Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=twps20 ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/twps20
Future demands of the poultry industry: will we meet our commitments sustainably in developed and developing economies?
F. J. Kleyn & M. Ciacciariello
To cite this article: F. J. Kleyn & M. Ciacciariello (2021) Future demands of the poultry industry:
will we meet our commitments sustainably in developed and developing economies?, World's Poultry Science Journal, 77:2, 267-278, DOI: 10.1080/00439339.2021.1904314
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2021.1904314
Published online: 09 Apr 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1106
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 4 View citing articles
Future demands of the poultry industry: will we meet our commitments sustainably in developed and developing economies?
F. J. Kleyna,b and M. Ciacciariellob
aSpesfeed Consulting (Pty) Ltd, South Africa; bDepartment and Animal and Poultry Science, School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
SUMMARY
The world’s population is expected to reach 9.8 billion people by 2050.
Increases in population size, coupled with socio-economic changes such as urbanisation, age demographics, and increasing affluence levels, will double the demand for poultry products by 2050. The primary objective of agribusiness is to ensure food security for the global population at affordable prices. Concurrently, there is a desire that all food products be produced sustainably. The poultry industry is well-positioned to achieve adequate nutrient-dense food provision because chickens are efficient converters of energy and nutrients into edible product. Poultry production plays an essential role in local food security and the alleviation of poverty in the absence of other nutrient- dense foods. The poultry industry possesses the technology, skills and capital to meet the expected demand targets. However, the demand for poultry products that fulfil the environmental, social and financial standpoints of sustainability will increase. Public opinion will prevent us from using many of the technologies required to achieve these goals.
Consumers will need to change their expectations, behaviour and spending patterns in the best interests of sustainability.
KEYWORDS
Consumer preferences; food security; sustainability
Introduction
The world’s population, currently estimated to be 7.2 billion, is expected to reach 9.8 billion by 2050, with the vast majority of population growth occurring in the developing countries of South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (WRI 2018). The African continent’s population is expected to be two billion people by 2050, double the current number (Montpellier Panel 2013). Not only will the population grow, but three major demographic changes will coincide with this massive rise: first, the rate of urbanisation will increase to 70% of the world’s population in contrast to less than 50% today (UN 2015); second, the general level of affluence in the developing world will rise; and, third, the average age of populations will increase due to reduced fertility rates and rising life expectancy. As populations become more affluent, the expectations and requirements for food will change. Consumer concern, which has been fuelled by food scares and the desire to eat healthier and safer food, influences food purchasing patterns (Magkos et al. 2006; Bray and Ankeny 2018).
CONTACT F. J. Kleyn rick@spesfeed.co.za Spesfeed Consulting (Pty) Ltd, PO Box 955, Broederstroom, 0240, South Africa
https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2021.1904314
© 2021 World’s Poultry Science Association.
Agriculture has done well in its role of providing food security. Globally, the proportion of malnourished children under the age of five fell from 25% in 1990 to 14% in 2015 (The Economist 2017). The situation in Africa is of more concern. The number of malnourished children is increasing (FAO 2017) and extreme poverty still affects 35% of sub- Saharan Africa’s people (Schoch and Lakner 2020). The price of all meat products, relative to average income, has never been cheaper (Godfray et al. 2018). Between 1980 and 2005, the real price of poultry declined by 3% per year (Narrod et al. 2012). In low-income countries, citizens are dependent on the small quantities of animal products that they can afford to prevent any negative impacts on their health (Godfray et al. 2018). Paradoxically, technical progress in high-income countries has led to higher production costs, an increase in the distribution margins, and a higher demand for services related to food (Adamopoulos 2009;
Schneider et al. 2011).
The growth in livestock production in both developing and developed economies is being led by poultry production; in fact, production in developing countries exceeds that of the developed world (Narrod et al. 2012). It is important to consider various forces that are acting on agribusiness. First, the agricultural industry needs to ensure that there is enough food for everyone. Second, producers need to take heed of evolving consumer perceptions and demands. Finally, poultry plays a role in reducing poverty, making the development of dynamic poultry industries vital for social well-being and a core compo- nent of the economies of many regions (Alders and Pym 2009; FAO 2015).
The transition of the livestock sector from ruminants towards monogastric animals, as measured by the per capita consumption of meat, has been responsible for improved efficiencies in terms of energy and protein production and for reductions in land area use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Wu et al. 2014; Davis et al. 2015; Fry et al. 2018;
Godfray et al. 2018). Animal agriculture uses about 70–74% of all agricultural land and contributes about 15% of all GHG (Steinfeld et al. 2006; Davis et al. 2015; Godfray et al.
2018). These factors must define research agendas and government policies in diverse parts of the world (Herrero and Thornton 2013; McMohan 2013; WRI 2018).
