When preparing for a recent presentation, I looked up pandemics that have happened since 1960. I was shocked to discover there have been eight pandemics in my lifetime. It seems to be true that you only really pay attention to that which affects you.

Three big disease events have affected me. The first was Foot and Mouth Disease in the U.K. in 2000 when I was working with Beef Farmers of Ontario. I feared that one day, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency would call saying it had found FMD in Ontario and needed to know the locations of all beef cattle in Ontario so it could stamp it out.

The simple answer at the time was “I don’t know. In fact, no one knows.”

That was not a good answer, but efforts to change it voluntarily with cattle buyers and through the Beef Cattle Marketing Act were met with disinterest at best. Fortunately, we have not yet found FMD.

The second disease event affecting me was Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in 2003. In this case, it was very real for Canadian farmers. The main impact of BSE was on the market as we were then, and continue to be, exporting over 50 per cent of our production. When borders to trade slam shut, it is a big problem.

It was a terrible time for everyone in the beef industry, as well as other sectors such as sheep and dairy. There was huge effort by farmers, producer groups and government to get the industry through that terrible time.

Sadly, not all livestock businesses made it through and those that did faced a long recovery period.

The most recent disease affecting me was different because, in that case, I was one of the animals. COVID-19 has affected every person and every country. Millions have died and there have been far-reaching additional impacts.

Early in the pandemic, I recall an expert being asked “how will we know when it is over?”

His reply, “it will be over when we say it is,” seemed bizarre and yet that is exactly how it played out. COVID-19 is still with us, and I wonder if it will ever really be over.

Maybe we need to view big disease events as waves rather than singular events. So, if we know the next wave is coming, how prepared are we?

I asked several people who work closely with disease preparedness in industry, academia and government to answer that question using a scale of one (not prepared) to 10 (very prepared). Their average score was five with comments that it depends on which sector is affected, and which disease is affecting it.

No matter how you cut it, five is not good enough.

The experts highlighted recent positive developments in our disease readiness including:

• Creation of Animal Health Canada, which brings a more singular focus to animal health across sectors and geography;
• Huge industry and government effort into preventing and, if needed, dealing with African Swine Fever, which is a huge threat to our export-dependent swine sector;
• Commitment to developing a national FMD vaccine bank;
• Learnings from dealing with avian influenza, now including multiple sectors as it has spread to dairy cattle in the U.S.;
• Development of antiviral treatments. Some of the work in this area is led by Dr. Sam Workenhe at the University of Guelph, who is a recipient of Livestock Research Innovation Corporation’s Early Career Research Award.

However, we need far better surveillance to know as early as possible when a disease outbreak is imminent or happening, better biosecurity on all farms across all sectors, and better information sharing across organizations and agencies.

That’s a lot to accomplish but I suggest five more critical elements for success. We need to:

• Think like the enemy. Viruses and bacteria do not recognize borders or often species. Planning and command centres should be cross-sector and, where warranted, disease-specific.
• Engineer better farms with a focus on infectious agent detection, containment and elimination. LRIC’s Engineering a Better Farm initiative has us working with several universities to generate interest in an industry-generated list of on-farm challenges and opportunities that could have an engineering solution.
• Increase research funding. We now have terrific new livestock research facilities in Ontario, but all parties need to ante up more funding to derive maximum value from these facilities over the next 30 years.
• Develop a new process of Getting Research into Practice (GRIP). Effective GRIP engages all parties including researchers, industry organizations, service providers and more in a coordinated approach using all media and reaching all interested farmers. Industry needs to lead the development of this new process.
• Enable “piranha bulls.” This is a term from Brazil used to describe someone who says what needs to be said, often to their own detriment. The origin comes from moving cattle safely across a piranha-infested river by sacrificing an old bull for the good of the herd.

We should never pretend that things are better than they are, and we need to always seek improvement.

Ontario’s livestock sector is a key pillar of the province’s economy, environment and food security. We need to make every effort to ensure its protection and growth.

We may never be truly ready for the next wave of livestock disease, but working together to do our best to improve where we are now is key to securing a bright future.

The post How the livestock industry can implement better disease surveillance appeared first on Farmtario.

