Chapter 3 – Feed vs. Food: Do

Livestock Compete with Humans

for Food Resources?

Chapter 3 – Feed vs. Food: Do Livestock Compete with Humans for Food Resources?

• Learning Objectives: – 1) To discuss how livestock production can be

integrated with crop production to increase the efficiency of human food production.

– 2) To discuss how livestock production can be based on crop residues and by-products to optimize the utilization of resources.

I. INTRODUCTION

II. DIRECT COMPETITION FOR

FOOD RESOURCES BETWEEN

LIVESTOCK AND HUMANS

III. MATCHING ANIMAL

PRODUCTION SYSTEMS WITH

AVAILABLE RESOURCES

IV. THE DISADVANTAGES OF

“NON-COMPETITIVE”

LIVESTOCK FEEDING

SYSTEMS

V. INTEGRATION OF LIVESTOCK

INTO SUSTAINABLE

CROPPING SYSTEMS

Chapter Outline:

Chapter 3 – Feed vs. Food: Do Livestock Compete with Humans for Food Resources? I. Introduction Issue: Is it justifiable to feed food to livestock? • This issue is a theoretical or academic one that deals

with: 1. Efficiency of resource utilization 2. Ecological concerns 3. Idealistic concepts of how livestock should be integrated

with crop production • Historically, mass starvation or famines have resulted

from: 1. Political struggles 2. People being driven away from their land 3. People denied of food and medicine -- not related to livestock production!

Facts: • Each step up the pyramidal food chain

represents some loss in nutrient efficiency • Feeding of cereal grains and pulses (beans,

peas, lentils) is used with lower efficiency • Cultures that enjoy a higher living

standard desire the addition of AFP to the diet, while other cultures are usually more content, for example, on a rice/soybean or maize/bean based diet

• The issue of “Competition” is more of philosophical interest, more of a myth than reality

• In the poorest of countries, people have developed production systems in which livestock do NOT compete for food

• As poor people increase their incomes, the demand for AFP is usually one of the first priorities!

II. Direct Competition for Food Resources between Livestock and Humans

Meat or Wheat for the next Millennium? • In many cultures, meat (AFP) is considered a luxury • Livestock are traditional raised as “walking banks” • Livestock are associated with traditional ceremonies

Millward concludes, “For a number of highly complex social, political and economic reasons, meat occupies a pivotal position in the global food chain, which is unlikely to change much in the forseeable future”. Reduction in meat consumption in developed countries (where it is higher than optimal) will do little to improve the health of people in developing countries (through release of grain); significant dietary improvement in developing countries mainly requires economic growth that will allow more people to add animal products to their diets (Rosegrant et al., 1999).

II. Direct Competition for Food Resources between Livestock and Humans

Source: www.seriouseats.com

Rank Crop Million tonnes Rank Crop Million tonnes

1 Wheat 468 16 Beans 14

2 Maize 429 17 Peanuts 13

3 Rice 330 18 Peas 12

4 Barley 160 19 Banana 11

5 Soybean 88 20 Grape 11

6 Cane sugar 67 21 Sunflower 9.7

7 Sorghum 60 22 Yams 6.3

8 Potato 54 23 Apple 5.5

9 Oats 43 24 Coconut 5.3

10 Cassava 41 25 Cottonseed (oil) 4.8

11 Sweet potato 35 26 Orange 4.4

12 Beet sugar 34 27 Tomato 3.3

13 Rye 29 28 Cabbage 3.0

14 Millet 26 29 Onion 2.6

15 Rapeseed 19 30 Mango 1.8

Cereal Grains in the Human Diet Table 3-1 The world’s major food crops (Adapted from Cordain, 1999.)