Despite the phenomenal growth in agricultural output, several ‘gaps’ exist. The food gap represents the difference between the food produced and the likely demand. By 2050, 56%
more calories will be needed to close this gap (WRI 2018). Yield gaps exist between commer- cial agriculture and smallholder farmers (Davis et al. 2015; FAO 2015) and the yields of conventional production systems and alternative systems (De Ponti et al. 2012; Van Horne 2020). A land gap will be created by increasing pressure on cropland, estimated to be 593 million hectares by 2050 (WRI 2018). Lastly, a so-called emission gap will open up between desired GHG emissions and what is produced (UN 2018). This paper explores the poultry industry, its sustainability level, and how we can fulfil our obligation to close these gaps.
Sustainability
There is increasing awareness that agricultural production systems need to be sustainable and, rather than merely remaining a concept, this issue demands the attention of food producers and consumers. Interdependencies between resource use (land and water) and food production impact broadly on poultry production and sustainability. Climate change, a topic beyond the remit of this paper, will also need to be considered. Besides,
issues such as feed crop demand, crop yields, resource use (land, protein and energy), management practices, and the use of chemicals (pesticides and antibiotics) all need to be examined. Sustainable systems should cope with major shocks such as climate change and pandemics (Tilman et al. 2002; Alonzo 2020).
Sustainability is a concept with multiple facets, namely environmental, ethical (welfare and social), economic and enforcement, often called the four ‘Es’ of sustainability, as categorised by the FAO (2012). Environmental integrity revolves around the management of resources, environmental pollution and the degradation of ecosystems; ethics and social well-being focus on both animal and human well-being; economic viability is critical to the survival of agribusiness; and enforcement or institutional sustainability is required by the institutions and governments that promulgate and enforce regulations. As the European Union (2001) points out, ‘too often, action to achieve objectives in one policy area hinders progress in another’. Sustainability often depends on the viewpoint of a person or institution, and different social groupings tend to focus on the area of sustainability that suits their particular narrative.
Nutrition is central to sustainable poultry production. The more efficiently chickens utilise their feed, the more financially viable the feeding operation becomes, with a reduced carbon footprint due to lower demand for resources. Appropriate nutrition also impacts on bird and human welfare. The justification for reducing dietary protein levels is compelling (Greenhalgh et al. 2020). Reduced crude protein (CP) diets are fed to poultry by applying enhanced ideal amino acid profiles and by utilising an ever-widening range of synthetic amino acids. Lower CP diets lead to increase performance, improved protein digestibility, reduced water intake, reduced manure nitrogen, and better bird welfare (Belloir et al. 2017; Chrystal et al. 2020). Lowering dietary CP by 1% reduces the carbon footprint of broiler production by 102 kg/ton of broiler produced (Martin 2020).
The ingredients used to manufacture poultry diets are a vital aspect of sustainability. The production of grain and soybeans, as well as long transport chains, are often associated with environmental degradation that harms sustainability (INRAE, 2021). Not all ingredients should be viewed in the same light when assessing their environmental impact. Production methods, such as precision farming and no-till conservation tillage play a role in reducing inputs (INRAE 2021). Land-use change, which describes practices such as deforestation, has an enormous impact; by contrast, the re-deployment of ‘set aside’ land has a minimal effect on the carbon footprint. The INRAE (2021) feed tables carry data suitable for least-cost formula- tion, based on Life Cycle Analysis. These data allow nutritionists to determine the environ- mental impact of diet formulation and animal production.
The cultivars used in the production of feed crops impact on both production efficiency and the size of the carbon footprint. The use of genetically modified (GM) technology brings new prospects in addressing food security problems (Muzhinji and Ntuli 2020). GM crops facilitate no-tillage and conservation tillage practices that help to control soil erosion, conserve soil moisture, support carbon sequestration, decrease GHG emissions, reduce pesticide spraying and increase yields (Van Acker et al. 2017; Brooks and Barfoot 2020).
New or alternative ingredients are a means of driving the sustainability of feeding poultry.
If locally produced ingredients replace imported materials, a significant reduction in the carbon footprint of animal products can be realised. However, alternative ingredients pose a number of challenges. Often their nutrient content is unknown, their quality variable, their
supply erratic, and the quantities available are frequently constrained. In addition, relative to conventional ingredients, many of the alternative ingredients are expensive.
Food demand
Ensuring and maintaining food security is the most significant concern faced by human- kind, something that the well-fed tend to forget. Animal products play a role in food security. They represent 40% of the value of all agricultural production (Godfray et al.
2018) and provide 13% of the calories and 28% of the protein consumed (FAO 2011). An increase in the human consumption of animal products of 1 kg/year results in a reduction in grain consumption of 2.8 kg/year (Wu et al. 2014).
Merely meeting the demand for food is too simplistic a measure and a more complex definition of food security is required (Bodirsky et al. 2015). Food security implies the physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food for all to maintain a healthy and active life (Pinstrup-Andersen 2009). Access to food is only part of the solution, afford- ability is just as important as supply. High food prices impede the resolution of food security issues in areas where food cannot be grown (Skinner and Haysom 2016).