Once digestibility and amino acid balance are considered, there is actually less protein than what’s needed to satisfy human requirements.

This shortage can only get worse in coming years with rising populations, a desire by a growing middle class for more protein in their diets, and production challenges resulting from climate change. 

In short, the world needs all the good protein we can produce.

There are several new and emerging protein sources, but the world has not agreed on the metrics with which to compare them.

Plant-based “meat” has been around for 50 years, initially created as a cheaper alternative to meat but most recently marketed as a premium product. Cellular agriculture is attracting billions of dollars of venture capital, yet faces significant challenges to be a meaningful source of protein.

A new “hybrid” approach has rice seeds coated with bovine muscle or fat cells that are then grown to produce “beef rice”, for example. Unlike plant-based or cellular, the hybrid approach does not attempt to create a meat-like product.

Development of all protein options should be supported. Likewise, all protein sources should be evaluated head-to-head on a lifecycle basis.

Early data comparing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture to those from the transportation sector were unfair because a full life cycle approach was used for agriculture but not for transportation.

Let’s not make the same mistake, accidentally or deliberately, when considering something that is literally life and death for humans. It is currently impossible to make an accurate comparison across animal, plant-based, cellular and hybrid proteins.

A life cycle comparison for protein sources would provide accurate data, using a consistent unit such as amount of balanced protein required by an adult in a day. Points of comparison would include energy, water and land required; waste and byproducts created; impact on the environment (including soil health); economic return to the province; impact on society (rural and urban); impact on food security (via supply and price); and impact on human health.

Perhaps the metric that has received the least study is impact on human health. Recent work at the University of Guelph by Dr. Michael Rogers highlights the importance of digestion in the human. His work demonstrated that not all proteins digest the same.

Animal products develop with protein and fat intertwining to form muscle. When digested, the bonds break down and components are released slowly.

This is not so for other protein sources that involve the manufacture of “meat” by having protein and fats stuck together rather than intertwined. In that case, the bonds break quickly, leading to a flood of fat into the digestive system.

This has been shown to have negative effects on the microbiome further down the digestive system.

We need a new research model to address this problem of accurately comparing protein sources.

Traditionally, research has been focused by sector (beef, pork, cellular) but also by discipline (animal science, food science, human nutrition).

Today we need a cross-sector, cross-discipline approach to study proteins for the best, most accurate outcomes.

Working with all stakeholders, a well-funded group of researchers should be given two objectives:

• Take a cross-sector, cross-college/discipline, holistic and scientific approach to understanding protein options for human consumption.
• Enable the comparison of protein options (animal, plant-based, cellular, hybrid) and include all relevant factors (impact on human health, GHG emissions, negative and positive impacts on environment, economy, etc).

Successful outcomes from this initiative would be measured as:

• Documentation and increased consumer awareness of data regarding all aspects of the different protein choices.
• Increased food security through increased protein production.
• Increased jobs and contribution to GDP (both domestic and exports).
• Lower negative environmental impact (e.g. GHG).
• Increased positive environmental impact (e.g. soil health).
• Improved human health.

This is not a small suggestion. It involves big change for all involved — researchers, producer groups and companies involved in alternate proteins.

If we don’t do it, however, we risk looking back in 10 years wishing we had.

– Mike McMorris is Chief Executive Officer of the Livestock Research Innovation Corporation and has more than 35 years’ experience in the livestock sector working for government, producers and industry organizations. Follow LRIC on X: @LivestockInnov.

The post Opinion: The protein shortage problem is real appeared first on Farmtario.

Plant-based options are far from new. There is a fascinating short CBC video from the 1970s on YouTube about pea protein used to make meat analogues. It was a hot topic then due to food security and affordability.

Today, consumers are attracted to protein alternatives because they believe them to be better for their health, the planet, and animal welfare.

Plant-based alternatives have seen a huge investment in the last three to five years. Most traditional meat processing companies invested as well.

But consumer interest has sagged in the past 18 months and sales have diminished. The stock valuation of one of the leading plant-based companies is currently at about $9, a long way from sustained periods at around $125.

