welcome; especially those that can make a more affordable, healthier and sustainable product.

However, some feed experts have questioned the practicality of fly larvae for industrial processing. The fact that fly larvae yields are typically only 2% of manure weight, has led many feed manufacturers to question the profitability of the feedstock. But this ignores the fact that, for example, the U.S. livestock industry currently generates 335 million tons of dry manure per year. Such a large amount of dung would make a lot of insect meal.

For now the researchers hope that their study can remove some of the concerns that fly larvae is an impractical and unprofitable feedstock for animal feed. As Selvaraj says, “In farming-dense regions there is enough manure available to have a substantial impact on larva meal production. This paper is a first step toward realizing this potential.”

Photo credit: Mike Hutchings/Reuters

The 2017 NutriForum conference was held recently, with many international and local manufacturers and nutritionists, including DuPont,DSM, Nutreco, NutriAd and AG Chemi group in attendance, the gathering gave agriproduct traders a great opportunity to exchange ideas, implement innovations and discuss sustainability strategies.

As Alexandra Chepak, Market Development Manager at AG CHEMI GROUP explained, “NutriForum was a great chance for us to meet Spanish specialists from the animal nutrition sector personally, and in one place. We gained a lot of important information about local market, met animal feed experts and consultants, as well as representatives from scientific organizations, trade unions, associations and authorities.”

She continued by outlining what AG CHEMI GROUP had taken from the conference, stating, “When you are attending such events, you always learn some specific details about internal processes in the market, and of course discover new opportunities. As we are entering the Spanish market with the MCP feed grade, it was important for us to show local producers that they have an alternative supplier who is dedicated to providing good service and a quality product.”

But beyond just improving business, NutriForum also provides animal feed suppliers with an opportunity to share ideas and create together new and modern mixed-feed products, with components (premixes, amino acids, and other additives) which significantly improve the results of animal husbandry. This cooperation helps in making the feed industry truly effective.

As Alexandra highlights, “NutriForum gave us confidence that we chose a right market. All of the animal feed professionals we met truly care about animal health, sustainable lifecycles, and the implementation of new strategies and innovations to improve product quality and industry as a whole”.

With the Dutch elections now over, many are breathing a sigh of relief that a moderate, centrist party is to remain in government. While there was always little chance of Geert Wilders taking power, the fact that his party is not the largest in parliament will mean a return to normal in Dutch politics.

But following Brexit and a rise in nationalist sentiment in Europe, coupled with President Trump threatening to introduce a more protectionist approach to international trade, there is uncertainty in the agribusiness industry over how this will impact trade in agricultural products. Worse still, there are major questions on what the German Federal elections (due in Sept 2017) and the French Presidential elections (first round in April 2017) will bring. Such anxiety over government intentions is never good for business, so it is worth taking time to look at the facts in the current situation, as they may give a clue to future events influencing agrichemical markets.

What will Trump do for AG Trading?

Much has already been said about Donald Trump’s approach to trade and diplomacy, but the overriding view from business analysts is one of unpredictability. However, his views on trade are possibly best summed up by Simon Denyer of the Washington Post, when he wrote that, “[Trump is] a man who sees trade as a zero-sum game, and sees anyone ‘beating’ the United States as a threat.”

Understanding this helps chemical traders comprehend Trump’s approach to international trade. A vital point highlighted by Antonio Graceffo when he wrote in the Foreign Policy Review, “Across the globe, people are wondering why the US, usually the leader in free trade, is now taking such a protectionist stance. [But] Donald Trump obviously believed that the TPP partners were ‘beating us’ on trade, and so he voted to leave. Furthermore, leaving the TPP will most likely be only the first of many steps in the new Trump-lead American protectionism, under the slogan ‘America First’.”

It might be hoped that Trump would have the concerns of the farming community in mind, as the more rural states in America formed the bedrock of his election win. As Ricardo J. Salvador and Nora Gilbert noted in a recent article for the Guardian, “Caught in a toxic cycle of depressed commodity prices, rising debt and plummeting income, it comes as no surprise that American farmers voted en masse for change and the hope of different leadership with new ideas.”

And yet there have been many in the agricultural industry that have voiced concern for Trump’s withdrawal from international trade deals. As the independent, industry journal Investigate Midwest reports in an article entitled, “Trump’s pull-out of TPP deal prompts criticism, anger from AG industry”. It continues by quoting industry bodies that firmly believe that success for American agribusiness means staying in such trade agreements.

