TOWARDS a CONCEPT of SUSTAINABLE ANIMAL DIETS Report Based on the Collated Results of a Survey of Stakeholder Views Cover Photographs

FAO ANIMAL PRODUCTION AND HEALTH

reports

TOWARDS A CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABLE ANIMAL DIETS Report based on the collated results of a survey of stakeholder views Cover photographs

Left image: ©FAO/AFP/Hoang Dinh Nam Centre image: ©FAO/Luca Tommasini Right image: ©FAO/Jon Spaull 7

FAO ANIMAL PRODUCTION AND HEALTH reports

TOWARDS A CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABLE ANIMAL DIETS

Report based on the collated results of a survey of stakeholder views

Harinder P.S. Makkar and Philippe Ankers

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 2014 Recommended Citation FAO. 2014. Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets, by Harinder P. S. Makkar & Philippe Ankers. FAO Animal Production and Health Report. No. 7. Rome, Italy.

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of speciﬁc companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reﬂect the views or policies of FAO.

ISBN 978-92-5-108609-4

FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way.

All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to [email protected].

FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through [email protected]. Contents

Foreword vii Abbreviations used in the text ix Acknowledgements x Executive summary xi

Introduction and Background 1 Why focus on sustainability of animal diets (StAnD)? 1 What is new in the StAnD concept and what difference can its implementation make? 1 The objective of this study 2

Methodology and respondents 3

Survey analysis and discussion 4 Global view 4 Distribution of respondents 4 Importance of the StAnD elements that aim to protect environment and natural resource base 4 Importance of the socio-cultural elements of StAnD that provide benefits for people 5 Importance of the economic elements of StAnD 6 Importance of the miscellaneous elements of StAnD 7 Extent of agreement of stakeholders on integration of the ethical dimension into StAnD 8 Modalities through which the StAnD concept can be put into sound management practices 10 Importance of Planet, People, Profit and Ethical dimension of StAnD 11 Regional views 12 Importance of the StAnD elements that aim to protect environment and natural resource base 14 Importance of the socio-cultural elements of StAnD that provide benefits for people 14 Importance of the economic elements of StAnD 19 Importance of miscellaneous elements of StAnD 19 Extent of agreement of stakeholders on integration of the ethical dimension into StAnD 23 Who should take initiative first to re-structure the feed production system for meeting the StAnD requirements? 23 Modalities through which the StAnD concept can be put into sound management practices 26 Shift in the importance of the Planet, People, Profit and Ethical dimensions of StAnD 29 Summation of the Regional view 30 Sectoral views 30 Importance of the StAnD elements that aim to protect the environment and the natural resource base 31 Importance of the socio-cultural elements of StAnD that provide benefits for people 34 Importance of the economic elements of StAnD 37 Importance of the miscellaneous elements of StAnD 38 Extent of agreement of stakeholders on integration of the ethical dimension into StAnD 38

v Who should take first initiative to re-structure the feed production system for meeting StAnD requirements? 40 Modalities through which the StAnD concept can be put into sound management practice 43 Shift in the importance of the Planet, People, Profit and Ethical dimensions of StAnD 45 Views segregated on the basis of field of expertise 48 Importance of the StAnD elements that aim to protect environment and natural resource base 48 Importance of the socio-cultural elements of StAnD that provide benefits for people 49 Importance of the economic elements of StAnD 49 Importance of the miscellaneous elements of StAnD 54 Extent of agreement of stakeholders on integration of the ethical dimension into StAnD 58 Who should take initiative first to re-structure the feed production system for meeting the StAnD requirements? 60 Modalities through which the StAnD concept can be put into sound management practices 61 Shift in the importance of Planet, People, Profit and Ethical dimensions of StAnD 64

The way forward 68 The desired change 68 Policy dimensions and decision tools 68 Multi-functional feeding systems and multi-criteria feed evaluation systems 70 A framework for research and knowledge 70

Conclusions 71

References 72

Annex 73 Towards Sustainable Animal Diets 73 Background information 73 Why are we focusing on sustainability of animal diets? 74 Questionnaire 75

vi Foreword

Current livestock production systems demand high energy, land, chemicals and water – all of which are increasingly becoming scarce. Thus change and innovation is required in many livestock production systems if they are to meet present and future demand for animal products in a sustainable manner. During the last three decades, inexpensive grain, energy and protein enabled the economic development of intensive meat and milk production systems based on feeding grains and other ingredients sourced from far-off places. Also the poultry and pig intensive production systems became highly capital and input (feed) intensive and they have resulted in many environmental challenges. It is unlikely that the growth rates of the past could be sustained in the future due to increasing costs of energy, grains and other inputs. They may even de- cline if the price of grain rises above a critical level, and might even become economically and environmentally unviable. Furthermore, these issues may become magnified due to increasing competition for arable land for food, feed and bio- fuel production. So far, in many situations, feeds have been produced and feeding has been designed to achieve maximum yield, giving high economic benefits; however, this approach in many circumstances have to contribute to ecosystem degradation (deforestation, chemical contamination, decreased biodiversity, water shortage, and water and air pollution) and global warming through the emission of methane and nitrous oxide. Moreover, the current systems of livestock production result in high energy consumption at every step, and even more so in the intensive systems. These situations demand attention to examine the excessive use of resources and to consider ways of adopting more efficient processes and systems. Animal feed and feeding is the foundation of livestock systems. It directly or indirectly affects the entire livestock sector, associated services, public goods and services, including animal productivity, health and welfare, product quality and safety, land use and land-use change, and greenhouse gas emission. The sustainability of animal diets is crucial in the development of livestock production across production systems. The sustainable increase in livestock productivity, which is key to meeting the large, current and future, demand for livestock products, cannot be achieved without the use of Sustainable Animal Diets. The concept of Sustainable Animal Diets was proposed earlier1. It integrates the importance of efficient use of natural resources, protection of the environment, socio-cultural benefits, ethical integrity and sensitivity, in addition to currently recognized nutrition-based criteria for delivering economically viable, yet safe, animal products by producing safe feed. A stakeholder survey was conducted with the aim of prioritizing the main constituent elements and components of the concept, and to assess opinion on how to implement the concept. This document presents results of that survey.

1 FAO. 2013. Optimization of feed use efficiency in ruminant production systems. Available at: http://www.fao. org/docrep/018/i3331e/i3331e.pdf

vii Sustainable Animal Diets are expected to be beneficial for the animal, the environment and society, and are likely to generate socio-economic benefits, furthering poverty alleviation and food security efforts. This requires active participation of researchers, extension workers, science managers, policy-makers, industry and farmers.

viii Abbreviations used in the text

The Regional designations used throughout this report are East and Southeast Asia (E&SEA); Europe; Latin America/Caribbean (LAC); Near East and North Africa (NENA); North America; Oceania; South Asia; and Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).

NGO Non-Governmental Organization StAnD Sustainable Animal Diets

ix Acknowledgements

Mr João Pedro Domingues Santos developed the survey and analysed the survey data under the supervision of the authors, and for this the authors are grateful. The authors are also thankful to all the respondents who took time to answer the questionnaire, without whom this study would not have been possible. Also thanks to the reviewers Samuel Jutzi, D.V. Rangnekar, Christian Schader, Mark Powell, Ugo Pica-Ciamarra and Nadia Scialabba for their invaluable suggestions. Final editing for language and layout was by Thorgeir Lawrence.

x Executive summary

Animal feed and feeding is pivotal to livestock production. Feed forms up to 70% of the cost of animal production and hence is financially the single most important element in animal husbandry. Animal productivity, health and welfare, product quality and safety, producers’ income, household security, but also land use and land use change, water pollution and greenhouse gas emission, are affected to a great extent by diet selection and how a diet is fed to livestock. Furthermore, animal feed and feeding directly or indirectly affects the entire livestock sector and associated services. Through various consultative processes a concept has been developed of Sustain- able Animal Diets (StAnD), integrating the importance of protecting the environment, efficient use of natural resources, socio-cultural benefits, and ethical integrity and sensitivity, in addition to currently recognized nutrition-based criteria in producing safe and economically viable feed. The concept is based on the Three-P dimensions of sustainability (Planet, People and Profit), complemented by a further vital aspect of animal nutrition, namely the ethics of using a particular feed. The Three-P concept has, inter alia, been used as a handy descriptor implying economic growth, social equity and ecological soundness (IUCN, 2005). Using the Three-P definition of sustainability, an approach or a technology is considered to be sustainable if it is profitable; socio-culturally acceptable and beneficial to people; and protects the environment and natural resource base (i.e. the planet). In order to further refine the StAnD concept, a survey of stakeholders was conducted. Through a questionnaire, help was sought from stakeholders, both to prioritize the main constituent elements and components of the concept, and to establish opinion on how to implement the concept. The analysis reported here derives from 1195 respondents worldwide. The opinions reflected were from both developing and developed countries (respondents: developing countries 59%; developed ones 41%). Respondents ranged across Academia, Industry, Farmers’ associations, government organizations, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Intergovernmental organizations. They included science managers, policy-makers, consultants, farmers and extension workers. The largest contribution was from Academia (67%) and the smallest was from International organizations (2%). A good number of respondents were from NGOs (9%) and livestock-sector industries (15%). Consultants formed 7%. Given the unbalanced sample population, a segregated analysis was also conducted in addition to the global analysis. Consumers are also important stakeholders, but due to resource limitations this survey does not present their views. Respondents were asked to rank the importance of elements of each sustainability dimension, based on a five-level rating scale (5 = most important; 4 = important; 3 = useful; 2 = partly useful; 1 = marginally useful), and ranking was done relative to the weighted average score in the global analysis. For segregated analyses, high or low importance given to an element by a group of respondents was based on weighted average for that element relative to the overall average of all the groups (i.e. global weighted average) being evaluated for that element. The analysis in this report has been reported as global, and segregated by region, sector and field of expertise.

xi In the global average, for each dimension of the StAnD concept, the elements that emerged as important for production and use of StAnD are, in order of importance: (a) Planet dimension: Should minimize water pollution; Not lead to deforestation or land degradation; Minimize air pollution; and Preferably use locally available feed resources. (b) People dimension: Animal products should be affordable to consumers; Pro- mote and preserve local knowledge; Should not compete with human food; and Avoid exacerbation of unfavourable legal processes (e.g. land grab). (c) Profit dimension: There is a need to internalize socio-environmental costs to the true cost of production i.e. to ensure that environmental costs are fully reflected in the cost of production; Enhance benefit:cost ratio for all stakeholders from the livestock sector; and Not enhance volatility in price of feed ingredients. Under the miscellaneous category (cutting across more than one dimension of sustainability), the important elements identified are: StAnD Should re-use food waste; Incentives should be given to promote production and use of StAnD; and Should not use food grains in ruminant diets (aim to decrease grain use). A strong agreement emerged for integrating the ethical dimension into the StAnD concept. In order to re-structure feed productions system to meet StAnD requirements, the stakeholders were of the opinion that the initiative should first be taken by Farmers and farmers’ associations, and then by Academia, Regulatory bodies and Industry. The participation of policy makers and private industries is important. For implementing the StAnD concept, the modalities proposed by respondents are to make consumers aware of its benefits, develop guidelines and practices, achieve broad stakeholder engagement, and make civil society aware of the benefits of StAnD. The segregated analysis by region showed that the sensitivities of respondents from two regions (Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC)) to the environmental issues are higher than the global average, while those of North America and Oceania are lower. In the people dimension, overall, higher importance was given to socio-cultural elements by respondents in SSA, LAC and South Asia, with those from developing countries showing higher sensitivity than from developed countries. Stakeholders in SSA, South Asia, LAC, and Near East and North Africa (NENA) gave higher importance to the need to increase benefit:cost ratio than the global average. Respondents from LAC, SSA, South Asia, and Eu- rope (in that order) gave higher importance to the need to take into account environmental and social costs of negative externalities in the production and feeding of diets, while those from Oceania and North America were least sensitive towards it. On miscellaneous elements, stakeholders in SSA, NENA, South Asia, and LAC gave high score to the production of StAnD without enhancing volatility in price of feed ingredients, while those in North America gave it lowest importance. Latin American and European stakeholders appear to be less inclined to including grains in animal diets. The degree of acceptability to grains in monogastric diets is higher than in ruminant diets, suggesting the need to decrease grain use in diets of animals but more so in ruminant diets. Respondents in Oceania and North America gave higher score to the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) than the global average. The use of GMO crops and feed ingredients produced through high-input systems was given lower importance by respondents in LAC. Respondents from

xii Developing countries gave higher importance to the use of incentives in production and use of StAnD than those in developed countries. Stakeholders in almost all regions highlighted a strong need to integrate ethical dimensions into StAnD. In developed countries, Farmers and farmers’ associations were identified as the organizations that should take a lead in implementing the StAnD concept, while in developing countries the responsibility fell on Academia. In addition, the roles of Regulatory bodies and of livestock-related Industry were also considered important. For all regions, the mechanisms identified to translate the StAnD concept into practice were similar to those observed in the global analysis. The segregated analysis by sector showed that respondents from Internation- al organizations, NGOs and Academia gave high importance to the elements of the Planet dimension, while those from Industry gave least importance. Over- all, higher importance was given to socio-cultural elements by respondents from NGOs, International organizations and Academia, while those from Industry was less sensitive towards these elements. Respondents from all sectors were in strong agreement that the production and use of StAnD should increase benefit:cost ratio. Also, respondents from all sectors gave high importance to taking into account environmental and social costs of negative externalities in production and feeding of StAnD, while those from Industry gave it least score. The element, Production of StAnD should not enhance volatility in price of feed ingredients, received a high score from respondents from International organizations and Academia, and lowest from those from Industry. NGOs, Academia and Industry respondents gave high importance to the re-use of food waste as feed. Compared with the other sectors, respondents from Industry gave higher score to the use of food grains and of GMO feeds in the diets of monogastrics and ruminants. Use of incentives in production and use of StAnD was favoured more by respondents from Academia than those from the other sectors. Respondents from almost all sectors except Industry gave a high score to the integration of ethical dimension into StAnD. Academia, and Farmers and farmers’ associations were identified as the bodies that should take the initiative to re-structure the feed production system for meeting StAnD criteria. Other bodies that could play an important role in meeting this requirements are Industry and Regulatory bodies (include Policy makers). Through a segregated analysis by area of expertise, it was shown that animal health specialists consistently gave higher importance to the elements that aim to better the health of the environment. Animal welfare experts also gave higher importance to these elements. For the elements of the People dimension, no general pattern emerged. Respondents from all fields except farm management and animal nutrition gave higher score to the need to take environmental and social costs of negative externalities in total costs. Animal nutrition, extension and technology transfer, and animal health specialists gave higher importance than the global average to increasing benefit:cost ratio. Animal health and animal nutrition experts gave higher score to the production of StAnD without enhancing volatility in price of feed ingredients. Animal welfare experts appear to be less inclined to including grains, GMOs and feed ingredients produced through high-input agriculture in animal diets. Re-use of food waste as animal feed received high scores from experts of all areas. The overall

xiii Figure 1 Sustainability quadrant – depicting current and ideal situations (based on a survey of 1 195 respondents)

People

Ideal Current

Planet Proﬁt

Ethics

tolerance to grain use in the diets of ruminants was lower. Experts from almost all areas were in strong agreement to the integration of ethical dimensions into StAnD. Animal welfare experts gave highest importance to this element. This survey has identified directions for positive change. There has been a strong agreement among all stakeholders, irrespective of region, sector or field of specialization, regarding the direction of positive change that should be followed in the production and feeding of StAnD. That positive change is dictated by higher importance assigned to the Planet, People and Ethics dimensions of StAnD, and lower to the Profit dimension (Figure 1). An important message from the survey was that making a profit is important since it is the main driver of the production system, but making a profit at the cost of the environment, socio-economic benefits to people and animal welfare and other ethical aspects of raising livestock may not be appropriate. The survey has also prioritized various elements of the sustainability dimensions of StAnD, and identified sectors that should take the initiative, and has also presented modalities for incorporating the StAnD concept into practice. These could be the focus in follow-up studies and actions.

xiv Introduction and background

Change and innovation is required in many livestock production systems if they are to meet in a sustainable manner present and future demand for animal products, because livestock production systems demand high energy inputs, land, chemicals and water — all of which are becoming increasingly scarce. Through various consultative processes we have developed and are refining a concept of Sustainable Ani- mal Diets (StAnD), which integrates the importance of efficient use of natural resources, protection of the environment, socio-cultural benefits and ethical integrity and sensitivity, in addition to currently recognized nutrition-based criteria for delivering economically viable and safe animal products by producing safe feed. The concept is based on the Three-P dimensions of sustainability (Planet, People and Profit), complemented by a further vital aspect of animal nutrition, namely the ethics of using a particular feed, particularly where there are associated animal welfare issues. Furthermore, at a time when 850 million people are hungry and suitable land for growing crops is becoming increasingly scarce, the use of food-grade grains in the diets of ruminants is certain to face increased questioning on both resource-use efficiency and ethical grounds. The rumen is not physiologically designed to cope with high-grain rations. It would therefore appear questionable whether feeding a diet containing large levels of grain to ruminants can be considered ethical, either from a (scarce) resource use perspective or from an animal welfare perspective. Such a diet may result in acidosis, lameness and other associated welfare problems (FAO, 2013a). Feeding grains to animals competes with grain use in human food and nutrition, while improved use of grasslands is more efficient in converting energy into food. A sustainable diet should not only meet the core traits of a feed listed in the definition of proper nutrition and theThree-P criteria, but also the relevant ethical dimensions (Figure 2). The details of the concept are explained in Makkar (2013).