The newer kid on the alternative protein block is cellular production. This process can be used to replicate most livestock products. The first cellularly produced “hamburger” made waves in 2013 with a price tag of over $300,000.

A recent report from the Canadian Food Innovation Network documents investment in cellular production to be about $2.8 billion. A lot can change with that kind of money.

Today, you can buy cellularly produced “chicken” nuggets in Singapore, and the U.S. recently gave approval for the sale of the same product.

How will these competitors affect the livestock industry?

Fortunately, global demand for animal products is expected to rise due to population growth as well as changes in eating patterns as more people join the middle class. Plant-based products will most likely make a comeback of sorts, though current consumer preferences suggest that it will be hard for them to displace a significant portion of the animal product market.

The impact of cellular production is harder to predict and depends on three key factors.

First, cellular production will require new regulations, and this will be a repeated challenge in every country. The regulatory process moves slowly. However, as key markets implement regulations, it will become more likely and probably somewhat faster for others to follow.

Secondly, taking today’s proven cellular production technology and making it work at a commercial scale will be a huge task. Commercial scale requires massive bioreactors with an important caveat: they must be clean. Massive and clean is a big step from what can be done today.

The third factor is a reality check. Will consumer interest turn into sustained buying patterns or simply be a curiosity? What will the environment impact of cellular production actually be?

Some in the industry make fantastic claims relative to livestock production. Recent research from University of California Davis suggests that scaled up cellular production may be more energy intensive than livestock production.

Just how similar are these products to animal-derived products? The package labels may appear similar with respect to protein, fat content etc., and yet they may be drastically different when consumed.

Recent work by food scientist Michael Rogers at the University of Guelph looked at digestion of the A&W Beyond Beef plant-based “burger” versus that of a real burger. The fat in the Beyond Burger is attached to the protein much differently than in real meat, where it is intertwined. For real meat, the fat and protein bonds break down slowly over time while in the plant-based product, these bonds break very quickly, releasing high amounts of fat into the gut and bloodstream.

Rogers found that this quick release of fat has negative implications on the microbiome of the gut further downstream in the digestive system. These impacts are expected to be the same for cellularly produced products due to the way that fats and proteins are bound.

To minimize the impact of alternative proteins, the livestock sector should invest in research that addresses consumer concerns: ensuring and documenting the good health reasons to eat animal products, ways to lower the environmental impact of livestock production, and production methods to improve animal welfare.

There is also a clear need for further research to document digestion of the various forms of protein.

The future of alternative proteins is here but it changes by the day. Through targeted research, innovation and implementation on farms, the livestock sector can help to determine the future of tomorrow.

– Mike McMorris is chief executive officer of the Livestock Research Innovation Corporation and has more than 35 years’ experience in the livestock sector working for government, producers, and industry organizations. Follow LRIC on Twitter @LivestockInnov.

The post Opinion: Alternative proteins’ impact on the livestock sector appeared first on Farmtario.

Resulting news stories tend to use simple metrics, such as greenhouse gas emissions per unit of gross product, which can be misleading. Livestock have very positive impacts on local economies, human nutrition and soil health, all of which are lost when only simple metrics are used. Fortunately, there is a growing, more balanced approach developing.

The Dublin Declaration is a recent initiative that “gives voice to the many scientists around the world who research diligently, honestly and successfully in the various disciplines in order to achieve a balanced view of the future of animal agriculture”. It now has over 1,000 signatures from around the world, and we should all hope to see that number rise.

The declaration notes that the livestock industry is challenged to provide nutrition for a growing population, but also to meet the needs of the estimated three billion people around the world currently suffering from malnutrition, a key point made recently by Dr. Vaugh Holder of Alltech that is often overlooked.

This needs to happen while at the same time dealing with challenges regarding biodiversity, climate change, nutrient flows and animal health and welfare within a One Health perspective. Clearly, livestock fit within a huge picture.

More recently, a series of nine papers has been written through a joint effort of the American Society of Animal Science and Oxford University.

Published in Animal Frontiers, these deal with topics facing animal agriculture including: the societal role of meat; the role of meat in the human diet; meat and non-communicable diseases; ecosystem management using livestock; challenges for the balanced attribution of livestock’s environmental impact; cellular agriculture: current gaps between facts and claims; and challenges and opportunities for defining the role and value of meat in our global society and economy.

