Income Disparities and the Global Distribution of Intensively Farmed Chicken and Pigs

Marius Gilbert, Giulia Conchedda, Thomas P Van Boeckel, Giuseppina Cinardi, Catherine Linard, Gaëlle Nicolas, Weerapong Thanapongtharm, Laura D'Aietti, William Wint, Scott H Newman, Timothy P Robinson, Marius Gilbert, Giulia Conchedda, Thomas P Van Boeckel, Giuseppina Cinardi, Catherine Linard, Gaëlle Nicolas, Weerapong Thanapongtharm, Laura D'Aietti, William Wint, Scott H Newman, Timothy P Robinson

Abstract

The rapid transformation of the livestock sector in recent decades brought concerns on its impact on greenhouse gas emissions, disruptions to nitrogen and phosphorous cycles and on land use change, particularly deforestation for production of feed crops. Animal and human health are increasingly interlinked through emerging infectious diseases, zoonoses, and antimicrobial resistance. In many developing countries, the rapidity of change has also had social impacts with increased risk of marginalisation of smallholder farmers. However, both the impacts and benefits of livestock farming often differ between extensive (backyard farming mostly for home-consumption) and intensive, commercial production systems (larger herd or flock size, higher investments in inputs, a tendency towards market-orientation). A density of 10,000 chickens per km2 has different environmental, epidemiological and societal implications if these birds are raised by 1,000 individual households or in a single industrial unit. Here, we introduce a novel relationship that links the national proportion of extensively raised animals to the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (in purchasing power parity). This relationship is modelled and used together with the global distribution of rural population to disaggregate existing 10 km resolution global maps of chicken and pig distributions into extensive and intensive systems. Our results highlight countries and regions where extensive and intensive chicken and pig production systems are most important. We discuss the sources of uncertainties, the modelling assumptions and ways in which this approach could be developed to forecast future trajectories of intensification.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Productivity (kg of meat per…
Fig 1. Productivity (kg of meat per animal per year) as a function of Gross Domestic Product per capita (USD in purchasing power parity in 2010).
Each dot represents a country, with the size indicative of the stock according to FAOSTAT [5]. Only countries with stocks > 0 for chickens (n = 190) and pigs (n = 170) are included.
Fig 2. Models of the proportions of…
Fig 2. Models of the proportions of extensively raised chickens (a) and pigs (b) and of intensively-raised pigs (c) as a function of GDP per capita (USD, Purchasing Power Parity for 2010).
Each dot represents a country for which Pext and Pint was established through data-mining (n = 86 for chicken, n = 97 for pig), with the size indicative of the stock according to FAOSTAT [5].
Fig 3. Predicted proportions of pigs raised…
Fig 3. Predicted proportions of pigs raised under extensive, semi-intensive and intensive production systems as a function of GDP per capita (USD, Purchasing Power Parity).
The top row of points indicates the position of different countries along the gradient of GDP per capita, with the size of the points indicative of the national stock according to FAOSTAT [5]. A selection of countries is indicated by their ISO-3 codes.
Fig 4. Distribution of chickens (birds per…
Fig 4. Distribution of chickens (birds per square kilometre) raised under extensive (a) and intensive (b) production systems (unprojected lat/long decimal degrees coordinate system, WGS 84).
The data used to produce these maps were all from public sources (detailed in the Material and Method section), and the country limit data are from the FAO Global Administrative Unit Layers (GAUL) database.
Fig 5. Distribution of pigs (head per…
Fig 5. Distribution of pigs (head per square kilometre) raised under extensive (a), semi-intensive (b) and intensive (c) production systems (unprojected lat/long decimal degrees coordinate system, WGS 84).
The data used to produce these maps were all from public sources (detailed in the Material and Method section), and the country limit data are from the FAO Global Administrative Unit Layers (GAUL) database.
Fig 6. Extensively and intensively raised chickens…
Fig 6. Extensively and intensively raised chickens in Thailand according to the current methodology (a and b, respectively) and that of Van Boeckel et al. [8] (c and d, respectively) (unprojected lat/long decimal degrees coordinate system, WGS 84).
The data used to produce these maps were all from public sources (detailed in the Material and Method section) and the country limit data are from the FAO Global Administrative Unit Layers (GAUL) database.