Why focus on sustainability of animal diets (StAnD)? Animal feed and feeding is the foundation of livestock systems. It has impacts on animal productivity, health and welfare, product quality and safety, producer in- comes, household security, land use and land use change, water pollution and green house gas emission. Also it directly or indirectly affects the entire livestock sector and associated services. Furthermore, feed is financially the single most important element of animal husbandry, irrespective of species and production system, forming up to 70% of the cost of production. The sustainability of animal diets is crucial in the development of sustainable livestock production across production systems.

What is new in the StAnD concept and what difference can its implementation make? It has: (a) a thematic focus of meeting the production objectives by improving feed (nutrient) use efficiency while conserving the environment, biodiversity and natural resources;

1 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 2 Conceptual framework of Sustainable Animal Diets

Proﬁtability Main feature: Promotion of economic growth

Sustainable animal diets Ethical Planet Core traits: balanced in all nutrients, free from Main feature: Main feature: deleterious components, In harmony with Protection of meet production animal welfare & environment objective, generate food security & natural resource animal products safe for base human consumption

People Main feature: Socio-culturally acceptable and beneﬁcial

(b) multi-dimensional scope, embracing socio-cultural, ethical and environmental dimensions in addition to the economic one; (c) an action-oriented holistic approach, targeting change in practices; and (d) multi-stakeholder participation, harnessing synergies and complementarities. In advanced stages of the implementation of the StAnD concept, it is possible that a model could be developed to compare diets against the indicators of Sustain- able Animal Diets. A decision tool based on this concept could also be integrated into other models, thus enabling comparison of animal products from different animal species and production systems, and assisting consumers to select one animal product over another. The concept and its likely outcomes also hold potential for integration into other sustainability mechanisms, such as the ‘Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock’ (FAO, 2013b). Also the concept could pave the way for a new system of feed evaluation, based on the sustainability dimensions.

The objective of this study Through a survey, to prioritize the main constituent elements and components of the StAnD concept, and also to obtain opinions on how to translate this concept into action by integrating its elements and components into sound management practices.

2 Methodology and respondents

To implement the survey, a questionnaire was developed (see Annex 1). The elements for each pillar of StAnD (the Three-Ps and the ethical dimension) were selected using literature information and experts’ inputs. In addition, a set of miscellaneous questions were included to address more than one dimension of sustainability. Opinion was also sought on which sectors should take a particular initiative, and the modalities of putting the concept into practice. The survey was conducted during July and August 2013. The questionnaire was sent to approximately 5 000 stakeholders worldwide, in Academia, Indus- try, science management, and policy-making, together with consultants, Farmers and farmers’ associations, extension workers and non-government organizations (NGOs) and intergovernmental organizations. A total of 1 195 (ca 24% response rate) completed questionnaires were received. The opinions reflected were those of both developing and developed countries (respondents: developing countries 59%; developed ones 41%). The largest contribution was from Academia (67%) and the least from International organizations (2%). A good number of respondents were from NGOs (9%) and livestock-sector industries (15%). Consultants formed 7%. Among different areas of expertise, the largest number of the respondents (44%) were from animal nutrition. Because of the unbalanced sample, a segregated analysis was also conducted in addition to the global analysis. However, it is important to note that for all the parameters studied, the weighted averages of results from Academia were very close to the global weighted averages, and similarly for the animal nutrition group. Respondents were asked to rank the importance of elements of each sustainability dimension, based on a five-level rating scale (5 = most important; 4 = important; 3 = useful; 2 = partly useful; and 1= marginally useful) and ranking was done on the basis of weighted average score in the global analysis. The higher the score, the higher is the ranking. For segregated analyses, high or low importance given to an element by a group of respondents was based on weighted average for that element being higher or lower than the overall average of all the groups (i.e. relative to the global weighted average) for that element. The analysis in this report has been reported both as global, and segregated by region, sector and field of expertise. Con- sumers are of course an important stakeholder group, and the ones who ultimately drive the expansion of the livestock sector due to their growing consumption of animal protein. At this initial stage, with the concept still evolving, it was not considered pertinent to involve customers. However, a consumer survey to appreciate if and how the concept of StAnD could be implemented in practice, generating a close linkage between animal diets, animal production and consumer choice, is planned for the next phase.

3 Survey analysis and discussion

Global view

Distribution of respondents The highest number of respondents were from Europe, followed by SSA and then LAC. These three regions together contributed more than 60% of the replies (Table 1).

Importance of the StAnD elements that aim to protect environment and natural resource base These are the elements for the ‘Planet dimension’ of sustainability and are listed in Figure 3. The most important four elements of StAnD that emerged through the survey were: Minimize water pollution; Not lead to deforestation and land degradation; Minimize air pollution; and Preferably use locally available feed resources. In contrast, Reduction in water footprint and Reduction in carbon footprint were not considered as important, although Reduction in carbon footprint was considered the more important of the two (Figure 3). This preference for reduction in carbon footprint could be a reflection of greater interest of donor agencies, International organizations, researchers and politicians alike, due to ongoing global warming and the importance it is being given by all stakeholders, as well as the media. However, in the context of StAnD, reduction in water footprint is also of great importance, since water use for feed production is highest among other water-dependent activities in the livestock sector. Preferable use of locally available feed resources is also likely to reduce the carbon footprint of StAnD (Alqaisi et al., 2014). Reduction in water pollution will also decrease the water footprint of preparing and feeding StAnD. Higher importance was given to reduction in water pollution rather than reduction of air pollution, and this might be driven by the possible greater adverse impact of water pollution on human and animal health.

Table 1. Number of respondents by region Region Number of respondents Percent distribution E&SEA 114 9.5 Europe 338 28.3 LAC 184 15.4 NENA 63 5.3 North America 91 7.6 Oceania 59 4.9 South Asia 126 10.5 SSA 220 18.4 Total 1 195 -

4 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 3 Importance of the elements of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD) that aim to protect environment and natural resource base (Planet dimension of sustainability)

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

StAnD should 'Not use antibiotic or 3.82 synthetic growth promoters'

StAnD should 'Preferably use locally available feed resources' 4.23

Production of StAnD and its feeding 3.81 should 'Use minimum energy'

Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Use minimum water' 3.76

Production of StAnD and its feeding should 4.03 'Leave minimum carbon footprint'

Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Minimize water pollution' 4.58

Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Minimize air pollution' 4.33

Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Enhance resilience of the livestock 4.19 production system' ﬂoods, earthquake etc.) Production of StAnD and its feeding should 4.54 'Not lead to deforestation and land degradation'

Production of StAnD and its feeding should 4.19 'Enhance or at least do not decrease biodiversity'

Production of StAnD and its feeding should 3.77 'Respect landscape diversity and aesthetic value'

2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Importance of the socio-cultural elements of StAnD that provide benefits for people The elements in this category on which ranking was sought from the respondents are presented in Figure 4. The four most important elements were in the order: Animal products should be affordable to consumers > Promote and preserve local knowledge > Do not compete with human food > Avoid exacerbation of unfavourable legal processes. Respondents gave less importance to elements such as Empow- er women and Break social barriers and promote social harmony (Figure 4). From the respondents’ perspective, the production of StAnD should not make animal products so expensive that consumers cannot afford them. Production of animal products with ingredients that do not compete with human food was considered important, which could possibly be attributed to the increasing world food insecu- rity. Thus the direct use of grains for feeding humans would be considered as more acceptable than producing animal products by feeding those grains.

5 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 4 Importance of the socio-cultural elements of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD) that provide benefits for people (People dimension of sustainability)

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

Production of StAnD and its feeding should 3.83 'Consider social aspects of rearing livestock'

Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Not be culturally offensive to producers 3.79 and consumers of the animal products' Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Respect perceptions, beliefs, values, 3.58 taboos and be socially acceptable'

Production of StAnD 3.43 and its feeding should 'Empower women'

Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Break social barriers 3.37 and promote social harmony'

Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Avoid exacerbation of unfavorable legal 3.99 processes' (e.g. ‘land grab’)

Production of StAnD and its feeding should 3.65 'Be a part of corporate social policy'

Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Promote and preserve local knowledge' 4.05 (e.g. biodiversity management)

Production of StAnD and its feeding should 4.02 'Not compete with human food'

Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Result in animal products that are 4.21 affordable to consumers'

2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Importance of the economic elements of StAnD For the Profit dimension, the highest importance was given to the Need to internalize socio-environmental costs to the true cost of production, which was followed by Enhancing benefit:cost ratio for all stakeholders from the livestock sector, and Not enhancing volatility in price of feed ingredients (Figure 5). It would be a challenge to reconcile two opposing forces: consideration of the costs of including the socio-environmental damage into the total cost of production (which is likely to enhance cost of production) and increase in benefit:cost ratio. An attractive option would be decoupling of fossil fuel use from feed production and feed use, and this possibly could be done through the use of solar or wind energy, possibly through simultaneous production of feeds and energy. New ways of production and use of animal diets need to be considered. Increase in feed use efficiency to reduce the cost

6 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 5 Importance of the economic elements of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD) (Profit dimension of sustainability)

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

Production of StAnD and its feeding should 4.06 'Enhance Beneﬁt : Cost ratio for all stakeholders'

Production of StAnD and its feeding should take into account 'Environmental and social costs of negative externalities such as environmental 4.36 degradation, greenhouse gas emissions and loss of biodiversity'

Production of StAnD should not 4.05 'Enhance volatility in prices of feed ingredients'

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

of production would be an attractive option. To increase feed use efficiency it will be pivotal to consider a holistic approach embracing not only biological means but also structural and institutional approaches, including reduction in the loss of feed resources in the food and agriculture supply chain. Another option would be to use agro-industrial by-products and alternative resources as feed including realisation of full potential of grasslands, which is likely to reduce cost as well as water and possibly carbon footprints. Overall, the focus needs to shift from yield maximiza- tion towards feed and other inputs optimization. However, there is no one-size- fits-all solution, and innovative practices tailored towards the needs of production systems should be considered.

Importance of the miscellaneous elements of StAnD The miscellaneous elements are those that could not be categorized under the Three-P pillars of StAnD. Re-use of food waste after ensuring its safety in animal diets was given the top priority, which was followed by Giving incentives to promote production and use of StAnD. The elements Use of feed ingredients produced through high-input agriculture, and GMO crops and food grains in ruminant feed, did not receive high prominence, suggesting their avoidance in the production and use of StAnD (Figure 6). Approximately one-third of food produced is wasted (FAO, 2011), and to increase the overall resource use efficiency to decrease water and carbon footprints, it is imperative that waste should be decreased, and its use as animal feed is one of the attractive options. For countries in the tropics, micro- bial contamination, and especially infestation with mycotoxin-producing fungi,

7 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 6 Importance of other elements of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD)

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

Use/feeding of StAnD should be given incentives 3.57

Production of StAnD should be given incentives 3.59

StAnD should ‘ Use feed ingredient 2.51 produced through high input agriculture’

StAnD should ‘Use GMO crops’ 2.52

StAnD should ‘Use food grains in ruminants feed’ 2.75

StAnD should ‘Use food grains in 3.21 monogastrics feed’

StAnD should ‘Reuse food waste after 4.21 ensuring its safety’

StAnD should ‘Contain a feed ingredient 2.61 |produced using public subsidies’

2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

would be an important aspect to consider. Very high ranking (importance) given to this parameter of using food waste in animal diets must inspire researchers and policy-makers to give serious thought to this option and to transforming food waste into a feed resource.

Extent of agreement of stakeholders on integration of the ethical dimension into StAnD Almost 85% of the respondents acknowledged that the Ethical dimension should be integrated into the concept. Some were of the opinion that it should be a part of the People dimensions of StAnD, and animal welfare must be included in StAnD (Figure 7). Generally, sustainability in the conventional sense takes into consideration the Three-P dimensions. A strong opinion given by respondents to integrate ethics into the sustainability of the animal diets illustrates that the ethical dimension must be integrated into the sustainability considerations. Who should take the initiative to re-structure feed production system for meeting StAnD requirements? According to respondents the initiative should first be taken by Farmers and farmers’ associations, followed by scientists, Regulatory bodies, and Industry (in that order) (Figure 8). These observations suggest that role of policy makers and private industry partners is equally important. There are

8 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 7 Extent of agreement of stakeholders on integration of the ethical dimensions into Sustainable Animal Diets

Key: 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree

49.04%

35.15%

12.05%

1.34% 2.43%

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Figure 8 Bodies or organizations that should take initiative first to re-structure the feed production system for meeting the requirements of Sustainable Animal Diets

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

Regulatory bodies 3.94

Civil societies 3.59

Farmers and farmers' associations 4.29

Academia 4.25

Industry 3.92

Consumers (claiming for more sustainable production 3.70 practices/systems) 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

9 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 9 Modalities to put the concept of Sustainable Animal Diets into sound management practices

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

Promote "green procurement 3.83 practices"among customers

Achieve broad stakeholder 4.10 engagement

Secure corporate 3.78 commitment to StAnD

Create environmental certiﬁcations for products 3.91 obtained by using StAnD

Make civil societies aware 4.00 of the beneﬁts of StAnD

Make consumers aware of the beneﬁts of StAnD 4.28

Introduce incentives for feed 3.64 industries to produce StAnD

Introduce incentives for farmers for using StAnD 3.86

Encourage industry to develop voluntary guidelines 3.90 and to follow them

Develop guidelines/good practices for StAnD 4.20

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

different ways in which these bodies can play their part, and some of the options have been identified through this survey (see next section).