Cereal Grains in the Human Diet • Wheat, maize, and rice account for over 75% of total

grain production, providing over half of the food energy • This trend has occurred in less than 10,000 years (< 500

human generations) • Cereal grains are now the major source of both energy

(calories) and protein (amino acids) Humanity’s “Double-edged Sword” Compared to our past as hunter-gatherers (meat,

fruits, and vegetables): • Stature, Infant mortality

• Lifespan, Infectious disease

• Anemia (Fe), Osteomalacia

• Dental caries

II. Direct Competition for Food Resources between Livestock and Humans

Cereal Grains in the Human Diet • The Agricultural Revolution resulted in civilization as we know it. One advantage

was increased learning or gain of human knowledge

• Disadvantages: 1. Whole-sale warfare 2. Mass starvation 3. Epidemic diseases 4. Tyranny 5. Class divisions

• Nutritional deficiencies resulting from high grain consumption:

1. Vitamin A and certain B vitamins 2. Calcium (osteoporosis) 3. Contains phytic acid (reduces bioavailability of P, Zn, Fe and other trace elements) 4. High ratios of ῳ -6 to ῳ-3 fatty acids (leads to essential fatty acid deficiencies) 5. Deficiency of certain amino acids (e.g., lysine and methionine) 6. Allergies to grain proteins

The practice of meat consumption can make-up for these problems. Our bodies are still adapting to the “new diets” containing much grain

II. Direct Competition for Food Resources between Livestock and Humans

Which Livestock are Most or Least Competitive?

Chickens – primarily gramnivores – seed eating/rapid rate of digesta passage, but are still omnivores

Exceptions: In LDC, chickens are scavengers

Swine – omnivores – large “hindgut” with significant microbial digestion (vegetation, roots, insects/small animals, eggs – a coarser diet than fed to chickens)

Exceptions: In LDCs, swine are fed aquatic weeds, vegetable and kitchen wastes, and table scraps

“Artificial Diets”?

II. Direct Competition for Food Resources between Livestock and Humans

www.mekarn.org

Which Livestock are Most or Least Competitive?

Ruminants – herbivores – rumen as a “fermentation vat”, which support a highly fibrous diet (forages/crop residues)

Interestingly, in densely populated Asian countries, performance and reproduction of ruminants on fibrous crop by-products (crop residues) is too slow to use primarily for meat production. LDC have the majority of poultry and swine!

Instead, higher quality feeds (cassava, molasses, rice bran, and palm oil) is more efficient to feed to monogastrics (chickens and swine)

Ruminants, such as oxen and buffalo are used for work, milk, hides, and dung for fuel

Cuban case?

II. Direct Competition for Food Resources between Livestock and Humans

Which Livestock are Most or Least Competitive? • In many countries, cereal grains are:

1. Not in high demand for human food (sorghum, soybean, canola, and cottonseed meals) and is fed to livestock

2. Wheat that fails to meet quality control standards (bakery) is fed to livestock (“Feed wheat”)

3. In North America and Europe, certain feed ingredients used to support intensive poultry and swine production are not currently in high demand by humans. Examples?

4. Some maize varieties are solely grown as livestock feed 5. Maize is mostly grown as animal feed and for industrial purposes (sweeteners,

oil, ethanol, etc.). Also, maize yields have dramatically risen in recent decades (Figure 3-2 – next slide). (“We can eat only so much corn”!) (Using corn to fuel our cars article; Shift from tortillas to ethanol article; High U.S. corn prices spread global hunger and instability article)

6. In addition, meat and bone and fish meal are by-products from rendering and not in high demand by humans as food

7. Interestingly, in China (~1 billion people) maize and soybeans are grown, even imported, to feed poultry and swine as the living standards (economy) improves. The people demand AFP in their diets!

Conclusion: It would appear that the argument of efficiency (feed vs. food) is only an academic one. However, what is the carbon footprint or environmental impact?

II. Direct Competition for Food Resources between Livestock and Humans

Alternative Feeds for Livestock: – Cassava – “Poor man’s food” – Tropical tuber,

grows in poor, acid soils on non-cultivatible land, foilage as feed. Cassava meal is an excellent energy feed (examples in Thailand and Colombia). Largely a cash crop.