For example, the American Farm Bureau Association stated that, “Trade is vital to the success of our nation’s farmers and ranchers. More than 25 percent of all U.S. ag production ultimately goes to markets outside our borders. We viewed TPP as a positive agreement for agriculture – one that would have added $4.4 billion annually to our struggling agriculture economy.”

While the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association said that, “TPP and NAFTA have long been convenient political punching bags, but the reality is that foreign trade has been one of the greatest success stories in the long history of the U.S. beef industry.” And continued to state that, “Fact is American cattle producers are already losing out on $400,000 in sales every day because we don’t have TPP, and since NAFTA was implemented, exports of American-produced beef to Mexico have grown by more than 750%.”

Meanwhile the American Soybean Association’s President, Ron Moore, pointed out that, “Trade is something soybean farmers take very seriously. We export more than half the soy we grow here in the United States, and still more in the form of meat and other products that are produced with our meal and oil.”

Despite these industry appeals for more open trading, the fact remains that the current White House administration is heading in a different direction that will seemingly take the business out of agribusiness.

Furthermore, with Marine Le Pen leading the opinion polls in the French Presidential elections (as of 17/3/17) and Germany’s right-wing, Euro sceptic, Alternative for Germany party climbing to third place (as of 17/3/17), should we now also fear the impact of populism in European AG markets?

Is Europe also Heading for Protectionism?

If Le Pen has her way, then there will be major repercussions for French agriculture and trading in agricultural products. To know this, one need look no further than Le Pen’s open declaration to Euronews, when she said, ““With Brexit, people made the choice for border control, re-industrialisation, economic patriotism, intelligent protectionism. The United States has chosen the same by electing Trump. I’ve been pushing for this new world order for years. [Political divisions] no longer put the right and left in opposition, but patriots and globalists.”

The article continues by explaining that, “Social and employment policy are thus presented in terms of promoting ‘patriotic’ models. There are pledges to promote French business, to protect the economy where necessary from foreign investment and free it from ‘European constraints’, to impose an extra tax on the employment of foreign nationals.”

Meanwhile, the party leader for Alternative for Germany, Frauke Petry (a doctor of chemistry, who according to Politico, entered politics in 2013, “after a chemical company she started with her mother went bankrupt”) is maintaining her anti-Euro stance.

She told InternationalTradeNews that, “Everyone who is anyone in business has come to the conclusion that the euro project has failed.” Adding that, “I would like to mention that exports [from Germany to] the eurozone have not risen but have actually fallen. I have seen that first hand in my own nine-employee company. Since last year we have been experiencing an extreme drop in turnover from our European partners. For us, the upward valuation of a national currency in the form of a new German mark would mean a fall in the cost of raw materials which would allow us to offer more attractive prices to our European neighbours.”

While her party collegues show an equal approval of Trump’s protectionist stance, with Euractiv news reporting how in an interview, “The AfD also wanted to clarify its position on TTIP, the planned free trade agreement between the US and Europe. ‘TTIP is a new dividing force in Europe along the lines of the Cold War,’ said deputy AfD spokesperson, Alexander Gauland.

Fortunately, demand for fertilizers and crop protection products remains strong, so there is every possibility that agribusiness profits will still be made in the coming years. For evidence of this, one need only look at a recent interview Chris Jahn, President of the Fertilizer Institute, gave to ICIS. Here he explained the thoughts of many businessmen, especially those in complex, competitive, international trading such as agrichemical products, in a desire for open trading, whoever is in power.

“There is a lot of rhetoric around trade from both sides frankly and it’s a little bit alarming,” he said, “not just for fertilizers but for agriculture in general. We can’t consume everything that we produce here [in America] and so having open markets across the world is really important and agriculture is a big success story for our trading.”

But of course, this view also returns to politics, as he continues by arguing how, “European imports coming into the United States don’t pay any tariffs, but we go into Europe and there is a 6.5% tariff on fertilizers so [the] TTIP is important for us to unlock some of those European markets. Particularly, at a time when margins are tight, prices are low, 6.5% doesn’t sound like a lot but it’s enough to make a difference and so we are looking for Europe to open up and let’s just compete and whoever wins, wins.”

So maybe populism is a good or bad thing only depending on which side of the Atlantic, or wall, you are sitting.

Like Wilders, and also like Trump, Le Pen and Petry may have little chance of winning, but the popularity of their ideas may still influence the next government. If that is the case, then maybe there is little need to watch the election results, but instead be aware that there has been a sea-change in international politics and international trade. Rightly or wrongly, many voters are rejecting globalisation in favour of a more nationalistic view on how government policy can benefit them. They may or may not be misguided beliefs, but it seems that they will be impacting the agrichemical industry for years to come.

Photo credit: Christophe Ena/AP