References

    1. Smil V. Worldwide transformation of diets, burdens of meat production and opportunities for novel food proteins. Enzyme and Microbial Technology. 2002;30: 305–311.
    1. Fowler CW, Hobbs L. Is humanity sustainable? Proc Biol Sci. 2003;270: 2579–2583. 10.1098/rspb.2003.2553
    1. Delgado CL. Livestock to 2020: The next food revolution. Intl Food Policy Res Inst; 1999.
    1. Steinfeld H. The livestock revolution—a global veterinary mission. Veterinary parasitology. 2004;125: 19–41.
    1. FAO. FAO Statistical Database. Available on ; 2009.
    1. DESA U. World Population Prospects, The 2012 Revision. New York: Department for Economic and Social Affairs; 2013;
    1. Willer H. The world of organic agriculture 2012: summary. the world of organic agriculture. 2011; Available:
    1. Van Boeckel TP, Thanapongtharm W, Robinson T, D’Aietti L, Gilbert M. Predicting the distribution of intensive poultry farming in Thailand. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment. 2012;149: 144–153. 10.1016/j.agee.2011.12.019
    1. Robinson T, Pozzi F. Mapping supply and demand for animal-source food to 2030. FAO; 2011.
    1. Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision [Internet]. ESA Working paper Rome, FAO; 2012. Available:
    1. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar TD, Castel V, de Haan C. Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. FAO; 2006.
    1. Boeckel TPV, Brower C, Gilbert M, Grenfell BT, Levin SA, Robinson TP, et al. Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. PNAS. 2015; 201503141 10.1073/pnas.1503141112
    1. Zimmerman DR. Role of subtherapeutic levels of antimicrobials in pig production. Journal of Animal Science. 1986;62: 6–16.
    1. Gaskins HR, Collier CT, Anderson DB. Antibiotics as Growth Promotants:mode of Action. Animal Biotechnology. 2002;13: 29–42. 10.1081/ABIO-120005768
    1. Graham JP, Boland JJ, Silbergeld E. Growth Promoting Antibiotics in Food Animal Production: An Economic Analysis. Public Health Rep. 2007;122: 79–87.
    1. Van Boeckel TP, Gandra S, Ashok A, Caudron Q, Grenfell BT, Levin SA, et al. Global antibiotic consumption 2000 to 2010: an analysis of national pharmaceutical sales data. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2014; 10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70780-7
    1. MacPherson DW. Population Mobility, Globalization, and Antimicrobial Drug Resistance. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2009;
    1. Leibler JH, Otte J, Roland-Holst D, Pfeiffer DU, Soares Magalhaes R, Rushton J, et al. Industrial Food Animal Production and Global Health Risks: Exploring the Ecosystems and Economics of Avian Influenza. EcoHealth. 2009;6: 58–70. 10.1007/s10393-009-0226-0
    1. Mennerat A, Nilsen F, Ebert D, Skorping A. Intensive Farming: Evolutionary Implications for Parasites and Pathogens. Evolutionary Biology. 2010;37: 59–67. 10.1007/s11692-010-9089-0
    1. Pulliam JRC, Epstein JH, Dushoff J, Rahman SA, Bunning M, Jamaluddin AA, et al. Agricultural intensification, priming for persistence and the emergence of Nipah virus: a lethal bat-borne zoonosis. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface / the Royal Society. 2011; 10.1098/rsif.2011.0223
    1. Stegeman A, Bouma A, Elbers ARW, de Jong MCM, Nodelijk G, de Klerk F, et al. Avian influenza A virus (H7N7) epidemic in The Netherlands in 2003: course of the epidemic and effectiveness of control measures. J Infect Dis. 2004;190: 2088–2095. 10.1086/425583