Modalities through which the StAnD concept can be put into sound management practices For putting the StAnD concept into practice, the Need for making consumers aware of its benefit was given the first ranking, followed by Development of guidelines and practices, Achievement of broad stakeholder engagement, and Making civil society aware of the benefits of StAnD (Figure 9). Good and transparent communication between all stakeholders is vital for the successful implementation of StAnD. There would be a strong need to inform all stakeholders of the benefits of StAnD to achieve their broad engagement. This will also enable the bodies identified in the previous section to take initiative to implement the StAnD concept.

10 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 10 Importance of Planet, People, Profit and Ethical dimension of Sustainable Animal Diets (of 100 votes, casting of votes for each pillar in the current and ideal situations)

19.6

20.6 Ideal 28.8 Ethics 31.1 Proﬁt

People

Planet 13.5

40.4 Current 24.7

21.4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

All stakeholders should also join forces in developing guidelines and practices for putting the StAnD concept into practice.

Importance of Planet, People, Profit and Ethical dimension of StAnD The respondents were asked to cast a vote (out of 100) to each of these four pillars in the current situation and in a desired ideal situation. The respondents were of the opinion that at present there is much emphasis on generating profit, while the other three dimensions of sustainability—Planet, People and Ethics—are being neglected, and under ideal conditions the weight given to the Profit dimension should be halved from 40 units to almost 20 units and importance to Planet, Ethics and People dimensions should be enhanced (importance in the order mentioned) (Figure 10). This does not mean that livestock farming will be less profitable but the profitability could be achieved by taking better consideration of other dimensions of the StAnD concept. In summary, the respondents were from all the continents. The opinions reflected are from both developing and developed countries. The important elements (in the order mentioned) for each pillar of the StAnD concept are listed below, and these could provide a focus in future follow-up studies and action.

Planet dimension • Minimize water pollution • Not lead to deforestation and land degradation • Minimize air pollution • Preferably use locally available feed resources.

11 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

People dimension • Animal products should be affordable to consumers • Promote and preserve local knowledge • No competition with human food • Avoid exacerbation of unfavourable legal processes (e.g. land grab)

Profit dimension • Need to internalize socio-environmental costs to the true cost of production • Enhance benefit:cost ratio for all stakeholders from the livestock sector • Not enhance volatility in price of feed ingredients

Other elements • Re-use food waste in animal diets • Give incentives to promote production and use of StAnD • Not use food grains in monogastric diets Not use food grains in ruminant diets (Note: the change proposed is towards decreasing grains in animal diets, more so in ruminant diets). There was a strong agreement on integration of the ethical dimension into the StAnD concept. In order to re-structure feed productions system for meeting StAnD requirements, the initiative should first be taken by Farmers and farmers’ associations, followed by Academia, Regulatory bodies (include Policy makers) and Industry. For implementing the StAnD concept there is a need for making consumers aware of its benefits. Other modalities suggested were: Develop guidelines and practices, Achieve broad stakeholder engagement, and Make civil society aware of the benefits of StAnD, as well as of the unsustainability of current systems in the face of climate change impact on future crop yields (and prices). As a general agreement, it appeared that currently high emphasis is given to generating profit, while the other three dimensions of sustainability—Planet, People and Ethics—are being neglected, and that under ideal conditions the importance given to the Profit element should be lowered and that to the Planet, Ethics and People dimensions should be enhanced.

Regional views The Regional distribution of respondents is given in Figure 11. There was a good distribution of respondents across all regions. From all regions, most respondents were from the field of animal nutrition. Most animal health experts that contributed to the study were from SSA, followed by LAC, while animal welfare experts were most from Europe (16.0%) and then from North America (14.3%), and fewest (0.9%) from E&SEA. Farm management and technology transfer experts were also in considerable numbers (5.3 to 16.9%) in all regions except for Oceania (Table 2).

12 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 11 Regional distribution of the respondents

East or Southeast Asia 9.5% Sub-Saharan Africa 18.4%

South Asia Europe 10.5% 28.3%

Oceania 4.9%

North America 7.6%

North Africa/Middle East Latin America/Caribbean 5.3% 15.4%

Table 2. Field of expertise of respondents in different regions North South E&SEA Europe LAC NENA America Oceania Asia SSA Animal nutrition 63.2% 32.2% 48.4% 58.7% 41.8% 44.1% 54.8% 41.4%

Animal health 8.8% 7.1% 12.5% 9.5% 6.6% 1.7% 7.1% 15.9%

Animal welfare 0.9% 16.0% 10.9% 1.6% 14.3% 8.5% 4.8% 2.7%

Animal genetics 7.0% 1.2% 3.3% 7.9% 3.3% 3.4% 4.8% 7.7%

Farm management 5.3% 9.5% 7.1% 11.1% 6.6% 16.9% 5.6% 5.0%

Extension & 9.6% 7.4% 8.7% 4.8% 6.6% 0.0% 11.9% 10.9% technology transfer Social science 0.0% 5.9% 1.6% 1.6% 5.5% 0.0% 2.4% 2.7%

Economics 0.9% 3.3% 1.1% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.8% 2.3%

Science management 0.9% 4.1% 3.8% 1.6% 2.2% 8.5% 0.8% 5.5%

Policy 1.8% 10.4% 2.2% 1.6% 7.7% 8.5% 5.6% 5.9%

Not working 1.8% 3.0% 0.5% 1.6% 3.3% 8.5% 1.6% 0.0%

13 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Table 3. Importance of the elements of the Planet dimension in different regions Regions that gave higher Region that gave Elements importance than the average lowest importance Not use antibiotics and NENA, Europe, LAC, SSA North America < Oceania synthetic growth promoters Preferably use locally SSA, South Asia, E&SEA, LACs North America < Oceania available feed resources Use minimum energy LACs, South Asia=Europe, SSA North America< Oceania Use minimum water LACs, Europe, South Asia, SSA Oceania < North America Minimum C-footprint South Asia, LAC, SSA, E&SEA, Oceania ¸< NENA Europe Minimize water pollution LACs, SSA, NENA Oceania < North America Minimize air pollution SSA, LAC, NENA, E&SEA, Oceania < North America South Asia Enhance resilience of livestock SSA, LAC, NENA North America production system Not lead to deforestation and SSA, LAC, NENA, Europe Oceania < North America land degradation Enhance or at least do not SSA, LAC, NENA, South Asia Oceania < North America decrease biodiversity Respect landscape diversity and LAC, SSA, South Asia, E&SEA Oceania < North America aesthetic value

Importance of the StAnD elements that aim to protect environment and natural resource base The regional scores, which are reflection of the ranking of different elements of StAnD, are given in Figure 12. In the Planet dimension of sustainability, regions responded in different manners. Salient findings from this figure are presented in Table 3. Out of 11 elements, SSA was either at number one or two for eight elements and LAC for nine elements, suggesting that these two regions are highly sensitive to the environmental issues related to StAnD. The regions that gave low importance to the environmental issues were North America and Oceania. A number of analyses state that higher negative impact is expected to be elicited by the environmental problems, including global warming in SSA and other parts of the developing world, and this could be the reason for these regions being more sensitive to the elements that aim to protect the environment.

Importance of the socio-cultural elements of StAnD that provide benefits for people Regional ranking of different elements are given in Figure 13. In the People dimension of sustainability, regions responded in different manners. Important findings from this figure are presented in Table 4. Overall, higher importance was given to socio-cultural elements by SSA, LAC and South Asia. Developing countries appear to be more sensitive to socio-cultural issues than developed countries. This could be a reflection of many socio-cultural reasons for which the farmers keep livestock in developing countries, while in developed countries livestock are kept mainly for producing animal products for sale.

14 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 12 Importance of the elements of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD) that aim to protect environment and natural resource base (Planet dimension of sustainability)

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

3.75 4.09 StAnD should 3.99 'Not use antibiotic or 4.11 synthetic growth 2.97 promoters' 3.42 3.66 3.78 3.82

4.36 4.09 StAnD should 4.33 'Preferably use locally 4.33 available feed resources' 3.45 3.71 4.44 4.60 4.23 East or Southeast Asia 3.56 3.92 Europe Production of StAnD 3.93 3.62 and its feeding should Latin America/ 'Use minimum energy' 3.52 3.58 Caribbean 3.92 3.85 North Africa/ 3.81 Middle East

3.49 North America 3.84 Production of StAnD 3.99 Oceania and its feeding should 3.65 'Use minimum water' 3.63 3.47 South Asia 3.83 3.71 Sub-Saharan 3.76 Africa

4.05 Overall Average 4.03 Production of StAnD 4.16 and its feeding should 3.71 'Leave minimum carbon 3.74 footprint' 3.54 4.25 4.12 4.03

4.54 4.47 Production of StAnD 4.77 and its feeding should 4.76 'Minimize water 4.40 4.41 pollution' 4.51 4.70 4.58

(cont.)

15 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 12 (cont.)

2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

4.40 4.20 4.47 Production of StAnD and its feeding should 4.41 'Minimize air pollution' 4.08 4.10 4.37 4.53 4.33

4.04 4.04 Production of StAnD 4.30 and its feeding should 4.14 'Enhance resilience of 3.90 the livestock production 4.05 system' 4.16 East or 4.58 Southeast Asia 4.19 Europe

4.42 Latin America/ 4.53 Caribbean Production of StAnD 4.69 and its feeding should 4.62 North Africa/ 'Not lead to 4.33 Middle East deforestation and land 4.25 degradation' 4.47 North America 4.68 4.54 Oceania

South Asia 4.05 4.14 Sub-Saharan Production of StAnD 4.42 Africa and its feeding should 4.25 'Enhance or at least do 3.84 Overall Average not decrease biodiversity' 3.81 4.18 4.38 4.19

3.86 3.68 Production of StAnD 3.94 and its feeding should 3.81 'Respect landscape 3.43 diversity and aesthetic 3.37 value' 3.90 3.91 3.77

16 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 13 Importance of the socio-cultural elements of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD) that provide benefits for people (People dimension of sustainability)

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

3.71 3.70 4.01 Production of StAnD and its feeding should 4.00 'Consider social aspects 3.47 of rearing livestock' 3.41 3.98 4.10 3.83

3.75 3.63 Production of StAnD 3.95 and its feeding should 3.90 'Not be culturally 3.41 offensive to producers 3.34 and consumers of the East or animal products' 3.97 4.09 Southeast Asia 3.79 Europe

3.60 Latin America/ 3.41 Caribbean Production of StAnD 3.53 and its feeding should 4.03 North Africa/ 'Respect perceptions, 3.29 Middle East beliefs, values, taboos 3.02 and be socially 3.79 acceptable' North America 3.90 3.58 Oceania

South Asia 3.27 3.17 Sub-Saharan 3.32 Africa Production of StAnD 3.43 and its feeding should 3.14 Overall Average 'Empower women' 2.92 3.99 3.94 3.43

3.28 3.05 Production of StAnD 3.66 and its feeding should 3.46 'Break social barriers and 2.93 promote social harmony' 2.73 3.75 3.78 3.37

(cont.)

17 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 13 (cont.)

2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

3.71 4.07 Production of StAnD 4.09 and its feeding should 3.83 'Avoid exacerbation of 3.73 unfavorable legal processes' 3.66 (e.g. ‘land grab’) 3.95 4.22 3.99

3.60 3.56 4.14 Production of StAnD 3.70 and its feeding should 3.38 'Be a part of corporate social policy' 3.08 3.53 East or 3.72 Southeast Asia 3.65 Europe

3.89 Latin America/ 4.00 Caribbean Production of StAnD 4.27 and its feeding should 4.11 North Africa/ 'Promote and preserve 3.58 Middle East local knowledge' (e.g. biodiversity 3.34 management) 4.20 North America 4.29 4.05 Oceania

South Asia 4.07 3.98 Sub-Saharan 4.06 Production of StAnD Africa 4.32 and its feeding should 3.57 not 'Compete with Overall Average human food' 3.47 4.24 4.14 4.02

4.22 3.97 Production of StAnD 4.29 and its feeding should 4.59 'Result in animal 3.84 products that are 3.88 affordable to consumers' 4.44 4.53 4.22

18 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Table 4. Importance of the elements of the People dimension in different regions Regions that gave higher Region that gave Element importance than the average lowest importance Consider social aspects of rearing SSA, LAC, South Asia Oceania < North America livestock Not be culturally offensive to SSA, South Asia,LAC, NENA Oceania < North America producers and consumers Respect perceptions, beliefs, values, NENA, SSA, South Asia Oceania < North America taboos and be socially acceptable Empower women South Asia, SSA, NENA Oceania < North America Break social barriers and SSA, South Asia, LAC, NENA Oceania < North America promote social harmony Be a part of corporate social policy LAC, SSA, South Asia, NENA Oceania < North America Promote and preserve local SSA, LAC, South Asia, NENA, Oceania < North America knowledge Europe Not compete with human food NENA, South Asia, SSA, Oceania < North America E&SEA, LAC Animal products affordable to NENA, SSA, South Asia, LAC, North America < Oceania consumers

Importance of the economic elements of StAnD The scores given by respondents from different regions are given in Figure 14. SSA, South Asia, LAC and NENA gave higher importance to increasing benefit:cost ratio than the global average. To the issue that the production and feeding of the diets should take into account Environmental and social costs of negative externalities, LAC, SSA, South Asia and Europe (in that order) gave higher importance than the global average, while Oceania and North America gave the lowest score. Amongst the developed parts of the world, Europe appears to be in higher favour of taking into account the environmental and social costs of negative externalities than do North America and Oceania. Higher sensitivities of developing countries than developed countries for these elements has been evident from the results presented in Part 1 of Section 3 of this document (‘Global view‘). The results there have helped to rank different regions for their sensitivities towards these elements. That Produc- tion of StAnD should not enhance volatility in price of feed ingredients received a higher score (higher importance) from SSA, NENA, South Asia and LAC. Least importance was given to this element by North America. Constraints such as poor infrastructure, climatic vagaries, low access to resources and technologies, and low human skills, amongst others, make developing countries more vulnerable to volatility in prices.

Importance of miscellaneous elements of StAnD The scores given by respondents from different regions are presented in Figure 15. A synthesis of the results is given in Table 5. The degree of acceptability for use of grains in monogastric diets was higher than in ruminant diets, suggesting the need to decrease grain use in diets of animals, but more so in ruminant diets. Respon- dents from Oceania and North America gave higher score to the use of GMO than the global average. Use of GMO crops and Feed ingredients produced through

19 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 14 Importance of the economic elements of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD) (Profit dimension of sustainability)

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

4.00

3.73

4.33

Production of StAnD 4.32 and its feeding should 'Enhance Beneﬁt: 3.67 Cost ratio for all stakeholders' 3.75

4.35

4.38

4.06

East or Southeast Asia 4.24 Europe Production of StAnD 4.38 and its feeding should Latin America/ 4.59 take into account Caribbean 'Environmental and 4.29 social costs of negative North Africa/ externalities such as 4.02 Middle East environmental degradation, 3.92 North America greenhouse gas emissions and loss of 4.42 Oceania biodiversity' 4.48 South Asia 4.36 Sub-Saharan Africa

3.91 Overall Average

3.88

4.17

Production of StAnD 4.27 should not 'Enhance volatility in 3.69 prices of feed ingredients' 3.78

4.24

4.35

4.05

20 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 15 Importance of the elements of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD)

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

2.50 2.45 2.25 2.33 StAnD should ‘Use GMO crops’ 3.04 3.36 2.60 2.42 2.62

2.52 2.49

2.20 East or StAnD should 2.81 Southeast Asia ‘Use feed ingredient produced through high 2.68 Europe input agriculture’ 3.02 2.36 Latin America/ 2.59 Caribbean 2.58 North Africa/ Middle East

3.84 North America 3.46 3.56 Oceania 3.75 South Asia 3.26 3.07 Production of StAnD Sub-Saharan should be given 3.68 Africa incentives 3.85 Overall Average 3.56

3.71 3.46 3.68 3.87 3.25 3.02 Use/feeding of StAnD should be given 3.65 incentives 3.74 3.55

(cont.)

