World Agriculture Vol.4 No.1 (Summer 2013)

Front

5/6/13

09:45

Page 1

Inside Front

12/10/11

16:35

Page 1

Dear readers,

If you wish to receive regular Issues of this Journal please complete the strip and post it to: Circulation Department, Script Media, 47 Church Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire S70 2AS or fax it to the publishers on 01226 734478.

Or fill in the form online at www.world-agriculture.net If you wish to place an advertisement in future Issues please in the first instance contact the Publishers by e-mail editor@world-agriculture.net or by post: World Agriculture, Script Media, 47 Church Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, S70 2AS. If you wish to submit an article for consideration by the Editorial Board for inclusion in a Section of World Agriculture: a) Scientific b) Economic & Social c) Opinion & Comment, or d) a Letter to the Editor, please follow the Instructions to Contributors printed in this Issue and submit by e-mail to the Editor at the address given at the end of the Instructions.

For further information about World Agriculture please go to the following web address: www.world-agriculture.net Yours faithfully, David Frape

Name ..........................................................................................................

Business Address ......................................................................................... ................................. Email ..........................................................................

Contact number ..........................................................................................

Job title ........................................................................................................

01

6/6/13

10:13

Page 1

editors World Agriculture Editorial Board Patron Sir Crispin Tickell GCMG, KCVO Deputy Chairman & Editor Dr David Frape BSc, PhD, PG Dip Agric, CBiol, FSB, FRCPath, RNutr Mammalian physiologist Email: editor@world-agriculture.net Assistant Editors Robert Cook (UK), BSc, CBiol, FSB. Plant pathologist and agronomist Dr Ben Aldiss (UK) BSc, PhD, CBiol, MSB, FRES, QTS. Ecologist, entomologist and educationalist Members of the Editorial Board Professor Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (India) BSc, MSc, PhD (India), PhD (Netherlands), FNAAS (India), FNASc. Crop ecologist Professor Phil Brookes (UK) BSc, PhD, DSc. Soil microbial ecologist Professor Andrew Challinor (UK) BSc, PhD. Agricultural meteorologist Professor Peter Gregory (UK) BSc, PhD, CBiol, FSB, FRASE. Soil Scientist Professor J. Perry Gustafson (USA) BSc, MS, PhD. Plant geneticist Professor Sir Brian Heap (UK) CBE, BSc, MA, PhD, ScD, FSB, FRSC, FRAgS, FRS. Animal physiologist Professor Paul Jarvis (UK) FRS, FRSE, FRSwedish Soc. Agric. & Forestry.

Silviculturalist Professor Glen M. MacDonald (USA) BA, MSc, PhD. Geographer Professor Sir John Marsh (UK) CBE, MA, PG Dip Ag Econ, CBiol, FSB, FRASE, FRAgS (UK).

Agricultural economist Professor Ian McConnell (UK) BVMS, MRVS, MA, PhD, FRCPath, FRSE. Animal immunologist Professor Denis J Murphy (UK) BA, DPhil.

Crop biotechnologist Dr Christie Peacock (UK) BSc, PhD, FRSA, FRAgS, Hon. DSc, FSB. Tropical agriculturalist Professor RH Richards (UK) CBE, MA, Vet MB, PhD, CBiol, FSB., FRSM, MRCVS, FRAgS (UK).

Aquaculturalist Professor Neil C. Turner (Australia) FTSE, FAIAST, FNAAS (India), BSc, PhD, DSc. Crop physiologist Dr Roger Turner (UK) BSc, PhD. Plant physiologist and Agronomist Professor John Snape (UK) BSc, PhD. Crop geneticist Advisor to the board Dr John Bingham (UK) CBE, FRS, FRASE, ScD. Crop geneticist

Published by Script Media, 47 Church Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire S70 2AS, UK

Editorial Assistants Dr Philip Taylor BSc, MSc, PhD. Ms Sofie Aldiss BSc. Michael J.C. Crouch BSc, MSc (Res).

Rob Coleman BSc, MSc.

WORLD AGRICULTURE

04

12/10/11

16:04

Page 1

03

5/6/13

09:53

Page 1

contents

In this Issue ...

Colin Spedding obituary.

5-6 Dr David Frape

Editorials: New Technologies, New Problems but Essential.

Thoughts on GM crops.

7 Professor Sir John Marsh

8-9 Professor Sir John Marsh and Robert Cook

Scientific: A review of changes in the use of raw materials in the manufacture of animal feeds in Great Britain from 1976 to 2011.

10-17 Professor J M Wilkinson GM Technology – Risky Method or Valuable Tool?

18-24 Dr Wendy A. Harwood

Economic & Social: Climate change, Population and food security.

Which way farm animal welfare in Tanzania?

25-28 Professor Neil C. Turner 29-35 Dr R Trevor Wilson

Can agricultural production feed the world population of 2030 or 2050?

36-44 Robert Cook and Dr David Frape

Comment & Opinion: What role for GM crops in world agriculture?

45-49 Dr Helen Wallace

Instructions to contributors

51-52

Potential future articles

53

Publisher’s Disclaimer No responsibility is assumed by the Publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. Although all advertising material is expected to conform to ethical standards, inclusion in this publication does not constitute a guarantee, or endorsement of the quality or value of such product by the Publisher, or of the claims made by the manufacturer.

WORLD AGRICULTURE

3

04

5/6/13

09:55

Page 1

World Agriculture: A peer-reviewed, scientific review journal directed towards opinion formers, decision makers, policy makers and farmers

objectives and functions of the Journal The Journal will publish articles giving clear, unbiased and factual accounts of development in, or affecting, world agriculture. Articles will interpret the influence of related subjects (including climate, forestry, fisheries and human population, economics, transmissible disease, ecology) on these developments. Fully referenced, and reviewed, articles by scientists, economists and technologists will be included with editorial comment. Furthermore, a section for “Opinion & Comment” allows skilled individuals with considerable experience to express views with a rational basis that are argued logically.

References to papers that have been subject to peer-review will not be mandatory for this section. From time to time the Editor will invite individuals to prepare articles on important subjects of topical and international concern for publication in the Journal.

Articles will be independently refereed. Each article must create interest in the reader, pose a challenge to conventional thought and create discussion. Each will: 1) Explain likely consequences of the directions that policy, or development, is taking. This will include interactive effects of climate change, population growth and distribution, economic and social factors, food supplies, transmissible disease evolution, oceanic changes and forest cover. Opinion, in the “Opinion & Comment” Section must be based on sound deductions and indicated as such. Thus, an important objective is to assist decision-makers and to influence policies and methods that ensure development is evidence-based and proceeds in a more “sustainable” way. Without a clear understanding of the economic causes of the different rates of agricultural development in developing and developed countries and of migration rates between continents rational policies may not be developed. Hence, the role of economics must be understood and contribute an important part in the discussion of all subjects.

2) Provide independent and objective guidance to encourage the adoption of technical innovations and new knowledge.

3) Discourage false short-sighted policies and loose terminology, e.g. “organic”, “genetically modified”, “basic”, “sustainable”, “progress” and encourage informed comment on policies of governments and NGOs. 4) Indicate the essential role of wild-life and climate, not only in the context of agricultural and forestry development, but by maintaining environmental balance, to ensure the sustenance and enjoyment of all.

5) Summarise specific issues and draw objective conclusions concerning the way agriculture should develop and respond in the location/region of each enterprise, to evolving factors that inevitably affect development.

6) Promote expertise, for advising on world agricultural development and related subjects.

7) Allow interested readers to comment by “Letters to the Editor” and by “Opinion & Comment” columns.

8) Provide book and report reviews of selected works of major significance.

9) To include a wide range of commercial advertisements and personal advertisements from advisors and consultant groups.

Near drought conditions challenge spring soybean crops. (Glycine max)

4

WORLD AGRICULTURE

05

5/6/13

09:57

Page 1

obituary

Professor Sir Colin Spedding CBE Dr David Frape

O

ur colleague, Colin, died in the morning of Monday, December 17, 2012.

Sir Colin was the Chairman of both the Editorial Board and the Board of Management of World Agriculture.

Colin & I had many chats on the phone and we both realised his days were numbered, but when death of a colleague occurs it is always a shock.

His death will be a great loss to us, as he was, at all times, ready to give his wise advice and comment usefully, succinctly and clearly with objective good humour, on strategic plans, either by phone or by email.

I always hoped that electronic responses would be of two or three words: “I agree”, signed Colin, or “You are right”, signed Colin. A longer response indicated it was back to the “drawing board” for a rethink.

Colin had held many positions during his professional career in addition to being Professor of Agriculture and ProVice Chancellor of the University of Reading (see below).

He was a great man, great in the best sense of the term – whose work helped many students of agriculture and millions in developing countries.

To these underprivileged people he gave hope by advice through his own work and through many of those those who had been his students.

He visited and worked in 37 countries, with up to eight visits – most, if not all, before the days of easyJet. His succinct way of speaking may in part have stemmed from his time in HM Forces – he was a sailor in the Royal Navy. He related to me once an amusing incident that occurred when he was wearing a hybrid uniform, as he had been seconded to the Royal Marines; but I doubt whether this would have caused alarm, or even have been noticed, as all eyes would have been glued on the drama that was unfolding before their eyes, as they approached the coast of Normandy, on D-Day. Colin had a wide knowledge of biology – both animal and plant: from Invertebrates to vertebrates and from

fungi, mosses and lichens to higher plants. He was particularly interested in their ecology and life cycles, subjects of great value to World Agriculture.

Those who have visited his Office in Vine Cottage will have noticed the wall is coated with what might appear at first glance to be graffiti.

In the last 10 years of his life he authored five books four of these since the age of eighty.

Two of these are for children. During this time he took classes of very young children for walks around his large garden – a veritable wildlife park, and explained the lives of many plant and animal species they met on the way.

This visibly excited, enthused and informed the younger generation, who expressed their thanks in appreciation by the drawings of his garden plastering the walls of his office.

He died in the morning of Dec 17, 2012, on his feet, having just dictated to his PA, Mary Jones, – he was a man who truly died with his boots on.

He would not have minded my quoting one of his many proverbs, as a last word, (“It makes a serious talk tolerable” he would say): “The smallest deed is better than the greatest intention” I say Amen to that.

Professor Sir Colin Spedding CBE 1975-83: Head of Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, University of Reading 1983-86: Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture and Food, University of Reading 1970-90: Professor of Agricultural Systems, Department of Agriculture, University of Reading 1981-90: Director of the Centre for Agricultural Strategy, University of Reading

Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, 1976-80; Vice-Chairman, 1980-83 President of the European Association of Animal Production Study Commission on Sheep and Goat Production, 1970-76 President of the British Society of Animal Production, 1979-80 Chairman of the Agricultural Sciences Division of the Institute of Biology, 1980 Special Adviser to the House of Commons Select Committee on Agriculture, 1980-83 Editor of Agricultural Systems, 197688 Governor of the Royal Agricultural College, 1982-88 President of Section M (Agriculture) of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1986 Member of the BBC Rural and Agricultural Affairs Advisory Committee, 1988-90 Member of Governing Body of IGER (Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research), 1987-91 Vice-President and President-elect, Institute of Biology, 1987-91 Chairman of UKROFS (UK Register of Organic Food Standards) Certification Committee, 1989-92 Chairman of NRPG (Natural Resources Policy Group), Institute of Biology, 1988-92 Member of the Food Safety Policy Group, Institute of Biology, 1990-92 President, Institute of Biology, 1992-94 Director of the Lands Improvement Company, 1986-94 Chairman, Natural Environment Trust, 1991-97 Chairman, Apple and Pear Research Council, 1989-97

1986-90: Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University of Reading

Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Panel of WSPA (World Society for the Protection of Animals), 1989-98

Member of the Programme Committee of the International

Chairman of FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Council), 1988-98

WORLD AGRICULTURE

5

06

5/6/13

09:59

Page 1

obituary Member of PDSA (People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals) Council of Management, 1988-2007

Member, Institute of Directors, 199298 Director (1986-99) and Deputy Chairman (1990-99) of the Lands Improvement Holdings PLC

Director, Assured Food Standards, 2001-2008

Head of UK Delegation to IWC (International Whaling Commission) Workshop on Whale Killing Methods; Grenada 1999 and Berlin 2003

Special Scientific Adviser to the Director-General, WSPA (World Society for the Protection of Animals), 20032009

Chairman of the Board of UKROFS (UK Register of Organic Food Standards), 1987-99

Honorary Member of The Grasshoppers 1990-2010 Chairman of Trustees FAWT (Farm Animal Welfare Trust), 2003-2010.

Specialist Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities Sub-Committee D (Agriculture, Fisheries and Food), 1999

Emeritus Professor, University of Reading, 1990-

Consultant Director of the Centre for Agricultural Strategy, 1990-99

Chairman, National Equine Forum Organising Committee, 1992-2012

Chairman, Institute of Biology Public Relations Board, 1996-2000

Patron of the Family Farmers’ Association

Vice-President, Institute of Biology, 1997-2000

Honorary Life Member of the British Society of Animal Science

Chairman of The Science Council (formerly the Council of Science and Technology Institutes), 1994-2000

Professor Sir Colin Spedding CBE for the Protection of Animals), 19982003

Specialist Adviser to House of Commons Agriculture Committee Inquiry into Organic Farming, 20002001

Deputy Chairman, PDSA, 1996-2003

Review of publicly-funded horticultural research for DEFRA, 2001-2002

Chairman of Board of Directors of Kintail Land Research Foundation, 1990-2004

Member of Media Resource Services Steering Committee, 1985-2000 Advisory Director, WSPA (World Society

A flock of sheep in a meadow.

6

WORLD AGRICULTURE

Director of CEED (Centre for Economic and Environmental Development), 1984-2003

Chairman, Assured Chicken Production Ltd, 2000-2004

Member of Editorial Board for Science and Technology, Research Journal of the University of Mauritius, 1997 Adviser, CAWC (Companion Animal Welfare Council), 1999Vice President, RSPCA, 2002Member of The Foundation for Science and Technology Chairman of the Editorial Board of World Agriculture 2004-2012.

Member of some 15 Scientific Societies

© jarerd – Fotolia.com

07

5/6/13

09:59

Page 1

editorials

New Technologies, New Problems but Essential Sir John Marsh

F

ew new technologies have generated the level of anxiety that has greeted genetic modification.

So great has been the concern that, in Europe, legislation limiting the use of the seeds produced by genetic modification has become so stringent as to frustrate its widespread use. The articles in this edition of World Agriculture provide an opportunity to explore some of the causes of alarm.

Anxiety about the social consequences of using genetically modified seed has taken three main forms.

First, the commercial production of genetically modified seeds is dominated by large multi-national companies. This is an inescapable feature of a technology that involves very largescale investment in specialist skills and equipment. Institutions need to be capable of covering such costs by sales of patented products in global markets if the risk involved in research and development are to be recouped.

Regulatory control of such organisations is beyond the control of individual nation states and the price at which seed is sold is likely to be substantially higher than the variable costs of its production.

Second, genetically modified crops that penetrate traditional markets that have used self-saved or locally produced seed are likely to create a dependency of on the continued supply of commercially produced seed.

Full benefit from using GM seed requires the purchase of appropriate pesticides and fertilisers. For small farmers, in particular, this involves a substantial cash outlay. Given the uncertainties of weather, disease and markets this may leave families in an exposed situation. This situation arises not because traditional sources of seed are no longer possible but because they are, by comparison with the new technology, unprofitable. In the move from purely subsistence farming to market oriented production the level of risk from adverse price movements for inputs and for outputs increases. This is not just a feature of genetically modified seed. The justification is that overall the family benefits from the

more intensive use of its limited land and labour. A third concern is that research and development will not be directed towards plant and animal species of main concern to developing country farmers. For companies higher profits emerge by concentrating on the major crops grown in rich countries and traded internationally. The issue here is not about technology but about the functioning of the economic system as a whole. Production for profit can result in many differing types of market failure, for example by ignoring the external costs of development that fall on third parties or the social consequences of change.

This is the basis for government intervention in a variety of areas where public benefits are not being reflected in private practice. The development of crops that are not commercially attractive by using genetic technology must depend on public investment.

The issue here is less the behaviour of the commercial sector than the failure of governments and international agencies to fund the research related to non-commercial products. Concern is not only about the social consequences of applying genetic modification. It is feared that the gains will prove short run as resistant species of pest and weed develop. Such concerns cannot only apply to new varieties produced by genetic modification. They apply to all new varieties and methods of crop protection. They emphasise the continued need to explore ways in which crops that are of particular importance to humanity can be protected. The logical response is not to abandon genetic technology but to develop it in ways that open up new opportunities. Agricultural activity exists to give advantage to plants and animals that are important to human beings as sources of food, clothing and raw materials. They necessarily change the prevailing ecology by disadvantaging competitive species whether plants, insects or animals. This is not a feature of GM alone but of all advances that focus on the production of useful farm output. However, it is important to recognise that interventions in an ecological system that is broadly self-

sustaining may initiate unforeseen changes that disadvantage humanity.

These may affect farming directly, for example by removing established predators on disease carrying insects.

They may also have widespread impacts beyond farming for example from water supplies to the appearance of the landscape. These concerns rightly suggest the need for increased vigilance as the rate of technical change accelerates. They apply to all forms of development, not just GM. There is a concern about unintended impacts. This is understandable and the level of anxiety may well be proportionate to the power of the technology itself. However, it applies to every technical advance as we see, for example, the unhindered spread of IT transforming wide areas of social life and the economy. The response is not to ban innovation but to monitor all new systems that have a multitude of possible impacts. In fact GM has been subject to more rigorous (not to say hostile) monitoring than any other of the innovations currently reshaping the world in which we live. We need to keep vigilant but the evidence so far does not seem to justify prophesies of catastrophe. The application of new and powerful technologies should always be undertaken with caution and the potential benefits and hazards carefully examined. However, this approach has often been used not to extract maximum benefit from innovation but to frustrate it. Inevitably change threatens some established interest groups. Equally it may conflict with belief systems that deny the right of man to interfere with nature. In such situations it is important that debate should explore the underlying assumptions, not just a particular application of science. Such discussion looks at other ways of helping obsolescent business structures to adapt and means by which people can honour their own beliefs in ways that do not deprive humanity as a whole of the gains to be secured by change. This discussion needs to take place and the contributions to this edition of World Agriculture play a part in that process.

WORLD AGRICULTURE

7

08

5/6/13

10:01

Page 1

editorials

Thoughts on GM crops Professor Sir John Marsh and Robert Cook

I

n our last issue we published two articles which provided evidence of agronomic and environmental benefits from the use of GM crops.

These demonstrated significant cost savings to growers and that those financial benefits were greatest for farmers in the developing world. A role of this journal is to provide evidence based information into the public domain to help decision makers and practitioners reach rational decision, driven by facts rather than emotion.

With that in mind we make no apology for publishing in this issue a review of the disadvantages of these crops and a critique of many of the claims made for their benefits. The article by Helen Wallace argues that: 1. It is unsatisfactory that large international companies should supply a high proportion of seed. It is claimed this: Has destroyed small scale and selfprovision of seed by individual farmers. However, as many conventional crops are hybrids seed saving for re-sowing is not appropriate.

The technology focuses research

Cotton field crop

8

WORLD AGRICULTURE

on areas where profit is most likely to be made thus reducing potentials social benefits of the technology. This may be seen as an issue of policy failure rather than a critique of the GM technology, particularly as in these financially straitened times large public investment in agriculture is unlikely to be made; simply because governments do not have any spare cash.

also quite relevant to the existing systems of crop production. Weed, pest or disease resistance is something farmers grapple with every day.

The products are protected by patent. This can be presented in an acutely hostile way when the revenue from a patent is attached solely to a specific product that has become widely used. In practice, however, only such revenues make it attractive for companies to undertake high cost research programmes, most of which lead to no direct commercial return but lie at the root of discovering new, needed, technologies for future use.

The response surely is not to ban innovation but to monitor all new systems and explore the multitude of possible impacts. In fact GM has been subject to more rigorous (not to say hostile) monitoring than any other of the innovations currently reshaping the world in which we live. We need to keep vigilant but the evidence so far does not seem to justify prophesies of catastrophe.

2. The gains from GM technology are ephemeral as resistant pests and diseases will develop, requiring resort to more potent chemical means of control than those currently employed by the industry.

This argument applies to every new technology. As methods change new niches arise in the system to which plants and diseases adapt. It is

3. Concern exists about unintended impacts, applies to every technical advance from the industrial revolution to IT which is transforming wide areas of social life and the economy.

This point is accentuated by the fact that in Europe the agricultural industry does not feel able to undertake the research to explore how herbicide tolerance, for example, may be used as a tool to enhance farmland biodiversity by developing new treatment regimes.

This point was explored in an earlier issue of the Journal, using herbicide tolerance in sugar beet as an example.

Š Microstock Man – Fotolia.com

09

5/6/13

10:02

Page 1

editorials 4.The article makes reference to the environmental impact of the technology by quoting a number of situations where the use of GM technology plus herbicides has led to loss of habitat and nutrition for wild species of plant or animal. These are of interest but the overall impact of new technology has to be assessed in terms of its ability to sustain increased agricultural output on a finite land area. The argument also tends to miss the point that any form of agriculture replaces the pre-existing land use and habitat and that man has thus been changing the genetic structure of our crops and stock and destroying tracts of the environment since farming began.

Inescapably, by whatever means, if we are to cope with growing numbers of people and rising real incomes we have to farm more intensively. GM technology seems to be one of the more promising ways in which that might be secured. If nothing is done, then more and more of the marginally fragile land area will come into use – impacting on the total environment, including wild species and on the

La récolte du coton

system as a whole, to provide the food required. We now have an opportunity to use a novel technology to reduce use of pesticides and the greenhouse gasses associated with agriculture. Surely, if we are to preserve the critical and delicate parts of the earth’s biosphere, we need to do all we can to make our industry as benign as possible.

We are aware that for a long time the impact of biotechnology was said to be enormous – but 10 years away.

Now we have some real progress but some of the more important goals, nitrogen fixation and drought tolerance, remain largely undelivered.

The appropriate response is not to stop exploiting GM technology, but to recognise that it is a long-term project demanding investment on a substantial scale which may not necessarily lead in the short or even medium term, to the solutions we seek. It may be that this is an area in which public funding is essential and where hostile propaganda will make it politically unacceptable. The long run real costs of such neglect should cause alarm.

Some of our readers may have seen the recent set of articles on the technology in Nature (Volume 497, No. 7447; 2nd May, 2013).

There is not the space, nor is it appropriate for us to discuss these articles in detail. Suffice it to say that the papers highlight benefits as well as disadvantages, demonstrating that the technology is not going to solve all our problems, but is clearly a solution to some. To refuse to engage or explore the technology by vilification or ignorance of the facts is unhelpful.

Man is a curious as well as potentially destructive animal.

The technology is here. We believe the right approach is to exploit those components which offer benefits to the industry, by simplifying and reducing production costs, the environment, by allowing us to reduce harmful greenhouse gasses and pesticide use and thus the loss of yield owing to these challenges. That will lead to societal benefits and help us to develop the most appropriate use of this new development in the age old art of plant breeding.

© Gilles Paire – Fotolia.com

WORLD AGRICULTURE

9

10

6/6/13

10:14

Page 1

scientific

A review of changes in the use of raw materials in the manufacture of animal feeds in Great Britain from 1976 to 2011 J M Wilkinson School of Biosciences, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough, Leics, LE12 5RD, United Kingdom Summary The use of raw materials for the manufacture of compounded and blended animal feeds reflects their supply and relative cost to meet nutritional specifications. Trends in the use of raw materials in the production of animal feeds in Great Britain between 1976 and 2011 were studied using national statistics obtained through monthly surveys of animal feed mills and integrated poultry units to test the hypothesis that animal feed industries are capable potentially of adapting to future needs such as reducing their carbon footprints (CFP) or the use of potentially human edible raw materials. Although total usage of raw materials showed relatively little change, averaging 11.3 million tonnes (Mt) per annum over the 35-year period, there were substantial changes in the use of individual raw materials. There was a decrease in total cereal grain use from 5.7 Mt in 1976 to 3.5 Mt in 1989, with a subsequent increase to 5.4 Mt in 2011.

