Agricultural Resources
by Danielle Nierenberg | November 8, 2007
Avian flu is a disease that affects not only birds
but also other animals, including pigs, cats,
and humans. Since the latest major outbreak
began in late 2003, at least 285 people have
contracted the virus and 170 of them have
died.1 It is highly likely that other cases of
infection and death have gone unreported,
making it impossible to know the true scope
of the disease.
Hundreds of millions of chickens, ducks, and
other birds in areas where outbreaks occurred
have been killed in an effort to control avian
flu.2 The virus, labeled H5N1, first jumped the
species barrier in 1997 and spread to humans
in Hong Kong, killing 6 of the 18 people
infected.3 The latest outbreak has now spread
to more than 50 countries—nearly 40 of which
were affected just in 2006—including China,
India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and the United Kingdom.
4 (See Table 1.) Most of the human and
avian deaths have occurred in Asia.5
In places with high concentrations of
domestic pigs and chickens, pigs may serve as
a “mixing vessel” for the virus because of their
genetic similarity to humans.6 In
China, for example, where half of
the world’s pork is produced and
consumed, pigs and chickens often live close to
one another and to people in backyards or on
factory farms.7 The avian influenza virus could
combine with pig influenza to create an entirely
different strain of the disease, which could then
be spread from coughing pigs to pig handlers
and processors.8
Avian flu can also be spread directly from
birds to humans through direct handling of
chickens and the slaughtering and processing
of meat—although not, experts say, from eating
cooked meat from infected birds.9 According
to the World Health Organization (WHO), the
current outbreak of H5N1 has been the most
deadly of all the influenza viruses that have
spread from birds to humans, killing more than
half of the people infected—most of them previously
healthy children and young adults.10
Scientists are even more concerned that H5N1
will mutate into a virus that can easily spread
from person-to-person, sparking a pandemic.11
If the disease does become a pandemic, loss
of human life could be staggering. Thanks to
globalized air travel and trade, a highly pathogenic
flu virus could spread to every corner of
the globe in just a matter of months. A December
2006 study in The Lancet estimated that as
many as 62 million people could die in such
a flu pandemic.12 WHO gives a much more
conservative number—estimating anywhere
from 2 million to 7.4 million deaths from a pandemic.
13 But millions more would be forced to
stay home from work, causing widespread economic
disruption.14 The World Bank estimates
that current losses to the global poultry sector
from avian flu are in excess of $10 billion.15 If
the virus becomes a pandemic, it could cost
from $800 billion a year to $2 trillion overall.16
Developing nations will likely experience
the greatest numbers of deaths because they
lack access to vaccines or antivirals.17 Governments
are being encouraged to stock medications,
such as the antiviral Tamiflu, to help
combat an outbreak should it occur. But pharmaceutical
companies lack the capacity—and
often the financial incentive—to produce large
numbers of these drugs quickly.18 Currently,
the World Bank estimates that $1.2–1.5 billion
is needed over the next two to three years to
address the financing gap for programs on
avian and human influenza.19
In an attempt to deal with avian flu on the
ground, at least 15 nations have restricted or
even banned free-range and backyard production
of birds, although this endangers the
livelihoods of countless small farmers and
jeopardizes the availability of affordable food
for poor consumers.20 Yet although migratory
birds and small backyard farmers have been
blamed for the spread of the disease, recent
studies in Asia and Africa indicate that the real
culprits may be factory farming and the globalized
poultry trade and transport of livestock.21
Rising demand has helped drive livestock
production from rural mixed farming systems,
where farmers raise a few different species of
animals on grass, to intensive periurban and
urban production of pigs and chickens.22 These
confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs),
or factory farms, create the perfect environment
for the rapid spread of disease between animals
and to people.23 Because of unregulated zoning
and subsidies that encourage livestock production,
chicken and pig CAFOs are moving closer
to major urban areas in China, Bangladesh,
India, and many countries in Africa.24 In Asia
alone more than 6 billion birds are raised for
food, many of them near the region’s rapidly
growing cities.25
In Laos, according to the Barcelona-based
agriculture organization GRAIN, 42 of the 45
outbreaks of avian flu in spring 2004 occurred
on factory farms and 38 of them were in the
capital, Vientiane.26 The few small farms where
outbreaks occurred were located close to commercial
operations. In Nigeria, the first cases
of avian flu were found in one of the nation’s
industrial broiler operations.27 The virus spread
from that 46,000-bird farm to 30 other factory
farms in the country—and then quickly to
neighboring farms, forcing farmers to kill their
chickens.28 In India, the world’s fifth largest
producer of eggs and a leading producer of
broiler chickens, the first outbreak occurred
on a large factory farm.29
Avian flu has been found on backyard farms
for centuries but has never been found to evolve
there to the highly pathogenic form, such as
the H5N1 virus.30 Backyard poultry tend to be
more genetically diverse and there are far fewer
birds than in factory farms. These chickens
receive more exposure to sunlight and have
better ventilation, hygiene, and less stress than
factory-farmed chickens—making them more
resistant to disease.31 Even genetically diverse
native chickens cannot remain immune to
the virus for long, however; it circulates from
factory farms to backyard flocks and then back
to factory farms, becoming more virulent.32
Although having birds concentrated together
in large factory farms may make it easier to
monitor chickens and eradicate flocks, freerange
birds are less likely to encourage an outbreak
in the first place.33
And the avian flu virus continues to change.