21 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 15 (cont.)

2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

3.06 2.38 2.50 StAnD should 3.08 ‘Contain a feed ingredient produced 2.30 using public subsidies’ 2.08 2.96 2.75 2.64

4.18 4.14

4.20 East or StAnD should 4.24 Southeast Asia ‘Reuse food waste after 4.07 ensuring its safety’ Europe 4.25 4.31 Latin America/ 4.32 Caribbean 4.21 North Africa/ Middle East

3.45 North America 3.11 2.66 Oceania 3.35 South Asia 3.27 3.37 StAnD should Sub-Saharan ‘Use food grains in 3.33 Africa monogastrics feed’ 3.54 Overall Average 3.26

2.96 2.57 2.34 2.89 2.97 3.17 StAnD should ‘Use food grains in 2.94 ruminants feed’ 2.92 2.84

22 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Table 5. Importance given to other elements of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD) by different regions Regions that gave higher Regions giving lowest Elements importance than the average importance Contain a feed ingredient NENA, E&SEA, South Asia, Oceania < North America produced using public subsidies SSA Re-use food waste High importance given by North America after ensuring its safety all regions. SSA, South Asia, NENA Use food grains All regions except LAC, LAC < Europe in monogastric feed and Europe Use food grains in ruminant feed All regions except LAC and LAC < Europe Europe Should use GMO Oceania, North America LAC < NENA Should use feed ingredients Oceania, NENA LAC < South Asia produced through high-input agriculture Production SSA, E&SEA, NENA, Oceania < North America of StAnD be given incentives South Asia Use of StAnD NENA, SSA, E&SEA, LAC, Oceania < North America be given incentives South Asia

high-input systems was given low importance by respondents from LAC, despite that this region produces substantial amounts of GMO crops. Developing countries gave higher importance to the Use of incentives in production and use of StAnD than developed countries.

Extent of agreement of stakeholders on integration of the ethical dimension into StAnD Respondents from almost all regions except Oceania gave a high score, close to the global average, to the integration of ethical dimensions into StAnD (Figure 16a). A small number of respondents in each of the regions, varying from 2.4% to 10.2%, did not agree to the integration of the ethical dimension. The number was 6.6% in Oceania and 10.2% in North America (Figure 16b), suggesting lower sensitivity of these regions towards ethical issues of StAnD.

Who should take initiative first to re-structure the feed production system for meeting the StAnD requirements? The details of the ranking are given in Figure 17. For each region, three bodies or organizations that should take the initiative to re-structure the feed production system for meeting the requirements of Sustainable Animal Diets are given in Table 6. The analysis show that in developed countries, Farmers and farmers’ associations should take the lead in putting into practice the concept of StAnD, while in developing countries the responsibility fell on Academia. In addition, the roles of Regu- latory bodies and of Industry were also considered important.

23 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 16a Extent of agreement on integration of the ethical dimensions into Sustainable Animal Diets. Relative agreement in different regions

Key: 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree. 5.00

4.50 4.38

4.24 4.23 4.11 4.10 4.09 4.08 3.99 4.00 3.73

3.50

Europe East or Oceania Africa South Asia Caribben North Aﬁca/ Sub-Saharan Latin America/ Middle EastNorth America Overall Average Southeast Asia

Figure 16b Extent of agreement on integration of the ethical dimensions into Sustainable Animal Diets? Percentage respondents in different regions on the extent of agreement

Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

100%

90% 20.3 24.6 27.2 29.7 35.2 80% 39.7 39.1 48.4 70%

60% 47.5 50% 47.3 58.8 44.4 63.5 40% 44.4 50.5 30% 42.9

20% 22.0 16.5 15.4 10% 11.4 15.9 5.1 9.5 7.3 7.1 5.5 4.1 5.1 0.5 0% 2.6 0.9 1.6 1.1 2.4 2.7

Europe East or Oceania Africa South Asia Caribben North Aﬁca/ Sub-Saharan Latin America/ Middle East North America Southeast Asia

24 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 17 Bodies and organizations that should take the initiative to re-structure the feed production system for meeting the requirements of Sustainable Animal Diets

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

3.58 3.75 Consumers 4.09 (claiming for more 3.59 sustainable production 3.45 3.51 practices/systems) 3.60 3.60 3.65

3.92 3.96 3.83 3.87 Industry 3.88 4.00 4.06 3.88 3.93 East or 4.25 Southeast Asia 4.00 4.34 Europe 4.60 Scientists 4.07 3.97 Latin America/ 4.47 Caribbean 4.49 4.27 North Africa/ Middle East 4.15 4.30 North America 4.39 4.38 Farmers and Oceania farmers' associations 4.27 4.14 4.21 South Asia 4.32 4.27 Sub-Saharan Africa 3.61 3.58 3.89 Overall Average 3.73 Civil societies 3.30 3.12 3.59 3.54 3.54

4.11 3.81 4.20 4.08 Regulatory bodies 3.37 3.17 4.21 4.10 3.88

25 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Table 6. Regional presentation of three bodies that should take first initiative to re-structure production system to meet the requirements of Sustainable Animal Diets Region Body 1 Body 2 Body 3 E&SEA Scientists Farmers and Regulatory bodies farmers’ associations Europe Farmers and Scientists Industry farmers’ associations LAC Farmers and Scientists Regulatory bodies farmers’ associations NENA Scientists Farmers and Regulatory bodies farmers’ associations North Farmers and Scientists Industry America farmers’ associations Oceania Farmers and Industry Scientists farmers’ associations South Asia Scientists Regulatory bodies Farmers and farmers’ associations SSA Scientists Farmers and Regulatory bodies farmers’ associations

Table 7. Regional presentation of three top modalities for putting the Sustainable Animal Diet (StAnD) concept into practice Region Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 E&SEA Develop guidelines and Make consumers aware Create environmental good practices of the benefits of StAnD certification for products obtained by using StAnD Europe Make consumers aware Develop guidelines and Achieve broad stakeholder of the benefits of StAnD good practices engagement LAC Make consumers aware Make civil society aware Achieve broad stakeholder of the benefits of StAnD of the benefits of StAnD engagement NENA Make consumers aware Develop guidelines and Create environmental of the benefits of StAnD good practices certification for products obtained by using StAnD North Develop guidelines and Achieve broad Encourage Industry to America good practices stakeholder engagement develop voluntary guidelines and to follow them Oceania Make consumers aware Achieve broad Develop guidelines and of the benefits of StAnD stakeholder engagement good practices South Asia Make consumers aware Develop guidelines and Make civil society aware of of the benefits of StAnD good practices the benefits of StAnD SSA Develop guidelines / Make consumers aware Achieve broad stakeholder good practices of the benefits of StAnD engagement

Modalities through which the StAnD concept can be put into sound management practices The details on the scores received from respondents are given in Figure 18; and for each region, top three modalities of putting the concept into practices are presented in Table 7. The suggested options that could be applied to all regions are: Develop guideline and good practices, Make consumers and civil society aware of the benefits of StAnD, and Achieve broad stakeholder engagement.

26 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 18 Modalities for putting the concept of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD) into sound management practices

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

4.23 4.01 4.25 4.30 Develop guidelines/good 4.10 practices for StAnD 4.07 4.23 4.48 4.21

3.85 3.84 3.98 Encourage industry 3.79 to develop voluntary guidelines and to 3.82 follow them 3.76 East or 3.99 Southeast Asia 3.99 3.88 Europe

Latin America/ 3.98 Caribbean 3.81 4.02 North Africa/ 4.16 Middle East Introduce incentives for 3.57 farmers for using StAnD 3.20 North America 3.83 4.00 Oceania 3.82 South Asia 3.76 Sub-Saharan 3.53 Africa 3.79 4.03 Introduce incentives Overall Average for feed industries to 3.21 produce StAnD 3.20 3.62 3.83 3.62

4.18 4.22 4.58 4.35 Make consumers aware 3.76 of the beneﬁts of StAnD 4.10 4.40 4.34 4.24

(cont.)

27 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 18 (cont.)

2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

3.92 3.99 4.34 4.16 Make civil societies aware 3.47 of the beneﬁts of StAnD 3.63 4.09 3.98 3.95

4.10 3.72 4.21 Create environmental 4.30 certiﬁcations for 3.48 products obtained by 3.34 East or using StAnD 4.00 Southeast Asia 4.02 3.90 Europe

Latin America/ 3.88 Caribbean 3.71 3.96 North Africa/ 3.94 Middle East Secure corporate 3.49 commitment to StAnD 3.58 North America 3.83 3.80 Oceania 3.77 South Asia

3.87 Sub-Saharan 4.04 Africa 4.43 3.86 Achieve broad Overall Average 3.93 stakeholder engagement 4.10 4.06 4.19 4.06

3.89 3.73 4.16 Promote "green 3.81 procurement practices" 3.32 among customers 3.42 4.05 3.90 3.79

28 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Table 8. Regional percentage unit shift from current to an ideal situation Planet People Profit Ethics Region Current Ideal Current Ideal Current Ideal Current Ideal 20.5 29.2 27.5 30.2 39.0 23.9 13.0 16.7 E&SEA + 8.7 + 2.7 - 15.1 + 3.7 21.5 33.4 21.9 28.0 43.1 18.3 13.5 20.3 Europe + 11.9 + 6.1 - 24.8 + 6.8 20.7 30.4 21.9 27.7 44.7 19.8 12.8 22.1 LAC + 9.7 + 5.8 - 24.9 + 9.3 20.5 29.5 24.8 29.1 41.6 22.7 13.1 18.7 NENA + 9.0 + 4.3 - 18.9 + 5.6 North 18.3 31.3 22.8 25.5 45.1 20.9 13.8 22.2 America + 13.0 + 2.7 - 24.2 + 8.4 22.7 30.4 26.6 27.5 36.2 22.9 14.5 19.2 Oceania + 7.7 + 0.9 - 13.3 + 4.7 23.0 30.0 29.3 31.5 34.5 21.4 13.3 17.1 South Asia + 7.0 + 2.2 - 13.1 + 3.8 22.6 30.2 27.6 30.2 35.6 21.2 14.2 18.5 SSA + 7.6 + 2.6 - 14.4 + 4.3

For most regions these modalities should be effective. The regional identified modalities are in general agreement with those identified through ‘Global view’ (Part 1 of Section 3).

Shift in the importance of the Planet, People, Profit and Ethical dimensions of StAnD For each of the four categories of StAnD, regional shifts in emphasis from the current to an ideal situation of sustainability is presented in Table 8. Overall, realization of StAnD demands shifts in all dimensions of sustainability in all regions. The shifts were consistent in all regions, with the magnitude of change did not differ drastically across all the regions. Increase in importance to the issues that affect environment (increase by 7 to 13 percentiles), people (increase by 2.7 to 6.1 percentiles, except in Oceania where the increase desired was only 0.9 percentiles) and ethics (increase by 3.7 to 9.3 percentiles) and lowering of importance assigned to profit generation by 13.1 to 24.9 percentiles in the different regions. While keeping animal products affordable for consumers (respondents had strong opinions concerning this element) and making a profit, the general opinion appears to be that the production and use of StAnD should give more importance to the Planet and People dimensions, and less to the Profit. The derive to generate profit should not lead to degradation of environment and negligence of socio-cultural aspects. The reduction in the relative relevance of the Profit with respect to the Planet and People dimensions is acceptable to the people as long as gains are made towards enriching the Planet and People dimensions It also does not mean making livestock farming less profitable. The profitability can be maintained or enhanced by taking better care of other dimension of the StAnD concept.

29 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Summation of the Regional view In summary, there was a good distribution of respondents across all regions. Re- spondents from Two regions, SSA and LAC, were highly sensitive to the environmental issues, while those from North America and Oceania gave low importance to these issues. In the People dimension of StAnD, overall, higher importance was given to socio-cultural elements by respondents from SSA, LAC and South Asia. Those from Developing countries were more sensitive to socio-cultural issues than respondents from developed ones. Stakeholders in SSA, South Asia, LAC and NENA gave higher importance to increase in benefit:cost ratio than the global average. Those in LAC, SSA, South Asia and Europe (in that order) gave higher importance to the need to take into account environmental and social costs of negative externalities in the production and feeding of diets, while respondents in Oceania and North America were least sensitive towards this criterion. Stakeholders in SSA, NENA, South Asia and LAC gave a high score to the production of StAnD without enhancing volatility in price of feed ingredients, while those North America gave lowest importance to this criterion. On other miscellaneous elements, stakeholders in LAC and Europe appear to be less inclined to include grains in animal diets. The degree of acceptability to grains in monogastric diets was higher than in ruminant diets, suggesting the need to decrease grain use in diets of animals, but more so for ruminants. Respondents in Oceania and North America gave higher scores to the use of GMO than the global average. Use of GMO crops and feed ingredients produced through high-input systems was given low importance by respondents in LAC, despite this region producing substantial amounts of GMO crops. Stakeholders in Developing countries gave higher importance to the Use of incentives in production and use of StAnD than did those in developed countries. Respondents from almost all regions highlighted the need to integrate ethical dimensions into StAnD. In developed countries, Farmers and farmers’ associations should take the lead in introducing the StAnD concept in practice, while in developing countries the responsibility fell on Academia. In addition, the roles of Regulatory bodies and of Industry were also considered important. Modalities that could be applied in all regions to translate the StAnD concept into practice were: Develop guideline and good practices; Make consumers and civil society aware of the benefits of StAnD; and Achieve broad stakeholder engagement. The realization of StAnD demands shift in all dimensions of sustainability in all regions, with the shift being of almost the same magnitude in all regions. For keeping animal products affordable for consumers (respondents stressed this element) and making a profit, the general opinion was that production and use of StAnD should give higher importance to the Planet and People dimensions, and lower to the Profit dimension.

Sectoral views Of the 1 195 respondents, 931 provided information on their sector. The largest contribution was from the Academia and least from International organizations. A good number of respondents were from NGOs and livestock-sector industries (Figure 19; Table 9).

30 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 19 Sectoral percentage distribution of respondents

NGOs 9.0% International Organizations 2.0%

Industry 15.0%

Academia 67.0%

Consultant 7.0%

Importance of the StAnD elements that aim to protect the environment and the natural resource base In the Planet dimension of sustainability, different sectors responded differently (Figure 20). Important findings from this figure are presented in Table 10. For most of the elements related to environmental health, International organizations, NGOs and Academia gave high importance, while overall least importance was given by livestock-sector industries; however, other sectors appears to be more sensitive towards the elements that aim to protect the environment and natural resource base. Recently, using a life cycle analysis approach, some activities (LEAP, 2013-2014) have been initiated by the livestock industry for estimating the environmental impact of their activities.