As people become wealthier, they tend to eat fewer grains and increase their con- sumption of meat and high-value foods (Bennett 1941; FAO 2013). Food demand is expected to increase between 59 and 98% by 2050 (Elferink and Schierhorn 2016), but this will be skewed towards a demand for animal-based products (Bodirsky et al. 2015;
Gouel and Guimbard 2018; OECD 2020). It is projected that the demand for animal products could grow by 70% by 2050 (Alexandratos and Bruinsma 2012), while Gouel and Guimbard (2018) predicted that the demand for animal-based calories would increase from 74 to 114%. Global demand for eggs is expected to increase by 65%
(Preisinger 2018), and the demand for poultry meat by 121% (Alexandratos and Bruinsma 2012). Although food supply has more than tripled since the 1960s (Gouel and Guimbard 2018), there are concerns that this trend cannot be maintained to meet expected demand. Considering the variation in the estimated demand for poultry products, it is reasonable to expect that the demand will double by the year 2050.
However, a delicate balance needs to be maintained to ensure that costs do not prevent access to food by poor. To achieve these goals, land use and crop production efficiency need to increase. The social and ecological consequences of clearing more land for agriculture are high since deforestation and the destruction of savannahs cause rapid and irreversible loss of biodiversity and extensive GHG emissions (CBO 2012).
The concept of sustainable intensification is taking root (Montpellier Panel 2013;
Rockström et al. 2017; WRI 2018). In future, the intention is that farmers grow more on existing land without becoming over-reliant on pesticides and fertilisers, and without increas- ing GHG emission, thus addressing a number of the ‘gaps’ already highlighted. Precision farming tools, hybrid or GM seeds, irrigation systems, and environmentally optimised crop rotations will need to be adopted. It is difficult to envisage how smallholder, undercapitalised farmers will adopt all of these technologies. The Montpellier Panel (2013) and the UN (2015) predict that 75–80% of future production increases in the developing world need to come from enhanced crop yields, with the remainder arising from an increase in the amount of arable land used. Elferink and Schierhorn (2016) comment that, currently, increases in crop yields are too slow to meet the forecasted demand for food.
These gaps will not close without significant long-term private and public investment.
Official development assistance (ODA) earmarked for agriculture has declined signifi- cantly in the last 30 years – from 16% of total ODA in 1980 to 3% in 2006 (NEPAD 2013), ensuring the stagnation of yields. More supportive policies, laws and public spending on infrastructure would create a favourable investment climate for agriculture (Elferink and Schierhorn 2016).
The current status of poultry production
It is challenging to treat agriculture as a single entity. Various contrasts are evident between smallholder farmers, mostly found in developing economies, and high-intensity, modern agribusiness. Approximately 2.5 billion people depend on small farms globally (FAO 2013), many of whom live below the poverty datum line, estimated to be 1.90 USD/day (WHO 2020).
Subsistence farmers are mostly dependent on local inputs for animal feed, fertiliser and water (rainfall). Conversely, agribusiness is almost entirely dependent on an external supply of fuel, fertiliser, grain, protein, and water. High levels of vertical control characterise the poultry industry in what is broadly termed ‘integration’, a strategy known to resist shocks in input and output prices (Kryger et al. 2010; Narrod et al. 2012). Mainstream agricultural development concentrates on productivity. Until recently, it has placed limited focus on all aspects of sustainability, resulting in pressure on the environment through its demand for resources and its emission of pollutants (Rockström et al. 2017; Van Wagenberg et al. 2017).
The poultry industry has adapted to increased demand for cheap, safe products by becoming more efficient. From a consumer’s perspective, poultry has many competi- tive advantages over other forms of animal protein. These include convenience, con- sistent product quality, the absence of religious strictures, a healthy image (white meat), low-cost production, a continuous stream of innovative products, and afford- ability (Alexandratos and Bruinsma 2012). In addition, poultry has a better feed-to- food conversion ratio than other forms of animal product and a smaller environmental footprint in terms of resource use per kilogram of meat or eggs produced (Vaarst et al.
2015; Fry et al. 2018; Godfray et al. 2018). When measured based on protein utilisation per unit of edible portion, poultry is considerably more efficient than ruminants or aquaculture (Table 1) (Fry et al. 2018).
Unfortunately, several perceptions tarnish our industry: that production occurs in factory farms; animal welfare is flawed; and that poultry products contain hormones (erroneously so)
Table 1. Calculated protein retention for selected aquatic and terrestrial farmed animal species (after Fry et al. 2018).
