World Livestock 2011 Livestock in food security - FAO

indiagovernance.gov.in
  • No tags were found...

World Livestock 2011 Livestock in food security - FAO

World Livestock 2011Livestock in food security


World Livestock 2011Livestock in food securityFood and Agriculture Organization ofthe United NationsRome, 2011


ContributorsEditor: A. McLeodCopy editing: N. HartDesign: C. CiarlantiniThe following people contributed to the content of this document: V. Ahuja, C. Brinkley, S. Gerosa,B. Henderson, N. Honhold, S. Jutzi, F. Kramer, H. Makkar, A. McLeod, H. Miers, E. Muehlhoff,C. Okali, C. Opio, I. Rosenthal, J. Slingenbergh, P. Starkey, H. Steinfeld, L. Tasciotti.The following people provided ideas or references or contributed to the review process: D. Battaglia,J. Custot, K. de Balogh, N. de Haan, P. Gerber, D. Gustafson, I. Hoffmann, J. Lubroth, P. Kenmore,R. Laub, J. Otte, T. Raney, M. Smulders, P. Roeder.RECOMMENDED CITATIONFAO. 2011. World Livestock 2011Livestock in food security. Rome, FAO.Cover photographs:©FAO/Giuseppe Bizzarri; ©FAO/Giulio Napolitano; ©FAO/Kai Wiedenhoefer; ©FAO/Noel CelisThe designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not implythe expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, cityor area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mentionof specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, doesnot imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similarnature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of theauthor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of FAO.ISBN 978-92-5-107013-0All rights reserved. FAO encourages the reproduction and dissemination of material in thisinformation product. Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of charge, upon request.Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes, including educational purposes, may incurfees. Applications for permission to reproduce or disseminate FAO copyright materials, and allqueries concerning rights and licences, should be addressed by e-mail to copyright@fao.org or to the:Chief, Publishing Policy and Support BranchOffice of Knowledge Exchange, Research and ExtensionFAOViale delle Terme di Caracalla00153 Rome, ItalyFAO, 2011


ContentsAcronym listOverviewviiiixLivestock and global food security 1Measuring food security 2Six dimensions 2Measures 4Livestock food in the diet 8Nutritional value 8Livestock products in the diets of the poor 11Livestock and food supply 13Supply of animal source foods 13Livestock contributing to crop production 16Livestock and the food balance 21Stability of food supplies 22Access to food 28Financial, human and social capital 28Gender dimensions of access 31Economic factors affecting choice of livestock source foods 34Market access and food access 37Key points on livestock and global food security 42Three human populations – three food security situations 43Livestock-dependent societies 44Contributions and challenges to food security 45Case study. Mongolia: the limits of the last place on earth 46Prospects for livestock dependence 52Small-scale mixed farmers 53Contribution of livestock to food security 54Constraints to expansion 57iii


Case study. Mixed farming in Nepal 58Prospects for small-scale mixed farmers 63City populations 65Livestock products in the urban diet 66Sources of livestock source food for urban populations 67Prospects for livestock feeding urban populations 72Key points on three populations 74Livestock-dependent societies 74Small-scale mixed farmers 75City populations 75Feeding the future 77Producing enough food 78How much livestock source food will be needed? 78Reducing waste 82Building resilience 88Water shortage 89Human and animal health threats 89Volatile markets for feed and livestock products 90Building sustainable systems 92Conclusions 94Urban consumers 94Producer–Consumers 95A regional perspective 96Who does what? 97References 99iv


List of TablesTable 1Table 2Table 3Table 4Number (millions) and share of undernourished people byregion 1990 to 2007 5Average dietary protein and energy consumption andundernourishment by region 9Average daily consumption per person of livestock proteincompared to safe level 1995 and 2005 10Changes in global livestock production total andper person 1967 to 2007 14Table 5 Changes in global trade of livestock products 1967 to 2007 14Table 6Table 7Table 8Table 9Table 10Table 11Global livestock production average byproduction system 2001 to 2003 22Human-edible protein balance in the livestock productionof selected countries 23Percentage of total income of rural households coming fromlivestock activities, by expenditure quintiles 29Percentage of total income coming from livestock activities,by sex of household head and expenditure quintile 32Percentage of male and female rural householdsowning livestock in selected countries 56Number of landowners and landless households bygeographical region of Nepal 59Table 12 Percent of Nepali rural households owning livestock, byexpenditure quintiles 60Table 13Percent of landowning and landless households byTropical Livestock Unit (TLU) owned 60Table 14 Distribution of TLU and typology of livestock, byexpenditure quintiles 61Table 15 Income total from livestock and from cropping (in Nepalese rupees) 61Table 16 Projected total consumption of meat and dairy productsPercent of million tonnes total consumption in developing countries 79Table 17 Projected human population from 2002 and 2008 estimates 80Table 18 Projected consumption of livestock products per billion peoplebased on 2002 population estimates 80v


List of FiguresFigure 1 Production from poultry and pigs in India,Brazil and China 1967 to 2007 15Figure 2 Export of livestock products by region 1967 and 2007 16Figure 3 Net trade per person in livestock products by year and region 17Figure 4 Arable land area by year and region 19Figure 5 Projections for chicken manure production in Viet Namwith changes in sector structure 21Figure 6 Relationship between GDP per person and meat consumptionper person per day in selected regions 35Figure 7 GDP per person in current US$ by country income grouping 36Figure 8 Human population of Mongolia 1980 to 2007 47Figure 9 Livestock population of Mongolia by species 1980 to 2009 47Figure 10 Milk and meat production in Mongolia 1980 to 2005 48Figure 11 Kilocalorie consumption per day in Mongolia by source 1980 to 2007 49Figure 12 Percentage of Mongolian daily kilocalorie intake that is imported 49Figure 13 Mongolian livestock herds below three critical sizes 50Figure 14 Rural households in selected countries engaged in mixed farming 54Figure 15 Land size among landowner households of Nepal 59Figure 16 Type and average number of livestock owned bymixed farming and livestock-only households in Nepal 60vi


List of BoxesBox 1 Four pillars of food security 3Box 2 Dealing with protracted food crisis: the case of Ethiopia 4Box 3 Costs of malnutrition 6Box 4 Expansion of animal traction in Africa 18Box 5 Natural and economic shocks to food systems 24Box 6Informal marketing of dairy products in South Asia,East and West Africa 39Box 7 City livestock in the USA 68Box 8 Food and biogas production in Shanghai 71Box 9 Drivers of disease and possible responses 91vii


ForewordFeeding the world’s poor is one of the most pressing challenges of the present day, as human populationsgrow and put increasing strain on natural resources. Livestock have an important part to play,as they provide high-quality protein to consumers and regular income to producers. To fulfil theirpotential sustainably, they must be managed with care. Water, fossil fuel and grain are used in rearinganimals, and there is an urgent need to use these resources more efficiently, to recycle and reducewaste, and to create a positive balance sheet in livestock’s contribution to global food supplies.One of the hardest challenges for food security is ensuring that all who need food have the meansto buy it, particularly when volatile economies and natural disasters make already weak livelihoodseven more unstable. Here livestock make a vital contribution as generators of cash flow and economicbuffers, provided that market chains are organised to provide openings for small scale producersand traders and those in remote areas.Livestock perform a variety of functions in different human societies. Communities dependenton livestock, those who practice mixed farming on a small scale, and consumers in cities, each havespecific demands on farm animals and their products and distinct food security concerns. Differentgeographical regions also have their own perspectives, with the emerging economies acting asgrowth engines and the developed countries driving food safety and environmental regulations. Allshare a need for food systems to be sustainable and resilient. Each region and type of communitywill have an influence in shaping livestock’s contribution to the food security of the future.Samuel JutziDirectorAnimal Production and Health DivisionFAOix


Acronym listACIABAREBFREPABMIBSECBPPCFSCOMESAECEUFAOFMDFARM-AfricaGDPHhHPAIICASEPSIFADIGADIMFKcalLEADLEGSMDGNNDDBOECDOIEPPRSPRIGARVFSFUSOFATBTLUUNFPAUNSCUNUWHOWFPAgrifood ConsultingAustralian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsBritish Free Range Egg Producers AssociationBody mass indexBovine spongiform encephalopathyContagious bovine pleuropneumoniaCommittee on World Food SecurityCommon Market for Eastern and Southern AfricaEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionFood and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsFoot-and-mouth diseaseFood and Agriculture Research Management-AfricaGross domestic productHouseholdHighly pathogenic avian influenzaIndonesian Center for Agro-socioecoomic and Policy StudiesInternational Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentIntergovernmental Authority for Development (East Africa)International Monetary FundKilocalorieLivestock, Environment and DevelopmentLivestock Emergency Guidelines and StandardsMillennium Development GoalNitrogenNational Dairy Development Board (India)Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentWorld Organisation for Animal HealthPhosphorusPoverty reduction strategy paperRural income generating activitiesRift Valley feverSheep forage unitState of Food and AgricultureTuberculosisTropical livestock unitUnited Nations Population FundUN Standing Committee on NutritionUnited Nations UniversityWorld Health OrganizationWorld Food Programmex


OverviewAlthough much has been said about livestock’srole in achieving food security, in reality, thesubject has been only partially addressed and nocurrent document fully covers the topic. Thisreport is an attempt to fill the gap.It expands the 2009 State of Food and Agriculture(SOFA) (FAO, 2009b) section whichexamined the multiple roles played by livestockin the food security of the poor and advocatedfor support of smallholders, both in respondingto opportunities in livestock production and infinding other opportunities within a broad ruraldevelopment strategy.Recognizing that food security is central tointernational development – and to the mandateof the Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nation (FAO) – the report tells thestory of livestock and food security from threeperspectives.Livestock and global foodsecurityThe first section of the report presents a globaloverview, examining the role that livestockplay in various dimensions of food security. Itdescribes the place of livestock products in humannutrition, the contribution of livestock tothe world food supply and its stability, and itdiscusses the way that livestock can affect foodaccess, particularly for poor families, as a directsource of food and a source of income.“Measuring food security” explains the waysthat food security is defined and measured, andprovides an overview of trends in food securityworldwide and by region. It is intended as backgroundfor those not familiar with the subject.“Livestock food in the diet” describes theplace of livestock products in human nutrition.Noting that the definition of food security includesthe need for an “adequate diet”, it discussesthe positive contributions that livestockproducts can make to the diet and the possibleconsequences of over consumption.“Livestock and food supply” describes thecontribution of livestock to the world food supply,directly through production of meat, milkand eggs, and indirectly through supplying tractionand manure to cropping. It examines thefactors that cause food supplies to become unstableand ways that livestock can mitigate damagingeffects. It also reviews the causes of instabilityin the supply of livestock source foods.“Access to food” deals with food access, examiningthe way livestock can improve householdand individual access to food, particularlyfor poor families, and provide food and income.It also reviews the impact of gender dynamicson access to livestock source foods within familiesand the ability of families to earn incomefrom livestock.Three human populations, threefood security situationsThe second section shifts from the global levelto a human perspective, examining the way inwhich livestock contributes to the food securityof three different human populations –livestock-dependent pastoralists and ranchers,small-scale mixed farmers and urban dwellers.The chapters briefly describe the main issueseach population faces and then introduce relatedcase studies to examine certain points in morepractical detail.“Livestock dependent societies” examines thesituation faced by livestock-dependent societies,including pastoralists, who are the main focusof the chapter, and ranchers. In both systems,livestock provide the foundation of livelihoodsand contribute to food security both locally andglobally. Mongolia is used as a case study, becauseit has a long history of livestock dependencebut, as in other livestock dependent socie-xi


ties, is changing in response to external pressuresand new opportunities.“Small-scale mixed farmers” focuses onsmall-scale mixed farmers for whom livestockprovide both food and the means to obtain it.For these farmers, livestock are an important,but not necessarily the most important, partof their livelihood portfolios. The chapter reviewsthe contributions that livestock in thesesystems currently make to food security, theconstraints to expanding their contribution andthe prospects for small-scale mixed farming.Nepal is used as a case study because it has alarge number of small-scale mixed farmers whoface strong resource and market constraints andtherefore provide a good illustration of the challengesthey face in increasing production fromtheir farms.“City populations” considers the case of citypopulations, growing in number worldwide.For the inhabitants of large cities, animal productsare essentially a commodity to be consumed– unlike the livestock-dependent and small-scalemixed farmers who are both producers andconsumers. The chapter considers the place oflivestock products in the urban diet, the logisticsof feeding city populations, and the factorsdriving the livestock production systems andmarket chains that supply cities. It compares theapproaches taken by different countries, drawingthe most detailed information from Chinaand the United States of America (USA), whichdefine their “foodsheds” – the surrounding areathat can provide food for a city – in two verydifferent ways.of producing enough food for future populations.It reviews FAO’s projections of growthin demand for livestock source foods between2010 and 2050, discusses the assumptions thatwere made in these calculations and the implicationsof any changes. It argues that reducingvarious forms of waste in livestock food systemswill be an essential component of meeting futuredemand. Returning to the three populations ofthe previous section, it reviews where the emphasismay lie for each one in reducing wasteand increasing efficiency.“Building resilience” looks at the possibilitiesfor improving resilience in livestock food systemsand the increasing concern about the instabilityof food supply and access during whatare termed “protracted crises”. Livestock foodsystems must be prepared to respond to thesecrises, which will require building an increasedcapacity to deal with change and recover fromshocks. The chapter reviews some of the factorsthat may create vulnerability in livestock foodsystems and suggests ways to mitigate them.“Conclusions” summarizes the main messagesof the entire report. It concludes that livestockmake a positive contribution to food securitybut, at the same time, suggests that livestockneed to be managed carefully to avoid externalities.Feeding the futureThe final part of the report looks to the future.It discusses the expected demand for livestocksource food and the way that increased demandcan be met with ever more limited resources. Itreviews the drivers that led to the livestock revolution,how these have changed and what theimplications will be for livestock contributing tofood security.“Producing enough food” considers the taskxii


Livestock andglobal food security©Scott Nelson/WPN for FAO


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Security©FAO/Vasily MaximovMeasuring foodsecurityIn 1996, the World Food Summit Rome Declarationset a target to reduce hunger by half by2015.In 2000, the United Nations MillenniumSummit re-affirmed the target, making the halvingof extreme hunger and poverty its primaryMillennium Development Goal (MDG).Notwithstanding these optimistic goals, in2010, 925 million of the world’s inhabitants stillsuffered from chronic hunger, and world foodsecurity was an uncertain prospect. Predictionsconcerning future food security must factor inassumptions about the growth of the economy,the distribution of income, the possibility ofdealing with environmental challenges, and thepolitical and logistical capacity to make food accessibleeverywhere, to everyone.Six dimensionsFAO defines four “pillars” of food security andtwo temporal dimensions related to food insecurity,all of which must be addressed in effortsto reach hunger reduction targets. The four pillars,detailed in Box 1, include: food availabilitywhich refers to food supply, and food accesswhich means the ability of people to obtain foodwhen it is available. As both availability and accessmust be stable, the third pillar, stability, refersto ensuring adequate food at all times whilethe fourth, utilization, incorporates food safetyand nutritional well being.Pillars. Paying simultaneous attention to allfour pillars is a constant challenge. Sufficientfood can be produced today to feed everyonein the world, but it is not always available inevery country, let alone every community. Somecountries produce enough food to be self sufficientwhile others rely on imports, meaning thatwhen international prices rise or global valuechains break down, the food supply becomesunstable. Even when food is available, manypeople cannot afford to buy what they need fora healthy diet and, in parallel, prices that can bepaid by the poorest consumers may not be sufficientto provide a living for producers. Waste infood chains from oversupply and spoilage addsto costs and reduces the amount available to eat.2


Livestock and global food securityBox 1Four pillars of food securityFood Availability: The availability of sufficientquantities of food of appropriate quality, suppliedthrough domestic production or imports (includingfood aid).Food access: Access by individuals to adequateresources (entitlements) for acquiring appropriatefoods for a nutritious diet. Entitlements aredefined as the set of all commodity bundles overwhich a person can establish command given thelegal, political, economic and social arrangementsof the community in which they live (includingtraditional rights such as access to common resources).Stability: To be food secure, a population,household or individual must have access to adequatefood at all times. They should not risk losingaccess to food as a consequence of sudden shocks(e.g. an economic or climatic crisis) or cyclicalevents (e.g. seasonal food insecurity). The conceptof stability can therefore refer to both the availabilityand access dimensions of food security.Utilization: Utilization of food through adequatediet, clean water, sanitation and health careto reach a state of nutritional well-being where allphysiological needs are met. This brings out theimportance of non-food inputs in food security.Source: FAO, 2006a.Food security problems also arise when peoplelack knowledge about nutrition, food handlingand preparation, lack access to clean water andsanitation or when their food supplies changeand they have to deal with unfamiliar foodstuffs.Every major conflict in history has destabilizedlocal food supplies, often with wide rippleeffects. So have crop and livestock pests anddiseases, and natural disasters such as recurringdrought in Ethiopia, annual floods in Bangladesh,earthquakes in Pakistan and Indonesia,and the 2010 fires that affected the Russianwheat crop. Fluctuating economic conditionsdrive vulnerable families below the poverty lineand send them into food security crises, puttinga strain on existing safety nets. For a middleclass population with solid economic resources,a temporary rise in prices or a fluctuation in thefood supply may be merely inconvenient – peoplemust drive further to buy preferred foods,or divert a little more of their income into foodpurchases, or eat something different – but forvulnerable households, it creates a food securitycrisis.Dimensions. The temporal dimensions normallyrefer to food insecurity, which can be chronic,resulting from a persistent shortage in supply ora systemic weakness that limits individuals’ abilityto access food, or transitory, arising becauseof a crisis. Both need to be addressed at the sametime (Pingali et al., 2005), because individuals andcommunities facing chronic food insecurity lacksafety nets and are highly vulnerable to transitoryproblems, while an inappropriate response toa crisis may weaken the base for long-term foodsecurity by weakening local markets or creatingdependencies. In 2005, the Committee on WorldFood Security (CFS, 2005) identified conflict asthe most common cause of transitory food insecurity,followed by weather-related problems. In2008 and 2009, the food security repercussionsof the world economic crisis were a serious causefor concern (FAO, 2009a). As a result of transitoryproblems starting to blur into chronic foodinsecurity – mainly due to long-term systemicfailures in the way that food is produced and distributed– the world is now facing the problem ofprotracted food crises (FAO, 2010a).3


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food SecurityBox 2Dealing with protracted food crisis:the case of EthiopiaIn Ethiopia, where crop failure is an almostannual phenomenon, some 7 million people –more than 8 percent of the country’s population– can support themselves from their ownincome for only six months a year. For theremaining six months, they rely on a recentlyintroduced Productive Safety Net Programmethat addresses the underlying structural problemof food insecurity by putting safety nets inplace ahead of crises, such as by guaranteeingemployment in public works for food or cashand direct subsistence payments. Supplyingpredictable disbursements of cash and foodtransfers at frequent intervals, as opposed tounpredictable disbursements at varying intervals,seems to have reduced the need to sell assets(especially livestock) to buy food, leavingpeople less prone to destitution from adverseweather events. However, even this could notprovide ample protection from the soaringfood prices and the drop in foreign investmentand remittances that followed the 2007–08economic crisis. (FAO, 2009a).Long-term goals. The various pillars and dimensionsof food security are encapsulated intwo long-term goals that preoccupy the internationalcommunity: sustainable healthy dietsand resilient food systems (sometimes combinedas sustainable and resilient food systems).Sustainable healthy diets can be attainable ifall of the conditions for food security are metin ways that do not unduly deplete natural resourcesor pollute the environment. “Sustainable”means that both present and future generationshave sufficient food of adequate nutritionalquality to promote their well-being (Pinstrup-Andersen, 2009; Harding, 2010). Under theseconditions, food systems would have sufficientcapacity to produce enough food of sufficientvariety consistently, transport it with minimumwaste to where it is needed, provide it at pricesthat people can afford while also covering thecosts of the externalities associated with foodproduction, and to promote healthy choices inbuying and preparing food. Currently, we face agrowing population, finite fossil energy and water,and competition for land needed to producehuman food, biofuel and livestock feed. Forfood systems to be sustainable, there is a needto address the structural and policy weaknessesthat have contributed to creating the presentsituation.Resilient food systems are those that withstandshocks from conflict, weather, economiccrises, human or livestock diseases and croppests. It is well recognized by relief agencies thattheir emergency aid efforts are most effectivewhen they are injected into already resilient systemsin ways that create minimum disruption.A more resilient global food system, therefore,would reduce the level and impact of transitoryfood insecurity. The food systems of developedcountries are generally resilient, underpinnedby strong economies and infrastructure, whilethose of most developing countries are not.MeasuresThere is no one method to measure all of foodsecurity’s dimensions, determine whether a foodsystem is sustainable and resilient, and quantifythe extent to which everyone in the world isconsistently well nourished. Thus, it is necessaryto rely on a range of measures that addressthe various aspects of food security.The most direct, widely available and uniformmeasurement quantifies the consumption of calories– people who consume insufficient caloriesfor their age and sex are considered undernourished.When the target was set in 1996 to halvehunger by 2015, there was already a promisingtrend in combating undernutrition. The numberof undernourished people, standing at close to abillion in 1970, fell to 900 million in 1980, andto 845 million in 1990–92 (Table 1). Numbersstayed fairly static for the next ten years, rising4


Livestock and global food securitytable 1Number (millions) and share of undernourished people by region 1990 to 2007Country groups 1990–1992 1995–1997 2000–2002 2005–2007World 843.4 787.5 833.0 847.5Developed countries 16.7 19.4 17.0 12.3(2.0%) (2.5%) (2.0%) (1.5%)Developing World 826.6 768.1 816.0 835.2(98.0%) (97.5%) (98.0%) (98.5%)Asia and the Pacific 587.9 498.1 531.8 554.5(69.7%) (63.3%) (63.8%) (65.4%)Latin America and the Caribbean 54.3 53.3 50.7 47.1(6.4%) (6.8%) (6.1%) (5.6%)Near East and North Africa 19.6 29.5 31.8 32.4(2.3%) (3.7%) (3.8%) (3.8%)Sub-Saharan Africa 164.9 187.2 201.7 201.2Note: Percentages are share of total for the year.Source: FAOSTAT.(19.6%) (23.8%) (24.2%) (23.7%)slightly to 873 million in 2005. In percentageterms, the numbers were even more encouraging.In 1980, 28 percent of the world’s populationwas undernourished. By 1990–92, the averagehad fallen to 16 percent for the world and 20percent for developing countries, and in 2005–07(the latest period for which comparable statisticsare available), the figures stood at 13 percent forworld population and 16 percent for developingcountries (FAO, 2008a).Since then, two global problems – increasingdemand for biofuel and the world economic crisis– have created a serious block to halving hunger.Competition between food and fuel cropstogether with other factors resulted in rises infood prices in 2007 and the wider economiccrisis that immediately followed reduced purchasingpower. According to estimates, approximately925 million people were undernourishedin 2010, representing roughly 14 percent of theworld’s population of 6.8 billion. FAO databasesshow that undernourishment is unevenlydistributed across regions, nations, householdsand individuals, with the main burden borne bythe poorest countries and the poorest people.Undernourishment is an important indicatorof food insecurity, but it only tells part ofthe story. Food security is more than the consumptionof sufficient calories; it is also aboutconsuming food of adequate quality. People aremalnourished if they eat insufficient calories orprotein, food of poor quality, or if they are unableto utilize fully the food they eat (WHO,2001). Diets can be poor if they lack mineralsand vitamins, have insufficient fruits, vegetablesor livestock products, or contain too much ofelements that are harmful when taken in excesssuch as saturated fats and sugar (IFPRI, 2004).While 925 million people were undernourishedin 2010, some 2 billion were estimated to be malnourished.Unlike undernourishment, which isassociated with poverty, the problem of malnourishmentis found across all income groups,although it takes different forms for the poorand the rich. The poorest lack an adequate supplyof energy, protein and micronutrients, whilefor those who can afford sufficient calories,overconsumption and poorly balanced diets, togetherwith their associated health problems, arean increasing problem (WHO, 2003).5


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food SecurityBox 3Costs of malnutritionPreventing one child from being born with lowbirth weight in low-income countries was estimatedto be worth US$580 in 2003 (Alderman andBehrman, 2003).• In Nigeria, the annual economic loss due tomalnutrition in children under five was estimatedat US$489 million in 1994, or about1.5 percent of GDP (FAO, 2004).• In South Asia, the losses associated with irondeficiency have been estimated at US$5 millionper year (Ross and Horton, 1998).• In Bangladesh, the cost of iron deficiency inchildren has been estimated at nearly 2 percentof GDP (Ross and Horton, 1998).• In India, elimination of child malnutritionwould increase national income by US$28 billion.This is more than its combined expendituresfor nutrition, health, and education.• Diet-related chronic diseases were estimatedto cost 2.1 percent of China’s GDP in 1995and 0.3 percent of Sri Lanka’s (Popkin et al.,2001).• The cost of obesity has been estimated at 0.2percent of GDP for Germany, 0.6 percent forSwitzerland, 1.2 percent for the United States(WHO, 2007), 1 percent for Latin Americaand the Caribbean (PAHO, 2006), 1.1 percentfor India, 1.2 percent for the USA and2.1 percent for China (Yach et al., 2006).• The cost of diabetes has been estimated at 1.3percent of GDP for the USA, 2.6 percent forMexico and 3.8 percent for Brazil (Yach et al.,2006).Malnourishment is harder to measure thanundernourishment, since it requires data on proteinand micronutrients which are not routinelymeasured on a wide scale. Rough estimates canbe made from the kilograms of different foodsconsumed and their average content of differentnutrients. More commonly, malnourishmentlevels are deduced indirectly from proxy measuresthat show its resulting effects.Malnutrition has a devastating effect on childsurvival, particularly in developing countries.It has been estimated that protein-energy malnutritionis a causative factor in 49 percent ofthe approximately 10.4 million annual deaths ofchildren under five years of age (WHO, 2000).It is also manifested in underweight and stunting.In 2007, UNICEF estimated that approximately146 million children were underweight(UNICEF, 2007), over 70 percent of them indeveloping countries, and that 31.2 percent ofchildren in developing countries were stunted(UNSC, 2010). This represented an improvementsince 1980, when 49 percent of childrenunder five in the developing world were stunted,and 38 percent were underweight (Opio, 2007).At the other end of the scale, over-consumptioncan be deduced from statistics on obesity,defined as having a Body Mass Index (BMI),which measures body fat based on weight andheight, of 30 or above. The most recent WHOglobal summary suggests that in 2008, at least500 million adults were clinically obese (WHO,2100), a figure which may rise to 700 million in2015. Obesity is linked to diabetes and heart diseaseand possibly certain kinds of cancer.Malnutrition not only affects an individual’shealth, it is expensive for society. It reduces humanproductivity and creates costs for the healthsystem, as shown in Box 3. A conservative estimatein 1990 put the global economic loss frommalnutrition at US$8.7 billion (Pinstrup-Andersenet al., 1993).6


Livestock and global food securityThe sustainability and resilience of food systemscan be measured by a variety of qualitativeand quantitative indicators, such as:• trends in production and consumption levelsper person as well as patterns of consumptionamong different income groupswhich give a general indication of resilience;• long- and short-term trends in food pricesand livestock disease prevalence which provideinformation about potential sources offood instability;• information about water quality and otherenvironmental indicators which provideunderlying information about the resourcebase on which food production depends.Key indicators can differ with individual nationaland local situations. For example, a countrythat relies on domestic production for thebulk of its food supply may be primarily concernedwith measuring the ability of its ownagricultural system to keep producing a stablesupply or to store buffers against shocks, whilea country that expects to import a proportionof its food every year will be equally concernedwith the robustness of the international tradesystem and the political capital that gives accessto food aid in times of crisis.In rangeland areas of Africa, the terms of tradebetween livestock and food grains are an indicatorof prolonged food emergencies because, asa crisis continues, more and more animals needto be sold to buy the same amount of grain. TheEC-FAO Food Security Programme has developeda “resilience tool” to help policy-makersunderstand what makes families more resilientto crises. This tool combines several factors intoan index, including income and access to food;assets such as land and livestock; social safetynets such as food assistance and social security;access to basic services such as water, healthcare and electricity; household adaptive capacitywhich is linked to education and diversity ofincome sources; and the stability of all these factorsover time.7


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Security©FAO/L. RlungLivestock food inthe dietAnimal source foods, a choice for many peoplein many societies, add taste, texture and varietyto the diet. Some foods have specific social andcultural roles, such as turkey at Christmas, aduck taken as a gift on a social visit, eggs or milkgiven to lactating mothers, meat cooked for honouredvisitors, tea with milk given to guests. Culturalnorms also prohibit consumption of somefoods, such as pork in Muslim and Jewish communities.Livestock contribute around 12.9 percentof global calories and 27.9 percent of proteindirectly through provision of meat, milk, eggsand offal, and also contribute to crop productionthrough the provision of transport and manure.Nutritional valueIn spite of recent growth in consumption, manypeople are still deficient in the nutrients that canbe provided by animal source foods, which arecomplete, nutrient-dense and important for thehigh quality protein and bio-available micronutrientsthey contain, particularly for childrenand pregnant and lactating women. Even quitesmall amounts of animal source foods are importantfor improving the nutritional status oflow-income households. Meat, milk and eggsprovide proteins with a wide range of amino acidsthat match human needs as well as bio-availablemicro-nutrients such as iron, zinc, vitaminA, vitamin B12 and calcium in which many malnourishedpeople are deficient.It is generally agreed that livestock sourcefoods can be beneficial, but there are no universalguidelines that set an ideal level of consumptionof livestock products for an individual. Internationaldietary guidelines on levels of energyand protein consumption do not distinguishbetween plant and animal sources. They suggestthat the intake of energy needed by an adultin a day varies from 1 680 to 1 990 kilocalories(kcals) in total, depending on the country. Theyalso suggest that the safe level of protein consumptionis about 58 g per adult per day. “Safe”in this case is defined as the average protein requirementof the individuals in the population,plus twice the standard deviation and it is an acceptedpractice to refer to this measure ratherthan a minimum (WHO, FAO, UNU, 2007).8


Livestock and global food securitytable 2Average dietary protein and energy consumption andundernourishment by regionCountry groupS protein energy percent of populationconsumption consumption consuming insufficientg/day 2003–05 kcals/day 2005–07 calories 2005–07World 76 2 780 13Developed countries 102 3 420


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securitytable 3Average daily consumption per person of livestock protein compared tosafe level 1995 and 2005g/day% ofrecommendedmeat Dairy Eggs Total “safe” 1(not butter)consumptionarea year From livestockAfrica 1995 5.3 3.1 0.6 92005 5.9 3.4 0.6 9.9 17Americas 1995 26.1 14.3 2.7 43.12005 28.1 14.1 3.1 45.3 78Asia 1995 7.5 3.8 2.2 13.52005 9.2 4.7 2.7 16.6 29Europe 1995 24.1 17.9 3.6 45.62005 24.7 19.2 3.8 47.7 82Oceania 1995 24.9 18 1.9 44.82005 39.3 15.8 1.7 56.8 98Least developed countries 1995 3.3 2.2 0.2 5.72005 4.1 2.7 0.3 7.1 12Source: FAOSTAT for consumption figures.1Recommended “safe” consumption is 58 g per person per day, estimated as the minimum average plus 2x standard deviation (WHO, FAO, UNU,2007).2005 was between 78 and 98 percent of the totalprotein requirement, suggesting that livestockproducts were being over-consumed. The highlevel of meat and saturated fat consumption inhigh-income countries has been associated withhigh rates of cardiovascular disease, diabetes andsome cancers (Walker, 2005).Even in small amounts, food of animal origincan play an important role in improving thenutritional status of low income householdsby addressing micro- and macronutrient deficiencies,particularly of children and pregnantand lactating women. It is possible to livehealthily without eating animal products, butthey do provide nutritional benefits, particularlythrough micronutrients. Small amountsof meat, for example, provide easily absorbablehaem iron and help in the absorption of ironfrom plant foods (Bender, 1992), which helpsprevent anaemia arising from iron deficiency.Meat and milk are good sources of vitamin B12,riboflavin and vitamin A. Meat also provideszinc, and milk provides calcium. Adding a smallamount of animal source food to the diets ofmalnourished children can increase their energyand cognitive ability (Neuman et al., 2010).However, it is important that babies receivehuman milk up to age 6 months, rather thana livestock source substitute (Neuman, 1999).Iron deficiency, for example, is estimated to affect1.6 billion people worldwide (deBenoistet al., 2008) and to impair the mental developmentof 40–60 percent of children in developingcountries (UNICEF, 2007). A multi-agency reportin 2009 stated that iron deficiency anaemiaduring pregnancy is associated with one-fifth oftotal maternal deaths each year. (MicronutrientInitiative, 2009). Meat is not the only source ofdietary iron, but it is a good source. It seemsclear that the poor would benefit from a higherintake of food, with a diet that includes livestocksource food. Therefore, the next sectionexamines the sources of animal products in thediets of poor households.10


Livestock and global food securityLivestock products in the dietsof the poorPoorer households spend less than richer oneson food, particularly on livestock food items.This topic is dealt with in considerable detail in alater chapter, which looks at food access, but it isworth mentioning a few statistics here. Nationalconsumption figures show that consumption oflivestock source foods rises as average income rises(Delgado, 2003), which is illustrated in Figure6. Studies within individual countries also showdifferences between rich and poor households.For example, a comparative study of Uganda, Indiaand Peru (Maltsologu, 2007) found that poorhouseholds consumed less in both volume andtotal value of livestock products than rich ones,with the poorest households allocating less than10 percent of their food budget (purchases andhome consumption) to livestock products. Withinthe budget given to livestock source foods,the highest percentage was allocated to meat.In Uganda, milk was also important, while eggswere more prominent in Viet Nam.While there are differences in food preferencesand access between countries and even withinhouseholds (described later when reviewingfood access), both poultry products and dairyproducts tend to be prominent within the dietsof poor households.Poultry meat and eggs. Globally, the supplyof and demand for poultry products has showna very rapid upward trajectory, with poultrynow providing 28 percent of all meat (see thenext chapter for trends in livestock production).Poultry meat and eggs are acceptable foods inmany cultures, and poultry can be raised at homeeven by families with very little land or capital,making them easily accessible to the poor. Insome countries, poultry meat is cheaper, suchas in Egypt where at times, it is only one-thirdthe price of other meats (Hancock, 2006). Poultryproducts make up 0.6 percent of the averageof 2 077 kcals per person per day in Africa and2.9 percent of 2 300 kcals per person per day inAsia (Hancock, 2006). They form a somewhatgreater share of average protein consumption,up to 5 percent in the poorest households. Anecdotaland recorded evidence points to poultryproducts contributing over 20 percent of meatconsumption in sub-Saharan Africa, around 50percent in Egypt and the more food insecurecountries of Latin America, and a high percentin the poorer Middle Eastern countries. Thismakes these populations particularly vulnerablewhen local production of poultry is disruptedbecause of disease or other problems.Quickly cooked and digested, poultry meatand especially eggs also have good micronutrientproperties important for children andpregnant women. Female-earned income frompoultry keeping is an important factor for improvedchild health, and smallholder poultrydevelopment projects for poor households inBangladesh and South Africa indicate that boththe direct consumption of poultry and incomefrom poultry contribute to reduced malnutrition(Dolberg, 2003).Dairy. Milk from cattle and goats, a good sourceof amino acids and Vitamin A, is widely consumedin all parts of the world except East Asia.In South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, it isparticularly important in the diet and, in fact,can contribute more than 50 percent of pastoralistfamilies’ energy intake. School milk programmeshave been used to boost consumption©FAO/Ivo Balderi11


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securityby children while supporting the local dairy industries.A 2004 survey of 35 countries foundthat schemes to promote milk consumption inschools had increased the proportion of schoolmilk in the domestic market. In Thailand, wheremilk is not a large part of the national diet,school milk accounted for 25 percent of nationalmilk consumption, while in other countries thatresponded to the survey, the contribution wasbetween 1 and 9 percent (Griffin, 2004).Smallholder dairy production also has beenimportant to rural economies, although not tothe poorest of the poor since the maintenanceof a cow or even a dairy goat is normally beyondtheir capacity. Women often have controlof dairy animals and of the income they provide,which has had positive consequences for householdnutrition, a topic that is explored further ina later chapter reviewing food access.12


Livestock and global food security©FAO/Florita BottsLivestock andfood supplyLivestock products supply around 12.9 percentof calories consumed worldwide (FAO, 2009b)and 20.3 percent in developed countries. Evenmore important, perhaps, is their contributionto protein consumption, estimated at 27.9 percentworldwide and 47.8 percent in developedcountries.Supply of animal source foodsThe availability of livestock products worldwideand within nations is determined by the volumeof production and the scale and reach of internationaltrade. During the past 40 years (1967–2007), global production of meat, milk and eggshas grown steadily. Particularly striking havebeen the increases in production of poultry meatby a factor of 7.0, eggs by a factor of 3.5, and pigmeat by a factor of 3.0 (Table 4). Production perperson has also grown, albeit at a slower rate.For the decade from 1995 to 2005, the annualglobal growth rate in consumption and productionof meat and milk averaged between 3.5and 4 percent, double the growth rate for majorstaple crops during the same period (Ahuja etal., 2009). Trade in livestock products also hasgrown enormously during these 40 years (Table5), by a factor of 30.0 for poultry meat, morethan 7.0 for pig meat and 5.0 for milk.While the global supply of livestock productshas more than kept up with the human populationexpansion, the situation has not been thesame in all regions. Production levels have expandedrapidly in East and Southeast Asia, andin Latin America and the Caribbean, but growthin sub-Saharan Africa has been very slow. Fastgrowth in human populations in some developingcountries coupled with low productivityper animal have made it hard for livestock productionin those areas to keep up. There is alsoconsiderable variation within the developingworld, with sub-Saharan Africa and South Asiaproducing at much lower levels per person thanLatin America and the Caribbean.Pigs and poultry, especially those kept in intensive,peri-urban production systems, aremostly responsible for per person growth oflivestock source foods. Three of the largestemerging economies – China, Brazil and India –13