Table 9. Number of respondents from different sectors Sector No. of respondents Academia 623 Consultant 66 Livestock-sector Industry 145 International organization 15 NGOs 82 Total 931

31 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 20 Importance of the elements of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD) that aim to protect the environment and natural resource base (Planet dimension of sustainability)

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

3.83 3.83 StAnD should 'Not use antibiotic or 3.68 synthetic growth 4.20 promoters' 4.11 3.84

4.36 4.36 StAnD should 3.87 'Preferably use locally 4.27 available feed resources' 4.40 4.29

3.84 3.82 Production of StAnD 3.71 Academia and its feeding should 3.87 'Use minimum energy' Consultant 4.10 3.84 Industry

International 3.79 Organizations 3.76 Production of StAnD 3.57 and its feeding should NGOs 'Use minimum water' 3.93 4.02 Overall Average 3.78

4.07 4.09 Production of StAnD and its feeding should 3.88 'Leave minimum 4.27 carbon footprint' 4.22 4.06

4.62 Production of StAnD 4.61 and its feeding should 4.51 'Minimize water 4.80 pollution' 4.50 4.60

(cont.)

32 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 20 (cont.)

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

4.38 4.30

Production of StAnD 4.23 and its feeding should 4.40 'Minimize air pollution' 4.30 4.35

4.21 4.17 Production of StAnD and its feeding should 4.10 'Enhance resilience 4.33 of the livestock 4.30 production system' 4.19 Academia

Consultant 4.57 4.58 Production of StAnD Industry and its feeding should 4.57 'Not lead to 4.40 International deforestation and land 4.59 Organizations degradation' 4.57 NGOs

Overall Average 4.21 Production of StAnD 4.21 and its feeding should 4.10 'Enhance or at least do 4.20 not decrease biodiversity' 4.37 4.21

3.78 Production of StAnD 3.91 and its feeding should 3.63 ''Respect landscape diversity and 4.00 aesthetic value' 3.99 3.79

Importance of the socio-cultural elements of StAnD that provide benefits for people Different sectors gave varied levels of importance to the socio-cultural elements (Figure 21; Table 11). Overall, higher importance was given to socio-cultural elements by NGOs, International organizations and Academia, while Industry was least sensitive towards these elements, which is to some extent understandable (Table 11).

33 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Table 10. Importance of the elements of the Planet dimension of Sustainable Animal Diets by different sectors Sectors that gave higher Sector that gave Elements importance than the average lowest importance Not use antibiotics and synthetic International organizations, NGOs Industry growth promoters Preferably use locally available NGOs, Academia, Consultants Industry feed resources Use minimum energy NGOs, International organizations Industry Use minimum water NGOs, International organizations Industry Minimum C-footprint International organizations, NGOs, Industry Academia, Consultants Minimize water pollution International organizations, Academia Industry Minimize air pollution International organizations, Academia Industry Enhance resilience of livestock All sectors except Industry Industry production system Not lead to deforestation and All sectors equal to global average International land degradation except International organizations organizations Enhance or at least do not NGOs, other sectors equal to global Industry decrease biodiversity average except Industry Respect landscape diversity and International organizations, NGOs, Industry aesthetic value Consultants

Table 11. Salient findings on the importance of the socio-cultural elements of Sustainable Animal Diets for different sectors Sector that gave higher Sector that gave Elements importance than the average lowest importance Consider social aspects of rearing NGOs, International organizations, Industry livestock Academia, Consultants Not be culturally offensive to All sectors except Industry very close to Industry producers and consumers global average Respect perceptions, beliefs, values, All sectors except Industry very close to Industry taboos and be socially acceptable global average Empower women International organizations, NGOs, Industry Consultants, Academia Break social barriers and promote NGOs, Academia, International Industry social harmony organizations Avoid exacerbation of unfavorable NGOs, Consultants Industry legal process (e.g. land grab) Be a part of corporate social policy Academia, other sectors except Industry Industry close to global average Promote and preserve local NGOs, International organizations, Industry knowledge Academia Not compete with human food Academia, NGOs Industry Animal products affordable to Academia, Industry NGOs consumers

34 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 21 Importance of the socio-cultural elements of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD) that provide benefits for people (People dimension of sustainability)

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

3.88 3.86 Production of StAnD and its feeding should 3.52 'Consider social aspects of 4.00 rearing livestock' 4.07 3.84

3.87 Production of StAnD 3.88 and its feeding should 'Not be culturally 3.72 offensive to producers 3.80 and consumers of the animal products' 3.82 3.83

Academia

3.68 Consultant 3.48 Production of StAnD Industry and its feeding should 3.34 'Respect perceptions, International beliefs, values, taboos 3.53 and be socially 3.60 Organizations acceptable' 3.60 NGOs

Overall Average 3.48 3.53 Production of StAnD 3.10 and its feeding should 4.00 'Empower women' 3.82 3.47

3.48 3.41 Production of StAnD and its feeding should 2.99 'Break social barriers and 3.47 promote social harmony' 3.57 3.40

(cont.)

35 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 21 (cont.)

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

4.00 Production of StAnD 4.08 and its feeding should 'Avoid exacerbation 3.95 of unfavorable legal 4.00 processes' (e.g. ‘land grab’) 4.13 4.01

3.71 3.61 Production of StAnD and its feeding should 3.46 'Be a part of corporate 3.67 social policy' 3.66 3.66

Academia

4.12 Consultant Production of StAnD 3.97 and its feeding should Industry 'Promote and preserve 3.77 local knowledge' 4.33 International (e.g. biodiversity Organizations management) 4.30 4.07 NGOs

Overall Average 4.11 3.88 Production of StAnD 3.72 and its feeding should 3.93 'Not compete with human food' 4.06 4.03

4.34

Production of StAnD 4.02 and its feeding should 4.27 'Result in animal products that are affordable to 4.07 consumers' 3.74 4.25

36 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 22 Importance of the elements of the profit dimension of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD)

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

4.11 4.09 Production of StAnD and its feeding should 4.18 'Enhance Beneﬁt: Cost 4.20 ratio for all stakeholders' 3.66 4.08

Academia Production of StAnD and 4.42 its feeding should take Consultant into account 4.45 'Environmental and social Industry costs of negative 4.15 externalities such as 4.47 environmental International degradation, greenhouse 4.49 Organizations gas emissions and loss of 4.38 biodiversity' NGOs

Overall Average 4.11 3.92 Production of StAnD should 'Not enhance 3.98 volatility in prices of 4.13 feed ingredients' 4.05 4.08

Importance of the economic elements of StAnD All sectors gave high importance to increasing benefit:cost ratio, although NGOs assigned this least importance. To the issue that the Production and feeding of the diets should take into account environmental and social costs of negative externalities, respondents from all sectors except Industry gave higher importance than the global average. That Production of StAnD should not enhance volatility in price of feed ingredients received a high score (higher importance) from respondents from Interna- tional organizations and Academia, and lowest from those from Industry (Figure 22).

37 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Table 12. Salient findings on the importance of miscellaneous elements given by different sectors Sector that gave higher Sector that gave Elements importance than the average lowest score Contain a feed ingredient Overall a low score, suggesting Consultants produced using public subsidies that StAnD should not contain a feed produced using public subsidies Re-use food waste after ensuring NGOs, Academia, Industry Consultants its safety Use food grains in monogastric Industry NGOs feed Use food grains in ruminant feed Industry NGOs Should use GMO Industry NGOs Should use feed ingredients Industry NGOs produced through high-input agriculture Production of StAnD be given Academia NGOs incentives Use of StAnD be given incentives Academia Consultants

Importance of the miscellaneous elements of StAnD The ranking of the elements by different sectors are presented in Figure 23 and salient findings from this figure in Table 12. Respondents from NGOs, Academia and Industry gave higher importance to the Re-use of food waste as feed. Com- pared with other sectors, Industry respondents showed a higher degree of accept- ance to the Use of food grains in the diets of monogastric and ruminants, and use of GMO feeds. Respondents from NGOs were less inclined to use them. Use of incentives in production and use of StAnD was favoured more by Academia than the other sectors.

Extent of agreement of stakeholders on integration of the ethical dimension into StAnD Respondents from almost all sectors except Industry gave a high score, showing higher willingness to integrate ethical dimensions into StAnD by these sectors. From all sectors except Industry, those disagreeing or strongly disagreeing were <5%. From Industry, 7.6% belonged to these two categories combined, and from International organizations none were in these categories. Also, most respondents from Industry were unsure whether ethical dimension should be integrated into StAnD.

38 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 23 Importance of the other elements of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD)

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

2.70 2.33 StAnD should ‘Contain a feed 2.39 ingredient produced 2.73 using public subsidies’ 2.72 2.62

4.25 3.98 StAnD should 4.21 Academia ‘Reuse food waste after 4.00 ensuring its safety’ Consultant 4.28 4.22 Industry

International Organizations 3.22 3.17 NGOs StAnD should 3.40 ‘Use food grains in Overall Average monogastrics feed’ 3.13 2.90 3.21

2.70 2.71

StAnD should 2.95 ‘Use food grains in 2.80 ruminants feed’ 2.79 2.75

(cont.)

39 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 23 (cont.)

1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

2.50 2.52 StAnD should ‘Use GMO crops’ 2.90 2.27 1.87 2.50

2.49 2.21 StAnD should ‘ Use feed 2.86 Academia ingredient produced 2.40 through high input Consultant agriculture’ 2.11 2.49 Industry

International Organizations 3.70 3.26 NGOs Production of StAnD 3.43 should be given Overall Average incentives 3.47 3.34 3.59

3.72 3.29

Use/feeding of StAnD 3.37 should be given 3.47 incentives 3.43 3.60

Who should take first initiative to re-structure the feed production system for meeting StAnD requirements? The scores given by stakeholders from different sectors are given in Figure 25, and from this figure for each region, three bodies or organizations that should take first initiative to re-structure the feed production system for meeting the requirements of Sus- tainable Animal Diets are presented in Table 13. The analysis shows that the initiative should first be taken by Academia, and then Farmers and farmers’ associations. Other bodies that could play an important role are Industry and Regulatory bodies (these include policy makers). It is interesting to note that Academia identified themselves as the spear head for change. In the opinion of Industry, NGOs and International organizations, the initiative should first be taken by Farmers and farmers’ associations.

40 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 24 Extent of agreement on integration of the ethical dimensions into Sustainable Animal Diets?

Key: 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree

Relative agreement from different sectors

4.50

4.29 4.20 4.08 4.13 4.14

4.00

3.84

3.50 Academia Consultant Industry International NGOs Overall Average Organizations

Percentage of respondents in different sectors on the extent of agreement

Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

100%

90% 23.4% 28.79% 26.7% 36.9% 80% 48.8%

70%

60%

46.2% 50%

53.03% 60.0% 40% 50.2%

30% 40.2%

20% 22.8%

10% 15.15% 6.1% 10.0% 13.3% 6.2% 1.6% 1.2% 3.03% 0% 1.3% 1.4% 3.7% Academia Consultant Industry International NGOs Organizations

41 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 25 Bodies or organizations that should take initiative first to re-structure the feed production system for meeting the requirements of Sustainable Animal Diets

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

3.72 Consumers 3.70 (claiming for more 3.47 sustainable production 3.60 practices/systems) 3.91 3.69

3.93 3.83 4.01 Industry 4.07 3.98 3.94

4.34 Academia 4.24 4.04 Consultant Scientists 4.00 4.26 Industry 4.28 International 4.29 Organizations 4.18 Farmers and farmers' 4.25 NGOs associations 4.47 4.54 Overall Average 4.30

3.65 3.50 3.17 Civil societies 3.93 4.02 3.60

4.00 3.70 3.51 Regulatory bodies 4.47 4.32 3.94

42 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Table 13. Sectoral presentation of three bodies that should take first initiative to re-structure production system to meet the requirements of Sustainable Animal Diets Sector Body 1 Body 2 Body 3 Academia Academia Farmers and farmers’ Regulatory bodies associations Consultants Academia Farmers and farmers’ Industry associations Industry Farmers and farmers’ Academia Industry associations NGOs Farmers and farmers’ Regulatory bodies Academia associations International Farmers and farmers’ Regulatory bodies Industry organizations associations

Table 14. Sectoral presentation of three top modalities for putting the Sustainable Animal Diet (StAnD) concept into sound management practice Region Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3

Academia Make consumers Develop guidelines / – Encourage Industry aware of the benefits good practices to develop voluntary of StAnD guidelines and to follow them – Introduce incentives for farmers for using StAnD Consultants Develop guidelines Make consumers Encourage Industry and good practices aware of the benefits to develop voluntary of StAnD guidelines and to follow them Industry Develop guidelines Make consumers Encourage Industry and good practices aware of the benefits to develop voluntary of StAnD guidelines and to follow them International Develop guidelines Make consumers Introduce incentives organizations and good practices aware of the benefits for farmers for using of StAnD StAnD NGOs Make consumers Develop guidelines Introduce incentives aware of the benefits and good practices for farmers for using of StAnD StAnD

Modalities through which the StAnD concept can be put into sound management practice The details of the scores (reflection of ranking or importance) from stakeholders from the different sectors are presented in Figure 26. For each sector, top three modalities of putting the concept into practices are given in Table 14. Make consumers aware of the benefits of StAnD, Develop guidelines and good practices, Encourage Industry to develop voluntary guidelines and to follow them, and Introduce incentives for farmers for using StAnD were the prominent modalities identified for implementing the concept on the ground. There has been good agreement among different groups of stakeholders for the modalities to be used, and broadly these are the same as identified through the Global analysis (Part 1 in Section 3).

43 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 26 Modalities for putting the concept of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD) into sound management practices

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

4.23 4.26 Develop guidelines/good 4.14 practices for StAnD 4.27 4.30 4.23

3.94 3.83 Encourage industry to develop voluntary 3.91 guidelines and to 3.73 follow them 3.82 3.92 Academia

Consultant 3.94 3.79 Industry Introduce incentives for 3.61 farmers for using StAnD 3.80 International 4.10 Organizations 3.89 NGOs

Overall Average 3.70 3.48 Introduce incentives for 3.49 feed industries to 3.67 produce StAnD 3.63 3.65

4.36 4.23 Make consumers aware 4.06 of the beneﬁts of StAnD 4.13 4.49 4.31

(cont.)

44 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 26 (cont.)

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

4.06 4.09 Make civil societies aware 3.66 of the beneﬁts of StAnD 4.00 4.38 4.02

4.01 3.95 Create environmental 3.56 certiﬁcations for products obtained by using StAnD 4.07 4.04 3.94 Academia

Consultant 3.85 3.73 Industry Secure corporate 3.71 commitment to StAnD 3.73 International Organizations 3.94 3.82 NGOs

Overall Average 4.11 4.12 Achieve broad 4.08 stakeholder engagement 4.07 4.24 4.12

3.89 3.88 Promote "green 3.63 procurement practices" 3.87 among customers 4.10 3.87

Shift in the importance of the Planet, People, Profit and Ethical dimensions of StAnD All sectors were of the opinion that the realization of StAnD demands a shift in all dimensions of StAnD. All sectors except International organizations perceive the current situation to be almost the same, although the latter gave higher score to the Profit dimension. For this parameter the magnitude of change (decrease) was highest in terms of percentage change to achieve an ideal situation. Higher importance needs to be given to the Planet, People and Ethic dimensions of StAnD in the future (Fig- ure 27). These changes are similar to those observed for different regions (see Part 2 in Section 3 of this study). The Global analysis (Part 1 in Section 3) also showed the need for similar change. All groups of stakeholders in all regions have a similar opinion.

