Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on June 19, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
Letters
Letters Veterinary contribution to food production In the last paragraph of his overview of antimicrobial use in animals, Luca Guardabassi (VR, December 21/28, 2013, vol 173, pp 559-602) asks us to redirect the discussion on to questions about the production of meat to match the expected 50 per cent increase in consumption in developing countries between 1999 and 2030. We are around halfway through that period, with 2030 no further ahead of us than the dotcom bubble of 1999 is behind us. A large proportion of today’s veterinarians and undergraduates will be active through these years. It is right that, as agricultural and food scientists, we should lead in the debate, which should include dairy production, as red meat and dairy are expected to provide greater demands for new inputs than pork and poultry. Post-production waste already contributes to the environmental and economic costs of consumed foods, and there must be roles for some of our profession in addressing these issues. Waste in production, of animals’ lives and productive capacity, due to disease and other challenges presented by management, nutrition and infrastructure, is something we in farm practice are already engaged with. We can do more to assess waste, and use information to guide farm businesses about improving their economic and environmental performance. Guardabassi suggests there is an either or choice between ‘industrial production of livestock’ and ‘a focus on animal welfare and environmental sustainability’. It is my opinion that this is the key area of debate. I am not aware of a definition of industrial production of livestock, but assume it describes production systems in which large numbers of animals are kept at high density, with feedstuffs brought in for them. The questions posed are whether such systems are bound to be less sustainable, and provide more welfare challenges, than systems with lower stocking densities. It is my contention that large-scale units allow for development of good infrastructure, evidence-based management, adequate staffing levels and training, and can provide excellent welfare and efficient production of animal products. It is not a given that extensive production meets all those challenges. Large-scale production also allows for virtuous cycles, by integrating
cropping, the use of by-products in animal feeds to balance and maximise utilisation of forages, and the return of waste to crop land, consistent with the ‘mixed farming’ so many people hanker after. And a last thought. Should a wealthy nation, such as ours, seek to preserve our green and pleasant land by underperforming in food production, while importing food from other countries? Should we protect wildlife at the expense of farming? If we do, are we not taking food from the mouths of people who already have less than us, and putting their environments at risk to preserve ours? Is our wildlife more special than that which will be displaced to produce our food in other countries? Neil Howie, The Laurels, Chapel Lane, Ravensmoor, Nantwich CW5 8PT email: [email protected] doi: 10.1136/vr.g468
t
food production
January 25, 2014 | Veterinary Record | 101
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on June 19, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
Veterinary contribution to food production Neil Howie Veterinary Record 2014 174: 101
doi: 10.1136/vr.g468 Updated information and services can be found at: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/174/4/101.1
These include:
Email alerting service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to: http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions To order reprints go to: http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
Letters
Letters Veterinary contribution to food production In the last paragraph of his overview of antimicrobial use in animals, Luca Guardabassi (VR, December 21/28, 2013, vol 173, pp 559-602) asks us to redirect the discussion on to questions about the production of meat to match the expected 50 per cent increase in consumption in developing countries between 1999 and 2030. We are around halfway through that period, with 2030 no further ahead of us than the dotcom bubble of 1999 is behind us. A large proportion of today’s veterinarians and undergraduates will be active through these years. It is right that, as agricultural and food scientists, we should lead in the debate, which should include dairy production, as red meat and dairy are expected to provide greater demands for new inputs than pork and poultry. Post-production waste already contributes to the environmental and economic costs of consumed foods, and there must be roles for some of our profession in addressing these issues. Waste in production, of animals’ lives and productive capacity, due to disease and other challenges presented by management, nutrition and infrastructure, is something we in farm practice are already engaged with. We can do more to assess waste, and use information to guide farm businesses about improving their economic and environmental performance. Guardabassi suggests there is an either or choice between ‘industrial production of livestock’ and ‘a focus on animal welfare and environmental sustainability’. It is my opinion that this is the key area of debate. I am not aware of a definition of industrial production of livestock, but assume it describes production systems in which large numbers of animals are kept at high density, with feedstuffs brought in for them. The questions posed are whether such systems are bound to be less sustainable, and provide more welfare challenges, than systems with lower stocking densities. It is my contention that large-scale units allow for development of good infrastructure, evidence-based management, adequate staffing levels and training, and can provide excellent welfare and efficient production of animal products. It is not a given that extensive production meets all those challenges. Large-scale production also allows for virtuous cycles, by integrating
cropping, the use of by-products in animal feeds to balance and maximise utilisation of forages, and the return of waste to crop land, consistent with the ‘mixed farming’ so many people hanker after. And a last thought. Should a wealthy nation, such as ours, seek to preserve our green and pleasant land by underperforming in food production, while importing food from other countries? Should we protect wildlife at the expense of farming? If we do, are we not taking food from the mouths of people who already have less than us, and putting their environments at risk to preserve ours? Is our wildlife more special than that which will be displaced to produce our food in other countries? Neil Howie, The Laurels, Chapel Lane, Ravensmoor, Nantwich CW5 8PT email: [email protected] doi: 10.1136/vr.g468
t
food production
January 25, 2014 | Veterinary Record | 101
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on June 19, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
Veterinary contribution to food production Neil Howie Veterinary Record 2014 174: 101
doi: 10.1136/vr.g468 Updated information and services can be found at: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/174/4/101.1
These include:
Email alerting service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to: http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions To order reprints go to: http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