Canadian livestock sectors are becoming more proactive as well. Several have recently established targets regarding greenhouse gas emissions reduction. To meet these targets, industry will need to support increased research efforts as well as work to better get research into practice. Fortunately, in Ontario, we are well into a complete rebuild of the province’s livestock research facilities at Elora. Industry, government and the University of Guelph, which manages the facilities, must together attain maximum value from these world class centres.

The great research now and in the future will provide us more information to pass along to farmers and consumers. Pulling that into a cohesive story will be important. Such a story could have three chapters: economy, environment and food security. Each chapter would document the current state along with progress toward a defined target each having a specific date.

The economy chapter could include the contribution to Ontario’s GDP; number of jobs that are supported, both direct and indirect; number of new entrants by sector; effective business risk management; profitability; contribution to a circular economy using by-products, and disease avoidance and control, with particular attention to zoonoses.

Within the environment chapter could be greenhouse gas reductions based on a meaningful denominator, not simply gross product; industry adjustments made to adapt to climate change; level of antimicrobial use; water use and impact on water quality; impact on biodiversity; animal welfare; energy use and sources; and impact on soil health.

Food security could capture contribution to human nutritional needs; availability of Canadian product for Canadian consumers; and levels of exports that help to feed the world.

Having the outline of the story will help all parties (industry, government and researchers) to define gaps and research goals and help to define new ways for getting research into practice on farms as well as communicating research results more broadly.

Mike McMorris is Chief Executive Officer of the Livestock Research Innovation Corporation and has more than 35 years’ experience in the livestock sector working for government, producers, and industry organizations. Follow LRIC on X @LivestockInnov.

The post Opinion: Communicating livestock research results appeared first on Farmtario.

It is also a good time to pause and think about where you want your organization to be in 10 to 30 years.

Those attending the annual meeting were asked to choose three words to describe AgSights of the future as they hope it will be. Responses included leader, innovation, etc.

The most intriguing answer was “disruptor”.

By definition, a disruptor can be a company or form of technology that causes radical change in an existing industry by means of innovation.

Ask people what they think of when they hear the word disruption, and you will get mixed reactions. Avian influenza has been a big disruptor; so, too, has the iPhone and in using those as examples, some people fear disruption while others welcome it.

Some disruptions come with a great promise of return and yet after significant time and expense, fall short. Though it varies greatly by sector, the implementation of traceability has certainly been disruptive, yet it is incomplete and has failed to live up to the promised return on investment for farmers.

These experiences make us wary of further proposed change.

A key to how change of any kind is perceived is whether or not those being disrupted have choice. No-one chose to have avian influenza wreak havoc across Canada. None of us chose to live through three years and counting of a global pandemic.

We all did, however, have choice with regards to buying a cell phone – although why we cling to the term “phone” is beyond me.

Most times, the only way to have choice is to actively engage in the disruption. It’s often said: “The best way to know the future is to create it.” Creating the future, or “orderly disruption”, as much as that is possible at least, requires some common ground amongst the key players, including producers, government, industry stakeholders and academia.

To help with planning, LRIC has been modelling a new A2B approach in which “A” is where your sector is now with regards to the big issues (e.g., use of antimicrobials), “B” is where you need to get to, and “2” is what needs to happen to move from A to B. Those actions will include research, innovation, policy, emergency management planning and so on.

Often this planning process will unveil needs in documenting where you are today and so benchmarking is a critical first step. The process also creates a common goal that all parties work toward, which is often not the case today.

Creating as well as preparing for disruptions feeds into an innovation system. That system has five components: funding, priorities, project management, GRIP (getting research into practice) and commercialization.

LRIC’s International Research Advisory Committee prepared a report on this system last year and this year it is focusing on collaboration in setting research priorities and improving GRIP in the livestock sector. The results of several recent initiatives suggest that a new model of GRIP is needed and one step toward that will be LRIC’s GRIP Roundtable on April 19.