45 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 27 Sectoral percentage unit shift to move from a current to an ideal situation

Academia

20.9

29.5 Ideal 30.8 Proﬁt 18.8 People

Planet 40.5 Ethics 25.2 Current 21.5 12.7

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

Consultant

21.4 28.6 Ideal 32.2 Proﬁt 17.9 People Planet 42.4 Ethics 23.0 Current 21.4 13.2

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

Industry

22.7 27.1 Ideal 31.1 Proﬁt 19.1 People

Planet

39.1 Ethics 24.5 Current 22.5

13.9

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

(cont.)

46 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 27 (cont.)

International organizations

21.7 31.3 Ideal 30.7 Proﬁt 16.3 People

Planet 47.0 Ethics 25.7 Current 16.6 10.7

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

NGOs

16.8 26.9 Ideal 33.3 Proﬁt 23.1 People

Planet

42.7 Ethics 23.6 Current 20.7 13.0

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

In summary, respondents were from the five sectors of Academia, Industry, Civil society, Consultants and NGOs. To most of the elements related to the environmental issues of StAnD, respondents from International organizations, NGOs and Academia gave high importance, while those from Industry gave them the least importance. Overall, higher importance was given to socio-cultural elements by NGOs, International organizations and Academia, while Industry was less sensitive towards these elements. Respondents from all sectors gave high agreement to increasing benefit:cost ratio; however, least importance was given to this element by respondents from NGOs. Stakeholders from all sectors gave higher importance to taking into account environmental and social costs of negative externalities in the production and feeding of StAnD, while respondents from Industry gave it lowest

47 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets score. The element, Production of StAnD should not enhance volatility in price of feed ingredients, received a higher score from respondents from International organizations and Academia and lowest from Industry. Respondents from NGOs, Academia, and Industry gave higher importance to Re-use of food waste as feed. Compared with the other sectors, respondents from Industry gave higher score to the Use of food grains in the diets of monogastric and ruminants, and use of GMO feeds. Use of incentives in production and use of StAnD was favoured more by Academia than by the other sectors. Stakeholders from almost all sectors except Industry gave a high score to the integration of the ethical dimension into StAnD, overall showing willingness to integrate ethical dimensions. The analysis showed that the initiative to re-structure the feed production system for meeting StAnD requirements should first be taken by Academia, followed by Farmers and farmers’ associations. Other bodies that could play an important role in meeting the requirements are Industry and Regu- latory bodies. The modalities through which the StAnD concept can be put into sound management practices, as identified by the sectors, were: Make consumers aware of the benefits of StAnD, Develop guidelines and good practices, Encourage Industry to develop voluntary guidelines and to follow them, and Introduce incentives for farmers to apply StAnD. Respondents from all sectors were of the opinion that the realization of StAnD demands a shift in all the dimensions. In the future, higher importance needs to be given to the Planet, People and Ethical dimensions of StAnD, so that all of its four dimensions be adequately represented. Respondents from all regions responded in the same manner, suggesting that all stakeholders in all regions have similar opinions.

Views segregated on the basis of field of expertise Distribution of respondents based on field of expertise is given in Figure 28. The most respondents (44.4%) were from the field of Animal nutrition, followed by Animal health (9.5%), Animal welfare (8.9%), Extension and technology transfer (8.4%), Farm management (7.7%) and Policy (6.2%), with other areas contributing <4% each. Although the survey touched several dimensions of livestock production systems and most sectors of the livestock value chain, it is understandable that the respondents belonged largely to the animal nutrition sector because the focus was on animal diets. On a regional basis, the most animal health experts that contributed to the study were from SSA, followed by LAC, while Animal welfare experts were most from Europe (16.0%) and then from North America (14.3%), and least (0.9%) from E&SEA. Farm management and Technology transfer experts were also in signifi- cant numbers (5.3 to 16.9%) from all regions except Oceania (Figure 29).

Importance of the StAnD elements that aim to protect environment and natural resource base In the Planet dimension of sustainability, respondents from the various specializations responded in different ways (Figure 30). Of the 11 elements, respondents from the fields of Socio-economics and Farm management gave lowest score to four elements each. Specialists from the Animal health area consistently gave higher importance to the elements that promote better health of the environment. Respondents from the field of Animal welfare also gave higher importance to these elements

48 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 28 Sectoral distribution of respondents

Not working Policy 2.0% Science management 6.2% 3.6% Economics 1.8% Social science 3.2%

Extension/technology transfer 8.4% Animal nutrition 44.4%

Farm management 7.7%

Animal genetics 4.3%

Animal welfare 8.9% Animal health 9.5%

(Table 15). Overall, specialists from the areas of Animal health and Animal welfare appear to be more sensitive than the experts from other fields as far as protection of environment and natural resources is concerned.

Importance of the socio-cultural elements of StAnD that provide benefits for people The scores given for different elements by respondents from different fields of specialization are given in Figure 31 and salient findings in Table 16. No generalized pattern emerged, as the perceived importance varied a lot and depended on specialization and the element in question.

Importance of the economic elements of StAnD Respondents from all fields except Farm management and Animal nutrition gave higher importance to the need to take environmental and social costs of negative externalities into total costs. Animal nutrition, Extension and technology transfer, and Animal health specialists gave higher importance to increase in benefit:cost ratio than the global average. The element, Production of StAnD should not enhance volatility in price of feed ingredients, received higher scores (higher importance) from Animal health and Animal nutrition experts (Figure 32).

49 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Table 15. Salient findings on the importance given to elements of the Planet dimension by respondents from different specializations Fields that gave higher importance than Fields that gave Elements the average lowest importance Not use antibiotics and synthetic Animal welfare, Animal health, Farm Animal nutrition growth promoters management, Socio-economics, Extension & technology transfer Preferably use locally available feed Animal health, Extension & Science management resources technology transfer, Animal & policy-making nutrition, Animal welfare Use minimum energy Science management & policy-making, Farm management Animal welfare, Animal health Use minimum water Science management & policy- Farm management making, Animal welfare, Animal health, Socio-economics Minimum carbon footprint Animal welfare Farm management Minimize water pollution Animal health Socio-economics Minimize air pollution Animal health, Animal welfare, Socio-economics Animal nutrition Enhance resilience of livestock Extension & technology transfer, Animal welfare production system Science management & policy- making, Animal health Not lead to deforestation and land Animal health, Animal welfare, Socio-economics degradation Science management & policy-making, Enhance or at least do not decrease Animal health, Extension & Socio-economics biodiversity technology transfer, Animal welfare Respect landscape diversity and Animal health, Socio-economics, Farm management aesthetic value Note: The category ‘Other’ has not been considered in the above synthesis.

Table 16. Salient findings on the importance given to elements of the People dimension by respondents from different specializations Fields that gave higher Field that gave Elements importance than the average lowest importance Consider social aspects of rearing Extension & technology transfer, Farm management livestock Socio-economics, Animal welfare, Animal health Not be culturally offensive to Animal health, Extension & Animal welfare producers and consumers technology transfer, Animal nutrition, Socio-economics Respect perceptions, beliefs, values, Socio-economics, Animal nutrition, Animal welfare taboos and be socially acceptable Animal welfare, Animal health, Extension & technology transfer Empower women Extension & technology transfer, Farm management Animal health, Socio-economics Break social barriers and promote Animal health, Extension & Farm management social harmony technology transfer, Animal nutrition, Socio-economics Avoid exacerbation of unfavourable All except Animal nutrition and Animal welfare legal processes Animal welfare Be a part of corporate social policy Socio-economics, Science Farm management management & policy-making, Animal nutrition, Promote and preserve local Animal health, Extension & Socio-economics knowledge technology transfer, Farm management, Animal nutrition Not compete with human food Animal health, Socio-economics, Science Extension & technology transfer, management & Animal nutrition policy-making Animal products affordable to Animal nutrition, Animal health, Socio-economics consumers Extension & technology transfer Note: The category ‘Other’ has not been considered in this synthesis.

50 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 29 Distribution of respondents by field of specialization

Animal nutrition

East or Southeast Asia 13.6% Sub-Saharan Africa 17.1%

South Asia Europe 13.0% 20.5%

Oceania 4.9%

North America 7.2%

North Africa/Middle East Latin America/Caribbean 7.0% 17.0%

Animal welfare

Sub-Saharan Africa East or Southeast Asia 5.7% 0.9% South Asia 5.7%

Oceania 4.7%

North America 12.3% Europe 50.9%

North Africa/Middle East 1%

Latin America/Caribbean 18.9%

(cont.)

51 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 29 (cont.)

Animal health

East or Southeast Asia 8.8%

Sub-Saharan Africa 30.7% Europe 21.1%

South Asia 7.9% Oceania Latin America/Caribbean 0.9% 20%

North America North Africa/Middle East 5.3% 5%

Farm management

East or Southeast Asia Sub-Saharan Africa 6.5% 12.0%

South Asia 7.6%

Oceania 10.9% Europe 34.8%

North America 6.5%

North Africa/Middle East 8.0% Latin America/Caribbean 14.1%

(cont.)

52 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 29 (cont.)

Extension/technology transfer

East or Southeast Asia Sub-Saharan Africa 11.0% 24.0%

South Asia 15.0%

Europe 25.0% North America 6.0%

North Africa/Middle East 3.0% Latin America/Caribbean 16.0%

Socio-economic

East or Southeast Asia 1.7%

Sub-Saharan Africa 18.3%

South Asia 6.7%

Europe 51.7%

North America 11.7%

North Africa/Middle East 1.7% Latin America/Caribbean 8.3%

(cont.)

53 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 29 (cont.)

Science management & policy making

East or Southeast Asia 2.6%

Sub-Saharan Africa 21.4%

South Asia Europe 6.8% 41.9%

Oceania 8.5%

North America 7.7% North Africa/Middle East Latin America/Caribbean 1.7% 9.4%

Importance of the miscellaneous elements of StAnD Individual scores to each element are given in Figure 33 and salient findings from this figure in Table 17. Animal welfare experts appear to be less inclined to Use of grains, GMO, and Feed ingredients produced through high-input agriculture in animal diets. Here also, Use of food waste as animal feed received a high score from experts of all areas. The overall acceptability to grain use in the diets of ruminants was lower (Table 17).

Table 17. Salient findings on the importance of other elements of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD) Fields that gave higher Field that gave Elements importance than the average lowest importance Contain a feed ingredient produced Animal health, Animal Nutrition, Science management using public subsidies Extension & technology transfer & policy-making Re-use food waste after ensuring Animal health, Animal Nutrition Farm management its safety Use food grains in monogastric feed Animal nutrition, Animal health Socio-economics Use food grains in ruminant feed Extension & technology transfer, Animal welfare Animal health, Animal nutrition Should use GMO in feed Animal nutrition Animal welfare, socio-economics Should use feed ingredients Animal health, Extension & Animal welfare produced through high-input technology transfer agriculture Production of StAnD be given Animal health, animal nutrition, Socio-economics incentives Extension & technology transfer Use of StAnD be given incentives Animal health, Animal nutrition, Farm management Extension & technology transfer

54 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 30 Importance of the elements of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD) that aim to protect environment and natural resource base (Planet dimension of sustainability)

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

3.60 4.14 StAnD should not 4.21 'Use antibiotic or 4.12 synthetic growth 3.97 3.64 promoters' 4.08 3.89 3.82 Animal nutrition 4.27 4.39 4.24 Animal health StAnD should 4.09 'Preferably use locally 4.31 available feed resources' 3.87 4.20 Animal welfare 4.35 4.23 Farm management 3.76 3.89 3.96 Extension/ Production of StAnD 3.70 and its feeding should 3.76 technology transfer 'Use minimum energy' 3.97 3.78 Science management 3.83 & policy making 3.81 Socio-economics 3.76 3.80 3.87 Production of StAnD 3.49 Other and its feeding should 3.75 'Use minimum water' 3.89 3.80 Overall Average 3.65 3.76

4.02 3.98 Production of StAnD 4.25 and its feeding should 3.93 'Leave minimum carbon 4.04 4.06 footprint' 3.92 4.01 4.03

(cont.)

55 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 30 (cont.)

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

4.60 4.68 Production of StAnD 4.58 and its feeding should 4.54 4.49 'Minimize water 4.55 pollution' 4.40 4.60 4.58

4.39 4.45 Animal nutrition 4.42 Production of StAnD 4.29 and its feeding should 4.19 'Minimize air pollution' 4.26 Animal health 4.10 4.21 4.33 Animal welfare Production of StAnD and its 4.18 feeding should 'Enhance 4.21 4.00 resilience of the livestock 4.16 Farm management production system' (Resillence: 4.40 The ability to recover quickly 4.23 4.05 from a change such as drought, 4.29 Extension/ ﬂoods, earthquake etc.) 4.19 technology transfer 4.54 4.65 Science management Production of StAnD 4.61 & policy making and its feeding should not 4.42 'Lead to deforestation and 4.54 4.58 Socio-economics land degradation' 4.35 4.53 4.54 Other 4.15 4.34 Production of StAnD 4.24 and its feeding should 4.11 Overall Average 'Enhance or at least do 4.25 4.21 not decrease biodiversity' 4.05 4.29 4.19

3.79 3.81 Production of StAnD 3.78 and its feeding should 3.57 'Respect landscape diversity 3.78 3.71 and aesthetic value' 3.80 3.89 3.77

56 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 31 Importance of the socio-cultural elements of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD) that provide benefits for people (People dimension of sustainability)

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

3.83 3.86 Production of StAnD 3.88 and its feeding should 3.63 'Consider social aspects of 3.99 3.74 rearing livestock' 3.98 3.83 3.83 Animal nutrition 3.81 Production of StAnD 3.91 and its feeding should 3.45 Animal health not be 'Culturally 3.77 3.84 offensive to producers 3.76 and consumers of the 3.80 Animal welfare animal products' 3.99 3.79 Farm management 3.62 Production of StAnD 3.61 and its feeding should 3.34 Extension/ 3.42 'Respect perceptions, technology transfer values, taboos and be 3.60 socially beliefs, 3.54 3.68 Science management acceptable' 3.80 & policy making 3.58 Socio-economics 3.42 3.59 3.21 Production of StAnD 2.93 Other and its feeding should 3.70 'Empower women' 3.34 3.57 Overall Average 3.85 3.43

3.39 3.76 Production of StAnD 3.08 and its feeding should 3.02 'Break social barriers and 3.52 3.16 promote social harmony' 3.38 3.61 3.37

(cont.)

57 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 31 (cont.)