Species FCRa Edible (%) Feed protein (%)
Protein retention in human diet (%)
Atlantic salmon 1.2–1.5 58–88 35 28
Tilapia 1.4–2.4 37–45 28 17
Beef cattle 6–10 52–64 14 13
Dairy (milk)b 1.6–2 10 16 12
Broiler 1.7–2 70–78 20 37
Egg productionc 2.0 92 15 32
Pig 2.7–5 68–76 18 21
aBreeding stock consumption is ignored. Note the high FCR used in the calculation.
bFigures added: Assuming a 650 kg cow producing 30 ,/day at 10% solids.
cFigures added: Assuming 320 eggs per year and 7 kg feed used for rearing.
and residual antibiotics, which may be harmful. Many of these beliefs are based on perception and misinformation, often created by the poultry industry itself, which has used ‘Hormone- free’, ‘Drug-free’ and ‘Free-range’ as marketing slogans for decades. The danger of consumers imbibing harmful drug residues from consuming poultry products, and the notion that these drugs somehow contribute to an increase in drug-resistant bacteria, are more perceptions than a reality (Bywater and Casewell 2000; Cervantes 2015). Scientific evidence suggests that issues with anti-microbial resistance in human medicine are primarily due to the incorrect use of antibiotics by people rather than derived from food-animals (UK Government 2011).
Regardless, public perception is that antibiotic use needs to be handled effectively and time- ously; thus, the solution will be for the poultry industry to operate as responsible stewards of the limited number of compounds that we have at our disposal.
The most significant effect on the environment by animal agriculture is the level of GHG produced and, by extension, the size of the carbon footprint of our production systems. Intensive animal production systems produce fewer GHG emissions per unit of output than extensive, forage-based systems (Godfray et al. 2018). By estimation, the poultry supply chain represents 80% of poultry production’s total energy demand (or 82% of GHG emission). However, steps should still be taken on poultry farms to reduce energy use using improved heating, ventilation and lighting (Pelletier et al. 2014).
The feed conversion ratio of broilers is improving by two to three points per annum (Avendaňo et al. 2017). By calculation, a 2 kg broiler grown in 2025 will require about 300 g less feed than it would today – a 10% reduction, leading to a decrease in GHG production. Pelletier et al. (2014) demonstrated that table egg production per hen housed had increased by 30% between 1960 and 2010. In the same period, the total environ- mental footprint was 63% lower in terms of GHG emissions, with a 13% reduction in cumulative energy demand. Improved egg mass output per bird housed is the primary driver for improvements in feed efficiency and, therefore, sustainability. Feed usage has dropped by 0.45 kg per kilogram of eggs produced over the last 20 years, a 22%
improvement (Preisinger 2018). The real contributor to the carbon footprint is the production and transportation of feed crops. Only by using feed more efficiently will any meaningful change be made to the carbon footprint.
Alternative production systems
Poultry production systems that offer freedom of movement and outdoor access to chickens (alternative systems) are perceived to be better for chicken welfare. However, these systems are associated with public health and food safety risks (Van Asselt 2019).
They have a direct bearing on resource usage and, thus, on environmental sustain- ability (Williams et al. 2009; Van Wagenberg et al. 2017). Alternative systems have a lower environmental burden when measured per unit of land use; however, more land is required in total, and the environmental burden is higher per unit of product.
Alternative systems are inferior to conventional production systems in terms of environmental sustainability, and they will require more acreage to meet future demand. Alternative systems are more ethically acceptable to consumers but, if welfare is measured in terms of flock mortality, then conventional systems are the more principled choice (Weeks et al. 2016). Production costs for alternative systems are higher, for instance, the cost of conventional systems is about one-third of the cost of
organic production (82.6 Eurocents versus 242.0 Eurocents per kilogram of live weight) (Van Horne 2020). However, if premium prices are achieved for organic products, the return per animal produced may be higher (Van Wagenberg et al. 2017).
The latest global trend is the production of ‘slow-growing’ chickens. Widowski (2020) found that many welfare indicators are directly related to growth rate, making slow-growing chickens an option on welfare grounds. However, the National Chicken Council (2017) estimated that if one-third of the US broiler industry were to switch to slow-growing production systems, nearly 1.5 billion more broilers would be required annually to meet current demand. This increase would necessitate using an extra three million hectares of land to grow the required feed ingredients. In the layer industry, conversion to cage-free production systems would lead to a rise in production costs of 14–28% due to higher feed intakes, increased mortality, more downgraded eggs, and greater space requirements (Preisinger 2018).
An organic seal of approval does not indicate food safety, contrary to widespread consumer belief (Schroeder et al. 2014). Instead, any form of ‘artisanal’ production often escapes the scrutiny of public health officials. Paradoxically, most consumers are more concerned about their own well-being and consume ‘natural’ products, rather than the welfare of the animals themselves (Magkos et al. 2006; Bray and Ankeny 2018).