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securitytable 4Changes in global livestock production total and per person 1967 to 2007Item Production (million tonnes) production per person (kg)1967 2007 2007/1967 1967 2007 2007/1967Pig meat 33.86 99.53 294% 9.79 14.92 152%Beef and buffalo meat 36.50 65.61 180% 10.55 9.84 93%Eggs, primary 18.16 64.03 353% 5.25 9.60 183%Milk, total 381.81 680.66 178% 110.34 102.04 92%Poultry meat 12.39 88.02 711% 3.58 13.20 369%Sheep and goat meat 6.49 13.11 202% 1.88 1.97 105%Source: FAOSTAT.have fast-growing poultry industries (Figure 1).China is by far the largest player, with approximately70 million tonnes of egg production annuallycompared to 3 million tonnes in Indiaand 2 million in Brazil, and 15 million tonnes ofmeat compared to 9 million tonnes in Brazil and0.6 million in India. However, poultry make animportant contribution to the food supply in allthree economies. In India, poultry is the fastestgrowing livestock subsector. Poultry productsaccounted for approximately 50 percent of perperson livestock protein consumption in 2003,compared to about 22 percent in 1985 (Pica-Ciamarra and Otte, 2009, based on Governmentof India, 2006). China and Brazil are also rapidlyexpanding their production of pig meat (Figure1). In China in particular, this is an importantpart of the diet.Dairy production has expanded to meet demandin some growing economies of Asia, suchas in Thailand where domestic dairy productionrose sharply from 7 percent of national consumptionin 1980–82 to 44 percent in 2000–02(Knips, 2006). Viet Nam, which only has a shortnational tradition in the production and consumptionof dairy products, saw a tripling inmilk production between 1996 and 2002 (Garciaet al., 2006). Although Pakistan still faces milkshortages, because of limited feed and grazingareas coupled with a rising population, farmerstable 5Changes in global trade oflivestock products 1967 to 2007Itemexport(million tonnes)1967 2007 2007/1967Pig meat 1.48 11.13 750%Beef and buffalo meat 2.41 9.46 392%Eggs, primary 0.33 1.44 442%Milk, total 18.84 93.19 495%Poultry meat 0.39 12.66 3 206%Sheep and goat meat 0.58 1.04 180%Source: FAOSTAT.have responded to increased demands for milkby increasing milk yields (Garcia et al., 2003).In India, where milk has always been important,the latest statistics from the National Dairy DevelopmentBoard (NDDB) show that availabilityper person has grown from 178 g per day in1991–92 to 258 g per day in 2008–09 (NDDB,2010).Many poor countries, however, have failed toincrease national production or consumptionof livestock and livestock products. In Bangladesh,for example, high milk production costsand low yields have resulted in low per person14


Livestock and global food security1 Production from poultry and pigs iniNDia, Brazil and China 1967 to 2007million tonnes10864201961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006million tonnes10080604020China01961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006million tonnes54321BrazilIndia01961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006Source: FAOSTAT.Poultry meat Eggs Pig meatmilk production of 13 kg per year. Even withimports, the country is struggling to meet a domesticmilk demand that has increased as a resultof rising incomes and population growth (Garciaet al., 2004a). Ethiopia, which has one of thelargest livestock populations in Africa, has seena decline over the past 30 years in the number oflivestock and the volume of livestock productionper person, and a corresponding decline inconsumption per person of livestock products(Halderman, 2005).Export trade, which in 1967 was relativelysmall and dominated by Europe, has not onlyexpanded greatly, it has diversified, with theAmericas becoming the dominant exporter ofpoultry meat, Asia taking a growing share of eggand poultry meat trade, and Oceania showingstrong growth in milk and ruminant meat exports(Figure 2).There is a large gap in self sufficiency in livestockproducts between the developed and thedeveloping regions. Oceania is a major net exporterof ruminant meat and milk, including exportsof live sheep, many to the Middle East andNorth Africa. The Americas are increasingly netexporters of pig and poultry meat, Europe is selfsufficient in some products and a minor net importerof others, and Africa is a net importer ofalmost all livestock products (Figure 3).Within regions, some countries stand out asmajor producers and net exporters while othersare net importers and rely on trade to makelivestock products available in their domesticmarkets. For example, Asia as a whole is barelyself sufficient in poultry meat, but Thailand hasbeen among the top ten exporters, and China isa major producer with a growing export market.Within the Americas, the USA and Brazilstand out as exporters of livestock productswhile some of the smaller countries are net importers.The biggest milk powder importers areoil exporters such as Mexico, Algeria, Venezuelaand Malaysia, and the fast-growing economiesof India, the Philippines and Thailand (Knips,2005). In China, domestic milk production hasrisen but still has not been able to keep up withrising demand as domestic milk consumptionhas increased even faster. As a result, milk powderimports have risen rapidly to meet demand.North Africa, which has experienced rapid incomegrowth in the past few years, has become alarge importer of milk powder to meet increaseddemand for dairy products.Global availability of livestock products hasgrown, but how close does it come to what is15


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Security2 Export of livestock products by region 1967 and 2007million tonnes121086420Ruminant meat1967 2007million tonnes1009080706050403020100Milk total1967 2007million tonnes121086420Pig meat1967 2007million tonnes14121086420Poultry meat1967 2007million tonnes2.01.81.61.41.21.00.80.60.40.20.0Eggs primary1967 2007AfricaAmericasAsiaEuropeOceaniaSource: FAOSTAT.needed for food security? The literature tends tocompare developed to developing country statisticsrather than comparing the consumptionin the developing world to acceptable nutritionstandards. Perhaps this is because the questionhas no simple answers. The recommendedstandards for consumption of calories, proteinsand certain critical micronutrients do not generallydistinguish between the sources of food,other than to say that a balanced diet shouldcontain a mixture of nutrients from plant andanimal sources with a higher proportion comingfrom plant sources.Expert opinion suggests that sufficient foodof all kinds is currently being produced for everyone,but that the problem lies with access. Atthe same time, cognizant of the fact that foodsecurity requires a sufficient supply of both cropand livestock products, it is important to examinethe interplay between crop and livestockproduction. They interact in both positive andnegative ways. In mixed farming systems, thetwo add value to each other – livestock providetraction and manure for crop production andcrops, in return, provide forage and residuesas livestock feed. A tug-of-war develops whenlivestock consume grains and other seeds thatcould otherwise be fed to humans and, in doingso, compete for the food needed for direct humanconsumption.Livestock contributing to cropproductionIn addition to contributing directly to food supplythrough provision of their own products,livestock contribute indirectly by supportingcrop production with inputs of manure and traction.In both cases, their contribution is greatestin developing countries. In the developed world,the use of traction has fallen to almost nothing,and the manure produced by livestock raised forfood is more than can be used conveniently onlocal cropland.16


Livestock and global food security3 Net trade per person in livestock products by year and regionKg1050Bovine meatOceania - Kg553515Kg531-1-3Pig meat-5-5-52007200319991995199119871983197919751971196720072003199919951991198719831979197519711967Kg0.30.30.20.20.10.10.0-0.1-0.1-0.219671970197319761979Eggs198219851988199119941997200020032006Kg7531-1-3-51967197019731976Poultry meat1994199119881985198219791997200020032006Kg503010-10-30-50MilkOceania - Kg6005004003002001000Kg22110-1-1Sheep and goat meatOceania - Kg40353025201510502007200319991995199119871983197919751971196720072003199919951991198719831979197519711967AfricaAmericasAsiaEuropeOceaniaSource: FAOSTAT.Draft powerDraft power from working animals has reducedhuman drudgery, allowed cropping areas to beexpanded beyond what can be cultivated byhand, and made it possible to till land withoutwaiting for it to be softened by rain which givesfarmers more flexibility in when they plant crops.In spite of this, a recent review (Starkey, 2010)indicates that the number of working animals inthe world has probably fallen from 300–400 millionin the 1980s to 200–250 million today.Numbers in Africa have increased (Box 4),but there have been significant decreases inother parts of the world. In Western Europe andNorth America, the use of animal power hasalmost disappeared since WW II other than for17


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food SecurityBox 4Expansion of animal traction in AfricaWest Africa – animal traction continued expandingduring the twentieth century, due to its promotionby commodity companies and extensionservices. There have been high levels of adoptionin the 400–800 mm rainfall zone, and use of workoxen in francophone West Africa increased sixfold – from 350 000 to 2 million – in the past 50years. Oxen are the main agricultural work animals,but horses and donkeys are also used in thedrier areas. Donkeys have increased in numbers,from 4.5 to 6.3 million in the past decade, and ingeographical area, with the “donkey line” movingsouthward. In the humid zone, there are few cattleand no equids, but projects are considering theintroduction of work oxen. An increasing numberof farmers use trypanotolerant Ndama cattle forwork in Guinea.East Africa – animal traction is gradually increasing,notably in Tanzania, with 1 million workanimals, and in Uganda, while in Madagascar,where 300 000 ox carts are in use for transport,bovine traction was badly affected by the 2006drought. Animal use is slowly diversifying fromthe traditional ploughing and pulling of carts toincreased use for weeding and conservation tillageand increased use of donkeys for transport andlight tillage.Ethiopian highlands and some neighbouringareas – 7 million oxen provide the main sourceof power for soil tillage, while 5 million donkeysare used for pack transport. Donkey carts are fewbut increasing. Horses and mules are used widelyfor riding, although urban horse carts are beingreplaced by motorized three-wheelers. In Ethiopia,ox-drawn ploughing is so important that poorhouseholds that do not own oxen will practicesharecropping with those that do and give as muchas 50 percent of their harvest in exchange for theuse of oxen (Ashley and Sandford, 2008).Southern Africa – animal traction has been inuse since the seventeenth century, making it traditionalin many smallholder systems. In recentdecades, it has been promoted and is spreading inseveral countries, including Malawi, Namibia andZambia.South Africa and neighbouring countries –the use of tractors on large farms and subsidizedtractor hire schemes have diminished people’s perceptionof the value of animal traction. However,no viable system for using tractors for rainfedcrops on fragmented small-scale farms has beenfound. Oxen are the preferred animal for ploughing,but droughts, overgrazing and theft havemade donkeys more attractive.North Africa – traditional use of work animalsin agriculture remains important in Egypt andMorocco.Source: Starkey (2010), except where indicated.specialized uses and in traditional communities,such as the Amish in North America. In EasternEurope, it is steadily decreasing as tractorsbecome more affordable and available and farmsizes shrink.In much of South and Southeast Asia, draughtanimals are being replaced by mechanization.In Central and South America, oxen and horsesremain common on smallholder farms in spiteof increasing adoption of tractors, and animaldrawncarts are quite widely used for rural andurban transport. The traditional use of pack llamashas declined greatly but donkeys remainimportant in the Andes and in Mexico. Animaltraction also remains important for agricultureand transport in Haiti and the Dominican Republic,although motorcycles, three-wheelersand power tillers may eventually reduce de-18


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securitybe more difficult to formulate appropriate policiesrelating to their use in agriculture and transport.A reasonable level of public investment inanimal traction will need to be maintained forfarmers in zones where such technology candirectly reduce poverty and drudgery. Buildinga critical mass of knowledgeable users and supportservices, however, generally requires projectsupport.ManureThe potential contribution of animal manure tocrop production is well understood althoughthere is no convenient global database to summarizeits current contribution. It is easier todetermine the extent of artificial fertilizer use,which is expected to double in developing countriesby 2020 (Bumb and Baanante, 1996). Indeveloped countries, it has been suggested thatonly about 15 percent of the nitrogen appliedto crops comes from livestock manure. In developingcountries, the relative contribution oflivestock manure can be high but is not welldocumented.The relationship between manure and foodproduction is interesting and complex. It is avaluable input, but also a comparatively inconvenientone. Manure is known to be better thanartificial fertilizer for soil structure and longtermfertility. Its greatest value can be seen indeveloping countries, where small-scale farmersreport that they do not have enough manureto apply to their crops (Jackson and Mtengeti,2005) and exchange of grain and manure occursbetween settled farmers and pastoralists (Hoffmanet al., 2004). The distance that manure issometimes transported attests to its perceivedvalue. For example, chicken manure is reportedlytransported 100 km or more in Viet Nam.Calculations made for Bolivia point to the considerablepotential benefits of using more ofthe national manure production as an input tosmall-scale cropping (Walker, 2007). It also hasmultiple uses for household fuel, constructionand biogas production as well as fertilizer, althoughthese are not being fully exploited. Oneestimate suggests that only 1 percent of globalmanure production is recycled as biogas (Thøyet al., 2009). At the same time, it is less convenientto handle than artificial fertilizer, has variablequality, and the reduction in animal traction inmany countries has also reduced the availabilityof this resource. Research into rice productionin Asia, where work animals have been replacedby tractors and power tillers, is increasingly centeredaround more efficient ways to formulateand deliver artificial fertilizer.In countries where the livestock sector isdominated by large-scale intensive production,manure can be as much a problem as a benefit.The challenge of recycling waste in ways that donot add to water pollution is substantial (Steinfeldet al., 2006). For example, the EU and Canada(Hofmann, 2006) have strict rules and detailedguidelines about storage, processing andapplication of animal waste to avoid pollutionof runoff water and the build-up of heavy metalsin the soil. Denmark has successfully reducedleaching intensification, and concentration of itslivestock sector has resulted in more manurebeing generated in smaller areas. For example,Figure 5 shows the large increase in manureproduction expected from increasing commercializationof the Vietnamese poultry sector in acountry where poultry manure is already transportedover quite long distances.The extent to which livestock manure is appliedto crops is a question of economics, logisticsand regulation. There is evidence that usingmanure on small- to medium-sized mixed farmshas economic viability (Bamire and Amujoyegbe,2004). However, storage needs, transport requirementsand the relative locations of livestockand crops all affect the cost and convenience ofapplying manure, as do government regulationson nutrient management (Kaplan et al., 2004).Much current research is focussed on ways totighten nutrient cycles, so that more nitrogen(N) and phosphorus (P) cycle through plantsand animals and less is lost. In other words, thegoal is to use more of these nutrients directly inagriculture (Steinfeld et al., 2010).20


Livestock and global food security5 Projections for chicken manurePRoduction in Viet Nam withCHanges in sector structureDucksLarge-scalechickensMedium-scalechickensBackyard/smallscalechickensManuremillion birds0 50 100 150 2000 500 1000 1500 2000thousand tonsManure 2015 Manure 2003Birds target 2015 Birds 2003Source: Hinrichs, 2006.Livestock and the food balanceLivestock make their most important contributionto total food availability when they are producedin places where crops cannot be growneasily, such as marginal areas, or when they scavengeon public land, use feed sources that cannotdirectly be eaten by humans, or supply manureand traction for crop production. In these situations,they add to the balance of energy and proteinavailable for human consumption. Whenlivestock are raised in intensive systems, theyconvert carbohydrates and protein that mightotherwise be eaten directly by humans and usethem to produce a smaller quantity of energyand protein. In these situations, livestock can besaid to reduce the food balance.In a world that is increasingly concerned withsustainable food production, ideally the contributionof livestock to the food balance shouldbe at least neutral, making the conversion of naturalresources to human food as efficient as possiblewhile also ensuring that people still havethe possibility of eating a diverse diet that includeslivestock products. However, on a globalscale, this is not the case and may not even bepossible. It is estimated that 77 million tonnes ofplant protein are consumed annually to produce58 million tonnes of livestock protein (Steinfeldet al., 2006).The production system and the species of livestockboth affect the food balance. Monogastricssuch as pigs and poultry naturally eat a diet thatis closer to a human one than that of ruminants.Extensive systems require animals to find a largeproportion of their feed from sources not edibleto humans, such as grasses and insects, grainsleft over from harvests and kitchen waste, whileanimals in intensive systems are fed concentratefeed that includes cereals, soya and fishmeal aswell as roughage. Intensive poultry and pigs arethe biggest consumers of grain and protein edibleby humans, although both have been bredto be efficient feed converters. Intensive beefsystems in feed lots convert concentrates less efficientlybut can be fed partly on brewers’ waste.Intensive dairy cows are fed concentrates thatenable them to produce much greater volumesof milk than they could manage from a roughage-onlydiet.The systems that compete least for humanfood – those that primarily depend on grazing– produce only about 12 percent of the world’smilk and 9 percent of its meat. Mixed systems inwhich animals eat grass and crop residues as wellas concentrates produce 88 percent of the world’smilk and 6 percent of its meat. The most intensiveindustrial livestock systems are termed “landless”because the animals themselves occupy little land– they are kept in controlled environments andcan be housed almost anywhere. These systems(Table 6) produce 45 percent of the world’s meat,much of it from poultry and pigs, and 61 percentof the world’s eggs (FAO, 2009b).Since livestock have an important role in proteinproduction, it serves as a valuable exerciseto consider the effect of livestock productionsystems on the available balance of human-edibleprotein. This report makes an initial attemptto compare national figures for livestock output21


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securitytable 6Global livestock production average by production system 2001 to 2003LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SYSTEMPOPULATIONgrazing Rainfed Irrigated Landless/ Totalmixed mixed Industrial(Million head)Cattle and buffaloes 406 641 450 29 1 526Sheep and goats 590 632 546 9 1,777(Million tonnes)PRODUCTIONBeef 14.6 29.3 12.9 3.9 60.7Mutton 3.8 4.0 4.0 0.1 11.9Pork 0.8 12.5 29.1 52.8 95.2Poultry meat 1.2 8.0 11.7 52.8 73.7Milk 71.5 319.2 203.7 - 594.4Eggs 0.5 5.6 17.1 35.7 58.9Source: Steinfeld et al., 2006and feed input for a selection of countries. UsingFAOSTAT production and trade statistics andfeed and primary crop data, the estimated volumeof edible livestock produced in each countryhas been adjusted for protein content of eachcommodity and then compared with the estimatedvolume of human edible protein that hasbeen used for feed (domestically produced andimported). The input and output figures havethen been compared as net figures and ratios,shown in Table 7. The numbers need to be treatedwith some caution, as feed data are somewhatlimited and likely to underestimate the use offeed that is produced on small farms. However,the trend fits with what common sense mightsuggest: the countries with the most concentratedand intensive systems have an output/inputratio of below or near one (1), meaning that thelivestock sector consumes more human-edibleprotein than it provides, while those countrieswith a predominance of extensive ruminantshave considerably higher ratios, meaning thatthey add to the overall supply of protein.Reducing the amount of human-edible foodneeded to produce each kilogram of livestocksource food processed through livestock wouldbe a valuable contribution to food security.There are two ways that this might be done: i)produce a larger percentage of the world’s livestockprotein within grazing and low intensitymixed systems, leaving more plant protein tobe eaten by humans, or ii) recycle more wasteproducts, including agro-industrial by-products,through animals. Both of these possibilitieswill be examined under “Producing enoughfood”. There is no single approach to producingsufficient livestock source foods in a sustainableway. Rather than making blanket recommendationsabout livestock production, there is a needto balance the food security needs of the differenthuman societies, a discussion also exploredlater in the report.Stability of food suppliesFood security can be compromised when cropsand livestock are destroyed or market chains disrupted,cutting off supplies, or when economiccrises or loss of livelihoods abruptly reduce22


Livestock and global food securityTable 7Human-edible protein balance in the livestock production ofselected countriesedible protein output/inputEdible protein output–input tonnesav. 1995–1997 Av. 2005–2007 Av. 1995–1997 Av. 2005–2007Saudi Arabia 0.15 0.19 -533 731 -659 588USA 0.48 0.53 -7 846 859 -7 650 830Germany 0.66 0.62 -921 449 -1 183 290China 0.75 0.95 -2 822 998 -665 276Netherlands 1.66 1.02 322 804 18 070Brazil 0.79 1.17 -622 177 550 402Nepal 2.25 1.88 37 370 40 803India 3.60 4.30 2 249 741 3 379 440Sudan 18.22 8.75 235 868 340 895New Zealand 8.04 10.06 460 366 638 015Mongolia 14.72 14.60 42 987 35 858Ethiopia 16.02 16.95 99 909 141 395Kenya 18.08 21.16 124 513 202 803Original data: FAOSTAT, November 2010. Calculations by FAO Animal Production and Health Division.Edible protein output estimated from indigenous meat, milk and eggs. “Indigenous” meat production = production from slaughtered animals plusthe meat equivalent of live animal exports minus the meat equivalent of live animal imports.Edible protein input estimated from available feed (domestically produced and imported) and primary crops that are edible by humans (excludingcanary seed and vetches).access to food. Wars and conflicts, economiccrises, fires, floods, droughts, earthquakes,tsunamis and major epidemic diseases have alldestabilized food security, sometimes affectingboth supply and demand (Box 5). Long globalfood chains and the dominance of some exportingcountries mean that local problems can haveregional or global effects (Stage et al., 2010).Resilient food systems have inbuilt factors thathelp stabilize them or help them recover frominstability. Livestock contribute in a number ofways to the food stability of their owners andthe nations where they are produced. However,they are vulnerable to disease and natural disastersand, if these effects are not addressed, thebeneficial effect of livestock on the stability offood supplies will be reduced.Livestock as a bufferLivestock represent part of a family’s risk managementstrategy. Building an economic and socialbuffer against shocks is an important partof ensuring food stability. It is well known thatfamilies below or near the poverty line are particularlyvulnerable to shocks since they alreadydevote a large proportion of their income andresources to securing food and have very littlemargin to cope with extra stress. Livestockare an asset that can help to build these buffers.They grow and reproduce, providing an expandingasset base for their owners. Herd accumulationis a common practice even amongagropastoralists, for whom livestock representa minor income source during normal times(Ashley and Sandford, 2008). Several years ofcrop failure in Pakistan motivated farmers toincrease their livestock numbers, in order tomanage risk through diversification (Garica etal., 2003). Very poor landless urban dwellersalso may keep a few small livestock as a bufferagainst risk. A 2003 study in Uganda found thatlivestock ownership in Kampala increased dur-23


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food SecurityBox 5Natural and economic shocks to food systemsNatural: El Niño eventsEl Niño events are weather events that usuallytake place every four to seven years and last forone or two years. Recently, they have been occurringmore frequently, causing flooding in someparts of the world and drought conditions inothers, resulting in loss of crops, livestock, infrastructureand property as well as displacement ofpeople. El Niño events are a particular concern becausetheir effects are unpredictable and it is hardto take preventive action.The 1987–88 El Niño caused massive floodingin 41 countries along the coast of Latin Americaand in parts of the Horn of Africa, droughts or dryspells in Southeast Asia and major forest fires inIndonesia and Brazil, with a total cost of betweenUS$32 billion and US$96 billion. In Indonesia,drought caused a shortfall of over 3.5 milliontonnes in the cereal harvest, and food prices rosesharply. In Somalia, harvests stored undergroundwere destroyed by flooding . There were considerablelosses of livestock in Kenya, Somalia andEthiopia due to unseasonable and heavy rainfalland floods, as well as an outbreak of the zoonoticdisease Rift Valley fever (RVF) in Kenya and Somalia.In Southern Africa, El Niño tends to causeprolonged dry spells during the period betweenJanuary and March when rainfall is most requiredby crops, resulting in reduced yields or, in somecases, complete crop failure as well as reducedoutput from pastures. The prices of staple foodsrise, livestock conditions deteriorate and livestockprices decline when households make emergencysales of animals to meet household expenses.Economic: global economic crisisThe economic crisis of 2007–2008 produced unusuallyrapid food price increases when the risingcost of energy had knock-on impacts on foodproduction costs, creating a livelihoods shock forpoor families. In 2007, increases in the number ofundernourished people occurred in Asia and thePacific and in sub-Saharan Africa, the two regionsthat together accounted for nearly 90 percent ofthe undernourished people in the world. In 2008,FAO estimated that rising prices plunged an additional41 million people in Asia and the Pacificand 24 million in sub-Saharan Africa into hunger.In these circumstances, the poorest, landless andfemale-headed households are always the hardesthit, and children, pregnant women and lactatingmothers face the highest risk. Even in countrieswith a large proportion of people engaged in agriculture,most people buy food and are adverselyaffected by rising food prices. Poor people aredisproportionately affected because they spenda larger share of their income on food. In tryingto cope with the burden of consecutive food andeconomic crises, they cut expenditures on healthand education or sell productive assets, creatingpoverty traps and negatively affecting longer-termfood security. In Latin America and the Caribbean,livestock industries were disproportionallyaffected during the crisis by high fuel prices astransport and logistics costs are a high proportionof total production and marketing costs in this region.Fuel-importing countries were at a particulardisadvantage.Sources: FAO, 1998; Sponberg, 1999 ; CARE, 1998; USAID, 2009; FAO, 2008a; FAO, 2009a; World Bank, undated.24


Livestock and global food securitying times of social upheaval (Ashley and Sandford,2008). Diversifying livestock enterprisesbetween small and large stock is a sound strategyfor food security since small animals reproducefaster while large animals have greater value.Keeping livestock also allows farmers to stabilizetheir income and consumption by sellingeggs and milk on a regular basis and selling smallanimals such as poultry and guinea pigs at need.Dairy development projects that link smallholderfarmers to markets promote food stability bysecuring regular income. Livestock help preserveand build the human capital that provides thefamily’s active workforce by paying for medicalbills and education; there are numerous reportsof income from livestock contributing to theseexpenses (Nakiganda et al., 2006; Rymer, 2006).They may also build social capital to help a familythrough a crisis. Smallholders and pastoralistswill sometimes lend or give animals to relatives,knowing that this gives them social standing andputs them in a stronger position to ask for help inthe face of a disaster. Because of their portability,livestock have a special role to play when peopleare physically displaced by conflicts or naturaldisasters. A family can move animals, but mustleave buildings and crops behind.Livestock owners respond in different waysto crises. In northern Kenya, pastoralists are reportedto build their herds (particularly breedinganimals) in times when feed is plentiful(Bailey et al., 1999; Umar and Baulch, 2007) andsell them during droughts to cover essential expenses.In India, buffalo owners are reported tosell their animals to cover expenses (Rosenzweigand Wolpin, 1993). On the other hand, pastoralistsin West Africa are reported to hold on totheir animals even in times of food insecurity,possibly choosing not to sell large animals at atime when prices are low (Kazianga and Udry,2006; Fafchamps et al., 1998; Pavanello, 2010),preferring to retain them to start again when thecrisis is over. They use other coping mechanismssuch as skipping meals and increasing relianceon tea and sugar intake.In systems where destocking and restockingare normal practice, breeding females are maintainedso that the herd can be rebuilt whenconditions improve and only sold in extremeemergencies, but if a crisis becomes prolonged,animals of any age and sex may be sold. Smalllivestock are a convenient buffer against shocksfor several reasons: they require lower capitalinvestment, they are easier to sell quickly, if onedies it is less damaging, they grow and breedfaster, and they survive on harsher terrain (Costaleset al., 2005). It is often the small livestockowned by women that are sold at short notice tocover periods of income deficit.At global and national levels, the livestock sectorcan provide a buffering effect for food systemstability. In a severe economic crisis, globalconsumption and production of meat falls, thusfreeing cereal grains for other uses and dampingdown price shocks for staple foods (FAO,2009b). Nationally, livestock production fordomestic use can contribute to food security bybuffering countries against problems with internationalfood supplies. Livestock exports alsohave the potential to make an important contributionto the national balance of payments forcountries that are net exporters.International trade can make an importantpositive contribution to food security but itexposes countries to volatility in internationalmarkets. Additionally, export subsidies and tariffand non-tariff barriers of both developed anddeveloping countries bring cheap, subsidizedimports into developing country markets. It issaid that small-scale livestock producers cannotmatch the higher quality and lower pricesof imported products and are squeezed out oftheir traditional markets (Costales et al., 2005).However, an economic analysis of milk powderimports in six countries found that, in manycases, milk powder was primarily sold in majorcities, which means rural dairy producers sellingmilk in rural areas would not be affected bythe competition (Knips, 2006). There appearsto be limited evidence that dairy imports affectthe welfare of most producers, market agents orconsumers (Jabbar et al., 2008). As for exports,25


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securityin developing countries where not all livestockowners can take advantage of export markets,the poorest tend to benefit least. In the Horn ofAfrica, for instance, where livestock export hasbeen growing, richer producers and traders havebeen able to benefit from the variety of exportmarkets while some poorer herders have beenforced by economic circumstances to sell animalsand become contract herders (Aklilu andCatley, 2010).Vulnerability to climate changeWhile livestock contribute to food stability, livestocksystems face threats to their own stability.One aspect of vulnerability is manifested in theeffects of long-term trends associated with climatechange, the increasing need to find renewableforms of energy and the growing humanpopulation displacing grazing livestock systems.Recurring droughts in the Horn of Africa haveforced poor pastoralists and agro-pastoralists tosell animals that they might not normally chooseto sell, to diversify their herds (Pavanello, 2010)and to rely on a wider income range than livestockownership (Ashley and Sandford, 2008).In Burkina Faso, the successive droughts of the1970s and 1980s led to a depletion of natural resourcesand migration which, accompanied byvague land tenure laws, became key constraintsto livestock owners securing pasture and water(Gning, 2005). Livestock markets are one way toimprove the ability of these producers to regulatestocking rates. Various government-regulatedschemes have been tried in the past but todaythere is increasing focus on the functioning ofprivate markets. However, lack of infrastructure,distance between producers and consumers,high transactions costs (Okike et al., 2004)and poor price information are still constraintsin many places. Well-designed restockingschemes (LEGS, 2009) can help livestock ownersrestock after a serious disaster when normalrestocking mechanisms are overloadedThere are often links among access to grazingland, conflict and environmental degradationwhich can affect the food security of poorlivestock owners. For example, tension existsbetween pastoralists and settled farmers in theIntergovernmental Authority for Development(IGAD) region that stretches across Djibouti,Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan andUganda. Here, land tenure policies that havenot clearly defined the rights of land users andhave allowed privatization of grazing land foragricultural purposes are often at the centre ofconflicts (Ashley and Sandford, 2008). Pastoralistswho have lost grazing land to settled farmerssuffer from restricted movement which leadsto overgrazing and consequent environmentaldegradation. As a coping mechanism, somehave chosen to keep smaller animals which theycan sell quickly and use to buy cereals, or havereduced herd sizes to have more land for cropproduction.Destabilizing effect ofanimal diseasesOccurrence of infectious animal diseases reducesthe stability and resilience of the food supplyfrom livestock, affecting everyone along theproduction and market chains. They can havefour different effects: i) reducing the livestockpopulation through death or culling; ii) reducingproductivity of livestock; iii) creating marketshocks when demand falls and supply contractsin response; and iv) disrupting internationaltrade in livestock products. These effects canhave impacts at macro and micro levels.Rinderpest provides a dramatic example. Outbreaksin the 1890s killed approximately 80 percentof the cattle in southern Africa and causedwidespread starvation in the Horn of Africa.One hundred years later, in the 1980s, the diseasekilled an estimated 100 million cattle in Africaand West Asia. A decades-long internationalcontrol effort has resulted in the disappearanceof clinical disease throughout the world. Morerecently, the global epidemic of highly pathogenicavian influenza (HPAI), which began in2003–4, resulted in market shocks in a numberof countries, the loss of 250–300 million poultryand the realignment of international trade26


Livestock and global food security(McLeod, 2009). At the global level, the poultrysector recovered surprisingly quickly and widespreadeffects on food security were limited andshort term. However, there were pockets of severeeffects, such as in Cairo and Jakarta wherefamily diets diminished when poultry were nolonger available as a source of income and food(Geerlings et al., 2007; ICASEPS, 2008). Otherdiseases have locally devastating effects such asPeste des petits ruminants, a disease that causeshigh mortality in sheep and goats, and has beenreported several times in eastern and northernAfrica since 2007.Transboundary diseases place severe limitson international trade and have a high cost, buttheir precise effects on the stability of the foodsupply are hard to assess. FAO/OECD projectionsdescribe them as “damping down” exporttrade. For example, the bovine spongiform encephalopathy(BSE) outbreak in the UK in 1996resulted in a 6 percent drop in beef consumptionwithin the EU that took four years to return toprevious levels (Morgan, undated). However,its impact on global consumption was obscuredby a strong growth in demand from developingcountries which compensated for reduceddemand in the EU. There must have been someimpact on meat supplies with culling of animals,but it was not reported. Similarly, the 2001 footand-mouthdisease (FMD) outbreaks in the UKresulted in a large loss of animals through culling,including valuable breeding stock, but lossesin supply from the UK were largely made up bysupplies from elsewhere and there has been noestimate of the impact on the global food supply.When Brazil experienced FMD outbreaksin 2005, some parts of the country lost exportmarkets but, by compensating internally, the industryas a whole maintained its export marketshare (FAO, 2006b).The food supply also is impacted by a myriadof animal health problems that occur at communityand herd levels. They decrease the productivityof animals by causing death or reducingthe efficiency with which they convert feed intomeat, milk and eggs (FAO, 2009b). These maycause chronic or seasonal losses and often requirefamilies to manage animals in risk-averseways that reduce the level of production.Poor livestock owners often face multipleshocks that hit at the same time, threateningtheir livelihoods and therefore access to food –a situation such as the sickness or death of ananimal during a drought with prices of livestockfeed increasing and prices for livestock productsdropping. Crises can be recurrent or longterm – in this respect, a livestock disease such asFMD that permanently reduces the productivityof an animal is a threat to resilience. For thisreason, livestock’s contribution to food securityrelies on a multi-faceted approach that buildsresilience into the livestock sector and livestockowningcommunities, and takes particular accountof the needs of vulnerable people whenplanning and implementing crisis responses.27


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Security©FAO/F. McDougallAccess to foodEven when sufficient food is available within acountry, households and individuals will onlybe food secure if they have the ability to accessit. The majority of undernourished people sufferfrom lack of access, not from lack of food availability.Access requires people to have incometo buy food or the means to barter for it. Foodmust be affordable within household budgets,and it must be available in convenient places andforms. There are social and cultural factors thataffect entitlement to income and food, one ofwhich is the gender dynamic within householdsand communities. Each of these elements of accessis discussed in this chapter, which first examinesthe contribution that livestock make toaccessing food of all kinds, and then reviews theaffordability of and markets for foods of animalorigin.Financial, human and socialcapitalLivestock provide income and bartering powerthat contribute to their owners’ ability to accessfood of all kinds. Livestock also contribute tohuman capital and hence the ability to buy andproduce food, by financing education and medicalexpenses. They can be a source of social capital,giving people a safety net to sustain them infood insecure times, through networks of gifts,loans and other transfers such as dowries. Theyprovide income and employment not only tofarmers but also to contract herders, animal handlers,traders, market operators and slaughterhouseowners and workers.The contribution that livestock make to incomeis highly variable. A close look at 14countries of the FAO Rural Income GeneratingActivities (RIGA) database found at least50 percent of households in every country arerecorded as keeping livestock and in some casesclose to 90 percent. For those households, livestockare estimated to provide between 2 and32 percent of their income (Table 8). The importanceof livestock as an income source differsmore by country than by income level.There is no clear pattern of association betweenincome levels and the contribution oflivestock in Table 8 or in other sources. Severalresearch reports link poverty levels andlivestock ownership, but they use a variety of28


Livestock and global food securitytable 8Percentage of total income of rural households coming fromlivestock activities, by expenditure quintilesCountry % of households % of household income from livestockand owning in expenditure quintilesyearlivestock1 2 3 4 5 TotalAfricaGhana 1998 50 20 19 19 17 16 18Madagascar 1993 77 18 19 18 16 19 18Malawi 2004 63 12 14 14 15 15 14Nigeria 2004 46 6 5 5 5 5 5AsiaBangladesh 2000 62 6 6 8 8 7 7Nepal 2003 88 18 22 23 24 26 23Pakistan 2001 47 19 22 24 26 28 24Viet Nam 1998 82 21 20 19 19 16 19EASTERN EUROPEAlbania 2005 84 32 29 23 25 20 26Bulgaria 2001 72 7 16 17 17 15 15Latin AmericaEcuador 1995 84 15 16 17 18 15 16Guatemala 2000 70 4 5 5 5 7 5Nicaragua 2001 55 10 17 19 19 20 17Panama 2003 61 2 3 6 5 7 5Source: RIGA dataset, accessed September 2010.variables, indicators, methodologies and datasources (Pozzi and Robinson, 2007). Althougheach contributes to understanding the role oflivestock in household food security, they arehard to aggregate or compare. In a study of 16countries, Delgado et al. (1999) found that thepoorest households tend to be less dependent onlivestock than those that are slightly less poor,while Quisumbing et al. (1995) found that poorhouseholds often earn a larger share of incomefrom livestock than the wealthy. It is evidentfrom the available information that livestock docontribute to the incomes of the poor, althoughperhaps less to the very poorest households whohave no space to keep animals, cannot afford tofeed them or find them too risky to own.Livestock-owning households make choicesabout which of their animals or animal productsthey will produce to eat and which to sell, dependingon their cash needs, access to marketsand cultural preferences, but these do not fitinto a universal pattern. In Bangladesh, for example,small-scale dairy farmers only consumea small amount of the milk they produce, sellingmost of it to meet immediate cash needs, eventhough milk is important to the Bangladeshidiet (Knips, 2006). Small-scale milk producersin Thailand, where milk is not a traditionallyimportant part of the national diet, are responsiblefor almost all the country’s milk production,but only consume 1 percent on-farm (Knips,2006). In Cambodia, where meat is not centralto the diet, livestock represent an importantsource of income rather than meeting immediatehousehold food needs (Ear, 2005). A 2006report from Senegal (Kazybayeva et al., 2006)found relationships existing among geographiclocation, livestock type and the role of livestock29