2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

3.94 Production of StAnD 4.24 and its feeding should 3.87 3.99 'Avoid exacerbation 4.00 of unfavorable 4.04 legal processes' 4.12 (e.g. ‘land grab’) 4.03 3.99 Animal nutrition 3.70 3.64 Production of StAnD 3.50 Animal health and its feeding should 3.37 'Be a part of corporate 3.66 social policy' 3.74 3.77 Animal welfare 3.63 3.65 Farm management 4.00 Production of StAnD 4.21 and its feeding should 4.07 Extension/ 'Promote and preserve 4.10 technology transfer local knowledge' 4.12 3.99 (e.g. biodiversity 3.90 Science management management) 4.15 & policy making 4.05 Socio-economics 4.03 4.18 Production of StAnD 3.94 Other and its feeding should 3.95 not 'Compete with 3.99 human food' 3.85 4.12 Overall Average 4.12 4.02

4.40 4.33 Production of StAnD 3.82 and its feeding should 4.01 'Result in animal products 4.30 that are affordable to 4.00 consumers' 3.60 4.24 4.22

Extent of agreement of stakeholders on integration of the ethical dimension into StAnD Experts from almost all fields gave a high score, close to the global average, for the integration of ethical dimensions into StAnD. Animal welfare experts gave highest importance to this parameter. More than 80% of the experts from all the fields agreed that ethical dimension should be integrated into StAnD. Nevertheless a substantial percent of animal nutritionists, farm management experts and socio-economists (12–18%) were indecisive on this issue (Figure 34).

58 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 32 Importance of the socio-cultural elements of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD) that provide benefits for people (People dimension of sustainability)

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

4.24 4.07 3.66 Production of StAnD 3.91 and its feeding should 'Enhance Beneﬁt: 4.15 Cost ratio for all 3.78 Animal nutrition stakeholders' 3.73

4.12 Animal health 4.06

Animal welfare 4.32 Production of StAnD 4.44 Farm management and its feeding should take into account 4.46 'Environmental and social 4.16 Extension/ costs of negative technology transfer externalities such as 4.53 environmental 4.37 degradation, greenhouse Science management 4.43 gas emissions and loss of & policy making biodiversity' 4.43 Socio-economics 4.36

Other 4.13 4.18 Overall Average 3.87 Production of StAnD 3.86 should not 'Enhance volatility in prices of feed 4.03 ingredients' 3.96 4.00 4.08 4.05

59 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 33 Importance of the miscellaneous elements of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD)

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

2.73 2.83 2.28 StAnD should 2.48 ‘Contain a feed ingredient produced 2.63 using public subsidies’ 2.34 2.57 2.39 Animal nutrition 2.61

Animal health 4.27 4.27 4.16 Animal welfare StAnD should 4.08 ‘Reuse food waste after 4.21 ensuring its safety’ 4.19 Farm management 4.12 4.00 4.21 Extension/ technology transfer 3.38 Science management 3.39 & policy making 2.98 StAnD should 3.08 Socio-economics ‘Use food grains in 3.19 monogastrics feed’ 2.98 2.72 Other 3.00 3.21 Overall Average 2.80 2.89 2.54 StAnD should 2.77 ‘Use food grains in 2.92 ruminants feed’ 2.68 2.60 2.49 2.75

(cont.)

Who should take initiative first to re-structure the feed production system for meeting the StAnD requirements? According to Animal welfare experts, action should first be taken by Consumers, Farmers and farmers’ associations, and Regulatory bodies to re-structure the feed production system, while Science managers and policy-makers indicated that In- dustry should take the lead. Animal nutritionists and Animal health experts felt that

60 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 33 (cont.)

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

2.78 2.29 2.15 StAnD should 2.25 ‘Use GMO crops’ 2.42 2.47 2.15 2.37 Animal nutrition 2.52

Animal health 2.64 2.46 2.25 StAnD should Animal welfare 2.39 ‘Use feed ingredient produced through high 2.60 input agriculture’ 2.41 Farm management 2.28 2.32 2.51 Extension/ technology transfer 3.66 3.90 Science management & policy making 3.50 Production of StAnD 3.36 Socio-economics should be given 3.60 incentives 3.44 3.23 Other 3.48 3.59 Overall Average 3.66 3.72 3.55 Use/feeding of StAnD 3.24 should be given 3.58 incentives 3.48 3.33 3.52 3.57

Academia should drive the change, and in the opinion of Socio-economists, Civil society should take initiative to bring the desired change (Figure 35).

Modalities through which the StAnD concept can be put into sound management practices The details of the scores (reflection of ranking) from stakeholders from different areas of work are presented in Figure 36. Irrespective of the field of specialization, the modalities expected to be effective are: Development of guidelines and good practices, Encouragement to Industry to develop voluntary guidelines, Making

61 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 34 Extent of agreement on integration of ethical dimension into Sustainable Animal Diets

Key: 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly Agree

5.00

4.52 4.50 4.27 4.19 4.15 4.15 4.17 4.14 4.05 4.05 4.00

3.50

Other

Extension/ Animal healt Animal welfare Animal nutrition Socio-economics Overall Average Farm management & policy making technology transferScience management

Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

100.0%

27.1% 28.3% 33.0% 36.0% 80.0% 36.8% 44.4% 46.7%

64.2%

60.0%

56.3% 51.1% 40.0% 55.0% 46.7% 51.8% 35.9% 36.7%

25.5% 20.0%

12.0% 12.8% 18.5% 13.3% 7.0% 8.0% 16.0% 8.5% 2.1% 2.6% 2.0% 5.1% 0.0% 1.7% 1.8% 1.9% 2.2% 2.0% 2.6% 3.3% 1.3%

Other Extension/ Animal healt Animal welfare Animal nutrition & policy makingSocio-economics Farm management technology transferScience management

consumers and civil society aware of StAnD benefits, Creation of environmental certifications for products obtained by StAnD, and Securing corporate commitment to StAnD (Table 18). These are in general agreement with those identified earlier in Parts 1 to 3.

62 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 35 Bodies and organizations that should take the initiative to re-structure the feed production system for meeting the requirements of Sustainable Animal Diets

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

3.60 3.82 Consumers 4.11 (claiming for more 3.74 3.60 sustainable production 3.62 practices/systems) 3.73 3.80 3.70

3.95 3.91 Animal nutrition 3.97 3.83 Industry 3.76 4.01 Animal health 3.83 3.95 3.92 Animal welfare 4.37 4.39 4.20 3.97 Farm management Academia 4.15 4.04 3.98 4.31 4.25 Extension/ technology transfer 4.25 4.32 4.41 Science management Farmers and 4.28 & policy making 4.29 farmers' associations 4.37 4.23 Socio-economics 4.29 4.29

3.46 Other 3.72 3.86 3.30 Civil societies 3.71 Overall Average 3.57 3.95 3.83 3.59

3.90 4.05 4.16 3.64 Regulatory bodies 3.98 3.99 4.00 3.99 3.94

63 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 36 Modalities for incorporating the concept of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD) into sound management practices

Key: 1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Reasonably important; 4 = Important; 5 = Extremely Important.

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

4.21 4.39 4.28 Develop guidelines/good 4.15 practices for StAnD 4.15 4.15 3.85 4.27 4.20 Animal nutrition 3.96 3.91 Encourage industry to 3.96 Animal health develop voluntary 3.79 guidelines and to 3.79 3.84 follow them 3.65 Animal welfare 3.89 3.90 Farm management 3.90 3.97 3.85 Extension/ Introduce incentives for 3.73 3.79 technology transfer farmers for using StAnD 3.74 3.85 Science management 3.91 & policy making 3.86 Socio-economics 3.71 3.82 3.69 Introduce incentives for 3.37 Other feed industries to 3.56 produce StAnD 3.44 3.58 Overall Average 3.68 3.64

4.30 4.42 4.41 Make consumers aware 4.27 of the beneﬁts of StAnD 4.23 4.15 3.98 4.27 4.28

(cont.)

Shift in the importance of Planet, People, Profit and Ethical dimensions of StAnD Under both current and ideal situations, the overall weighing given to all dimensions of StAnD by all the groups was consistent (Table 19). Animal welfare group stood out among all the groups in two respects: highlighting the need to give higher

64 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Figure 36 (cont.)

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

3.99 4.15 4.10 Make civil societies aware 3.86 of the beneﬁts of StAnD 4.04 3.92 3.77 4.05 4.00 Animal nutrition 3.98 4.07 Create environmental 4.06 Animal health certiﬁcations for products 3.78 obtained by using StAnD 3.91 3.56 3.65 Animal welfare 3.91 3.91 Farm management 3.81 3.89 3.87 Secure corporate 3.64 Extension/ commitment to StAnD 3.71 technology transfer 3.79 3.48 Science management 3.78 & policy making 3.78 Socio-economics 4.06 4.15 4.38 Achieve broad 3.89 Other stakeholder engagement 4.13 4.29 3.77 Overall Average 4.05 4.10

3.77 4.08 Promote 4.06 "green procurement 3.80 practices" among 3.88 customers 3.66 3.77 3.91 3.83

importance to integration of ethics into StAnD, and reducing profit. All the expert groups were of the opinion that People, Planet and Ethic dimensions are currently being neglected, and higher importance should be given to them. At the same time, too much emphasis is given to generation of profit. Again, these findings are in agreement with those listed earlier.

65 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Table 18. Suggested modalities that could contribute to putting the Sustainable Animal Diet (StAnD) concept into practice Field of specialization Suggested modalities Animal nutrition Development of guidelines and good practices; Encouragement to Industry to develop voluntary guidelines; Make consumers aware of StAnD benefits; Create environment certifications for products obtained by StAnD; Secure corporate commitment to StAnD Animal health Development of guidelines and good practices; Encouragement to Industry to develop voluntary guidelines; Make consumers and civil society aware of StAnD benefits; Create environment certifications for products obtained by StAnD; Secure corporate commitment to StAnD; Promote ‘green procurement practices’ among customers Animal welfare Development of guidelines and good practices; Encouragement to Industry to develop voluntary guidelines; Make consumers and civil society aware of StAnD benefits; Create environment certifications for products obtained by StAnD; Secure corporate commitment to StAnD; Achieve broad stakeholder engagement; promote ‘green procurement practices’ among customers Extension & Promote ‘green procurement practices’ among customers technology transfer Science management Achieve broad stakeholder engagement & policy-making

Table 19. Percentages of votes allocated in both current and ideal situation to each element of Sustainable Animal Diets according to the field of specialization of the respondents People Planet Profit Ethics Field of specialization Current Ideal Current Ideal Current Ideal Current Ideal Animal nutrition 25.8 29.5 20.9 29.8 39.8 22.6 13.4 18.1 Animal health 25.1 28.8 20.9 32.3 42.7 19.1 11.3 19.7 Animal welfare 20.2 25.5 19.4 32.1 45.3 15.1 15.1 27.3 Farm management 23.7 27.9 24.2 30.8 36.9 22.7 15.2 18.5 Extension & technology 24.0 28.1 21.6 32.7 42.0 20.8 12.5 18.4 transfer Science management and 25.8 28.8 21.4 33.3 38.8 17.8 13.9 20.1 policy-making Socio-economy 20.0 28.2 23.7 33.5 44.7 16.6 11.7 21.7 Overall average 24.7 28.8 21.4 31.1 40.4 20.6 13.5 19.6

To summarize, from all regions, most respondents were from the field of animal nutrition. On a regional basis, most animal health experts were from SSA followed by LAC, while Animal welfare experts were highest from Europe and lowest from E&SEA. Farm management and Technology transfer experts were also in considerable numbers from all regions except Oceania. Animal health specialists consistently gave higher importance to the elements that aim to better environmental health. Ani- mal welfare experts also gave higher importance to these elements. For the elements of the People dimension, no generalized field-related pattern emerged. Respondents from all fields except Farm management and Animal nutrition gave a higher score to the need to incorporate environmental and social costs of negative externalities in

66 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets total costs. Animal nutrition, Extension and technology transfer, and Animal health specialists gave higher than the global average importance to increase in benefit:cost ratio. Animal health and Animal nutrition experts gave higher score to the production of StAnD without enhancing volatility in price of feed ingredients. Animal welfare experts appear to be less inclined to include grains, GMO and feed ingredients produced through high-input agriculture in animal diets. Re-use of food waste as animal feed received a high score by experts of all the areas. Overall tolerance to grain use in the diets of ruminants was lower. Experts from almost all fields were in strong agreement to the integration of ethical dimensions into StAnD. Among all the expert areas, Animal welfare experts gave highest importance to this element. According to Animal welfare experts, action should first be taken by Consumers, Farmers and farmers’ associations and Regulatory bodies to re-structure the feed production system for meeting StAnD criteria, while Science managers and policy- makers were of the opinion that Industry should take the lead. Animal nutritionists and Animal health experts felt that Academia should drive the change, and in the view of Socio-economists, Civil society should take the initiative. Irrespective of the field of specialization, the modalities that were expected to be effective in implementing the StAnD concept are: Development of guidelines and good practices, Encouragement to Industry to develop voluntary guidelines, Making consumers and civil society aware of StAnD benefits, Creation of environmental certifications for products obtained by StAnD, and Securing corporate commitment to StAnD. Overall, the weight given to all the dimensions of the StAnD concept by all the groups was of similar magnitude. All the expert groups were of the opinion that currently People, Planet and Ethic dimensions are being neglected and higher importance should be given to them. At the same time, too much relative emphasis is currently placed on profit generation. The drive to increase profitability in the short-term could lead to negligence of other sustainability dimensions of StAnD. The need of change in Profit, People, Planet and Ethic dimensions of StAnD, from current and ideal situations, demonstrated by all the groups was similar to those identified in the Global, Regional and Sectoral analyses. A strong agreement emerged from all regions, all sectors and experts from all areas regarding the desired changes implicit in implementing the StAnD concept.

67 The way forward

The elements and criteria for StAnD discussed in this report should be further vali- dated. For each of the StAnD elements, indicators need to be identified, developed and given weight for ranking diets as to their sustainability. Methodologies for indica- tor measurement also should be identified and developed. If methodologies are not available, proxy parameters need to be identified. Since the concept of Sustainable Animal Diets has the Three-P—Profit, People and Planet—dimensions and an ad- ditional ethical dimension, the relative importance of the indicators and weight given to them is expected to differ between regions. There will always be tradeoffs between these dimensions. The prioritization of the indicators in different regions may assist in balancing the objectives of sustainable diets. It is impossible to define a standard or an ideal StAnD, and this is not the objective of this concept. The aim should be to move towards diets based on the agreed indicators of the StAnD concept.

The desired change The implementation of the StAnD concept is not a destination but a journey, following a path of desired change that all stakeholders converge on. It is based on the principle of respecting the manner in which animal diets are prepared and fed. However, it directs the stakeholders to compete with each other or one self, aiming to improve with time, by embracing a direction of positive change. The realization of the positive change could be monitored by measuring the indicators of each element of the StAnD concept. The concept places animal diets in a holistic sustainability context. The survey shows a strong agreement among all stakeholders, irrespective of region, sector or field of specialization, concerning the direction of positive change they would wish to follow in the production and feeding of StAnD. The positive change is dictated by higher importance to the Planet, People and Ethic dimensions of StAnD, and less to the Profit dimension (Figure 1). An important message that could be derived from the survey is that making profit is important and this drives the production system, but making profit at the cost of the environment, socio-cultural benefits to people and animal welfare and other ethical aspects of raising livestock may not be appropriate. Decrease in importance to Profit dimension does not imply that livestock farming will be less profitable. The profitability could be achieved by better consideration of the other dimensions of the StAnD concept, and ensuring that there is equitable distribution of profit and that not one segment of the stakeholders only benefit.