It is a fact that the livestock industry will face multiple disruptions in the coming years. These will arise from the issues of climate change (reducing impact of production as well as adapting production to changes in weather); reducing the use of antimicrobials; water use and quality; more disease challenges; and from some sides we cannot yet imagine.

It is far better to be an active participant in those disruptions, creating some and mitigating the impact of others, than waiting and hoping that others, including Mother Nature, have your interests at heart as they disrupt your business.

Being a disruptor will cause blowback and so it will require a critical mass of people willing to change to drive toward orderly disruption. I’ve learned that the status quo carries tremendous inertia across organizations. The harder, but better way is to embrace orderly disruption.

Mike McMorris is Chief Executive Officer of the Livestock Research Innovation Corporation and has more than 30 years’ experience in the livestock sector working for government, producers, and industry organizations. Follow LRIC on Twitter at @LivestockInnov.

The post Opinion: Disrupting the livestock sector appeared first on Farmtario.

We created this crisis over many decades and there is no quick answer or silver bullet solution. 

COP27 is one of the biggest stages on earth and there are various individuals and groups with a single focus that take advantage of the attention. Recall a recent Time magazine story claiming that “Cows are the new coal.” Well, at COP27, some are going further, stating that the unaddressed elephant in the room is a cow, and that cattle are the biggest contributor to climate change. 

[RELATED] Canadian Cattlemen: Cows ain’t coal

Who needs data for backup when you have a catchy slogan?

While it would be easy to ignore such catchy phrases, the livestock sector would do so at its peril. Most people these days have no connection to agriculture so if they hear such a phrase often enough, they start to believe it. 

It is much easier to get the facts straight up front than try to change someone’s mind later. There is plenty of data that can be helpful but also confusing. It is troubling that there doesn’t seem to be agreement on basic numbers such as which greenhouse gas (GHG) contributors should be tackled first and most aggressively.

[RELATED] Dairy industry makes strides in sustainability and GHG mitigation

For example, how much is livestock agriculture contributing to the problem? One article related to COP27 claimed that livestock is responsible for 16.5 to 28 per cent of the GHG problem. Another news story said livestock was 33 per cent of the problem. 

The reality is that livestock production does have environmental impacts, both bad and good. Research in Ontario by Professor Claudia Wagner-Riddle at the University of Guelph indicates that agriculture in total accounts for eight per cent of all GHG emissions, with livestock production accounting for about half of that or four per cent. 

This proves that context is important and that sweeping statements, judgments and solutions that fail to take local conditions into account are at best simple generalizations and often blatant falsehoods.

Additional context is important. Ruminants do emit methane, but they also act as mobile fermentation vats that turn otherwise indigestible forage into highly nutritious and balanced protein for humans. While they do this, they create a much healthier soil with increased organic matter. 

[RELATED] Canada launches offset credits to help tackle emissions

It is not only farmers who are frustrated with the confusing and sometimes false messaging about livestock production. Scientists around the world are signing onto the Dublin Declaration, a call from the scientific community for an evidence-based debate on meat. 

It states that scientists need to “provide reliable evidence of their (livestock) nutrition and health benefits, environmental sustainability, socio-cultural and economic values, as well as solutions for the many improvements that are needed.”

COP27 is far away, and may seem like something that won’t affect your farm. Rest assured that it will. The Ontario and Canadian livestock sectors are setting targets and, in some cases, spending a lot of money communicating those targets to consumers. That’s a good start but the rubber hits the road at the farm level. 

What will you be doing differently in the future? How will you reduce your GHG emissions? How will you adapt your production to account for the changing climate? 

It can be awkward when someone makes claims about the impact of the livestock sector on climate change. How can you respond – and should you? If you do, keep it simple: 

• Livestock production is a key pillar of Ontario’s economy, environment and food security.
• Ontario livestock production has a far smaller GHG emissions footprint than that of many other countries. 
• Livestock production has many positive impacts that often go unspoken in the discussion of climate change.
• The industry has and will continue to improve.

Mike McMorris is Chief Executive Officer of the Livestock Research Innovation Corporation and has more than 30 years’ experience in the livestock sector working for government, producers, and industry organizations. Follow LRIC on Twitter: @LivestockInnov.