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securityin poverty alleviation in that country. In VietNam, rural poultry owners sell a smaller proportionof their product than those in peri-urbanareas (Hancock, 2006). By contrast, a studyfrom Nepal (Maltsoglolu and Taniguchi, 2004)found that livestock made a very important contributionto total household income in isolatedhill and mountain areas with limited access tomarkets and cash income sources.There are many potential uses for income fromlivestock (Nakiganda et al., 2006). The proportionspent on food will depend on family needsat the time. A poultry project in Bangladesh resultedin asset accumulation from increased income,which was spent on education, improvedhousing, fencing, latrines, bedding, furniture,other livestock and investing in a family business(Dolberg, 2003). A more direct relationshipcan be seen in the IGAD region of East Africawhere pastoralists and agro-pastoralists sell theirhigh value livestock products and buy low costcereal products for consumption (Ashley andSandford, 2008). A community-level povertyassessment in three districts of Western Kenya(Krishna et al., 2004) found that as householdsclimbed out of poverty, they spent money on (inorder of priority): food, clothing, shelter, primaryeducation and then small animals, at whichpoint they were no longer considered poor. Atthe same time, the loss of livestock can cause ahousehold’s descent into poverty, due to factorssuch animal disease, theft or an unplanned saleor slaughter to meet heavy funeral or humanhealth expenses.National livestock policies as well as nationalattitudes towards the role of livestock in agriculturehave a significant impact on livestockproduction. By supporting or constraining theincomes of small-scale livestock producers, theyalso have indirect influence on access to food.Some national policies fail to promote livestockproduction or consumption in a way that favoursthe poor. Livestock are under-representedin most Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers(PRSPs), and even when they are considered, ittends to be in relation to the potential for boostingnational GDP rather than alleviating poverty(Blench et al., 2003). Such support tends to favourwealthier producers at the expense of poorproducers, and focuses on livestock and technicalissues rather than on people and poverty reduction(Ahuja et al., 2009). This may be due toa misunderstanding among policy-makers whodo not consider that livestock are a key incomesource for the poor or that pro-poor livestockproduction policies are important (Ashley andSandford, 2008).In addition, poorly planned attempts to reducepublic spending through privatization ofveterinary services have resulted in under-fundedstate veterinary and livestock extension systemsand a private sector incapable of filling thegap, leaving small-scale livestock owners highlyvulnerable to losses from epidemic and endemicdiseases. The livestock producers who can organizethemselves sufficiently to make demandson the government tend to be exclusive and notpro-poor. The fragility of the livelihoods ofsmall-scale producers and pastoralists in countriessuch as Ethiopia, Senegal and Bolivia demonstratesthe damage that such unsupportivepolicies can do to small-scale livestock production(Gning, 2005; Fairfield, 2004; Jabbar, et al.,2008; Halderman, 2005; Ear, 2005).Some plans and policies have been more supportive.For example, the Indian government’s11 th 5-year plan pledged more equitable benefitsfrom poultry production for small, marginaland landless farmers (Pica-Ciamarra and Otte,2009). In Thailand, the recent rapid increasein milk production has been largely thanks togovernment support to cooperatives, credit accessand training in the dairy subsector (Knips,2006). The Thai government’s support to thedairy subsector has been accompanied by agovernment school milk programme. In Kenya,positive dairy development policies once provideda regulatory framework, quality control,breeding services, animal health inputs, research,extension, pricing and tax policies, andexpansion of rural infrastructure such as roads(Jabbar et al., 2008). As a result of these policies,30


Livestock and global food securitywhich were backed by the private sector, smallholderdairy farmers came to dominate productionuntil the early 1980s. However, subsequentreduced budget allocations led to a decrease inthe quality of services, and policies did not recognizethe activities of the burgeoning numberof farmers selling milk, milk bar operators andmilk transporters, whose activities were effectivelyrendered illegal. In 2004, the dairy policywas revised to allow the Kenya Dairy Board tolicense and train small-scale traders (Kaitibie etal., 2008).Government policies also have directly promotedthe food security of consumers throughfood assistance programmes. In Peru, for example,the government spends approximatelyUS$200 million a year providing milk and milkproducts to the poor and children through foodassistance programmes (Knips, 2006).Gender dimensions of accessGender dynamics are important in the food securityof families and individuals, particularlythe poor. They influence who can earn incomeor gain social capital from livestock, and theway that animals are managed which impactshow they contribute to animal source foodsproduced for the household. Gender dynamicsalso affect the way food is divided within families,especially in time of shortage. All of thiscan add up to greater or lesser food security forindividuals and the family as a whole. Thingsplay out differently across countries and socialsettings and the picture painted here is a broadbrushsummary of what has been reported fordeveloping countries.Women contribute to producing income fromlivestock, alone and in partnership with malefamily members. Their ability to do this is constrainedby limited access to inputs and servicesand by cultural norms that affect their dailylives. However, there is limited information onthe way that gender dynamics change and rolesthat women play when livestock systems scaleupand concentrate beyond a certain level. Mostof the information on gender influences on livestockproduction, productivity and income arefrom research reports derived from studies ofsmall-scale farms in rural areas of developingcountries.One way of considering the effect of genderis to compare male- and female-headed households.In 10 of the 14 countries shown in Table8, livestock contribute a noticeably greaterpercentage to household income in male-headedthan female-headed households (Table 9), especiallyin the African and Asian countries. Inthe Latin American countries, there is no differenceor livestock make a greater contributionin female-headed households. Where there is adifference in income between male- and femaleheadedhouseholds, it is likely to be a result ofdifference in herd and flock sizes. Female-headedhouseholds have lower access to resourcessuch as credit and labour, which restricts thenumber of animals they can own. However,with the animals they have, they are as productiveas male-headed households (Pica-Ciamarraet al., in preparation).Whether heading a household or operatingwithin a male-headed household, cultural biasesin many countries constrain women’s access toservices of all kinds and this, along with theirlimited or nonexistent individual entitlementsto natural resources, is associated with a lack ofincentive to be more productive (Geerlings etal., 2007; Quisumbing et al., 2004). For example,there are numerous stories of women beingexcluded from animal production and healthtraining because it is offered only to the headsof households, being unable to access credit becausethey have insufficient collateral, or not beingdirectly informed about emergency animaldisease control measures because the informationis given out at a place or time that does nottake account of their daily schedules.Women are likely to own or have control oversmaller livestock although they may have accessto the products of larger livestock. The main exceptionto this is ownership of improved dairyanimals, often provided through projects. Smalllivestock, as well as dairy products, are widely31


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securitytable 9Percentage of total income coming from livestock activities,by sex of household head and expenditure quintilehousehold head Q1 q2 q3 q4 q5Ghana 1998 Female 14 12 12 11 11Male 22 23 23 19 18M/F 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.6Madagascar 1993 Female 13 13 12 10 14Male 20 20 20 17 20M/F 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.4Malawi 2004 Female 10 13 13 16 14Male 12 14 15 15 15M/F 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.9 1.1Nigeria 2004 Female 3 2 3 4 5Male 6 5 5 5 5M/F 2.0 2.5 1.7 1.3 1.0Bangladesh 2000 Female 3 3 4 3 4Male 6 6 8 9 7M/F 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.8Nepal 2003 Female 10 19 16 18 18Male 19 22 23 23 24M/F 1.9 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3Pakistan 2001 Female 15 14 13 14 13Male 19 23 25 27 31M/F 1.3 1.6 1.9 1.9 2.4Viet Nam 1998 Female 16 15 16 15 14Male 22 21 20 20 16M/F 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.1Albania 2005 Female 19 22 17 20 6Male 32 29 24 25 22M/F 1.7 1.3 1.4 1.3 3.7Bulgaria 2001 Female 8 5 12 11 14Male 6 19 19 20 15M/F 0.8 3.8 1.6 1.8 1.1Ecuador 1995 Female 14 21 20 13 17Male 15 16 17 19 15M/F 1.1 0.8 0.9 1.5 0.9Guatemala 2000 Female 7 6 4 6 7Male 4 5 6 5 7M/F 0.6 0.8 1.5 0.8 1.0Nicaragua 2001 Female 8 12 16 13 14Male 11 18 20 21 22M/F 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.6Panama 2003 Female 3 2 3 4 7Male 2 3 7 5 7M/F 0.7 1.5 2.3 1.3 1.0Source: RIGA dataset. The figures used are the most recent available in the dataset for each country.32


Livestock and global food securityidentified as resources over which women haveboth access and control.There are significant examples of women earningincome and contributing to food supplies byjoining dairy producer cooperatives. In Indiaand Pakistan, women are members of many ofthe cooperatives built around large specializedmilk herds that meet urban milk demand. Thereare also a few reports of small-scale, independentindividual producers who have invested in moreintensive production units based on special milkbreeds, improved feed regimes and improveddisease control (Okali, 2009). There is no detaileddemographic information about the womeninvolved, except perhaps that they are poor.There are two important points to consider.First, both women and men (husbands andwives) are involved, at times, in a joint activity.Apart from the cost of the animals themselves,these small-scale systems may use hired labourand depend on purchased feed, which suggeststhat only wealthier individuals can invest inthese new intensive production systems. Second,the new institutional arrangements providedby the cooperatives have enabled poorwomen to overcome constraints to their accessto services and credit (Arpi, 2006). The cooperativereduces the risk for actors at the lower endof the chain while enabling them to contributeto increasing the availability of livestock productsthrough new markets. It also facilitates theinvestment required to ensure that food safetyrules are followed.Outside of programmes designed to ensurewomen’s access to livestock, there is some evidenceof women losing their access to milk animalsat widowhood and divorce (Okali, 2009).Equally, there is evidence that individual women,and especially poor women, are not able tomanage intensive systems on their own. Underthese circumstances, the capital asset is likely tobe viewed as a joint or household asset in whichmost members have some interest. Given thatthe animals are kept close to or even withinthe living quarters, this would not seem to bean unrealistic expectation (Okali, 2009). Onthe other hand, in a number of areas, especiallyin Southern Africa and Latin America, thereis some suggestion that animals acquired bywomen through projects are treated differently,regardless of their size. In these cases, they arenot socially embedded and control over the animalsand the income gained from product salesis unlikely to be challenged.In Bangladesh, BRAC’s 1 poultry programmeprovides support for poor women and bypassesgender-biased public services. There is only limitedinformation on the impact of these activitieson livelihoods and food security, although thereis some suggestion that the women involved inthe BRAC poultry programme can climb the“livestock ladder” by acquiring a larger numberof poultry and exchanging them for a more valuableanimal.The importance of poultry production formaintaining the nutritional well-being of poorhouseholds is emphasised in much of the livestockliterature. In a number of countries, poultryproduction is presented as their main oreven only source of protein, yet evidence fromthe H5N1 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenzaoutbreak demonstrated that poultry are difficultfor them to sustain in the face of disease outbreakand control measures. The food securityimpact of this is quite situation specific. A studycarried out in the poorest governorates of Egypt(Geerlings et al., 2007) found that poultry incomewas often the only contribution womenmade to household income, and if those contributionswere reduced, their ability to negotiatewith male relatives for money to fulfil their foodsecurity obligations was reduced, causing tensionand intra-household conflicts.In terms of decision-making over livestocksales and use within household flocks and herds,Nyungu and Sithole (1999) found that smalllivestock in both backyard and small-scale commercialsystems must be seen as a joint house-1BRAC, originally the Bangladesh Rehabilitation Assistance Committee butnow known solely by its acronym, is a development organization based inBangladesh, well known for its work with small-scale poultry producers.33


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securityhold resource, even if those individual animalswere acquired by different individuals. As a jointresource, decisions about use, including sale, arelikely to be open to negotiation, even joint decision-making,with final decisions dependent onneed and who is present at the time. Small livestockmay be seen simply as “small things”, notto be bargained over, especially in circumstanceswhere it is difficult to protect livestock health.In these situations, mortalities are likely to behigh, and the number of animals can fluctuatedramatically over time. The wider gender literatureshows that not all decisions about benefitallocations and even work are bargained over,as in the case of animals managed as householdflocks or herds. Rather, they may be taken forgranted and therefore unquestioned (Bourdieu,1977), not even regarded as an imposition bythose who ostensibly might lose out.When it comes to food allocation withinhouseholds, preference for one householdmember or another can be displayed throughtheir being served more or higher quality food,which means they will have higher caloric intake,more variety and the possibility of greaternutrient density (Gittlesohn et al., 1997). Thereis almost a universal expectation of food allocationbias against females of all ages, and againstyounger household members (Gittlesohn et al.,1997). The bias against women is accentuatedduring food shortages (Agarwal, 1992a; 1992b).Household members considered to be at greatestrisk of lasting damage from malnutrition arepregnant and lactating women and pre-schoolchildren (Lipton and Longhurst, 1989).However, there is no substantive informationon preferential allocations of meat andother livestock products within households. Insome societies, pregnant or lactating womenreceive special nutritional treatment. In Egypt,for example, there is a tradition of giving eggsto women for some days after they give birth.Children generally appear to have claims overmilk, but while some gender literature suggeststhat women will usually choose consumptionover sale of milk and other products, there isalso information suggesting that both womenand men might choose sale over consumption,and indeed this may be a rational decision. Thereare stories of children being denied eggs becauseit might encourage an appetite for expensivefoods. From a very detailed study, Leonard(1991) concluded that the nutritional needs ofyounger household members were likely to beprotected in situations where they contributedsubstantially to the household labour force.Jackson and Palmer-Jones (1999) made a similarcase for adult men based on calculations thatwent beyond simply hours of work completed.Other literature suggests that women are deniedmeat or would not be allocated the “best” cuts,yet they are more often than not the food serversand presumably in some situations have a practicaladvantage over who is given what to eat.There is also information describing howwomen might, in private, work around normsor customary practices that deny them certainfoods. They manage to improve their own foodintake by manipulating food portions, snackingfrequently, increasing their consumption of palliativefoods during the hungry season – sugarcane and palm wine that have high energy content,palm nuts that can be chewed for a longtime, or possibly even dried meat – plantinglarger gardens for vegetables when pregnant,cheating on food taboos, and resorting to subterfugeto access desirable foods (Bentley et al.,1999).Economic factors affectingchoice of livestock sourcefoodsLivestock source foods are a choice for manypeople in many societies, as well as a valuablesource of nutrition. However, their place in thehousehold diet depends not just on preferencebut also on their affordability. This is affected byhousehold income levels and the proportion ofhousehold income allocated to different kinds offood, and by the price of livestock source foodscompared to crop-based alternatives. Each ofthese factors will be discussed in turn.34


Livestock and global food securityIncomeGlobal statistics show that livestock sourcefoods are fairly income elastic. As income levelshave risen and urbanization increased, dietshave changed. Demand for livestock productshas diversified, consumption of livestock productshas increased, and wheat and vegetable oilshave been substituted for traditional foods suchas cassava, maize and lard. These effects havebeen observable in many parts of the developingworld, in poorer countries as well as emergingeconomies. Figure 6 demonstrates the closerelationship between GDP per person and meatconsumption per person in six regions, using annualdata over a 40-year period.Several country studies further illustrate theabove relationship. In China, a survey of longtermtrends showed that the diets of both richerand poorer people became more fat rich overtime – with consumption of more vegetable oilfor the poorer and of more livestock products forthe richer (Guo et al., 1999). A study in Ugandaand Viet Nam (Maltsoglou, 2007) found that increasedincomes were matched with increasedconsumption of livestock products. Knips’ (2006)review of six countries – Jamaica, Peru, Senegal,Tanzania, Bangladesh, Thailand – found thatwith rising incomes, accompanied by urbanizationand westernization of diets, there has beena demand for diversified dairy products, such aspasteurized milk, ice cream and chocolate. Increasedincomes also result in increased healthand nutrition awareness which in turn leads toincreased demand for higher value, safer andhigher quality products (Costales et al., 2005).Conversely, low incomes are a major constraintto consumption of livestock products,particularly in poor countries. In Senegal, a litreof fresh milk in the capital, Dakar, could costup to half the daily wage of a worker while in6 Relationship between GDP per person and meat consumption per person per dayin selected regions100Western Europe250Latin America200East Asiag meat/person/day80604020g meat/person/day20015010050g meat/person/day1501005000 10 20 3000 5 1000 1 2 3GDP/person thousand US$GDP/person thousand US$GDP/person thousand US$g meat/person/dayUSA4003503002502001501005000 10 20 30 40GDP/person thousand US$g meat/person/dayAfrica504030201000 1 1 2 2GDP/person thousand US$g meat/person/dayWest Asia1008060402000 2 4 6 8GDP/person thousand US$Source: http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/ and http://faostat.fao.org/site/291/default.aspx. Based on annual data from 1967 to 2007.35


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Security7 GDP per person in current US$ byCountry income groupingUS$45 00040 00035 00030 00025 00020 00015 00010 0005 00001967196919711973197519771979198119831985198719891991199319951997199920012003200520072009High income: non-OECD High income: OECDLow income Middle income WorldSource: World Development Indicators accessed January 2010.St Louis Region, poor consumers could onlyafford to buy fermented milk and milk powdersold in individual servings (Knips, 2006).In Burkina Faso, most consumers prefer traditionalpoultry products and cannot afford theproducts from semi-intensive systems which arecheaper by the kilo but more expensive by theunit, the only measure poor consumers can dealin (Gning, 2005).GDP per person, which is one measure ofpeople’s ability to spend, has been growing inmost regions of the world. Between 1990 and2008, it rose by 219 percent worldwide and by207 percent in low income countries, althoughfrom a considerably lower base. Extreme poverty(people with an income of US$1.25 a day orless at 2005 prices) has been falling worldwide,from 1.9 billion people in 1981 to about 1.4 billionaccording to recent estimates. Overall thisadds up to a slowly growing ability to purchasefood, including livestock products.Consumption of animal source foods is unevenacross countries, regions and income levels,although the general trend is upwards. Whiledeveloped countries have seen a slow growth inconsumption from a very high base, the picturein the developing world has been more varied.In East and Southeast Asia and particularlyChina, where economic growth and povertyreduction have been strongest, there has beena strong growth in consumption of livestockproducts. The countries within these regionsthat have higher per person incomes, such asMalaysia, Thailand and the Philippines, alsohave relatively high per person meat consumption(Costales, 2007). In China, GDP per persongrew by over 1000 percent from 1990 to2005. During the same period, the proportionof people living in extreme poverty fell from 60to 16 percent. Consumption of meat rose fromapproximately 26 to 54 kg per person per year,milk from 7 to 26 kg, and eggs from 17 to 19 kg(FAOSTAT; WDI, 2010).In South Asia, the poverty rate fell slightlyfrom 1990 to 2005 but the number of peopleliving in extreme poverty did not. While GDPgrowth in India was slightly above the worldaverage, that of Bangladesh was below it. SouthAsia has seen a small rise in consumption ofmeat and eggs and a larger rise in milk consumption,with cultural factors playing a part (manyHindus are vegetarian), as well as a rise in smallscaledairying, making milk easily accessible tofarm families.In Latin America and the Caribbean, consumptionof livestock products tends to behigher than in other developing areas and hasincreased rapidly. Countries such as Chile, Braziland Ecuador have seen growth in GDP and adrop in poverty rates along with a large increasein consumption of livestock products whilegrowth in other countries has been slower.In Africa, there has been some growth butfrom a very low base. In many sub-Saharan Africancountries, GDP growth was up to 150 percentbetween 1990 and 2005 and, while the povertyrate for the region fell from 58 percent in1990 to 51 percent in 2005 (calculations fromPovcal), it is still high. The consumption of livestockproducts in the region also remained moreor less static, with a slight decline in meat consumptionand a slight rise in milk consumptionbetween 1992 and 2002 (Rae and Nayga, 2010).36


Livestock and global food securityIn addition to regional differences, there aredifferences between urban and rural consumption.In both poor and emerging economies, urbandwellers tend to have higher incomes andbuy more livestock products through formalchannels, particularly higher value processedproducts. A review by Maltsoglou (2007) reportedthat in Peru, Uganda and Viet Nam,urban households consumed 1.5 to 2.5 times asmuch livestock source food as those in rural areas.In India, urban consumers eat 2.8 and 4.5times more eggs and poultry meat respectivelythan rural consumers (Mehta et al., 2003) whilein China, urban people have three times the incomeof those in rural areas and consume fourtimes as much milk and twice as many eggs (Ke,2010). In Thailand, 95 percent of dairy productsare sold to urban consumers (Knips, 2006). Risingurban income in Bangladesh has led to a rapidlyincreasing urban demand for milk products,including pasteurized milk, milk powder, flavouredmilk, sweet curd, sweet meats, ice cream,ice lollies and chocolate (Knips, 2006).PriceLivestock source foods are rarely listed amonghousehold staples. They are more expensivethan the grains and starches that provide thebasic energy supply and often more expensivethan plant-source protein such as lentils orbeans. High prices depress consumption levelsof livestock products. In Jamaica, for example,high production costs for fresh milk have led todecreased demand because consumers cannotafford it (Knips, 2006).Worldwide prices of food in general, includinglivestock source foods, were about 40 percentlower in the mid-1990s and early-2000sthan they are today and a little more stable (IMF,undated). In recent years, increasing grain priceshave had a double impact on livestock – theyhave raised the price of staple cereals, reducingpeople’s purchasing power and, at the sametime, raised the cost of livestock feed. Interestingly,during the 2007–08 global economic crisis,meat prices increased less than cereal or dairyproduct prices, but still the growth of demandfor livestock products slowed. In richer countries,such as UK, this manifested as a change tocheaper cuts of meat, affecting people’s lifestylebut not their food security. In poorer countries,there has been some substitution of crops forlivestock protein.Fish are also an important protein source andfarmed fish, being efficient converters of feed,are a growing competitor to livestock. Maltsoglou(2007) found that in Uganda, poor familieseat more fish than meat, while richer familieseat more meat than fish. In Viet Nam, familiesin all wealth categories eat more fish than meat,while in Peru, meat is greatly preferred to fish,regardless of wealth status.It is challenging to balance the need of producersto make a living with consumers’ needfor affordable food. In Viet Nam, for example,supportive government policies to develop thedomestic dairy subsector have resulted in highmilk yields, better dairy genetics, better dairymanagement and a rapid growth in production.However, the strong profitability of milk producersrelies on substantial government supportwhich maintains high output prices and low inputprices to the disadvantage of the poor consumer– Vietnamese consumers pay Europeanprices for milk (Garcia et al., 2006). One reasonfor the rapid rise in chicken consumption has almostcertainly been the fact that chicken meatit is relatively cheap compared to other meats(FAO, 2007).Market access and food accessAccess to livestock source foods is facilitated bythe connections that producers and consumershave to markets for livestock products, whichrange from selling to one’s neighbour over thefence to supplying supermarkets in distant citiesthrough integrated market chains. Good marketaccess increases the food security of producersthrough assured income and the food security ofconsumers by ensuring that food products willbe locally available when needed.Small-scale producers, pastoralists and poor37


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securityconsumers do the bulk of their trading throughinformal markets and often close to home. Formalmarkets are almost non-existent in remoteareas, and rural livestock producers face longdistances, poor road networks and high transactionscosts (Costales et al., 2005). These factorsencourage producers to consume at home andsell milk, meat and eggs in local marketplaces.Closer to town, peri-urban livestock producershave the advantage of proximity to a widerrange of markets, so the prices they fetch fortheir produce are higher. They also benefit fromincreasing demand for livestock products, aresult of rising incomes in urban areas. However,they still face barriers to entering formalmarkets due to requirements to meet consistentquality standards and volume, and for certificationof product safety.Much recent literature on livestock developmentand a great many development projects areconcerned with linking small-scale producersto larger or more formal markets. The assumptionsbehind these efforts are that small-scaleproducers will have more lucrative and stablelivelihoods if they are more strongly connectedto semi-formal or formal markets, and that thiswill provide an incentive for them to becomemore efficient and productive. There is also,sometimes, an assumption that formal marketswill ensure safer food for consumers.Diverse markets for dairyproductsThe greatest potential for connecting small-scaleproducers and traders with markets probablylies with dairy products, although not at thesame level in every region. For example, Brazil,Latin America’s largest dairy market, has intensifiedproduction considerably which implieslimited prospects for small producers (Bennettet al., 2006). However, in peri-urban areas ofSouth Asia and some parts of Africa, there havebeen successful efforts to build market chainsbased on smallholders (Box 6). Dairy productionbenefits less from economies of scale thanother livestock enterprises and provides a frequentand regular income for those who produceand sell milk. The large size of the informalmarket, probably around 80 percent of marketedmilk in developing countries, means thatthere is still scope for smallholder engagement.The perishable nature of fresh milk also lendsitself to marketing close to where it is produced.For these reasons, small-scale peri-urban dairymarketing systems have the potential to makea growing contribution to food production insome regions, at the same time allowing consumersa choice as to where they buy their dairyproducts.Concentration of poultry marketchainsPoultry systems are a complete contrast todairy systems. Poultry production and marketingbenefit from economies of scale. Theyexhibit distinct differences between the verylarge companies that dominate worldwide supplyand trade and the small-scale producers indeveloping countries. As a country’s economygrows, the informal peri-urban market initiallythrives as entrepreneurs take advantage of newdemand, but soon the subsector intensifies andsmall-scale producers and traders cannot compete.Concerns about hygiene also encourageurban councils to replace live bird markets withslaughterhouses that charge fees for processing.All of these factors mean that projects to connectsmall-scale poultry keepers to formal marketsface a number of challenges and potentiallya short life.The few successes for commercial poultrysmallholders have mainly been in local specialtymarkets. In Viet Nam, small- and medium-scaleduck breeders and traders still predominate, supportedby strong demand and little competitionfrom industry. Recent projects to promote biosecuretraditional chicken keeping in Viet Nam arealso showing promise (Ifft et al., 2007; USAID,2007). In India, the KeggFarm poultry breedingcompany has produced a crossbred chicken thathas meat similar to a traditional bird’s but is suitablefor outdoor living. The company has set up38


Livestock and global food securityBox 6Informal marketing of dairy products in South Asia, East and west AfricaSuccessful small-scale milk marketing initiativeshave added structure to informal dairy marketswithout excluding small-scale operators.South AsiaIn India, approximately 50 percent of milk is consumedby the people who produce it. Of the milksold, 80 percent or more passes through informalchannels – in 2002, an estimated 80 percent of Indiantowns received milk only through informalmarkets (CALPI, undated). The milkman is oftenthe only means by which the producer can selland the consumer can buy milk on a daily basis.The well known “Operation Flood” project,which introduced more formality to milk marketingchains, was designed to meet the needs ofsmall-scale operators with frequent local collectionand regular payments.In Bangladesh, 97 percent of milk is sold tomilkmen, who then either sell it as sweets to sweetshops or to the consumer as fresh milk, curd orbutter oil (Garcia et al., 2004a).East and West AfricaIn East Africa, an estimated 80 percent of milk issold through informal channels but the milk marketvaries by country.In Kenya, dairy products are the largest item offood expenditure (Argwings-Kodhek et al., 2005;Salasya et al., 2006). More than 85 percent of milkis marketed through informal channels, whichprovide producers with higher prices than formalchannels (Omore, 2004). A dairy policy passed in2004 allows for the licensing and training of smallscaletraders (Kaitibie et al., 2008), meaning theyparticipate in the market legally and can buildmore stable businesses.In Tanzania, 90 percent or more of milk is consumedon-farm or sold to consumers close by, dueto the inaccessibility of markets. In those parts ofthe country where cattle are not kept, milk consumptionis very low (Knips, 2006). In Ethiopia,an average of 76 percent of all domestic milk productionis consumed on-farm (Jabbar et al., 2010).In West Africa’s Sahel countries (Kamuangaet al., 2008), poor roads and lack of refrigeratedtrucks result in high transport costs and thereforelow profits for rural producers. Even when theydo manage to reach the markets, they have to selldoor-to-door or from kiosks in the suburbs. Consequently,80 percent of milk produced in rural areasof Senegal is consumed on-farm (Knips, 2006).a marketing chain involving hundreds of traderswith bicycles to supply fertilized eggs and chicksto village producers (Ahuja et al., 2009). Oncethe birds are grown, producers find a strong demandin their local markets.In spite of the dominance of large producers,village poultry consumed at home or soldlocally are still important to food access in ruraleconomies and likely to persist. Reports onpoultry keeping in Africa frequently mentionthe importance of village chickens in providingmeat and eggs for home consumption, oftenindicating that around 50 percent of productionis consumed at home. In Viet Nam, poorhouseholds that own small numbers of poultryas scavenging flocks use them mostly for homeconsumption (Maltsoglou and Rapsomanikis,2005). The proportion of poultry consumed andused for other purposes within the household ismuch greater in the highland areas than in lowlandareas which have better access to markets(Tung, 2005). In Bangladesh, the landless poorhave a great need for income and thus are morelikely to sell their poultry than consume them.39


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Security©FAO/Giulio NapolitanoMarketing of live animals fromPAStoralist systemsFor pastoralists, the key to food access is a sustainablelivelihood from marketing live cattleand small ruminants, often across internationalborders. Ethiopia is estimated to have exported297 600 animals in 2007–08 with a value ofUS$41 million (Aklilu and Catley, 2009). Adependable and flexible market allows producersto regulate stocking rates and earn income.However, in the Horn of Africa, market accessis affected by wealth, with better-off pastoralistshaving access to more markets, as well asby mobility, the types of animals owned andthe pastoralist’s position in social networks.While well-off pastoralists have benefitted froma growing export trade, those less well-off havesuffered, with many losing their animals andbecoming contract herders (Aklilu and Catley,2009). Livestock disease also limits the marketsthat pastoralists can attempt to access. Forexample, the EU and USA markets are closedwhen diseases such as contagious bovine pleuropenemonia(CBPP) and FMD are present. Theycan also close existing markets suddenly. Outbreaksof RVF cut off exports from the Horn ofAfrica to parts of the Middle East in 1998, 2000and 2007. Some traders were able to avoid thebans but other traders and livestock owners sufferedbadly from low prices and the inability tosell animals.Processing to add value andpreserve productsHome processing of products is one way thatrural livestock owners address market inaccessibility.In rural Bangladesh, farmers who have noaccess to markets for their produce process theirmilk within their households into traditionalproducts such as ghee, channa and yoghurt,which can be consumed at home or sold or barteredin the village to rural consumers who haveno access to high value dairy products such aspasteurized milk (Knips, 2006). In Peru, milkproducers who are not located along formalmilk collection routes usually convert their ownmilk into curd and sell it to local cheese-makers,who play an important role in maintaining dairyproduction in poor remote areas of the country.Access to processing equipment can extendthe shelf life of livestock products, but sincemuch of this equipment is expensive, requirescapital input and is subject to economies of scale,it is not an option for poor small-scale livestockproducers (Costales et al., 2005). The growth ofprocessing centres in an otherwise remote ruralregion can remedy this situation and boost availabilityof livestock products. In Pakistan, onereason for increased domestic milk productionis the presence of processing centres.Consumer preferenceBoth informal and formal markets are importantto consumers. They generally prefer the tasteand texture of meat from indigenous and extensivelyraised animals, and will choose them forholiday and special occasions. At the same time,they appreciate the lower cost of some productsfrom intensive systems.For rural consumers in developing countries,local markets may be the only ones within convenientreach. They provide lower prices, traditionallyraised livestock and the opportunity tocheck the quality of products close to source.In urban areas of developing countries, marketsthat offer fresh produce appeal to consumerswho prefer to buy live animals and havethem slaughtered at the market, rather than40


Livestock and global food securitytrusting the hygiene of food chains supplyingmeat. This has resulted in a proliferation of liveanimalmarkets near or within cities. As will bediscussed later under “City Populations”, citycouncils have concerns about environmentaland human health problems associated withthese markets and would prefer them not to bethere.Supermarkets have taken over food supply indeveloped countries and are increasing their reachin the cities of the developing world (Reardon etal., 2010). They offer the convenience of havingeverything under one roof, a consistent level ofsafety and quality and, for wealthier consumers,competitive prices. Integrated market chains thatsupply supermarkets are also easier to regulate incountries where a regulatory system and laws exist.However, for the many people who currentlylack access to food, informal markets will continueto be important and so will “street food”bought in small quantities from stalls.41


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Security©FAO/PPLPIKey points onlivestock andglobal foodsecurityLivestock make a necessary and important contributionto global calorie and protein supplies,but at the same time, they need to be managedcarefully to maximize their contribution.While livestock products are not absolutelyessential to human diets, they are desirable anddesired. Meat, milk and eggs in appropriateamounts are valuable sources of complete andeasily digestible protein and essential micronutrients.Overconsumption, however, resultsin health problems.Livestock can increase the world’s edible proteinbalance by converting protein found in foragethat is inedible to humans into forms digestibleby humans. They can also reduce the edibleprotein balance by consuming protein that isedible by humans, from cereal grains and soya,and converting it into small amounts of animalprotein. Choice of production systems and goodmanagement are important factors in optimizingprotein output from livestock.Livestock production and marketing can helpstabilize the food supply, acting as a buffer toeconomic shocks and natural disasters for individualsand communities. However, the foodsupply from livestock can be destabilized, particularlyby diseases.Access to livestock source food is affected byincome and social customs. Access to livestock asa source of income and hence food is also unequal.Gender dynamics play a part, particularly inpastoralist and small-scale farming communities,where female-headed households tend to havelower resources hence fewer, smaller livestock,and within families where the larger and morecommercial livestock are often controlled bymen. These problems are not unique to livestock,but they are prevalent among producers and consumersof livestock products and need attention.The following section looks at three uniquetypes of populations in terms of their relationshipto livestock and livestock products: livestockdependent societies, small-scale mixedfarming societies and urban dwellers.42


Three humanpopulations – three foodsecurity situations©FAO/Giulio Napolitano


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Security©FAO/Vasily MaximovLivestockdependentsocietiesIn societies that depend on livestock as theirmost important source of livelihood and foodsecurity, management of livestock shapes theirway of life. These livestock-dependent societieshave production systems based on grazing land.According to one definition (Sere and Steinfeld,1996) at least 90 percent of the total value of farmproduction comes from livestock and more than90 percent of dry matter fed to animals comesfrom rangelands, pastures and annual forages.The largest number of livestock dependentpeople, currently around 120 million (Raas,2006, based on data from 2002), is found in pastoralistsocieties, where livestock provide milkand occasionally blood and meat for their owners,carry the possessions of nomadic familieswhen they move, are the main or only sourceof income when they or their products are sold,and the main capital asset owned by the family.Some communities practice mobile grazing,moving animals over wide communal grazingareas, while others are sedentary graziers oncommunal grasslands.Ranchers who keep animals extensively onthe rangelands are another example of a livestock-dependentsociety, considerably fewer innumber than pastoralists but important in theircontribution to the total supply of livestock intheir countries and the world. Animals are keptprimarily for income, although they also make adirect contribution by supplying milk and meatto ranch families and employees. Ranchers andstock farmers often use grassland that they ownor where they can have control over its use.By definition, a livestock-dependent societyrelies heavily on livestock for its food securityand livelihood and, as the discussion in thischapter will show, these societies have a specialniche in global food security. At the same time,they face many challenges and need support inorder to continue to play their important role.The level of production from these systems maybe close to the limit, given limitations on naturalresources, and they will increasingly need torely on activities outside of agriculture for sustainablelivelihoods.44


Three human populations – three food security situationsContributions and challengesto food securityPastoralism and ranching contribute to food securityin three important ways: they add to thetotal food supply, they strongly support foodaccess by livestock owners and managers and,when managed appropriately, they contribute toa positive protein balance.Rainfed grazing systems provide around19.2 million tonnes of ruminant meat or 19 percentof world production (based on data in Table6). They also provide about 12 percent of theworld’s milk. Ranching systems, which producealmost entirely for income, have more reliableaccess than pastoralists to higher value markets,putting them in a stronger position to contributeto global supplies. The Australian rangelandsystems, for example, are the second largest producersof sheep meat in the world and export approximately45 percent of their production (AB-ARE, 2010; Meat and Livestock Australia, 2011).In some countries, pastoralism makes an importantcontribution to national food productionand to GDP and, in a few cases, it also contributessignificantly to export. The livestock ofMongolia produce one-third of the country’sGDP and up to 21 percent of its export earnings.The rangelands of Morocco contribute an estimated25 percent to agricultural GDP. Approximately46 percent of the bovine meat in East Africaand just over 40 percent of small ruminantmeat are estimated to come from pastoral systems(Raas, 2006) while in West Africa, pastoralismcontributes 37 percent of bovine meat and33 percent of small ruminant meat (Raas, 2006).Livestock also have a very important functionin supporting food access for pastoralistfamilies. Their value is illustrated by the factthat, throughout the Horn of Africa, pastoralistsdefine their wealth and poverty in terms oftheir ownership of livestock (Aklilu and Catley,2009). In pastoralist households, all of thelivestock source food may be produced fromtheir own animals, and income from livestockmakes up a large part of total household income.In Kenya, for example, livestock production isestimated to contribute between 50 and 95 percentof the income of pastoralist families (Akliluand Catley, 2009; Kenya Ministry of Agriculture,2008) while in Senegal, 80 percent of milkproduced by pastoralist and agro-pastoralists isconsumed by the household (Knips, 2006). Animalsare also sold as needed to stabilize incomeor consumption during drought, or preserved toallow families to recover from disaster (Baileyet al., 1999; Umar and Baulch, 2007; Pavanello,2010).Productivity from extensive grazing systemsis low in terms of output per animal and perlabour unit but high in terms of output fromlimited resources (water and grain). In thesesystems, livestock can be favourable to the proteinbalance because they use forage resourcesthat cannot be used for any other form of foodproduction. They also occupy land areas wherethere are limited alternatives for other types ofproduction because good soil and water are inshort supply, the terrain is hilly or the locationis remote. However, dependence on livestockpresents risks, because it occurs in fragile andchallenging ecologies where there are limitedprospects for diversification. Livestock ownersare expert, specialized and their way of life isadapted to a harsh environment. They can bequite self-sufficient, requiring only limited inputsfrom outside. At the same time, the foundationof their livelihoods and food security, thelivestock herd, is susceptible to disease, droughtand harsh climate, and the output of individualanimals is, on average, low.Ranchers, who rely on selling animals orwool, have seen slower growth in demand forruminant meat than meat from pigs and poultry.Production of ruminant meat has approximatelydoubled over the past 40 years, but has increasedseven-fold for poultry meat (as shown in Table4). Trade growth for beef and ruminant meat isalso lagging behind the total for meat (Morganand Tallard, undated). The trade shocks causedby diseases such as FMD and BSE hurt somecountries that suffered outbreaks but benefitedthose that did not (Morgan and Tallard, undat-45