Smallholder systems
Smallholder systems, mostly found in the middle- and low-income countries in the tropics, contribute 8% of global egg production but only 2% of poultry meat production (Mottet and Tempio 2016). Eight-five % of rural households in sub-Saharan Africa keep chickens or other poultry types (Guèye 2000). Poultry plays essential social and cultural roles in communities and frequently serves as a ready source of capital.
In the tropics, environmental conditions favour pathogen growth, year-round survival and diversity. Humans and their livestock live at high densities, often in close proximity.
Anti-microbials are essential to the health and well-being of people and their livestock, and we should guard against the poor shouldering the burden of blanket bans on their usage (Robinson et al. 2017). Poultry farms need to be situated close to their markets, allowing poultry production in peri-urban areas. Most local ordinances inadequately address human and animal health concerns for backyard poultry (Brinkley et al. 2018).
The resurgence of zoonosis only increases these fears. Despite the strides made in controlling Newcastle disease (Alders et al. 2010), little attention is paid to the health and protection of smallholder poultry in general (Kryger et al. 2010).
It is difficult to forecast a bright future for smallholder poultry production because smallholders are denied access to inputs, lack economies of scale, and generally fail to meet the food safety, traceability, and compliance demands required by modern retailers. The advantages of small-scale poultry projects are that relatively little capital is required, labour costs are low, farmers see a quick return, and farm size is scalable;
thus, it is unlikely that they will disappear soon (Kryger et al. 2010; Narrod et al. 2012).
Yield gaps exist, offering the potential to improve productivity without increasing resource demand (Davis et al. 2015).
Discussion and conclusions
The poultry industry has made remarkable strides in improving their production systems’
sustainability by attaining faster growth rates and improved egg outputs. These improvements have led to improved nutrient and energy utilisation, lower demand for scarce resources per unit of product and improved financial viability. Technical efficiency places the poultry industry in a strong position to buy scarce resources in future. Future focus areas will need to include a continued reduction in demand for resources such as land, energy and water through continued efficiency improvements; a decrease in the use of certain chemicals (antibiotics, pesticides and fertilisers); and a general improvement in bird welfare. Under a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario, agriculture’s deleterious impact on the environment will con- tinue to increase (NAS, 2021). The poultry industry will have to strive for continuous improvement in all aspects of sustainability in future.
Attempts to improve welfare through alternative production systems, including organic, free-range and slow-growing animals, may harm the environment and hence sustainability (Williams et al. 2009; De Jong and Butterworth 2016; Van Wagenberg et al. 2017). For alternative production systems to be economically viable, high net prices are essential, which, if not possible, will require subsidies from governments. A redesign of entire food systems and a change in consumers’ mindset about which products they eat or purchase is required to bring sustainability to the fore (UK Government 2011; NAS 2021).
Many of the technologies currently taken for granted by poultry producers may be denied in future. An example is the voluntary withdrawal of ionophores from all broiler diets in Norway following consumer pressure (Kaldhusdal 2018). As a consequence, the industry will have to explore alternative technologies and management practices.
Despite the structural and market-related challenges smallholder farmers face, they play a crucial role in moving towards local food security, sustainability, and the alleviation of poverty in less developed countries. It would be unreasonable to expect these producers to tackle this role as ‘organic’ farmers since they need to maximise yields on limited acreage and have little opportunity to leverage higher selling prices to cover alternative production systems’ increased production costs. As pointed out by De Ponti et al. (2012), the yield gaps associated with the absence of inputs (genetics, balanced feed, and medication) are extreme, negatively affecting food security and sustainability. Unless real interventions occur at the global level, smallholders will become poorer, and food insecurity will become the norm.
All parties will require a more realistic approach if the demands of growing populations for calories and protein are to be met sustainably. It is proposed that the new paradigm should be
‘sustainable’ products. These products would embrace the advantages of those systems that fulfil each aspect of sustainability. Consumers will need to make a conscious choice to buy such products. Sustainable products will expand business profits while reducing pollution and improving animal welfare. Striving for ever-higher levels of sustainability, in all its aspects, will be required to close the gaps that we know exist in food production systems.
Disclosure statement
The authors reported no potential conflict of interest. The authors funded the cost of publishing in open access.
Notes on contributors
F. J. Kleyn is a self-employed consulting nutritionist at SPESFEED Consulting (Pty) Ltd.
M. Ciacciariello is a senior lecturer in the Department and Animal and Poultry Science, School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.
References
Adamopoulos, T. 2009. Do Richer Countries Have Higher Distribution Margins? Mimeo, York University. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.686.6108
Alders, R. G., B. Bagnol, and M. P. Young. 2010. “Technically Sound and Sustainable Newcastle Disease Control in Village Chickens: Lessons Learnt over Fifteen Years.” World’s Poultry Science Journal 66: 433–440. doi:10.1017/S0043933910000516.
Alders, R. G., and R. A. E. Pym. 2009. “Village Poultry: Still Important to Millions, Eight Thousand Years after Domestication.” World’s Poultry Science Journal 65: 181–190. doi:10.1017/
S0043933909000117.