Policy dimensions and decision tools Proper policies need to be formulated and applied to stimulate the further development and use of the StAnD concept. Currently, in most situations, most policies support enabling the environment to maximize yields and profits by the livestock producers, rather than delivering sustainability of the production systems in terms of the Three-P dimensions. The ‘Pressure Phenomenon’ seen to affect policy decisions

68 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets in various sectors affects the livestock sector as well: ‘there is pull of market demand and economic benefits and push of the technologies that promise rapid growth’. Rapid increase in demand and prices of livestock products is resulting in pressure to take steps that would increase production rapidly. The first component that is affected in this cascade of events is the ‘Animal Diet’, since it has a major impact on performance of animals and its cost forms a major part of the total cost of production, with decisions being made at the cost of sustainability. There is therefore a need for policies that address various components of StAnD, which have been elaborated and prioritized through this survey. This would require involvement of all stakeholders, including Ministries of Agriculture, Finance, Environment and Culture; private Industry, including feed industries; NGOs; and national and International organizations. Also, various bodies and organizations identified and prioritized through this survey for taking the intiative to implement the StAnD concept, should act and work in tandem. Also the stakeholders should make use of various respondent-suggested modalities, such as Development of guidelines and good practices, Encouragement to Industry to develop voluntary guidelines, Making consumers aware of StAnD benefits, and Securing corporate commitment to StAnD in order to put the StAnd concept into practice. Two cross-cutting themes, Gender (ensuring that gender equality becomes a regular feature of the work) and Governance (focusing on mechanisms that improve interactions between multiple actors) are integral to achievement of StAnD. Desired impact cannot be realised without making practical changes by the stakeholders in the manner the feed is produced and fed. There were somewhat different views (by actor, region) with respect to the importance of the various StAnD elements and about who should take the lead to operationalize the StAnD concept. Setting up of a multi-stakeholder process to manage multi-stakeholder dialogues, with the objective to achieve common agreement would be an important step towards operationalization of the StAnD concept. Comparison of diets based on sustainability criteria would be easier than arriving at a decision as to whether a diet is sustainable or not, since fulfilling the criteria implicit in the StAnD concept requires critical decisions, such as regarding the levels of agro-chemical, energy and water use, and on how to measure biodiversity and resilience of production systems, amongst many others. Decision tools and methodologies, e.g. for assessing the carbon footprints of production and use of feeds and associated environmental costs, to measure the resilience of production systems and to assess their impacts on biodiversity need to be developed. The availability of the tools or improvement in the tools and methodologies should not impede the implementation of the StAnD concept. A move towards positive change can still be made using the available tools and methodologies. The role of research organizations is equally important, for example the ‘desired change’ requires feeding systems for both monogastric and ruminants animals that use no grains or low amounts of grains. The challenge for the researchers is to identify novel, alternate feedstuffs that do not compete with human food and their incorporation in the diets results in feed use efficiency as high or greater than that obtained using grain-containing animal diets currently in-use. Some encouraging developments have been made lately, showing that decreasing grains and increasing fibre in the diets of animals including monogastrics enhance both animal welfare and animal production (FAO, 2012; Souza da Silva et al., 2012, 2013). There is a possibility that in future due to increasing cost of inputs and on-going climate

69 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets change, consideration of the costs of repairing the socio-environmental damage and reflecting that in the total cost of production might not be sufficient for producing animal products in a sustainable manner. Also implementation of options, identified through this study, in conjunction with each other is expected to have higher impact than the application of an option in isolation. Studies to gain a better insight into these challenges are required.

Multi-functional feeding systems and multi-criteria feed evaluation systems Currently the feeding systems are based on evaluation of feed ingredients and for- mation of animal diets based on the nutrient composition and nutrient availability (chemical composition of the feed, digestibility, intake, feed conversion efficiency, etc.). However, to face new and emerging challenges that the livestock sector faces (elaborated earlier in the Introduction section), it is important to integrate the dimensions of StAnD into feed evaluation and feed formulation systems. This survey has laid the foundation for development of a global framework for multi-criteria evaluation of feed resources, based on the core principles of sustainability integrated with ethics and animal welfare, and with the current feed evaluation system based on feed composition and nutrient availability; and then for putting the framework into practice. Certainly this would require criteria and indicators and methodologies to measure them, based on all the dimensions of sustainability (environmental, social and economics integrated with ethics and animal welfare).

A framework for research and knowledge The survey results could form the basis for monitoring of the research and development priorities of research and development organizations and donors, and to align them to the needs of the livestock production system, as perceived by the stakeholders. The survey analysis could also pave the way for developing a framework for future research and development needs and priorities. Extending the stakeholders’ sentiments, expressed in this StAnD survey, to sustainability of the entire livestock production system might be appropriate.

70 Conclusions

For enhancing sustainability of animal farming systems, this study focused on an array of issues towards implementation of the StAnD concept, which is based on the Three-P dimensions of sustainability (Planet, People and Profit) and complemented by a further vital aspect, namely the ethics of using a feed. The study has: • established a direction for positive change that should be followed for enhancing sustainability of animal production systems; • prioritized various elements of the concept; • proposed sectors that should take the initiative for implementation of the concept; and • identified modalities to put the concept into practice. The outcomes of the study when put into practice would contribute to enhancing sustainability of livestock systems as well as have laid foundation for developing: • a global framework for multi-criteria evaluation of feed resources; • a system for monitoring of the R&D priorities of organizations and donors, and to align them to the needs of the animal production system; and • a framework for future R&D needs and priorities, driven by sustainability principles. Society expects animal agriculture to provide safe and affordable animal products, while maintaining environmental quality and biodiversity. The use of Sustain- able Animal Diets is an important step towards achieving this. Sustainable Animal Diets are expected to be beneficial for the animal, the environment and society, and are likely to generate socio-economic benefits, furthering poverty alleviation and food security efforts. This requires active participation of researchers, extension workers, science managers, policy-makers, industry and farmers.

71 References

Alqaisi, O., Hemme, T., Latacz-Lohman, U. & Susenbeth, A. 2014. Evaluation of food industry by-products as feed in semi-arid dairy farming systems: the case of Jordan. Sustainability Science, DOI 10.1007/s11625-013-0240-6 FAO. 2011. Global food losses and waste: extent, causes and prevention. Study conducted for the International Congress “SAVE FOOD!” at Interpack2011, Düs- seldorf, Germany. Prepared by J. Gustavsson, C. Cederberg, U. Sonesson, R. van Otterdijk and A. Meybeck. Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/ mb060e/mb060e00.pdf. Accessed 2014-02-11 FAO. 2012. Impact of animal nutrition on animal welfare. Expert Consultation, 26−30 September 2011, FAO Headquarters, Rome, Italy. FAO Animal Produc- tion and Health Report, No. 1. FAO. 2013a. Enhancing animal welfare and farmer income through strategic animal feeding. Some case studies. Edited by Harinder P.S. Makkar. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper, No. 175. Rome, Italy. Available at: http://www. fao.org/docrep/017/i3164e/i3164e00.pdf Accessed 2014-01-18. FAO. 2013b. Global Agenda of Action in Support of Sustainable Livestock Devel- opment. Strategy as at 19 February 2013. Available at: http://www.livestockdia- logue.org/fileadmin/templates/res_livestock/docs/2013_strategy_doc_19_feb.pdf Accessed 2014-01-18. IUCN [World Conservation Union]. 2005. The IUCN Programme 2005–2008. Many voices, one earth. Available at: https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/pro- gramme_english.pdf Accessed 2014-01-18. LEAP. 2013–2014. Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance Partner- ship. Available at: http://www.fao.org/partnerships/leap/contributors/en/ Makkar, H.P.S. 2013. Towards Sustainable Animal Diets. pp. 67–74, in: Optimiza- tion of feed use efficiency in ruminant production systems. Proceedings of the FAO Symposium (edited by H.P.S. Makkar and D. Beever), 27 November 2012, Bangkok, Thailand. FAO Animal Production and Health Proceedings, No. 16. FAO, Rome, Italy, and Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production So- cieties. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3331e/i3331e.pdf Accessed 2014-01-18. Souza da Silva, C., van den Borne, J.J.G.C., Gerrits, W.J.J., Kemp, B. & Bolhuis, J.E. 2012. Effects of dietary fibers with different physicochemical properties on feeding motivation in adult female pigs. Physiology and Behavior, 107: 218–230 (doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.07.001). Souza da Silva, C., Bolhuis, J.E., Gerrits, W.J.J., Kemp, B. & van den Borne, J.J.G.C. 2013. Effects of dietary fibers with different fermentation characteris- tics on feeding motivation in adult female pigs. Physiology and Behavior, 110– 111: 148–57 (doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.01.006).

72 Annex Towards Sustainable Animal Diets

Background information Many current livestock production systems need redefining and re-structuring if they are to meet sustainably the present and future demand for animal products, because they demand high energy, land, chemicals and water which are increasingly becoming scarce. We are in the process of developing and refining a concept on Sustainable Animal Diets which integrates the importance of efficient use of natural resources, protection of the environment, sociocultural benefits, and ethical integrity and sensitivity in addition to currently recognized nutrition based criteria of delivering economically viable safe animal products by producing safe feed. The concept is based on the Three-P dimensions of sustainability (Planet, People and Profit) complemented by a further key aspect of animal nutrition, namely the ethics of using a particular feed (see Figure A1.1).

Figure A1.1 Conceptual framework of Sustainable Animal Diets

Proﬁtability Main feature: Promotion of economic growth

People Main feature: Socio-culturally acceptable and beneﬁcial

73 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Why are we focusing on sustainability of animal diets? Animal feed and feeding impacts animal productivity, health and welfare, product quality and safety, producers’ income, household security, land use and land use change, water pollution and green house gas emission. Also feed is financially the single most important element of animal production, forming up to 70% of the cost of production. The purpose of this questionnaire? Through this questionnaire, we are seeking your help to prioritize the main constituent elements/components of the concept and also to take your opinion on how to translate this concept into action by integrating its elements/components into sound management practices. The results of this survey will also form the basis for an Experts Meeting to be held in Rome this year, to decide the next course of action. Besides completing the survey, should you wish to express views on the issues raised in the questionnaire, you are encouraged to write to: [email protected] While completing the questionnaire please keep in mind both the feed production and feeding to livestock. The survey comprises 10 questions, and will take ap- prox. 20 minutes to complete.

74 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

Questionnaire

1. In which region are you currently living? Please select from list

2. In which sector are you currently working? Please select from list If not in list, then please specify:

3. Rate the importance of the following elements of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD) that aim to protect environment and natural resource base (Planet dimension of sustainability)

Not Somewhat Reasonably Extremely Important important important important important

StAnD should not 'Use antibiotic or synthetic growth promoters'

StAnD should 'Preferably use locally available feed resources'

Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Use minimum energy' Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Use minimum water' Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Leave minimum carbon footprint' Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Minimize water pollution' Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Minimize air pollution' Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Enhance resilience of the livestock production system' (Resilience: The ability to recover quickly from a change such as drought, floods, earthquake, etc.) Production of StAnD and its feeding should not 'Lead to deforestation and land degradation' Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Enhance or at least do not decrease biodiversity' Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Respect landscape diversity and aesthetic value'

75 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

4. Rate the importance of the following socio-cultural elements of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD) that provide benefits for people (People dimension of sustainability)

Not Somewhat Reasonably Extremely Important important important important important

Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Consider social aspects of rearing livestock' Production of StAnD and its feeding should not be 'Culturally offensive to producers and consumers of the animal products' Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Respect perceptions, beliefs, values, taboos and be socially acceptable' Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Empower women'

Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Break social barriers and promote social harmony' Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Avoid exacerbation of unfavourable legal processes' (e.g. ‘land grab’) Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Be a part of corporate social policy' Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Promote and preserve local knowledge' (e.g. biodiversity management) Production of StAnD and its feeding should not 'Compete with human food' Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Result in animal products that are affordable to consumers'

Comments:

______

76 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

5. Rate the importance of the following economic elements of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD) (Profit dimension of sustainability)

Not Somewhat Reasonably Extremely Important important important important important

Production of StAnD and its feeding should 'Enhance Benefit:Cost ratio for all stakeholders' Production of StAnD and its feeding should take into account 'Environmental and social costs of negative externalities such as environmental degradation, green house gas emissions and loss of biodiversity' Production of StAnD should not 'Enhance volatility in prices of feed ingredients'

6. Rate the importance of the following elements of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD):

Neither Strongly Strongly I do not Disagree agree nor Agree disagree agree know disagree StAnD should ‘Contain an ingredient produced using public subsidies’ StAnD should ‘Re-use food waste after ensuring its safety’ StAnD should ‘Use food grains in monogastrics feed’

StAnD should ‘Use food grains in ruminants feed’

StAnD should ‘Use GMO crops’ StAnD should ‘ Use feed ingredient produced through high-input agriculture’ Production of StAnD should be given incentives

Use/feeding of StAnD should be given incentives

Comments:

______

77 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

7. To what extent do you agree that the ethical dimensions must be integrated into Sustainable Animal Diets?

Strongly Neither agree Strongly I do Disagree Agree disagree nor disagree agree not know

8. In order to re-structure the feed production system for meeting the requirements of Sustainable Animal Diets, the initiative should first be taken by:

Neither Strongly Strongly I do Disagree agree nor Agree disagree agree not know disagree Consumers (claiming for more sustainable production practices and systems)

Industry

Scientists

Farmers and farmers' associations

Civil society

Regulatory bodies

Comments:

______

78 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

9. How to put the concept of Sustainable Animal Diets (StAnD) into sound management practices?

Not Somewhat Reasonably Extremely Important important Important important Important Develop guidelines/good practices for StAnD

Encourage Industry to develop voluntary guidelines and to follow them Introduce incentives for farmers for using StAnD

Introduce incentives for feed industries to produce StAnD

Make consumers aware of the benefits of StAnD

Make civil society aware of the benefits of StAnD

Create environmental certifications for products obtained by using StAnD

Secure corporate commitment to StAnD

Achieve broad stakeholder engagement

Promote "green procurement practices" among customers

79 Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets

10. Sustainable Animal Diets has four pillars: Planet, People, Profit and Ethics. If you have 100 votes, how many votes will you cast to each of these pillars (please ensure that columns add up to 100):

Current Ideal

Planet

People

Profit

Ethics

Comments:

______

80 online publication series FAO ANIMAL PRODUCTION AND HEALTH REPORT

1. Impact of animal nutrition on animal welfare – Expert Consultation, 26−30 September 2011, FAO Headquarters, Rome, Italy. 2012 (E) http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/i3148e/i3148e00.pdf 2. FAO’s support to the One Health regional approach – Towards integrated and effective animal health–food safety surveillance capacity development in Eastern Africa. Report of the Workshop, Entebbe, Uganda, 23–24 January 2013. 2013 (E) http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3391e/i3391e.pdf 3. Characterization and value addition to local breeds and their products in the Near East and North Africa – Regional Workshop, Rabat, Morocco, 19-21 November 2012. 2014 (E) http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3622e/i3622e.pdf 4. The Global Platform for African swine fever and other important diseases of swine – Rome, Italy, 5-7 November 2013. 2014 (E) http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3739e/i3739e.pdf 5. The role, impact and welfare of working (traction and transport) animals – Report of the FAO - The Brooke Expert Meeting, FAO Headquarters, Rome, 13th – 17th June 2011. 2014 (E) http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3381e.pdf 6. Dog population management – Report of the FAO/WSPA/IZSAM Expert Meeting, Banna, Italy, 14-19 March 2011 (E) http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4081e.html 7. Towards a concept of Sustainable Animal Diets – Report based on the collated results of a survey of stakeholder views (E)

Availability: October 2014

E - English F - French ** In preparation

Find more publications at http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications.html I4146E/1/10.14