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securityed). Climate change and difficult market conditionshave caused ranchers in the USA, Australiaand New Zealand to reduce their herds. TheAustralian national sheep flock has approximatelyhalved in the past 20 years, even thoughthere is growing demand for sheep meat in theMiddle East. Ranchers cope with adversity bydiversifying species and products, and investingin enterprises outside of livestock.In pastoralist societies, people tend to be poorand often their livelihoods and food securityare fragile. Forage and water are limited, theftof animals is common and disease outbreaks attimes cause heavy losses to pastoralist herds. Inrecognizing that these are part of the normalcourse of events, management focuses on buildingresilience into the system, targeting stabilityrather than high levels of production (FAO,2003; Mamo, 2007; Barrow et al., 2007).Mating in some systems is restricted to narrowwindows of time to allow lactating animalsto make best use of forage and allow young animalsto grow during the most favourable weather.Destocking and restocking are used to copewith fluctuations in the forage supply, younganimals being sold and the breeding herd maintained.Movements are timed to reduce exposureto raiders, and armed young men guard the animals.A number of measures are used to restrictexposure to disease and risks are weighed carefully.Quarantining of new animals, avoidingneighbouring herds when a disease outbreak hasoccurred in the vicinity, avoiding wildlife, controllingticks and tsetse flies, and the use of antibioticsto cure CBPP are all risk managementpractices used by pastoralists.There is limited potential to diversify livelihoodsout of livestock other than by sendingfamily members away to seek education andwork in cities and foreign countries, which hasthe risk that they will not return. Loss of landthrough encroachment by settled farmers, developmentof wildlife areas or building of dams,as well as the threats of drought, conflict and insecurityare all identified as reasons why Africanpastoralists have migrated to urban areas. Theyseek work in the informal sector, yet their livelihoodsand food security do not necessarily improve(UN HABITAT, 2010). Others have acquiredrights to land and become mixed farmers.It is rare that an entire country represents acase study for one type of society or productionsystem. Mongolia represents that unusual situationbecause to a large degree, the country as awhole could be said to be livestock dependent.The following case study examines the extentto which this is true and the way conditions arechanging.case studyMongolia: the limits of the lastplace on eartH 2Mongolia is sometimes (and with respect) called“the last place on earth” referring to its remotenessand its open spaces. The popular image ofMongolia is of wide open steppe or desert dottedwith white round tents (gers, sometimescalled yurts) and nomadic herders on horsebackfollowing their flocks of sheep, goats, horses,cattle and Bactrian camels against a backdrop ofmountains and a deep blue sky. A land with nofences, it is almost three times the size of Francebut has only 2.7 million people.With livestock numbers at record high levels,solar charging panels on the roofs of many gers,and a satellite dish providing television receptionin every community, livestock producersseem to be doing well. In the capital, Ulaanbaatar,shops are well stocked with televisions,computers and luxury consumer goods, a greatchange since the mid-1990s. Appearances arepartly true, but they are no longer typical andserious problems often go unnoticed.Mongolia is one of the last countries wherelivestock raising provides the greatest source ofemployment – around 40 percent of the population– and where few other forms of land use arepossible. It is perhaps as livestock dependent acountry as can still be found.Mongolia is entirely landlocked, sandwiched2The case study is adapted from Honhold, 2010.46


Three human populations – three food security situations8 Human population of Mongolia1980 to 2007Population thousands3 0001002 50090802 00070601 500501 00040305002010001980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010RuralUrbanTotalSource: Annual yearbooks of the National Statistical Office ofMongolia.between Russia (Siberia) to the north and China(largely Inner Mongolia) to the south. Thecountryside is open, with virtually no fences,and ranges from desert to mountains to steppeto forest. However, where visitors see apparentlyempty, wide open spaces, herders see thecountryside defined by water sources and winteringsites. These are limited and their number,particularly of the latter, is difficult to change.Water resources have been increased in the pastby establishing wells, but this can have the effectof enabling livestock to use pastures thatwould otherwise be kept for winter pastures orfodder.The current human population of Mongolia isaround 2.7 million, with a population density of1.7 per km 2 , making it one of the most sparselypopulated countries in the world. However,since 1977, 50 percent or more of the populationhas lived in urban centres, either the capital cityor the major province centres. Figure 8 showsthe growth in the total population since 1980and the increasing proportion made up by theurban population.The livestock population almost doubled between1988 and 2009, increasing to around 44million, almost entirely ruminant livestock andhorses. There are very few chickens or pigs inthe country (see Figure 9). However, this total% Rural%Rural9 Livestock population of Mongolia byspecies 1980 to 2009million animalsmillion sheep forgae units201816141210864201980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010807060504030201001980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010CattleCamelHorses SheepPigs + chickensGoatTotalSource: Annual yearbooks of the National Statistical Office ofMongolia.does not take into account the change in thecomposition of the national herd, in which thesheep and goat populations have grown rapidlyin recent years. The Mongolians use their ownmeasure of a livestock unit, a Sheep Forage Unit(SFU), to create equivalence between differentgrazing species in terms of the amount of forageeach requires. Calculations using these units indicatethe change in the size and composition ofthe national herd in relation to its use of forage,as shown in Figure 9. The total national herdsize has risen from 50 to 70 million SFUs. Thetotal was fairly level until around 1990, but sincethen, there have been rapid rises and equally rapiddeclines. These latter have been linked to theoccurrence of severe winter conditions (dzuds)and summer droughts. As the rural populationis dependent on livestock rearing for income,such fluctuations create obvious impacts ontheir livelihoods. Equally, the prices they obtain47


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Security10 Milk and meat production in Mongolia 1980 to 2005tonnes600 000Total production510 000420 000Milk330 000240 000150 000Meat60 000-30 0001980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008Meat production kg per personMilk production kg per person802006015040100205000198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008CamelCattleChickenGoatHorsesPigSheepSource: FAOSTAT (production data) and World Development Indicators (human population).for their products have a strong impact, and theyhave been affected by recent changes in the priceof cashmere. The number of animals is a poorguide to the health of the livestock industry.Livestock supply meat, milk, fibre and transport,although the last is decreasing. Meat productiongrew from 1961 to 1978, from around150 000 tonnes to 230 000 tonnes but thenlevelled off until the late 1980s. Since then, asshown in Figure 10, total meat production hasfluctuated from 280 000 to 150 000 tonnes annuallyand the species contributing to meat productionhave varied from year to year. Part ofthis fluctuation was due to a series of dzuds anddroughts that occurred from 1999 to 2002. On aper person basis, there was an overall downwardtrend in production between 1980 and 2009,despite record high numbers of livestock beingkept. Many herders have turned to producingand selling cashmere as a cash crop, whichis seen in the increased numbers of goats beingkept. There is no reliable public database ofcashmere production, therefore the figures arenot reproduced here, but estimates in the early1990s suggested that world production wasaround 4 500–5 000 tonnes per year, of whichMongolia supplied 20–25 percent (Petrie, 1995).Mongolian cashmere is generally of high qualityand commands a good price for the raw product(de Weijer, undated), but this is a non-essential48


Three human populations – three food security situationscommodity largely supplying a luxury marketwhere prices fluctuate (Schneider Group, undated).Food supplyThe daily dietary energy requirement recommendedfor Mongolia is 1 840 kcal per personper day (FAOSTAT, accessed October 2010).Figures 11 and 12 show the average caloricintake per person per day in Mongolia between1980 and 2007. Apart from a short period during1991 to 1994, food supply was over 2 000 kcalper person per day, and the most recent trendwas a gradual rise. However, the contributionfrom animal products declined over this periodfrom just under 1 000 kcal to around 750 kcalper day, from 40 to 30 percent. The decline inthe contribution of meat was more marked, withmuch of the difference made up by an increasein milk supply. Much of what is consumed isproduced in Mongolia, including starchy roots(potatoes) and cereals (mostly wheat).The makeup of the daily energy supply, evenin nomad families, has always contained a significantcontribution from vegetable products,particularly cereals. However, in the early 1960s,locally produced animal products contributedover 50 percent of a daily energy supply perperson of just over 2 000 kcal. By 2007, this hadfallen to around 33 percent of a daily per personsupply of 2 300. During that time, the proportionof energy supply produced locally hadfallen from around 90 percent to 50 percent. Perperson meat supply has not kept pace with theincrease in population and is falling despite theincreased herd size.Sugars, vegetable oils, other cereals and othervegetables and fruits are mostly imported. Theproportion of the calorific intake that is importedhas risen from around 20 percent to 50 percent,largely from an increased import of cereals,although vegetable oils are increasingly importantin the diet.Cereal production was established in the 1960sthrough the virgin lands system, with monoculturesystems using large fields and high levels of11 Kilocalorie consumption per day inmongolia by source 1980 to 2007Kcals per person per day3 0002 5002 0001 5001 00050001980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005CerealsimportedStachy rootsOther animalSource: FAOSTAT.CerealsproducedSugarsAnimal fatsOthervegetableVegetable OilsMilk12 Percentage of Mongolian dailykilocalorie intake that is importedSource: FAOSTAT.Meat%10090807060504030201001980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010mechanization and irrigation established by thestate. In the early 1990s, state support for thesesystems was withdrawn resulting in dramaticdeclines in locally grown cereals. The declinecontinued until 2008–09, when local wheat productionincreased again owing to government49


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securityinvestment, and in 2009, Mongolia may havebecome almost self-sufficient in grains (contraryto Figures 11 and 12). However, the productionsystem gives yields of 0.8 to 1 tonne per hectare(National Statistical Office of Mongolia, 2007),around 10 percent of that for farms in Europeand North America, and relies completely onimported fertilizers, fuel and machinery. Nationalfood security will be improved, but at ahigh financial cost.Food security for herders andurban dwellersFood security for herders (livestock dependentfamilies) is said to be adequate, and on averagethis is likely to be true. At the time of changefrom largely government-owned livestock toprivate ownership in 1990, around 261 000(58 percent) of 450 000 households, had somelivestock. By 2007, this had fallen to 226 000(35 percent) of 646 000 households (NationalStatistical Office of Mongolia, 1980 to 2009).The number of herds rose between 1990 and1995, but has been declining since then. At thesame time, the size of herds has fluctuated.There is a minimum herd size to enable a herdto survive and recover from adverse climateevents such as drought or dzud, below whichthe herder is considered poor and vulnerable.Different publications set levels for viability between50 and 200, although it is not always clearif this number is for animals or animal equivalentssuch as SFU. For example, a 2003 WorldBank report suggested 100 as a viable herd size.However, a 2009 World Bank report suggested200 but did not specify the units, while FAO,UNICEF and UNDP (2007) suggested 100.These differences could reflect a change in averageherd species composition with a switch fromcattle and horses to small ruminants and, in particular,goats. Smaller herders, often more distantfrom administrative district centres (sums),tend to have less access to support services suchas veterinarians. They are less well off and morelikely to suffer food insecurity.At privatization, very few herds had more13 Mongolian livestock herds belowthree critical sizes%1008060402001988 1993 1998 2003 2008Herds


Three human populations – three food security situationsUNICEF and UNDP, 2007) referred to the relativefood security of herders and the commonpractice of family support for poorer householdsin the smallest urban centres, and contrasted thiswith the relatively greater food insecurity in theaimag centres and Ulaanbaatar where underemploymentand unemployment are common,the heating cost for a ger in winter is high, andthere is a lower intake of animal products and agreater reliance on cereals and potatoes for energyintake. A Mercy Corps study (Hillbruner andMurphy, 2008) found that around one-quarterof households in the aimag centres were moderatelyor severely food insecure, with a further10 percent somewhat food insecure.The future of food security inMongolia and the contribution oflivestockWhile overall food supply in Mongolia is adequate,there are clear issues of distribution and access(due to poverty) and stability (due to climate,seasonal employment and urbanization). At aminimum, herders with less than 50 animals areat substantial risk of food insecurity while thosewith less than 100 have some risk. These twogroups were respectively around 10 percent and16 percent of all households in 2007. At the sametime, 60 percent of households are urban andof those, 25 percent are food insecure. Thus, bycombining the two herder groups with the urban,a total of around 25–30 percent of all householdsin Mongolia can be said to be food insecure.Nomadic livestock keeping is a highly sophisticatedand evolved system for making aliving from a difficult environment. If traditionalMongolian herders still use systems andartefacts that are recognizable from historicaltales, it is because they are very well adaptedto the nature of the land and climate. Changingor “improving” such production systems isdifficult. Bringing in external inputs can help,but this must be sustainable and not lead to adegradation of the environment on which thelivestock system depends. Every animal thatgrazes needs a certain amount of feed biomassto grow, reproduce and, importantly, to build upfat reserves for the winter. Although fodder isconserved for winter feeding, it has always beenmore common to conserve the excess summergrass growth as fat reserves on the animal, ratherthan as standing or cut hay. Biomass productionis limited by soil fertility, growing seasonand rainfall. In Mongolia, the first two of theseare limited and the third uncertain. The key factorsare water supply in the summer and wintercamp sites that have access to water and provideshelter but also have enough exposure for snowto blow away. A DANIDA report from 1992,quoted by Honhold (1995), estimated the totalbiomass production from Mongolian rangelandto be around 380 kg per hectare, sufficient tosupport 62.5 million SFU, assuming a 50 percentutilization by livestock. However, such afigure does not address annual variations, whichare likely to be significant. Given that irrigatedand artificially fertilized cropping land, probablysome of the better land, produces around800–1 000 kg of wheat per hectare, the figureof 380 kg of forage from un-irrigated land fertilizedonly by animal dung, would seem to beoptimistic.It is unlikely that extensive livestock systemscan be adapted to produce enough protein tofeed the country’s growing human population,and there are limited prospects for establishingintensive systems. Livestock are still importantin food supply but increasingly less so and, atthe same time, livestock production may be atthe peak levels possible with the resources available.Much of the country is remote, but little ofit is wilderness untouched by human use. Someof the increase in livestock production has beenachieved at the expense of once extensive herdsof wild antelope. Livestock still contribute tothe stability of income, with movements of peopleto and from herding due to different crisesand shocks, but as herding household numbersfall in relation to urban households, this bufferingeffect has limits. Herding families are nowonly 28 percent of households.Livestock dependant as it is, Mongolia relies on51


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securityimported food for its food security, either as grainor the inputs required for growing grain in a hostileenvironment. There is increasing reliance onimported foodstuffs or the inputs needed to producethem locally (although there are also limitsto domestic crop production). The move to goatsand the income they provide from cashmere hasincreased incomes and hence access to importedfoods. However, Since most is exported mainlythrough informal channels, income depends on(volatile) world market. The export potential forother livestock products is probably limited becauselocal demand is high. Export would createthe need to import other products as substitutes.The animal health situation limits the export oflive animals and most livestock food products.The recent opening up of large mining ventures,often with a significant government stake, mayprovide a source of income with which to importfood, since profits are expected to contribute toa sovereign wealth fund for the country that willbe used to support the population.Prospects for livestockdependenceLivestock-dependent societies, or those that arenearly so, play an important role in the contributionof the livestock sector to global food security.By supporting their own population andgenerating some surplus for export, they contributeto the world’s supply of livestock proteinas well as their own access to food.However, the total production from these societieshas probably reached the limit. Productionper hectare is close to or at the maximumpossible under the prevailing climatic and soilfertility conditions, given that many factors affectingproduction are beyond the control oflivestock owners. The total area in the worldavailable for extensive grazing is unlikely to expandbecause of competition for land from agricultureand human settlement, and therefore totalproduction is likely to reach its limit soonerthan in other systems. Existing levels of productionshould be protected to the extent possiblebecause of their contribution to the food supplyand the protein balance, but the percentage thatthese societies contribute to global food supplycan be expected to fall.There may be shifts in location in the futurebrought about by climate change, which Black etal. (2008) describe as “one of the defining challengesof the 21st Century,” one that is expectedto change the shape of livestock production inAustralia and perhaps in other countries whereextensive grazing is widely practised. Decreasedand more variable rainfall may require changesin management to cope with additional instability,while also creating new challenges for animalhealth systems.Investment in market access will be importantsince this offers the potential for livestock ownersto gain greater value from what they produceand to manage risk by managing stocking levels.The highest income comes from export marketsfor live animals, meat and fibres, but they are alsovolatile and particularly difficult for the poorestto access. Here the government has a role to playat national and international levels. For example,in Mongolia, if further development of the cashmeremarket were possible, it could increase thepotential of the livestock sector to support foodaccess. In the Horn of Africa, Aklilu and Catley(2009) suggest that regional policy frameworkswithin the IGAD and Common Marketfor Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)regional groupings could be supportive of livestockherders, including the poorest, by exploringa range of options for trade.Over time it is likely livestock dependant societieswill become less dependent on livestock,with their animals supporting and supported byother activities. There is a gradual trend for peopleto move into towns and away from pastoralagriculture. For those who choose to remain inrural areas, tourism, recreation and payment forenvironmental services such as wildlife conservationand carbon sequestration into grassland(as explained in more detail later) all offer waysto earn income that are complementary to livestockkeeping.52


Three human populations – three food security situations©FAO/Ami VitaleSmall-scalemixed farmersAlmost every country in the world has communitiescentred on mixed farms with a diverseportfolio of activities that includes crops, livestock,other farm enterprises and non-agriculturalwork. A practical definition of a mixedfarm is one where more than 10 percent of thedry matter fed to livestock comes from crop byproductsand stubble or more than 10 percent ofthe value of farm production comes from nonlivestockactivities (Seré and Steinfeld, 1996).They are highly variable in terms of their sizeand location, the wealth of their owners, theway animals are managed and the part livestockplay in food security. Mixed farms are estimatedto produce the majority of the global meat andmilk supply (48 percent of beef production, 53percent of milk production and 33 percent ofmutton from rain-fed mixed systems accordingto Steinfeld et al., 2006).Given the heterogeneity of the group, it ismeaningless to generalize. Thus, this report focuseson the subset of mixed farmers for whomfood security is least assured – those who live indeveloping and transitional economies and havesmall farms. In these countries, it is common tofind communities where mixed farming, mostlysmall farms, predominates as a way of life.Even among smallholder mixed farmers, thereis still considerable variation in assets, incomeand social customs. However, a characteristiccommon to all of them is that livestock are managedas part of an integrated and tightly-wovensystem, in a way that fits the needs of the farmfamily, the available labour and the demandsof other enterprises. Animals provide food, income,traction, manure, social capital, financialassets and a means of recycling crop wastes, allto varying degrees in varying situations. This issimilar to their role previously described in livestock-dependentsocieties, but for mixed farmers,livestock are usually a much smaller farmers,livestock are usually a much smaller part of theportfolio, albeit an important one.As this chapter will describe, livestock bringvalue, versatility and resilience to mixed farminghouseholds, which are more robust and food securewith animals than they would be withoutthem. At the same time, there is an important un-53


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securityanswered question about the role of small-scalemixed farms in the food security of the future.These farms support the families who own themand provide extra food for local communities,but they offer limited prospects for supplyinggrowing urban populations and limited opportunitiesfor the economic advancement of farmhouseholds. They have the biological potentialto produce a larger supply of food, and they producefood in ways that are positive for the edibleprotein balance, but there is little economicincentive for them to expand their production.Contribution of livestock tofood securityMany farmers in rural areas survive by managinga mix of different crops and livestock activities,creating synergy when crop residuesare used to feed animals and the manure fromthe animals is used to fertilize the crops. Thedifferent enterprises may be concentrated intothe same small space or on separate farm plots.Other forms of mixed farming include grazingunder fruit trees to keep the grass short or usingmanure from pigs to “feed” a fish pond. Theprevalence of mixed farming varies by countryand region. Figure 14, using figures from theRIGA dataset, shows an analysis from 14 countrieswhere the proportion of rural householdsthat practice both cropping and livestock rangesfrom 24 to 87 percent. Ly et al. (2010) reportedthat in 2004, 83 percent of the cattle in West Africaand 75 percent of the small ruminants werekept in mixed crop-livestock systems, with tractionbeing an important reason for keeping cattle.Chacko et al. (2010) reported that from 2004data, 83 percent of agricultural land in India wasoccupied by mixed farming systems.Livestock contribute to food availability, accessand stability. In some cases, direct provisionof food is their primary contribution while, inothers, the main motivation for keeping them isincome. A rural household in India or Tanzaniawith one or two dairy animals will use the majorityof their milk for home consumption (Garciaet al., 2003; Knips, 2006). In Viet Nam, poor14 rural households in selectedcountries engaged in mixed farmingAlbania 2005Viet Nam 1998Nepal 2003Madagascar 1993Nicaragua 2001Malawi 2004Ecuador 1995Guatemala 2000Bangladesh 2000Ghana 1998Panama 2003Nigeria 2004Pakistan 2001Bulgaria 2001Source: RIGA dataset.87%85%79%76%68%59%57%53%53%50%43%37%33%24%households that own small numbers of poultryas scavenging flocks use them mostly for homeconsumption (Maltsoglou and Rapsomanikis,2005), while peri-urban poultry keepers aremore likely than those in remote rural areas tokeep flocks of sufficient size to have birds andeggs for sale (Hancock, 2006). In the countriesshown in Figure 14, livestock’s contribution tothe income of mixed farming households rangesfrom a very small percentage to over 30 percent,with no consistent pattern according to thewealth of the family. Other studies show contributionsof up to 50 percent at any given time.The asset value of livestock is important tohousehold resilience and food stability becauseit provides collateral to expand or diversifyfarming operations and gives households a capitalitem that can be sold in times of great need.Access to both formal and informal credit can befacilitated through ownership of livestock. A recentreport found that in the countries representedin the RIGA dataset, livestock farmers weremore likely to get credit from formal sourcesthan non-livestock-keeping households withinthe same income bracket (Pica-Ciamarra, et al.,in preparation). The authors found this surprising,because in developing countries, unlike the54


Three human populations – three food security situationsmore developed financial markets, “moveableassets” such as livestock are rarely used as collateralfor formal loans. They concluded thatlivestock might act as a “buffer stock”, allowingfarmers to allocate part of their resources torelatively risky but high-return activities whichfinancial institutions are willing to finance. Forexample, in Kenya, Imai (2003) found that thathaving a higher value of livestock assets enableshouseholds to invest more into high risk activitiessuch as coffee and tea production. Anotheruse of assets is to sell them for income smoothing– at times when other enterprises are notproviding income or when the household is incrisis. Small animals provide more flexibilitythan large ones in these cases, since they do notrequire their owners to liquidate such a largeproportion of their capital.Gender affects the contribution of livestock inmixed farming households. In most developingand emerging economies, ownership of livestockis less common in female-headed than maleheadedhouseholds. In the 14 countries shownin Table 10, only three have a higher percentageof livestock ownership in households headed bywomen. In spite of this trend, many examplesof women contributing to food security can befound in mixed farming communities. Mediumsizedduck breeding enterprises near Viet Nam’scapital city Hanoi are equally likely to be ownedand managed by women or men, and representan important asset and income source for thehousehold. Women are central to many of thedairy projects in India and East Africa, includingOperation Flood (Arpi, 2006) and the Foodand Agriculture Research Management-Africa’s(FARM-Africa’s) dairy goat project in Ethiopia(FARM-Africa, 2007) which has trained womenas well as men animal health workers in recognitionof a predominantly female clientele.Two features distinguish livestock’s role insmall-scale mixed farming households from thecontribution they make in other situations: thesynergy between livestock and other enterprises,and the diversity and flexibility that livestockbring to the household’s activities.Synergy. Synergy with crops exists through theexchange of draft power, manure, pest controland crop residues. For example, herded ducks inthe Mekong Delta and China travel from fieldto field eating snails, insects and discarded grain,thus providing pest control for rice crops (Yu etal., 2008). As previously described, the use ofdraft power is widespread throughout the worldalthough it is diminishing in most areas exceptAfrica, where it appears to be increasing. Insome cases, larger landholders own animals thatsmaller landowners share or contract for theiruse. Animal power allows the cropping area tobe extended beyond what would be possiblewith hand cultivation, and allows land to beploughed when it is dry in preparation for plantingimmediately after the first rains. Manure ismost likely to be used for crops where animalsand crops are in close proximity, although asexplained previously, there are competing demandsfor manure and it can be in short supply.Synergy with other livelihood enterprises ismost evident with scavenging livestock. Incomefrom these animals is low, but they often provide“something for nothing” by eating crop residues,insects, scraps and rubbish found withinthe community and requiring very little labour,equipment or housing. Scavenging poultry canprovide a 600 percent return on the tiny investmentthey require (Otte, 2006). Scavenging pigsin Asia and Africa live on household waste, actingas garbage disposal units, and are housed atnight in a rough shelter or kept in or under thefamily dwelling. Goats in Nepal live by grazingand on forages cut from communal grazing areasand forests, costing little in money althoughthey demand time from women and children(ADB, 2010).Diversity and flexibility. The contribution oflivestock to food security varies over time dependingon family need which can be for dailynutrition, for dealing with a food crisis or fordeveloping a more solid economic base in whichfood security is assured. Poultry are particularlyflexible because they have dual usage (meat and55


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securitytable 10PERCENTAGE OF MALE AND FEMALE HEADED RURAL HOUSEHOLDS OWNING LIVESTOCKIN SELECTED COUNTRIESexpenditure quintilehousehold head 1 2 3 4 5Ghana 1998 female 68 67 63 53 48male 39 37 29 38 27Madagascar 1993 Female 63 72 73 54 62male 77 85 84 80 78Malawi 2004 female 49 58 64 61 59male 63 74 73 74 66Nigeria 2004 female 26 25 24 31 32male 50 49 47 43 39Bangladesh 2000 Female 31 40 43 47 55male 31 34 40 44 52Nepal 2003 female 67 86 73 73 75male 81 87 87 85 83Pakistan 2001 female 52 49 58 54 54male 57 62 63 67 66Viet Nam 1998 female 81 88 82 84 82male 95 95 93 89 82Albania 2005 female 87 74 71 85 58male 89 88 93 96 89Bulgaria 2001 female 27 46 73 77 75male 34 67 76 78 73Ecuador 1995 female 76 80 78 79 69male 69 72 79 68 74Guatemala 2000 Female 67 71 63 58 52male 68 72 70 67 57Nicaragua 2001 female 88 27 71 50 89male 78 83 58 89 67Panama 2003 female 83 45 55 52 46Source: RIGA dataset.male 76 73 72 64 52eggs) and can quickly be scaled up or down accordingto need. They have the fortunate characteristicof taking up little space so they fit wellinto peri-urban mixed farms – it is possible tokeep 2 000 birds in a back garden. Larger flockstend to be kept primarily for income and can beprofitable when their owners have access to awell organized market chain (Ahuja et al., 2008).In Southeast Asia, countries such as Indonesia,Viet Nam and Thailand have had a steadilygrowing demand for poultry. The gap in supplywas first filled by small-scale entrepreneurswho moved quickly to meet a market need, butmany of these producers left the market just asquickly when competition or government policiesto control HPAI made market access moredifficult (ACI, 2006; NaRanong, 2007).Small ruminants also have short reproductivecycles and are particularly valuable wherefamilies have access to common grazing land orland where forage can be gathered and broughtback to the animals. Small-scale commercial pigproduction fits well into mixed farms because ittakes limited space and there can be some ex-56


Three human populations – three food security situationschange of inputs between livestock and crops. InViet Nam, crossbreds with indigenous pigs arenot cost-effective to produce in large intensiveunits but are highly productive when fattened insmall-scale units that hold 20–30 animals. Herdscan be scaled up or down in a matter of weeksto meet demand cycles. They are such a delicacythat there is a thriving export of frozen pigletcarcases from Viet Nam to Hong Kong (McLeodet al., 2002).Constraints to expansionThe strengths of mixed farming also can be itsweaknesses. The low-input, low-output systemsthat provide the family with “somethingfor nothing” are efficient and effective in usingwaste, but poor producers of income or food.The intensively reared zero-grazed dairy cattle,dairy goats and small-scale commercial poultryand pigs common on peri-urban farms producea higher output, but small land holdings andthe need to diversify enterprises to spread riskmean that they tend to be small in scale and unableto benefit from certain kinds of new technologies.Indigenous livestock thrive under theconditions of mixed farms, which are often thebest way of supplying niche markets. However,when small-scale farmers try to rear larger andfaster growing crossbred and exotic animals,they cannot compete cost-wise with large andspecialized commercial farms in the commoditymarkets to which these animals are suited.Biosecurity measures. Keeping a mixture oflivestock together within a small space makes itdifficult to fully implement biosecurity measures.These are the physical and managementbarriers established to keep disease from enteringor leaving herds and flocks. Under the bestconditions, they require animals to be segregatedby species and type and kept within fencesor houses, call for keeping housing units a setdistance apart, and restrict entry of people to theplaces where animals are kept. Lack of biosecuritycreates a greater chance that animals will beexposed to disease. Lack of biosecurity measuresalso can prevent small-scale farmers fromaccessing lucrative urban markets that demand“certified safe” products.Disease outbreak and control. If disease outbreaksdo occur and control measures are implementedby the government to prevent diseasefrom spreading, many farmers may suffer lossesfrom culling (compulsory slaughter) of animalsin and around the area of an outbreak, withsmall farmers more likely than large ones tohave their animals culled without compensation(World Bank et al., 2006). Imposition of quarantinemeasures also creates losses for small-scalelivestock keepers, although traders may benefitfrom the prices that they can charge when thequarantine is lifted and animals flood the market(McLeod et al., 2006). Expectation of lossesfrom disease and disease control are built intothe way the system is managed, often by keepinglocal animals that are better adapted to localconditions but produce less.Resource scarcity. Small mixed farm householdstend to be resource-constrained. Land isoften in short supply, and many farming familiesare caught in a “poverty trap” when the smallsize of their landholdings restricts their access tocredit and prospects for expansion. Family labouris often limited and hiring fulltime labourrequires a certain scale of enterprise. Labourconstraints are particularly noticeable when estimatesof production are disaggregated by thesex of the head of household. In the countriesrepresented in the RIGA dataset, the fact thatfemale-headed households are less likely to beengaged in livestock farming than male-headedhouseholds can be interpreted as partly a labourconstraint, since families with more workingwomen own larger herds (Pica-Ciamarra et al.,in preparation).Feed supply. In many countries, good qualityfeed is in short supply, which is a major constraintto expanding livestock production. In theState of Orissa, India, for example, even though57


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securitybuffalo-based dairy farming offers the lowestnet milk production costs, it hardly exists becauseof the scarcity of feed sources (Garcia etal., 2004b). Where possible, poor farmers willuse agricultural by-products instead of commercialfeed (Upton, 2004), but these can be limited.In India, even though poultry is an importantsource of protein for home consumption, backyardpoultry producers cannot increase productionbecause of the limited availability ofscavenge-based feed sources (Pica-Ciamarra andOtte, 2009). Cereals in Africa and Asia are oftencontaminated with aflatoxin (Hell et al., 2008),meaning that commercial companies prefer toimport cereal for their compound feeds.Improvement costs. While commercializingor scaling-up livestock production can be seenby outsiders as an attractive option to improveincome for mixed farmers, those proposing itoften fail to appreciate the extra effort and expenditureinvolved. Transforming a scavengingsystem into one where animals are entirely ormostly confined can greatly increase their outputbut, at the same time, will greatly increasethe cost of housing, feed and animal health careplus the time that is spent caring for the animals.Acquiring a high-value, high-producing animalsuch as a crossbred dairy goat or dairy cow requiresa large up-front investment in a shed andincurs recurrent expenses of feed and health care,as well as the need to be connected to a reliablemarket to sell the extra produce. For this reason,NGOs such as Heifer International and FARM-Africa which run small-scale dairy projects alwaysrequire farmers to be very well trained andprepared before they receive an animal.Small-scale mixed farming is found throughoutthe world, in both developed and developingcountries.. As shown in the examples mentionedin this chapter, no one country is representativeof all. However, the following case study of Nepalprovides a good illustration of several of theissues raised in this chapter. It looks at the contributionsmall-scale mixed farming householdsmake to the economy of Nepal, the constraintsthey face and the part livestock play in the foodsecurity of these households.CASE STUDYMixed farming in NepalOf Nepal’s population of 29.1 million, around80 percent live in rural areas, 79 percent ofwhom practice mixed farming. As with manyother countries, Nepal is urbanizing. In 1985,just 7 percent of the population lived in urbanareas, compared to 20 percent in 2001. The rateof out-migration to other countries is also increasing(FAO, 2009a), mostly to India, theNear East, Malaysia and the USA. Nevertheless,mixed farming is still a very important contributorto livelihoods, with agriculture providingmore than one-third of GDP (39.1 percent in2001) (Maltsoglou and Taniguchi, 2004).Mixed farming is carried out in conditions ofpoverty and intermittent social instability. Nepalis one of the poorest countries in the world,ranked 99 out of 135 countries in the HumanPoverty Index (UNDP, 2009), and has becomea food-deficit country. In 2006, 4.2 million people,representing 16 percent of its total population,were undernourished (FAO, 2009a). A recentgovernment report found that 3.35 millionpeople and 40 percent of the population in themountain and hill districts were facing a severefood crisis (Kharel, undated). The nutritionalstatus of mothers and children under five is extremelypoor. There is no or very restricted basicinfrastructure in rural and peri-urban communities,and social services such as medical care,clean drinking water and adequate sanitation arevery limited. Although agriculture is very important,the performance of the sector has beeninadequate to meet increasing food demand, andlow agricultural productivity is a major cause offood insecurity.Livestock in the systemThe country is divided into three main geographicaland ecological regions, the mountainregion, the mid-hill region including the Kathmanduvalley, and the Terai (lowland) region.58


Three human populations – three food security situationstable 11Number of landowners and landless households bygeographical region of Nepaleastern Central Western Midwest Farwest TotalHhs owning land 462 604 424 292 308 2 090Hhs not owning land 184 189 109 35 3 520Total 646 793 533 327 311 2 610Source: RIGA dataset for 2003–04 (survey of 2610 households).The mountainous and hilly regions are quiteisolated since road access can sometimes bevery difficult. The average time to travel froma mountain farm to a health post or a primaryschool has been estimated between 1.8 and2.2 hours. The Terai as well as Kathmandu andthe other urban areas have better road connections,and the Terai is generally very accessible.Mixed farms are found in all regions but livestockplay a more central role in the mountainregion where, because of harsh cold climaticconditions and infertile land, it is hard to growcrops. Animals are kept in low input, extensivesystems (Parthasarathy and Birthal, 2008), andpeople are more dependent on livestock husbandrythan in other regions. Households uselivestock mostly for home consumption, especiallyin the mountains and rural hills due totheir remoteness, but livestock are also an importantsource of the little cash the householdsin these areas earn. In the Terai and hill regions,about two-thirds of livestock keepers are smallholders(Gurung et al., 2005) and most of themare mixed farmers.A high percentage of households in rural areasown land (80 percent), but most landholdingsare very small (Figure 15), with plots becomingfurther fragmented as they are divided up forinheritance. No major differences in land sizeare found in the different areas of the countryor among households of different expenditurequintiles. In the far west, almost everyone ownsland, with ownership decreasing progressivelyfrom west to east, reaching the lower limit,15 Land size among landownerHouseholds of Nepal12%3% 1% 2%82%0-1 ha 1-2 ha 2-3 ha 3-4 ha >5 haSource: RIGA dataset for Nepal, 2003–04.72 percent, in the east (Table 11).Wealth does not influence whether ruralhouseholds own livestock (Table 12) but it doesinfluence how many they own. Almost everyhousehold has livestock of some kind, but landownersare more likely to own more than onetropical livestock unit (TLU) – which is equivalentto 5 pigs or 2 cattle using the internationalmeasurement for South Asian livestock – thanthose who are landless (Table 13). Herd sizesare generally very small. Mixed farmers tend toown more of each species than other households59


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securitytable 12Percent of Nepali rural households owning livestock,by expenditure quintilesRural hhsexpenditure Quintiles1 2 3 4 52 610 87% 90% 88% 87% 86%Source: RIGA dataset for Nepal, 2003-4.table 13Percent of landowning andlandless households byTropical Livestock Unit (TLU) ownedTLU Landowner Landless totalowned households households households0 1% 1% 1%0-1 14% 33% 18%>1 85% 66% 81%Total 100% 100% 100%16 Type and average number of livestockowned by mixed farming andlivestock-only households in Nepal4321Mixed farming householdsTLU estimated using international units for South Asian livestock.Source: RIGA dataset for Nepal, 2003–04.0cattlepigssheepgoatspoultrybuffaloyaksdonkeysother43210cattleLivestock only householdspigssheepgoatspoultrySource: RIGA dataset for Nepal, 2003–04.buffaloyaksdonkeysother(Figure 16) but the average number of TLUsowned is around two, regardless of the wealthof the household (Table 14). Female-headedhouseholds tend to own fewer animals, averaging1.2–1.8 TLUs compared to 1.9–2.0 TLUs formale-headed households.Subsistence cropping is predominant, withhouseholds growing crops mostly to consumeat home rather than for sale. Only a few familieswith larger landholdings are able to producein excess of their consumption requirementsand profit from the sale of their products. Mostsmall landowners have to seek alternative meansof income and still face food shortages for severalmonths of the year. Paddy rice is the mostcommonly produced staple, followed by coarsecereals and wheat. Pulses, oilseeds, vegetablesand potatoes are also grown in smaller quantities.Livestock play the usual wide range of rolesin a mixed farming society. They have an economicrole since they can be used for incomeand as insurance to hedge against risk. Mixedfarming households in all wealth categories havea higher average income than non-mixed farminghouseholds (Table 15). Regardless of wealth,these households earn roughly 60 percent of60


Three human populations – three food security situationstable 14Distribution of TLU and typology of livestock, by expenditure quintilesExpenditure Total number of Number of Number of Number ofquintile Tlu large ruminants small ruminants poultry pigsPoorest 1.94 3.39 2.07 2.76 0.232 1.96 3.52 2.18 3.54 0.223 1.80 2.99 1.83 3.27 0.164 2.01 3.40 2.06 3.22 0.14Richest 1.96 3.09 1.97 4.16 0.21TLU estimated using international units for South Asian livestock.Source: RIGA dataset for Nepal 2003–04.table 15Income total from livestock andcropping (in Nepalese rupees)Expenditure Total income Total incomequintile for non-mixed for mixedfarming farminghouseholds householdsPoorest households 16 805 22 4742 24 662 26 9823 19 617 27 6874 25 210 31 654Richest households 35 721 33 621Income = cash and production for home consumption.Source: RIGA dataset for Nepal 2003–04.their income from agricultural activities, ofwhich livestock contribute close to 40 percent.This is similar to other Asian countries in theRIGA dataset, a level of around 30 percent beingusual, while countries in all of the other regionshave lower percentages.Households without livestock are much morereliant on off-farm income and wage labour.The social and cultural role of livestock is alsoimportant, especially during ceremonies. Goatsand chicken are kept to provide for guests andfor religious purposes, as some ethnic communitiesbelieve it is necessary to sacrifice one goatand chicken every year (Gurung et al., 2005).Livestock also provide status in the communityand create employment opportunities withinand beyond a given household.Social influencesNepal is a pluralistic society with about 60 recordedcaste and ethnic groups, and 70 languagesand dialects (Gurung et al., 2005). Ethnicityis an important phenomenon and, along withcaste, is the most important focus around whichindividuals, households and communities aggregateand, as such, it influences livelihood options.Some 37 percent of the population is madeup of indigenous “ethnic groups” outside of thecaste system and 13 percent are in untouchablecaste groups. Many of these groups have beenhistorically disadvantaged and continue to lagbehind in income and asset levels, educationalachievements and human development indicators.Religious customs affect livestock ownershipand the role of livestock in food security.For example, strict Brahmins do not eat meat,and Hindu castes do not rear pigs and considerthem unclean.The other social factor that affects livestockkeeping is gender. Most mixed farming households(87 percent) are headed by men and, as inmany other countries, male-headed householdshave easier access to land and to both formaland informal credit, which are important forhouseholds to buy livestock. Women and mentraditionally have different responsibilities,knowledge and decision-making roles in livestockmanagement as well as other intra- and61