The post Opinion: Cows, oil and elephants appeared first on Farmtario.

I recently heard that statement and thought it was a good way to summarize the tendency to focus on an issue at the expense of understanding the bigger picture. 

Unfortunately, those who try to bring attention to the bigger picture are often vilified. If you need proof of this, visit Twitter.

Context is key to driving successful change. A plan for change should always have clarity and agreement on the three elements of context: where we are, where we need to go and how we will get there. 

Climate change is one topic now receiving major attention. Yes, we need to act now to ensure a healthy planet for future generations, but the approaches being discussed and taken around decarbonization of agriculture often lack context. 

Where are we now? 

Anyone following the discussion about decarbonization of agriculture is most likely confused with the variety of conflicting numbers used to define the impact of livestock agriculture – greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of product, for example. World level numbers are often used that, though accurate, are about double that of North American livestock production. 

Canadian livestock producers can and will lessen their carbon footprint, but we all need to be clear on the Canadian starting point. We need much more specific data on production by sector and production type in Ontario.

Where are we going?

• [EDITORIAL] Feds won’t budge on climate goals

This may be the hardest of the three questions to answer. It is broad in scope, so the answer involves a lot of people with open minds and patience. The only answer that is absolutely wrong is that we will stay where we are. The livestock sector should work to lead development of a vision for livestock in Ontario. A good starting point is to declare that the sector is key to the economy, environment and food security and that parties will work to innovate and grow the sector in a sustainable way. 

Without an industry-led vision, others are stepping up to create one for the industry. A recent article prepared by the World Economic Forum says alternative proteins are the way forward. 

Read another way, that future does not include livestock. The authors state “reducing animal agriculture in the food value chain is an exceptionally high-impact solution to the global climate crisis.” Alternative protein production will evolve and will be an option, but many manufacturers are still facing significant technical challenges with respect to mass production. 

The forum article provides a graphic that compares the “impact of capital employed” to various sectors. The conclusion is that, considering economic and individual trade-offs for consumers, eating alternative proteins is relatively small compared to retrofitting their house or reducing their travel by plane. Note that there is no mention of the economic and individual trade-off to be made by farmers.

How will we get there? 

This is where headlines are made. The question of “how” is often answered without the benefit of clear answers to questions one and two. Policy makers are now highly focused on decarbonization, including agriculture. It appears that livestock production is an easy target. 

For example, look to the Dutch government’s policy that would lead to significant reduction in livestock numbers. We face similar danger of ill-informed and unbalanced policy in Canada. This is a key point in time for Canadian farmers because the next policy framework is being developed. It will drive programs and affect farmers for the next five years. 

We need to make up for lost time in documenting where we are today. Industry needs to then lead the development of a vision for the future. That vision must be balanced and take into consideration many factors along with decarbonization such as soil health, food security and farm prosperity. Then we can answer the question of how to get there. 

Big changes are ahead for farmers. Successfully implementing those changes will require additional investment in research and innovation, programs to help farmers change, and an effective system of putting research into practice.

Mike McMorris is Chief Executive Officer of the Livestock Research Innovation Corporation and has more than 30 years’ experience in the livestock sector working for government, producers, and industry organizations. Follow LRIC on Twitter: @LivestockInnov.

The post Opinion: Livestock, climate and a context embargo appeared first on Farmtario.

Planting a flag for livestock involves all livestock sectors coming together to make a statement — one of pride, purpose and resolve. Pride in what you do as producers. Purpose in making it clear how your sectors are tackling challenges such as greenhouse gas emissions and antibiotic use. Resolve in the form of a commitment to continuous improvement, working across sectors and disciplines to innovate and improve the livestock sector. 

The future holds terrific risk and great opportunities for livestock producers. We need to position the livestock sector accordingly. There will be new competing products such as “milk” derived from yeast, “meat” derived from cellular agriculture, and even “leather” created from mycelium (mushrooms). 

We will need to deal with the reality that livestock production does impact the environment. Climate change is something that we all must take seriously, both to lessen impact but also to adapt. Concerns continue around disease, antimicrobial resistance and zoonoses (disease jumping from livestock to humans). 