The use of barley grain declined from 1.9 Mt in 1976 to 0.8 Mt in 2011, whilst the use of maize grain also decreased from 1.5 Mt in 1976 to 0.11 Mt in 2011. There were substantial increases in the use of wheat grain, from 2.1 Mt in 1976 to 4.4 Mt in 2011, and oilseed products, from 1.2 Mt in 1976 to 3.0 Mt in 2011. The use of animal and fish byproducts decreased from 0.45 Mt in 1976 to 0.11 Mt in 2011 with most of the decrease following the prohibition of their use for ruminant feeds in 1988. There was relatively little change in the proportion of potentially human-edible (mainly cereal grains and soyabean meal) raw material use in animal feeds, which averaged 0.53 over the period. The trend in the total annual CFP of raw material use was similar to the trend in the total quantities of raw materials used over the period. Mean CFP t-1 was 0.57t CO2e t-1 over the period (range 0.53 to 0.60). CFP t-1 remained relatively stable between 1995 and 2011, reflecting little change in the balance of raw material use. The decreased use of cereal grains from 1976 to 1989 suggests that animal feed industries can adapt to changes in crop production and also can respond to changes in the availability of co-product feeds. With a rising world human population, demand for human-edible feeds such as cereal grains will increase and will most likely make their use less attractive in diets for livestock. In the short-term specific economic incentives may be required to achieve significant reductions in human-edible feed use by livestock or in the CFP t-1 of animal feeds.

Keywords: Raw materials, trends, human-edible, carbon footprint.

Abbreviations CFP carbon footprint; CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent; CP crude protein; DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; DDGS distillers’ dried grains with solubles; GB Great Britain; GWP global warming potential; IPU integrated poultry unit; Mt million tonnes.

Glossary Carbon footprint: Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), expressed as Global Warming Potential (GWP) in carbon dioxide equivalents

10

WORLD AGRICULTURE

(CO2e) on a 100-year time scale where CO2 = 1, CH4 = 23 and N2O = 300.

Raw materials: Crop products, coproducts, animal and fish by-products, minerals and vitamins. Also known as “straights”.

Compounds: Mixtures of raw

materials which have been ground (normally hammer-milled) and pelleted by extrusion through a diepress.

Blends: Mixtures of raw materials, not ground or pelleted. Grains and seeds are usually crushed but not ground.

11

6/6/13

10:15

Page 1

scientific Introduction

T

he composition of compounded and blended feeds manufactured by animal feed mills reflects the supply and relative cost of different raw materials. Worldwide, waste products from the manufacture of human foods and other products have been major sources of raw materials for animal feeds for many decades.

For example, the importation into Europe of cereal grains and oilseeds in the latter part of the nineteenth century for the production of bread and soap led to the development of animal feed mills close to shipping ports as a way of dealing with waste products from the primary production processes and at the same time adding value to the basic raw materials (1).

Although the main emphasis was on converting co-products which would otherwise be wasted into milk and meat, some potentially human-edible cereal grains, cereal co-products, pulses and oilseeds were also used to meet nutrient specifications, normally on a least-cost basis with specific constraints.

Compounded (i.e. milled, mixed and pelleted) and blended (i.e. mixed but not milled or pelleted) animal feeds were formulated historically to be nutritionally-balanced complete feeds for monogastric livestock and, for ruminants, to be relatively high in crude protein (CP) to complement the relatively low CP concentration of pasture conserved as hay for winter feeding. The main objective has continued to be the application of established nutritional principles to meet the requirements of animals for essential nutrients and to increase livestock productivity.

Animal feed industries have made major contributions in all countries to reducing waste and environmental pollution through the utilisation in diets for livestock of human-inedible co-products, mainly from the human food and drink industries. The environmental impact of livestock production includes emissions of the so-called “greenhouse� gases, principally carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, produced during the manufacture and use of inputs to the system (e.g. feed, fertiliser, housing, equipment). In addition, emissions of methane are produced from enteric digestion in animals and emissions of methane and nitrous oxide arise from their manure. The

aggregation of emissions in life-cycle assessment is termed the global warming potential (GWP) of the system, conventionally expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per unit of livestock product at the farm gate (2). The relative GWP of a range of typical European and North American crop production systems and of typical European livestock systems were studied by Wilkinson and Audsley (3). They found that an option to reduce the GWP of milk and meat production was to improve the efficiency of conversion of feed into animal product. However, they did not examine the GWP of different raw materials and the effect of changing raw material resource use on the GWP of concentrate feeds.

Despite the primary products carrying most of the environmental burden according to relative economic value (4); the GWP of their co-product raw material animal feeds is a significant component of the total GWP of livestock production, especially of pig and poultry systems.

Concentrates are also a major economic cost of production in milk, pig meat and poultry systems, accounting for most of the variable costs of production (Table 1). The relatively low percentage of total GWP accounted for by concentrates in ruminant systems reflects the fact that grazed pasture and forage crops comprise the major components of the animal’s diet and that methane from the animal and its manure is a major contributor to total GWP (5). The relatively high unit cost of ruminant concentrates compared to grazed and conserved forages accounts for their important contribution to the variable costs of milk and beef production.

The proportion of human-edible feed in typical diets for UK livestock ranges from 0.36 for milk production to 0.75 for poultry meat production (6).

Whereas poultry are more efficient, ruminants can use land unsuitable for growing crops for direct human consumption. Despite large differences in overall feed conversion efficiencies between different livestock systems, the conversion of humanedible feeds into animal products is similar between ruminant and nonruminant systems of production because of the relatively higher proportion of inedible feeds (grassland and other inedible raw materials) in ruminant diets than in diets for pigs and poultry (6).

World populations of livestock, relative to 1961 have increased over the past 50 years 1.5-fold for ruminant livestock, 2.5-fold for pigs and 4.5-fold for chickens (7). The trend of an increased global population of nonruminants is likely to result in greater pressure in future years on the use of human-edible feeds for animals and concern has been expressed already over the consumption by livestock of potentially human-edible raw materials, both in terms of environmental impact (8) and global food supply (9, 10).

A major environmental concern worldwide is the production of soyabeans on land recently converted from rainforest. The effect of land use change in soyabean production, and of replacing imported oilseed meals such as soyabean meal with locally-sourced pulse grains such as field beans and peas, on the GWP of livestock production systems has been studied in pigs (11) and poultry (12). Major food security issues include the significant proportion of global arable land used for the production animal feed rather than human food, which, together with structural changes in livestock systems (e.g. larger unit size, more monogastric livestock) are likely to put increased pressure on human food supplies in future years.

Table 1 Concentrate feeds as proportions of the total global warming potential (GWP) and total variable costs of different livestock production systems. (25, 35, 36)

WORLD AGRICULTURE

11

12

6/6/13

10:16

Page 1

scientific The increased demand for human food will put increased pressure on the cost of producing non-ruminants. This will lead to a new market equilibrium in which higher meat prices lead to lower levels of demand. The balance will depend upon the income elasticity of demand for cereals and meat, which may be lower for cereals than for meat.

In this paper the use of raw materials for the production of compounds and blends in Great Britain was analysed over the thirty-five year period from 1976 to 2011 with the objective of identifying trends in the composition of animal feeds and, using the example of national statistics from Great Britain, to test the hypothesis that animal feed industries are capable of change in response to future needs such as reducing human-edible feed use and environmental impact. Some implications for the future composition of animal feeds are also considered.

Material and methods Statistics for the use of raw materials in the production of animal feeds in Great Britain from the monthly survey of animal feed mills were retrieved from the archives of the office of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Foss House, Peasholme Green, York, YO1 7PX, UK (13, 14). Together with those available online for the period 1996 to 2011 (15) the data were used to derive trends in the use of raw materials for the 35-year period from 1976 to 2011.

To these data were added statistics for the usage of cereal grains from the monthly survey of integrated poultry units (IPU, 16). The IPU survey, which commenced in 1991, does not include information on the use of protein-rich raw materials such as soyabean meal.

It was assumed that soyabean meal accounted for 0.15 of the total feed produced by IPU from 1991 to 2011 (17, 18).

The monthly surveys, conducted under the 1947 Statistics of Trade Act (19), evolved over the period, particularly with respect to the description of oilseed cakes and meals and “animal substances”. From 1976 to 1983 oilseed cakes and meals were categorised as being either “high and medium protein” (more than 0.22 crude protein, CP) or “low protein” (less than 0.22 CP). In 1984 whole oilseeds and oilseed rape meal (described here as rapeseed meal) were categorized separately. In 1991

12 WORLD AGRICULTURE

Table 2 Carbon footprint (CFP, gCO2e kg-1 fresh weight) of raw materials. (4) “soya cake and meal” (described here as soyabean meal) and “sunflower cake and meal” were added to the survey.

The proportion of cereal grains, pulse grains and soyabean meal presumed to be human-edible was 0.8, that of other oilseed meals and other materials 0.2 and that of minerals and premixes zero (6).

A comprehensive project has been undertaken to determine the carbon footprint (CFP) of raw material animal feeds (4) and the results of this work were used to assess trends in the CFP of animal feed manufacturing in Great Britain from 1976 to 2011. Total annual CFP (Mt) and CFPt-1 were estimated from values in the Dutch “Feedprint” Model 2012, Version 18 (4, Table 2) in which emissions, apportioned on an economic value basis

between primary and co-products, were derived for each raw material for crop production, storage, transportation, processing, land use (i.e. changes in land management) and land use change (e.g. deforestation) allocated on a global basis.

Results The total annual use of raw materials in the production of compounded and blended feeds by animal feed mills in Great Britain for the period 1976 to 2011 is shown in Figure 1 together with the estimated human-edible proportion of raw material use. There was relatively little change from 1976 to 1989, with about 10 million tonnes of materials being used annually. There was an increase in subsequent years with usage reaching a peak in 1995 at 13.5 million tonnes.

,

Figure 1: Total annual use (Million tonnes, Mt) of raw material animal feeds in the manufacture of compounded and blended animal feeds and estimated human-edible proportion, Great Britain, 1976 to 2011.

13

6/6/13

10:16

Page 1

scientific after to 0.1 million tonnes annum-1 in 2011. The use of animal by-products decreased due to the prohibition of their use in ruminant feeds in 1988 and the prohibition of the use of meat and bone meal for all farmed livestock in 1996 (20). Compared to cereal grains and oilseeds, the use of beans and peas remained relatively low throughout the period, showing a slight increase from 1988 to a peak of 0.38 million tonnes annum-1 in 1994 and declining thereafter to around 0.1 million tonnes annum-1 between 1996 and 2011.

Figure 2. Annual use (Million tonnes, Mt) of cereal and pulse grains, oilseeds, cereal co-products and animal and fish meals in the production of compounded and blended animal feeds in Great Britain, 1976 to 2011. annum-1 in 1996, decreased somewhat There was then a decrease from 1996 to less than 12 million tonnes in 2000, until 2005, then increased to 3.1 milwith relatively little change thereafter. lion tonnes annum-1 in the period The human-edible proportion 2007 to 2011. decreased somewhat in the period Cereal co-products, comprising prin1976 to 1990 and increased thereafter, cipally wheatfeed from the production but the changes were relatively small, of flour, maize gluten feed from the ranging from 0.49 to 0.55 and averagextraction of starch from maize grain ing 0.53 over the whole period. and distillers dried grains with solubles There were substantial increases in from the production of spirit drinks, the use of wheat grain, from 2.1 Mt in showed an increase between 1989 and 1976 to 4.4 Mt in 2011, and oilseed 1993 and a decrease between 2004 products, from 1.2 Mt in 1976 to 3.0 and 2009, remaining relatively stable Mt in 2011, over the whole period. at other times. The use of animal and fish meals remained relatively constant The use of animal and fish by-prodat 0.4 million tonnes annum-1 between ucts decreased from 0.45 Mt in 1976 1976 and 1989, but declined thereto 0.11 Mt in 2011 with most of the decrease following the prohibition of their use for ruminant feeds in 1988.

The annual use of total cereal grains, pulse grains (beans and peas), cereal co-products, oilseed co-products and animal and fish meals in the production of compounded and blended animal feeds in Great Britain between 1976 and 2011 is shown in Figure 2.

The use of cereal grains declined from 5.7 million tonnes in 1976 to 3.5 million tonnes in 1989, increasing thereafter to reach almost 6 million tonnes in 1994. Between 1995 and 2011 total cereal grain usage remained between 5.1 and 5.4 million tonnes annum-1.

Total oilseed use, comprising mainly the residual meals and cakes from the extraction of oil from soyabeans, rapeseed, sunflower and palm seeds, increased strongly from 1.2 million tonnes in 1976 to 3.2 million tonnes

There was a large increase in the use of wheat grain at the expense of barley and maize grain, from 0.36 of total cereal grains in 1976 to 0.81 of total cereal grains in 2011 (Figure 3). The use of barley grain decreased, from 1.9 million tonnes in 1976 to 0.8 million tonnes in 2011. The use of maize grain also declined from 1.5 million tonnes in 1976 to 0.11 million tonnes in 2011. Oats and other cereal grains (e.g. sorghum) were relatively minor raw materials throughout the period.

The use of rapeseed meal, soyabean meal and other oilseed meals is shown in Figure 4. Prior to 1988 the survey did not separate oilseed products by source of raw material but by concentration of CP (“high and medium” or “low”, see above). The quantities of “other” oilseeds used between 1976 and 1987 in Figure 4 were all oilseed products. The use of rapeseed meal increased from 0.3 million tonnes in 1988, when it was first categorised separately in the survey, to 0.7 million tonnes in 2011 – an increase of 132%.

Figure 3. Annual use (Million tonnes, Mt) of different species of cereal grain in the manufacture of compounded and blended animal feeds, Great Britain, 1976 to 2011.

WORLD AGRICULTURE

13

14

6/6/13

10:17

Page 1

scientific Discussion

Figure 4. Annual use (Million tonnes, Mt) of oilseed co-products in the production of compounded and blended animal feeds, Great Britain, 1976 to 2011.

See text description of other oilseed co-products.

The data show a progressive increase Although soyabean meal was first in the quantity imported annually, included as a separate category in the from 1.15 million tonnes in 1988 to survey in 1991, it is probable that it 1.91 million tonnes in 2011 – a 66% comprised a significant proportion of increase over the period. “other” oilseeds prior to 1991 since the usage of “other” oilseed products The trend in the total CFP of the decreased substantially from 1991 quantities of raw materials used annuonwards (Figure 4). From 1991 ally from 1976 to 2011 is shown in onwards, other oilseeds comprised Figure 6. Total raw material CFP mainly sunflower, palm kernel, linseed, remained relatively constant at around cotton seed and groundnut meals.

5.5 million tonnes CO2e annum-1 Whole oilseeds were used to a very between 1976 and 1990, then limited extent – between 0.05 and increased to reach a peak of 8.1 million -1 0.08 million tonnes annum . The protonnes CO2e in 1994. Thereafter the portion of soyabean meal in the total CFP decreased to 6.4 million tonnes oilseed usage was relatively constant CO2e annum-1 in 2009, with a small between 1991 and 2011 averaging increase thereafter. Mean CFP t-1 was 0.49 (range 0.45 to 0.53).

0.57t CO2e t-1 over the period (range The quantities of soyabean meal 0.53 to 0.60). The CFP t-1 remained relimported into Great Britain are shown atively stable between 1995 and 2011, in Figure 5 from international trade sta- reflecting little change in balance of tistics (21). raw material use.

Figure 5. Annual quantities (Million tonnes, Mt) of soyabean meal imported into Great Britain, 1988 to 2011.

14 WORLD AGRICULTURE

The trends described in this paper refer only to statistics for the use of raw materials by animal feed mills in the manufacture of compounded and blended feeds to specific formulations in Great Britain. Raw materials delivered direct to farms are not included in the data presented here because they are not specified by individual raw material source in the data collected in the monthly survey of animal feed mills. It is likely therefore that there is a bias in the trends due to the increased use of raw materials for the home-mixing of diets on farms in Great Britain (and in other countries) over the period of study, particularly in the last decade, as the size of livestock enterprises increased (22). For example, it has been estimated that about 0.5 of milk producers in the United Kingdom currently own a mixer-wagon in which raw material feeds and forages are combined to produce total mixed rations (23).

The total quantity of raw materials used annually in the manufacture of feeds by animal feed mills showed relatively little change between 1991 to 2011 (Figure 1) despite major changes in the populations of different livestock sectors in the period. For example, number of dairy cattle, breeding sheep and breeding pigs in England decreased by 42% (from 2.0 million), 31% (from 9.4 million) and 0.44 (from 0.6 million), respectively, between 1990 and 2010 (24). In contrast, total poultry slaughterings increased in the United Kingdom by 0.38 over the same period (22).

Further, the annual average output of milk per dairy cow increased by 77% during the period, from 4263 litres per annum in 1976 to 7533 litres per annum in 2011 (22). The increased annual output of milk per cow was apparently sustained by greater use of concentrates since there was no change in the period 1990 to 2010 in the ratio of milk produced per unit of dairy cow compounded and blended feed (25). The use of substantial quantities (in excess of 5 million tonnes annually) of raw materials which would otherwise be waste products illustrates the contribution made by the animal feed industry of Great Britain over the past 35 years to the reduction of environmental pollution through the conversion of human-inedible co-products from the human food and drink industries into useful components of the diets of livestock.

15

6/6/13

10:17

Page 1

scientific (DDGS) are produced in larger quantities from the production of bioethanol from wheat grain. DDGS are expected to replace both wheat grain and soyabean meal in animal feeds, especially those for ruminants (30). The CFP of DDGS is intermediate between that of wheat grain and soyabean meal (Table 2) so the effect of its use is likely to be greater on the CFP of fuel production than on the CFP of animal feeds.

annum-1

-1

2

Figure 6. Carbon footprint (CFP, million tonnes (Mt) CO2e annum-1, left axis) and CFPt-1 (tonnes CO2e t-1, right axis) of raw materials used in the production of compounded and blended animal feeds, Great Britain, 1976 to 2011.

However, there is no evidence that the proportion of human-edible raw materials has decreased over the 35-year period (Figure 1). Indeed, the proportion of human-edible raw materials remained relatively constant at 0.53 over the period. The lowest edible proportion (0.49) was achieved between 1987 and 1990 when significant amounts of rice bran and maize gluten feed were imported into the country for a relatively short period and used as cereal grain substitutes.

Total cereal grain use decreased substantially from between 1976 and 1990. During the same period there were increases in the use of oilseeds and cereal co-products (Figure 2), illustrating that Great Britain’s animal feed industry was capable of making major changes in the balance of raw materials at that time, driven most likely by changes in supply and cost per tonne.

Although total cereal grain use was similar in 2011 to that in 1976 (Figure 2), there were major changes in the different species of cereal grains (Figure 3). Thus the use of wheat grain doubled between 1976 and 2011 probably reflecting its availability and price relative to that of other cereal grains, especially maize, and also the increase in the population of broiler chickens (0.73 increase between 1984 and 2011 (22)). Production of wheat in the United Kingdom increased rapidly from 4.7 million tonnes in 1976 to 14.9 million tonnes in 1984 (26). Since 1984 the production of wheat in the United Kingdom has remained relatively con-

stant at about 15 million tonnes per annum, as has the proportion of domestic consumption used for animal feed (0.47, 22).

The lack of change in the use of beans and peas (Figure 2) probably reflected the increased popularity of oilseed rape as a break crop in cereal crop rotations and the relatively lower yields per hectare of pulse grains compared to other arable crops (22). The area of land devoted to the production of oilseed rape in Great Britain in 1976 was 56,000 ha. (27). By 1984, when rapeseed meal usage was first reported separately in the survey of animal feed mills, the area had expanded to 176,000 ha. (27). In 2011 the area of oilseed rape was 705,000 ha. (22).

Beans and peas can replace soyabean meal in nutritionally-balanced diets for pigs without adversely affecting growth rate, efficiency of feed conversion or carcase quality (28, 29) but the relatively high CFP tonne-1 of both beans and peas compared with that of soyabean meal (Table 2) means that their potential impact on the CFP of livestock production is likely to be limited, as Topp et al. (11) and Leinonen et al. (12) found in life cycle analyses of pig and poultry systems, respectively.

Cereal co-product usage showed a modest increase in the late 1980s and early 1990s but there has been little change since 1994 (Figure 2). This situation may change in the near future as distillers’ dried grains with solubles

The use of soyabean meal apparently increased throughout the 35-year period, reflecting increased world production of soyabeans from 45 million tonnes in 1970 (31) to 265 million tonnes in 2010/11 (32) and the trend of increased annual importation of soyabean meal into Great Britain (Figure 5). However, the proportion of soyabean meal in the total oilseed usage remained relatively constant, reflecting increased use of rapeseed meal, most likely in ruminant feeds. Changes in livestock populations may help to explain, in part, the changes in the relative importance of raw materials.

Increased use of both wheat grain and soyabean meal which are important components of the diet for poultry reared for meat (17), reflected large increase in poultry slaughterings (431 million in the UK in 1976 compared to 931 million in 2011, 22).

The values for the CFP of each raw material were derived recently and no attempt was made to make arbitrary adjustments in CFP for trends in crop yields, land use or land use change, so the CFP data for earlier decades should be treated with caution. The overall trend of total annual raw material CFP (Figure 6) was broadly similar to that of the total annual quantity of raw materials used (Figure 1), suggesting that differences in the relative proportions of raw materials used over the period had little impact on CFP. This is to be expected since differences in CFP between species of cereal grain, the main ingredient of animal feeds (Figure 2), are relatively small (Table 2).

Changes in the use of raw materials with relatively high CFP (e.g. peas, fishmeal) had little impact on total annual CFP since the quantities used were very low (Figure 2). The marked increase of 2.75 Mt in total CFP between 1985 and 1994 – a 51% rise – reflected a similar increase in total raw material use which rose from 9.6 Mt in 1985 to 13.5 Mt in 1994 – a 41% rise, possibly reflecting greater demand for feed by integrated poultry units.

WORLD AGRICULTURE

15

16

6/6/13

10:18

Page 1

scientific There may be conflicts between compound formulations based on least economic cost and those based on least environmental cost. Garnsworthy and Wilkinson (33) found that constraining formulations to reduce environmental impact resulted in increased economic cost. Thus soyabean meal was included in the lowest CFP concentrate formulated for dairy cows yielding 40 litres of milk daily because of its relatively high nutrient density and relatively low unit cost of protein.

Concern over the use of soyabean meal for animal feeds relates to the relatively high CFP ascribed to it in some studies (e.g. 7690 g CO2e kg fresh weight-1 for Brazilian soyabean meal, 34), despite the fact that the crop is leguminous and requires no fertiliser nitrogen. This high CFP is based on the assumption that all soyabean production is from recently deforested land. Much lower CFP for soyabean meal have been quoted in more recent work (e.g. 954 g CO2e kg fresh weight-1 Table 2) acknowledging that much soyabean production is on land which has been in arable cropping for more than 20 years and which has reached relative stability of soil carbon. The latter value is still higher than the CFP of 684 g CO2e kg-1 for rapeseed meal and of 718 g CO2e kg-1 for DDGS (Table 2), indicating that there may be some potential to reduce environmental impact by substituting soyabean meal with rapeseed meal or wheat DDGS with the added benefit of reducing the human-edible proportion of raw material use. Assuming similar oil extraction rates the effect on land use would be slight despite the lower concentration of protein (400 g CP kg DM-1 for rapeseed meal compared to 503 g kg DM-1 for soyabean meal, 37), since the typical yield of winter oilseed rape in the UK is 3.2 tonnes hectare-1 compared to only 2.4 tonnes hectare-1 for soyabean seed production in America (3).

The CFP of concentrates and their raw materials are insignificant for ruminants in comparison with their emissions of methane and nitrous oxide.

However, the CFP of concentrates is very important for monogastrics (Table 1) and changes in the CFP of compounds made for them (e.g. less soyabean meal) are likely have a relatively bigger impact than changes in the composition of ruminant compounds.

The extent to which any mitigation may be realised depends on convincing evidence that soyabean meal can be replaced in diets for pigs and poul-

16 WORLD AGRICULTURE

try by alternative raw materials of lower CFP without affecting adversely biological or economic efficiency of conversion of feed into animal product.

(2006) Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities.

Main Report. Defra Research Project IS0205.

Cranfield University, Bedford, UK. 97p. http://randd.defra.gov.uk/ Accessed 24 10 2012.

Conclusions

3. Wilkinson, J M & Audsley, E (2013) Options from life-cycle analysis for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from crop and livestock production systems. International Journal of Agricultural Management, 2, 70-80.