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securityinter-household activities. Women’s major responsibilitieslie in caring for poultry, collectinggrasses and fodders, and feeding, cleaning andmilking the animals. Women and children generallyare responsible for small ruminants andpoultry as well as pregnant and sick animals keptat the home. Men’s specific roles include providingveterinary services, livestock investment andspending cash for various household economicand community activities. They generally carefor and control more lucrative animals withhigher commercial value, such as cattle and buffaloes.They are responsible for selling and oftenare the sole decision-makers on how to use theresulting income. Men and women share activitiessuch as cropping, grass and fodder production,traditional livestock breeding and speciesselection (Gurung et al., 2005).The picture that emerges is that livestockkeeping is very much a joint activity. Men andwomen from all socio-economic groups and regionstake part in caring for animals and sellingtheir products. However, even though womenhave higher decision-making power with regardto small animals, their decisions over large animals,sale of products, investment and animalhealth care are very limited. Women often dependon men (husbands or male relatives) foraccess to land and other inputs needed for moreproductive agriculture. However, the responsibilityof women in many livestock managementactivities has been growing in the past few years(Gurung et al., 2005). With increased migrationof men to cities or to other countries, agriculturehas “feminized” in rural Nepal, meaning thatwomen must often take on new responsibilities– often with limited knowledge, technologyand time. This suggests that the need for men toseek income outside of their home communitiesmay be another factor limiting the productivityof mixed farms.The future for mixed farming andthe contribution of livestockWithin the options available in a very poorcountry, mixed farming activities appear to bea winning strategy for rural Nepalese. Theyprovide higher income than can be obtained byfamilies relying on wage labour and off-farmemployment, and they offer a measure of stabilityand control. Mixed farming is possible formany rural families, in part because of the veryhigh rate of land ownership. Livestock make animportant contribution to income and socialfunctions. There is also a growing demand forfood, including livestock products, in the urbanpopulation.However, the opportunities for mixed farmingto provide a pathway out of poverty, or toexpand its production, are very few. Farm sizesare extremely small, and much of the countryis on hilly terrain that requires huge efforts tofarm, meaning that even if families decided tocombine efforts, they would find it hard to upscale.In the Terai, there is more chance to combinelandholdings and upscale because the terrainis flat, and the climate and water supply aremore favourable. However, increases in productivitythrough upscaling could only come aboutthrough change in land tenure, either througha reduced number of people owning land orthrough cooperative arrangements in landholding,neither of which is likely to be socially acceptableat present.Most families in Nepal have very limited accessto the level of funding that would allowthem to innovate. The migration of men awayfrom rural areas also reduces the labour force.At best, mixed farming has the prospect of continuingto provide food security for the communitiesin which it is practised, with a smallsurplus being exported to towns. Livestockcontributes by adding stability to the systemand providing much of the cash that can sustainfamilies when crops are not there. Some smallpossibilities exist to increase livestock productivitythrough slightly improved feeding, betterveterinary care and more organized marketing.Technical options for accomplishing this havebeen explored within the national research systemsand development projects but, only verysmall incremental changes to improve produc-62


Three human populations – three food security situationstivity, based mainly on better rural service provisionhave been recorded.Prospects for small-scalemixed farmersSmall-scale mixed farms remain enormouslyimportant because of the large number of ruralhouseholds they support. They also make auseful contribution to the food supply of urbanpopulations in developing countries and use andrecycle resources effectively.At the same time, they have limited prospectsto expand their production or increase productivity.The Nepal case study provides a sharpreminder of the reasons for those limits. Lackof opportunity or capital to increase farm sizes,limited assets and therefore limited access tocredit, lack of investment capital, limited landavailability, reduced access to common land,higher unit costs than those of large producers,and restricted opportunities to market producethrough physical distance or barriers imposedby quality and safety requirements are all factorsthat prevent many small-scale farmers in manyplaces from expanding or intensifying their production.These factors constrain the stability oftheir own food security and the extent to whichthey can contribute to national food security.All small-scale farmers do not face all of thesame constraints. For example, in peri-urban Indiaand Kenya they have excellent connectionsto milk markets, as previously described. InKenya and Uganda, they face severe constraintson land size but have benefited from improvedfodder species, and in some cases, access toanimal health service through projects or cooperativearrangements. However, most smallfarmers face limits to intensification. Even inIndia, where small-scale livestock producers aresupported by state investment, the average numberof poultry kept by farmers with 0.5 to 2 hahas grown much more slowly than that kept byfarmers with more than 4 ha, and the number ofcattle has declined slightly on the smaller farmsand increased slightly on large ones (Chacko etal., 2010). Many successful small-scale peri-urbanfarmers in Africa have other jobs – includingcivil service jobs – and do not rely on mixedfarming for their food security.There continues to be large growth in demandfor pig and poultry products, but small-scaleproducers of these products face strong competitionfrom large-scale producers with intensivefarms that may specialize only in livestock. Oneestimate suggests that large intensive farms produce67 percent of world poultry meat, 50 percentof eggs and 42 percent of pork (Blackmoreand Keeley, 2009) and they do so with a cost efficiencythat small farms find hard to match. Pigand poultry production is scaling up and marketchains are becoming more integrated in emergingeconomies such as Brazil, Costa Rica (Ibrahimet al., 2010) and China (Ke, 2010). In 1996,fewer than 20 percent of pigs in China wereproduced on large farms, but by 2006, the figurewas 64 percent.Expansion in demand will increasingly comefrom cities. Peri-urban small-scale farmers tendto be very successful at supplying urban populationsin the early stages of demand growth butless so as food safety and land use regulationsbecome stricter, a topic explored in later chapters.Countless reports propose ways to connectsmall-scale farmers to markets (LPP, 2010),but if they are to continue to access the marketchains that supply large towns and cities, theyneed to be credible competitors. For some, it ispossible to become contract farmers to largeroperations (Gura, 2008; Delgado et al., 2008).For others, innovative approaches may offer thechance to access niche markets (Ifft et al., 2009),perhaps through cooperative arrangements. Forthe remainder, in fast-growing developing countries,“it is hard to see a bright future” (Delgadoet al., 2008).What we may see is increasing heterogeneityamong small-scale mixed farms, with some,particularly in rural areas, remaining integratedoperations with a mixture of crops, livestockand other enterprises and, within their livestockenterprises, a mixture of scavenging herds andflocks and small-scale intensive units. They will63


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securitynever earn a large income but will remain importantcontributors to food supply and access forthe communities and local markets they supply.Livestock will continue to be essential to thesesystems although, in some places, they may beovertaken by aquaculture. For others, the bestshort term option may be contract farming.This implies a shift towards specialization witha smaller number of enterprises, each representinga higher proportion of assets and income.The Chinese poultry sector, for example, stillpresents good opportunities for contract farmers,providing around 800 000 jobs (Blackmore& Kelley, 2009; Ke and Han, 2007). Contractfarmers often earn more income than their independentcounterparts, but the stability of theirincome and hence food access may become betteror worse depending on the contract. Duringthe 2005–06 HPAI outbreaks, it was reported(personal communication with various peoplein the sector) that some Thai contract poultryfarmers were protected from losses because thecompanies owned their birds and re-suppliedthem as soon as the immediate crisis was over.On the other hand, during the 2007–08 economiccrisis, some farmers supplying supermarketfood chains lost contracts very suddenly whenactivities were downsized.Over time, although it is hard to predict whatthe time scale will be, we can expect to see areduction in the number of small mixed farmsworldwide, faster in some places than others.As they decline in number, the communities onwhich they are based will change in character,becoming less dominated by the agriculturalcalendar and more by the demands of other employment.They may also become more stratified,with some farmers continuing to exist justabove the poverty line, some leaving farming forother employment, some becoming financiallysuccessful through contract farming, and a fewmanaging to upscale or succeed in niche markets.64


Three human populations – three food security situations©FAO/Balint PornecziCity populationsBy 2007, half of the world’s population was livingin urban areas (UNFPA, 2007), a considerableincrease from 29 percent in 1940. The developedworld (North America, Japan, Europe,Australia and New Zealand) is highly urbanized,with 75 percent of people living in townsand cities, while in countries defined by the UNas “least developed”, the figure is 29 percent butclimbing (UNFPA, 2009). This is an importantdevelopment that affects food supply systems,since urban populations are to a large extentpurely consumers of food, unlike those in ruralareas who both produce and consume it.Those responsible for planning and managingurban spaces aim to ensure that stable suppliesof reasonably priced food are available for all,through food chains with high standards of hygieneand safety. FAO (2001) identifies areas ofconcern for urban food supply and distribution:• food supply – must be sufficient in quantityand quality, produced in hygienic and environmentallysound conditions and broughtto the town or city by an efficient transportationsystem;• food distribution within the town or city –requires investment by the public and privatesector as well as legislation and regulations;and• health and the environment – includes protectionof the air and water supply and thehealth of people.Each of these elements tends to be plannedand managed differently in industrial marketbasedeconomies, centrally planned systems andmarket-based developing countries.Urbanization affects the demand for food becauseurban people are, on average, richer thanrural people and have access to food from a varietyof sources. People living within or in easyreach of urban areas eat diets that are differentfrom and more diverse than rural dwellers’ diets(Regmi and Dyck, undated). However, thereis an enormous range of wealth within urbanpopulations. About 300 million urban dwellersworldwide are classified as extremely poor(Ahmed et al., 2007), with the poorest peoplein cities highly food insecure. Countries withgrowing urban populations as well as risingwealth face the strongest challenge, because theymust deal with two different food security prob-65


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securitylems – a large proportion of the population thatis undernourished but also a growing number ofpeople who consume more than they need forhealth or have poorly balanced diets.The location of livestock production and theshape of livestock market chains are increasinglydriven by urbanization and particularly thegrowth of large cities. This chapter comparesapproaches and experiences in feeding cities inthe USA, Asia, Africa and Latin America.Livestock products in theurban dietUrbanization has been associated with a risingdemand for livestock products throughout thelivestock revolution. Urban people, on average,eat less starch staples and more meat, fruit andvegetables than rural people (ICASEPS, 2008;Hooper et al., 2008; Regmi and Dyck, undated).For the most part, this is because large townsand cities offer more income-earning opportunitiesthan rural areas, and urban people areon average richer. However, poor urban dwellerseat far less livestock source food than theirricher counterparts.For those who can afford it, livestock productsare highly accessible in cities. Fast food establishments,restaurants and large supermarketssell livestock protein conveniently packaged at awide range of prices. The large numbers of urbanpoor, however, have low purchasing powerand limited food options, and are often physicallyseparated from sources of quality food(Associated Press, 2008).Quality and safetyLivestock products can be a valuable part of abalanced diet for city dwellers with sufficient incomes.However, many of these consumers whoplace convenience and immediate satisfactionover nutritional value are faced with the temptationof easily available livestock foods preparedin large portions and cooked with fat and salt, anincentive to overeat. The over-consumption ofred meat and fats associated with heart diseaseand other health problems, mentioned in connectionwith livestock food in the diet, is verymuch a problem of urban populations.Some middle class consumers are highly discerningabout their food and, when providedwith sufficient information to give them confidencein the product, will choose food thatthey perceive to be safer or in some other wayof higher quality, even if it is slightly more expensive(Birol, Roy and Torero, 2010). Thistranslates into a demand for livestock productscertified as having one or more of the followingqualities: they come from livestock that havebeen raised traditionally, kept under high welfarestandards or are biosecure, or they are froma particular breed or region or processed in aparticular way.While they represent relatively small numbers,these consumers have raised the standardsdemanded of livestock producers in Europe andother parts of the developed world, and in pocketsin emerging economies or urban markets ofdeveloping countries. Food safety carries a highpremium for these consumers, because even ifthey do not search for it, they are quick to retreatfrom foods that have been associated withoutbreaks of human disease. Supermarkets, animportant source of city food, are risk averse andpass part of the cost of food safety to their suppliersthrough demands for high levels of biosecurityand hygiene.The urban poor, however, eat less livestockprotein than their richer counterparts and theirchoice is restricted by the high prices of manyfoodstuffs. Food safety is a concern for them iffood is delivered through long market chainsin which hygiene, refrigeration and toxin andresidue levels are not regulated or monitored. Indeveloping countries, the government resourcesdedicated to food safety tend to be devoted moreto quality control of export products than regulationof domestic food chains (FAO, 2009b).Food safety is a concern for the poor in general,but those in large cities have less access thantheir rural counterparts to local markets wherethey can purchase a live chicken that they haveinspected for its health status, or determine the66


Three human populations – three food security situationsprovenance and age of meat or milk. As a result,they depend more on the protection conferredby food safety regulations.Effects of food price risesPoor people are vulnerable to food price rises, aspreviously discussed, because they spend a largeproportion of their household budget on food.Poor people living in large cities are particularlyvulnerable because they have weak connectionsto agriculture (Cohen and Garrett, 2010). Theycannot do what mixed farmers do and changethe balance of what they sell and directly consumeto suit the prevailing economic situation.As the next section discusses, there are mixedfarmers living within city limits, but they are farfewer in number than in rural areas.Urbanization is contributing to the growthof demand for livestock products, but it alsomay be a minor contributory factor to the risingprice of food since urban households are likelyto hoard food if they fear future price increases(Stage et al., 2010).During the economic crisis of 2007–08, worldprices of staples rose enormously, by three timesfor maize and five times for rice. World priceshad a much stronger impact on domestic pricesin some countries than in others (Cohen andGarrett, 2010, citing several sources), but thepoor in many large cities cut back on food consumptionand adjusted the composition of theirdiets. For example in April 2008, it was reportedthat poor households in Dhaka, Bangladesh, hadstopped eating meat, fish and eggs (Cohen andGarrett, 2010) while in Ethiopia, they cut outeggs and vegetables. When food and cookingfuel costs rise, street food consumption tends toincrease (FAO, 1997), as street food vendors canbuy in bulk, while poor households buy in smallquantities.Sources of livestock sourcefood for urban populationsThere are three sources of livestock productsfor urban areas: the animals kept (often illegally)within city limits, peri-urban farms at the fringesof cities, and large commercial operations deliveringtheir product through integrated marketchains that may span many miles and cross internationalborders. This section begins by reviewinglivestock keeping within cities, a topicwhich is somewhat neglected in the literature.It then looks at the limits from which livestocksource food is drawn into cities, the way thatdifferent governments approach the supply ofcity populations, and other factors that affectthe shape of livestock market chains.Livestock in cities and attempts tokeep them outLivestock have always been part of urban landscapes,but as cities grow and become more organized,the authorities try to exclude animalfarms and slaughter facilities from residentialareas and city centres because of concerns abouthuman health, noise, dirt, smells, vermin andcontamination of water supplies. These problemsstem from pressure on land, meaning thatpeople and their animals are forced to live inclose proximity. Urban sanitation infrastructureis already strained and the poorer inhabitants,those most likely to want to keep livestock, oftenlack water, drainage and rubbish disposal facilities.Therefore, far fewer animals are kept inurban than rural areas, particularly in developedcountries.The history of livestock in cities of the USA(Box 7) has interesting parallels to stories elsewhere.During the early twentieth century,zoning codes, by-laws, regulations governingmarket chains and industry practice pushed livestockout of residential areas and city centres. InKenya, Nairobi experienced a similar promulgationof laws restricting animal agriculture withincity limits with by-laws dating from colonialtimes. The Agriculture Act, the Land ControlAct and the Physical Planning Act offer localauthorities the legal power to decide whether ornot to allow urban farming. Yet, the legislationis rife with contradictions, and farm animals arestill commonly found within city limits (Foecken,2006; Foecken and Mwangi, undated).67


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food SecurityBox 7City livestock in the USAIn the USA, early urban planners integrated animalagriculture facilities with cities. In 1870, NewYork’s Central Park incorporated a dairy barn onthe premises as a way of providing the urban poorwith milk during a time when transport to ruraldairy farms was limited.Yet the turn of the twentieth century saw a pushto exclude farm animals from cities for a varietyof reasons. Dairy cows were banned due to thehealth risk they posed to people from the spreadof bovine tuberculosis (Schlebecker, 1967). Farmanimals were seen as noise and waste managementproblems for cities. The birth of “animal welfare”activism created a push to move animals out ofcities where they were not properly cared for.Chickens were banned with the excuse of preventingrooster fighting and as part of noise ordinancesand anti-nuisance laws.Most of the early zoning codes in the USA imposedbans on all “farmyard animals” simply toprevent noise and smell. Exceptions were grantedfor horses, which were widely used for transportationuntil the 1920s. Laws regarding food animalswere usually not a state or city-wide regulation,but tended to be locally based. Each housing developmentcould have different standards in theirzoning ordinances and deeds. The first animalrestriction listed in a table of many of the subdivisionrestrictions, prepared by H. V. Hubbell(1925), was an 1889 Baltimore County, Maryland,statute for “no pigs, allow fowls, four horses, andtwo cows.” Some historians have speculated thatthe early bans in these early planned communitieshad a covert reason: to keep out lower incomegroups that would need animals as supplementalincome.However, the movement of animals out of earlyAmerican cities was not wholly a factor of earlyzoning codes and by-laws. As industries achievedaggregate economies of scale starting in the early1900s with meat markets and poultry, they mayhave influenced decisions to prohibit potentialcustomers from rearing, slaughtering or sellinganimal products for private profit. For example,new laws requiring commercial dairies to sell puremilk drove smaller cow stalls in towns out of businesssimply because of the cost of testing the milkand the lack of space to expand. Other policies,such as immunity to anti-trust laws in agriculture,favoured larger producers and economies of scaleover local, small-scale animal agriculture. Immunityto anti-trust laws gives larger companiesadvantages in terms of favourable marketing andpackaging deals for greater quantities of goods.These laws are now being challenged and this may,in time, affect where animal agriculture is locatedby removing some incentive for large, contractbasedfarming operations (The Economist, 2010).Despite the century-long bans on urban animalagriculture, practices coupling cities with animalagriculture have persisted. Philadelphia employeda peri-urban swine feeding consortium that consumedup to 1 500 tonnes of residential organicwaste a week, as late as the 1980s (Maykuth, 1998).Such practices are still commonplace in cities outsideof the USA. Walmart, an international foodsupplier, now considers garbage feeding part of itssustainability best practices (Walmart, 2010).Source: Brinkley, 2010.68


Three human populations – three food security situationsAfter decades during which city dwellersreared poultry in Jakarta, Indonesia, the JakartaProvince authorities passed legislation in 2007and 2008 that banned poultry keeping withincity limits except for certain licensed birds notreared for food, and initiated moves to closeholding yards and slaughter points in parts ofthe city (ICASEPS, 2008). The reasons citedwere related to HPAI control, but complaintsfrom residents about smells and dirt seem tohave added impetus. Another move to ban urbanlivestock occurred in Cairo in 2009, whenthe small-scale operations that recycled garbagethrough pigs were closed down (The Economist,2009). In both of these cases, the overall intentionof improving environmental hygiene waspositive, but there were negative impacts on thelivelihoods of poor city dwellers.Regulations other than zoning, as well as economicfactors, have influenced urban livestockkeeping. In the early twentieth century, the UK’sbanning of swill feeding to prevent the spreadof pig diseases quite rapidly led to the cessationof small-scale pig keeping, much of which hadbeen done in the back gardens and allotmentsof town dwellers. In Thailand, tax incentivesencouraged livestock producers to move awayfrom Bangkok (Costales et al., 2006).Notwithstanding attempts to keep them out,livestock still can be found within and at the peripheryof many urban areas throughout Africa,Asia, Latin America and the Near East. Poorhouseholds keep small livestock such as poultry,guinea pigs and rabbits on rooftops and incourtyards for their own consumption. In placeswhere they are not prevented, animals scavengein the streets or, as in the case of Cairo’s formerpig keepers, are kept as garbage recycling units.Immigrants to urban areas bring their animalswith them to satisfy their taste for traditionalfood from their homelands.Several studies in the 1990s showed the prevalenceof livestock in and immediately aroundAfrican cities. An average of 17 percent of theinhabitants of six Kenyan towns were keepinglivestock (Lee-Smith and Memon, 1994), andthe cattle population of Nairobi was estimatedat 28 000, with most animals kept for manureand as savings accounts. However, the larger thetown, the smaller the proportion of its populationthat engaged in agriculture of any kind. Inand close to Kampala, Uganda, around 25 to30 percent of people kept livestock (Maxwell,1994), a tradition that appears to have persisted(Lee-Smith, 2010, citing studies from 2003).In Ghana, 25 percent of small ruminants werekept by people in and around urban areas, andin Mali, there were small communal dairies inthe capital city, Bamako, in 1993 (Debrah, 1993).There is a thriving small-scale poultry industryin and at the fringes of cities in Asia and Africa.In Cairo, small commercial units of a fewhundred birds (FAO, 2009c) kept in narrowpassageways play an important part in feedingthe city’s inhabitants. In Indonesia, Jakarta hadan estimated 194 200 head of poultry in 2003 and175 000 in 2007 (Directorate General of LivestockServices, 2007, cited by ICASEPS, 2008)although the number and flock size reducedafter the 2007-08 government bans on poultrykeeping.City livestock are more important to thefood supply than is sometimes acknowledged.However they only represent a small part of thewhole. The next section discusses the diversityof livestock market chains that supply cities andthe way that policies have contributed to shapingthem.Foodsheds, city limits andlivestock market chainsTwo of the important factors that define a marketchain are its physical length and its concentration,meaning the number and scale of unitsat each link of the chain. Urban planners talkabout the “foodshed” – the area around a citythat can conveniently provide food for its inhabitants.In the USA, the foodsheds of Philadelphiaand San Francisco are defined as a radiusof 100 miles from the city centre. Recent studiesindicate a highly varied food system, with Philadelphiasourcing nearly 50 percent of its food69


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securityfrom the foodshed and exporting 36 percent ofproduction from the area, while San Francisco’stotal food demand accounts for only 5 percentof production within the 100 mile radius, withmost of the production from its foodshed exported(Thompson et al., 2008). Both the SanFrancisco and Philadelphia studies indicate that,despite an abundance of peri-urban farming, thecities still draw significantly from the nationaland international food systems.These American cities indicate a disconnectbetween markets and local production, similarto the situation in Belo-Horizonte, capital ofBrazil’s Minas Gerais State, where the municipalgovernment has invested in partnerships withthe private sector, established marketing regulationsand developed programmes to supportlocal peri-urban production as well as incentivesfor consumption of local foods. In MexicoCity, mobile markets have been set up that movearound the city on specific days and often selllocal products.The Chinese government has taken a verydifferent approach to that of the USA. Thefoodsheds for large Chinese cities are definedby their city limits. They aim and partly succeed(Girardet, 1999) in being as self sufficientas possible within these limits. This, in turn, hasaffected their zoning regulations and definitionsof city limits. The official boundaries for Chinesemega-cities are larger than city limit linesin much of the rest of the world. The preoccupationwith self-sufficiency is partly attributableto changes in city boundaries under the GreatLeap Forward policies of the late 1950s that emphasizedmaking the major Chinese cities selfreliantin food. 3Beijing increased in land area from 4 822 km²in 1956 to 16 808 km² in 1958, thereby incorporatingmuch peri-urban agriculture under thecity’s direct control. Within the Beijing city limits,“urban agriculture” supplies 70 percent of3self-reliance is related to self-sufficiency but not identical. Self-sufficiencyimplies producing all of one’s own food while self-reliance means relyingon one’s own resources to obtain food.non-staple food to city inhabitants, mainly consistingof vegetables and milk (Jianming, 2003).Shanghai has taken a similar approach (Box 8)by defining an area for its “city limits” that isonly 13 percent urban. It produces biogas energyas well as food within that area, therebymaking a contribution to dealing with pollutionfrom manure, a huge problem when livestockare concentrated close to large cities.Within large African cities, while the citylimits may not be defined as widely as those inChina, Lee Smith et al. (2010) talk of an “agriculturegradient”, with a relatively small numberof city farmers near the centre and a progressivelylarger number towards the periphery andin the surrounding peri-urban area. Surveys donot always define clearly where they assume thecity limits to be, which makes it difficult to comparestatistics. In some cases, there is a deliberatepolicy to support urban farmers, as in Kampalawhere 26 percent of households within urbanzones and 56 percent in the peri-urban zoneswere practicing some kind of agriculture in 2003.Summarizing findings from several papers, LeeSmith et al. (2010) suggest that livestock keepingwithin city limits is beneficial to food security inthe city, but may be less beneficial to the pooresthouseholds than to richer ones that have betteraccess to urban land.Notwithstanding the uneasy relationship betweenlivestock and cities, quite a large proportionof livestock product comes from withinor close to city limits. FAO estimated that 34percent of total meat production and nearly70 percent of egg production worldwide camefrom peri-urban farms in the late-1990s (FAO,1999). In the USA in the early 1990s, countiesdefined as urban influenced, meaning thosewithin or adjacent to metropolitan counties,produced 52 percent of the dairy products in thecountry (Heimlich and Bernard, 1993). In 2007,Jakarta produced an estimated 80 000 tonnes ofpoultry meat and 400 tonnes of eggs within citylimits (ICASEPS, 2008), with over 200 collectionpoints and over 1 000 small slaughter facilitiesin the city. Most of the rest of the city’s70


Three human populations – three food security situationsBox 8Food and biogas production in ShanghaiShanghai follows China’s strategy for foodself sufficiency of mega-cities (Yi-Zhong andZhangen, 2000). The total area of Shanghai covers6 340.5 km 2 , of which 13 percent is urban and therest rural. The average population density withinthe Shanghai city limits is about 2 059 persons perkm 2 , very low compared with New York City(Manhattan), USA, which has 27 257 persons perkm².Agriculture contributes only 2 percent of thecity’s GDP, yet is a highly protected economy.About 8.5 million people in Shanghai have a job,3.6 million of these in the agricultural productionsector. The 2.7 million farmers represent93 percent of the population of the rural partsof Shanghai, and 13 percent are full-time farmers(Yi-Zhong, and Zhangen, 2000). To prevent rapidturnover of agricultural to non-agricultural land,80 percent of the arable land is protected under theAgricultural Protection Law. These measures havecontributed to 100 percent and 90 percent respectivelyof the milk and eggs consumed in Shanghaibeing produced within the city limits. Local porkand poultry production cover just over half of thetotal supply to the city.Peri-urban agriculture is encouraged to serveother functions besides food production. One ofthe most important is biogas production (Kangminand Ho, 2006; Blobaum, 1980; Ru-Chen,1981; Gan and Juan, 2008; IFAD, undated; Owens,2007). According to the government’s ChineseEcological White Paper issued in 2002, thetotal amount of livestock and poultry wastes generatedin the country reached 2.485 billion tonnesin 1995, about 3.9 times the total industrial solidwastes (Kangmin and Ho, 2006). Animal agriculturalwastes are toxic pollutants when dischargedinto rivers and streams, but can be valuable resourcesif managed for compost or energy frommethane. It is estimated that 10 million ha of farmlandin China are seriously polluted by organicwastewater and solid wastes. China’s national planfor biogas (Junfeng, 2007) calls for 4 700 largescalebiogas projects on livestock farms by 2010,thereby increasing biogas-using households by afurther 31 million – to a total of 50 million or 35percent of total rural households.Source: Brinkley, 2010.supply came from provinces within a two-hourdrive. In the mid-1980s, up to 40 percent of thecalories of urban dwellers in Kampala were providedby livestock raised in and close to the city(Smith and Olaloku, 1998). Shanghai producesalmost all of the milk and eggs for its citizenswithin its city limits (see Box 8).As cities expand and develop economically,animal production systems tend to move fartheraway. Residential areas encroach onto farmland,and as cropland moves outward, ruminant livestockmoves outward in parallel to maintainproximity to available feed in the hinterlands.Pigs and poultry initially stay on the expandingfringes of the growing cities, but eventually areencouraged to move further away to avoid environmentalcontamination (Gerber et al., 2005;Costales et al., 2006).Cities also source food through internationalmarket chains, both formal and informal. Muchof the official international trade in livestockproducts supplies urban populations. There isregular cross-border movement of live animalsin Southeast Asia, Africa and parts of LatinAmerica, although not all of it is recorded. Themarket chains that supply cities with poultrymeat are defined by their diversity. Small- andmedium-scale producers are located in periurbanareas while large intensive production islocated all over the world. At the same time,71


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securityinternational market chains are both formal andinformal. For example, a recent FAO study suggestedthat a million birds a month cross theborder from China to Viet Nam informally.There are no precise figures for the relativecontribution of small- and large-scale productionunits to city food supplies. However, theworldwide trend is to upscale and concentrate.In the USA, the majority of production comesfrom large or very large units. In Brazil andThailand, an increasing proportion of supplycomes from large units, even though there arestill many small-scale producers. In Viet Nam,where demand for livestock products has beengrowing steadily, avian influenza and other forceshave pushed many small-scale producers outof business. Their market share was initially takenover by national companies but large regionalplayers see this as an attractive domestic marketopportunity and are gradually making inroads(McLeod and de Haan, 2009).The structure of market chains that supplyurban areas is changing. In some cases, marketswithin cities are being made more hygienic dueto regulations, such as those in Hong Kong, LosBaños, in the Philippines, and Ho Chi MinhCity, Viet Nam. In others, such as Jakarta, thesmallest urban markets are being closed. Elsewhere,markets are changing their nature becauseof regulations. In Cairo, poultry are nolonger assembled at physical markets but aretraded through phone connections – when anorder is placed, birds are moved from their productionunit. This echoes the move towards amore virtual marketing system that followedthe UK’s FMD outbreak in 2001. Specialist localcompanies produce processed foods for the urbanmarket within their own integrated chains,such as Farmers Choice in Kenya, which hiressmall-scale contract farmers to fatten pigs sothat the company controls the source of meatfor its own bacon, pork and sausages. Withincities, an increasing amount of product is soldin supermarkets (Reardon et al., 2003; Reardonet al., 2010). In the early stages of their development,supermarkets source products from alarge variety of farms but, over time, they linkto increasingly integrated chains.The examples provided here demonstrate thatthere are many ways to define foodsheds andto provide sustainable food supplies to cities.The top-down policy measures used by Chinaare very different from the American schemeto protect peri-urban agriculture through thecoordinated efforts of private citizens and nonprofits.The deliberate attempts in Brazil andMexico to bring local food into cities differfrom the more laissez faire approach in Nairobithat allows livestock to be brought within citylimits and slaughtered there, even though thiscontravenes established regulations. As citypopulations grow, it will become increasinglyimportant to discover and learn from successfulexamples.Prospects for livestock feedingurban populationsUrban populations are expected to continue togrow in numbers and proportion of the wholefrom the current 50 percent to 69 percent in2050 (UN DESA/Population Division, WorldUrbanization Prospects, 2009). As stated by theUN Population Fund (UNFPA) in 2010, “[the]Urban population will grow to 4.9 billion by2030. In comparison, the world’s rural populationis expected to decrease by some 28 millionbetween 2005 and 2030. At the global level, allfuture population growth will thus be in townsand cities. ... The urban population of Africa andAsia is expected to double between 2000 and2030. Meanwhile, the urban population of thedeveloped world is expected to grow relativelylittle.” UNFPA also stressed that the majorityof new urban dwellers will be poor.This presents a challenge to the livestock sector.As urban populations grow, there will be anincrease in demand for some time, although therate of growth will be limited by slow incomegrowth in poor countries. The urban poor obtainmuch of their livestock source food fromwithin or close to residential areas and it is reasonableto assume that they will continue to do72


Three human populations – three food security situationsso. However, there is a finite number of animalsthat can be kept within the residential area of acity, even when regulations are not applied tokeep them out. Even in cities that have appropriatedesign and zoning to support peri-urbanlivestock, there is still a ceiling on what can beproduced. To meet expanded demand, the areafrom which cities source their food is likely tobecome increasingly large.Ruminants, which tend to be kept near feedsupplies, may be located at quite some distance.This is not necessarily a problem for meat production,although transport economics willdictate the viable limits of foodsheds, and productionunits on average are likely to scale up.For dairy products, however, transport and processinglogistics will dictate both the size of the“milkshed” and the scale of enterprises that cansupply the city. In some places, it will continueto be viable to source milk through complexnetworks of small producers, as in India, whilein much of Africa and Latin America, this willonly be viable with investment in local coolingfacilities and refrigerated transport or othermethods of preservation.Much of the growth in food demand is likelyto be for poultry and pig products, and the needto keep food prices low will encourage continuedup-scaling of these systems. However, largepig and poultry units concentrated around citiesbring many problems such as disease risk,environmental pollution and animal welfareconcerns. There are good reasons for their productionunits to be scattered, in order to avoiddisease spread or the risk of financial disaster ifthere is an outbreak, and to be located in differentplaces around the world where productioneconomies are most promising.Economic forces also may push large-scalelivestock units away from densely populatedareas, since land in these places is scarce andexpensive. Studies in the USA have shown thatfarms in and near towns are generally smaller,produce more per hectare, have more diverseenterprises, and are more focused on high-valueproduction than those further away (Heimlichand Bernard, 1993; Heimlich, 1988; Heimlichand Brooks, 1989). However, products suchas vegetables and fruit, which can be marketeddirectly, have a greater price advantage in beingproduced close to town than most livestockproducts (Lopez et al., 1988).The most likely prospect is that there will bean ever-expanding series of production ringsaround large urban areas reflecting returns perunit of land, with the most productive and valuablecrops (horticulture) and livestock (organiceggs and specialist animals) closest to cites, andlarger commoditized units increasingly far away.The bulk of new city supplies of livestock productswill need to come from intensive systems,because poor city dwellers need relatively cheapfood, and this cannot be produced extensivelyin large quantities within reach of cities. Smallscaleproducers may find themselves unable tocompete with prices or standards, particularlywhere they are few in number and have limitedprice negotiation power (Knips, 2006).The points made previously about prospectsfor smallholder mixed farmers apply here aswell. The opportunities for smallholder farmersto supply cities are specific to systems andcertain countries, such as dairying in parts of theworld where the informal market is strong, andproduction of small animals during the periodwhen cities are expanding. Although the urbanwealthy will be in the minority, they will stillexist in sufficient numbers to exert substantialdemand. They may continue to drive the demandfor welfare and for local livestock breedsproduced traditionally (Otte et al., 2008). Thispresents an opportunity for some smallholderlivestock producers to increase their income levelsrather than lose out to industrial producers.It is likely that large and very large units willincreasingly predominate in feeding cities. However,intensive livestock will need to becomemuch better at dealing with externalities frompollution, food safety hazards and zoonotic diseases,issues that are discussed in later chapters.73


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Security©FAO/PPLPIKey pointson threepopulationsThe three populations examined in this sectionrepresent a continuum in the contribution oflivestock to food security. Societies that dependon livestock, primarily grazing animals, for theirmost important source of livelihood and foodsecurity are shaped by the management of theirlivestock. Small-scale mixed farmers use livestockas part of a diverse livelihoods portfolio,seldom the main source of income or food butimportant because of their flexibility of use, assetvalue and ability to convert roughage andby-products into human-edible food. Urbanpopulations, particularly those in large cities, areprimarily consumers of livestock source foodsthat may be produced far away from the city.Livestock-dependent societiesPastoralists and ranchers. Pastoralists, thelargest number of livestock-dependent peopleat around 120 million, rely on their livestockto provide food, income, transport and fuel.Ranchers, although fewer in number than pastoralists,make an important contribution to thesupply of livestock products in their countriesand the world through animals that they keepprimarily as an income source. For both of thesegroups, animals convert human-inedible forageinto human-edible protein and so contributepositively to the protein balance. By supportingtheir own population and generating surplus forexport, livestock-dependent societies contributeto the world’s supply of food as well as theirown food access.Systems under pressure. The global land areaavailable for grazing is close to its biological limitfor production under the prevailing climaticand soil fertility conditions, putting pastoralistsystems under pressure. The area available forextensive grazing is unlikely to expand becauseof competition from agriculture and biofuel,human settlement and nature conservation. Decreasedand more variable rainfall may requirechanges in management to cope with additionalinstability, while also creating new animal healthchallenges for these systems.Investment and diversification. Existing74


Three human populations – three food security situationslevels of production from livestock-dependentsocieties should be protected because of theircontribution to the food supply and the proteinbalance. Investment in securing their accessto markets is important as this offers livestockowners the opportunity to gain greater valuefrom what they produce and to manage risk bymanaging stocking levels. The case of Mongoliaillustrates that even highly livestock-dependentsocieties can be expected to become less dependenton livestock in the future. The current trendis a gradual movement of people into towns andaway from pastoral agriculture. For those whochoose to remain in rural areas, tourism, recreationand payment for environmental servicessuch as wildlife conservation and carbon sequestrationinto grassland all offer complementaryways for livestock keepers to earn income.Small-scale mixed farmersIntegrated system. Livestock are a smallerpart of the livelihoods portfolio for small-scalemixed farmers than they are in livestock-dependentsocieties, but they are still important.Livestock are managed as part of an integratedand tightly-woven system, in a way that fits theneeds of the farm family, the available labourand the demands of other enterprises. Animalsprovide food, income, traction, manure, socialcapital, financial assets and a means of recyclingcrop wastes. They bring value, versatility and resilienceto mixed farming households, which aremore robust and food secure with animals thanthey would be without them.Rural livelihoods. Small-scale mixed farmsremain enormously important because of thelarge number of rural households they feed andprovide with livelihoods. They also contributeto the food supply of developing countries anduse and recycle resources effectively. Policies,public and private investments, and technologyhave supported small-scale dairying in Indiaand parts of East Africa, where peri-urbansmall-scale dairy producers have good connectionsto milk markets and reasonable access toanimal health services. However, most smallscalefarmers face limits to intensification, fewhave managed to upscale or specialize to a pointwhere they can advance economically, and manydepend partly on off-farm employment for theirfood security.Limited potential. The case of Nepal illustratesboth the benefits of livestock and the constraintsfaced by small-scale mixed farmers. Lack of opportunityor capital to increase farm sizes, limitedassets and therefore limited access to credit, lackof investment capital, limited land availability, reducedaccess to communal land, higher unit coststhan those of large producers, and restricted opportunitiesto market produce through physicaldistance or barriers imposed by quality and safetyrequirements are all factors that prevent manysmall-scale farmers in many places from expandingor intensifying their production.Competition from large-scale producers.The supply of food to growing cities is an importantgrowth areas in demand for livestockproducts, but here small-scale producers facestrong competition from large-scale producerswith intensive farms. Peri-urban small-scalefarmers tend to be very successful at supplyingurban populations in the early stages of demandgrowth, but less so as food safety and land useregulations become stricter. To compete successfully,they need to be credible competitors. Forsome, it is possible to become contract farmersto larger operations; for others, innovative approachesmay offer the chance to access niche orspecialist markets. For the remainder, especiallyin fast-growing developing countries, futureprospects may be limited.City populationsUrban demand for livestock. Half the world’spopulation lives in urban areas, and this proportionis estimated to increase to about 70 percentby mid-century. Urbanization has been associatedwith a rising demand for livestock products,for the most part because urban people areon average richer than rural dwellers. However,poor urban dwellers eat far less livestock sourcefood than their richer counterparts and many75