Alexandratos, N., and J. Bruinsma. 2012. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). http://
www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/esa/Global.€.€./world_ag_2030_50_2012_rev.pd
Alonzo, A. 2020. “Don’t Forget about Sustainability during COVID-19.” https://www.wattagnet.
com/blogs/47-us-poultry-industry-insights/post/40914-dont-forget-about-sustainability- during-covid-19?oly_enc_id=4913F3542689I6I
Avendaňo, S., A. Neeteson, and B. Fancher. 2017. “Broiler Breeding for Sustainability and Welfare – Are There Trade-offs?” Proceedings of the Poultry Beyond 2023 Conference, New Zealand.
https://www.chicken.org.au/wp-content/.€.€./Successful-breeding-for-better-welfare.doc
Belloir, P., B. Méda, W. Lambert, E. Corrent, H. Juin, M. Lessire, and S. Tesseraud. 2017.
“Reducing the CP Content in Broiler Feeds: Impact on Animal Performance, Meat Quality and Nitrogen Utilisation.” Animal 11: 1881–1889. doi:10.1017/S1751731117000660.
Bennett, M. K. 1941. “Wheat in National Diets.” Wheat Studies 18: 37–76.
Bodirsky, B. L., S. Rolinski, A. Biewald, I. Weindl, A. Popp, and H. Lotze-Campen. 2015. “Global Food Demand Scenarios for the 21st Century.” Plos One 10: e0139201. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0139201.
Bray, H. J., and R. A. Ankeny. 2018. “Happy Chickens Lay Tastier Eggs: Motivations for Buying Free-range Eggs in Australia.” Australian Poultry Science Symposium, Sydney, Sydney Australia, February 4-7, 29.
Brinkley, C., J. S. Kingsley, and J. Mench. 2018. “A Method for Guarding Animal Welfare and Public Health: Tracking the Rise of Backyard Poultry Ordinances.” Journal of Community Health 43: 639–646. doi:10.1007/s10900-017-0462-0.
Brooks, G., and P. Barfoot. 2020. “Environmental Impacts of Genetically Modified (GM) Crop Use 1996–2018: Impacts on Pesticide Use and Carbon Emissions.” GM Crops and Food 11 (4):
215–241. doi:10.1080/21645698.2020.1773198.
Bywater, R. J., and H. W. Casewell. 2000. “An Assessment of the Antibiotic Resistance in Different Bacterial Species and of Contribution of Animal Sources to Resistance in Human Infections.”
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 46: 1052. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jac.a020886.
CBO. 2012. Deforestation and Greenhouse Gases. Washington, DC: Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/
1-6-12-forest.pdf
Cervantes, H. M. 2015. “Antibiotic-free Poultry Production: Is It Sustainable?” Journal of Applied Poultry Research 24: 91. doi:10.3382/japr/pfv006.
Chrystal, P. V., A. F. Moss, A. Khoddami, V. D. Naranjo, P. H. Selle, and S. Y. Liu. 2020. “Impacts of Reduced-crude Protein Diets on Key Parameters in Male Broilerchickens Offered Maise-based Diets.” Poultry Science 99: 505–516. doi:10.3382/ps/pez573.
Davis, K. F., Y. K. Herrero, M. Havlik, P. J. A. Carr, and P. D’Odorico. 2015. “Historical Trade-offs of Livestock’s Environmental Aspects.” Environmental Research Letters 10: 125103. doi:10.1088/
1748-9326/10/12/125013.
De Jong, I. C., and A. Butterworth. 2016. “White Paper: Broiler Welfare 2020: Current Developments and Prospects for the Future.” 6th EMEA Intestinal Integrity Symposium, Vienna, Austria.
De Ponti, T., B. Rijk, and M. K. van Ittersum. 2012. “The Crop Yield Gap between Organic and Conventional Agriculture.” Agricultural Systems 108: 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2011.12.004.
The Economist. 2017. “In Praise of Quinoq.” March 11. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/
03/09/in-praise-of-quinoa
Elferink, M., and F. Schierhorn. 2016. “Global Demand For Food Is Rising. Can We Meet It?”
Harvard Business Review, April.
European Union. 2001. “A Sustainable Europe for A BetterWorld: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development.” Commission Of The European Communities, Brussels.
FAO. 2011. World Livestock 2011 – Livestock in Food Security. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
FAO. 2012. “Sustainability Assessments of Food and Agriculture Systems (SAFA) Guidelines.”
http://www.fao.org
FAO. 2013. FAO Statistical Yearbook 2013. Part 1—The Setting. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3107e/i3107e01.pdf FAO. 2015. Yield Gap Analysis: Methods and Case Studies. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO). www.fao.org/3/a-i4695e.pdf
FAO. 2017. “Africa Regional Overview of Food Security and Nutrition.” https://reliefweb.int/report/
world/2017-africa-regional-overview-food-security-and-nutrition-food-security-and-nutrition Fry, J. P., N. A. Mailloux, D. C. Love, M. C. Mill, and L. Cao. 2018. “Feed Conversion Efficiency in
Aquaculture: Do We Measure It Correctly?” Environmental Research Letters 13: 024017.