In 2004 some studies showed that the disease
was becoming more lethal with every outbreak,
but a 2005 study maintained that some strains
of the virus could be becoming “less virulent
and more infectious,” meaning that while it is
not as lethal it could affect many more people.34
Despite bans on raising chickens outdoors,
farmers will continue to do this in order to
survive. Experts suggest that the Food and
Agriculture Organization, WHO, and other
international agencies should focus most of
their avian flu prevention efforts on big poultry
producers and on stopping disease outbreaks
before they occur.35 The industrial food system
not only threatens the livelihoods of small
farmers, it potentially puts the world at risk for
a pandemic. Reversing this trend, according to
GRAIN and other public interest groups, will
mean standing up for farmers and demanding
food production that is safe for animals and
humans alike.36
Purchase this trend
| Item# |
Type |
Price |
|
| VST030 |
PDF and Excel |
$10.00 |
Add to Cart |
Includes the following charts and graphs
None
Notes
Please purchase this trend to gain access to the fully referenced endnotes and figures.
by E. Starmer and M. D. Anderson | May 6, 2008
At all stages of the food system—from seeds
and other inputs to food processing and retail
food sales—market power is concentrating in
an ever smaller number of corporate firms. This
trend is transforming how the world produces
food, squeezing millions of farmers between a
small group of input suppliers and an equally
concentrated group of commodity purchasers,
and in turn influencing the food choices available
to consumers.
Concentration begins at the input stage in
agriculture. Three companies control about half
of the global agrochemical market: Bayer, Syngenta,
and BASF.1 Use of genetically modified
(GM) seeds has risen dramatically since these
were first commercialized in the mid-1990s—
now 45 percent of the corn and 85 percent of
the soybeans grown in the United States are
GM.2 By branching out into plant biotechnology,
huge chemical and pharmaceutical companies
such as Monsanto have gained control
over critical agricultural inputs that reach into
food systems around the world. In 2004, land
planted with Monsanto seeds accounted for 88
percent of the total area in GM crops worldwide.
3 Once a global commons,
genetic resources are now subject to
Intellectual Property Rights protections.
Developing countries are forced to deal
with large transnational companies to get access
to improved seed varieties and plant breeding
technologies.4
Other input markets are similarly concentrated.
In the United States, Mosaic—a company
created out of a merger between Cargill
and IMC Global—controls 50–60 percent of
the synthetic fertilizer market, while four firms
control over 80 percent of the market for farm
equipment.5 Four companies control 60 percent
of terminal grain facilities, and Cargill, Archer
Daniels Midland, and Zen Noh control 81 percent
of U.S. corn exports and 65 percent of soybean
exports.6 Cargill has the largest global
terminal capacity, handling significant grain
exports in Canada, the United States, Brazil,
and Argentina.7 It owns and operates a worldwide
transportation network of ships, trucks,
barges, railcars, and grain elevators for storage.
Cargill is also among the top three beef producers
in the United States and plays an important
role in poultry production.8
Genetic stock, a crucial input into animal
production, is another area where concentration
has rapidly taken hold.9 Control over the
development and dissemination of livestock
genetics is shifting from farmers and ranchers
to specialized genetics companies. They hold
exclusive contracts with the largest livestock
producers and play a key role in determining
which livestock breeds will dominate the market.