Despite increases in the use of wheat and soyabean meal, there was little overall change between 1976 and 2011 in the proportion of humanedible raw materials in manufactured animal feeds in Great Britain because there were also increases in the use of inedible co-products such as rapeseed meal and, to a lesser extent, cereal coproducts. Changes with time in the balance of raw material use had relatively little impact on the overall CFP tonne-1 of feed.

The use of human-edible raw materials for animal feeds will come under greater scrutiny as the pressure to grow food crops for the human population increases in future years.

The challenge to animal feed industries is to make more effective use of human-inedible co-products and to reduce CFP tonne-1 by, for example, reduced use of soyabean meal and greater use of rapeseed meal and wheat DDGS in diets without compromising efficiency of conversion of feed into milk and meat. The decreased use of cereal grains from 1976 to 1989 suggests that animal feed industries should be capable of adaption to changing circumstances if economic or political pressures are great enough. With a rising world human population, demand for human-edible feeds such as cereal grains will increase and, if supply cannot meet demand, will most likely result in less being used in diets for livestock. In the short-term, however, specific economic incentives may be required, underpinned by sound research evidence of their efficacy in diets for livestock, to achieve significant reductions in the use of human-edible feeds or in the CFP tonne-1 of manufactured compounds and blends for livestock.

Acknowledgements The assistance of staff in the statistics group of DEFRA, York, is gratefully acknowledged.

4. Vellinga, Th V, Blonk, H, Marinussen, M, van Zeist, W J & de Boer, I J M (2012) Methodology used in feedprint: A tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization. Wageningen UP Livestock Research, Lelystad, The Netherlands. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ben chmarking/docs/vellinga_feedprin_project.pdf and http://webapplicaties.wur.nl/software/feedprint/ Accessed 23 10 2012.

5. Pelletier, N, Pirog, R & Rasmussen, R 2010.

Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States. Agricultural Systems, 103, 380-389.

6. Wilkinson, J M. (2011) Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock. Animal 5, 1014-1022.

7. Godfray, HC J, Beddington, JR, Crute, I R, Haddad, L, Lawrence, D, Muir, J F, Pretty, J, Robinson, S, Thomas, S & Toulmin, C (2010) Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science. 327: 812-818.

8. Garnett, T (2009) Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: Impacts and options for policy makers. Environmental Science and Policy, 12, 491-503.

9. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST), (1999) Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply. Task Force Report No. 135, July 1999. CAST, Ames, IA, USA. 92p.

10. Erb, K-H, Mayer, A, Kastner, T, Sallet, K-E & Haberl, H (2012) The Impact of Industrial Grain-Fed Livestock Production on Food Security: An extended literature review.

Commissioned by Compassion in World Farming, The Tubney Charitable Trust and World Society for the Protection of Animals, UK. Vienna, Austria. 83 p.

11. Topp, C F E, Houdijk, J G M, Tarsitano, D, Tolkamp, B J & Kyriasakis, I (2012) Quantifying the environmental benefits of using home grown protein sources as alternatives to soyabean meal in pig production through life cycle assessment. Advances in Animal Biosciences 3 (1), 15.

12. Leinonen, I, Williams, A G, Waller, A & Kyriazakis, I (2013) The potential of reducing the environmental impacts of poultry systems through the inclusion of alternative protein crops in the diet. Agricultural Systems (Submitted).

13. Government Statistical Service (1977 to 1991) Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food. Production of compounds and other processed animal feedstuffs in Great Britain and usage of raw materials. Statistical Information STATS 139/77 to 146/91.

14. Johnson, T. (2012) Personal communication.

References

15. DEFRA (2012a) Retail production of animal feedstuffs in Great Britain. http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/foodfarm/fo od/animalfeed/ Accessed 25 09 2012.

2. Williams, A G, Audsley, E & Sandars, D L,

16. DEFRA (2012b) Integrated poultry feed production – dataset. http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/foodfarm/fo od/animalfeed/ Accessed 25 09 2012

1. BOCM PAULS. (2012) Our history. http://www.bocmpauls.co.uk/bocm-paulsabout-us-our-history Accessed 27 09 2012.

17

6/6/13

10:19

Page 1

scientific 17. Leinonen, I, Williams, A.G, Wiseman, J. Guy, J & Kyriazakis, I (2012a) Predicting the environmental impacts of poultry systems through a life cycle assessment: Broiler production systems. Poultry Science, 91, 8-25.

18. Leinonen, I, Williams, A.G, Wiseman, J, Guy, J & Kyriazakis, I (2012b) Predicting the environmental impacts of poultry systems through a life cycle assessment: Egg production systems. Poultry Science, 91, 26-40.

19. The National Archives (2012) Statistics of Trade Act, 1947. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/1011/39 Accessed 11 10 2012.

20. DEFRA (2012c) Archive: BSE: Disease control & eradication – The feed ban. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/bse/controlseradication/feed-ban.htm Accessed 24 10 2012.

21. Gardiner, J. (2012) Personal communication.

22. DEFRA (2012d) Agriculture in the United Kingdom. http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/foodfarm/cr oss-cutting/auk/ Accessed 25 09 2012 23. Keenan, G. (2012) Personal communication.

24. McDonnell, P, Wray, A E & Wilkinson, J M (2012) Statistical indicators of livestock efficiency related to greenhouse gas emissions.

Advances in Animal Biosciences, 3: 16.

Holstein cows

25. DEFRA (2012e) Agricultural Statistics and Climate Change, 3rd Edition, July 2012. http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/foodfarm/en viro/climate/ Accessed 28 09 2012 26. UK Agriculture (2012) Long term trends for cereal crops over the past 100 years. http://www.ukagriculture.com/farming_today/l ong_term_yields.cfm Accessed 23 10 2012.

27. Brassley, P (2000) Output and technical change in twentieth century British agriculture.

The Agricultural History Review 48, 60-84.

28. White, G, Wiseman, J, Smith, L A, Houdijk, J G M. & Kyriazakis, I (2012a) Nutritional value of diets for growing/finishing pigs containing high levels of home grown legumes compared with one based on soyabean meal.

1. Growth performance. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 3, 52.

29. White, G, Smith, L A. Homer, D, Wiseman, J, Houdik, J G M. & Kyriazakis, I (2012b).

Nutritional value of diets for growing/finishing pigs containing high levels of hole grown legumes compared with one based on soyabean meal. 2. Carcass quality. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 3, 24.

30. Hazzeldine, M, Pine, A, Mackinson, I, Ratcliffe, J & Salmon, L (2011) Estimating displacement ratios of wheat DDGS in animal feed rations in Great Britain. Working Paper 2011-8, International Council on Clean Transportation, Brussels, November 2011, 19pp.

31. Vohra, P & Krazter, F H (1991) Evaluation of soybean meal determines adequacy of heat treatment. http://www.asaimeurope.org/backup/pdf/evaluation.pdf Accessed 11 10 2012.

32. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2012) Foreign Agricultural Service.

Table 11. Soyabean area, yield and production. http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/pr oduction.pdf Accessed 11 10 2012.

33. Garnsworthy, P C & Wilkinson, J M (2012) Ration formulation for dairy cows: least cost versus least environmental impact. In: P C Garnsworthy & J Wiseman (eds) Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition 2012.

Nottingham University Press, pp 95-113.

34. Gerber, P, Vellinga, Th, Opio, C, Henderson, B & Steinfeld, H (2010) Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Dairy Sector: A Life Cycle Assessment. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 94p.

35. Nix, J (2011) Farm Management Pocketbook, 42nd Edition (2012). Agro Business Consultants Ltd, Melton Mowbray, UK, 283pp.

36. Williams, AG. (2012) Personal communication.

37. Thomas, C. (Ed.) 2004. Feed into Milk. A New Applied Feeding System for Dairy Cows.

Feed Database. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.

© bizoo_n – Fotolia.com

WORLD AGRICULTURE

17

18

6/6/13

09:36

Page 1

scientific

GM Technology – Risky Method or Valuable Tool?

Wendy A. Harwood John Innes Centre, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, UK. Summary Genetic modification is one of many current tools that can be used in the development of new, improved crops. It is widely recognised that in order to meet future requirements for food, without having serious impacts on the environment, and while responding to climate change, we will need to draw on all available technologies. However, a key question is whether the GM technology itself has inherent risks associated with it, or whether it is essentially benign.

Like any other technology, genetic modification could be used wisely or unwisely. Here, specific applications are not considered, but the actual technology is examined, identifying the similarities and differences between genetic modification and other breeding techniques. By breaking down the technology into its component parts, it is possible to find relevant comparisons from within the range of conventional breeding technologies or from natural processes which inform the assessment of risks linked to GM methods. The key components of the GM process including the tissue culture steps, the introduction of DNA, the selection of GM material and features of the introduced DNA are considered. By making the relevant comparisons to existing conventional techniques and to natural processes, drawing on increasing knowledge of the characteristics of plant genomes, and from the vast literature looking at GM safety, it is possible to assess some of the main concerns linked to GM technology. The conclusion reached is that the technology itself poses no greater risks than those posed using conventional breeding techniques. In addition, many past concerns can now be effectively eliminated by developments in GM technology that allow precise changes to be made to plant genomes without the necessity of including additional genes or sequences.

Keywords: Genetic modification, plant breeding, mutation breeding, tissue culture, particle bombardment, Agrobacterium, genome engineering

Glossary of terms Agrobacterium tumefaciens is a soil bacterium that causes crown gall disease in many plant species. The disease symptoms are caused by the transfer of DNA (T-DNA) from the bacterium to the plant. Agrobacterium is now widely used for plant genetic modification.

Backbone sequence is the part of the transformation vector outside of the T-DNA. Callus is a disorganised mass of plant cells that can sometimes be induced to form organised structures and regenerate plants.

Genetic modification is often referred to as genetic engineering or transformation and is a technology that allows changes/additions to be made to the DNA of a plant or other organism to give it a new and useful characteristic, theoretically using DNA from any biological source.

Genome refers to the entire genetic material, usually DNA, of a plant or other organism.

Genome engineering refers to a range of technologies that allow specific changes to be made to an

18

WORLD AGRICULTURE

organism’s DNA at precise locations within the genome.

Horizontal gene transfer is the transfer of DNA between species without the use of reproduction or human intervention.

Hybridisation is the process of crossing two different, but closely related plants to produce a hybrid containing characteristics from both parents.

Mutation breeding is a plant breeding tool where chemicals or radiation are used to create mutations in a plant’s DNA to create useful variation.

Particle gun sometimes referred to as the gene gun is a device that delivers DNA coated microscopic gold particles into plants cells.

Promoter regions are located upstream of a gene and control the expression of the gene.

RNAi is RNA interference, a natural process that is able to reduce the activity of genes or silence them; it is sometimes referred to as RNA-induced gene silencing.

Somaclonal variation is the variation caused by the passage of

plant material through tissue culture; this usually involves a disorganised callus phase.

TALENs (Transcription activator-like effector nucleases) consist of a fusion between a DNA binding domain and a nuclease such as Fok1. They can be engineered to bind specific DNA sequences and used to create changes at specific locations in the genome.

Terminator regions are found downstream of genes and often contain regulatory regions affecting gene expression.

Tissue culture refers to a range of techniques used to grow plant cells or explants under sterile conditions on nutrient media.

T-DNA or Transfer-DNA is the section of DNA transferred from Agrobacterium into the plant cell and integrated into the plant genome.

ZFNs (Zinc finger nucleases) are fusions between a zinc-finger DNA binding domain and a nuclease such as Fok1. Similar to TALENs, they can be used to make precise changes within the plant genome.

19

6/6/13

09:37

Page 1

scientific Introduction

G

enetic modification (GM) is a technology that allows changes/additions to be made to the DNA of a plant or other organism to give it a new and useful characteristic, theoretically using DNA from any biological source, be it plant, animal, bacterial, fungal or viral. The technology is very widely used in diverse applications such as cheese production and in the production of medicines like insulin. However, GM technology has received most attention when used as a crop breeding tool. Here, we specifically consider the use of GM technology in crop plant breeding and look at similarities and differences between GM technology and other plant breeding techniques.

Plant breeders rely on identifying new and novel genetic variation in order to continually develop improved crop varieties. Variation in crop plant DNA sequences is required that give rise to new and useful characteristics.

Over the history of plant breeding a number of approaches have been used to provide and/or harness the variation needed to develop improved varieties.

This could involve simply selecting the best looking plants for production of the next generation within existing variable populations. Cross breeding or hybridisation between related plants followed by selection for the required combination of traits is a widely used technique, although some hybridisations are only possible under laboratory conditions and would not occur naturally. A variety of techniques have been used to deliberately cause changes in the crop plant DNA increasing the available pool of variation, or mutations, so that useful changes can be identified and included in breeding programmes.

These techniques include generating mutations through tissue culture and using either chemicals or radiation to change or mutate crop plant DNA. More recently, techniques relying on molecular approaches, such as the use of molecular markers, have considerably speeded up the selection of the required combination of characteristics in crop plants. Genetic modification is also a technique that uses molecular approaches in addition to providing an alternative way to increase the pool of variation available to plant breeders.

Comparing GM technology to

conventional breeding technologies, a number of similarities and differences can be identified. Firstly, during conventional crossing programmes to introduce a required characteristic, large amounts of DNA will be transferred between closely related plants. For example, if the requirement is to transfer disease resistance from a wild relative to a crop plant, even after extensive back-crossing, the result may be that some undesirable characteristics are transferred along with the desired disease resistance genes, by genes ‘hitch-hiking’ during the backcrossing process. With genetic modification however, the exact disease resistance gene could be introduced to the crop plant without large amounts of additional unwanted DNA. Another key difference between GM and conventional technologies is that conventional approaches can only introduce DNA from closely related plants whereas the DNA introduced using genetic modification could come from any source. In practise however, most of the genes that are useful for improving our crops come from other plants, but which are not necessarily closely related. Genetic modification and conventional technologies may both require tissue culture steps, for example embryo rescue may be required in conventional breeding strategies and a tissue culture step is normally required for genetic modification. In addition, both GM and conventional mutation breeding can cause changes to the plant DNA that cannot be precisely predicted.

This is considered below.

Various aspects of GM technology have been highlighted over the years in relation to safety concerns. This has included concerns over the presence of specific ‘undesirable’ DNA sequences in GM plants, the presence of antibiotic resistance genes, the exact type of genetic modification, for example silencing of a native gene, as well as general concerns about the unpredictability of the GM process.

Here, GM technology is examined in detail, broken down into its key components and compared to other plant breeding technologies to address the various concerns related to the technology itself. Like any other technology, genetic modification could be used in a range of different ways producing a wide variety of products with very different characteristics. Therefore, it is important to focus on the final

product when considering possible risks and benefits. During the process of evaluating risk and benefit it is vital to consider that everything we do has some associated risk. In many cases the risk will be negligible and the benefits will be large. In this paper the focus is on GM technology itself, asking whether there are aspects of the technology that have inherent associated risks compared to conventional technologies or whether the technology is essentially benign.

The genetic modification process The genetic modification of crop plants requires three basic components. Firstly, it requires a target tissue into which DNA can be introduced.

This target tissue needs to contain individual cells which have the capacity, given the correct culture conditions, to regenerate into a whole new plant. Secondly, a method of introducing the DNA to the target tissue is required, and thirdly a method allowing genetically modified cells to be distinguished from non-genetically modified cells. These three components are considered individually below followed by consideration of common features of the introduced DNA. 1. Tissue culture methods Plant tissue culture has a very long history with the first experiments successfully maintaining growth and cell division of plant cell cultures being reported by White (1934) (1). Since this time, plant tissue culture has been used in many applications from the commercial micropropagation of a range of species through to the production of valuable products such as pharmaceuticals in plant cell cultures.

In some cases, plant tissue culture is used specifically to induce variation.

When plants are regenerated from plant tissue culture some individuals may show clear differences. This is referred to as somaclonal variation and this source of variation was used in plant breeding strategies during the 1980s and 1990s (2). The level of somaclonal variation observed is often increased as the time in tissue culture is increased. It is also more common when the cultures have gone through a callus phase. This is a period of disorganised cell proliferation prior to the formation of organised embryogenic structures capable of regeneration into whole plants.

WORLD AGRICULTURE 19

20

6/6/13

09:37

Page 1

scientific propulsive force to deliver the DNA coated gold particles. More recent devices rely on the build-up of helium gas behind a disc that ruptures when a particular pressure is reached. One of the most popular gene guns that relies on helium pressure is shown in Figure 2A. Although the gene gun has been used very successfully to produce some of the GM crops grown today, the alternative method using the soil bacterium, Agrobacterium, is now far more popular.

Figure 1. A) Regeneration of genetically modified barley plants from cultures derived from immature embryos. Some of the immature embryos are developing green shoots on selective medium showing that they are genetically modified, while others have only produced small amounts of callus and are not genetically modified. B) Genetically modified barley in the glasshouse showing uniform growth and full fertility.

Figure 1A shows examples of both disorganised callus growth and plant regeneration on a single culture plate.

A variety of different plant target tissues is used as the starting point for genetic modification. These include both mature and immature embryos, callus cultures and cotyledonary explants. A common target tissue used for many cereal species is the immature embryo. Figure 1 (A) shows the generation of callus from immature barley embryos and regeneration of plants from this callus. Thousands of barley plants have been regenerated from immature embryo derived cultures and most appear normal and are fully fertile (Figure 1B) (3).

The very long and safe history of the use of a variety of plant tissue culture methods gives us confidence that the use of such techniques as part of a genetic modification process does not give rise to any additional risks.

Concerns about genetic variation that may occur as a result of the tissue culture and regeneration process can be addressed by considering the widespread and deliberate genetic variation created in conventional plant breeding programmes. As well as promoting such genetic change using tissue culture techniques, widespread genetic change has been induced by mutation using chemicals or radiation. This procedure, referred to as mutation breeding, can be found in the pedigree of many crop plants grown today and has a long history of safe use.

Mutation breeding can lead to unwanted change as well as useful variation but such unwanted changes are simply not selected for further use in breeding programmes. Any genetic changes caused during the tissue

20

WORLD AGRICULTURE

culture steps of the genetic modification process are likely to be far less than those caused during mutation breeding programmes, and in a similar way, plants with any unwanted changes would simply be discarded.

Past experience therefore suggests that there is no cause for concern over the tissue culture component of the genetic modification process.

2. Introducing the DNA The second component of the genetic modification process is the actual introduction of DNA to the target tissue. Over the years many different methods have been employed to introduce DNA to plant cells but two methods have predominated, the ‘gene gun’ and Agrobacterium. The gene gun works by coating the ‘donor’ DNA onto microscopic gold particles and firing them into the plant target tissue. The first gene guns relied on blank gun cartridges to provide the

Agrobacterium is a naturally occurring bacterial pathogen, and is responsible for causing crown gall disease in a range of plant species. During the normal infection process, the bacterium is able to transfer a section of its own DNA into the plant where it is stably incorporated into the plant DNA. This ‘transferred’ or T-DNA contains genes that cause the disease symptoms and the formation of the gall typical of crown gall disease. In effect, the plant responds to the infection by providing the bacteria with everything they need for survival. In order to harness the ability of Agrobacterium to transfer DNA to plant cells, scientists have removed the genes involved in causing the disease symptoms but left the bacterium with the ability to transfer DNA. Therefore, if the gene to be introduced to the plant target tissue is placed within the T-DNA then it will be transferred to the plant cells if the target tissue and the Agrobacterium cells are cultured together. The process of inoculating barley immature embryos with Agrobacterium is shown in Figure 2B. After inoculation, the immature embryos and bacteria are cultured together for 3 days to allow DNA

Figure 2. Introduction of the DNA to target tissues. A) The gene gun.

This device delivers microscopic gold particles coated in DNA into plant target tissue. The propulsive force is provided by release of helium gas following the rupture of a disc at the base of the gun barrel.

B) Inoculation of immature embryos with Agrobacterium. Following inoculation, the target tissue is co-cultivated with the Agrobacterium for 3 days during which time DNA transfer takes place.

21

6/6/13

09:38

Page 1

scientific Therefore, considering the biology of Agrobacterium, the detailed molecular analysis that GM plants are subjected to, and the vast scientific literature on the analysis of GM plants, the conclusion of extensive research to date is that the DNA delivery part of the genetic modification process does not pose specific risks.

3. Selecting genetically modified plants Figure 3. Diagrammatic representation of construction of the T-DNA region of a transformation vector. In T-DNA 1, all components are within the T-DNA border regions (LB and RB). The selection cassette contains a selectable marker gene (SM), often an antibiotic resistance gene, under the control of a promoter region (P) and a terminator region (T). The gene of interest may be controlled by a constitutive promoter leading to expression of the gene in all tissues (A), a tissue specific promoter giving expression in a specific tissue only (B), an inducible promoter that is activated for example by stress (C) or a development stage specific promoter only active at a particular developmental stage of the plant (D). Similarly, different terminator regions can be used (E-H). It is possible for the selection cassette to be present on a separate T-DNA (T-DNA 2) to the gene of interest with its associated control regions (T-DNA 3). In this case, offspring plants can be selected that contain only the gene of interest with no selectable marker. transfer to occur. The T-DNA is bordered by specific repeat sequences referred to as the left and right border regions and in most cases; everything between these border regions is transferred to the plant. These T-DNA border regions can be seen in Figure 3.

There are a number of reasons for the popularity of Agrobacterium as a method of DNA delivery to plant cells in preference to using the gene gun.

These include the fact that Agrobacterium is far more likely to integrate a single copy of a ‘donor’ gene into the plant genome, and DNA delivery is often more efficient. In addition, there are less re-arrangements of the introduced DNA when it is integrated into the plant genome using Agrobacterium, and expression of the introduced gene is more reliable through generations (4). Considering Agrobacterium as the preferred method of DNA delivery, it is possible to ask whether there are specific risks associated with the DNA transfer process.

Firstly, it is worth remembering that Agrobacterium-mediated DNA transfer occurs frequently in nature and Agrobacterium has been referred to as nature’s own genetic engineer.

However, transfer of DNA by Agrobacterium is not always precise, regions of DNA from outside of the TDNA can be transferred to plants, and there have even been reports of Agrobacterium chromosomal DNA being transferred to plants (5). As this

imprecise transfer has been observed during the genetic modification process, it is almost certainly happening during natural Agrobacterium infection. If additional, unwanted sequences are transferred along with the gene of interest, then these can easily be detected during the molecular analysis of the GM plants and such plants would not be selected for further use.

Another aspect of the DNA delivery process that needs to be considered is the exact site within the plant DNA where the new gene is inserted. In most GM plants produced to date, it has not been possible to control the insertion site of the DNA and it can be integrated at random into different possible locations in the plant genome; however see the section on new technologies below. The random nature of the DNA insertion leads to some uncertainty and variability between individual GM plants containing the same introduced gene. There have been concerns that the GM process might lead to unanticipated consequences, for example the production of toxins or allergens within the GM plants. There has been a vast amount of research in this area using a range of techniques to examine GM plants for such unexpected consequences of the genetic modification process.

Despite 20 years of research, no evidence for unanticipated changes, within GM plants, that could have safety implications have ever been found (6).

The third and final part of the genetic modification process is the selection of genetically modified cells within the target tissue followed by the selection of regenerated GM plants. This requires the modified cells and tissues to have a selective advantage over those that are not modified. In order to achieve this, a gene conferring resistance to an antibiotic or to a herbicide is introduced along with the gene of interest. The relevant antibiotic or herbicide is then included in the nutrient medium on which the target tissue is grown. Only those cells that contain the introduced antibiotic or herbicide resistance gene will be able to grow and regenerate plants on the defined medium.

Antibiotic resistance genes are most commonly used for the selection of GM plants and this has led to concerns about the spread of such genes in the environment. Two antibiotic resistance genes most commonly used in GM technology are the nptII gene conferring resistance to kanamycin and the hpt gene conferring resistance to hygromycin B. Both of these genes belong to a group of antibiotics with no or limited therapeutic relevance (7).

In addition, both genes are already widespread in the environment. The European Food Safety Authority has concluded that the use of these genes as selectable markers in GM plants does not pose a risk to either human or animal health or to the environment (8). Studies looking at possible allergenicity of the protein encoded by the hpt gene conclude that it has a very low allergenic potential (9). Although the assessment is that these genes do not pose a risk, if they were not present in the final GM plant then any possible concern would be removed. It is now possible to produce GM plants that do not contain selectable marker genes and this is further considered under technology advances below.