There is also a call for regenerative production, a focus on soil health and an increase in soil organic carbon, all of which could put livestock in a positive light. And there are new technologies and innovations (think genomics, automation, effective capture and use of data) that can help the livestock sector meet the risks and seize the opportunities.

How can planting a flag help?

It makes a collective statement of resolve to be here and to be better into the future. All of livestock, making such a resolution together, carries far more weight that any individual sector alone. LRIC has been working toward a Livestock Declaration for some time and hopefully soon, all livestock organizations, as well as other committed parties (upstream and down from production) plus academia and, ideally, government, will sign on. 

Simply put, the declaration states that “The livestock industry is a key pillar of Ontario’s economy, environment and food security. All parties agree to work together to innovate and grow the sector in a trusted and sustainable manner that supports an available, authentic and accountable food supply.” 

What comes after planting the flag should include the development of a balanced scorecard for livestock. Balance is all but nonexistent in the discussion of livestock and so we need to take the bull by the horns, so to speak, and create a scorecard. That will include GHG emissions per unit of balanced nutrition produced (considering not just calories or protein but micronutrients and vitamins as well); use of antimicrobials, effect on soil health and carbon capture, impact on biodiversity — and the list goes on.

Next, there would need to be a commitment to improve and report on the report card in the coming years. That is likely to take increased investment into research and innovation, as well as finding better ways of getting research into practice on farms. There is a real opportunity to bring a more cross-sector (e.g., beef, dairy, pork) and cross-discipline (health, nutrition, engineering) approach to our research and innovation system to make the best use of limited resources. 

We can’t know the future, but we can influence it. The livestock sector should plant a flag to start the collective effort needed to meet the risks and seize the opportunities that lie ahead.

Mike McMorris is chief executive officer of the Livestock Research Innovation Corporation and has more than 30 years’ experience in the livestock sector working for government, producers and industry organizations. Follow LRIC on Twitter: @LivestockInnov.

The post Comment: Planting a flag for livestock appeared first on Farmtario.

Simple messages work but, by definition, they don’t give detail and most often they focus on only one aspect of what really matters. 

They are the perfect vehicle for negative and often false messages. There are lots of simple messages around now about livestock. What’s missing is balance.

Consumers are more distant from the farm that ever and with increasingly less understanding of where food comes from and how it is produced. 

This makes it easy for opponents of the sector to simply lump all livestock together with broad, negative statements. For example, the rumen is a miracle of thousands of years of evolution that makes countless acres of otherwise unproductive land useful for human food, and yet it is now being portrayed as evil.

There is no denying that livestock production has impacts on the environment. There is also no denying that livestock production gives us some of the most nutritious foods that support human growth and development, as well as countless invaluable by-products. We take this for granted in North America. 

Although we like to think of ourselves as dairy, egg, chicken or beef producers, opponents don’t make that distinction, leaving us collectively vulnerable and only as strong as our weakest link. The issues facing livestock producers are bigger than any single organization can deal with, but they can be tackled if we all work together. 

We have fallen hostage to the character-limited points made on Twitter and other social media. The appetite for thoughtful analysis of complex topics seems to be at an all-time low. That is a challenge on many fronts, but it is certainly a problem for the livestock sector. How do we define and get out a balanced message about livestock?

First, the livestock sector needs to define what matters. To be clear, “matters” means to your audience, so listening to and understanding everyone along the supply chain including the consumer is key. Here are several items that the final list would be sure to include.

• GHG emissions per serving of balanced protein 
• Responsible animal care
• Sustainability (though that would need to be clearly defined)
• Impact on soil health (livestock can have a very positive impact)
• Contribution to the community and economy
• Effective use of resources (including antimicrobial agents)
• Environmental impact (water quality, biodiversity)
• One Health considerations (e.g., zoonoses)
• Proactive risk management (e.g., biosecurity)
• Use of resources that have other direct benefit to humans
• Secure access to safe, inspected, and local food

Next, we need to report on how we are improving regarding these important factors. This could be an annual report card, one considering the entire livestock sector. Most sectors have been proactive in dealing with many of these topics, although there is a lot of variation in approach. 