10 Today, virtually all white eggs sold on the
U.S. market come from a single breed of layer,
the white leghorn.11 A depleted genetic pool
will weaken the global food system’s ability
to respond to disease, to changes in climate
or available inputs, and to shifts in consumer
preference.12
A growing share of farmers and ranchers in
the United States, Europe, and some developing
countries work under contract for companies
that also control food processing and
distribution. These firms may mandate the use
of a certain technology to maximize yield or
animal weight gain. If producers stray from
the prescribed methods, they may find their
contracts terminated.13 Virtually all U.S. poultry
is produced under contract, as are close
to 60 percent of hogs, cotton, rice, fruit, and
dairy.14 Contracts tend to shift risk from the
company to the producer, and producers are
often forced by necessity into contracts that
pay little or are excluded altogether from markets
if they do not contract.15
Whether producing independently or under
contract, farmers have few choices when it
comes to selling their product to a packer or
processor. In Brazil, 68.5 percent of the soybean
oil refineries are controlled by just three
companies.16 In the United States, 81 percent
of beef packing plants are run by four firms.17
(See Table 1.) Concentration in livestock and
dairy markets is likely to continue in developing
countries as well, as rising incomes and shifting
dietary preferences boost meat consumption.18
Globally, transnational supermarkets dominate
the retail sector for food. In 2003, the top
30 retailers held 19 percent of the market in
Asia and Oceania, 29 percent of the market in
Latin America, and 69 percent of the market in
Europe.19 Globalized supply chains give supermarkets
the ability to get products from wherever
they are cheapest, and the large firms exert
pressure on suppliers to accept lower prices.
Suppliers in turn demand that farmers accept
lower prices. Squeezed between low returns
and high-priced farm inputs, farmers around
the world have experienced declines in net farm
income. In the United States, farmers’ share of
the retail food dollar fell from a high of 40 percent
in 1973 to below 20 percent in 2000.20 In
Canada, the National Farmers Union reported
that farmers’ net income, adjusted for inflation,
was lower over the last decade than at any time
since the 1930s.21
Some analysts argue that large supermarkets
like Wal-Mart’s Supercenters have helped consumers
by using market power to drive down
prices.22 But a growing body of economic
research suggests that, over time, concentration
tends to lead to higher prices.23 Because of the
power they exert over the market, giant retailers
have no incentive to pass on savings to consumers,
even as they squeeze producers and
suppliers by offering lower and lower prices for
their products.24
In a striking example of the power of large
processors and retailers, U.S. hog prices fell
to Depression-era lows in real terms in 1998,
sending many family hog producers into bankruptcy.
25 Meanwhile, the average price of pork
in the grocery store dipped by less than 2
percent.26 This wide farm-retail price spread
helped the giant meatpacking company IBP
bring in record profits and facilitated market
dominance by industrialized hog operations.27
Around the world, individuals, communities,
and civil society organizations are working
to counteract the negative impacts of concentration
in the food system. In the United States,
they are trying to strengthen existing laws, such
as the Packers and Stockyards Act, that have
been weakened by lax enforcement, underfunding,
or legal loopholes.28
Campaigns against abusers of market power
are taking shape. In Europe, a major campaign
has been launched against the largest supermarket,
Tesco. It demands fair treatment of U.K.
farmers and those abroad; protection of workers’
rights; an independent watchdog agency
to protect consumers, farmers, and workers
against exploitation; a moratorium on mergers
with other supermarkets; and stronger planning
policies to protect local shops.29 Organizations
are using class action lawsuits and penalties
against retail giant Wal-Mart for discrimination
against women, forced overtime without pay,
abuse of Family Leave laws, and other labor
problems.30 International networks such as the
Agribusiness Accountability Initiative are helping
campaigners to connect across national
boundaries.
For farmers, the most effective strategy is
strength in numbers: forming cooperatives so
that they can supply enough reliable quantity
and quality of crops or livestock products to
negotiate with supermarkets. At the same time,
public education campaigns worldwide are raising
awareness about direct marketing options
for farmers and consumers, including farm
stands, farmers’ markets, and Internet sales.
But farmers need government support to keep
agribusinesses in check and to meet the quality
standards that these large companies impose.
Purchase this trend
| Item# |
Type |
Price |
|
| VST028 |
PDF and Excel |
$10.00 |
Add to Cart |
Includes the following charts and graphs
None
Notes
Please purchase this trend to gain access to the fully referenced endnotes and figures.
by Ling Li | November 8, 2007
In 2003, the latest year with data, the world’s
irrigated area stagnated at about 277 million
hectares—150,000 hectares less than in 2002.1
(See Figure 1.) The annual expansion rate of
world irrigated land has fallen from an average
of over 2 percent from 1961 to 1992 to around
1 percent from 1993 to 2003.2 Irrigated area per
person in 2003 stood at 0.044 hectares, 7
percent below the 1978 peak.3 (See Figure 2.)