Herbicide resistance genes can also be used as selectable markers, for example the pat or bar genes. These genes give resistance to the glufosinate

WORLD AGRICULTURE 21

22

6/6/13

09:39

Page 1

scientific group of herbicides. Regulatory authorities in at least 11 countries have approved the release of GM plants containing these genes. Risk assessments have concluded that the presence of these genes does not lead to any meaningful risk to the environment (10). Herbicide resistant crops can be developed using non-GM as well as GM techniques and in both cases, the use and management of these crops needs careful consideration so as not to complicate the control of weeds or volunteers. It is possible for herbicide resistant weeds to develop where a specific herbicide is widely used with either conventional or GM crops. This is however outside the scope of this paper as it is an issue with the use of specific genes, varieties and weed control strategies rather than with GM technology itself.

4. Features of the introduced DNA When considering the actual DNA transferred to the plant during the genetic modification process it is worth making a few general comments and observations about DNA. DNA itself is not harmful and since it is present in all living and dead tissues of animals and plants, it is consumed by humans and animals as a normal component of diet in most types of food. The plant genome, that is the complete set of genetic information for that particular plant, is not fixed and stable. There are a number of mechanisms that can alter the stability of genomes in non-GM plants (11). Genomes contain very large numbers of mobile (transposable) elements. Movement of such elements within the crop plant genome cause genetic change and it is likely that this is the source of some of the useful genetic variation selected by plant breeders. Mutations are very common in crop plants and a comparison of different varieties of the same crop plant will reveal large numbers of differences in the DNA sequence. There is evidence, in most genomes, of the transfer of DNA from another species at some point in the past. This is referred to as horizontal gene transfer and it occurs without reproduction or human intervention (7). Often the transfer of genes by horizontal gene transfer involves viruses or mobile elements.

The observed frequency of the transfer of genes from plants to other organisms is extremely low. In addition to the natural sources of variability mentioned above, the environment that a plant is grown in will have a large influence on the activity of a range of

22 WORLD AGRICULTURE

its genes. Therefore, it is important to consider this natural variability and instability in non-GM plants when assessing whether DNA introduced during the GM process leads to any additional instability and associated risk.

There are a number of features of the actual introduced DNA that are common to different GM crop plants.

As described above, when Agrobacterium is used to introduce the DNA, the expectation is that everything between the right and left borders of the T-DNA is inserted into the crop plant. Figure 3 shows a typical TDNA from a transformation vector and the entire transformation vector is shown in Figure 4. The gene of interest and the selectable marker gene can be seen between the T-DNA borders of T-DNA 1, together with the necessary control regions; promoter and terminator for each gene. The complete vector is a circular or plasmid DNA that can be easily manipulated in safe laboratory strains of E. coli and can also be transferred to Agrobacterium. Vectors for genetic modification have to be built in the laboratory using a range of molecular tools, manipulated and multiplied up in E. coli. Certain regions of the vector are required to allow it to be maintained in E. coli and in Agrobacterium. These regions are found outside of the T-DNA as they do not need to be transferred to the plant. Here, the different component parts of the vector are considered together with the possible risks associated with each part.

Firstly, the regions of the transformation vector outside of the T-DNA are considered because it is possible for these to be transferred to the plant during the genetic modification Agrobacterium origin of replication

process. These regions are often referred to as ‘backbone sequences’.

They include a bacterial selectable marker to allow selection of bacterial cells containing the correct vector and bacterial origins of replication that allow the plasmid to be replicated in the bacterial cells. The DNA regions commonly found in the backbone of transformation vectors are found in bacterial populations in the environment. They do not therefore present particular additional hazards when present in GM plants. However, GM plants being considered for release to the environment or for food or feed use are thoroughly analysed to ensure that no vector backbone regions are present. This analysis is now very straightforward and routine due to advances in molecular analysis techniques meaning that the presence of unwanted additional DNA sequences in GM plants should no longer be an issue of concern.

In most GM crop plants produced to date, a gene or genes of interest are expressed under the control of specific promoters (Figure 3) and produce a new protein in the GM plant. The protein produced by each gene of interest, and the resulting novel characteristics of the plant, must be subject to appropriate risk assessment on a case by case basis. Any risks associated with a particular gene will be specific to that genetic modification event only and are not considered here.

A second, less common, type of genetic modification allows the activity of a gene already present in the crop plant to be reduced or switched off. In these genetic modification events the transformation vector is designed to lead to the production of a double stranded RNA (dsRNA).

Left Border Promoter to drive selectable marker gene Selectable marker gene

Bacterial selectable marker gene Terminator Bacterial origin of replication

Transformation vector 9195bp

Right Border Terminator Promoter to drive gene of interest Gene of interest

Figure 4. Map of a typical plasmid used for genetic modification showing the common components. The T-DNA region detailed in figure 3 is shown between the right and left T-DNA borders. The sequences present on the backbone of the plasmid are also shown including the bacterial origins of replication and the bacterial selectable marker gene.

23

6/6/13

09:39

Page 1

scientific The presence of dsRNA in the plant leads to a process called RNA interference or RNA-induced gene silencing (RNAi) which is a method whereby RNA produced by a target gene is degraded. This effectively silences or switches off the target gene. The process is now known to be vital in controlling gene expression and is also important in protecting plants from virus attack. RNAi approaches have been used to produce GM crops resistant to disease and with enhanced nutrient content. The first commercialised genetically modified plants, Flavr Savr tomatoes, that had a longer shelf life than non-GM tomatoes, made use of RNA interference to reduce activity of a target gene. Similar to DNA, RNA and dsRNA are normal components of our food and RNA interference is a natural mechanism occurring in both plants and animals.

As dsRNAs are important regulatory molecules, it has been suggested that additional risk assessment procedures might be needed for this type of GM technology (12). However, the case for this is again based on the possibility of adverse, unanticipated effects of the genetic modification. The vast amount of research looking for, and failing to find, such unanticipated effects has already been mentioned above. Each GM event using RNAi technology to produce a specific dsRNA must be assessed for any risk specific to the particular dsRNA in a similar way to the assessment of GM plants expressing a particular gene of interest. There is no evidence to suggest that RNAi-based GM events should be treated any differently to other GM events.

In both types of genetic modification mentioned above, it is necessary to drive the gene, or gene region giving rise to the dsRNA, with an appropriate promoter. Promoters can control the level of expression of a gene as well as sometimes controlling the exact parts of the plant where the gene is active or the exact time during plant development when the gene is switched on.

Promoters that are generally active in all parts of the plant at all times are referred to as constitutive promoters.

Other promoters may be tissue specific, developmentally specific or inducible in some way (Figure 3).

There are certain promoters that have been extensively used in the production of GM plants including the CaMV 35s promoter. This promoter is derived from cauliflower mosaic virus and is a strong constitutive promoter. The

CaMV virus infects mostly plants of the Brassicaceae family such as caulifower.

The fact that the promoter originates from a virus has led to some concerns.

However, as previously mentioned, viral sequences can be integrated into plant genomes by the process of horizontal gene transfer so the presence of such sequences in plants does not only occur through GM approaches.

Genome sequencing projects are now revealing more examples of horizontal gene transfer indicating that it is a highly significant process in genome evolution (13). A recent paper highlighted the fact that some versions of the CaMV 35s promoter contain fragments of a viral gene (gene VI) (14).

The issue of unintended effects, including the possible production of unintended proteins in the GM plant was again raised. The authors concluded that there was no risk of toxic or allergenic proteins being produced due to the presence of gene VI. The safety of the CaMV 35s promoter has been considered in the literature over many years. Hull et al. (2000) (15) assessed the possible risks and concluded that using the 35s promoter in GM plants posed no greater risk than that encountered using conventional breeding techniques. The CaMV 35s promoter is used in many of the GM crops currently being grown and has therefore been subject to stringent risk assessment and has a long history of safe use. These facts, together with our increasing knowledge of the plasticity of plant genomes leads to the conclusion that use of this promoter does not raise any cause for concern.

Technology advances There have recently been a number of important advances in genetic modification technology that further diminish remaining concerns. Many of the concerns mentioned above have the same foundation; worry that the GM process may lead to some unintended and unanticipated outcomes. Much of this uncertainty is linked to the random nature of the insertion of the introduced gene. Even though the exact insertion site of the introduced DNA can be determined and analysed, this uncertainly remains. In practice, for any individual gene introduced to a crop plant, many independent genetically modified plants will be made and then those with the required characteristics will be selected. In this way, any negative effects linked to the exact insertion site would be discarded.

However, recent advances now mean that genes can be inserted into predetermined, precise locations within the plant genome. As well as allowing insertion into precise locations, these new technologies allow changes such as specific mutations, to be made at particular locations.

The term used to cover these new technologies is genome engineering or genome editing and they rely on the use of sequence-specific nucleases. The two most common classes of nucleases are zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs) and transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs). In both cases the nucleases create double strand breaks in the plant DNA at a precise location leading to either, an insertion, deletion or precise change to the DNA sequence (16). Although these technologies are not yet in routine use, they are being very quickly adopted.

Additional technology advances that increase the precision of the genetic modification process include the use of promoters that give expression of the introduced gene exactly where and when it is required. The range of specific promoters available for use in crop plants continues to grow thus allowing improved transformation vectors to be designed and produced. Promoter choice during the construction of the transformation vector is illustrated in Figure 3. Advances to transformation vectors also allow GM plants to be produced that do not contain a selectable marker gene. Antibiotic resistance genes are required during the genetic modification process to allow plants containing the new genes to be selected. However, it is now relatively easy to use a selectable maker during the GM process but to ensure that it is not present in the final GM plant. This is most simply achieved by introducing the gene of interest on one T-DNA and the selectable marker gene on a second T-DNA. Figure 3 illustrates this approach by showing the selectable marker gene on T-DNA 2 and the gene of interest on T-DNA 3. In some cases these genes will be integrated into the plant DNA at different locations. This means that they can be separated in the next generation by normal genetic segregation, and plants with only the gene of interest selected for further use. Improved design of transformation vectors also allows the number of GM plants containing backbone vector sequences to be reduced, simplifying the analysis of the resulting plants.

Taken together, these technology

WORLD AGRICULTURE

23

24

6/6/13

09:40

Page 1

scientific advances, in particular the ability to make precise changes at a predetermined location within the plant DNA, remove many of the concerns highlighted in the sections above.

Conclusions Without new sources of variation in crop plant DNA, it would not be possible to improve crops to tackle the many challenges facing us in providing sufficient food in a sustainable way.

Genetic modification is one way of providing such variation. By breaking down genetic modification technology into its component parts, many similarities with other technologies used in crop improvement and with natural processes can be found. Tissue culture methods have been used in a range of conventional approaches to produce commercial crops. Tissue culture has even been used specifically to induce useful variation. Other methods widely used in conventional breeding programmes to induce mutation within DNA include the use of chemicals or radiation in mutation breeding strategies. These methods, leading to multiple random changes to crop plant DNA, have not lead to crops being produced that are unsafe. The recent increase in the availability of plant genome sequences has further highlighted the plasticity of genomes with mutations being common and large numbers of mobile elements being present. The GM process has often been criticised for allowing species barriers to be overcome and genes to be transferred between species that could not normally be crossed to produce

Tröpfchenbewässerung

24 WORLD AGRICULTURE

progeny. However, the natural process of horizontal gene transfer is more widespread than previously thought and has allowed gene transfer between distant species. Agrobacterium used in the GM process is often referred to as nature’s own genetic engineer. The components of genetic modification technology are very similar to either natural processes or to conventional breeding technologies. This, together with extensive evidence that the GM process does not lead to unanticipated outcomes with associated risk, leads to the conclusion that GM technology is not a risky method but is instead a valuable tool increasing the pool of variation available to breeders.

Acknowledgements Mark Smedley is thanked for figure 4.

The work was supported by BB/J004588/1 from BBSRC and the John Innes Foundation.

Biotechnol. 26(9):1015-1017.

6. Herman R A, Price W D, (2013) Unintended Compositional Changes in Genetically Modified (GM) Crops: 20 Years of Research. J. Agric. Food Chem., DOI: 10.1021/jf400135r.

7. Keese P (2008) Risks from GMOs due to horizontal gene transfer. Environ. Biosafety Res. 7: 123-149.

8. EFSA (2009). Scientific opinion of the GMO and BIOHAZ panels on the ‘Use of antibiotic resistance genes as markers in genetically modified plants’. European Food Safety Authority doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1108.

9. Lu Y, Xu W, Kang A, Luo Y, Guo F, Yang R, Zhang J, Huang K (2007) Prokaryotic expression and allergenicity assessment of hygromycin B phosphotransferase protein derived from genetically modified plants.

Journal of Food Science 72: (7).

10. Center for Environmental Risk Assessment (2011) A review of the environmental safety of the PAT protein. Environ. Biosafety Res. 10: 73101.

11. Weber N, Halpin C, Hannah L C, Jez J M, Kough J, Parrott W, (2012) Crop genome plasticity and its relevance to food and feed safety of genetically engineered breeding stacks.

Plant Physiology 160: 1842-1853.

References

1. White P R, (1934) Potentially unlimited growth of excised tomato root tips in a liquid medium. Plant Physiol. 9: 585-600.

12. Heinemann J A, Agapito-Tenfen S Z, Carman J A (2013) A comparative evaluation of the regulation of GM crops or products containing dsRNA and suggested improvements to risk assessments. Environment International 55: 43-55.

2. Karp A, (1995) Somaclonal variation as a tool for crop improvement. Euphytica 85: 295302.

13. Bock R, (2009) The give-and-take of DNA: horizontal gene transfer in plants. Trends in Plant Science 15: 1.

3. Bartlett J G, Alves S C, Smedley M, Snape J W, Harwood W A (2008) High-throughput Agrobacterium-mediated barley transformation. Plant Methods, 4: 22.

14. Podevin N, Jardin P (2012) Possible consequences of the overlap between the CaMV 35s promoter regions in plant transformation vectors used and the viral gene VI in transgenic plants. GM Crops and Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain. 3: 4.

4. Travella, S, Ross S M, Harden J, Everett C, Snape J W, Harwood W A (2005) A comparison of transgenic barley lines produced by particle bombardment and Agrobacterium-mediated techniques. Plant Cell Reports 23: 780-789.

5. Ülker B, Li Y, G Rosso M G, Logemann E, Somssich I E, Weisshaar B, (2008) TDNA–mediated transfer of Agrobacterium tumefaciens chromosomal DNA into plants. Nat

15. Hull R, Covey S N, Dale P (2000) Genetically modified plants and the 35s promoter: assessing the risks and enhancing the debate. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 12: 1-5.

16. Curtin S J, Voytas D F, Stupar R M (2012) Genome engineering of crops with designer nucleases. The Plant Genome 5:2.

© Sonja Birkelbach – Fotolia.com

25

5/6/13

16:38

Page 1

economic & social

Climate change, population and food security Neil C. Turner Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture and UWA Institute of Agriculture, M080, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia Neil.turner@uwa.edu.au Summary It is widely recognised that climate change will impact negatively on food security and poverty, particularly in some countries in the developing world. This paper, however, points out that population growth will likely have a bigger negative impact on food security and poverty in some countries in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The impact of climate change and population growth on food security and poverty in Timor-Leste (East Timor), a newly-independent country in South-East Asia, is discussed as an example. Simulation modelling of the effects of warming temperatures in East Africa indicates that sorghum yields of small-holder farmers using little or no fertiliser will increase at least in the short term due to faster breakdown of organic matter and uptake of higher amounts of nitrogen from the soil. The warming temperatures reduce yields only when higher levels of fertiliser are applied. It is recognised that crop production is only one of the factors that affect food security and an example from South Sudan, the world’s youngest country, is used to show that social factors affect food supply in the market, not climate change or lack of available land or water. The paper argues that research on climate change should continue, but that research to improve crop productivity with the present climate should not be disadvantaged if poverty reduction and food security targets are to be met.

Keywords: Crop production, East Africa, East Timor, fertiliser levels, global warming, sorghum, South Sudan, Timor-Leste

Glossary C4 plants are species such as maize, sorghum and sugar cane with a pathway of photosynthesis that produces the fourcarbon compound (hence the name) oxaloacetate, rather than a three-carbon sugar in C3 plants. The C4 pathway of photosynthesis is much more efficient than the C3 pathway chain.

A

s I begin to write this article, Australia is sweltering with high temperatures at levels not seen previously since records began, while China is freezing with cold temperatures not experienced for decades.

These extreme events are being attributed to climate change as climate scientists now are predicting that the incidence of extreme events is linked to anthropomorphic global warming with greater certainty than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its fourth report (1).

It is the greater incidence of extreme events around the world that is convincing the general public that climate change is ‘real’ and that investment in mitigation and adaptation measures is worthwhile.

There is widespread consensus that one of the major consequences of global warming is the predicted decrease in crop yields in semiarid and subtropical regions of the world as a

result of the speeding of crop development and a reduction in crop fecundity at higher temperatures, and the increased incidence of water shortage associated with reduced rainfall (2, 3, 4, 5). Müller et al. (6, 7) calculated that most regions of the world would experience yield decreases by 2050 if the higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels did not change yields, as several studies suggest (8, 9), particularly in crops, such as maize and sorghum, exhibiting the C4 pathway of photosynthesis (see Glossary) .

Figure 1 shows the projected percentage change in yields of 11 major crops (wheat, rice, maize, millet, field pea, sugar beet, sweet potato, soybean, peanut, sunflower and rapeseed/canola), showing significant yield reductions in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, North and South America and Australia (7). Thus, global climate change raises concerns about food security and the vulnerability of

particularly small-holder farmers to cope with climate change and adaptation to climate change (4, 6, 10, 11). As it is generally recognised that small-holder farmers in the developing world are the persons most at risk from climate change (10), considerable aid and research resources are being channelled into research on the impact of climate change on food security and the adaptive capacity of vulnerable farmers.

However, all is not gloom and doom.

Global warming is predicted to increase yields in more northerly latitudes where cold temperatures limit yields (Fig. 1). Warmer seasons will enable winter-sown crops (e.g., winter wheat) to grow where only springsown crops (e.g., spring wheat) can be grown under current climates, higheryielding crops such as maize will be able to supplant lower-yielding crops such as wheat in regions too cold for C4 crops or where it has to be grown under plastic for cobs to develop (12).

WORLD AGRICULTURE

25

26

5/6/13

16:38

Page 1

economic & social

Figure 1. Percentage change in yields of 11 major crops (field pea, maize, millet, peanut, rapeseed (canola), rice, soybean, sugar beet, sunflower, sweet potato, wheat) between 1996-2005 and 2046-2055.

The values are the means of three emission scenarios across five global climate models assuming no CO2 fertilisation (6, 7).

In a drying climate, livestock farmers will be able to switch from pastures to produce food and feed crops, in wetter regions where waterlogging currently limits crop yields (5, 13). Examples where studies suggest that climate change is not the major driver of food security are discussed in the following section.

Timor-Leste (East Timor) is a small island state in the Timor Sea just north of Australia. It gained its independence in 2002 after a period of conflict during which agricultural production and food security were compromised.

Australia and the International Agricultural Research Centres provided significant aid to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in Timor-Leste to re-establish agricultural production in the young island nation (14, 15). An analysis of climate change by Molyneux et al. (16) indicated that temperatures were likely to rise by about 1.5°C, while rainfall was predicted to increase by about 10% across the island. The authors conclude from simulation studies in Africa and India that yields of maize and peanut on Timor-Leste may decrease by 4% and 21%, respectively (2). The analysis

by Cooper et al. (2) was conducted with nitrogen non-limiting. A

26 WORLD AGRICULTURE

subsequent analysis of the effects of climate change on sorghum showed that with fertilizer rates used by smallholder farmers in Africa, namely 0 and 20 kg N ha-1, yields actually increased with temperature rises of 3°C and no change in rainfall (17). The increase was observed despite a shortening of the growing period and the simulation results indicate that the higher temperatures induced a faster breakdown of organic matter in the soil and greater uptake of nitrogen by the sorghum (17). As fertiliser is not used by farmers in Timor-Leste, it is likely that the climate change scenario for the island will result in increased yields, at least in the short term until the soil organic matter runs down.

While climate change may not result in a reduction in yield, population growth is likely to create a greater risk to the alleviation of poverty than climate change in Timor-Leste (16).

The current population is about 1.20 million with an annual growth rate of 2.4 % (18). By 2050 the population is expected to nearly treble to 2.5 to 3 million (18).

While Timor-Leste’s population growth rate is lower than many countries in East and West Africa, it is twice that of other countries in South-

East Asia (18). The four major food crops are rice, maize, cassava, and sweet potato. In 2011, 98,000 tonnes of rice, 31,000 tonnes of maize, 22,000 tonnes of cassava and 10,000 tonnes of sweet potato were produced

by Timor-Leste farmers (19).

The four crops provide 1300 kcal/capita/day, 64% of the daily calorific intake from all sources, and 27 g/capita/day of protein, 47% of the daily protein intake (19). To supplement the local production Timor-Leste imported 3,800 tonnes of rice and 2850 tonnes of maize in 2009 (19), sufficient to ensure that overall consumption at 2100 kcal/capita/day was above the minimum energy requirement of 2000 kcal/capita/day considered necessary for limited work.

However, consumption is unevenly spread within the population, with 23% of the population considered undernourished (19). Malnutrition is particularly serious among children with about 47% of children under the age of five considered chronically malnourished (stunted) and 43% severely malnourished (20), suggesting that food supply is already insufficient to meet the current population. With 37% of the population living on less than US$1.25/day

27

5/6/13

16:40

Page 1

economic & social (http://www.ausaid.gov.au/countries/e astasia/timor-leste/Pages/statistics-easttimor.aspx), the international measure of poverty, the opportunity to purchase food, particularly in rural areas, is limited. Pockets of poverty in densely populated farming communities already exist. With the predicted population increase, the incidence of poverty and malnutrition is likely to increase unless food production, food imports and incomes increase.

Food security is not simply a function of food production, but is influenced by regional conflicts, changes in international trade agreements and policies, infectious diseases and other societal factors (11, 21). For example, decades of civil war in Sudan have left the new nation of South Sudan with very limited supplies of food in the market place (Fig. 2), despite access to large areas of uncultivated land and water (River Nile). As a result of the civil war, a

generation of refugees living in neighbouring countries have lost their farming experience and lost initiative.

Additionally, the lack of training facilities and infrastructure such as roads and transport facilities makes inputs of fertiliser, insecticides and seed, difficult to obtain and produce difficult to market.

I do not wish to suggest that there should be no investment in research and development to enable farmers in the developing world to adapt to climate change, but that the investment should not be at the expense of current research and development aimed at improving yields and livelihoods. In Timor-Leste, the successful introduction and adoption of improved cultivars of staple food crops after the period of food insecurity resulting from conflict, has resulted in increased household food security and produced a surplus for sale in the market, often for the first time (14). This was the result of a

targeted research and development program funded by the Australian and Timorese governments aimed at increasing crop production and food security (15, 22). Furthermore, studies of timely and improved management of crops in eastern and southern Africa, including the use of fertilisers, have shown that crop production can be increased much more than the increases induced by global warming with low levels of fertiliser application (17). Overcoming malnutrition and food insecurity, particularly in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, are primary challenges for agriculture in the 21st century. Climate change, particularly the incidence of extreme events, will have an impact on malnutrition and food security, but in regions with high population growth and low adaptive capacity such as Timor-Leste and sub-Saharan Africa, governments and agencies will first need to strengthen the adaptive capacity of farmers through improved yields and productivity.

Conclusions The impact of climate change on food security may be less than that of population rise and lack of experience in some countries recovering from conflict such as Timor-Leste and South Sudan, and countries in sub-Saharan Africa with high rates of population increase. Further, warming temperatures may result in increased crop yields for small-holder farmers using little or no fertilisers on nutrient-poor soils. Continuing emphasis on improved cultivars management infrastructure and marketing will be required to ensure food security as the population rises to 9 billion by 2050.

References

1. Christensen, JH, Hewitson, B, Busuioc, A, Chen, A, Gao, X, Held, I, Jones, R, Kolli, RK, Kwon, W-T, Laprise, R, Magaña Rueda, V, Mearns, L, Menéndez, C.G, Räisänen, J, Rinke, A, Sarr, A & Whetto, P (2007) Regional Climate Projections. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds., S Solomon, D Qin, M Manning, M Marquis, KB Averyt, M Tignor & HL Mille, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA. ISBN 978-0521-88009-1.