    1. Monne I, Fusaro A, Nelson MI, Bonfanti L, Mulatti P, Hughes J, et al. Emergence of a highly pathogenic avian influenza virus from a low-pathogenic progenitor. J Virol. 2014;88: 4375–4388. 10.1128/JVI.03181-13
    1. Li KS, Guan Y, Wang J, Smith GJD, Xu KM, Duan L, et al. Genesis of a highly pathogenic and potentially pandemic H5N1 influenza virus in eastern Asia. Nature. 2004;430: 209–213.
    1. An T-Q, Tian Z-J, Leng C-L, Peng J-M, Tong G-Z. Highly pathogenic porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus, Asia. Emerging Infect Dis. 2011;17: 1782–1784. 10.3201/eid1709.110411
    1. Gilbert M, Pfeiffer DU. Risk factor modelling of the spatio-temporal patterns of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAIV) H5N1: a review. Spat Spatiotemporal Epidemiol. 2012;3: 173–183. 10.1016/j.sste.2012.01.002
    1. Van Boeckel TP, Thanapongtharm W, Robinson T, Biradar CM, Xiao X, Gilbert M. Improving Risk Models for Avian Influenza: The Role of Intensive Poultry Farming and Flooded Land during the 2004 Thailand Epidemic. PLoS ONE. 2012;7: e49528 10.1371/journal.pone.0049528
    1. Dolman MA, Vrolijk HCJ, de Boer IJM. Exploring variation in economic, environmental and societal performance among Dutch fattening pig farms. Livestock Science. 2012;149: 143–154. 10.1016/j.livsci.2012.07.008
    1. Mcleod A, Thieme O, Mack S. Structural changes in the poultry sector: will there be smallholder poultry development in 2030? World’s Poultry Science Journal. 2009;65: 191–200.
    1. Steinfeld H, Mooney HA, Schneider F, Neville LE. Livestock in a Changing Landscape, Volume 1: Drivers, Consequences, and Responses. Island Press; 2013.
    1. Wint W, Robinson T. Gridded Livestock of the World. Food and Agricultural Organisation, Rome, Italy: 2007;
    1. Neumann K, Elbersen B, Verburg P, Staritsky I, Pérez-Soba M, de Vries W, et al. Modelling the spatial distribution of livestock in Europe. Landscape Ecology. 2009;24: 1207–1222. 10.1007/s10980-009-9357-5
    1. Prosser DJ, Wu J, Ellis EC, Gale F, Van Boeckel TP, Wint W, et al. Modelling the distribution of chickens, ducks, and geese in China. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2011;141: 381–389. 10.1016/j.agee.2011.04.002
    1. Van Boeckel TP, Prosser D, Franceschini G, Biradar C, Wint W, Robinson T, et al. Modelling the distribution of domestic ducks in Monsoon Asia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2011;141: 373–380. 10.1016/j.agee.2011.04.013
    1. Robinson TP, Wint GRW, Conchedda G, Van Boeckel TP, Ercoli V, Palamara E, et al. Mapping the Global Distribution of Livestock. PLoS ONE. 2014;9: e96084 10.1371/journal.pone.0096084
    1. Robinson T, Thornton P, Franceschini G, Kruska R, Chiozza F, Notenbaert A, et al. Global livestock production systems. 2011; 152 pp.
    1. World Bank. Data | The World Bank [Internet]. 2014 [cited 13 Jun 2014]. Available:
    1. NBS GDP DATA. Revisions of China GDP 2004–2008 by province-level divisions [Internet]. [cited 20 Mar 2015]. Available:
    1. FAO. Avian Flu—Farming Systems [Internet]. 2014 [cited 13 Jun 2014]. Available:
    1. Dobson JE, Bright EA, Coleman PR, Durfee RC, Worley BA. LandScan: a global population database for estimating populations at risk. Photogrammetric engineering and remote sensing. 2000;66: 849–857.
    1. Gilbert M, Golding N, Zhou H, Wint GRW, Robinson TP, Tatem AJ, et al. Predicting the risk of avian influenza A H7N9 infection in live-poultry markets across Asia. Nat Commun. 2014;5 10.1038/ncomms5116

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다