July 22, 2020

 

Wrestling for the narrative of responsible livestock and feed productions

 

 

In recent years, livestock and feed industries have fought hard to show that they are capable of environmentally responsible productions and sourcing of raw materials.

 

Yet, the notion that livestock productions are contributing to adverse consequences for the environment persists.

 

In fact, more than a year ago, a report by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism claimed that major meat processor JBS received cattle that originated from illegally deforested areas in the Amazon. Beef cattle productions have also been scrutinised for greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Those concerns -- backed by facts and science -- should never be dismissed. At the same time, both supporters and opponents of the livestock and feed industries have to understand that tackling climate change is a long-term battle on multiple fronts.

 

Acknowledging the need for responsible stewardship of the environment, some companies have highlighted their role in it.

 

In late-June, Cargill's mid-year progress report revealed that it has mapped 100% of its soy supply chain in Brazil with georeferenced single points in order to improve transparency and traceability. "South America, a major supplier of soy on the world stage, figures prominently in the company's soy sustainability work, as it is also home to vital landscapes such as the Amazon, Cerrado and Gran Chaco biomes," Cargill said.

 

In early July, seafood company Mowi declared " a game-changer for the soy and feed industry supplying aquaculture" by getting all soy supply chains supplying its feed production to be 100% deforestation-free by 2021.

 

The jury is out on whether these actions are adequate for the environment's good. Indeed, some critics would not be easily satisfied.

 

For Cargill, whatever it has done to support sustainability may not be seen as enough: last month, Grieg Seafood announced that it will not allow its fish feed supplier, Cargill Aqua Nutrition, to get proceeds from its US$105 million green bond (which will enable investments for projects with environmental benefits) as it said the latter's parent company is not making much progress to end soy-related deforestation.   

 

The development underscores the pressure the public and firms in the food chain can exert on producers and suppliers to be environmentally responsible. Yet, there are occasions when companies get pushback for doing -- or trumpeting -- that they have done the 'right thing.'

 

That was the case with food chain Burger King which was derided by US cattle producers and one expert for a recent campaign suggesting that cows' emissions come from "farts and burps" and feeding cows with dried lemongrass leaves can cut methane emissions.

 

Thus, in regards to public opinions related to the environment, key players of livestock and feed productions can risk being called out for insufficient actions or upsetting their partners.

 

Utilising science and technology

 

Still, crafting a more favourable narrative of livestock and feed productions has to go beyond shaping public perceptions.

 

In promoting a 'greener' industry, the utilisation of science and technology could contribute significantly to this aspect.

 

One way is to give environmentally-conscious consumers more options by creating food that is not made from an animal, i.e plant-based or blended meat alternatives. This year, for instance, major meat producer Tyson Foods has expanded its product range by launching its Raised & Rooted alternative proteins.

 

Since it is inconceivable that consumers worldwide would forgo meat even in this century, the other way to innovate applications that have made livestock and feed productions sustainable for years -- or inventing new ones to do so.

 

Worth noting is the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences' (China) programme to develop high-protein corn varieties as feed by creating germplasm resources, utilising molecular-design breeding and evaluating nutritional value -- this innovation could reduce the use of soybean meal in animal feed, potentially requiring less land space for growing such crops.

 

Additionally, eFeedLink has focused on the importance of feed additives in improving animal nutrition and gut health. It should also be highlighted how they can help mitigate methane emissions at farms.

 

"Methane-reducing feed additives and supplements inhibit methanogens in the rumen, and subsequently reduce enteric methane emissions," said Western Australia's Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development on its website. "Methane-reducing feed additives and supplements are most effective when grain, hay or silage is added to the diet, especially in beef feedlots and dairies."

  

In realising the positive impact of feed additives and their likes, environmentally responsible agriculture is not just about employing ground-breaking technologies or committing to lofty sustainability goals; the smaller but crucial steps at dealing with productions at their foundations matter equally, if not more, in the longer run.

 

- TERRY TAN