Figure 2. Stall in the market in Melut, South Sudan at the end of the wet season in November 2012 showing small amounts of tomatoes, ochra, chillies, garlic, dried beans and salt for sale. Other stall-holders were selling dried fish, onions, pumpkin and limes (the only fresh fruit available). Photo by Neil Turner.

2. Cooper, P, Rao, KPC, Singh, P, Dimes, J, Traore, PS, Dixit, P, & Twomlow, SJ (2009) Farming with current and future climate risk: Advancing a “Hypothesis of Hope” for rainfed agriculture in the semi-arid tropics. Journal of SAT Agricultural Research 7 (ejournal. icrisat.org /aespaperv7).

3. Asseng, S, Foster, I & Turner, NC (2011) The impact of temperature variability on wheat yields. Global Change Biology 21, 997-1012.

WORLD AGRICULTURE

27

28

5/6/13

16:41

Page 1

economic & social 4. Yadav, SS, Redden, RJ, Hatfield JL, LotzeCampen, H & Hall, AE (2011) Crop Adaptation to Climate Change. Chichester, UK, Wiley/Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-8138-2020-3.

5. Turner, NC & Meyer, R (2011) Synthesis of regional impacts and global agricultural adjustments. In: Crop Adaptation to Climate Change (eds., SS Yadav, RJ Redden, JL Hatfield, H Lotze-Campen, & AE Hall). pp. 156-166.

Chichester, UK, Wiley/ Blackwell. ISBN 978-08138-2020-3.

6. Müller, C, Bondeau, A, Popp, A, Waha, K & Fader, M (2009) Climate Change Impacts on Agricultural Yields. Background note for the World Development Report 2010 (World Bank, 2009).

7. World Bank (2010) World Development Report 2010, Development and Climate Change. Washington, DC, The World Bank.

ISBN 978-0-8213-7987-5.

8. Cure, J.D., Acock, B. 2186. Crop responses to carbon dioxide doubling: a literature survey.

Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 38, 127-45.

9. Long, SP, Ainsworth, EA, Leakey, ADB, Nösberger, J, & Ort, DR (2006) Food for thought: Lower-than-expected crop yield simulation with rising CO2 concentrations. Science 313, 2120-21.

10. Cooper, PJM, Dimes, J, Rao, KPC, Shapiro, B, Shiferaw, B & Twomlow, S (2008) Coping better with current climatic variability in the rain-fed farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa: An essential first step in adapting to future climate change? Agricultural Ecosystems and Environment 126, 24–35.

Typhoon, satellite view

28

WORLD AGRICULTURE

11. Lotze-Campen, H, Müller, C, Popp, A, & Füssel, H-M (2012) Food security in a changing climate. In: Climate Change, Justice and Sustainability: Linking Climate and Development Policy (eds., O Edenhofer& J Wallacher). pp 33-43, Dordrecht, Springer Netherlands. ISBN 978-94-007-4539-1.

implications for food security. Ambio 41, 82340.

12. Zhou, L-M, Jin, S-L, Liu, C-A, Xiong, Y-C, Si, JT, Li, X-G, Gan, Y-T, & Li, F-M (2012) Ridge-furrow and plastic-mulching tillage enhances maize–soil interactions: Opportunities and challenges in a semiarid agroecosystem. Field Crops Research 126: 181-8.

18. Population Reference Bureau (2013) http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2 012/ (Accessed 7 May 2013).

13. Turner, NC, Molyneux, N, Yang, S, Xiong, Y-C, & Siddique, KHM (2011) Climate change in south-west Australia and north-west China: challenges and opportunities for crop production. Crop and Pasture Science 62, 445-56.

20. World Food Programme (2005) Food insecurity and vulnerability analysis Timor Leste.

VAM unit. Dili, Timor Leste, The United Nations World Food Programme. 2005 http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/publ ic/documents/vam/wfp067434.pdf. (Accessed 20 November 2010)

14. Borges, LF, do Rosario Ferreira, A, da Silva, D, Williams, R, Andersen, R, Dalley, A, Monaghan, B, Nesbitt, H, & Erskine, W (2009) Improving food security through agricultural research and development in Timor-Leste: a country emerging from conflict. Food Security 1, 403-12.

17. Turner, NC & Rao, KPC (2013) Simulation analysis of factors affecting sorghum yield at selected sites in eastern and southern Africa, with emphasis on increasing temperatures.

Agricultural Systems (in press).

19. FAOSTAT (2013) http://faostat.fao.org/.

Accessed 7 May 2013.

15. Da Costa, H, Piggin, C, Fox, J, & da Cruz, CJ (2003) Agriculture: New directions for a new nation – East Timor (Timor-Leste). In: Proceedings of a workshop 1-3 October, Dili, East Timor. Canberra, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Proceedings No. 113.

21. Easterling, WE, Aggarwal, PK, Batima, P, Brander, KM, Erda, L, Howden, SM, Kirilenko, A, Morton, J, Soussana, J-F, Schmidhuber, J, & Tubiello, FN (2007) Food, fibre and forest products. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds., ML Parry, OF Canziani, JP Palutikof, PJ van der Linden & CE Hanson). pp. 273–313, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, Cambridge University Press. IBSN 9780521-88010-7.

16. Molyneux, N, Rangel da Cruz, G, Williams, RL, Andersen, R, & Turner, NC (2012) Climate change and population growth in Timor Leste:

22. Seeds of Life (2008) Annual Research Report, 2007. Dili, Timor-Leste, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

© Photobank kiev – fotolia.com

29

5/6/13

10:05

Page 1

economic & social

Which way farm animal welfare in Tanzania?

R. Trevor Wilson Bartridge House, Umberleigh, EX37 9AS, UK e-mail: trevorbart@aol.com Summary Tanzania is one of the world’s poorest and least developed countries but has huge numbers of cattle, goats, sheep and poultry, fewer pigs and very few water buffalo and camels. Most animals are kept under low input-low output conditions in mixed crop-livestock, pastoral or urban and suburban farming systems. Producers are usually poor, have limited access to resources and struggle to ensure their own livelihoods. An Animal Welfare Act was brought on to the Statute Book in 2008: its provisions are based on similar legislation in developed countries and, together with ancillary legal instruments, lays the foundation for farm (and companion) animal welfare. Welfare is poor at all stages of the value chain from producer, through transport and marketing to slaughter. Most producers are unaware of good welfare practices. During transport and at slaughter welfare is ignored by those responsible for it including government personnel charged with ensuring welfare and food safety. Government is less than strict in overseeing application of the law and there is very little pressure from consumers or others to ensure even minimum compliance with appropriate standards. Two voluntary associations attempt to improve the welfare of dogs, cats and donkeys but none is concerned with farm animals. Under these scenarios the prognosis for improved farm animal welfare in Tanzania in the foreseeable future is bleak.

Keywords: animal welfare, animal transport, legislation, pain, slaughter, stress.

Introduction “Unseen they suffer Unheard they cry In agony they linger In silence they die Is it nothing to all ye who pass by?”

The Lord Buddha (attributed, although also claimed by some animal rights’ movements)

S

ince the Republic of Sudan split to become two separate countries in 2012, Tanzania is second only to Ethiopia in the number of its domestic livestock. Its standing stock is estimated to comprise 21.3 million cattle, 13.1 million goats 3.6 million sheep, 1.5 million pigs and more than 30 million poultry (1).

More than 99 per cent of these animals are owned and managed by resource-poor smallholder mixed and pastoral producers operating in an age-old traditional manner and by slightly more intensive urban and suburban systems.

Livestock provide direct livelihood support to 4 901 837 agricultural households (2). The human population of 46.2 million lives in a low income country whose Gross Domestic product is US$ 23.71 billion

or about US$ 510 per person per year.

The human development index ranks 152 in a league table of 187 with comparable data (3) meaning that not only is income low but also that life expectancy, education, access to health and a range of other indicators are also poor. Few rural households have access to electricity. Water for drinking, washing and cooking usually has to be fetched (and usually on the heads of women) from several kilometres away. Very few houses have toilets or latrines.

Livestock are owned by families in two major systems. Mixed croplivestock farmers and agropastoralists keep few ruminants, up to about 20 head but often fewer, close to the homestead and these may be tethered or roam freely during the day and brought in to a pen at night.

Pastoralists have ruminant herds of up to 100 head, that are herded on open range during the day and closeted in a thorn enclosure at night. In rural areas pigs usually roam freely during the day but are housed at night (4) whereas in urban and suburban areas they are fully confined (5). Poultry are free range and scavenge for most of their food in both rural and urban areas (6).

Most livestock, but especially

ruminants, are hungry from their birth to their death (7). Calves, kids and lambs are separated from their dams for part of every day and are even denied colostrum so that dams can be milked to provide food for people.

Feed, mostly natural pasture and crop residues such as straw, is insufficient in quantity and quality for most of every year to provide adequate nutrition for growth and inhibits the reproductive process (2). Water is often in very short supply and pastoral livestock in particular may go several days without drinking.

The chain of events for livestock from pasture to plate can be summarized as a growth period of inadequate feed resources, transfer to a primary market for sale, purchase by an agent and transfer to a secondary market for resale, purchase by a butcher or other intermediary, slaughter under usually primitive and unhygienic conditions and final transfer to a retail sale point.

Materials and methods This paper is based mainly on empirical observations throughout the Tanzanian livestock sector over the years 1961 to 2013 but especially during three visits, each of about 30 days duration, to Tanzania from September 2012 to February 2013.

WORLD AGRICULTURE

29

30

5/6/13

10:06

Page 1

economic & social Observations, which have been combined with interviews and informal discussions with key informants, were made in all production systems and during visits to livestock markets, on transport routes and at informal and regulated slaughter slabs and abattoirs.

Welfare concerns and clear breaches of the Animal Welfare Act are illustrated in this paper by a series of photographs.

Observations have been supplemented with a review of animal welfare legislation in Tanzania and of general and Tanzania publications on animal welfare: it should be noted, however, that literature for Tanzania is extremely scanty.

Results

Act No 13 of 2010: An Act to provide for the management and control of grazing-lands, animal feed resources and trade and to provide for other related matters (“Grazing Land and Animal Feed Resources Act”); Act No 12 of 2010: An Act to provide for the establishment of the National Livestock Identification, Registration and Traceability System for purposes of controlling animal diseases and livestock theft, enhancing food safety assurance; to regulate movement of livestock, improve livestock products and production of animal genetic resources; to promote access to market and to provide for other related matters (“The Livestock Identification, Registration and Traceability Act”);

Legislation and the role of Government The livestock sector is beset by a plethora of laws, rules and regulations related to production, health and disease, food quality and safety and welfare. Implementation of this corpus may be in concert, but is often in conflict, with other legal instruments.

Direct and indirect legislation is enforced and implemented (or not enforced and not implemented) by various ministries, institutions, boards, authorities and local governments.

Act No 19 of 2008: An act to provide for the humane treatment of animals, establishment of the Animal Welfare Advisory Council, monitoring and mitigation of animal abuses, promoting awareness on the importance of animal welfare and to provide for other related matters (“Animal Welfare Act”).

Tanzania is widely regarded as having a theoretically dense regulatory burden that is lightly implemented and widely ignored (8). To add to earlier regulation much that is new has been enacted since 2003, amongst which are:

Establishment of the Animal Welfare Advisory Council;

Act No 16 of 2003: An Act to provide for the registration of veterinarians, or enlistment of Paraprofessional and Paraprofessional Assistants, and for the establishment of the Veterinary Council and other matters incidental and connected thereto (“The Veterinary Act”); Act No 17 of 2003: An Act to make provisions for control and prevention of animal diseases for monitoring production of animal products, for disposal of animal carcases and for other related matters (“Animal Diseases Act”); Act No 10 of 2006: An Act to make provisions for the restructuring of the Meat Industry, to establish a proper basis for its efficient management, to ensure provision of high quality meat products and for matters related therewith. (“The Meat Industry Act”);

30 WORLD AGRICULTURE

and, most relevant of all:

Amongst the major chapters of the Animal Welfare Act (9) – which supercedes the Animal Protection Ordinance Cap 153 of the preIndependence period – are:

Keeping of animals (farm animals, companion animals, transport, care of injured animals, slaughter); Use for work and entertainment; Surgical operations, biotechnology and experiments; and Control of aggressive animals and animal pound.

Subsidiary regulation to the foregoing includes principally: Tanzania Bureau of Standard’s Code No TZS 128: 1981(E) Meat and meat products; The Meat Slaughter Regulations; The Meat Hygiene Regulations; and Guidelines for Slaughter Facilities of the Tanzania Food and Drugs Authority.

Under the chapter ‘Keeping of animals’ of the Animal Welfare Act,

prominence, with regard to farm animals, is given to appropriate housing, not causing pain or suffering, minimum standards for transport vehicles, not overworking or overloading animals used for work and transport and providing them with “shade, shelter, a soft lying space and adequate space for relaxation during rest periods” (Sections 33 ‘Duty of care to a working animal’ and 34 ‘Working animals not to be overworked’). With regard to slaughter (Section 29 ‘Humane slaughtering’), “an animal shall be slaughtered through a method which (a) involves instantaneous killing, or (b) instantaneously renders an animal unconscious and ends in death without the recover [sic] of consciousness”. Slaughtering methods that may be used for ruminants and pigs are “(a) mechanical means of employing an instrument which administer a blow or penetrate the brain, or (b) electronarcosis”. The provisions of this part of the Act shall not apply (Section 30 ‘Approval of religious slaughter’) where religious beliefs specify the mode of slaughtering provided that (a) the person doing the slaughtering has the necessary knowledge and skill, (b) a veterinarian in charge of slaughter and meat inspection must be present, ( c) the large blood vessels of the throat must be opened with a single cut, (d) equipment is available such that the animal intended for slaughtering can be brought into position without delay, and (e) other animals awaiting slaughter must not see the process.

Slaughter of pregnant animals is discouraged and ante-mortem inspection for pregnancy is required.

Welfare in practice The five freedoms (10, 11, 12) are amply covered under Tanzania’s enacted legislation. Practice, however, is remote from principle. In the Tanzania context there are three major stages in an animal’s life. The first is production, the second transport and marketing and the third slaughter.

There is little second order production (an animal being sold from its place of origin to another producer for growing on or fattening) so stages two and three are usually compressed in time although not necessarily in space.

Animals encounter welfare problems – although in this study these have of necessity been assessed with some subjectivity as physical and physiological tests described by some authors (e.g. 13) were not possible –

31

5/6/13

10:07

Page 1

economic & social years) (2, 19). Growth is slow (and characterized by the typical saw-tooth gain-loss-gain annual cycle, (20)) as a result of feed shortages for most of every year (Figure 1) and extended intervals, of up to four days, between successive waterings.

8 10

7 8 9 Table 1. Severity of welfare problems related to the five freedoms encountered by Tanzanian livestock at three stages of the life cycle.

Initial parenthesis assessed by the author on a scale 1 = mild or minimal, 10 = very severe). which in order of magnitude rise from mild to very severe (Table 1).

Production on the farm and in the pastoral areas For Tanzanian livestock, welfare problems begin in the womb, a part of the life cycle which until recently has had little attention given to it in relation to later welfare, health and production (14). The developing foetus, especially the ruminant one, is deprived of adequate nutrition and open to infection as its dam is rarely herself protected against diseases which may be transmitted through the uterus. The newborn is thus underweight at birth, weak and open to attack by parasites and pathogens.

The situation does not improve at birth. Ruminant young are often given limited or even no access to colostrum and are deprived of protective antibodies. They continue to suffer stress in the post-natal/pre-weaning period as they compete with their owners for their dams’ milk and are separated from the latter for long periods to prevent suckling. Stress and starvation result in very slow growth and high mortality rates, in Tanzania as in other African traditional systems (15, 16, 17). Hunger and thirst continue throughout the slow growth process to maturity as animals rarely obtain a diet sufficient to maintain full health and vigour and often have no ready access to fresh water (18). Most animals

receive little health care (only 29 per cent of cattle are vaccinated regularly), protection from ticks (and the diseases they carry) or control of internal helminth parasites (2). Consequently, if the animal does not succumb to its miserable life style (death rates are very high in calves and may reach 70 per cent of those infected by East Coast Fever (ECF) which can be reduced to less than 30 per cent with regular dipping), reproductive rates in cattle are only about 50 per cent (a cow calves first at 4 or even 5 years of age and then produces a calf only every 2

Pigs managed under free-range or near-free range conditions (about 70 per cent of pigs in Tanzania (21)) have better access to feed than ruminants as they scavenge a wide range of foods and household waste, including the large quantities of human excrement around villages where latrines are not used. Urban pigs under confinement usually receive adequate amounts of food although much of this is unbalanced for nutrients, especially minerals and vitamins (pers. obs.).

Access to water remains problematic for pigs and poultry and especially for the latter in the long dry seasons.

Freedom of their animals from discomfort is not a priority for most Tanzanian producers. Shelters are often rudimentary and comfortable resting areas are not widespread. In pastoral areas, stock is penned at night in some kind of enclosure of thorns, of wooden offcuts or of posts and barbed wire. Young stock are crowded into a smaller version of the main pen and separated from their dams to prevent suckling. Pens (’boma’ in local languages) are thick with the dust that results from thousands of hooves trampling the dung during the long dry periods or hock deep in liquid manure in the wet season when no dry spot is to be found (18).

Figure 1. Natural feed resources for cattle in central Tanzania (part of a parastatal ranch where the stocking rate is clearly not adjusted to the carrying capacity).

WORLD AGRICULTURE

31

32

5/6/13

10:07

Page 1

economic & social often poorly designed facilities.

Many animals, especially in more extensive systems, have sufficient space and the company of others of their own kind and thus have some freedom to express normal behaviour. The major exceptions to this rule are intensive units and urban dairy and pig units.

Transport and marketing

Figure 2. Small scale urban pig production in Dar es Salaam (note primitive drainage system and method of emptying by hand; the building in the background is a block of flats for police personnel who rear pigs to supplement their meagre incomes).

Figure 3. A modern pig breeding facility in Dar es Salaam with farrowing crates (the enterprise is part funded by Danish Technical Assistance: under European Union law, Denmark was due to phase out the use of farrowing crates in 2012).

No bedding is provided and there is seldom any shade. In the smaller crossbred dairy units housing hygiene is often poor or very poor with inadequate drainage, pot-holed flat floors and dung and waste materials are often disposed of nearby which only exacerbates the unhygienic conditions (17). In mixed agricultural units and in urban areas (most municipalities have by-laws that require animals to be totally and permanently confined) ruminants are sometimes housed in the family home or an attached lean-to or in a primitive pen close at hand but, although this may have a corrugated iron or thatched roof, there are appalling conditions underfoot and there is rarely any drainage (22). Both rural and urban pigs are usually housed in

32 WORLD AGRICULTURE

crude pens with earth or rough concrete floors that do not drain well, have no bedding and no separate defecating area. In the small scale system in Dar es Salaam pens are closely crowded and a potential source of epidemic disease (Figure 2).

Recently built – “modern” – large scale facilities start off with the use of farrowing crates (Figure 3).

Disease prevention and rapid diagnosis and treatment are not realities in Tanzania and stock is consequently not free from disease nor pain. In most situations the only regular animal health treatment is dipping or spraying for tick control to inhibit development of tick-borne diseases (23) but animals suffer pain, fear and distress as they are shouted at and beaten to drive them through

The first steps in the ruminant marketing chain usually comprise sale off the producer holding and movement on foot to one of 300 primary markets. This is followed by purchase by an agent for transfer to a secondary market of which one is located in Dar es Salaam and the others in the north of the country (24).

The law requires that animals be transported by truck to a secondary market. Most stock does, in fact, arrive at such a market in a truck but only after it has been loaded a short distance from the market after a trek that may have lasted several weeks over a distance of several hundred kilometres.

Several points along the marketing chain provide opportunities for welfare to be severely compromised.

Gathering at markets mixes animals strange to each other and exposes them to disease. During trekking animals pass weeks without adequate feed and only intermittent access to water. Neither of the two separate railway systems in Tanzania operates regularly and neither has rolling stock for animal transport. Specialized road transport vehicles for livestock are unknown so where road transport is used (often as a back-load to Dar es Salaam from remote parts of the country) the vehicle is not adapted -by any rational interpretation – for animals (24). There are welfare problems at loading from unsuitable ramps (or from no ramp at all), throughout journeys that may be of several days duration (Figure 4) and at unloading. A variety of transport methods is used by the small holder mixed farmer to get his animals to market. Trekking is one option but transport by road is often preferred especially if the distance is greater than 20 km (Figure 5). A common method of moving pigs from the point of production to market is driving them on foot but more imaginative methods – with less welfare concern – are often used (Figure 6). Indigenous poultry are raised usually in small flocks at

33

5/6/13

10:08

Page 1

economic & social the ground and having their throats cut with one stroke if they are lucky.

Rarely is the final act carried out beyond the sight, sound and smell of their fellow animals awaiting the same fate (Figure 9). Even where electric stunning is available it is usually deemed easier to slaughter without the animal first being rendered unconscious (Figure 10).

Figure 4. Cattle being transported by road from Sumbawanga to Dar es Salaam (more than 50 cattle loaded on a general-purpose truck with no partitions and being beaten to force the ones lying down to stand: the time for the 1426 km journey – much over unmade dirt track – is said to take 18 hours and 34 minutes by car but by lorry requires at least three days during which time the animals are neither fed nor watered).

Figure 5. Two native cattle being transported to market in Morogoro in east-central Tanzania by pick-up truck.

Figure 6. A pig on its way to market in Sumbawanga.

Figure 7. A dealer lot of poultry on its way to market left in the sun whilst their owner takes a rest in the shade. household level. Markets are usually too far away for a householder to deliver them to market so a small scale dealer constitutes lots and transports them by bicycle in baskets of bamboo stems containing up to 50 or more birds (Figure 7).

Conditions do not improve for animals at the market. At the few with some infrastructure (other than a boundary wall) it is usually poorly designed, constructed and maintained.

Square angles inhibit free movement of animals and projecting crude metal including over-long bolts encourage injury. Welfare is compromised by the resultant beating to get animals moving. The bruising that ensues (25) would result in financial loss if meat were condemned but neither inspectors nor consumers regard bruising as a reason for rejection.

Slaughter The Animal Welfare Act is unequivocal with regard to humane and correct slaughter. With very few exceptions, nowhere along the chain – from slaughter in the producer’s backyard to slaughter in a modern export abattoir – is humane and correct slaughter performed. The several hundred rural slaughter slabs are just that – a slab of concrete a few metres square in the better ones but with no other facilities or equipment. These are largely unregulated although a meat inspector may occasionally be present. At the 100 or so municipal slaughter houses the situation is little better. Most of these are many years beyond their “use by” date but slaughter up to five times their design capacity. They have little equipment, inappropriate and broken lairage and lack handling and restraint facilities (Figure 8) such that animals are lassoed in a rodeo performance before being thrown to

It is easy to make a case for “religious slaughter” for ruminants but none such can be made for pigs. It is unlikely, nonetheless, that any pig is slaughtered in Tanzania after being rendered unconscious. Many pigs are slaughtered under uncontrolled conditions at the home but even where a meat inspector is called in (as at the pig “farm” in Figure 2) animals are not stunned (26, 27) although meat inspectors are also welfare officers.

Figure 8. A privately owned slaughter house within the greater Dar es Salaam conurbation (note the broken “crush” to the left and the concrete tank in the centre for disposal of condemned animals and meat: all such facilities are approved by the Tanzania Food and Drugs Authority and the Municipal Council and veterinarians or veterinary assistants attend for antemortem live animal inspection and postmortem meat inspection).

Figure 9. The charnal house at the publicly-owned Vingunguti slaughter facility of Ilala Municipality in greater Dar es Salaam (goats are killed in full sight, sound and smell of their fellow animals awaiting the same fate).

WORLD AGRICULTURE 33

34

5/6/13

10:10

Page 1

economic & social 2008. The mission of the Tanzania Animals Protection Organization (TAPO) is “to protect all Animals from Tortures, Cruelty, Abused, Diseases and killings in the country of Tanzania” and whose vision is that “All Animals shall be respected as living beings like human beings” but its activities mainly relate to donkeys.

Figure 10. Slaughtering goats for export to UAE without stunning at Dodoma abattoir (the abattoir has electric stunning facilities and has no problems exporting cattle carcasses stunned before exsanguination to the Islamic Gulf States).