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaa273.
Godfray, H. C. J., P. Aveyard, T. Garnett, J. W. Hall, T. J. Key, J. Lorimer, R. T. Pierrehumbert, P. Scarborough, M. Springmann, and S. A. Jebb. 2018. “Meat Consumption, Health, and the Environment.” Science 361: 243. doi:10.1126/science.aam5324.
Gouel, C., and H. Guimbard. 2018. “Nutrition Transition and the Structure of Global Food Demand.”
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 101 (2): 383–403. doi:10.1093/ajae/aay030.
Greenhalgh, S., P. V. Chrystal, P. H. Selle, and Y. Liu. 2020. “Reduced-crude Protein Diets in Chicken-meat Production: Justification for an Imperative.” World’s Poultry Science Journal 76 (3): 537–548. doi:10.1080/00439339.2020.1789024.
Guèye, E. F. 2000. “The Role of Family Poultry in Poverty Alleviation, Food Security and the Promotion of Gender Equality in Rural Africa.” Outlook on Agriculture 29: 129–136.
doi:10.5367/000000000101293130.
Herrero, M., and P. K. Thornton. 2013. “Livestock and Global Change: Emerging Issues for Sustainable Food Systems.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 110: 52.
INRAE-CIRAD-AFZ. 2021. “Feed Tables: Composition and Nutritive Values of Feeds for Cattle, Sheep, Goats, Pigs, Poultry, Rabbits, Horses and Salmonids.” https://www.feedtables.com/
Kaldhusdal, M. 2018. Is Removal of Coccidiostats in Broiler Diets a Viable Option? Copenhagen, Denmark: DSM Gut Health School.
Kryger, K. N., K. A. Thomsen, M. A. Whyte, and M. Dissing. 2010. “Smallholder Poultry Production – Livelihoods, Food Security and Socio-cultural Significance.” Smallholder Poultry Production, Paper No. 4. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Magkos, F., F. Arvaniti, and A. Zampelas. 2006. “Organic Food: Buying More Safety or Just Peace of Mind? A Critical Review of the Literature.” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 46:
22–56.
Martin, N. 2020. “Life Cycle Approach as an Opportunity to Show the Sustainability Benefits of Reduction of Dietary Crude Protein.” Proceedings of Animal Feed Manufacturers Association (AFMA) Forum, Sun City, South Africa.
McMohan, P. 2013. Feeding Frenzy: The New Politics of Food. London: Profile Books.
Montpellier Panel. 2013. “Sustainable Intensification: A New Paradigm for African Agriculture.”
Report Presented by Agriculture for Impact (Ag4Impact). London: Houses of Parliament.
Mottet, A., and G. Tempio. 2016. “Global Poultry Production: Current State and Future Outlook and Challenges.” Proceedings of the XXV World’s Poultry Congress, Beijing, China.
Muzhinji, N., and V. Ntuli. 2020. “Genetically Modified Organisms and Food Security in Southern Africa: Conundrum and Discourse.” GM Crops and Food 12: 25–35. In press. doi:10.1080/
21645698.2020.1794489.
Narrod, C. A., M. Tiongco, and A. Costales. 2012. Global Poultry Sector Trends and External Drivers of Structural Change. Washington, DC: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 2021. The Challenge of Feeding the World Sustainably:
Summary of the US-UK Scientific Forum on Sustainable Agriculture. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/26007/the-challenge-of-feeding-the-world- sustainably-summary-of-the
National Chicken Council. 2017. “Slow Growth Chicken Environmental Impact.” https://www.natio nalchickencouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ChickenUsaOneThirdInfoGraphic.jpg NEPAD. 2013. “Agriculture in Africa: Transformation and Outlook.” Midrand, South Africa.
http://www.nepad.org/resource/agriculture-africa-transformation-and-outlook
OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2020. “Meat Consumption.”
https://data.oecd.org/agroutput/meat-consumption.htm
Pelletier, N., M. Ibarburu, and H. Xin. 2014. “Comparison of the Environmental Footprint of the Egg Industry in the United States in 1960 and 2010.” Poultry Science 93: 241–255. doi:10.3382/ps.2013- 03390.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P. 2009. “Food Security: Definition and Measurement.” Food Security 1: 5–7.
doi:10.1007/s12571-008-0002-y.
Preisinger, R. 2018. “Innovative Layer Genetics to Handle Global Challenges in Egg Production.”
British Poultry Science 59: 1–6. doi:10.1080/00071668.2018.1401828.