Irrigation is distributed unevenly around the
world: 42 percent of arable land in Asia was
irrigated in 2000, while in sub-Saharan Africa
the figure was only 4 percent.4 Irrigated areas
in China, India, Pakistan, and the United States
account for half of the world total, but China
and India each have almost 20 percent.5 (See
Figure 3.) In 1992, India passed China as the
country with the most irrigated land.6
Irrigated area accounted for only 20 percent
of total arable land in 1997–99, yet farmers
worldwide harvested 40 percent of all crops and
nearly 60 percent of cereals from
these lands.7 In China, the 45
percent of agricultural land that is
irrigated produced 75 percent of the nation’s
food in 2002.8 By 2030, 70 percent of world
cereal grains will come from irrigated land.9
The worldwide slowdown in irrigation
expansion has several sources. For one, it is
becoming more expensive for farmers and governments
to put in new irrigation because of
rising costs of investment in irrigation systems
and difficulties developing new sites.10 But the
two major constraints on expansion are soil
salinization—a particularly acute problem in
semiarid areas when salts build up in the soil
as irrigation water evaporates—and shortages
of irrigation water, which are driven by both
aquifer depletion and competition for water.11
An estimated 20–30 million hectares of world
irrigated land have been degraded by the accumulation
of salts.12
The overpumping of groundwater for irrigation
is now a widespread problem.13 The number
of tubewells supplying underground water
to irrigated land has grown rapidly in the last
40 years in India, China, Pakistan, Mexico, and
many other countries.14 Groundwater levels in
large areas in India and China are estimated to
drop 1–3 meters each year, allowing saltwater
to intrude into aquifers, raising pumping costs,
and causing land subsidence.15
Agriculture accounted for nearly 70 percent
of the world’s use of fresh water in 2000,
although in Asia and the Pacific region the figure
was as high as 90 percent.16 Nevertheless,
more irrigation water continues to be transferred
to nonfarm uses because of the rapidly
growing demands of industries and cities.17 Yet
in China, irrigation’s share of total water use
dropped from 85 percent in 1980 to 64 percent
in 2005.18 More municipal and industrial
wastewater is reused for irrigation, although
this raises significant environmental and health
concerns when the wastewater receives little or
no treatment.19
Climate change also threatens irrigation by
shifting world rainfall patterns, changing river
flows, raising sea levels, and intensifying hurricanes
and monsoons.20 Irrigated areas that rely
on water from mountain snowmelt are at particular
risk.21 In South Asia, accelerated glacial melt
and reduced rainfall pose problems for the major
local crops, such as paddy rice and wheat.22
More than half of the irrigation water removed
from rivers and aquifers disappears before bene-
fiting a crop, either wasted through evaporation
and inefficient irrigation practices or recharged
to groundwater.23 In Asia, the widespread use
of pump irrigation is believed to create natural
incentives for farmers to be more careful in
water management, as they have to pay for
energy even though the water is free.24
Low-cost treadle pumps and small mechanical
pumps have been introduced in South Asia
and Africa to help poor farmers get access to
irrigation.25 Drip irrigation is a more efficient
technology than flooding and sprinklers, reducing
water use by 30–70 percent and increasing
crop yields by 20–90 percent.26 In Kenya, a type
of bucket drip irrigation kit costing some $15
has been used for irrigation of small plots of
vegetables and fruit trees, generating monthly
revenue of about $20.27 Planting more water efficient
grains can also help reduce water use.28
Purchase this trend
| Item# |
Type |
Price |
|
| VST005 |
PDF and Excel |
$10.00 |
Add to Cart |
Includes the following charts and graphs
World Irrigated Area, 1961-2003 World Irrigated Area Per Thousand People, 1961-2003 Irrigated Area in Selected Countries, 1961-2003
Notes
Please purchase this trend to gain access to the fully referenced endnotes and figures.
by Brian Halweil | August 20, 2008
In 2007, meat production remained steady at an estimated 275 million tons; in 2008, output is expected to top 280 million tons.1 (See Figure 1.) Experts predict that by 2050 nearly twice as much meat will be produced as today, for a projected total of more than 465 million tons.2 For more than a decade, the strongest increases in production have been in the developing world-in 1995 more meat and dairy products were produced in developing than in industrial countries for the first time, and this trend has continued ever since.3 In fact, in 2007 at least 60 percent of meat was produced in developing nations.4
Consumption of meat and other animal products also continues to grow. Currently nearly 42 kilograms of meat is produced per person worldwide, but meat consumption varies greatly by region and socioeconomic status.5 In the developing world, people eat about 30 kilograms of meat a year.6 But consumers in the industrial world eat more than 80 kilograms per person each year.7 (See Figure 2.)