Discussion Consideration for animals and their well-being within the food chain is the responsibility of stakeholders at all levels from primary producer to final consumer (28). The Animal Welfare Act 2008 imposes, as does the New Zealand Act of the same name of 1999 (29), a duty of care on all owners and persons in charge, to provide for the physical, health and behavioural needs of animals in their care.

In developed countries producers make provision for good welfare through good husbandry. Unlike New Zealand and other developed countries, however, it is far from easy in a developing country such as Tanzania to integrate, at producer level, the various and often conflicting, social, ethical and economic conditions into the livestock production chain when people themselves live in a miserable and unhealthy state and know little of nor understand the meaning of “welfare” and appreciate it even less.

Along the chain, during transport and at slaughter, responsibility for welfare shifts incrementally from producers to local and central government and their employees who have received some technical training and who are in general aware of the regulations of the Welfare Act 2008. It is at these points, however, that the worst welfare examples are manifest not only with respect to the law but

34

WORLD AGRICULTURE

also to feelings of compassion for unnecessary and needless suffering.

Government has enacted the necessary legislation but neither it (at central or local level), its technical agencies nor its agents attempt to see the law applied either through lack of diligence or – worse – through receipt of “facilitation fees” (the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Report (8) ranks Tanzania at 120 out of 142 countries with a major reason for this position being corruption) to allow the law to be flouted.

At the end of the chain the average Tanzanian consumer has little disposable income, eats meat on limited occasions only and is more concerned with price than with the processes an animal has been through before meat is put on the plate. It is unlikely in the near future that consumers will wish to attempt to influence the forces that drive the market even though livestock make a major contribution to their well being.

Nor will they understand that improved farm animal welfare can improve productivity and food safety and provide economic benefits.

There are, however, some encouraging, if very limited, indications that animal welfare is becoming of concern. The Tanzania Animal Welfare Society (TAWESO), whose current activities are with stray dogs and cats in Dar es Salaam but which has plans for a donkey sanctuary in Dodoma, was formed in

TAPO is a member of the World Society for the Protection of Animals and the Equine Welfare Alliance of the USA but its activities, as those of TAWESO, are limited as they rely on public donations because “the government does not support financially the non-profit organizations in the country” (http://www.taweso.org/). Tanzania is not alone in Africa in having NGOs concerned with animal welfare but even in the most advanced African countries the current emphasis – because of financial constraints and to capture a public audience – is also on companion animals and the donkey (30, 31).

Tanzania is a member country of the World Organization for Animal Health (Office International des Epizooties, OIE), the intergovernmental organization founded in 1924 to set global rules for monitoring, prevention and control of animal diseases.

In 2001 OIE formally extended its work to include animal welfare and in 2005 adopted the first global standards including, of relevance to Tanzania, welfare during transport by land and sea (Tanzania exports live animals to its offshore region of Zanzibar and to the Comores Islands in the Indian Ocean) and welfare during slaughter for human consumption as well as for disease control. The standards define the responsibilities and competence required of workers, good practice in handling and slaughter, requirements for welfare during transport and lists practices that are unacceptable. None of these standards is yet adhered to in Tanzania.

Few animals and small quantities of meat are exported from Tanzania.

Most trade is to countries in the eastern and southern African region and the Arabian Gulf including predominantly the United Arab Emirates. None of these countries demands high welfare standards throughout the chain as a condition for import but some, at least, may do so in the medium term.

35

5/6/13

10:11

Page 1

economic & social Animal welfare considerations The Tanzanian Government pays lip service to farm animal welfare through its Animal Welfare Act of 2008 but makes very little attempt to enforce the Act’s provisions. As far as can be ascertained there has yet to be a prosecution for breaches of the law.

Producers, transporters, butchers and consumers alike have little knowledge of or interest in the welfare of animals, partly through ignorance and lack of education but also because their own welfare standards are wanting. Under these scenarios the prospects for improving farm animal welfare in Tanzania will remain bleak for a long time to come. No country to which Tanzania exports, at present, demands high welfare standards, as a condition for import, but some, at least, may do so in the medium term.

Acknowledgements In memoriam, Professor Sir Colin Spedding, respected mentor, valued colleague and formidable protagonist of animal welfare everywhere.

References 1) FAOStat (2012) FAO Statistical Year Book 2012. Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome. http://faostat3.fao.org/home/index.html.

Accessed 15 04 2013.

(2) Covarrubias, K, Nsiima, L & Zezza A (2010) Livestock and livelihoods in rural Tanzania: A descriptive analysis of the 2009 National Panel Survey. Washington DC, World Bank.

(3) UNDP (2012) Human Development Report. Nairobi, United Nations Development Programme.

(4) Ngowi, H A, Kassuku, A A, Maeda, G E, Boa, M E, Carabin, H & Willingham A L III (2004) Risk factors for the prevalence of porcine cysticercosis in Mbulu District, Tanzania. Veterinary Parasitology 120, 275-83 (5) Munisi, W, Sambuta, A, Bwire, J & Meho, A (2006) Pig production in peri-urban areas of Mpwapwa district, Tanzania: Current situation, constraints and improvement options.

Proceedings of the 32nd Scientific Conference of Tanzania Society of Animal Production 32, 125-8.

(6) Msoffe, P L M, Bunn, D, Muhairwa, A P, Mtambo, M M A, Mwamhehe, H, Msago, A, Mlozi M R S & Cardona, C J (2010) Implementing poultry vaccination and

An elephant herd on the move

biosecurity at the village level in Tanzania: a social strategy to promote health in free-range poultry populations. Tropical Animal Health and Production 42, 253-63.

(7) Rushalaza, V G & Kasonta, J S (1993) Dualpurpose cattle in central Tanzania. In: Future of livestock industries in East and southern Africa.

Proceedings of a workshop held 20-23 July 1992 at Kadoma Ranch Hotel, Zimbabwe (ed., A. Kategile & S. Mubi), International Livestock Centre for Africa: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp.

81-8.

(8) World Economic Forum (2011) The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012. Geneva, World Economic Forum.

(9) URT (2008) Act No 19 of 2008: An act to provide for the humane treatment of animals, establishment of the Animal Welfare Advisory Council, monitoring and mitigation of animal abuses, promoting awareness on the importance of animal welfare and to provide for other related matters (“Animal Welfare Act”). Dar es Salaam, Government Printer.

(10) Brambell, F W R (1965) Report of the Technical Committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems [“The Brambell Report”]. London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

(11) Fraser, A F &nd Broom, D M (1997) Farm animal behaviour and welfare. London, CAB International.

(12) Rushen, J (2008) Farm animal welfare since the Brambell report. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113, 277-8.

(13) Broom, D M (1991) Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167-75.

(14) Rutherford, K M D, Donald, R D, Arnott, G, Rooke, J A, Dixon, L, Mehers, J J M, Turnbull, J & Lawrence, A B (2012) Farm animal welfare: assessing risks attributable to the prenatal environment. Animal Welfare 21, 419-29.

(15) Wilson, R T, Traoré, A, Peacock, C P & Mack, S (1984) Mortalité avant le sevrage dans les systèmes africains traditionnels d’élevage des caprins. In: Les maladies de la chèvre (Colloques de l’INRA No 28) (ed., P. Yvore & G. Perrin). Maisons-Alfort, Institut d’Elevage et de Médicine Vétérinaire des Pays Tropicaux. pp. 665-72.

(16) de Leeuw, P N & Wilson, R T (1987) Comparative productivity of indigenous cattle under traditional management in subSaharan Africa. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 26, 377-90.

(17) Chang’a, J S, Mdegela, R H, Ryoba, R, Løken, T & Reksen, M (2010) Calf health and management in smallholder dairy farms in Tanzania. Tropical Animal Health and Production 42, 1669–76.

(18) Msanga, Y N, Mwakilembe, P L & Sendalo, D (2012) The indigenous cattle of the Southern Highlands of Tanzania: distinct phenotypic features, performance and uses.

Livestock Research for Rural Development Volume 24, Article #110. Retrieved March 11, 2013, from

http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/7/msan24110.htm (19) Pica-Ciamarra, U, Baker, D, Chassama, J, Fadiga, M & Nsiima, L (2011) Linking Smallholders to Livestock Markets: Combining Market and Household Survey Data in Tanzania. Paper presented at the 4th Meeting of the Wye City Group on Statistics on Rural Development and Agriculture Household Income, 9-11 November 2011, Rio de Janeiro.

(20) Wilson, R T (1986) Livestock production in central Mali: Long-term studies on cattle and small ruminants in the agropastoral system (Research Report No 14). Addis Ababa, International Livestock Centre for Africa. p. 54, 93.

(21) Ngowi, H A, Carabin, H, Kassuku, A A, Mlozi, M R S, Mlangwa, J E D and Willingham, A L III (2008) A health-education intervention trial to reduce porcine cysticercosis in Mbulu District, Tanzania. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 85, 52-67.

(22) Mvena, Z S K, Lupanga, I J & Mlozi, M R S (1991) Urban agriculture in Tanzania: a study of six towns (Research Report). Ottawa, International Development Research Centre.

(23) Ogden, N H, Swai, E, Beauchamp, G, Karimuribo, E, Fitzpatrick, J L, Bryant, M J, Kambarage, D & French, N P (2005) Risk factors for tick attachment to smallholder dairy cattle in Tanzania. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 67, 157-70.

(24) UNIDO (2012) Tanzania’s Red Meat Value Chain: A diagnostic (Africa Agribusiness and Agroindustry Development Initiative (3ADI) Reports). Vienna, United Nations Industrial Development Organization.

(25) Weeks, C A, McNally, P W & Warriss, P D (2002) Influence of the design of facilities at auction markets and animal handling procedures on bruising in cattle. Veterinary Record 150, 743-8.

(26) Mdegela, R H, Laurence, K, Jacob, P & Nonga, H E (2011) Occurrences of thermophilic Campylobacter in pigs slaughtered at Morogoro slaughter slabs, Tanzania. Tropical Animal Health and Production 43, 83-7.

(27) Mkupasi, E M, Ngowi, H A & Nonga, H E (2011) Prevalence of extra-intestinal porcine helminth infections and assessment of sanitary conditions of pig slaughter slabs in Dar es Salaam city, Tanzania. Tropical Animal Health and Production 43, 417-23.

(28) Webster, A J F (2001) Farm animal welfare: the Five Freedoms and the free market. Veterinary Journal 161, 229-37.

(29) O'Connor, C E & Bayvel, A C D (2012) Challenges to implementing animal welfare standards in New Zealand. Animal Welfare 21, 397-401.

(30) Masiga, W N & Munyia S J M (2005) Global perspectives on animal welfare: Africa.

OIE Review of Science and Technology 24, 579-86.

(31) Wilkins, D B, Houseman, C, Allan, R, Appleby, M C & Peeling, D (“005) Animal welfare: the role of non-governmental organisations. OIE Review of Science and Technology 24, 625-38.

© garytog – Fotolia.com

WORLD AGRICULTURE

35

36a

10/6/13

10:10

Page 1

economic & social

World Food Production – will it be adequate in 2050?

Robert Cook and David Frape Summary A system was devised to help understand some of the problems likely to be encountered in feeding the world in 2050.

The system assumed that by 2050 the world population would be approximately 9.4 billion, as predicted by FAO, that all women on average had two offspring and that life expectancy at birth would be constant. A simple set of fifty-four vegetarian diets was formulated to meet the FAO dietary requirements for energy, protein and dietary limiting amino acids, for nine age groups in six ethnically, geographically and culturally different Domains based on the FAO Regions.

Moreover, an attempt was made for each Domain to be self-sufficient in raw materials and that overall agricultural productivity in 2050 would be similar to that in 2011. The requirement for minor nutrients was ignored in this model.

It was found that globally, the energy needs could be met; but there would be a deficiency of all raw materials in the Sub-Saharan Africa Domain. The Northern Africa, West & Central Asia and India & South Asia Domains would be deficient in one or two raw materials, whereas the other three Domains should be self-sufficient; but making no allowance for waste. The results showed that globally, the area of agricultural land required to feed the current world population could be reduced by 30% if production was restricted to the constructed diets and that nitrogen fertilizer use could be reduced by 24%. Globally, an average of 0.8 kWh/capita is used daily in the manufacture of the nitrogen fertilizer deployed on arable crops, ranging from 1.52 in the West to 0.09 in Sub-Saharan Africa (compared with 2.68 kWh/d human adult maintenance requirement). It was noted that the protein,N:energy ratio and the lysine:protein,N ratio were both more consistent with their equivalent FAO requirement ratios for rice and to a lesser extent for maize than for bread wheat. Wheat cultivation therefore has the potential to contribute more to greenhouse gas production than these other cereals. It is hoped to investigate the effects of variations of this model, including the consumption of animal products, in later Issues.

Abbreviations: FAO: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation; ME: Metabolisable Energy; GHG: Greenhouse Gases.

Introduction Today, in the developed, Western World, we take the availability of plentiful food for granted. We have a sophisticated infrastructure to ensure timely delivery from the producer to the market. People have become divorced from the sources of production and all associated problems, so much so that we often have an unrealistic view of a lost golden age when we perceive our food was not only better, but was produced in a sustainable manner.

That has never been the case. Man has been degrading the natural environment since farming began, so much so, that in parts of the world it is impossible to determine which environments are man-made and which are natural.

Historically, unpredictable events, such as for example, the plague in mid C14th Europe coincided with a sequence of wet, cool summers with poor harvests1. In the 1590s volcanic activity again cooled the climate and led to starvation and the plague and in 1816 there was a “year without summer”, following the eruption of Tambora in 1815. There are other

36

WORLD AGRICULTURE

complex interactions, with planetary orbits and the angle of the axis of earth as described by Milankovich2, 3, which create their own cycles and are involved in weather patterns4.

Irrespective of the causes, the earth’s climate does appear to be in a state of flux, with some suggestions that these changes are causing significant disruption to the Northern Hemisphere Jet Stream, which is involved in changes to weather patterns5.

There is a general belief that we need to make society and industry more sustainable. The definition provided by the Brundtland Committee of the United Nations in 19876 is now commonly accepted – “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This paper is prepared within that context, to try and understand the total nutritional carrying capacity of the earth in terms of the human population it can support.

The Royal Society7 identified a need for ‘sustainable intensification’ in its 2009 review of global agriculture and

used the word sustainable within the context of increasing output per unit area. The report recognized the need that as climate varies and populations increase there is a need to produce more food from a reducing land area, without further environmental degradation.

At the outset, it is important to identify that there is probably enough food to give the current world population a basic level of nutrition8.

FAO9 estimates that total production is ca 5500 kcal per person/d (23 MJ/d; 6.39 kWh/d), more than double the daily requirement for a person of average weight. Losses owing to weeds, pests, diseases and post harvest losses, such as those sustained during transport and storage are ca 30%.

The problem is how to meet the nutritional needs of an ever increasing population and the inexorable rise in energy needs of society, meeting which is technically feasible10, but seems to be politically beyond our capabilities at present. The difficulties with food, apart from production, are associated with distribution, diet, society governance and the fact that

37a

5/6/13

16:43

Page 1

economic & social large numbers of people live in parts of the world where they are unable to grow their own food, such as deserts, cities and ice fields.

This article looks at global food production from the perspective of the primary crops upon to assess whether Malthus11 might yet be proved right.

Table 1. Human daily requirements of Metabolisable Energy (ME, MJ), protein (g) and of dietary limiting amino acids (g) for maintenance, growth and for pregnancy and lactation.

Estimates assume a body mass (kg) equivalent to the Western Domain* (Values based on FAO sources).

ME

The purpose of the analysis described in this paper has been to estimate the capability of current and future food production to meet basic nutritional requirements of the present and predicted populations. It is an attempt to identify the potential carrying capacity of the earth in terms of the maximum population it can sustain and provide basic nutritional needs.

We make no allowance to dietary choice.

We have chosen vegetarian regimes plus milk (Bos taurus (cattle), or Capra hircus (goat)) for three reasons: Inaccuracies inherent for both the reliable estimates of Metabolisable Energy (ME) intake globally of animal products and of the large variety of their sources on a global scale; The relative inefficiencies of converting solar energy indirectly into animal products, c.f. vegetarian products for direct human consumption and therefore the land surface used per MJ, ME produced; and The adverse effects, especially of ruminants on Greenhouse Gas Production (GHG) production.

Milk has been included because it has a relatively consistent composition, and has valuable nutritional qualities, especially for the young.

Method Diets Sources of energy and protein are the major dietary costs and generally the limiting factors to health. The human daily requirements for Metabolisable Energy (ME), protein and the likely limiting dietary amino acids: lysine, methionine, threonine and leucine were derived from FAO reports12, 13 for each of nine age and reproductive Cohorts (Table 1). In order to meet these needs a set of constructed diets was derived for each Cohort. The composition of foods available was based on data from the update of the McCance and Widdowson Tables by Paul and Southgate5, with additional amino acid information from the National Research Council reports14.

These sources allowed us to estimate satisfactory diets for each population.

The tabulated nutrient contents of all foods were based on a moisture content of 12% for cereals and pulses, whereas for “root� crops the values varied, but they had been measured in the fresh state.

needs for these other nutrients could be met without materially affecting production of the major crops. The diets selected were based upon field crops plus milk to estimate the potential of a vegetarian diet and to reduce the risk of miscalculation of diets containing animal products.

Overall energy requirements for each age range, as derived from these FAO nutritional requirements are shown in Table 2, where we have used two dietary groups based on the West plus South and Central America and the remainder of the world, as examples.

Dietary Domains

The requirements for essential fatty acids, minerals, trace elements, vitamins and other necessary substances for maximum health were not estimated. The formulated dietary mixtures assume current crop cultivars meet the needs to maintain health, and that the

FAO regions were grouped into six Domains on the basis of population, ethnic group, primary diets and the crops produced (Table 3). In each of the 54 diet groups (nine Dietary Cohorts in each of six Domains) individual daily requirements were converted to annual needs, as weight of raw ingredient needed, to provide the annual energy and protein requirements (Table 4). The nine diets were constructed to reflect daily nutritional needs for men and women.

WORLD AGRICULTURE

37

38a

5/6/13

16:43

Page 1

economic & social Cohort, based on their life expectancy at birth16, and the population size in each Domain.

Populations Assumptions were made about the body weight of individuals in each population from evidence in FAO reports 14, 15. Life expectancy at birth was assumed to be 78 years for Western and South American populations (W) and 75 years for Eastern and Sub-Saharan African (E) populations16, defined as the two World Areas.

The maintenance requirement of energy and amino acids for females is less than that of males (except for females of age 11-12 years and specific diets were created for females during gestation and lactation).

Nevertheless, the assumption was

made that in each Domain the sexes were equally distributed, so the mean of males and females is used, allowing for two reproductive cycles per female.

The amount of food was calculated for each of the Dietary Cohorts using the proportion of the population in each

The W population is assumed to have a slightly greater mean body weight at maturity. It is appreciated that this difference may diminish over the next 40 years and that the life expectancy and mature body weight of all populations are likely to rise. At this future date it is also assumed that each female would produce on average two live births, so the world population would be stable, assuming life expectancy was also constant.

Crop Production World crop production, using FAO regional data17 for area and yield for each dietary ingredient, grouped into the selected Dietary Domains is given in Table 5. These data were used to develop the quantities of ingredients required for the constructed diets.

Definitions Metabolisable Energy (ME): Energy for the metabolic and physiological functions is derived from the chemical energy in food and its macronutrient constituents, i.e. carbohydrates, fats, proteins and ethanol.

ME is defined as the Gross Energy (GE) of food, determined calorimetrically, less the energy contents of waste products (faeces, urine & gases). ME is expressed in joules, J (J = kg m2 s-2), in accordance with the International System of units, where one watt, W = J s-1 and kJ = J.103 & MJ = J.106. We express the daily requirements for energy as MJ/d. (1 MJ is equal to 0.2778 kWh).

Average value of ME provided by a mixed daily diet is 16.74 kJ (4.00 kcal) per g and the value of each foodstuff in each diet is estimated from appropriate food composition tables5,12, 13, 14 .

Recommended level of dietary energy intake: This is the mean energy requirement of healthy, well-

38

WORLD AGRICULTURE

39a

5/6/13

16:44

Page 1

economic & social a positive balance, which may lead to obesity in the long term. Moreover, a slightly raised protein intake has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of Type 2 Diabetes and cardio-vascular disease (authors’ evidence).

Results The data given in table 5 indicate: 1) Yields of all crops (t/ha) are as good or greater in the Western Domain than they are in other Domains, with the exception of pulses, bananas and wheat in South America; 2) Yields are generally poor in SubSaharan Africa; 3) Yields are particularly poor for potatoes in China and for soya in SubSaharan Africa.

In order to simplify the presentation of this information we have shown the mean values for Dietary Cohorts 1, 2 & 3; 4 & 5; 7, 8 & 9, the total critical components of which are shown in Table 6. When these values are compared with the daily requirements in Table 1, they demonstrate that we have been able to meet the dietary needs of the Cohorts with the constructed diets.

nourished individuals and is the amount of energy that should be ingested as a daily average over a period of time.

It is assumed that individual requirements are randomly distributed about the mean for each of the population Cohorts, as a Gaussian (normal) distribution. A normal distribution is symmetric about its mean, i.e. it is not skewed and therefore the mean should provide adequate requirements for the entire

population.

The protein and amino acid requirements are assumed to be the mean value plus two Standard Deviations to accommodate 95% of the population. This is deemed to be a safe level of intake for proteins. Excess protein is generally harmless for individuals with a normal functioning renal system. This approach cannot be applied to dietary energy recommendations, because intakes that exceed requirements will produce

Tables 7 and 8 indicate that in 2050, Sub-Saharan Africa is predicted to be deficient in all crops with its expected population growth and poor yields (Table 5). India and to a lesser extent North Africa, West-& Central Asia will be particularly short of rice, whereas China & SE Asia should have a large surplus of rice. The areas of the world where population growth is greatest will have the greatest deficiencies.

Moreover, whilst India, Africa and Central Asia are predicted to be deficient in potatoes by 2050, the remaining domains are predicted to be able to produce a surplus. These deficits are reflected in the positive global energy balances given in Table 9, where for the sake brevity we have amalgamated results for groups of crops.

Figure 1 shows that the proportion of the agricultural land area required to produce the constructed vegetarian diets for the world population in 2011 is adequate. This demonstrates that our constructed diets would save 29% of the global area currently used in production in these crops. Thus, with an increase in the world population of a quarter by 2050 it should be possible to provide enough food, with these diets. However, undoubtedly a proportion of the agricultural area will

WORLD AGRICULTURE

39

40a

5/6/13

16:44

Page 1

economic & social bread making, partly because its protein contains relatively large quantities of gluten which promotes the rising of dough. The gluten is a composite of a gliadin and a glutenin that are poor quality proteins relatively deficient in the dietary limiting amino acid lysine. We found that lysine was the first limiting amino acid in all of our fifty-four different diets.

be lost to urban sprawl. If animal products are required other than milk then the conclusion would be quite different.

Figure 1 also shows that the area required for constructed diets (in red) is no more than half the current areas for the Western and Central and South American Domains, reflecting the large areas devoted to animal products in those areas: whereas for India & South east Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa it is very little different from the present; but for North Africa the Mid-East and Central Asia it is much greater than at present. This latter observation probably reflects their dependence on imported food stuffs. An assertion which could arise is that there is no need for deforestation of rain forests in Brazil, Africa or in the East Indies to meet the human nutritional needs for these diets.

Figure 2 illustrates current use of nitrogen fertilizers in each Domain, compared with that needed for the

40

WORLD AGRICULTURE

constructed diets. This demonstrates the significant global savings these diets would achieve, which amount to 6 Mt i.e. 24% of global use on arable crops. The overall fertilizer use (Table 10) shows the variation in nitrogen fertilizer user per capita in each Domain with a global average of 15.18 kg/capita. The table also estimates energy consumption in fertilizer manufacture which ranges from 0.09 in Sub-Saharan Africa to 1.52 kWh/capita daily in the West Domain.

Figure 3 indicates that over the last 40 years the rate of increase in the yield of cereals has been at an annual rate of 0.0185, i.e. nearly an exponential rate of 2% – that must exceed the current rate of population growth. The yields of pulses and of “roots� over the last half century have generally been positive but quite irregular per decade, perhaps reflecting their sensitivity to weather conditions.