Robinson, T. P., D. P. Bu, J. Carrique-Mas, E. M. Fèvre, M. Gilbert, D. Grace, S. I. Hay, et al. 2017.
“Antibiotic Resistance: Mitigation Opportunities in Livestock Sector Development.” Animal 11:
1–3. doi:10.1017/S1751731116001828.
Rockström, J., J. Williams, G. Daily, A. Noble, N. Matthews, L. Gordon, L. Wetterstrand, et al.
2017. “Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture for Human Prosperity and Global Sustainability.” Ambio 46: 4–17.
Schneider, U. A., P. Havlik, E. Schmid, H. Valin, A. Mosnier, M. Obersteiner, H. Böttcher, et al.
2011. “Impacts of Population Growth, Economic Development, and Technical Change on Global Food Production and Consumption.” Agricultural Systems 104: 205–215. doi:10.1016/
j.agsy.2010.11.003.
Schoch, M., and C. Lakner. 2020. “African Countries Show Mixed Progress Towards Poverty Reduction and Half of Them Have an Extreme Poverty Rate above 35%.” World Bank. https://
blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/african-countries-show-mixed-progress-towards-poverty- reduction-and-half-them-have-extreme
Schroeder, J. B., B. Chassy, D. Tribe, G. Brooks, and D. Kershen. 2014. “Organic Marketing Report.” Academics Review. https://www.247pressrelease.com/attachments/038/press_release_
distribution_0383762_77592.pdf
Skinner, C., and G. Haysom. 2016. “The Informal Sector’s Role in Food Security: A Missing Link in Policy Debates?” Working Paper 44. Cape Town: Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), University of the Western Cape (UWC) and Centre of Excellence on Food Security.
Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, P. Wassenaar, T. Castel, M. Roosales, and C. De Haan. 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow – Environmental Issues and Options. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Tilman, D., K. G. Cassman, P. A. Matson, R. Nayloir, and S. Polasky. 2002. “Agricultural Sustainability and Intensive Production Practices.” Nature 418: 671. doi:10.1038/nature01014.
UK Government Office for Science. 2011. “The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and Choices for Global Sustainability.” London.
UN. 2015. “World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision.” http://www.un.org/en/develop ment/desa/news/population/2015-report.html
UN. 2018. “Emissions Gap Report 2018.” New York: United Nations (UN).
Vaarst, M., S. Steenfeldt, and K. Horsted. 2015. “Sustainable Development Perspectives in Poultry Production.” World’s Poultry Science Journal 71: 609–620. doi:10.1017/S0043933915002433.
Van Acker, R., M. Rahman, and S. Z. H. Cici. 2017. “Pros and Cons of GMO Crop Farming.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. Oxford University Press. https://doi.
org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.217
Van Asselt, M. 2019. “Conflicts between Chicken Welfare and Public Health Risks in Poultry Husbandry.” PhD diss., Wagenining University.
Van Horne, P. L. M. 2020. “Economics of Broiler Production Systems in the Netherlands:
Economic Aspects within the Greenwell Sustainability Assessment Model.” Wageningen Economic Research Report No. 2020-027.
Van Wagenberg, C. P. A., Y. De Haas, H. Hogeveen, M. M. Van Krimpen, M. P. M. Meuwissen, C. E. van Middelaar, and T. B. Rodenburg. 2017. “Animal Board Invited Review: Comparing Conventional and Organic Livestock Production Systems on Different Aspects of Sustainability.” Animal 11: 1839–1851. doi:10.1017/S175173111700115X.
Weeks, C. A., S. L. Lambton, and A. G. Williams. 2016. “Implications for Welfare, Productivity and Sustainability of the Variation in Reported Levels of Mortality for Laying Hen Flocks Kept in Different Housing Systems: A Meta-analysis of Ten Studies.” PLoS ONE 11 (1): e0146394.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146394.
WHO. 2020. “Proportion of Population below the International Poverty Line.” The Global Health Observatory, World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/data/gho/indicator-metadata- registry/imr-details/4744
Widowski, T. 2020. “U of G Researchers Prove Slow-growing Chickens More Humane in Ground Breaking Study.” Ontario Agricultural College, University of Guelph. https://news.uoguelph.ca/2020/
09/u-of-g-researchers-prove-slow-growing-chickens-more-humane-in-groundbreaking-study Williams, A. G., E. Audsley, and D. L. Sandars. 2009. “A Lifecycle Approach to Reducing the
Environmental Impacts of Poultry Production.” European Symposium on Poultry Nutrition 17: 70.
WRI. 2018. Creating a Sustainable Food Future. Washington, DC: World Resource Institute.
https://research.wri.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/creating-sustainable-food-future_2_5.pdf Wu, G., F. W. Bazer, and H. R. Cross. 2014. “Land-based Production of Animal Protein: Impacts,
Efficiency and Sustainability.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1328: 18–28.
doi:10.1111/nyas.12566.