Blog

It did not take long in human history for mankind to discovery that pigs can eat acorns. And in many ways, this discovery gave the pig farmers of Northern Europe, where there are plenty of oak trees, a competitive advantage over the pig farmers of say, Greece or Italy.

While it is only recently that trade in pork has gone very international, it is interesting that today’s swine populations are also larger in Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, than in most Mediterranean states. Of course, this fact, in a nutshell, has little to do with acorns.

There are of course many reasons why livestock populations are located where they are: large grazing areas for American, Brazilian and Argentine cattle farmers; access to markets for China’s pig farming industry, or climate for Australian sheep farming.

But it is important not to dismiss the significance of industry intelligence in understanding the power of regional markets. And much of this intelligence is based on new ingredients and raw materials for animal feed.
With this in mind, here are two of the latest ideas being trialled and tested in the (sometimes crazy) world of animal feed R&D.

Garlic as an Animal Feed Additive

In 2014, National Geographic reported how, “A three-year study at the University of Wales in Aberystwyth has shown that when cows are fed garlic, methane production is cut in half. According to Jamie Newbold, leader of the Welsh research project, allicin from garlic kills off the methane-generating bacteria in the cows’ substantial bellies, thus creating both politer and more eco-responsible cows.”

The immediate problem though, was that cows that were fed garlic produced milk that tasted of garlic.
To avoid this problem, researchers have begun to study the use of propyl propane thiosulfonate, as a substitute for garlic (or onions). By using a panel of taste testers, a research team in Spain found that only 12.5% of people would be able to taste the use of garlic extract in milk produced by low-methane producing cattle.

Publishing their results in the journal ResearchGate, the team conclude that, “…although small traces of propyl propane thiosulfonate were found in milk samples … the identified concentration does not alter organoleptic properties of milk, and Garlicon can, therefore, be used as a supplement feed at doses of 25 g day”

You can find out more about this solution on the entertaining broadcast on YouTube, entitled, ‘Onions Could Stop Cows From Farting The Planet To Death’.

Seaweed as an Animal Feed Additive

In an effort to make the animal feed industry more environmentally friendly, researchers in Australia are experimenting with feeding cattle seaweed. While the study is still ongoing, they believe that eating seaweed may reduce methane production in cows by up to 99%.

“The seaweed has some chemicals inside it which interfere with the bacteria-producing methane,” says Rocky de Nys, an aquaculture researcher at James Cook University. “So instead of the carbon going out of the stomach with a burp, the carbon can get shunted into energy production in the cow.”

As the technology journal FastCompany reports, “In previous experiments, the researchers tested a seaweed supplement in sheep and found that it reduced their methane emissions by up to 70%, without affecting the growth of the sheep. In trials through 2017, the researchers are now studying the effect of the seaweed in cows.”

The researchers are focusing on a species of seaweed called Asparagopsis taxiformis, for which the team have created an artificial cow stomach. And if it works as expected, they hope to see a major reduction in methane.
This would of course present the challenge of scaling up seaweed production to be able to feed the world’s 1.5 billion cows. However, Nys doesn’t think that will be a problem.

“It’s a very big industry,” he says. “So the techniques and procedures and logistics are all in place. Really no one’s farmed this seaweed because there’s never been demand for this seaweed before. No one’s ever said, ‘Oh, can we feed this to cows to reduce methane?’ until now.”

While these ideas may sound a little unusual, they may well prove to be part of a new wave of ingredients that will have long-term impact on the animal feed industry. Both seaweed and garlic have long been known for their health properties for humans, so it is a short step to apply this nutrition intelligence to livestock.

In fact, many new ideas hit resistance when first published. After all, what was your initial reaction when you first heard of feeding livestock insect meal?

Photo credit: sustainable food trust
Photo credit: almesryoon

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