Wheat Wheat is the major cereal crop used for

Bread wheat is a relatively high protein cereal and hence its yield responds well to N fertilizers. The production of N fertilizer has been an essential element in the increase in world population, i.e. without it world population would have plateaued already. If world population is to rise to rise to >9 billion, this will only occur with an increase in N fertilizer production (not necessarily in proportion, as many other factors will be critical). Nevertheless, the Haber Bosch process for the fixation of atmospheric N2 as NH3 currently consumes 7 per cent of all man made energy (mostly electrical) and natural gas (Smil20). Table 11 indicates that the ratio of wheat protein N:wheat energy is 1.84 times the ratio of the FAO requirement for protein:energy, of adult maintenance. This implies that there will be a considerable amount of waste N lost to the body by renal excretion. This consequence is also indicated by diets based on cereal protein, especially, that of wheat, as the ratio of the wheat lysine:wheat N is only 58% of the FAO requirement for lysine:protein N. This means that the natural N cycle is accelerated with a likely greater production of atmospheric nitrogen oxides than would be the case if rice, or even maize was the staple crop, as these crops possess ratios of, dietaryN:MJ energy, and lysine:dietary N, closer to the ratios required by the FAO human requirements for maintenance (Table 11).

Discussion The assumptions made in this model allow for a reliable starting point.

Variations on this incorporating, for example, other animal products will be possible in future models.

A similar calculation was conducted for the two world areas, W & E, which adjusted the energy requirement according to the proportion of the population within each age group, including the two reproductive cycles per female. Details of the factors by which the requirements of each area were adjusted are given in Table 5.

41a

5/6/13

16:45

Page 1

economic & social

WORLD AGRICULTURE

41

42a

5/6/13

16:46

Page 1

economic & social and many African soils are deficient in phosphates22.

The overall mean daily FAO energy requirements are estimated to be 9.8619 and 9.4584 ME, MJ for the two areas W and E, respectively. These values are used to estimate crop needs for each of the Dietary Domains for 2011 as well as for the estimated populations in 2030 and 2050 and reflect the proportion of each population present in each age group at any given instance in time.

Although the requirements for protein and amino acids are liberal they are unlikely to impact greatly on the estimated production rates of crops needed to sustain populations in 2050, as we found that it was rare for the diets formulated for the future to have an essential amino acid to be the first limiting nutrient- normally this was energy. Occasionally lysine was the first limiting nutrient, no other amino acid fulfilled this role. In diets based upon rice, protein was limiting in a number of cases, however it could be questioned whether this is relevant if all the more likely dietary essential amino acids are found to be adequate.

This observation is discussed elsewhere in this report.

Table 10 indicates that the global average N fertilizer use is equivalent to 468 kWh/ha. This is a considerable source of greenhouse gas production, discussed elsewhere in this Issue by Professor Wilkinson, who estimates the carbon footprint of animal production.

What is equally striking in the data of Table 10 is the great range in fertilizer use per person and per hectare. In energy terms this ranges from 2.52 kwh/capita/d in the West to 0.09 kWh/capita/d in Sub-Saharan Africa, a 28-fold range, with a global mean of 0.8 kWh/cap/d. To put this into

42

WORLD AGRICULTURE

human terms, Table 11 shows the mean adult maintenance requirement to be 2.834 kWh/capita/d- not too different! Perhaps more extreme is the range in use of N fertilizer use per ha: 68.9 kg/ha in India down to 1.39 kg/ha in Sub-Saharan Africa, a 50-fold range. It has been suggested that a greater, but appropriate use, of fertilizers in Africa should reduce the rate of destruction of rain forest in the search for fertile land. Nevertheless, it should be noted that N fertilizers are not always the limiting factor to production as frequently fresh water is

The nutritional adequacy of current vegetarian mixtures has not been discussed although milk was included in the diets, as this food is likely to be essential, especially for the young as a source of cyanocobalamin and other valuable nutrients. The introduction of current animal products, especially meats, could profoundly change the balance, quite apart from ruminants, that are a source of potent greenhouse gases, especially that of methane. Iron deficiency is a major worldwide problem, especially among women, common amongst those on poor vegetarian diets low in protein and iron contents. Nevertheless, if vegetarian diets become mandatory for the world to avoid starvation it would be very difficult to enforce this regime in democracies. Moreover, current consumption of meats is increasing globally.

Migration is likely to occur at greater rates than at present for the reasons that, (1) areas where productivity is lowest tend to have greater rates of population increase, and (2) these areas are likely to be greatly and adversely influenced to by climate change. We have assumed that life expectancy will not increase beyond those limits assumed in this study.

Figure 1. Percentage of total land (blue) and of the agricultural area (dark green) in each Domain used for production of selected crops compared with the area of those crops required for the constructed diets (red), using 2011 data from FAO.

43a

10/6/13

10:10

Page 1

economic & social increase (based on decadal data) with a predicted population increase in the Sub-Saharan Domain of >1 billion during the next 40 years (with an exponential index of about 1). The data for India and South Asia and for North Africa and West Asia also shows initial increases in rate, but the rate was predicted to decline over the period 2011-2051. China has a policy and the increment declines steadily with a decrease in total population during the period, 2030-2051. The rise detected in the West may have been caused by migration up to 2011.

Thus, overall there is predicted to be a falling rate of population increase up to 2051 in all Domains with the exception of Sub-Saharan Africa, where the population increase between 2030 and 2051 is predicted to be over 582 million with the net global increase of 1,040,972,000 over those final twenty years.

Figure 2. Fertilizer use in 2010 on the selected crops (blue) and that required to meet the needs of the constructed diets (red).

Moreover, our model assumes there is no change in the productivity in any Domain, whereas the productivity of Domains most likely to be adversely affected by climate change are already predicted by the model to be inadequate in 2050. (see Turner, pp.

25-28, this Issue) The limiting nutrient was assessed in each Domain (a small amount of milk was included in most diets with greater quantities in the diet of the young):

Figure 3. Decadal rate of change in cereal yields, using the mean for each of the cereal crops in the constructed diets in each Domain (FAO data 2011).

But a 5% increase in life expectancy means a 5% increase in population without an increase in birth rate of two per couple. Moreover we assume that the body mass of the individual does not change, whereas a 5% increase in that mass leads to approximately a 3% increase in maintenance energy needs.

It has also been assumed that overall agricultural productivity will not change- that is advances in productivity may be balanced by adverse effects of climate change.

We have the FAO export data for 2011, and although they have not been considered, they have clearly influenced some of our values in both Figures 1 and 2.

Conclusions Making no allowance for food waste, it can be concluded from the model employed that the world could be fed in 2050 to meet the FAO nutrient requirements for Metabolizable Energy, protein and the limiting dietary amino acid lysine, by universally adopting a vegetarian diet plus milk. Whether such a regime could be imposed is another matter. There was however wide variations amongst the six Domains with Sub-Saharan Africa becoming deficient in all raw materials.

This is in part a consequence of a high birth rate and an inadequate adoption of biotechnological advances.

Figure 4 shows the twenty year rate of

1) It was found that energy was limiting in the Western & South American Domains. Whereas protein tended to be used excessively in order to achieve the minimum lysine requirement. These diets were based on wheat maize & soya. The western diets were supplemented with potatoes, whereas the S. American diets were supplemented with yams, but with one diet supplemented with potato.

2) Protein was limiting in the Chinese and East-Central Asia, but the amino acid balance was satisfactory – as excess protein was unnecessary for the diets to provide the minimum essential amino acids. The diets were based on rice, maize, soya and potato.

3) Indian diets met the requirements for energy, protein and amino acids uniformly- these diets were formed from a mixture of rice, wheat, lentils & soya, and cassava.

4) Sub-Saharan African diets required excess protein in order to achieve the minimum lysine requirement. Lysine and energy were equally limiting.

WORLD AGRICULTURE

43

44

5/6/13

16:47

Page 1

economic & social

Figure 4. Population change in each Domain as numbers per twenty years (1,000s)from 1971 to 2011, with FAO estimated changes up to 2050 (Data from FAOStat).

Milankovitch forcing. Paleoceanography, 7, no.

These diets were based on grain 6, pages 701-738, sorghum, pulses, tropical beans and 3.Anon (2013) Milankovitch cycles. cassava.

Wikipedia.

5) The high energy costs of N fertilizer synthesis (7% of total manmade energy production used in the Haber-Bosch synthesis) and increased volatilization of N oxides, indicate a need for an increase in precision for its application in relation to soil conditions and weather. There is a need for solar energy to be used more directly in the fixation of atmospheric N2. In 2011, 45% of the world population depended on N fertilizers for their existence (Smil20).

References

1.Kington, J (2010) Climate and Weather.

HarperCollins, London W6 8JB. ISBN 978-000-718501-6 2.Imbrie, J; Boyle, E A; Clemens, S C; Duffy, A; Howard, W R; Kukla, S; Kutzbach, J; Martinson, D G; Mcintyre, A; Mix, A C; Molfino, B; Morley, J J; Peterson, L C; Pisias, N G; Prell, W L; Raytoo, M E ; Shackletons, N J; Toggweiler, J R (1992), On the structure and origin of major glaciation cycles. 1. linear responses to

Cereals hand drawn illustration

44

WORLD AGRICULTURE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycl es accessed April 2013 4.Scaffeta, N (2013) Astronomical/Solar/Climate model. http://www.people.duke.edu/-ns 2002/Nicola.Scaffetta accessed April 2013 5.Francis, J A; Vavrus, S J (2012) Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes. Nature Geophysical Research Letters 39 L06801 6.Anon (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future United Nations < http://www.undocuments.net/wced-ocf.htm > accessed 2012 7.Anon (2009) Reaping the Benefits: Science and sustainable intensification of global agriculture. The Royal Society, London SW1Y 5AG. ISBN 978-0-86403-784-1 8.Anon (2008) World Development Report.

World Bank, Washington 9.Anon (2012) World Statistical Yearbook, 2012; World Food and Agriculture. FAO, Rome.

ISBN 978-92-5-107084-0. http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2490e/i2490 e00.htm > accessed May 2012.

10.Mackay, D (2008) Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air. UIT Cambridge Ltd, ISBN 978-1-906860-01-1

11.Malthus, T R (1798) Essay on the Principle of Population. J Johnson, London 12.Anon (2001) FAO Food And Nutrition Technical Report Series 1. Human energy requirements, i-ix, pp. 1-96. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation, Rome, 17-24 October 2001. UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS, Rome, 2004 ISBN 925-105212-3, ISSN 1813-3932.

13.Anon (2002) Protein and Amino Acid Requirements In Human Nutrition, i-xi, p. 1270. Report of a Joint WHO/FAO/UNU Expert Consultation, United Nations University, Joint WHO/FAO/UNU Expert Consultation on Protein and Amino Acid Requirements in Human Nutrition, Geneva, 9–16 April 2002 ISBN 978 92 4 120935 9.

14.Anon (1986) Nutrient Requirements of Cats, i-ix, pp. 1-79. Revised Edition 1986.

Subcommittee on Cat Nutrition, Committee on Animal Nutrition, Board of Agriculture, National Research Council National Academy press, Washington, DC 1986. ISBN 0-30903682-8.

15.Paul, A.A. & Southgate, D.A.T (1988) McCance and Widdowson’s The Composition of Foods, 4th Revised and Extended edition of MRC Special Report No. 297, MAF & F, MRC,ixii, pp.1-418. HM Stationery Office , Oxford, Amsterdam, New York Elsevier, North-Holland Biomedical Press, ISBN HMSO 0 11 450036 3 ISBN Elsevier/North-Holland 0 444 80027 1 16.Anon (2013) List of countries by life expectancy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ by_life_expectancy accessed March 2013 17.Anon (2013) FAOSTAT, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome. http://faostat3.fao.org/home/index.html#DOW NLOAD Accessed February 2013.

18.Wilkinson, M. (2013) 19.Marsh, Sir John (2013) 20.Smil, V. (2011) Nitrogen cycle and world food production. World Agriculture, 2, (1), 913.

21.Alderman, G. & Cottrill, B.R. (1993) Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. An Advisory manual prepared by the AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients.pp.1-159. CAB INTERNATIONAL,Wallingford, Oxon, OX10 8DE, UK., ISBN 0 85198 851 2.

22.Brookes, P.; Lin, Q.; Ayaga, & Wu, J.(1010).

Soil phosphorus- from Feast to Famine. World Agriculture, 1, (1), 29-36.

© kytalpa – Fotolia.com

45a

6/6/13

10:20

Page 1

comment & opinion

What role for GM crops in world agriculture?

Helen Wallace, Director, GeneWatch UK 60, Lightwood Road, Buxton, SK 17 7BB, United Kingdom Email: helen.wallace@genewatch.org Summary A critical analysis of claims that genetically modified (GM) crops will play a central role in world agriculture is provided, in the context of current attempts to expand the market for GM seeds in developing countries. It is argued that smallholder farmers and consumers in developing countries should have more say about R&D investments in order to avoid the opportunity costs associated with misallocation of resources.

Keywords: Genetically modified crops; food policy; agriculture policy; R&D policy

Introduction Whilst some authors have argued that planting GM crops will be necessary to feed a growing global population, others have argued that this claim has no scientific support, but is rather a reflection of corporate interests, led by the world’s three largest companies utilizing plant gene technology, Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta, which now control nearly 70% of global seed sales (Jacobsen et al., 2013).

US agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto’s attempts to position GM crops as a “pro-poor” technology are not new (Glover, 2010). However, there has been a new emphasis in the media on GM crops as the solution to world hunger following the 2008 global food crisis (Stone & Glover, 2011). Claims that GM crops and foods will benefit poor people in developing countries merit reinvestigation, in the light of the significant resources currently being invested in attempts to expand the market.

This critical review first considers the debate regarding current generation GM crops, already on the market, followed by the issues raised by the promised next-generation of GM crops.

Current generation GM crops Significant investment in GM crop research began in the United States, following the US Supreme Court’s

1980 ruling that genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) were patentable and a report by the US Office of Technology Assessment, which identified GM crops as an area that might deliver a variety of new agricultural traits (OTA 1981). In 1987, a US National Academy of Sciences report identified investment in biotechnology as the key to agricultural innovation and future competitiveness (NAS 1987).

Despite decades of investment by both the public and private sector, commercially grown GM crops remain largely restricted to the two main traits, herbicide tolerance and insect resistance (Bt crops), in four main staple crops: soy, maize (corn), oil seed rape (canola) and cotton. More recently, herbicide-tolerant GM sugar beet has also been adopted in the USA. Herbicide tolerant (HT) crops are sprayed with one or more herbicides, which kill weeds but not the GM crop, the largest market share are crops resistant to glyphosate (marketed by Monsanto under the brand name RoundUp). Bt crops use sequences of genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) to express one or more crystal proteins (known as ‘Cry toxins’ or ‘Bt toxins’) which are toxic to some pests. The three staple GM food crops are grown primarily in North and South America for use in animal feed and industrial scale biofuels (agrofuels), whereas GM cotton is the main crop planted on a commercial scale in India and China.

In the year to 31st August 2011, USgovernment-subsidised biofuels for the first time overtook animal feed as the

main use of domestically-grown maize (Meyer 2011).

US farmers adopted herbicidetolerant GM crops because of the simplified herbicide regime associated with these crops, however the spread of herbicide-resistant weeds in North and South America (Sanderman 2006, Binimelis et al. 2009) is now impacting significantly on weed management difficulties and costs and resulting in increased use of glyphosate and other herbicides (Bonny 2011; Benbrook 2012). Pests resistant to Bt crops, and increases in secondary pests unaffected by the Bt toxins in these plants, are also beginning to impact on pest management. Researchers have observed field-evolved resistance to Bt crops by corn rootworm (Gassman et al. 2011); stem borer (Van Rensburg 2007); cotton bollworm (Gunning et al. 2005; Tabashnik et al. 2008) and pink bollworm in the India and China (Dhurua & Gujar 2011; Wan et al.

2012). In China, initial economic benefits in terms of savings in insecticide use with Bt cotton have been eroded as secondary pests emerged (Wang et al. 2008; Lu et al.

2010; Zhao et al. 2011) and in the USA, western bean cutworm has become an increasingly important pest on Bt corn (Catangui & Berg 2006).

Resistance also develops to pesticides in conventional farming systems, resulting in a “pesticide treadmill”, in which resistant pests encourage applications of larger amounts of current pesticides or the substitution of more toxic pesticides;

WORLD AGRICULTURE

45

46A

6/6/13

10:20

Page 1

comment & opinion and a similar “seed treadmill” has been described in which farmers are increasingly locked in to purchasing these inputs from off the farm, rather than saving their own seeds (Howard 2009).

GM seed prices are significantly higher than for non-GM seeds and, in the USA, seed prices have increased significantly as a percentage of operating costs (Benbrook 2012; Bonny 2011).

The benefits to smallholder farmers of adopting crops such as Bt cotton are already strongly contested (Stone, 2012) although pest resistance to Bt cotton is in its early stages. A major concern is that smallholder farmers could be at risk of being locked into a ‘poverty trap’ by GM seed price hikes and the need for increasing amounts of herbicides and pesticides to tackle weed and pest resistance and shifts in pest populations. Binimelis et al.

(2009) refer to this process in Argentina as a ‘transgenic treadmill’.

The prevention of seed saving by patenting and licensing agreements is another major issue for poorer farmers (Oguamanam 2007). From a commercial developer’s perspective, self-reproducing seeds bypass the profits that could be realized if farmers continued to buy these inputs year after year.

Legal strategies to protect intellectual property rights (IPRs) evolved from protections to certain seeds (e.g., International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants) to full patent protection for the GM seeds commercialized in the 1990s (Howard 2009; Pardey et al., 2013). Although earlier plant variety protections allow farmers to save seeds, full patents prohibit this practice and violators may suffer serious financial penalties. The development of corn (maize) hybrids (which do not breed true if seeds are replanted) initially encouraged the growth of a private corn seed industry, but this biological approach to controlling re-planting has been significantly expanded with the legal approach of controlling IPRs through patenting of seeds. The consolidation in the global seed industry which followed the introduction of GM crops is associated with reduced choices including decreasing access to non-patented (and non-GM) seed varieties for staple crops.

In Europe, public opposition to GM crops began when food products, including unlabelled GM soya for use in processed foods, began to be imported from the USA in 1996.

People raised concerns including: why do we need GMOs; who will benefit from their use; who decided that they

46

WORLD AGRICULTURE

should be developed and how; why are we not given an effective choice about whether or not to buy these products; have the potential long-term and irreversible consequences been evaluated, and by whom; do regulatory authorities have sufficient powers to effectively regulate large companies who wish to develop these products; can controls imposed by regulatory authorities be applied effectively; and who will be accountable in cases of unforeseen harm? (Marris 2001).

Seventeen years later, there is still no market for GM foods in Europe and only a small quantity of Bt maize is grown, mainly in Spain, for use in animal feed. However, grain-fed livestock production in Europe is now dependent on imported feed, much of which is GM. Controversy remains about potential unintended effects of GM foods on human health, and the difficulties in assessing such effects using short term animal feeding studies (e.g. Dona & Arvanitoyannis 2009, De Vendômois et al. 2009, Jiao et al. 2010, Aris & LeBlanc 2011). There are five main areas of food safety concern: Whether the genetic modification itself may make the plant toxic when eaten, or alter its nutrient content in ways that may be harmful; The presence of herbicide residues on herbicide-tolerant GM crops, and impacts on local populations during spraying; Whether the new GM characteristic may cause allergies; If antibiotic resistance genes are used, whether this will contribute to antibiotic-resistance; Whether the GM process has unintended effects on the plant, which may affect food safety.

Case-by-case risk assessment is generally required by regulators, but since animal studies cannot reach definitive conclusions, and new traits can always introduce new risks, segregation and labeling of GM crops are an important part of risk management (allowing recalls if anything goes wrong) and are regarded as essential in many countries to allow consumer choice.

Because GM crops generally command a lower market price, for nonGM farmers key issues are cross-contamination and liability (Rogers, 2007).

The costs of segregating GM crops fall on conventional and organic farmers, rather than on those choosing to grow

or import GM crops, and thus limit choice for non-GM growers by damaging their markets (Johnson et al. 2005, Belcher et al., 2005, Munro 2008, Binimelis 2008). A variety of mechanisms, including seed mixing or crosspollination (Knispel et al. 2008; Schafer et al. 2011) can spread GM traits and in some cases have caused major (multi-million dollar) damage to markets for conventional or organic crops and foods (Smythe et al. 2002).

Farmers and consumers may also choose not to grow or eat GM crops for environmental reasons. In the UK, the decision not to grow GM crops commercially followed publication of the results of the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs), which found that growing herbicide tolerant oilseed rape and sugar beet would be likely to reduce weed food sources and habitats for birds and other wildlife (Squire et al. 2003). Long-term environmental impacts of growing GM crops remain controversial and poorly understood.

For example, the loss of agricultural milkweeds has contributed to a major decline in the Monarch butterfly population in the USA, coincident with the increased use of glyphosate in conjunction with increased planting of GM glyphosate-tolerant corn (maize) and soybeans (Pleasants & Oberhauser 2013). Controversy has also surrounded potential impacts of Bt toxins on non-target organisms, such as green lacewing and Monarch butterfly larvae, and there remain important gaps in knowledge (Hilbeck & Schmidt 2006; Lang & Otto 2010).

Next-generation GM crops Salt-tolerant and nitrogen-fixing crops were first promised by the US Office of Technology Assessment in its 1981 report on genetic engineering of micro-organisms, plants and animals (OTA 1981). In 2010, experts involved in the UK Foresight ‘Global Food and Farming Futures’ project predicted development timescales of a further 5 to 10 years for GM drought-tolerance, 10 to 20 years for salt-tolerance and increased nitrogen use efficiency, and more than 20 years for nitrogen fixation in GM crops (Godfray et al. 2010).

Some have questioned whether such complex traits can really be engineered into a seed, even over these long timescales: multiple genes and geneenvironment interactions are involved and engineering even multiple genetic changes into a plant may not deliver the desired response to multiple

47a

6/6/13

10:21

Page 1

comment & opinion environmental stressors (Flowers 2004; Tuberosa & Salvi 2006; Cattivelli et al.

2008; Sinclair & Purcell 2005). To date, conventional breeding has been much more successful in improving yields in high salinity environments, at much lower cost (Ashraf & Akram, 2009).

Both DuPont and Syngenta have announced the successful development of new conventionally bred drought-tolerant maize hybrids (Berry 2011). However, Syngenta has stated that it will only market this with two existing GM traits (herbicide tolerance and pesticide resistance), thus allowing it to claim patent protection and market the crop with its own-brand herbicide (Ranii 2010). In a draft assessment of Monsantoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s new drought-tolerant GM maize the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has stated that equally comparable varieties produced through conventional breeding techniques are readily available (Voosen 2011). There are plenty of other nonGM successes, including drought-tolerant non-GM maize which has reportedly performed well in studies in Africa (Cocks 2010). Monsanto has stated that it does not expect new biotechnology traits that contribute significantly to yield to be available for at least another 15 years (Stebbins 2011).

Alternatives The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development has highlighted the potential for agro-ecological methods to contribute to future agricultural production and dietary diversification without the downsides associated with GM crops (IAASTD 2008), as have a number of other more recent reports (e.g. SCAR 2011).

Research into crop rotation, intercropping and other low-input methods has potential to substantially benefit smallholder farmers in Africa and elsewhere (e.g. Fenning et al. 2006, Jeranyama et al. 2007). At the same time, conventional breeding continues to deliver significant crop improvements in areas where sufficient investment has been made and new technologies such as Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) have demonstrated potential to speed up conventional breeding methods.

Roughly 30 to 40% of food in both the developed and developing worlds is lost to waste (Godfrey et al. 2010).

Important steps could be taken to

reduce waste by improving storage and transport infrastructure in developing countries and tackling consumer waste elsewhere: this requires alternative investment priorities, for example in engineering (Institute of Mechanical Engineers 2012).

Discussion The argument that GM crops are needed to feed the world misrepresents hunger as being essentially an issue of insufficient agricultural production, rather than of poverty and unequal distribution of resources (Rosset 2005).

Based on grain consumption figures calculated by the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute, Monsanto argues that production of grain for animal feed must increase by 50 million tonnes a year by 2017/18 to meet the expected increased demand for grain-fed meat, and by 60 million tonnes a year to meet biofuels production targets: requiring more investment in intensive agriculture, including GM crops (Edgerton 2009).