– Others – 1. Barley, rye, rice bran, palm oil and kernel

meal, citrus and beet pulp, cottonseed meal, copra, etc.

2. Countries with surplus grains and no buyer (e.g., rye grain in Poland) can be fed to poultry and swine

– Sugar cane – “Tropical grain” - More energy per acre than any other crop

1. Juice – for poultry and swine 2. Fibrous residue and juice – for ruminants

– Crop residues – Millions of stocker calves graze on winter wheat fields in the U.S. each year. If all U.S. cropland were used to grow grains… the residues (straw/stover) could support 3X the present population of ruminants (Van Soest, 1994). Is this desirable?

II. Direct Competition for Food Resources between Livestock and Humans

www.lrrd.org

Photos: Wikipedia

III. Matching Animal Production Systems with Available Resources

Issue: Appropriate Technology A) A common myth is that what

revolutionized agriculture in one country (e.g., the U.S.) will work elsewhere.

Case: U.S. compared to New Zealand • Why it is not practical for NZ to grow

cereal grain: • Geographic isolation • Lower human population • Higher fossil fuel costs • Favorable climate for grass • Need for export commodities

Conclusions: Comparison demonstrates optimal use of natural resources (Preston and Leng, 1987).

IV. The Disadvantages of “Non-Competitive” Livestock Feeding Systems

Issues: The title reflects more of a myth than fact Reasons: • No competition in DC’s (surplus of cheap grain) • Most livestock are found in LDC’s • In LDC’s, livestock are mostly fed on “wastes” • Why is it absurd to import grain to LDC’s or NZ to

set milk yield records?

Another factor is that while most people in LDC’s are rural-based, many aspire to live in cities. Soon, some 30 million people will live in Mexico City. Today, most people live in cities. Historically, >90% of Americans use to live on farms; today <1%.

IV. The Disadvantages of “Non-Competitive” Livestock Feeding Systems

What does all this mean? • CAFO’s and(or) industrial agriculture systems are justified! • The rearing of ruminants on crop residues (only meeting maintenance needs) will do little to meet human food requirements. For example, in Latin America it takes >5 years to grow a steer to harvest.

V. Integration of Livestock into Sustainable Cropping Systems

Facts: Historically, prior to the 20th century, crop and livestock

production were closely integrated. The industrial revolution was based on:

• Cheap inputs (fossil fuels, fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides) • Mechanization (tractors/grain processing) • Hybrid seed • Technology Advantages: Resulting in dramatic yield increases and also justification of CAFO’s that decrease food costs. This development “uncoupled” crop from livestock production due to cost efficiencies (economic competitive advantage against smaller farmers) realized in large- scale enterprises (decreasing cost per unit of product; cheaper food). However, certain integrative practices will likely continue (winter grazing of straw/stover by stockers).

V. Integration of Livestock into Sustainable Cropping Systems

Facts: Historically, prior to the 20th century, crop and livestock

production were closely integrated. The industrial revolution in DCs’ was based on:

• Cheap inputs (fossil fuels, fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides) • Mechanization (tractors/grain processing) • Hybrid seed • Technology Disadvantages: Social concerns exist, such as air, noise, and water pollution, animal welfare (“factory farming”), GMO use, additional social services, etc. These concerns are all social, not economic. Also, is industrial food production sustainable as opposed to family farms? There will continue to be more legislation (restrictions and laws against corporate farming). One argument dealing with ethics is that corporate farm businesses should also pay for societal costs (Cheeke, 1999).

V. Integration of Livestock into Sustainable Cropping Systems Conclusions: DC’s vs. LDC’s - In DC’s, the aim is to maximize profits (economic efficiency while minimizing labor), whereas in LDC’s the aim is to optimize profits (biological efficiency while utilizing inexpensive available labor) through small-scale, integrative subsistence farming practices.

Source: Preston (1995)