Much of this information exists, but it is in many locations and formats, and is sector-specific. Though it would take work to create, a comprehensive livestock report card would be a powerful statement on behalf of the sector.

Perhaps most importantly, we need to deliver our message in a way that will be noticed and understood. While the documentation and background papers are critical, they become irrelevant if the lead communication is not read or believed. To that end, we should focus on no more than three points. Suggested points for the livestock sector are:

• We care about the planet and animals too and we’re doing something about it.
• Livestock enhance soil health and biodiversity while providing highly nutritious foods and many by-products.
• The industry is a major employer and helps to ensure our food security in an unstable world.

We need simple messages (three is key) to be heard. They must resonate with the audience and be trustworthy and they need to be backed up with detail and documentation.

Mike McMorris is Chief Executive Officer of the Livestock Research Innovation Corporation and has more than 30 years’ experience in the livestock sector working for government, producers, and industry organizations. Follow LRIC on Twitter at @LivestockInnov.

The post Comment: Keep it to three key messages appeared first on Farmtario.

Quantum computing will affect analysis of big data, drug development and many other aspects of livestock production. Genomics is already changing livestock production and that impact is sure to get much larger. 

Consumer demand and retail pull will drive new production standards that may be incentivized in the short run but will become the new norm over the long term. Climate change will impact all that we do in society, and that includes how we raise animals. 

Livestock producers must not only make positive change but very deliberately demonstrate themselves as part of the solution. Even more, the livestock industry must proactively position itself as a key element of Ontario’s economy, environment and food security, and commit to working with academia and government to innovate and grow the sector in a sustainable manner. 

Shortly after giving that presentation, I saw mention on Twitter of a webinar titled “The Future of Livestock”, hosted by the International Association of Agricultural Economists. 

The moderator got my attention right away as she spoke of being a child in rural Zimbabwe and how the 15 to 17 kilograms of meat from the one slaughtered goat per month fed the grandmother, her eight children and 17 grandchildren. It was definitely a different perspective.

The next speakers talked about animal-sourced foods and their impact on stunted growth in children, which is not something we even think of in Canada. 

Stunting rates can reach 20 per cent at birth and climb to 40 per cent by two years of age. There is a clear link between increased consumption of animal-sourced foods and reduced rates of stunting. Given that knowledge, calls for reduced meat consumption from some in the West seem rather self-centered and mean spirited.

Next up was Frank Mitloehner, professor at University of California, Davis, speaking about livestock and greenhouse gas (GHG). According to Mitloehner, livestock production does impact the environment, but there is a strong link between productivity and GHG emissions. More productive animals have significantly lower GHG emissions per unit of product. 

In fact, 70 to 80 per cent of livestock-produced GHG comes from developing countries due to low productivity. 

Mitloehner went on to address options for consumers in develop countries, including plant-based replacements and cellular agriculture or “lab meat.” He did note concerns with highly processed foods, choosing not to eat them himself. 

Another possible choice for consumers is the product of cellular agriculture, or lab meat. There is a lengthy article at thecounter.org that provides an excellent critique of the process. 

It highlights serious issues around infrastructure cost, particularly at a scale to have any meaningful impact as far as meat replacement, the ability to have both scale and a level of cleanliness to avoid bacterial or viral contamination and the cost of growth medium. 

To date, this has not hindered the ability to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in investment. Suffice it to say, many investors may be in for a shock.

So, what is the future of livestock? There seem to be two distinct visions. 

One involves highly productive animals as part of food generating businesses. The other involves low productive animals in situations where the food produced is primarily for the owner and their family. We need to understand both and work hard to ensure that the future for the Ontario industry is a bright as possible. 

There will be calls for change from non-agriculturalists that are based on non-understanding of the diversity of these livestock worlds and their own agenda. There is a bright future available for the Ontario livestock sector, but it won’t happen on its own. 

Now is the time for all interested parties to commit to and work toward that bright future.

Mike McMorris is Chief Executive Officer of the Livestock Research Innovation Corporation and has more than 30 years’ experience in the livestock sector working for government, producers, and industry organizations. Follow LRIC on Twitter: @LivestockInnov.

The post Comment: Double vision – The future of livestock appeared first on Farmtario.