However, the diversion of potential food-growing land to produce industrial-scale biofuels and animal feed is part of the problem, not the solution, to global hunger (FAO 2008). At the same time as claiming GM crops are needed to help feed the world, Monsanto and other companies have been actively lobbying for government subsidies for industrial-scale biofuels (Anon 2008). Grain-fed meat production is also significantly more resource intensive and damaging to the environment than pasture-fed meat production, as well as less healthy than pasture-fed meat: tackling such issues requires fundamental reform of food and agricultural systems (Lobstein 2004).

Loss of autonomy (i.e. dependence on regulators to assess safety and ensure choice) has been a key element of consumer rejection of GM crops in Europe, and loss of autonomy for farmers (including the prevention of seed saving and dependency on a small number of multinational companies) is a major issue for developing countries.

The advent of patents on GM plants has contributed to the takeovers and mergers which have led to consolidation of the seed industry (King JL & Schimmelpfennig 2005). This has led in a shift in both public and private research toward the most profitable

proprietary crops and varieties and away from the improvement of varieties that farmers can easily replant; and a reduction in seed diversity, as remaining firms eliminate less profitable lines from newly acquired subsidiaries (Howard 2009). In addition, research into agricultural systems for crop or animal production has received minimal funding, as the knowledge cannot be privatised through patenting (Vanloqueren & Baret 2009). The patenting system and the reorganisation of research funding systems that goes with it have their origins in the USA in the 1980s and have been widely adopted in OECD countries in an attempt to remain competitive in the face of lower labour costs elsewhere. It is highly questionable whether this model of innovation and associated economic development has been successful and whether it is an appropriate model to export to developing countries. Appropriate R&D priorities are more likely to result from engaging local people in decision-making on the ground, bearing in mind that significant opportunity costs can arise from the misallocation of resources.

Conclusions Promises of a new generation of GM crops, including crops which could grow in saline environments or fix nitrogen, were first made over thirty years ago, by the US Office of Technology Assessment. Significant public and private investment has been made in GM crop research because GM seeds can be patented, allowing a high return on investment due to the monopoly granted by the ownership of patents. It is questionable whether a research system driven by the public interest, rather than by monopolistic commercial interests, would have invested so heavily in this technology, when conventional breeding, dietary diversification and agroecological methods have generally proved more effective at delivering complex traits such as drought-tolerance, improved nutrition and increased yields.

A major downside associated with GM crops has been the loss of autonomy for both farmers and consumers, through the prevention of seed saving via patenting and licensing agreements, and the loss of consumer choice and dependence on scientific risk assessments to determine the validity of safety and health claims.

WORLD AGRICULTURE

47

48a

6/6/13

10:32

Page 1

comment & opinion A number of wealthy western institutions are currently promoting the expansion of GM crops in developing countries.

A major concern is the potential to create a ‘poverty trap’ for poorer farmers as resistant weeds and pests develop (requiring more expensive inputs and reducing yields) and as companies introduce seed price hikes as they gain monopoly control over the seed market.

A key issue is who decides research priorities for Africa: rich western donors with their own agenda, or farmers on the ground.

References

Anon (2008) Biggies from agribusiness join new biofuels lobbying group. Associated Press.

25th July 2008. http://www.livemint.com/2008/07/25130050/ Biggies-from-agribusiness-join.html Aris A, LeBlanc S (2011) Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Reproductive Toxicology, 31(4):528-33.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/26/us -maize-africa-idUSTRE67P01V20100826

African Journal of Biotechnology, 6 (13), 15031508.

De Schutter, O. (2010) Report submitted by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Olivier De Schutter to the UN General Assembly, 17 December 2010.

Jiao Z, Si X-X, li G-K, Zhang Z-M, Xu X-P (2010) Unintended Compositional Changes in Transgenic Rice Seeds (Oryza sativa L.) Studied

by Spectral and Chromatographic Analysis Coupled with Chemometrics Methods. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 58, 1746–1754.

De Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini G-E (2009) A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varienties on mammalian health. International Journal of Biosciences, 5(7), 706-726.

Dhurua S, Gujar GT (2011) Field-evolved resistance to Bt toxin Cry1Ac in the pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae), from India. Pest Management Science 67(8):898–903.

Dona A, Arvanitoyannis IS (2009) Health risks of genetically modified foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 49, 164-175.

Edgerton MD (2009) Increasing crop productivity to meet global needs for food and fuel. Plant Physiology, 149, 7-13.

FAO(2008) Soaring food prices: facts, perspectives, impacts and actions required.

High-level conference on world food security: the challenges of climate change and bioenergy. Food and Agriculture Organisation.

Rome, 3 - 5 June 2008. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/foo dclimate/HLCdocs/HLC08-inf-1-E.pdf

Johnson DD, Lin W, Vocke G (2005) Economic and welfare impacts of commercializing an herbicide tolerant, biotech wheat. Food Policy, 30, 162-184.

King JL & Schimmelpfennig D (2005) Mergers, acquisitions, and stocks of agricultural biotechnology intellectual property.

AgBioForum, 8, 83-88.

Knispel AL, McLachlan SM, Van Acker RC, Friesen LF (2008) Gene Flow and Multiple Herbicide Resistance in Escaped Canola Populations. Weed Science 56(1):72–80.

Lang A, Otto M (2010). A synthesis of laboratory and field studies on the effects of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) maize on non-target Lepidoptera. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 135(2):121–134.

Lobstein T (2004) Suppose we all ate a healthy diet…? Eurohealth, 10(1), 8-12. http://www.sustainweb.org/pdf/afn_m6_p2.pd f

Fenning JO, Gyapong TA, Ababio F, Gaisie E (2006) Intercropping maize with planted fallows on smallholder farms in Ghana. Tropical Science, 45(4), 155-158.

Lu Y, Wu K, Jiang Y, et al. (2010) Mirid Bug Outbreaks in Multiple Crops Correlated with Wide-Scale Adoption of Bt Cotton in China.

Science 328(5982):1151–1154.

Flowers TJ(2004) Improving crop salt tolerance. Journal of Experimental Botany, 55(396), 307-319.

Marris C (2001) Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. EMBO Reports, 2(7), 545-548.

Belcher K, Nolan J, Phillips PWB (2005) Genetically modified crops and agricultural landscapes: spatial patterns of contamination.

Ecological Economics, 53(3), 387-401.

Gassmann AJ, Petzold-Maxwell JL, Keweshan RS, Dunbar MW (2011) Field-Evolved Resistance to Bt Maize by Western Corn Rootworm. PLoS ONE. 6(7):e22629.

Benbrook CM (2012) Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. -the first sixteen years. Environmental Sciences Europe 24(1):24.

Glover, D (2010) Exploring the Resilience of Bt Cotton’s “Pro-Poor Success Story”.

Development and Change, 41 (6): 955–981.

Meyer G (2011) US ethanol refiners use more corn than farmers. Financial Times. 12th July 2011. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/77dfcd98ac9f-11e0-a2f300144feabdc0.html#axzz1RmTAJ7w3

Ashraf M, Akram NA (2009) Improving salinity tolerance of plants through conventional breeding and genetic engineering: an analytical comparison. Biotechnology Advances, 27, 744-752.

Berry, I (2011) DuPont Wades Into DroughtTolerant Corn. Wall Street Journal. 5th January 2011. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527 48704405704576063961961160744.html Binimelis R (2008) Coexistence of Plants and Coexistence of Farmers: Is an Individual Choice Possible? J Agric Environ Ethics 21(5):437–457.

Binimelis, R, Pengue, W, Monterroso, I (2009) ‘‘Transgenic treadmill”: Responses to the emergence and spread of glyphosate-resistant johnsongrass in Argentina. Geoforum, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.03.009. http://icta.uab.cat/99_recursos/124176953257 8.pdf Bonny S (2011) Herbicide-tolerant Transgenic Soybean over 15 Years of Cultivation: Pesticide Use, Weed Resistance, and Some Economic Issues. The Case of the USA. Sustainability, 3(12):1302–1322.

Catangui MA, Berg RK (2006) Western Bean Cutworm, Striacosta albicosta (Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), as a Potential Pest of Transgenic Cry1Ab Bacillus thuringiensis Corn Hybrids in South Dakota. Environmental Entomology 35:1439–1452.

Cattivelli L, Rizza F, Badeck F-W, Mazzucotelli E, Mastrangelo AMM, Francia E, Marè C, Tondelli A, Stanca AM (2008) Drought tolerance improvement in crop plants: An integrated view from breeding to genomics. Field Crops Research, 105(1-2), 1-14.

Cocks, T (2010) Drought tolerant maize to hugely benefit Africa: study. Reuters. 25th August 2010.

48 WORLD AGRICULTURE

Godfray HCJ, Beddington JR, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF, Pretty J, Robinson S, Thomas SM, Toulmin C (2010) Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people.

Science. www.sciencexpress.org / 28 January 2010 / Page 1 / 10.1126/science.1185383 Gunning RV, Dang HT, Kemp FC, Nicholson IC, Moores GD (2005) New resistance mechanism in Helicoverpa armigera threatens transgenic crops expressing Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac toxin. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.

71(5):2558–2563.

Hilbeck A, Schmidt J (2006) Another view on Bt-proteins – how specific are they and what else might they do? Biopesticides Int. 2:1–50.

Howard PH (2009) Visualizing Consolidation in the Global Seed Industry: 1996–2008.

Sustainability, 1(4):1266–1287.

IAASTD (2008) International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) global summary for decision makers. http://www.agassessment.org/docs/Global_SD M_060608_English.pdf Institute of Mechanical Engineers (2013) Global Food: Waste not, want not. London, January 2013.

Munro A (2008) The spatial impact of genetically modified crops Ecological Economics, 67(4), 658-666.

NAS (1987) Agricultural Biotechnology: Strategies for National Competitiveness Committee on a National Strategy for Biotechnology in Agriculture, National Research Council. ISBN: 0-309-59573-8, 224 pages. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1 005 Oguamanam C (2007) Tension on the farm fields: The death of traditional agriculture?

Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 27(4), 260-273.

OTA(1981) Impacts of applied genetics: Microorganisms, plants and animals. US Office of Technology Assessment. April 1981. http://www.fas.org/ota/reports/8115.pdf Pardey P, Koo B, Drew J, Horwich J, Nottenburg C (2013) The evolving landscape of plant varietal rights in the United States, 1930-2008. Nature Biotechnology 31(1):25–29.

Pleasants JM, Oberhauser KS (2013) Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: effect on the monarch butterfly population. Insect Conservation and Diversity 6(2):135–144.

Jacobsen S-E, Sørensen M, Pedersen SM, Weiner J (2013) Feeding the world: genetically modified crops versus agricultural biodiversity.

Agron. Sustain. Dev. DOI 10.1007/s13593-0130138-9

Ranii D (2010) Drought-tough corn seed races to the finish line. News Observer. 21st December 2010. http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/12/21/87 3577/drought-tough-corn-seedraces.html#ixzz19bnyr2KL

Jeranyama P, Waddington SR, Hesterman OB, Harwood RR (2007) Nitrogen effects on maize yield following groundnut in rotation on smallholder farms in sub-humid Zimbabwe.

Rodgers C (2007) Coexistence or conflict? A European perspective on GMOs and the problem of liability. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 27(3), 233-250.

49a

6/6/13

10:33

Page 1

comment & opinion Rosset PM (2005) Transgenic crops to address Third World hunger? A critical analysis. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 25, 306-313.

Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 358(1439):1779–1799.

Sandermann H (2006) Plant biotechnology: ecological case studies on herbicide resistance.

Trends in Plant Science, 11(7), 324-328.

Stebbins, C (2011) USDA economist: Hard to pin crop number on climate. Reuters. 19th July 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/20/us -climate-agriculture-idUSTRE76J0M320110720

SCAR (2011) The 3rd SCAR Foresight Exercise: Sustainable Food Consumption and Production in a Resource-constrained World. European Commission Standing Committee on Agricultural Research, February 2011.

Schafer MG, Ross AA, Londo JP, et al. (2011) The Establishment of Genetically Engineered Canola Populations in the U.S. PLoS ONE 6(10):e25736.

Sinclair TR, Purcell LP (2005) Is a physiological perspective relevant in a ‘genocentric’ age?

Journal of Experimental Botany, 56(421), 27772782.

Smyth S, Khachatourians GG, Phillips PWB (2002) Liabilities and economics of transgenic crops. Nat Biotech. 20(6):537–541.

Squire GR, Brooks DR, Bohan DA, et al. (2003) On the rationale and interpretation of the

Stone GD (2012) Constructing Facts. Economic and Political Weekly, 47(38):62–70.

Stone, GD, Glover, D (2011) Genetically Modified Crops and the “food Crisis”: Discourse and Material Impacts. Development in Practice 21 (4–5): 509–516.

Tabashnik BE, Gassman AJ, Crowder DW, Carriére Y (2008) Insect resistance to Bt crops: evidence versus theory. Nature Biotechnology, 26, 199 – 202.

Tuberosa R, Salvi S (2006) Genomics-based approaches to improve drought tolerance of crops. Trends in Plant Science, 11(8), 405-412.

Vanloqueren G, Baret PV (2009) How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic

engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Research Policy 38: 971–983.

Van Rensburg JBJ (2007) First report of field resistance by the stem borer, Busseola fusca (Fuller) to Bt-transgenic maize. South African Journal of Plant and Soil, 24(3):147–151.

Voosen P (2011) USDA Looks to Approve Monsanto's Drought-Tolerant Corn. New York Times. 11th May 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/05/11/1 1greenwire-usda-looks-to-approve-monsantosdrought-tolera-84634.html Wan P, Huang Y, Wu H, et al. (2012) Increased Frequency of Pink Bollworm Resistance to Bt Toxin Cry1Ac in China. PLoS ONE. 7(1):e29975.

Wang S, Just DR, Andersen PP (2008) Bt-cotton and secondary pests. International Journal of Biotechnology 10(2/3):113.

Zhao JH, Ho P, Azadi, H (2011) Benefits of Bt cotton counterbalanced by secondary pests?

Perceptions of ecological change in China.

Environ Monit Assess, 173:985–994.

© intheskies – Fotolia.com

WORLD AGRICULTURE

49

Terraces in springtime

50 WORLD AGRICULTURE

© chungking – Fotolia.com

51

5/6/13

10:12

Page 1

instructions

World Agriculture problems and potential Instruction to contributors

T

his international Journal publishes articles based upon scientifically derived evidence that addresses problems and issues confronting world agriculture and food supplies.

Articles will be subject to review by two or more scrutineers before acceptance. Authors are encouraged to take a critical approach to worldwide issues and to advance new concepts. Those wishing to submit an unsolicited article should in the first instance send a short summary of their intended paper in English by electronic mail to the Editor. The Journal will publish suitable articles on agriculture and horticulture and their climatic, ecological, economic and social interactions. Relevant aspects of forestry and fisheries as well as food storage and distribution will also be acceptable.

The Journal is not available for communication of previously unpublished experimental work, although original deductions from existing information are welcome.

Statements must be based on sound scientifically derived evidence and all arguments must be rational and logically derived. Typical articles will be between 1,000 and 5,000 words, with photographs, and figures, line drawings and tables, where relevant.

Articles outside these lengths may be acceptable, if the length can be justified.

Articles that pose questions and raise issues for which answers are needed will be accepted if they meet the necessary criteria. Such questions may for example, describe an economic or husbandry problem in a developing country or ocean, resulting from climate change or some unintended consequence of policy, for which no clear solution is at hand.

World Agriculture will produce one volume each year with Issue numbers 1 and 2 occurring within each volume.

Page numbers will run consecutively throughout each volume from page one onwards.

Sections The Journal has three main Sections: (1) Scientific, (2) Economic & Social, and (3) Comment & Opinion. It also accepts Letters to the Editor and includes Book Reviews and Editorials.

Scientific, Economic and Social Statements of fact in the first two Sections must be based on evidence from peer-reviewed publications which must be fully referenced.

Comment and Opinion Submissions must be based on considerable experience and be logically argued. Articles that pose questions and raise issues for which answers are needed will be accepted if they meet the necessary criteria following rigorous examination. Such questions may for example, describe an economic or husbandry problem in a developing country or ocean, resulting from climate change or some unintended consequence of policy, for which no clear solution is at hand.

References are not essential, although they should be used to justify statements where appropriate.

Layout and typing instructions SI units and the English language must be used, the spelling being generally that of the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th Ed, so that words such as fertiliser should use ‘ise’ rather than the American ‘ize’ spelling.

Times New Roman 12 point font should be justified for normal text and Arial should be used for headings.

Standard abbreviations (e.g. Fig. and Figs) are acceptable, but specialist abbreviations and terms should be defined in a short Glossary, immediately beneath the Summary.

Additionally, keywords should also be included beneath the summary.

Full stops are not used in commonly accepted abbreviations (e.g. USA, UK) and should not be used when an abbreviated word ends with the same letter as the complete word (e.g., Florida as FA and cultivar as cv.). Latin terms such as circa should be italicized, for which ca is the abbreviation.

Commercial chemicals should be referred to by their approved common names, but where a proprietary name is relevant and unavoidable it should be used with a capital initial and the manufacturer named at the first mention.

Billion may be expressed as thousand million (eg a billion hectares as 1 000 Mha) although the SI

expression Gha is acceptable.

Concentrations and rates of application should be clearly expressed and unambiguous, using, for example, mg/litre, or mg/L, mg/kg (not ppm).

Dates should be expressed as day, month, year, as for example, 18th May 2010.

Currency references should use the standard international abbreviations, although US$, € nd £ are acceptable for US dollars, Euro and GB £ respectively.

Wherever possible financial details should be quoted in one of these currencies, although where this is not possible a standard list of abbreviations is available at <http://www.forex-rates.biz/currencyabbreviations.htm> which was accessed in March 2011.

The full Latin name of an organism should be given at the first mention, e.g. Heterodera avenae; an abbreviated name of the organism may be used for subsequent mentions, e.g. H. avenae. Names should follow the appropriate international codes.

Naturally occurring infraspecific variants should be described as varieties, as for example Medicago polymorpha var hispida and where used repeatedly in the text variety may be abbreviated to var. or vars.

The word cultivar should be restricted to forms in cultivation and which need to be propagated either by seed or vegetatively and can be abbreviated to cv. or cvs after first use in the text. They will normally have specific advantages and distinctive features which will enable them to be described and differentiated from others. Named cultivar should be in normal, ie not italicised font as for example Taxus baccata ‘Variegata’ or Taxus baccata cv Variegata.

Always use numerals for specific units of measurement (e.g. 14 m, 2 d, 3 wk). For other quantities up to and including nine, spell out in full (e.g. four plots, two experiments, nine larvae). Use numerals in all instances for ten or over (e.g. 20 fields).

Large numbers should be separated by spaces every 000, rather than by use of a comma, e.g., 10 000.

Hyphens should be avoided if possible, for example use ‘cooperate’ rather than co-operate’.

WORLD AGRICULTURE

51

52

5/6/13

10:12

Page 1

instructions Where authors need to reproduce information protected by copyright they must obtain permission to reproduce the item before the article is published in World Agriculture.

Sequence of headings Each paper should commence with a short concise, accurate and informative Summary, normally of approximately 250 words, that includes the issues posed, the subject covered and the conclusions drawn.

The Introduction should set out the background to the subject. This is to be followed by the main body of the article in sections each of which is headed by terms defined by the nature of the paper, for example: Background, Review of evidence, the Present situation, Problems to be confronted and Resolution.

The paper should conclude with a Discussion and/or Conclusions section and finally References. Layout of headings should follow the guidance below: Title, bold 16 point centred Author name, Arial 14 point centred Affiliation, Arial 14 point centred italics Main headings central bold Arial 14 point font Secondary headings: left justified, bold Arial 12 point font Tertiary level: left justified, Arial 12 point font Quaternary (if necessary) left justified, Arial 12 point italics

Tables, figures, line drawings, photographs and graphs

Figures, Tables and Photographs should be placed in a separate set of files from the text (indicate in text desired location, e.g. with the phrase Table xx near here on a separate line in square brackets if possible). Each should be numbered sequentially with the title in Times New Roman 12 point font beneath. All figures and tables should be of high resolution. If possible figures and tables should be submitted in Excel (same table(s) could be in Word, in addition) and also if possible submit the data from which the figure has been produced.

Make sure all the denominations are according to international standards and the legends are clear.

Tables with suitable titles must be numbered using Arabic numerals in sequence and be understandable without reference to the text. Use a horizontal line to separate column headings from data and at the bottom of the table; avoid column lines.

Excessive numbers of columns should be avoided.

52 WORLD AGRICULTURE

Illustrations in the form of text figures, line drawings, and computer generated figures and graphs with their captions should all be comprehensible without reference to the text. All photographs should be half tone or colour, have a high definition (>5 million pixels/photo) and the software should be IBM/DOS compatible. Each photograph should be adequately identified with the author, paper and plate number.

Photographs submitted electronically must be in separate jpg files with the essential information included in the properties box for the file.

Alternatively, photographs may be posted to the Editor on disk (request address by e-mail). The plate number, authors and an indication of the paper title should also be given in a separate electronic file. Electronic-mail is satisfactory for correspondence, text and tables.

Standard deviations, standard errors of the means and “n”, the number of observations associated with each mean, should all be presented.

References and citations

All references in the text should be given as numbers, although the author(s) name may be given immediately before the number, if helpful.

References should be numbered sequentially in the order in which they appear, the first as (1), with all subsequent references to the same paper using the same number. Where more than one paper is cited, the numbers should be listed in numerical order.

In the Reference Section papers should be listed in numerical order in the format: 1. Anon (yyyy) Web page title. <http://www.organisation/page/file_or _other_address> accessed dd mmm yyyy.

2. Klass, D W (ed.) (1979) Current practice of clinical electroencephalography. New York, Raven Press, 1979 ISBN n nn nnn nnn nnn.

3. Organisation (yyyy) Web page title.<http://www.organisation/page/fil e_or_other_address> accessed dd mmm yyyy.

4. Regan, D & Smith, A (1979) Electrical responses evoked from the human brain. Scientific American, 241, 134-52.

5. Smil, V (2011) Nitrogen cycle and world food production. World Agriculture, 2 (1) 9-13.

6. Blogs, P (2010) Personal

communication.

7. Baggins, B (1991) Title of paper.

In: Proceedings of--- (ed., R.E. Blogs), Name of sponsor or organiser, USA, 68 June 1991, pp.91-4 When a reference includes an issue number, include the volume number in bold and the issue number in brackets, between the volume and the first and last page numbers.

Communications with the Editor for publication Comments & Opinion and Letters to the Editor by e-mail will also be considered for publication. These should be concise and submitted for the purpose of making objective comments on published articles, or on important subjects that have not been covered.

Submission, Editing and Acceptance

Manuscripts should be formatted to A4 justified using MS Word and 12 pt Times New Roman font.

Authors’ names, qualifications, honours and affiliations should be included and submission will assume that the author accepts the conditions laid down in these Instructions to Contributors and that copyright is held by World Agriculture: problems and potential.

Manuscripts should be submitted to the Editor by electronic mail, with the address of: editor@worldagriculture.net.

Articles that are accepted by the editorial board will be edited and the Editor reserves the right to modify statements made by the author, or to ask for a revision, although the edited versions will be sent to the author for his or her agreement before publication.

The author’s response must occur within 72 h. Moreover, during the revision process it is essential that authors respond quickly and reliably to requests for amendments, otherwise the publication deadline will be forfeited.

inside back

5/6/13

10:14

Page 1

looking ahead

World Agriculture: potential future articles Jonathan Shepherd Aquaculture, 2 – are the criticisms justified?

Professor Wallace Cowling Revitalising plant breeding through genetics and genomics Dr Matthew Gilliham, Richard James, Mark Tester, Michael Gilbert, Stuart Roy The economic and social benefits of introducing and breeding for salt tolerant traits in crops Dr André Bationo African soils, their productivity and profitability of fertilizer use Dr Penelope Bebeli Genetic pollution of landraces Dr Michael Turner Seed policies in guiding seed sector development in the ‘post project era’ Dr Reza Mohammad Emonbina Boron deficiency in Bangladesh Dr Dave Powlson Rothsamsted, N fertilzers in China

Published by Script Media, 47 Church Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire S70 2AS WORLD AGRICULTURE 53

Back

5/6/13

09:47

Page 1