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securityare highly food insecure. Countries with growingurban populations as well as rising wealthmust deal with two concurrent food securityproblems – a large proportion of the populationthat is undernourished but also a growingnumber of people who consume more than theyneed for health or have poorly balanced diets.Feeding cities. The location of livestock productionand the shape of livestock market chainsare increasingly driven by the growth of cities.The cases of the USA, Kenya and China illustratethree approaches taken to feeding cities.Their national policies have been, respectively,a market-driven economy combined with strictland-use regulations, a laissez faire market economywith strong informal market chains, and acentrally-planned economy in which the objectiveis to have a high level of food self-sufficiencywithin tightly defined “foodsheds”. Whileeach has applied a different policy approach, allface the challenge of feeding expanding urbanpopulations from what are likely to become increasinglylarge food supply areas.Intensification issues. The need to keep foodprices low for urban populations drives continuedup-scaling and intensification of livestock,particularly of pig and poultry production.However, large livestock units concentratedaround cities bring problems of disease risk,environmental pollution and animal welfareconcerns. Intensive livestock will need to dealmore effectively with externalities from pollution,food safety hazards and zoonotic diseases.Environmental regulations and the need to mitigaterisk may also encourage production unitsto disperse, while economic forces tend to pushlarge-scale livestock units away from denselypopulated areas where land is expensive.Urban wealthy and smallholder opportunity.Although the urban wealthy are in the minority,they exist in sufficient numbers to exertsubstantial demand and will continue to do so aspopulations grow. They will continue to drivethe demand for welfare and for local livestockbreeds produced traditionally. This presentsan opportunity for some smallholder livestockproducers to increase their income levels ratherthan lose out to industrial producers.76


Feeding the future©FAO/Giuseppe Bizzarri


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Security©FAO/Giulio NapolitanoProducingenough foodWe can safely assume two things about the next40 years: the demand for livestock products willcontinue to grow, and it will become increasinglychallenging to meet that demand. At somepoint, perhaps as soon as 2050, it is estimatedthat there will be 9.15 billion people to feed, 1.3times as many as in 2010 (UN Population Division,2009). Much of the new population willbe urban (UNFPA, 2010). Based on estimatespublished in 2006, the expanded population isexpected to consume almost twice as much animalprotein as today. While the projections arefor a lower annual rate of growth than occurredduring the livestock revolution, doubling supplywould still place a considerable burden onalready strained natural resources. This, in turn,would drive up the prices of livestock productsand threaten food access by the poor.However, there is a great deal of waste in foodsystems. Natural resources are not always convertedefficiently into meat, milk or eggs, and agreat deal of the food currently produced doesnot reach the plate. Improving efficiency andminimizing waste throughout livestock valuechains could go a long way towards meetingincreased demand. This chapter reviews the assumptionson which the projected demand forfood is based and discusses how accurate theyare likely to be. It then examines the three mainsystems in which livestock source food is producedto identify where efficiency might be improvedand waste reduced.How much livestock sourcefood will be needed?The most complete published projections at thetime of writing (FAO, 2006c) suggest that in2050, 2.3 times as much poultry meat and between1.4 and 1.8 times as much of other livestockproducts will be consumed as in 2010(Table 16). The additional demand beyond thatexpected from population growth will resultfrom increases in income encouraging a higherconsumption per person. The largest growthis expected in developing countries, which areanticipated to overtake developed countries intheir total consumption of livestock products.The figures in Table 16 assume that purchas-78


Feeding the futuretable 16Projected total consumption of meat and dairy products2010 2020 2030 2050 2050/2010(million tonnes)WorldAll meat 268.7 319.3 380.8 463.8 173%Bovine meat 67.3 77.3 88.9 106.3 158%Ovine meat 13.2 15.7 18.5 23.5 178%Pig meat 102.3 115.3 129.9 140.7 137%Poultry meat 85.9 111.0 143.5 193.3 225%Dairy not butter 657.3 755.4 868.1 1 038.4 158%Developing countriesAll meat 158.3 200.8 256.1 330.4 209%Bovine meat 35.1 43.6 54.2 70.2 200%Ovine meat 10.1 12.5 15.6 20.6 204%Pig meat 62.8 74.3 88.0 99.2 158%Poultry meat 50.4 70.4 98.3 140.4 279%Dairy not butter 296.2 379.2 485.3 640.9 216%Percent of total consumptionin developing countries%100806040200BovinemeatOvinemeatPigmeatPoultrymeat2010 2050DairySource: FAO, 2006c. Some calculations by authors.Note these figures are based on World Population Prospects: The 2002 Revision.ing power and eating habits will follow patternsbroadly similar to those recorded in recent years.As changes in any of these drivers could changethe projections, each of them will be examinedin turn, starting with the population estimates.Population estimates. In 2002, the UN projecteda population of 6.83 billion in 2010 and8.91 billion in 2050 with a peak population of9.2 billion, possibly in 2075. In 2008, the figuresfor 2010 to 2050 were revised slightly upwards,as shown in Table 17. However, the growthbetween 2010 and 2050 is virtually identical inboth estimates, at 130 percent and 132 percentrespectively. Using the new population estimates,the total demand for livestock productsmight be expected to increase slightly, but thegrowth between 2010 and 2050 should be veryclose to what is shown in Table 16. On the basisof population growth, therefore, it seemsreasonable to use the current projections of demandfor livestock products. The assumptionsrelated to purchasing power of livestock productswill be examined next.Consumption growth. The projected growth inconsumption per person, shown in Table 18, isbased on total consumption figures from Table16 and the 2002 population estimates on whichthose projections were based. The 2007–08 economiccrisis temporarily reduced the growthrate of GDP and therefore the purchasing powerfor livestock products, but expectations are thatthe effect will not be prolonged and that averagelong-term growth will be as expected.Production costs. Purchasing power is also affectedby the price of livestock products, whichin turn is affected by the cost of production. Thelatter could increase if feed and fuel energy becomemore expensive, water becomes scarcer orlivestock value chains are increasingly requiredto bear the costs of the negative externalitiesthey create. All of these are possible. Crops thatcan be used as both food and feed are likely toincrease in price (Thornton, 2010), since increasedyields will depend in part on fossil fuelsand scarce minerals. Competition for bioenergyalso may drive up prices, although new technol-79


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securitytable 17Projected human population from 2002 and 2008 estimates2010 2020 2030 2050 Growth2010 to 2050(population billions)2002 projections 6.83 7.54 8.13 8.91 130%2008 projections 6.91 7.67 8.31 9.15 132%Sources: World Population Prospects 2002 and 2008.table 18Projected consumption of livestock products per billion people based on2002 population estimates2010 2020 2030 2050 Growth2010 to 2050Human population billions 6.83 7.54 8.13 8.91(Consumption million tonnes per billion people)Bovine meat 9.85 10.25 10.93 11.93 121%Ovine meat 1.94 2.08 2.28 2.64 136%Pig meat 14.98 15.29 15.98 15.79 105%Poultry meat 12.58 14.72 17.65 21.69 173%Dairy 96.24 100.19 106.77 116.55 121%Sources: FAO, 2006c; World Population Prospects, 2002. Some calculations by authors.ogy is likely to make it possible to use a widerrange of non-food inputs to produce biofuel.Water availability is also a serious consideration,since the proportion of people living in waterstressedregions is expected to rise to 64 percentin 2025 compared to 38 percent in 2002 (Rosegrantet al., 2002) and livestock are a major userof fresh water, currently estimated at 20 percentof green water flow 4 (Deutsch et al., 2010). Livestockproduction creates externalities throughwater pollution and emission of greenhousegases – costs for which it does not currentlyhave to account. Research and pilot projects areexploring the extent to which environmental4Green water is the precipitation on land that is stored in the soil ortemporarily stays on top of the soil or vegetation. It is the source fromwhich crops draw their water.services provided by livestock, such as soil carbonsequestration through grazing land management(Conant and Paustian, 2002 ; Conant,2010; Henderson et al., in press), as well as moreefficient recycling practices such as biogas production,could mitigate environmental problemsand associated costs.Combining all of these factors, there is a strongpossibility that prices of livestock products willincrease. Projections by OECD and FAO suggestthat average prices of poultry meat and beefwill be higher in real terms during 2010–19 thanthey were in 1997–2006, with limits in supply,higher feed costs and rising demand all contributingto the effect (OECD-FAO, 2010). Averagedairy prices in real terms are expected tobe 16–45 percent higher in 2010–19 comparedto 1997–2006. If this happens, it could reduce80


Feeding the futureaccessibility particularly for poor urban dwellersand result in a change in diet for the lesswell-off, including more vegetable protein andcheaper cuts of meat. The possibilities for improvedtechnology to increase productivity arediscussed in the next section.Price of livestock protein. The relative price oflivestock protein and substitute proteins alsoaffects the demand for livestock products. Thebiggest direct competitor is fish, which is estimatedto provide 22 percent of the protein intakein sub-Saharan Africa (FAO, 2006d) and 50percent or more in some small island developingstates and some ten other countries (FAO,2008c). In the past 20 years, fish consumptionper person has remained fairly stable (FAO,2008c) while consumption of livestock productshas grown, but this could change if relativeprices change.With marine stocks dwindling and caught seafish more expensive, sea and inland aquaculturehave become more important. Marine aquacultureproduction grew from 16.4 to 20.1 billiontonnes between 2002 and 2006, and inland aquaculturefrom 24 to 31.6 billion tonnes duringthe same period (FAO, 2008c) with two-thirdsof all production in China. Aquaculture is nowestimated to be responsible for almost 50 percentof fish consumption and it is set to overtakecapture fisheries as a source of food fish (FAO,2010b).Some farmed fish are highly efficient feedconverters of the same feeds used for livestock(fishmeal, soya and cereals), take little space and,in some cases, do not require fresh water. Thereare problems associated with intensive rearingsuch as contamination of the marine environmentwith algae, over-use of antibiotics, overfishingto provide low-value catch fish as feed,and contamination of fish with toxic chemicals.If these can be solved (Black, 2001; Stokstad,2004), farmed fish have the potential to take alarger share of protein consumption.Insects caught in the wild are consumed byover 2 billion people in Latin America, Asia andOceania (FAO, undated), contributing to foodsupply and to the livelihoods of those who harvestthem. Edible insects have the potential tobe “farmed” and recent research suggests thatthey could be more efficient and produce lowermethane emission than livestock (Oonincx etal., 2010).Meat produced “in vitro” (artificially) offers apossible future competitor to meat from animalsfor those who wish to consume meat sustainablyor have concerns about animal welfare. It has thepotential advantages of using less water and energyand being more welfare-friendly than rearinganimals, but the technology has some wayto go before it can produce marketable meat.Current techniques involve growing culturesfrom stem cells of farm animals into 3-dimensionalmuscle structures. Stem cells are currentlyobtained from muscle removed by biopsy andmultiplied in culture, although it may in timebe possible to maintain an independent stock ofstem cells.It is difficult to bulk up the cells, as each cellonly divides a certain number of times (Jones,2010), and while growth media not containinganimal products are available, they are expensive.The resulting meat has poor texture andwill need to have fat cells grown together withthe muscle to improve its taste as well as addedmicronutrients before it is viable as a meat substitute.It is also expensive to produce, costingbetween €3 300 per tonne and €3 500 per tonne(The In Vitro Meat Consortium, 2008). However,this is a relatively new technology with relativelylittle spent on research thus far. Within thenext 40 years, it may well become a part of thediet for some consumers.Consumer lifestyle. Voluntary lifestyle choices,particularly by wealthier consumers, could resultin consumption of fewer livestock products,particularly red meat. The newly wealthy havetended to eat more livestock products, particularlyred meat and fatty foods, while some of theestablished wealthy tend to gradually diversifytheir dietary habits towards different cuisines81


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securityand sources, “green” products and healthierdiets. The current projections take these trendsinto account to some extent. McMichael et al.(2007) suggest that the average global consumptionof meat should be approximately 90 g a day,compared with the current 100 g, and that notmore than 50 g should come from red meat fromruminants. If this target were achieved, it wouldlower the peak demand for meat. However,government-sponsored nutritional and healthyeatingprogrammes have had limited success inchanging dietary preference. It may be possibleto envisage policies that could reduce over-consumptionof meat through taxes and legislation,but it is impossible to imagine any economicincentive or legislative process that would notrestrict access by poor consumers, who wouldbenefit nutritionally from consuming animalproducts of high quality. Therefore any changesto diet are likely to be driven primarily througheducation, choice and exposure to healthy food.Strategies to bring healthy food within closerreach of everyone in the urban communitycould be helpful in this regard. In the UK, it isnot the government alone but coalitions of thepublic and private sector that are driving currentchanges in consumption (Harding, 2010).Pulling together all of the factors mentionedhere, it seems likely that FAO’s 2006 consumptionprojections represent a ceiling. Demographicand economic trends may act to keeplivestock consumption at the forecast levels,while production costs and competition particularlyfrom fish are likely to dampen consumptiongrowth for livestock products. For the timebeing, it seems wise to assume that the demandfor meat may grow by as much as 1.7 times andfor milk by 1.6 times, as projected, and to considerwhether it is feasible to produce that much.Reducing wasteThe growth in production that took place duringthe livestock revolution was largely a resultof an increase in the number of animals. Demandgrew so fast that it was difficult for productivityimprovements to keep up. Now, itis hard to envisage meeting projected demandby keeping twice as many poultry, 80 percentmore small ruminants, 50 percent more cattleand 40 percent more pigs, using the same levelof natural resources that they currently use. Partof any increase will need to be driven by effortsto convert more of the existing natural resourcesinto food on the plate. In other words, efficiencyneeds to increase or, looking from another angle,there is a need to reduce waste of natural resources.In both cases, the end point is the same,but focussing on waste puts a spotlight on whatis thrown away and might be recycled.Waste occurs throughout livestock food systems.It can be due to production inefficiencyresulting from disease or poor feeding. It alsocan result from loss of food between productionand the plate, which may amount to as much as33 percent for all global food production (Stuart,2009). Food lost at or near the point of consumption,because of food safety and qualityrequirements, is a problem, but it will not be addressedhere because there is little that the livestocksector can do about it. Losses that occuron the farm or in marketing and primary processingof livestock commodities are within theinfluence of the livestock sector and thereforewill receive more attention.Two issues related to waste reduction can beassessed further.Choice of livestock system. If a larger percentof the world’s livestock protein were producedwithin grazing and low-intensity mixed systems,would this leave more plant protein to beeaten by humans? According to FAO (2009b),the reality is not that simple. The main problemof food security is not currently one of supplybut of demand. The 925 million undernourishedpeople are not undernourished because theglobal food supply is deficient, but because theycannot afford to buy food or they live in placesor societies where it is hard to obtain. Reducingthe grain fed to livestock would not ensure thatthese people could access food. Neither would itautomatically result in more plant protein being82


Feeding the futuregrown, as it might reduce the prices for thosecommodities to a level where it would be less attractiveto grow them, although the higher numberof people to be fed and increasing resourcepressure may change this in future. Intensivesystems also have economies of scale that makeit possible to produce livestock protein in largequantities relatively cheaply, an important considerationfor growing urban populations. Theless intensive systems are an excellent option tosupply food to rural populations with access toshort food chains, or to consumers who can affordto buy “green” products, but they are lesspractical for the majority of city populations.Livestock and waste recycling. Livestock have arole as recyclers of waste. Mixed farming systemsare known to be particularly good at this, buteven intensive production systems use by-products.For example, distiller’s dried grains withsolubles (DDGSs), a by-product of biofuel production,can substitute for grain in animal feed,particularly dairy and beef. In doing so, it contributesto the food balance and helps improvethe economic viability of biofuel production. Intensivelivestock also can use other industrial byproducts,including some from the food industry,provided they are processed appropriately.Inefficiencies and waste arise in different waysand locations in the three food systems discussedin earlier chapters. We therefore returnto the three food security situations – livestockdependentsocieties, small-scale mixed farmers,and city dwellers – with their associated livestockproduction and marketing chains, to examinecritical areas of inefficiency for each situationand to suggest where the emphasis mightlie in addressing the inefficiencies.Livestock-dependent societiesThe pastoralist and ranching systems associatedwith livestock dependent societies are welladapted to their environments and quite efficientat using the forage they are able to access.Survival of animals is as much a yardstick ofefficiency as production per animal, and traditionalsystems as well as ranching adopt foragemanagement and conservation systems that willtake animals through severe winters and dryseasons. In the future, the environmental restrictionson these systems are likely to persist oreven worsen. Thornton and Gerber (2010) identifydroughts, floods, temperature stress andreduced water availability as serious problemsfor grazing systems – events that are difficult topredict and even more difficult to mitigate. Thefollowing identifies areas that have possibilitiesfor improvement.Pasture management. Pasture restoration or,even better, good management that keeps pasturesfrom being degraded in the first place andavoids the waste and high cost of restoration,offer the possibility of sequestering carbon andmitigating greenhouse gas emissions (Thorntonand Herrero, 2010; Conant, 2010). Unfortunately,pasture degradation seems hard to prevent,particularly in pastoralist areas where institutionsfor resource management are weak. In additionto well known problems associated withloss of land to agriculture and decisions by herdersto overstock, the impacts of climate changeare adding extra disruption.Animal health. Disease is an enormous sourceof inefficiency and waste. Diseases such as pestedes petits ruminants, contagious bovine andcaprine pleuropneumonia, swine fevers andsome tick borne-diseases can kill animals thathave been reared for months or years beforethey are fully productive, while internal parasites,tick damage, foot-and-mouth disease andabortions caused by brucellosis can reduce theirability to grow or produce milk. Zoonotic diseaseswhich are passed from animals to people,such as brucellosis and tuberculosis, reduce theability of people to benefit from their food.Reaching livestock-dependent societies withwell organized vaccination campaigns and essentialdrugs is critical to prevent production waste.This is logistically possible but institutionallychallenging with problems in both supply and83


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securityveterinary services of various kinds have beentried and have been partly successful, but willneed to be more sustainably supported in a varietyof forms to have a long-term impact on reducingthe waste caused by animal health problems.©FAO/Giuseppe Bizzarridemand. During the Pan African RinderpestCampaign, thousands of cattle were vaccinatedannually, even in the most remote areas. Thishad a parallel benefit for sheep and goat ownerswhose animals could be vaccinated against otherdiseases at the same time but, when donor fundswere withdrawn, the service stopped. Evenwhen a supply chain for drugs and vaccines goesto every small town, providing ready accessfor livestock owners, many choose not to vaccinatetheir animals routinely, particularly thesmall animals of lower value. There is also limitedquality control over drugs and vaccines thatare sold in remote areas (Ngutua et al., undated;Leyland and Akwabai, undated), and many localsales merchants do not have suitable cold storageto keep the products in good condition.Governments often perceive that the cost ofmaintaining an animal health service in remoteareas is too high. Ranchers pay for private veterinaryservices but these services are oftencompletely absent for pastoralists. If global demandfor livestock food outstripped supply andthe value of products coming from livestockdependentsocieties increased, there could bea strong incentive to invest in animal health toprevent waste. Alternatively, investment in costsharingsystems, where farmers and the governmenteach contribute, could prove viable in someplaces (Mission East, 2010). Para-professionalTransportation infrastructure. Losses occurin marketing because of the long distances thatanimals and products must be transported. Poorroads and often the need to pass through conflictareas make it hard to provide reliable transportation.Animals travelling in poorly designedlorries without adequate water lose weight, sufferdehydration and bruising, and may die. Milkis in danger of spoilage unless local coolers andrefrigerated trucks are available. If prices are lowor transport unavailable, any excess milk thatcannot be consumed by calves or people will bewasted. There are technical solutions to theseproblems when a demand exists for the product.Milk coolers and alternative forms of preservationsuch as lactoperoxidase have been providedin remote places in Africa (FAO, 2005), reststops have been built where animals can be givenwater, and lorries are available that improve animalwelfare during transport. The challenge, asalways, is to find funds to invest in the necessaryinfrastructure and technology.Markets. From a food security perspective, anemphasis on markets is critical for livestock-dependentsocieties. Ranchers and governments indeveloped countries are very well aware of this.In pastoralist systems, innovative approachesto improving access to markets for live animalsand livestock products are essential and so areprogrammes to pay for environmental services.Together, these can be an incentive to reduceproduction and transport losses, and providelivestock-dependent communities with themeans to co-finance animal health, pasture managementand better transport facilities.Small-scale mixed farmersSmall-scale mixed farmers are efficient at usingand recycling natural resources. Their animals84


Feeding the futureeat crop residues, kitchen scraps, snails andinsects. They grow forage at the edge of cropfields or around houses, or cut and carry it fromcommunal grazing areas, forests or the side ofthe road. Mixed farming is probably the mostenvironmentally benign agricultural productionsystem and it has a great deal to contributeto minimizing waste, especially with all ofthe opportunities it offers for nutrient recycling(LEAD, undated). Given the number of smallscalemixed farms, if most of them increasedtheir efficiency by even a small amount, it wouldbe beneficial for the global food supply and foodsecurity. However, there are currently three majorsources of waste that need to be addressed.Poor animal health. Animals on small-scalemixed farms have a high prevalence of “production”diseases such as external and internalparasites (Mukhebi, 1996; Over et al., 1992)and mastitis (TECA, undated; Byarugaba etal., 2008) that rarely cause death but always reduceperformance (Tisdell et al., 1999), as wellas zoonotic diseases such as brucellosis and TBthat cause human illness and production losses.These can generally be controlled if farmers investin basic prevention measures. Understandably,they tend to do this more for higher valueanimals such as dairy cows. Farmer cooperativeshave proved valuable for small-scale dairy farmersto obtain animal health inputs, as have projectsthat give or loan animals to these farmersbut require them to provide certain standards ofhousing and care.Poor feeding. Poor feeding is problematicon its own, but even more so when combinedwith animal health problems. When traditionallivestock breeds are reared in research stations,fed a balanced diet and provided with healthcare, they perform credibly compared to exoticbreeds (Mhlanga et al., 1999) and can out-performthose on mixed farms. Although a greatdeal of research has been done over the yearson feeding animals in mixed farming systems,and some crop-breeding programmes have improvedthe quality of stover (stems), the problemof feed shortage still persists. Recent workwith small-scale dairy farmers in Ethiopia foundthat they prioritized lack of feed over diseaseproblems (K. De Balogh, FAO, pers. comm.,based on unpublished research). Since one of themajor constraints for intensification of smallscalelivestock production is the lack of goodquality feed resources, it will be worth persistingwith research into ways to improve use oflocally available feed resources, especially thosenot competing with human food. There maybe long-term potential to breed for improvedability to digest cellulose (National ResearchCouncil, 2009). In Anand, India, through the effortsof the National Dairy Development Board(NDDB), milk production has been increasedsustainably by feeding diets containing cerealstraws, roughages and oilseed cakes. In Africa,427 million tonnes of cereal residues (based onFAOSTAT grain data and average ratios of grainto residues) and 9.2 million tonnes of oilseedcake are available annually (FAOSTAT), butthere is a logistical challenge to making it accessible.Exports of oilseed cake can be a strongcompetitor to domestic uses, but oilseed cakeis produced in plants processing the primaryproducts where it is not always easily accessibleto small-scale farmers.Post-harvest losses. A third source of loss ispost-harvest spoilage of products. Stuart (2009)suggests that more of the loss occurs at the retailend of the chain in developed countries, whilein developing countries more is lost on-farm.Spoilage on the farm is a particular concern fordairy farmers, and a great deal of effort has goneinto finding small-scale technology for preservingmilk (FAO, 2005). Meanwhile, Indian dairyfarmers in several states benefit from daily ortwice daily collection of their milk.As previously discussed, marketing theirproducts is a common constraint for small-scalemixed farmers. While for livestock-dependentsocieties, the challenge is mainly one of distanceto markets, small-scale mixed farmers face prob-85


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securitylems of barriers posed by food safety and qualitydemands and of a concentrated market chainthat makes it difficult for them to compete. Theimportance of this in the context of waste is thatwithout a market outlet, farmers have little incentiveto experiment with new technology thatwill make them more efficient. Food quality andsafety regulations can contribute to minimizinglosses further along the chain, by reducing wasteat slaughterhouses and retail points. Supportingsmall-scale mixed farmers in improving theirquality standards and biosecurity, while at thesame time continuing to recycle waste efficiently,would be a very positive contribution to food securityfor the future. Not every small farmer willbe able to benefit but for some, traditional productscertified as safe or from a valued productionsystem have the potential to command a higherprice and attract investment into marketing.Feeding cities from large-scaleintensive productionMuch of the future demand for livestock products,particularly for urban populations, willhave to be met by integrated value chains servedby intensive medium- and large-scale productionunits with the potential to increase productionper animal, per unit of land and per unit of time.These food systems are economically competitivebut can be highly wasteful of natural resources.However, they do have the potential to improve.A large part of the loss is at the retail end ofthe value chain, to meet the demands placed onsupermarkets and fast-food retailers for qualityand freshness (Stuart, 2009). Feeding waste foodto animals is severely restricted in developedcountries because of concerns about the safetyand variable quality of the waste (Kawashima,2002). While livestock source food is not safeto feed to animals unless very thoroughly processed,because of the risk of disease spread,there are other examples of animals being usedto recycle other kinds of organic waste. Onescheme recycled 30 000 tonnes of waste a yearfrom the USA city of Philadelphia through pigsowned by a cooperative in New Jersey. This wasan estimated 8 to 10 percent of Philadelphia’smunicipal waste (Maykuth, 1998).Food safety crises are frequent causes of wastein developed country food chains, examples beingthe 2009 withdrawal of ground beef fromCalifornia markets because of e-coli contamination,the 2010 contamination of milk productsby melamine in China and the 2011 contaminationof eggs by dioxin in eggs in Germany. Thereis constant upgrading of safety managementthroughout food chains but since consumersand retailers pursue a near-zero risk policy, thiskind of waste will always exist to some extent.Moving further down the chain, there is wasteduring slaughter and processing. Some of this isdue to parts of the animal or whole carcases beingcondemned or downgraded for health reasonsor bruising (Martinez et al., 2007; Tiongand Bing, 1989). Investment in animal healthand welfare can prevent some of these losses.At the farm, greater use of the agro-industrialby-products that make up part of animalfeed could reduce the amount of human-ediblefood fed to livestock. Intensive livestock in theemerging economies make quite effective useof agro-industrial by-products. For example,in India’s poultry industry, feed manufacturersinclude waste from the food industry, the gumand starch industry, fruit and vegetable processingand the alcohol industry in poultry feed(Balakrishnan, 2002). This forms quite a largeproportion of India’s feed input (H. Steinfeld,pers. comm. based on recent unpublished analysis),while the Malaysian ruminant industry usescrop residues and food industry by-products inruminant feeds. However, there are very strictrestrictions on the use of the livestock industry’sown by-products. For example, meat and bonemeal is forbidden to be used in animal feed becauseof its potential to spread BSE. In the UK,approximately 60 000 tonnes annually of ashfrom incineration of meat and bone meal is sentto landfill (Environment Agency, UK, undated).Feeding and health systems are also importantto exploit the genetic potential for feed conversion.Therefore another way to limit waste is to86


Feeding the futureensure that all farmers move closer to the standardsset by the most productive. Ruminantsystems still have some potential to increasetheir productivity through breeding (Thornton,2010), particularly if the balance of grainto roughage can be reduced. Some would arguethat feedlot cattle are fed too much grain fortheir own health or for optimum productivity.Animal welfare standards, which are becomingmore demanding in developed countries, mayincreasingly influence the limits on feed conversionand other productivity improvements. Forexample, there will be no battery production ofeggs in the EU after 2015, and the use of bovinesomatotrophin has been banned there for severalyears.It is possible to recycle livestock wastethrough large-scale anaerobic digesters that turnsolid food waste into biogas, or large-scale compostersto turn food waste into compost that canthen be used as farm fertilizer (Harvey, 2010).China has emphasized biogas production andsome European countries are placing emphasison using biogas technology (Kaiser, undated).In addition to feed conversion, indicatorsthat measure the environmental impact of productionare also important, because this affectsthe quality of natural resources on which productiondepends. Manure from pig and dairyenterprises contributes to greenhouse gas emissionsthrough the handling and storage of slurry(Henderson et al., in press), but this can beprocessed through biogas units. Manure fromgrazing livestock creates N 2O emissions whenit is broken down by microbes (Steinfeld et al.,2006). Beef is the most emission-intensive meatwhile chicken is the least (Fiala, 2008). Improvedproductivity, on the whole, reduces emissionsper unit of meat produced.There is quite a strong potential to reducewaste throughout the food systems that supplylivestock source food to cities. At each point onthe chain, technology is either available or beinginvestigated that could be helpful in this regard.In both developed and emerging economies,the private sector is making quite substantialinvestments in technology that reduces wasteand saves costs. The role of the public sectoris to provide an environment in which there isan incentive to minimize waste throughout themarket.However, this does require a balancing actamong welfare (which may indicate less intensivefarming), productivity (more intensivefarming), emission reduction (less beef) andsafety (certified biosecure farming and no recyclingof animal products through livestock).Middle class consumers have not yet begun totake an interest in waste from livestock systems.Once they do, it may lead to a small overall reductionin the demand for animal products, anda small shift in demand towards food productswith waste-saving credentials.This chapter has thrown up several challengesfor the livestock sector, and some possible directions,such as efforts to minimize waste and increaseefficiency, that will contribute to assuringlivestock’s role in food security for the future.The next chapter looks at possible directions forbuilding resilience into a sector that is experiencingthe growing pains of increased demand in aglobalizing world that brings with it new threatsof disease and external economic shocks as wellas those caused by more extreme weather eventslinked to climate change.©FAO/Olivier Thuillier87


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Security©FAO/Giulio NapolitanoBuildingresilienceThe livestock revolution was characterized byrapid increases in production, driven by risinglivestock populations and income on the demandside and cheap feed and fuel on the supplyside. Today, demand continues to grow inspite of economic shocks, but supply conditionshave changed – a scenario that has profound implicationsfor the way the livestock sector willdevelop and the role it will play in food securityin the future. As the previous chapter discussed,the pressures on natural resources may force theprice of livestock source foods to rise, makingthem less accessible to the poor, but it also proposedthat improving efficiency and reducingwaste in livestock production will make importantcontributions to ensuring the supply andaccessibility of livestock source food.Today’s livestock sector must be prepared torespond with a shift in focus and investmenttowards building greater resilience into foodsystems, meaning an increased ability to dealwith change and recover from shocks. There isincreasing concern about the instability of foodsupply and access in what are termed “protractedcrises” (FAO, 2010a). This chapter thereforereviews some of the factors that may create vulnerabilityin livestock food systems and looks atways in which they can be mitigated.Livestock have a certain inherent resilience asruminants and camelids can withstand a widerange of temperature and moisture conditionswhile poultry and pigs are less adaptable to heatand cold but can easily be housed. Notwithstandingthe adaptability of animals, however, livestockfood systems face hazards from several sources.Climate change is creating new shocks and trends;boths are certain but hard to predict and have potentialto make the production environment uncertainin ways similar to El Niño events. It alsowill probably create future hotspots, with highertemperatures and lower rainfall which will affectwater availability and average temperatures, bothcritical to crop production.The following section looks at three potentialhazards the livestock sector faces: water shortages,spread of persistent or emergence of newdiseases including those transmissible to humans,and market volatility, particularly for pro-88


Feeding the futureducers trying to import feed or export food, andfor food-importing countries and cities.Water shortageWith an increasingly large population living underconditions of water stress (Rosegrant et al.,2002), agricultural systems will need to developmore built-in resilience particularly related towater use, and some crops may need to be relocatedor different ones grown. Irrigated cropsoccupied around 20 percent of the arable area in2002, an increase from 16 percent in 1980, butthere were large regional differences.In sub-Saharan Africa, only 4 percent of arableland was irrigated in 2002 compared with42 percent in South Asia (FAO, 2008b). In thefuture, irrigated cropland may need to expand iflarger areas become water stressed, but this irrigatedagriculture will only be viable if it is highlyefficient and more proficient at using water andpreventing pollution from runoff than much oftoday’s production. Steinfeld et al. (2010) identifieda number of policy instruments whichreflect scarcity, such as water pricing, pollutiontaxes and state recovery of the maintenancecosts of irrigation systems. The success of somewater-scarce places, such as Israel, shows howmuch can be done by careful use of water andrecycling water resources.Livestock systems are affected by water andtemperature ranges but, in addition to directchanges in response to climate change, they canbe expected to undergo second order changesthat follow the shifts in agriculture.• Grazing systems. The location of grazingand browsing livestock has always been determinedin relation to crops, with livestocktaking the land that is too wet, dry, mountainous,distant or stony for cultivation.• Intensive systems. Animals on feedlots tendto be located near the source of crops oragro-industrial by-products. Intensive pigsand poultry have more flexibility and, sincetheir feed is brought to them, they providehigh returns on each unit of land and canbe located quite close to urban areas. Theyalso have the potential to relocate to areasthat are marginal for crops, perhaps tothe fringes of deserts where solar poweredair-conditioning and pumps for waste mayprovide a solution to rising energy costs.However “landless” livestock (those thatare housed and take up little physical space)are major users of water through their feed,which means the efficiencies in crop wateruse will factor into livestock systems.Although the livestock sector is in some sensea secondary responder to water shortage problems– due to its responding to changes in croppingsystems – it can also take positive actions todeal with pressures on water stress. In livestockdependentsocieties, pasture improvement canhelp livestock keepers adapt to climate change,and changes in land tenure may also be necessaryto provide pastoralists the incentive to makenecessary investments (Steinfeld et al., 2010).Cropland for food crops is already becomingsqueezed by growing civil and industrial infrastructure,biofuel needs and nature conservation.If it must also be farmed differently to conservewater, there may be even less left for livestock.More than ever, animals will need to fit into thegaps left by cropping, using residues and roughage,wasting as little as possible of scarce inputsand having the flexibility to cope with fluctuationsin crop yields. It may be necessary to rediscovercrops suitable for small-scale mixed farmingsystems so that more of their by-productsare available for livestock. Interactions betweenlivestock and crops, lost when systems scaledup and intensified, may need to be revisited, notsimply by returning to the past but by thinkinginnovatively about what is possible with the systemsof the future. All of this is a far cry from theearly days of the livestock revolution when feedappeared to be in limitless supply.Human and animal healththreatsSudden disease shocks are problematic for foodsupplies. Persistent diseases such as internal andexternal parasites or mastitis create vulnerabil-89


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securityity by eroding the production and income baseof livestock keepers. Certain animal and humandiseases are likely to expand their range as a resultof climate change, especially when they ortheir vectors (insects, mites and ticks) dependon warm annual temperatures and humidity.In new ecological niches, they will undoubtedlyfind new hosts to infect. Concern for newthreats to human health is setting the directionfor the major animal and public health initiativesof the international community, translating intovarious efforts in support of “One Health” andrelated initiatives (FAO/OIE/WHO/UNSIC/UNICEF/World Bank, 2008; Public Health ofCanada, 2009; CDC, 2010).To mitigate the risk of diseases, the focus of theanimal health system will need to change. Currently,the attention of animal health professionalsand finance systems is focussed on preventingthe transmission of diseases when outbreaksoccur, and the prevention of disease through importrestrictions, quarantine and screening, biosecuritymeasures, and damping down the impactand spread of diseases using vaccination whenit is available. Intervention measures to breaktransmission and prevention are important, butfor the food systems of the future it will not beenough to focus only on them. Neither confrontsthe root causes of disease emergence and,as a result, veterinary and public health systemsare constantly running to catch up with diseasesthat represent a threat to the stability of foodsupplies and to human health.To build sustainability and resilience, moreattention is needed to the drivers of disease.These fall into three areas, described in Box 9,each of which relates to a different kind of diseasethreat, creates a different kind of impact andtherefore requires a different kind of response.Building animal health and veterinary publichealth systems from knowledge of the driverswill make it possible for them to be more proactivein supporting food production. Food securityis an important concern to the internationalanimal health community but arguably a secondaryone to the concern of dealing with disease.However, well managed disease control initiativescan minimize the market shocks causedby livestock diseases or their control. This istranslating into research on drivers of disease,with more detailed contingency planning andbusiness response planning in developed countries,and increased investment in response capacityand biosecurity in developing countries.If successful these various initiatives would improvethe stability of food supplies, but there arestill major institutional and investment gaps tobe filled (Perry and Sones, 2008; McLeod andHonhold, 2010).Volatile markets for feed andlivestock productsFarmers no longer can rely on cheap feed. Priceshave risen since the height of the livestockrevolution and, equally important, they areunpredictable (Von Braun, 2008; Walker, 2010;BFREPA, 2010; Beef Magazine, 2008). The costof fuel, competition from human food, biofueland aquaculture, and climate shocks all contributeto these effects.Market volatility for livestock products canoccur because of disease shocks, other naturaldisasters, natural price cycles and economicshocks that reduce consumption. Longer termmarket changes occur when changes are madeto production systems to improve biosecurity,which often result in smallholders being excluded.As discussed in earlier chapters, small-scaleproducers and pastoralists at the end of longmarket chains are particularly vulnerable as theyhave very little control over the market. Someefforts can be made to connect them to more lucrativemarkets (e.g. contract farming, cooperativeaction, niche markets) and to exclude themfrom some of the shock effects (e.g. commoditytrading rather than disease free zones), but theyremain vulnerable to competition from largerplayers. Large producers and companies arealso vulnerable because of the size of the assetinvested but big companies have some potentialto diversify into feed, drugs, more than one speciesof livestock, or processed as well as fresh90