Rising food prices are pushing consumers to choose cheaper cuts of meat, like chicken. (See Figure 3.) Global poultry output in 2007 was expected to reach 93 million tons, a 4-percent increase from the previous year.8 The United States is the biggest poultry producer, but other major producers, including Argentina, Brazil, China, the Philippines, and Thailand, are all expecting increases in production. India, however, is likely to have lower poultry production because of the spread of the H5N1 avian flu virus and the culling of millions of chickens.9
Pig meat production in 2007 was expected to rise nearly 2 percent, to 101 million tons.10 It declined the previous year as a result of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Disease in China and the massive culling of at least 1 million pigs.11 China, however, continues to be the world's largest producer of pig meat, although production is expanding in South America. Argentina, Brazil, and Chile are all increasing pig production, thanks to ample supplies of feed.12
Beef output rose by 2.3 percent, with nearly 67 million tons produced in 2007.13 The United States is still the world's largest beef producer, but 56 percent of production now takes place in the developing world.14 China's beef production is expected to grow by 3 percent in 2008, and despite traditional religious beliefs about the sacredness of cows, India, along with Pakistan, is responding to growing consumer demand for more-western diets by increasing beef production and slaughter.15
Much of the growing demand for animal products worldwide is being met by concentrated animal feeding operations, or factory farms.16 Worldwide, some 56 billion animals are raised and slaughtered for food each year.17 Factory farms account for 67 percent of poultry meat production, 50 percent of egg production, and 42 percent of pork production.18 These facilities rely on commercial breeds of livestock, usually pigs and chickens, that have been bred to gain weight quickly on high-protein feeds. Factory farms are also very crowded, confining animals closely together-many of the world's 17 billion hens and meat chickens each live in an area that is less than the size of a sheet of paper.19 Cattle in feedlots often stand knee-high in manure and arrive at slaughterhouses covered in feces.20
In addition, such operations are increasingly located in or near cities in the developing world, making urban areas the center of industrial meat production in some countries. And while city dwellers have kept livestock privately for centuries to help dispose of some urban waste, as well as a source of income and food, large industrial operations can create a host of environmental and public health problems. According to the World Bank, the "extraordinary proximate concentration of people and livestock poses probably one of the most serious environmental and public health challenges for the coming decades."21 Diseases such as avian flu, pig fever, and Nipah virus can all spread very quickly among animals living in confined animal feeding operations because of the crowded and filthy conditions. BSE, or mad cow disease, was likely the result of feeding cattle the ground-up bits of other ruminants.22 And the use of antibiotics in factory farming is leading to antibiotic resistance.23 In the United States, livestock now consume 70 percent of all antimicrobial drugs.24
Livestock are also responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, which is higher than the share of GHG emissions from transportation.25 They produce 37 percent of methane, which has more than 20 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, and they emit 65 percent of nitrous oxide, another powerful GHG, most of which comes from manure.26
Another environmental problem is water use: livestock operations are major water users and polluters. The irrigation of feed crops for cattle accounts for nearly 8 percent of global human water use.27 The large amount of waste produced on factory farms exceeds the capacity of nearby cropland to absorb it. As a result, manure goes from being a valuable agricultural resource to what is essentially toxic waste. Nitrates, heavy metals, and antibiotics present in manure can seep into groundwater and pollute surface water, threatening public health.28
One way to prevent some of these problems is to discourage large producers from keeping animals in or near cities. A combination of zoning and land use regulations, taxes, incentives, and infrastructure development can encourage them to raise animals closer to croplands, where manure can be used as fertilizer and where there is less risk of disease transmission to people. Controlling land and livestock nutrient imbalances means raising livestock in areas that have enough land to handle the waste from large operations. Thailand, for example, has levied high taxes on poultry production within a 100-kilometer radius of Bangkok.29 As a result, over the last decade poultry production near Bangkok has dropped significantly.30
Consumers will need to rethink the place of meat and other animal products in their diets to promote better human and environmental health. A recent article, for example, in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition notes that "vegetarian and vegan diets could play an important role in preserving environmental resources and in reducing hunger and malnutrition in poorer nations."31 And the authors of a September 2007 article in the highly respected medical journal The Lancet recommended that people in the industrial world eat 10 percent less meat as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as improve human health: "The unprecedented serious challenge posed by climate change necessitates radical responses... For the world's higher-income populations, greenhouse-gas emissions from meat-eating warrant the same scrutiny as do those from driving and flying."32
Purchase this trend
| Item# |
Type |
Price |
|
| VST116 |
PDF and Excel |
$10.00 |
Add to Cart |
Includes the following charts and graphs
World Meat Production, 1961-2007 Meat Production, Per Person, World, Industrial, and Developing Countries, 1961-2007 World Meat Production by Source, 2007
Notes
Please purchase this trend to gain access to the fully referenced endnotes and figures.
|
|