Feeding the futureBox 9Drivers of disease and possible responsesLand use. Big changes in the patterns of land usehave been driven by climate change, urbanizationand global movements of people in response toopportunities or crises. This allows disease agentsto move to new geographic areas with similar ecosystems,adapt and survive. Disease agents on themove cause food instability when they initiallyinfect naive animal populations. When a diseaseproblem is caused by land-use changes and humandemographic factors, it may not be possibleto prevent its moving into a new environment, butearly knowledge of a new problem makes it possibleto take steps to protect animals by promotingvaccination or biosecurity measures.Scaling up and intensification. Growing demandfor livestock products has meant scaling up and intensificationof livestock production and marketingsystems. Intensive livestock farms and traditional,extensive holdings in proximity pose risksto each other since diseases emerge, spread and arecontrolled differently in each type of system. Adisease agent may move from a dispersed populationof wild animals or extensively kept livestock,into an intensive system, where the possibilitiesof spread are many times greater. In addition, ifthe newly susceptible animals are from a singlegenotype, the invading agent can move throughthe population quickly. It finds opportunities totransmit in order to promote its own survival, andcontinues to adapt in response to ineffective controlstrategies imposed by humans such as misuseof antibiotics.A large intensive unit infected with a diseaseagent has the potential, if the disease escapes, toinfect many other farms as disease is transmittedthrough the air, on vehicles and clothes andthrough market chains. Occasionally, a changeto an existing intensively managed system createsthe conditions for a disease agent to become morewidespread in animals and pass to humans. Whenthe driver of disease is the production and marketingsystem rather than the natural environmentor climate change, prevention requires proactivechanges to livestock systems.Habitat change. The interface between wildlife,humans and livestock is changing, as humansencroach on wildlife habitat, or habitat becomesdegraded forcing wild animals to range further insearch of food and water, or wildlife are used asfood. As the contact between humans and wildlifebecomes closer, it provides the opportunity forviruses such as SARS and avian influenza or influenzato jump species and, in some cases, becomea new strain, gaining or decreasing in virulence asthey spread within the new host niche. Direct impactsmanifest as human sickness and death, butthere also can be enormous indirect effects fromefforts taken to contain the diseases. For example,measures that prevent the movement of animals,people or goods are hugely disruptive to globalfood chains and, in extreme cases, can have a shortbut significant impact on business, incomes andGDP. Health threats of this kind require excellentdisease intelligence, timely reporting and theability to mount a very rapid response should anoutbreak begin.91


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securityproducts. Good business strategy is the key tosurvival. Urban populations are very vulnerableto instability in market chains.The approach that China has taken to makingits mega-cities reasonably food self-sufficientthrough zoning and subsidies may be one wayto reduce vulnerability. Another is to limit monopoliesand reliance on a few concentrated supplychains and, instead, to spread the sources offood so that many nations and regions supplymany others.Increased ethical concerns such as mitigatingenvironmental damage and animal welfarerequirements are beginning to affect livestockfood supply. Currently the greatest effort inboth of these areas is being undertaken in developedcountries, particularly the EU (EUROPA,undated).On the environment side, Brazil has investedin poultry production units with neutral impacton carbon emissions. It also recently moved toban production of sugarcane in the Amazon area(BBC, 2009) and large supermarket chains andcattle companies have agreed to stop sourcingcattle from illegally cleared land (Meat Trade,2009). China and some European countries haveinvested in biogas plants, as discussed earlier.On the welfare side, the World Organisationfor Animal Health (OIE) has introduced sevenanimal welfare standards for terrestrial animalscovering transport, slaughter and culling (OIE,undated) and has a working group on animalwelfare. Developing country governments havemade limited investment in animal welfare initiatives,but there have been a number of specialinterest group initiatives.If “green” initiatives gain wider traction, theywill introduce new requirements into intensiveproduction that may make it more expensive inthe short term but should improve long-termsustainability.Building sustainable systemsIf the changes outlined above were unidirectionaland reasonably predictable, then it wouldbe possible to adjust through changes in technologyand management systems. But this is unlikely.We can expect climate events to becomemore frequent and more severe, with all of therelated effects on health and markets. This variabilityhits smallholders and livestock dependentcommunities worse than intensive producersbecause their resources are already stretched,which limits their potential to withstand prolongedcrises or adapt to new situations. Shoringup fragile societies indefinitely with emergencyaid is not an option nor is leaving them to starve.Those who continue to live in marginal areaswill need support in planning for their own futurelivestock production and sustaining theirfamilies and local communities. For growing urbanpopulations, larger and more intensive systemsbetter adapted to shocks are likely to be themain source of livestock protein for the future.Animal health strategies carry useful lessonsfor food security. They do not assume that it ispossible to predict and prepare for every changein conditions. However, well organized animalhealth systems have plans and resources in placeto respond to surprises. An important considerationfor food security is building in a sufficientmargin for error. If a system is set up touse 100 percent of the available resources andproduce at a high level in a “normal” year whenthings go well, then in a shock year, it will bebadly hit and there will be a big drop in production.If this happens only once, the system willadjust, but if shocks happen often, there will beno reserve to draw on and eventually the systemwill be unable to recover. We can see this, forexample, if rangelands are too heavily stockedto accommodate droughts and snowstorms and,at the same time, there is no built-in destockingprocess to allow the pasture to recover. The sameis true for smallholder systems where the loss ofcrops or animals over several seasons leaves familieswith no safety net on which to draw.Building preparedness into food systems requireschanging the approach to risk analysis.This means planning production with wider marginsof error and greater attention to what mighthappen if things fail, or emphasizing sustainable92


Feeding the futurerather than short-term productivity to accommodatethe possibility of failures or reduced levelsof production over more than one productioncycle. Rather than attempting to bring all to thehighest level of productivity, a sustainable goalfor mixed farming in particular might call forbringing lower performers up towards the middle.Some “slack” is needed in food systems tomaintain stable food supplies in spite of extremeweather events and other supply disruptions.There may be benefits from intensification withlimited concentration of production units, in orderto reduce disease risk and environmental pollution,although this may be unpopular becauseof the infrastructure costs involved.93


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Security©FAO/Pius Utomi EkpeiConclusionsLivestock are important to the food security ofmillions of people today and, as shown in thisreview, will be important to the food securityof millions more in the coming decades. Livestocksource food is not essential to human nutritionbut it is highly beneficial. In livestocksystems that primarily consume roughage andagro-industrial waste products, livestock add tothe food supply beyond what can be providedby crops. Moreover, they make a very importantcontribution to food access and stabilitythrough the income and products they provideto small-scale mixed farmers and pastoralists,the asset value of animals and their flexibility ofuse. The role that livestock play in feeding thefuture will be shaped by three distinct humanpopulations, each with its own particular needs,namely: urban dwellers, small-scale mixed farmersand livestock-dependent populations.Urban consumersThe largest and fastest growing population livesin towns and cities, and its demand for reasonablypriced meat, milk and eggs has been a stronginducement to intensify livestock food systemsso that economies of scale can be realized andmarket chains managed efficiently. If currentprojections prove accurate, the largest growthin human population will remain in large urbancentres, and the city populations will have evengreater influence on the nature of demand forlivestock products – the amount and type oflivestock source food that is consumed, the waythat farms and rangelands are managed, the distanceproducts travel and the prices that farmersare paid.Through its purchasing habits, this populationhas steadfastly supported global value chains forlivestock and livestock products and, in turn,has benefited from intensive livestock productionsystems. Yet these are the same systems thatcurrently cause great concern because of theiremissions of greenhouse gases, pollution of watersystems and competition for cereals. At thesame time, small pockets of the urban populationhave driven “green” consumerism for livestockproducts through strongly voiced animalwelfare and environmental concerns. Yet, as itstands, there are no technically or economicallyviable alternatives to intensive production for94


Feeding the futureproviding the bulk of the livestock food supplyfor growing cities. The future challenge is to factorenvironmental protection and system resilienceinto intensive livestock production.Environmental challenge. An urgent challengeis to make intensive production more environmentallybenign. Based on existing knowledgeand technology, there are three ways to do this:reduce the level of pollution generated fromgreenhouse gases and manure; reduce the inputof water and grain needed for each outputof livestock protein; and recycle agro-industrialwaste through livestock populations. All ofthese require capital investment and a supportingpolicy and regulatory environment.Resilience challenge. Meeting the challenge ofplanning for food system resilience in a populationthat cannot feed itself requires a solid andstable production base for livestock source food.Higher food prices have encouraged investmentin food production. This is potentially beneficialfor urban food supply since it providessome scope to adapt and change, one of theconditions for resilience. Livestock diseases alsomust be dealt with, since intensive systems, andthose that encroach upon forest environmentsor peri-urban areas without proper hygiene, area fertile ground for new diseases, and many ofthem are managed in ways that are detrimentalto animal health and welfare. It is not enough topour funding into coping with the urgent diseasethreats of today – disease intelligence andepidemiological research must be financed toanticipate future diseases in the countries thatproduce the bulk of livestock source food.Robust international trade systems also areessential to the resilience of food systems. Citypopulations depend on trade for their food supply,and the production base can be hundreds ofmiles away. Governments have a vital role in securingand stabilizing trade agreements and promotinga sufficiently wide network of sourcesto act as a buffer against natural disasters andother shocks. Even where the foodshed for livestockproducts is wrapped closely around theurban population, as with Chinese megacities,the feed supplying the animal may be imported.There has been discussion recently (Von Braunand Torero, 2009) about the advisability of replenishingor re-establishing buffer stocks forfood staples. Given the periodic instabilities inworld supplies, this may be helpful. However,it is equally important for governments to lookbeyond their immediate national food self-sufficiencyneeds to the stability of the world supply.Producer–ConsumersMixed farmers and livestock-dependent populations,as producer-consumers, have differentconcerns from city populations. As suppliers offood to their own communities and contributorsto the world food supply, they should benefitfrom investment in food systems and elevatedprices. As excellent users of roughage and recyclersof waste, they make an important contributionto the food supply. However, they have avery limited ability to compete with large-scaleintensive production.Within small-scale and extensive systems,livestock make an important contribution topreserving food security, but people dependingon these systems have very limited prospectsto increase their income or expand their assets.This is evident from a rich-poor division thatcan be seen, for example, in the Horn of Africa,where some pastoralists have been forced tobecome contract herders because of economiccircumstances (Aklilu and Catley, 2009) and inMongolia where some herders with non-viableherd sizes have moved into cities.Once this gap forms, it is extremely difficultto bridge. It is also evident from the numbersof small-scale producers who leave livestockproduction when competition pushes them outor when more secure off-farm opportunitiesbeckon.From a food security perspective, much ofwhat can be said is already well known. Perhapsthe most important argument to be made here isto stress the importance of rigorously applying95


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securitya twin-track approach – dealing with short-termand long-term food insecurity issues in parallel.Short-term response. The guiding principle fordealing with short-term shocks is to focus onprotection of livestock assets. Households andcommunities able to maintain their assets duringa crisis will be able to rebuild more easily whenthe shock is over. This might involve providingfeed as well as food aid during a natural disaster,having a food security contingency plan as wellas a disease-control contingency plan for dealingwith major disease outbreaks, or using targetedculling during a disease outbreak to minimizeasset destruction and the erosion of stocks ofindigenous animals.Long-term resilience. Dealing with long-termresilience for livestock-dependent populationsand mixed farmers is a more difficult prospectthan dealing with short-term shocks. Thesepeople undoubtedly benefit from the capitalprovided by their livestock. To grow economically,however, they need an institutional, policyand research environment that proactively supportsthem – as demonstrated by comparing thegrowth of cooperatives of small-scale producersin the Indian dairy subsector with the scalingupof dairying in Brazil. Support in establishingaccess to the markets that offer longer term viabilityfor smallholders, developing technologyfocussed on efficient use of roughage andby-products, and supporting land tenure andcredit, particularly for women, can all help increaseproduction from these systems and, thus,food access for those involved. Policies to promotethe use of livestock for other economicallyvaluable tasks, such as environmental services,also can improve the food security of their owners.However, in the end, there are no “magicbullets”, and people may benefit most whenlivestock production is supported with parallelsupport in developing other livelihoods opportunities.There are, therefore, two challenges with respectto livestock-dependent and small-scalemixed farmers. One is to make objective assessmentsof their contributions, based on social,economic and environmental factors, and to offerproactive support in activities, locations andeconomies where their contribution is greatest.There are examples of good practice fromthe field on which to build, although many ofthem are on a small scale. The other challengeis to manage the transition of those for whomlivestock production is not a viable long-termprospect, by offering support and training tomove into other livelihoods with more growthpotential. However, this is a complex task, accompaniedby considerable danger that the mostvulnerable people will fall through the cracks,especially given the division of labour in mostgovernments, research organizations and the internationalcommunity.A regional perspectiveIn all of the above, emerging economies willcontinue to play an important part as they haveincreasingly done for the past 40 years. Fan andBrzeska (2010) highlight the important role ofemerging economies in global food security,which will depend not only on their capacityto produce but also their ability to invest wiselyin their own rural societies, in agricultural research,rural infrastructure, markets and safetynets. The more advanced Latin American economiestogether with China, India and Russiahave the potential to contribute a large percentageto both demand growth and future supply.These countries have all of the major productionsystems operational within their borders and areexperiencing all of the food security challengesdescribed in this report. They have a considerablecapacity to produce food and potentially tostabilize supply, and a great deal of experienceon which to draw in improving food access.All of these countries are connected to globaltrade to varying degrees. They also are all urbanizingrapidly and will need to deal with anincreasing challenge of feeding cities, which theycurrently handle in very different ways. All exceptIndia have some land into which to expand,96


Feeding the futurealthough they also are looking for investmentopportunities in other countries. All have thepotential to make renewable energy from solarpower or biofuels. All have growing economiesthat can provide public and private investmentcapital.Latin America and China are moving in thedirection of upscaling and intensification, meaningthat the problems with intensive systemsthat have been described in this report will haveto be solved in these countries. Russia is investingin intensive production and, as a relativelynew investor, it has the opportunity to do thissustainably. India, with its high demand fordairy products and excellent local distributionnetworks, may be the place where innovation insmall-scale mixed systems is taken furthest.Africa barely participated in the livestockrevolution yet now, in spite of widespread povertyand hunger, it is experiencing rapid demandgrowth for livestock source food, much ofwhich has to be imported. A split is also developingin its livestock sector between the traditionalproduction base which consists mainly ofrangelands and small-scale farming, and a growingintensive poultry subsector near the cities.A number of constraints limit production levelsand competitiveness of the livestock sector, includingvariable quality of feed supplies, waterscarcity, food safety and inefficient trade withinthe continent that hampers its ability to pursuecomparative advantage on a regional scale.However, with sufficient political will and someinvestment, there may be potential for Africanlivestock production to make a larger contributionto food security in the continent than in thepast.Who does what?Looking toward the future, it is obvious involvementin assuring the contribution of livestockto food security should come from acrossthe board. The private and public sectors, foodproducers and consumers, research and technologydevelopment will all need to play a part.Finance. Much of the growth in supply of livestocksource foods will come from large-scaleintensive systems in which the private sector isthe main driver. The costs of changes to managementto reduce environmental impact, improveefficiency and meet welfare standards are likelyto be borne by the private sector for the mostpart, with some costs passed on to consumers inthe price of food. Public sector finance is neededfor basic infrastructure, and for research thattakes a long-term view or that benefits the poor.It also can support animal health services in remoteareas by contracting private providers tocarry out government programmes. Public sectorfinance, both national and international, isalso necessary to provide a temporary buffer toshort, severe shocks during food crises.Private sector foundations and NGOs thatuse both public and private finance can invest ininitiatives that underpin the access of livestockdependent societies and small-scale mixed farmersto essential services. As systems change andsome livestock keepers diversify or leave the sectoraltogether when they are unable to providethe quantity or quality demanded by the market,a combination of private and public financewill be needed to support them in developingspecialized livestock enterprises, applying moreefficient water management, carrying out pilotactivities in environmental services or establishingnew livelihoods outside of farming.Policy, regulations and standards. Public regulationcan enable the private sector to bring itsefficiency and innovation into finding ways toimprove the efficiency of livestock systems andtheir roles in recycling waste. We now are wellaware, thanks to public sector overviews, thatlivestock are polluters. But we also have seenthat the innovative private systems with thepotential to feed the cities are capable of risingto the challenge of controlling pollution withinintensive systems. In providing the policy tosupport the private sector and intensification, itis also critical to make sure the smallholder andextensive producers are not pushed aside. Policy97


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securityalso underpins the land-use patterns that influencethe choices livestock keepers can make inrangeland management.Public regulation and standards for animalhealth are strongly guided by the internationalanimal health systems and embedded in internationaltrade regulation through the sanitary andphytosanitary agreement of the World TradeOrganization. In the same context, Codex Alimentarius,an international commission createdby FAO and WHO defines global standards forfood safety. However, in other aspects of livestockdevelopment important to the sustainabilityof food systems, such as environmental regulation,public regulation and standards are lesswell defined. In addition, they do not form partof international trade agreements, making theirimplementation more a matter for individualcountries or companies and, in the future, fornegotiation between public and private sectors.Policies guiding or supporting use of marginallands and recycling the waste of other systemsinto on-the-hoof protein will also require negotiationbetween governments, private sector,civil society and local communities.Research and technology. Some of the proposalsand opportunities mentioned in this reportwill need research into technologies and institutionsto increase understanding and generateknowledge that can guide the sector as well asnational policy development. For example, improvingthe efficiency of livestock productionmay require developing breeds better adaptedto particular production niches, while dealingwith climate change and water stress will requirefinding ways to manage water more efficiently.Reducing environmental damage, developinginnovative animal health systems and recyclingwaste all need new knowledge as well as ways ofbetter applying existing knowledge.Consumer choice and communication. Consumerchoice will influence directions for livestocksystems in terms of the products chosenand the way that animals are managed. Consumersthemselves are influenced by many forces,most of all their immediate social and peergroups. This means that public sector influenceon good nutrition choices is limited, whetherthis means providing a balanced diet for childrenor not over-consuming livestock products. Governmentscan influence choices to some extent,through regulating what is provided in schoolmeals and how foods are advertised, or throughproviding nutrition education. However, therise in obesity over the past two decades wouldsuggest that this has not been sufficiently effective.A more innovative and diverse approach tocommunicating about nutrition is obviously required,based on sound knowledge and relayedby respected individuals, peer groups and media.Livestock’s role in food security will not bedriven by any one part of the livestock sector. Itwill depend on finding a way to create a coalitionof all parties who in reality have very differentbackgrounds, responsibilities and goals butunderstand the big picture of what livestock hasto offer to the world’s food security and also ofwhat it has to lose if they do not act together toensure the sector has the tools it needs to sustainproduction at levels which meet the world’sconstantly increasing and changing demand.98


References


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food SecurityABARE. 2010. Australian Bureau of Agriculturaland Resource Economics. Commoditystatistics accessed from ABARE Web site(available at http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/data/data/data.html).ACI. 2006. Agrifood Consulting. Poultry SectorRehabilitation Project – Phase I. TheImpact of Avian Influenza on Poultry SectorRestructuring and its Socio-economic Effects.Prepared for FAO by Agrifood ConsultingInternational April 2006. Rome, FAO.Agarwal, B. 1992a. The Gender and EnvironmentDebate: Lessons from India. FeministStudies 18(1):119-158.Agarwal, B. 1992b. Gender Relations and FoodSecurity. In Unequal Burden: Economic Crises,Persistent Poverty, and Women’s Roles L.Beneria & S. Feldman, eds., Oxford, WestviewPress.Ahmed, A.U., Hill, R.V., Smith, L.C., Wiesmann,D.M. & Frankenberger, T. 2007. Theworld’s most deprived: characteristics andcauses of extreme poverty and hunger, 2020Vision for Food, Agriculture and the EnvironmentDiscussion Paper No 43, InternationalFood Policy Research Institute (IF-PRI), Washington DC.Ahuja, V., Gustafson, D., Otte, J. & Pica-Ciamarra,U. 2009. Supporting Livestock SectorDevelopment for Poverty Reduction. PPLPIResearch Report. Rome, Pro-Poor LivestockPolicy Initiative, FAO.Ahuja, V., Dhawan, M., Punjabi, M. & Maarse,L. 2008. Poultry based livelihoods of the ruralpoor: case of Kuroiler in West Bengal. StudyReport. Doc 012. New Delhi, South AsiaPro-Poor Livestock Policy Programme, FAOand NDDB.Aklilu, Y. & Catley, A. 2009. Livestock Exportsfrom the Horn of Africa: An Analysis of Benefitsby Pastoralist Wealth Group and PolicyImplications. Report commissioned by theFood and Agriculture Organization (FAO)under the Livestock Policy Initiative of theIntergovernmental Authority on Development(IGAD).Alderman, H. & Behrman, J.R. 2003. EstimatedEconomic Benefits of Reducing LBW inLow-Income Countries, University of Pennsylvania:Philadelphia, PA.Animal Husbandry Statistics. Ministry of Agriculture,Government of India.Argwings-Kodhek, G., M’mboyi, F., Muyanga,M. & Gamba, P. 2005. Consumptionpatterns of dairy products in Kenya’s urbancentres. Conference paper. Tegemeo Instituteof Agricultural Policy and Development,Egerton University, Nairobi, Kenya. Citedby Kaitibie et al., (2008).Arpi, E. 2006. India’s Amul Dairy Cooperative.Ashley, S. & Sandford, J. 2008. Livestock Livelihoodsand Institutions in the Horn of Africa.IGAD LPI, Working Paper no. 10-08. Rome,FAO.Asian Development Bank. 2010. GenderEquality Results: Case Studies: Nepal. MandaluyongCity, Philippines, Asian DevelopmentBank, 2010.Associated Press. 2008. Urban areas struggleto get grocers, fresh food (available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28300393/).Bailey, D.V., Barret, C.B., Little, P.D. &Chabari, F. 1999. Livestock Markets and Riskmanagement among East African Pastoralists:a Review and Research Agenda. GL-CRSPPastoral Risk Management Project (PRMP),Technical Report 03/99.Balakrishnan, V. 2002. Developments in the Indianfeed and poultry industry and formulationof rations based on local resources in inProtein Sources For The Animal Feed Industry.FAO Expert Consultation and WorkshopBangkok, 29 April - 3 May 2002 (availableat http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5019e/y5019e00.htm#Contents).Bamire, A.S. & Amujoyegbe, B.J. 2004. Economicsof Poultry Manure Utilization inLand Quality Improvement Among IntegratedPoultry-Maize-Farmers in SouthwesternNigeria. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture,1540-7578, 23(3) 2004, 21-37 Nigeria.100


ReferencesBarrow, E., Davies, J., Berhe, S. Matinu, V.,Mohammed, N., Olenasha, W. & Rugadya,M. 2007. Pastoral institutions for managingnatural resources and landscapes. IUCNEastern Africa Office Policy Brief No. 3 (of5), Nairobi. (available at http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/pastoralist_institutions_for_managing_natural_resources_and_landscapes.pdf).BBC. 2009. Brazil eyes Amazon sugar caneban (available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8262381.stm).Beef magazine. August 2008 (available at http://beefmagazine.com/markets/feed/0801-locking-your-corn/).Bender, A. 1992. Meat and Meat Products inHuman Nutrition in the Developing World.Food and Nutrition paper No. 53. Rome,FAO.Bennett, A., Lhoste, F., Crook, J. & Phelan, J.2006. The future of small scale dairying. InThe Livestock Report 2006 (A. McLeod, ed.).Rome, FAO.Bentley, G.R., Aunger, R., Harrigan, A.M.,Jenike, M., Bailey, R.C. & Ellison, P.T. 1999.Women’s Strategies to Alleviate NutritionalStress in a Rural African Society. Social Scienceand Medicine, 482:149-162.BFREPA. 2010. British Free Range Egg ProducersAssociation. News headline: warningof further feed price increases (available athttp://www.theranger.co.uk/news/Warningof-further-feed-price-increases_21517.html).Birol, E., Roy, D. & Torero, M. 2010. How SafeIs My Food? Assessing the Effect of Informationand Credible Certification on ConsumerDemand for Food Safety in Developing Countries.IFPRI Discussion Paper 01029, October2010, Washington D.C.Black, K.D. 2001. Environmental Impacts ofAquaculture. Sheffield, Sheffield Academic,2001.Black, P.F, Murray, J.G. & Nunn, M.J. 2008.Managing animal disease risk in Australia: theimpact of climate change. Rev. sci. tech. Off.int. Epiz., 2008, 27(2), 563-580Blackmore, E. & Keeley, J. 2009. Understandingthe social impacts of large-scale animal proteinproduction. Oxfam Novib / IIED preliminaryscoping report as input to the Conference onthe Social Impacts of the Large-Scale Meatand Dairy Production and Consumption.Oxfam-Novib.Blench, R., Chapman, R. & Slaymaker, T.2003. A Study of the Role of Livestock inPoverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs).PPLPI Working Paper no. 1. Rome, Pro-PoorLivestock Policy Initiative, FAO.Blobaum, R. 1980. Biogas production in China.P. 212-216 in Biogas and Alcohol FuelsProduction. Proceedings of a Seminar onBiomass Energy for City, Farm, and Industry.Emmaus, PA, The JG Press.Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice.Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Brinkley, C. 2010. Feeding Mega-Cities: PeriurbanAnimal Agriculture. Background paperprepared for the FAO Animal Productionand Health Division. Unpublished.Bumb, B. & Baanante, C. 1996, World Trendsin Fertilizer Use and Projections to 2020, 2020Brief No. 38. International Food Policy ResearchInstitute, Washington, D.C., 1996.Byarugaba, D.K., Nakavuma, J.L., Vaarst, M.& Laker, C. 2008. Mastitis occurrence andconstraints to mastitis control in smallholderdairy farming systems in Uganda. LivestockResearch for Rural Development. 20(1)(available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/1/byar20005.htm).Capitalization of Livestock Program Experiencesin India (CALPI). Undated. Milk marketingin India: a review paper on the role andperformance of informal sector. CALPI (availableat http://www.intercooperation.org.in/km/pdf/Documentation/Traditional/Informal%20milkmarket%20Desk%20study%20(Amit).pdf ).CARE. 1998. El Niño in 1997-1998: Impactsand CARE’s Response.101


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food SecurityCDC. 2010. Operationalizing “OneHealth”: A Policy Perspective – TakingStock and Shaping an ImplementationRoadmap. (available at http://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/meetings.html).Chacko, C.T., Gopikrishna, Padmakumar,V., Sheilendra, T. & Ramesh, V. 2010. India:growth, efficiency gains and social concerns.In P. Gerber, H. Mooney, J. Dijkman,S. Tarawali & C. de Haan, eds. Livestock ina changing landscape, Vol. 2: Experiences andregional perspectives. Washington, DC, IslandPress.Cohen, M.J. & Garrett, J.L. 2010. The foodprice crisis and urban food (in)security. Environmentand Urbanization 222: 467-482.DOI: 10.1177/0956247810380375 www.sagepublications.com.Committee on World Food Security. 2005.Thirty-first Session, Rome, 23-26 May 2005,Assessment of the World Food Security Situation,CFS: 2005/2.Conant, R. 2010. Challenges and opportunitiesfor carbon sequestration in grassland systems.A technical report on grassland managementand climate change mitigation. IntegratedCrop Management Vol. 9–2010. Rome, FAO.Conant, R.T. & Paustian, K. 2002. Potentialsoil carbon sequestration in overgrazed grasslandecosystems. Global Biogeochemical Cycles2002; 1143.Costales, A. 2007. Pig Systems, Livelihoods andPoverty: Current Status, Emerging Issuesand Ways Forward. PPLPI Research Report.Rome, Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative,FAO.Costales, A., Gerber, P. & Steinfeld, H. 2006.Underneath the Livestock Revolution. InThe Livestock Report 2006 (A. McLeod ed.).Rome, FAO. (available at www.fao.org/docrep/099/a0255e05.htm)Costales, A., Otte, J. & Upton, M. 2005. SmallholderLivestock Keepers in the Era of Globalization.PPLPI Research Paper. Rome,Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative, FAO.De Weijer, F. undated, probably 2007. CashmereValue Chain Anlaysis Afghanistan. Reportprepared for the USAID Accelerating SustainableAgriculture Programme.(available athttp://www.ahdp.net/reports/Cashmere%20Value%20Chain%20Analysis.pdf).DeBenoist, B., McLean, E., Egli, I. & Cogswell,M. 2008. Worldwide prevalence of anaemia1993–2005: WHO global database on anaemia(available at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241596657_eng.pdf).Debrah, S.K. 1993. Experiences in peri-urbandairy production, marketing and consumption.Cattle Research Network peri-urbandairy production project: pre-survey seminar.Bamako, Mali 27-30. September, 1993. Citedby Cited by Smith, O.B. & Olaloku, E.A.(1998). Peri-Urban Livestock Production Systems.CFP Report 24 (available at http://idrc.ca/fr/ev-2513-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html.).Delgado, C., Rosegrant, M., Steinfeld, H.,Ehui, S. & Courbois, C. 1999. Livestock to2020. The next food revolution. Food, Agricultureand the Environment discussionpaper No 28, Washington DC, InternationalFood Policy Research Institute, Rome, FAO,and Nairobi, International Livestock ResearchInstitute.Delgado, C.L. 2003. Rising Consumption ofMeat and Milk in Developing Countries hasCreated a New Food Revolution. J. Nutr.133:3907S-3910S, November 2003 (availableat http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/11/3907S; http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd21/9/betr21143.htm).Delgado, C.L., Narrod, C.A. & Tiongco, M.M.2008. Determinants and Implications of theGrowing Scale of Livestock Farms in FourFast-Growing Developing Countries. ResearchReport 157. International Food PolicyResearch Institute, FAO, LEAD.102


ReferencesDeutsch, L., Kalkenmark, M., Gordon, L.,Rockstrom, J. & Folke, K. 2010. Water-mediatedecological consequences of intensificationand expansion of livestock production.In H. Steinfeld, H. Mooney, F. Schneider &L. Neville, eds. Livestock in a changing landscape,Vol. 1: Drivers, consequences, and responses.Washington, DC, Island Press.Dolberg, F. 2003. A Review of Household PoultryProduction as a Tool in Poverty Reductionwith a Focus on Bangladesh and India. PPLPIWorking Paper no. 6. Rome, Pro-Poor LivestockPolicy Initiative, FAO.Ear, S. 2005. The Political Economy of Pro-PoorLivestock Policy in Cambodia. PPLPI WorkingPaper no. 26. Rome, Pro-Poor LivestockPolicy Initiative, FAO.Environment Agency, UK. Undated. Turningwaste into valuable materials. (availableat http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/wfo/epow/126982.aspx).EUROPA. Undated. EU legislation on theprotection of animals (available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/index_en.htm accessedOctober 2010.)Fafchamps, M., Udry, C., Czukas, K. 1998,Drought and saving in West Africa: are livestocka buffer stock, Journal of DevelopmentEconomics, Vol.55(2) 273–305.Fairfield, T. 2004. The Politics of LivestockSector Policy and the Rural Poor in Bolivia,PPLPI Working Paper no. 15. Rome, Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative, FAO.Fan, S. & Brzeska, J. 2010. The Role of EmergingCountries in Global Food Security (availableat http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/bp015.pdf).FAO, UNICEF & UNDP. 2007. FAO/UNICEF/UNDP Report. Joint Food SecurityAssessment Mission to Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar,Mongolia. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/j9883e/j9883e00.HTM accessedJanuary 2011.)FAO. 1997. Street foods. FAO Food and NutritionPaper No 63. Rome.FAO. 1998. FAO’s activities in relation to the1997/98 El Niño (available at http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/highlights/1998/elnino-e.htm).FAO. 1999. Issues in urban agriculture. January1999. (available at http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/9901sp2.htm).FAO. 2001. Food for the Cities. Food supply anddistribution policies to reduce urban food insecurityA briefing guide for Mayors, City Executivesand Urban Planners in DevelopingCountries and Countries in Transition. Foodinto Cities Collection, DT/43-00E. Rome.FAO. 2003. Understanding the IndigenousKnowledge and Information Systems of Pastoralistsin Eritrea. Rome, FAO (availableat http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4569e/y4569e04.htm).FAO. 2004. Incorporating Nutrition Considerationsinto Development Policies and Programmes.Policy Brief. Rome.FAO. 2005. Benefits and Potential Risks of theLactoperoxidase system of Raw Milk Preservation.Report of an FAO/WHO technicalmeeting. FAO Headquarters, Rome, Italy, 28November - 2 December, 2005FAO. 2006a. Food Security Policy Brief. June (2.)ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/ESA/policybriefs/pb_02.pdf accessed January 2010.FAO. 2006b. Impacts of animal disease outbreakson livestock markets. IntroductoryPaper on Animal Disease Outbreaks preparedfor 21st Session of the Inter-GovernmentalGroup on Meat and Dairy Products. Rome,Italy, 14 November 2006 (available at http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload//234375/ah670e00.pdf).FAO. 2006c. World Agriculture towards2030/2050. Interim report. Global PerspectiveStudies Unit. Rome, June.FAO. 2006d. State of World Aquaculture. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/a0874e/a0874e04.pdf103


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food SecurityFAO. 2007. Food Outlook Global MarketAnalysis - Poultry Meat (available at http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/918/foodoutlook-global-market-analysis-poultrymeat.FAO. 2008a State of Food Insecurity in theWorld 2008: High food prices and food security– threats and opportunities. FAO, Romeftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0291e/i0291e00.pdf.FAO. 2008b. Climate change, water and foodsecurity. Technical background documentfrom the expert consultation held on 26 to28 February 2008. Rome, FAO (available athttp://www.fao.org/nr/water/docs/HLC08-FAOWater-E.pdf).FAO. 2008c The State of World Fisheries andAquaculture 2008. FAO Fisheries and AquacultureDepartment, Rome, 2009 ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0250e/i0250e01.pdfFAO. 2009a. State of Food Insecurity in theWorld 2009. FAO, Rome.FAO. 2009b. Livestock in the balance. State ofFood and Agriculture 2009. FAO Rome.FAO. 2009c. Mapping traditional poultry hatcheriesin Egypt. Prepared by M. Ali Abd-Elhakim,Olaf Thieme, Karin Schwabenbauerand Zahra S. Ahmed. AHBL - Promotingstrategies for prevention and control of HPAI.Rome.FAO. 2010a. State of Food Insecurity in theWorld 2010: Addressing food insecurity in protractedcrises, FAO Rome (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1683e/i1683e.pdf).FAO. 2010b. The State of World Fisheries andAquaculture. Rome, FAO. 2010.FAO. Undated. Edible forest insects. (availableat http://www.fao.org/forestry/65422/en/).FAO/OIE/WHO/UNSIC/UNICEF/WorldBank. 2008. Contributing to One World, OneHealth: A Strategic Framework for ReducingRisks of Infectious Diseases at the Animal–Human–Ecosystems Interface. 14 October2008 Consultation Document. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/aj137e/aj137e00.pdfFARM-Africa. 2007. Working Paper No 9. TheGoat Model: A proven approach to reducingpoverty among smallholder farmers in Africaby developing profitable goat enterprisesand sustainable support services. London:FARM Africa. (available at http://www.farmafrica.org.uk/resources/WP9%20The%20Goat%20Model.pdf)Fiala, N. 2008. Meeting the demand: an estimationof potential future greenhouse gas emissionsfrom meat production. Ecological Economics2008; 67: 412-419.Foeken, D. & Mwangi, A.M. Undated. IncreasingFood Security Through Urban FarmingIn Nairobi (available at http://www.ruaf.org/sites/default/files/Nairobi.PDF).Foeken, D. 2006. Legislation, policies and thepractice of urban farming in Nakuru, Kenya.Contradictions abound. RUAF. (availableat http://www.ruaf.org/sites/default/files/uam16_article8.pdf).Gan, L. & Juan Yu. 2008. Bioenergy transitionin rural China: Policy options and co-benefits.Energy Policy 36, p. 531-540.Garcia, O., Hemme, T. & Khan, A.R. 2004a.A Review of Milk Production in Bangladeshwith Particular Emphasis on Small-Scale Producers.PPLPI Working Paper no.7. Rome,Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative, FAO.Garcia, O., Hemme, T. & Mahmood, K. 2003.A Review of Milk Production in Pakistan withParticular Emphasis on Small-Scale Producers.PPLPI Working Paper no. 3. Rome, Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative, FAO.Garcia, O., Hemme, T. & Saha, A. 2004b. TheEconomies of Milk Production in Orissa, India,with Particular Emphasis on Small-ScaleProducers. PPLPI Working Paper no.16.Rome, Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative,FAO.Garcia, O., Hemme, T., Huong Tra, H. & TatNho, L. 2006. The Economics of Milk Productionin Hanoi, Vietnam, with ParticularEmphasis on Small-scale Producers. PPLPIWorking Paper no. 33. Rome, Pro-Poor LivestockPolicy Initiative, FAO.104


ReferencesGeerlings, E., Albrechtsen, L. & Rushton J.2007. Highly pathogenic avian influenza: Arapid assessment of the socio-economic impacton vulnerable households in Egypt. Reportbased on FAO and WFP livelihoods impactstudy of HPAI and its control in the Egyptiangovernorates of Assiut, Fayoum, Minyaand Sohag, in partnership with UNDP’s sisterorganisations BEST and Catholic Relief Servicesand in collaboration with the EgyptianDemographers Association. Rome, FAO.Gerber, P., Chilonda, P., Franceshini, G., &Menzi, H. 2005. Geographical determinantsand environmental implications of livestockproduction intensification in Asia. BioresourceTechnology 96(13), 263-276.Girardet, H. 1999. Urban farming and sustainablecities. Paper presented at InternationalWorkshop on the Policy Agenda, Havana,Cuba, 11–15 October 1999.Gittelsohn, J., Thapa, M. & Landman, L.T.1997. Cultural Factors, Caloric Intake andMicronutrient Sufficiency in Rural NepaliHouseholds Social Science & Medicine, 44(11): 1739-1749.Gning, M. 2005. Navigating the Livestock Sector:The Political Economy of Livestock Policyin Burkina Faso: PPLPI Working Paperno. 28. Rome, Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative,FAO.Griffin, M. 2004. Issues in the development ofschool milk. Paper presented at School MilkWorkshop, FAO Intergovernmental Groupon Meat and Dairy Products. Winnipeg,Canada, 17-19 June 2004. (available at http://www.fao.org/es/esc/common/ecg/169/en/School_Milk_FAO_background.pdf).Guo, X., Mroz, T.A., Popkin, B.M., & Zhai, F.Structural Change in the Impact of Incomeon Food Consumption in China, 1989-93.Working Paper 99-02, Department of EconomicsUniversity of North Carolina, ChapelHill. (available at http://www.unc.edu/depts/econ/papers/99-02.pdf).Gura, S. 2008. Industrial livestock productionand its impact on smallholders in developingcountries. Consultancy Report to the Leaguefor Pastrolaist Peoples and EndonegnousLivestock Development. April 2008. Cited byBlackmore and Keeley 2009.Gurung, K., Man Tulachan, P. & Gauchan, D.2005. Gender and Social Dynamics in LivestockManagement: A Case Study from ThreeEcological Zones in Nepal. (available at http://www.research4development.info/PDF/Outputs/Livestock/ZC0286-Case-Study-Nepal.pdf).Halderman, M. 2005. The Political Economy ofPro-Poor Livestock Policy-making in Ethiopia.PPLPI Working Paper no. 19. Rome,Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative, FAO.Hancock, J. 2006. Exploring Impacts of AvianInfluenza on Food Security. Internal workingpaper prepared for the FAO ECTAD socioeconomicworking group, November 2006.FAO, Rome.Harding, J. 2010. What we are about to receive.Jeremy Harding (available at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n09/jeremy-harding/what-wereabout-to-receive/print)Harvey, J. 2010. Plenty of guilt and a very heavyfootprint. In Business and Food Sustainability.Financial Times Special Report (availableat http://media.ft.com/cms/62017148-0b29-11df-9109-00144feabdc0.pdf).Heimlich, R.E. & Bernard, C. 1993. Agriculturaladaptation to urbanization: Farm types inthe United States Metropolitan Area. USDA,Economic Research Service.Heimlich, R.E. 1988. Metropolitan Growth andHigh-Value Crop Production. In Vegetablesand Specialties Situation and Outlook Report,17-26. TVS-244. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,Economic Research Service. Washington.Heimlich, R.E. & Brooks, D.H. 1989.MetropolitanGrowth and Agriculture: Fanningin the City’s Shadow. AER-619. U.S. Dept.of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.Washington, DC.105


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food SecurityHell, K., Fandohan, P., Ranajit Bandyopadhyay,Kiewnick, S., Sikora, R. & Cotty, P.J.2008. Pre- and post-harvest management ofaflatoxin in maize: an African perspective. InL.J. Leslie, R. Bandyopadhyay, A. & Visconti,eds. Mycotoxins: detection methods, management,public health and agricultural trade. pp.219-229. UK, CABI.Henderson B., Gerber P. & Opio C. (in press)Livestock and climate change, challenges andoptions. Paper submitted to......Hillbruner, C. & Murphy, M. 2008. Food SecurityAnd Livelihoods In The Small UrbanCenters Of Mongolia. Findings from the AimagCenter Food Security Assessment. Final Report.Mongolia: Mercy Corps.Hinrichs, J. 2006. Economic aspects of restructuringthe poultry sector in Viet Nam. In:Poultry Sector Restructuring in Vietnam –Evaluation Mission. A study conducted bythe Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations for the World Bank. July2006.Hoffmann, I. & Mohammed, I. 2004. The roleof nomadic camels for manuring farmer’sfields in the Sokoto close settled zone, northwestNigeria . Nomadic peoples 8(1).Hofmann, N. 2006. A geographical profile oflivestock manure production in Canada, 2006.Environment Accounts and Statistics Division,Statistics Canada. (available at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-x/2008004/article/10751-eng.htm).Honhold, N. 1995. Livestock Population andProductivity and the Human Population ofMongolia, 1930 to 1994 (Ulaanbaatar: EuropeanUnion (Project ALA/MNG/9209),Ministry of Food and Agriculture).Honhold, N. 2010. Mongolia: the limits of thelast place on earth. Draft paper provided bythe author to FAO as a reference for this publication,October 2010.Hooper, R., Calvert, J., Thompson, R.L.,Deetlefs, M.E. & Burney, P. 2008. Urban/rural differences in diet and atopy in SouthAfrica. Allergy 2008: 63: 425–431 (available athttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2008.01627.x/pdf).Hubbell, H.V. 1925. Land Subdivision Restrictions.Landscape Architecture. Vol 16. Oct.pp. 53-4.Ibrahim, M., Porro, R. & Mauricio, R.M. 2010.Brazil and Costa Rica: deforestation and livestockexpansion in the Brazilian legal Amazonand Costa Rica: Drivers, environmentaldegradation and policies for sustainable landmanagement In P. Gerber, H. Mooney, J. Dijkman,S. Tarawali & C. de Haan, eds. Livestockin a changing landscape, Vol. 2: Experiencesand regional perspectives. Washington,DC, Island Press.ICASEPS. 2008. Indonesian Center for Agrosocioeconomicand Policy Studies. Livelihoodand gender impact of rapid changes tobio-security policy in the Jakarta area and lessonslearned for future approaches in urbanareas. Rome, ICASEPS in collaboration withFood and Agriculture Organization.IFAD. Undated. International Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment. China biogas projectturns waste into energy. Web site (available athttp://operations.ifad.org/web/guest/country/voice/tags/china/biogasIfft, J., Otte, J., Roland-Holst, D. & Zilberman,D. 2009. Poultry Certification for Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction. Mekong TeamWorking Paper No. 6, HPAI Pro Poor RiskReduction Project January 2009.Ifft, J., Roland-Holst, D. & Zilberman, D.2007. Impact of Quality Characteristics onDemand for Chicken in Viet Nam. PPLPIResearch Report 07-14. Rome, Pro-PoorLivestock Policy Initiative, FAO.IFPRI. 2004. Research and Outreach: Food SystemsGovernance. Washington DC: IFPRI.106


ReferencesImai, K. 2003. Is Livestock Important for RiskBehaviour and Activity Choice of RuralHouseholds? Evidence from Kenya. Journalof African Economies, 12(2): 271-295.IMF. Undated. International Monetary Fund.Primary Commodity Prices, monthly data(available at http://www.imf.org/external/np/res/commod/index.asp).Jabbar, M., Pratt, N. & Staal, S.J. 2008. DairyDevelopment for the Resource Poor (Part1,2,3), PPLPI Working Paper no. 44. Rome,Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative, FAO.Jackson, C. & Palmer-Jones, R. 1999. RethinkingGendered Poverty and Work. Developmentand Change, 30 (3): 557-584.Jackson, H.L. & Mtengeti, E.J. 2005. Assessmentof animal manure production, managementand utilization in Southern Highlandsof Tanzania. Livestock Research for Rural Development.17(10) (available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd17/10/jack17110.htm).Jianming, C. 2003. Periurban Agriculture Developmentin China. Urban Agriculture. 9:40-42.Jones, N. 2010. A Taste of Things to Come.Nature 468, 752-753 2010 (available athttp://www.nature.com/news/2010/101207/full/468752a.html).Junfeng, L. 2007. REEEP: Activities that SupportAD Project Development Worldwide.Paper presented at the Methane to MarketsPartnership Expo, Beijing, 30 October – 1November. (available at http://www.methanetomarkets.org/expo/docs/postexpo/ag_junfeng.pdf).Kaiser, A. Undated. Biogas from Energy Cropand organic waste in Europe in Germany.Powerpoint presentation (available at http://www.business-meets-research.lu/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/BMR_IBBK_A.KAISER.pdf).Kaitibie, S., Omore, A., Rich, K., Salasya, B.,Hooton, N., Mwero, D. & Kristjanson, P.2008. Influence pathways and economic impactsof policy change in the Kenyan dairy sector.ILRI Research Report 15. Nairobi, InternationalLivestock Research Institute (ILRI).Kamuanga, M.J.B., Somda, J., Sanon, Y. &Kagoné, H. 2008. Livestock and regionalmarket in the Sahel and West Africa Potentialsand challenges. Paris: SWAC-OECD/ECOWAS 2008.Kangmin, L. & Ho, M-W. 2006. Biogas China.Institute of Science in Society Report.(availableat http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BiogasChina.php).Kaplan, J.D., Johanssen, R.C. & Peters, M.2004. The manure hits the land: economic andenvironmental implications when land applicationof nutrients is constrained. Amer. J. Ag.Econ. 86(3) (August 2004) 688-800Kawashima, T. 2002. The use of food waste as aprotein source for animal feed - current statusand technological development in Japan. InProtein Sources for the Animal Feed Industry.FAO Expert Consultation and WorkshopBangkok, 29 April - 3 May 2002 (availableat http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5019e/y5019e00.htm#Contents).Kazianga, H. & Udry, C. 2006. Consumptionsmoothing? Livestock, insurance and droughtin rural Burkina Faso. Journal of DevelopmentEconomics 79 413–446.Kazybayeva, S., Otte, J. & Roland-Holst, D.2006. Livestock Production and HouseholdIncome Patterns in Rural Senegal, PPLPIResearch Report. Rome, Pro-Poor LivestockPolicy Initiative, FAO.Ke, B. & Han, Y. 2007. Poultry sector in China:structural changes during the past decade andfuture trends. In Poultry for the 21st Century.Avian influenza and beyond. Bangkok, November2007. Rome, FAO.107


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food SecurityKe, B. 2010. China: The East West Dichotomy.In P. Gerber, H. Mooney, J. Dijkman, S. Tarawali& C. de Haan, eds. Livestock in a changinglandscape, Vol. 2: Experiences and regionalperspectives. Washington, DC, Island Press.Kenya Ministry of Agriculture. 2008. Agriculture,Livestock, Fisheries and Rural DevelopmentSector Medium-Term Plan 2008-2012.Republic of Kenya.Kharel, P. Undated. National alliance againsthunger in Nepal. (available at http://www.iaahp.net/fileadmin/templates/iaah/pdf/NAAH_Nepal_EN.pdf).Knips, V. 2005. Developing Countries and theGlobal Dairy Sector: Part 1: Global Overview:PPLPI Working Paper no. 30. Rome,Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative, FAO.Knips, V. 2006 Developing Countries and theGlobal Dairy Sector: Part II: Country CaseStudies: PPLPI Working Paper no. 31. Rome,Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative, FAO.Krishna, A., Kristjanson, P., Nindo, W. &Radeny, M. 2004. Pathways out of Povertyin Western Kenya and the Role of Livestock.PPLPI Working Paper no. 14. Rome, Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative, FAO.LEAD. Undated. Livestock Production SystemsClassification: Mixed systems (availableat http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/lead/toolbox/Refer/ProSystR.htm#Mixed).Lee-Smith, D. & Memon P.A. 1994. Urban agriculturein Kenya. In A.G.Egziabher et al.,eds. Cities feeding people: an examination ofurban agriculture in East Africa. Ottawa: InternationalDevelopment Research Centre.Lee-Smith, D. 2010. Cities feeding people: anupdate on urban agriculture in equatorialAfrica. Environment & Urbanization. 22(2):483–499.LEGS. 2009. Livestock Emergency Guidelinesand Standards. UK, Practical Action Publishing.(available at http://www.livestock-emergency.net/userfiles/file/legs.pdf).Leonard, W.R. 1991. Household-level Strategiesfor Protecting Children from SeasonalFood Scarcity. Social Sci Med. 33(10): 1127-1133.Leyland, T. & Akabwai, D.M.O. Undated.Delivery of Private Veterinarian SupervisedCommunity-Based Animal Health ServicesTo Pastoralist Areas Of The Greater Horn OfAfrica. UK: Vetwork.Lipton, M. & Longhurst, R. 1989. New Seedsand Poor People. London, Routledge.Lopez, R.A., Adelaja, A.O. & Andrews, M.S.1988. The Effects of Suburbanization on Agriculture.American Journal of AgriculturalEconomics. 70 (2), 346-358.LPP, LIFE Network, IUCN–WISP and FAO.2010. Adding value to livestock diversity –Marketing to promote local breeds and improvelivelihoods. FAO Animal Productionand Health Paper. No. 168. Rome.Ly, C., Fall, A. & Okike, I. 2010. West Africa:the livestock sector in need of regional strategies.In P. Gerber, H. Mooney, J. Dijkman,S. Tarawali & C. de Haan, eds. Livestock ina changing landscape, Vol. 2: Experiences andregional perspectives. Washington, DC, IslandPress.Makkar, H. FAO Animal Production andHealth Division, personal communication.Maltsoglou, I. & Rapsomanikis, G. 2005. Contributionof Livestock to Household Income:A Household Typology Based Analysis, Vietnam.PPLPI Working Paper no. 21. Rome,Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative, FAO.Maltsoglou, I. & Taniguchi, K. 2004. Poverty,Livestock and Household Typologies in Nepal.PPLPI Working Paper no. 13. Rome,Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative, FAO.Maltsoglou, I. 2007. Household Expenditureon Food of Animal Origin: A Comparison ofUganda, Vietnam and Peru. PPLPI WorkingPaper no. 43. Rome, Pro-Poor LivestockPolicy Initiative, FAO.108


ReferencesMaltsoglou, I. & Taniguchi, K. 2004, Poverty,Livestock and Household Typologies in Nepal,PPLPI Working Paper No.13 (available athttp://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/pplpi/docarc/wp13.pdf)Mamo, G. 2007. Community? Forest Managementin Borana. In A. Ridgewell, G. Mamoand F. Flintan, eds. Gender & PastoralismVol. 1: Rangeland & Resource Managementin Ethiopia. Addis Abbaba: SOS Sahel Ethiopia.Martínez, J., Jaro, P.J., Aduriz, G., Gómez,E.A., Peris, B. & Corpa, J.M. 2007. Carcasscondemnation causes of growth retarded pigsat slaughter. The Veterinary Journal 174(1),July pp 160-164.Maxwell, D.G. 1994. The household logic ofurban farming in Kampala. In Cities FeedingPeople; an examination of urban agriculturein East Africa. International DevelopmentResearch Centre. Ottawa, Canada. p. 146.Cited by Smith, O.B. and Olaloku, E.A. 1998.Peri-Urban Livestock Production Systems.CFP Report 24. (available at http://idrc.ca/fr/ev-2513-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html.)Maykuth, A. 1988. Pigging Out. In PhiladelphiaInquirer, September 20, 1988. (availableat http://www.maykuth.com/Archives/pigs88.htm)Mcleod, A. & de Haan, N. 2009. Mission reportto the Avian Influenza Team in Viet Nam.FAO internal document.McLeod, A. 2009. The Economics of Avian Influenza.In D. E. Swayne, ed, Avian Influenza.Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford.McLeod, A., Honhold, N. & Steinfeld, H.2010. Responses on emerging livestock diseasesIn H. Steinfeld, H. Mooney, F. Schneider& L. Neville, eds. Livestock in a changinglandscape, Vol. 1: Drivers, consequences, andresponses. Washington, DC, Island Press.McLeod, A., Taylor, N., Lan, L.T.K., Thuy,N.T., Dung, D.H. & Minh, P.Q. 2002. Controlof classical swine fever in the Red RiverDelta of Vietnam: A stakeholder analysis andassessment of potential benefits, costs and risksof alternative proposals. Report on Phase 1 ofthe study. Hanoi: EUSVSV Project.McMichael, A.J., Powles, J.D., Butler, C.D. &Uauy, R. 2007. Food, livestock production,energy, climate change and health. Energyand Health 5. In The Lancet Published Online.September 13, 2007DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61256-2.Meat and Livestock Australia. 2001. Web siteaccessed Jan 2011 (available at http://www.mla.com.au/Prices-and-markets/Trends-andanalysis/Sheep-and-goats/Domestic-consumption).Meat Trade News Daily. 2009. Brazil - Carrefourand Wal-Mart ban Amazon related beef.16 June 2009 (available at http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/160609/brazil___carrefour_and_wal_mart_ban_amazon_related_beef.aspx).Mehta, R., Nambiar, R.G., Delgado, C.L. &Subramanyam, S. 2003. Policy, Technical,and Environmental Determinants and Implicationsof the Scaling-Up of Broiler and EggProduction in India. Final Report of IFPRI-FAO Livestock Industrialization Project:Phase II. Washington D.C., IFPRI and Rome,FAO.Mhlanga, F.N., Khombe, C.T. & Maukza, S.M.1999. Indigenous livestock types of Zimbabwe.Department Of Animal Science UniversityOf Zimbabwe (available at http://www.ilri.org/InfoServ/Webpub/fulldocs/AnGen-ResCD/docs/IndiLiveGenoZimbabwe/TableofContents.htm#TopOfPage).Micronutrient Initiative. 2009. Investing in thefuture: a united call to action on vitamin andmineral deficiencies. (available at http://www.unitedcalltoaction.org/documents/Investing_in_the_future.pdf).109


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food SecurityMission East. 2010. Project report to FAO onresults of a cost-sharing campaign for brucellosiscontrol in Tajikistan. Unpublished.Morgan, N. & Tallard, G. Undated. CattleAnd Beef International Commodity Profile.Background paper for the CompetitiveCommercial Agriculture in Sub–SaharanAfrica (CCAA) Study (available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRICA/Resources/257994-1215457178567/Cattle_and_beef_profile.pdf).Morgan, N. Undated. Repercussions of BSE onInternational Meat Trade: Global MarketAnalysis (available at http://www.fao.org/ag/aGa/agap/FRG/Feedsafety/pub/morgan%20bse.doc).Mukhebi, A.W. 1996. Assessing economic impactof tick-borne diseases and their control:the case of theileriosis immunisation. In A.D.Irvin, J.J. McDermott & B.D. Perry, eds Epidemiologyof ticks and tick-borne diseases inEastern, Central and Southern Africa. Proc.Workshop, 12-13 March, Harare. Nairobi,International Livestock Research Institute(ILRI).Nakiganda, A., Mcleod, A., Bua, A., Phipps,R., Upton, M. & Taylor, N. 2006. Farmers’constraints, objectives and achievements insmallholder dairy systems in Uganda. LivestockResearch for Rural Development. 18(69)(available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/5/naki18069.htm).NaRanong, V. 2007. Structural Changes inThailand’s Poultry Sector and its Social Implications.A publication commissioned bythe FAO-AGAL, pp.37. In Poultry In The21st Century: Avian Influenza And Beyond.International Poultry Conference. Bangkok,November 2007. ISBN 978-92-5-106063-6Rome, FAO.National Research Council. 2009. Emergingtechnologies to benefit farmers in sub-SaharanAfrica and South Asia. Washington DC.National Academies Press.National Statistical Office of Mongolia. 1980to 2009. Annual yearbooks.National Statistical Office of Mongolia. 2007.Statistical Yearbook.NDDB. 2010. National dairy statistics presentedon the Department of Animal Husbandry,Dairying & Fisheries Web site, update May2010 (available at http://dahd.nic.in/).Neuman, C.G. & Harris, D.M. 1999. Contributionof animal source foods in improvingdiet quality for children in the developingworld. Washington DC: Prepared for WorldBank.Neumann, C., Demment, M.W., Maretzki, A.,Drorbaugh, N. & Galvin, K. 2010. Chapter12. The Livestock Revolution and AnimalSource Food Consumption. In Steinfeld H.,Mooney H., Schneider F., & Neville L., eds.Livestock in a changing landscape, Vol. 1:Drivers, consequences, and responses. Washington,DC, Island Press.Ngutu, M.N., Lelo, F.K., Kosgey, I. & Kauffmann,B. Undated. Collective communitymanagement of livestock drug trade in a pastoralistsetting: a case study of Ramati andMaslis groups of the greater Marsabit district.Report to the Kenya Agricultrual Resarch Intitute.Nyungu, P. & Sithole, L. 1999. Analysis of DynamicGender Relations around Goat Acquisition,Ownership and Disposal in ChizumbaCommunal Area, Mwenezi District, Zimbabwe.Makoholi Experiment Station, Masvingo,Zimbabwe. Ministry of Agriculture.OECD-FAO. 2010. Agricultural Outlook2010-2019 (available at http://www.agri-outlook.org/document/10/0,3746,en_36774715_36775671_42852746_1_1_1_1,00.html).OIE. Undated. The OIE’s objectives andachievements in animal welfare (availableat http://www.oie.int/animal-welfare/keythemes/accessed February 2011.)Okali, C. 2009. Making women partners inthe livestock revolution. Unpublished backgroundpaper for FAO’s State of Food andAgriculture 2010, in press.110


ReferencesOkike, I., Spycher, B., Williams, T.O. & Baltenweck,I. 2004. Lowering cross-borderlivestock transportation and handling costs inWest Africa. ILRI/CFC/FAO/CILSS—WestAfrica Livestock Marketing: Brief 3. Nairobi(Kenya): ILRI.Omore, A., Muriuki, H.G.M., Kenyanjui, M.,Owango, M. & Staal, S. 2004. The Kenyandairy subsector: a rapid appraisal. SDP researchand development report. SDP (SmallholderDairy Project), Nairobi, Kenya (availableat http://www.smallholderdairy.org).Oonincx, D.G.A.B., van Itterbeeck, J., Heetkamp,M.J.W., van den Brand, H. & vanLoon, J.J.A. 2010. An Exploration on GreenhouseGas and Ammonia Production by InsectSpecies Suitable for Animal or HumanConsumption. PLoS ONE 5(12): e14445.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014445.Opio, C. 2007. Background paper for H. Steinfeld,H. Mooney, F. Schneider & L. Neville,eds. Livestock in a changing landscape, Vol. 1:Drivers, consequences, and responses. Washington,DC, Island Press.Otte, J. 2006. The Hen Which Lays GoldenEggs: Why backyard poultry are so popular.PPLPI Features. July 2006. Rome, Pro-PoorLivestock Policy Initiative, FAO. (available athttp://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/pplpi/docarc/feature01_backyardpoultry.pdf).Otte, J., Pica-Ciamarra, U. & Roland-Holst,D. 2008. Food Markets and Poverty Alleviation,PPLPI Research Report. Rome, Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative, FAO.Over, H.J., Jansen, J. & van Olm, P.W. 1992.Distribution and impact of helminth diseasesof livestock in developing countries. FAOAnimal Production and Health Paper No. 96.FAO, Rome.Owens, G.M. 2007. Analyzing impacts of bioenergyexpansion in China using strategicenvironmental assessment. Management ofEnvironmental Quality 18(4), p. 398-407.PAHO (Pan American Health Organization).2006. Assessing the economic impact of obesityand associated chronic diseases: Latin Americaand the Caribbean. Fact Sheet, April 2006.Washington, DC.Parthasarathy, P.R. and Birthal, P.S. 2008. Typologyof Mixed Crop-Livestock Systems inNepal. In Livestock in mixed farming systemsin South Asia. New Dehli, National Centrefor Agricultural Economics and Policy Research,and India, International Crops ResearchInstitute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.Pavanello, S. 2010. Livestock marketing in Kenya-Ethiopiaborder areas: A baseline study.HPG Working Paper. July 2010.Perry, B. & Sones K. 2008. Global livestockdisease dynamics over the last quarter century:drivers, impacts and implications. Backgroundpaper prepared for the FAO (2009b).Petrie, O.J. 1995 “End Uses of Wool” in HarvestingOf Textile Animal Fibres. FAO AgriculturalServices Bulletin No. 122. Rome,FAO (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/v9384e/v9384e04.htm).Pica-Ciamarra, U. & Otte, J. 2009. Poultry,Food Security and Poverty in India: lookingbeyond the farm gate. PPLPI Research Report.Rome, Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative,FAO.Pica-Ciamarra, U., Tasciotti, L., Otte, J. &Zezza, A. (in preparation) Livestock andLivelihoods in Developing Countries: Evidencefrom Household Surveys. Draft paper.Pingali, P., Alinovi, L. & Sutton, J. 2005. Foodsecurity in complex emergencies: enhancingfood system resilience In Disasters, 29(s1)UK & USA, Blackwell Publishing.Pinstrup-Andersen, P. 2009. Food security:definition and measurement. In Food Sec(2009) 1:5-7.Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Burger, S., Habicht,J.P. & Peterson, K. 1993. Protein-EnergyMalnutrition. In Disease Control Priorities111


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Securityin Developing Countries, eds. Jamison D.T.,Mosley W.H., Measham A.R., and BobadillaJ.L., pp. 391–420. New York, Oxford UniversityPress for the World Bank.Popkin, B.M., Horton, S. & Kim S. 2001. Thenutritional transition and diet-related chronicdiseases in Asia: Implications for prevention.FCND Discussion Paper No. 105. FoodConsumption and Nutrition Division, InternationalFood Policy Research Institute, 2033K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.Povcal. (available at http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/povDuplic.html.(usingpoverty line of 1.25$ per day in PPP or 38 $per month).Pozzi, F. & Robinson, T. 2007. Poverty and WelfareMeasures in the Horn of Africa: IGADLPI, Working Paper no. 08-08. Rome, FAO.Public Health of Canada. 2009. One WorldOne Health: from ideas to action. Report ofthe expert consultation. March 16-19, Winnipeg,Manitoba.Quisumbing, A.R., Meinzen-Dick, R.S. &Smith, L.C. 2004. Increasing the effectiveparticipation of women in food and nutritionsecurity in Africa. Africa Conference Brief 4.International Food Policy Research Institute.Washington.Quisumbing, A.R., Brown, L.R., Feldstein,H.S., Haddad, L. & Pena, C. 1995. Women:The Key to Food Security. Food Policy StatementNo. 21. Washington, DC, IFPRI.Raas, N. 2006. Policies and Strategies to Addressthe Vulnerability of Pastoralists in Sub-SaharanAfrica. PPLPI Working Paper No. 37.Rome, Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative,FAO.Rae, A. & Nayga, R. 2010. Chapter 2 Trendsin consumption, production and trade in livestockand livestock products. In H. Steinfeld,H. Mooney, F. Schneider & L. Neville, eds.Livestock in a changing landscape, Vol. 1:Drivers, consequences, and responses. Washington,DC, Island Press.Reardon, T., Timmer, C.P. & Minten, B.2010. Supermarket revolution in Asia andemerging development strategies to includesmall farmers. PNAS Early edition (availableat http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/12/01/1003160108.full.pdf).Reardon, T., Timmer, C.P., Barrett, C.B. &Berdegue, J.A. 2003. The rise of supermarketsin Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Am JAgric Econ 85:1140–1146.Regmi, A. & Dyck, J. Undated. Effects ofUrbanization on Global Food Demand inChanging Structure of Global Food Consumptionand Trade/WRS-01-1 USA: EconomicResearch Service/USDA.Rosegrant, M.W., Cai, X. & Cline, S.A 2002.Global water outlook to 2025, averting animpending crisis. A 2020 vision for food, agriculture,and the environment initiative. Washington,DC: IFPRI and IWMI.Rosenzweig, M.R. & Wolpin, K.I. 1993. Creditmarket constraints, consumption smoothing,and the accumulation of durable productionassets in low-income countries: investmentsin bullocks in India. Journal of Political Economy101 (2), 223–244.Ross, J. & Horton, S. 1998. Economic consequencesof iron deficiency. Ottawa: The MicronutrientInitiative.Ru-Chen, C. 1981. The Development of BiogasUtilization in China. Natural Resources Forum5(3), p. 277-282.Rymer, C. 2006. Increasing the contributionthat goats make to the livelihoods of resourcepoorlivestock keepers in the Himalayan ForestRegion. Final Technical Report to NaturalResources International Ltd, UK. RetrievedJanuary 2011. (available at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/r4d/PDF/outputs/R7632d.pdf).Salasya, B., Rich, K., Baltenweck, I., Kaitibie,S., Omore, A., Murithi, F., Freeman, A. &Staal, S. 2006. Quantifying the economic impactsof a policy shift towards legalizing informalmilk trade in Kenya. ILRI (InternationalLivestock Research Institute) Discussion Paper1. ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya.Schlebecker, T. 1967. A History of AmericanDairying. Chicago: Rand McNally. 1967.112


ReferencesSchneider Group. Undated. Market indicatorsfor cashmere from 1998 to 2012 (availableat http://www.gschneider.com/index.php?page=marketindicators)Sere, C. & Steinfeld, S. 1996. World LivestockProduction Systems: Current status,issues and trends (available at http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/lead/toolbox/Paper127/cover1.htm).Sharma, V.P. 2010. Animal traction in SouthAsia. Background paper prepared for FAO’sRegional Office for Asia and the Pacific, unpublished.Smith, O.B. & Olaloku, E.A. 1998. Peri-UrbanLivestock Production Systems. CFP Report24 (available at http://idrc.ca/fr/ev-2513-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html).Sponberg, K. 1999. Weathering a storm ofglobal statistics. Nature, 400, p. 13. cited byUNEP/NCAR/UNU/WMO/ISDR. 2000.Lessons Learned from the 1997–98 El Niño:Once Burned, Twice Shy? (available at http://www.ccb.ucar.edu/un/enFinal.pdf).Stage, J., Stage, J. & McGranahan, G. 2010. Isurbanization contributing to higher food prices?Environment & Urbanization Vol 22(1):199–215. DOI: 10.1177/0956247809359644.Starkey, P. 2010. Livestock for traction: worldtrends, key issues and policy implications.AGA working paper series. Rome, FAO.Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel,V., Rosales, M., De Haan, C. 2006 Livestock’sLong Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.Rome, FAO.Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P. & Opio, C. 2010. Responseson environmental issues. In H. Steinfeld,H. Mooney, F. Schneider & L. Neville,eds. Livestock in a changing landscape, Vol. 1:Drivers, consequences, and responses. Washington,DC, Island Press.Stokstad, E. 2004. Salmon survey stokes debateabout farmed fish. Science 2004; 303(5655):154–5.Stuart, T. 2009. Waste: Uncovering the globalfood scandal. London, Penguin Books.Swiss Re. 1999. El Niño 1997/98: On the phenomenon’strail. Zurich, Switzerland: SwissReinsurance, 8 pp. (available at http://www.swissre.com/).TECA. Undated. Mastitis control in smallholderdairy cows. (available at ://www.fao.org/teca/node/4656).The Economist. 2009. Egypt’s pigs: What aWaste. May 7, 2009. (available at http://www.economist.com/node/13611723?story_id=13611723).The Economist. 2010. Slaughterhouse Rules.Jun 24th 2010. (available at http://www.economist.com/node/16436481).The In Vitro Meat Consortium. 2008. PreliminaryEconomics Study. Project 29071 V5March 2008. (available at http://invitromeat.org/images/Papers/invitro%20meat%20economics%20study%20v5%20%20march%2008.pdf )Thompson, E., Harper, A.M. & Kraus, S. 2008.Think Globally, Eat Locally. San FransiscoFoodshed Assessment. American FarmlandTrust.Thornton, P. 2010. Livestock production: recenttrends, future prospects. Phil. Trans. R.Soc. B 2010 365, 2853-2867.Thornton, P.K. & Herrero, M. 2010. Potentialfor reduced methane and carbon dioxideemissions from livestock and pasture managementin the tropics. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences USA, 107: 19627-19632Thornton, P.K. & Gerber, P. 2010. Climatechange and the growth of the livestock sectorin developing countries Mitigation and AdaptationStrategies for Global Change (in press).Thornton, P.K., Kruska, R.L., Henninger, N.,Kristjanson, P.M., Reid, R.S., Atieno, F.,Odero, A.N. & Ndegwa, T. 2002. Mappingpoverty and livestock in the developing world.ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute),Nairobi, Kenya (available at http://www.ilri.org/InfoServ/Webpub/fulldocs/mappingPLDW/index.htm).Thøy, K., Wenzel, H., Jensen, A.P. & Nielsen, P.113


World Livestock 2011Livestock in Food Security2009. Biogas from manure represents a hugepotential for reduction in global greenhousegas emissions. 2009 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ.Sci. 6 242020.Tiong, C.K. & Bing, C.S. 1989. Abattoir condemnationof pigs and its economic implicationsin Singapore British Veterinary JournalVolume 145(1), January-February, pp.77-84.Tisdell, C.A., Harrison, S.R. & Ramsay, G.C.1999. The economic impacts of endemic diseasesand disease control programmes Rev.sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 1999, 18(2), 380-398.Tung, D.X. 2005. Smallholder Poultry Productionin Vietnam. Marketing Characteristicsand Strategies. In: NSPD 2005 (available athttp://www.poultry.kvl.dk/upload/poultry/workshops/w25/papers/tung.pdf).Umar, A. & Baulch, B. 2007. Risk Taking fora Living Trade and Marketing in the SomaliRegion of Ethiopia, UN OCHA-PCI, April2007.UN HABITAT. 2010. Urban Indigenous Peoplesand Migration: A Review of Policies,Programmes and Practices. United NationsHousing Rights Programme Report No. 8.Nairobi.UN Standing Committee on Nutrition. 2005.Overweight and Obesity: A New NutritionEmergency? SCN News No. 29.UN Standing Committee on Nutrition 2010.6 th Report on the World Nutrition Situation(available at http://www.unscn.org/files/Publications/RWNS6/report/SCN_report.pdf).UNDP. 2009 Human Development Report2009. New York.UNFPA. 2007. State of the World Population2007. New York.UNFPA. 2009. State of the World Population2009. New York.UNFPA. 2010. State of World Population 2010.New York.UNICEF. 2007. The State of the World’s Children2007. New York.UNICEF. Undated. Vitamin and Mineral Deficiency,A Global Progress Report (availableat http://www.micronutrient.org/CMFiles/PubLib/VMd-GPR-English1K-WW-3242008-4681.pdf).United Nations Population Division, 2009.World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision.(available at http://esa.un.org/unpp).Upton, M. 2004. The Role of Livestock in EconomicDevelopment and Poverty Reduction.PPLPI Working Paper no. 10. Rome, Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative, FAO.USAID. 2007. USAID Supports Marketing ofTraditionally-raised Poultry to Fight BirdFlu. USAID Viet Nam press release Thursday,March 05, 2009.USAID. 2009. USAID Executive Brief: El Niñoand Food Security in Southern Africa October2009. The Famine Early Warning SystemsNetwork. (available at http://www.fews.net/docs/Publications/El_Nino_brief_South_Oct_2009_final.pdf).Von Braun, J. & Torero, M. 2009. ImplementingPhysical and Virtual Food Reserves toProtect the Poor and Prevent Market Failure.IFPRI Policy Brief 10, February 2009. (availableat http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/bp010.pdf).Von Braun, J. 2008. Rising Food Prices: WhatShould be Done? IFPRI Policy Brief. Washington: International Food Policy ResearchInstitute. (available at http://www.ifpri.org/publication/rising-food-prices).Walker, A. 2010. UN calls meeting on food priceconcerns. BBC World Service. (available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11177346).Walker, J. 2006. Utilizing an Untapped Resource;Manure Use in The Bolivian Altiplanoas a Means to Increase Overall Production.SANREM CRSP (available at http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADL268.pdf).Walker, P., Rhubart-Berg, P., McKenzie, S.,Kelling, K. & Lawrence, R.S. 2005. Publichealth implications of meat production andconsumption. Public Health Nutrition: 8(4),348–356.Walmart. 2010. Walmart’s Integrated Organic114


ReferencesDiversion Program 2010. Solid Waste andRecycling Programs. (available at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/rcc/resources/meetings/rcc-2010/fanning.pdf).WHO. 2000. Manual on the Management ofNutrition in Major Emergencies. IFRC/UN-HCR/WFP/WHO. Geneva: WHO.WHO. 2001. Water, Sanitation and Health: WaterRelated Diseases (available at http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases/malnutrition/en.) Accessed January 2010.WHO. 2003. Diet, nutrition and the preventionof chronic diseases: report of a joint WHO/FAO expert consultation, Geneva, 28 January– 1 February 2002WHO. 2007. The challenge of obesity in theWHO European region and the strategies forresponse. F. Branca, H. Nikogosian and T.Lobstein eds. Geneva: WHO.WHO. 2011. Obesity and overweight. Factsheet N°311. Updated March 2011. Geneva.WHO, FAO, UNU. 2007. Protein and aminoacid requirements in human nutrition (PDF).WHO Press (available at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_935_eng.pdf. Retrieved2008-07-08).World Bank, FAO, IFPRI, OIE. 2006. EnhancingControl of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenzain Developing Countries throughCompensation: Issues and Good Practice.Washington: World Bank (available at http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload//217132/gui_hpai_compensation.pdf).World Bank, Latin America & the Caribbean.Undated. What are the facts about rising foodprices and their effect on the region? (availableat http://go.worldbank.org/CJYWKZPMX)World Bank. 2003. From Goats to Coats: InstitutionalReform in Mongolia’s CashmereSector. Report No. 26240-MOG. PovertyReduction and Economic Management UnitEast Asia and Pacific RegionWorld Bank. 2009. Mongolia Livestock SectorStudy Volume I – Synthesis Report. SustainableDevelopment Department East Asia andPacific Region. World Bank: Washington DC.World Population Prospects. 2002 revision.(available at http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2002/WPP2002_VOL_3.pdf).Yach, D., Stuckler, D. & Brownell, D. 2006.Epidemiologic and economic consequencesof the global epidemics of obesity and diabetesNature Medicine - 12, 62 - 66 (2006)Yi-Zhong, C. & Zhong, Z. Undated. Shanghai:trends towards specialised and Capital-intensiveurban agriculture. RUAF city case studyShanghai (available at http://www.ruaf.org/sites/default/files/Shanghai.PDF).Yi-Zhong, C. & Zhangen Z. 2000. Shanghai:Trends towards specialised and capital-intenseurban agriculture. In Growing Cities,Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on thePolicy Agenda. N. Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S.Gündel,U. Sabel-Koschella & H. de Zeeuw,(eds) A Reader on Urban Agriculture, GermanFoundation for International Development(DSE), Feldafing, Germany. 467-75.Yu, S.M., Zhu, L.F., Ouyang, Y.N., Xu, D.H. &Jin, Q.Y. 2008. Effects of rice-duck farmingsystem on biotic populations in paddy field.(article in Chinese) Ying Yong Sheng Tai XueBao 2008. Apr;19(4):807-12.115


Although much has been said about livestock’s role in achieving food security,in reality, the subject has been only partially addressed and no current documentfully covers the topic. Recognizing that food security is central tointernational development – and to the mandate of FAO - this report tellsthe story of livestock and food security from three perspectives.It begins by presenting a global overview, examining the role that livestock play inhuman nutrition, the world food supply and access to food particularly forpoor families. Next it moves from the global level to a human perspective,examining the way in which livestock contributes to the food security ofthree different human populations –livestock-dependent societies,small-scale mixed farmers and urban dwellers.The final part of the report looks to the future. It discusses the expected demandfor livestock source food and the way that increased demand can be met with evermore limited resources. It reviews the drivers that led to the livestock revolution,how these have changed and what the implications will be for livestockcontributing to resilient food systems of the future.

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines