(Mr. Roger Gilbert, Secretary General, International Feed Industry Federation presented this lecture at Ag – Biotech India at New Delhi on 22 September 2000.)

How do GMOs find their way into the food chain and into our milk meat and eggs?

While some European supermarkets may elect not to buy food products containing GMO ingredients in their list of ingredients, it is more difficult to enforce that policy when it comes to products from livestock that have been reared on GMO-containing feedingstuffs. And if they did would it extend to the GMO technology used in the production of feed enzymes now commonly used around the world? But first let me outline some of the opportunities GMOs present in terms of animal feeding, and in particular, offer views on the role the feed industry should play in adopting this new technology.

`Harry Clayberg’, said at the 4<sup>th</sup> East/ West Feed Industry Conference in Prague, Czech Republic, that: "Public fears concerning biotechnology and contamination are real. We as a food industry – and not just as a feed industry – must increase our awareness and understand what people fear before we can introduce trust and confidence. I believe our industry has made a big blunder over its handling of the introduction of GMOs and biotechnology." Mr. Clayberg admits that he knows little if anything about the technology involved, yet his words carry weight. After all, he is the chief executive office of the world’s largest farmer cooperative – Farmland Industries – which has 500,000 farmer-owner members and turns over US$12 billion in sales annually, Grain processing and livestock feeds are a significant part of his organisation’s business.His view is reflected a continent away be a large food retailer in Holland. Albert Heijn’s vice-President and head of quality assurance, Simone Hertzberger, says to feed manufacturers "People are not interested in the specification of livestock feeds, but they want to be sure that someone is taking an interest so that their health is not put in jeopardy. We have a role to play and so does every link in the food chain. Feed manufacturers must make their systems are transparent as possible. What you should not do is say `Leave it to us we will take care of it.’ This undermines trust. Making your processes transparent is very important."

I quote those two examples to show that both livestock producer and food retailer are

aware of what must be done in terms of gaining public confidence. Yet the feed industry has largely ignored the issue of GMOs and has avoided becoming `involved’ in the debate or taking a position. The feed industry has often adopted the policy that the least said on contentious issues the better – after all its customers are not consumers! But thankfully that attitude is now changing. Earlier this year, the president of the European Feed Manufacturers Federation stated at the Nottingham Feed Manufacturers Conference, that it was now time for the feed industry to stand up and be counted. That is to inform the public of its role in the production of milk, meat and eggs and take responsibility for what ingredients are used.

However, 100 years ago before the Rev Malthus’ pronouncement, European farmers

did have a serious food supply problem. The population was growing fast and an increasing number of people had to be fed. Until then farming methods hadn’t really changed from the times of ancient Greece. A system of crop rotation eventually replaced the fallow field with a highly productive cropping system. This kick-started a cycle of events we now call the `Agricultural Revolution’, A revolution that changed not only agriculture, but also the economy and society as a whole. But the story gets more interesting. Those new crops made ideal feed for animals. More fodder for animals meant more animals, which in turn meant more meat in peoples’ diets. The cycle continued – more animals also meant more manure for fertiliser, which resulted in more crops and more fodder leading to more animals. That cycle has continued until this day. More efficient food production meant fewer people were needed on the farms. More

people started living and working in towns and cities, which leads us to another little event called the `Industrial Revolution’. Obviously, this is a gross simplification of the events in Europe of the last 300 years. But the point I want to make is this: Agriculture affects a lot more than the food we eat. It affects our economy and it affects the society around us. Agriculture created and sustained that world of growth.

In short, we really are what we eat. And those of us in the food production business – which includes every person in this room – need to understand this, if we are to take advantage of the huge opportunities that await us.We may feel we are in a world where we can afford to debate exactly how we produce our food, but we are still facing the challenges of feeding a growing world population, and the same cycle of events that ushered in the `Agricultural Age’ in Europe continues to take place all over the world. And as the population grows by 80 million new people each year we need to take full advantage of every opportunity that arises – and GMOs in the production of livestock feeds is one such opportunity.

In fact the American Soybean Association shows that where GDP rises above US$2000 per capita per year then the consumption of poultry products rises dramatically only slowing when GDP passes US$4000 when a more complex food purchasing policy comes into play.

In developing parts of the world the economic growth has been 1.5 percent, and the increased meat consumption has been 2.5 percent per year approximately. The growth in livestock feed has also been impressive – from 470 million to 833 million metric tonnes. But it is the make-up of this huge volume of feed that is important. Over 400 million tonnes is maize while barley, sorghum, wheat and oilseed meals account for more than 100 million tonnes each in animal feed. As you can see, the ingredients used in feed production are primarily vegetable proteins. The feed grain usage as a percentage of total crop production ranges from 18 percent for wheat, 52 percent for sorghum, 70 percent of the maize, 75 percent of the oats, and over 90 percent of the oil seed meals But, a complete feed ration is much more – a livestock ration contains micro – ingredients that balance the diet for optimum animal production. In fact animals in the developed world have a better and more scientifically formulated diet than we humans do.

"Why should we feed our protein and energy crops to animals when we could feed more people with them?" The facts just do not support the theory. Animal proteins are the most efficient and the nutritious source of many of the nutrients our bodies need.

A report published by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST – which is a group of US research Universities) shows that milk and beef meat, both are over 100 percent production efficient when calculated on a human-edible basis. Beef and dairy animals can digest so many non-human edible feedstuffs in their ruminans while returning nutritious high quality milk and beef – they come in at an astonishing rate of 180 percent and 109 percent efficient when calculated on a human-edible protein basis.Even the non-ruminant animals – swine and poultry – offer an excellent return on digestible protein when calculated on an human edible protein basis.

The human desire for animal protein will continue to grow Annual per capita consumption will increase to 41 kg/head worldwide. Using the most conservative estimates the world’s current six billion population will grow to eight billion by 2020.

It is clear Providing animal protein and other nutrients that come with milk, meat and eggs is the most efficient way to feed a growing world population. There is no alternative.

With this in mind just how important will GMOs become? This question answers itself Genetic engineering offers us a way forward. It offers us the means by which to triple the world’s protein production if we are to keep pace with world population projections in the early part of the 21s^t Century. And the production of that protein via the livestock and aquatic industries is paramount.

Currently the area of greatest interest for those involved in the development of GMOs

is in agronomic traits. They include:

1.Tolerance to selected herbicides

2.Resistance to disease and pests

3.Minimizing environmental stress factors.

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans and canola have led the way in modification to

oilseeds. First available in 1996 when approximately one million acres were planted in the US, by the following year some 85 seed companies were offering several varieties and the area planted rose to nine million acres accounting for 15 percent of the US soybean area. Argentina and Canada followed .The Roundup Ready soybean has been shown to increase yield by five percent through improved weed control. Canadian canola from 50,000 acres in its first year to half a million acres in 1997 with Roundup Ready oilseed rape – the winter version of canola – now under review by the European union. Roundup Ready seed corn has also been developed. AgrEvo received approval of its Liberty-link corn gene in 1996 and plantings started in 1997, Liberty-link soybean are also in the production process and Liberty-link canola this year followed by Liberty-Link rice next year. Herbicide-tolerant plants allow the farmer to provide the flexibility to apply herbicides on as `as needed’ basis, reducing tillage and soil erosion along with herbicide applications by between nine and 39 percent.

Bt proteins have been inserted into maize making it resistant to the European corn

borer. Bacillus thuringiensis is a natural occurring bacterium in the soil that produces a protein which controls insects by disrupting the insect's digestive system. This allows farmers to maintain crop yields using less chemical insecticides, less ground water contamination and is compatible with soil conservation programmes. In 1996 only Novartis (Ciba Seeds then) and Mycongen offered Bt seed corn. Monsanto has since followed with its YieldGard. Some three million ha of Bt corn were planted in 1997. The Bt gene is being put into many new plants such as sunflower, canola, soybeans, alfalfa, cotton and potatoes - as we have seen earlier many of these crops are used in animal feeding. But that is more important in terms of feed manufacturing, is the reduction in insect damage to crops. Damage often leads to the development of mould and then mycotoxins. A comparison of crops showed that Bt corn has no European corn borer damage, little mould and 10 percent bright greenish-yellow fluorescence compared to 53 percent corn borer damage, 37 percent mould and 47 percent bright greenish yellow fluorescence in the non-Bt corn lines.

Reducing mycotoxin producing fungi, form which prolonged exposure leads to

Cancer-related deaths, has a significant impact on both human and animal food safety.There are countries in this part of the world where raw materials used in animal feeds are in the order of 25 ppb producing finished feed at levels higher than 70ppb. Broiler performance is dramatically reduced at 60ppb-plus. The European standard for raw materials is in the order of 12ppb. And there is little support at present for blending concentrations above these levels.

The economic impact of mycotoxins on the health of animals and humans in the

world are tremendous. While aflatoxins in general are the most commonly occurring mycotoxin in feedstuffs, it is aflatoxin B1 that is the most common among them and the most potent cancer-causing agent known to mankind. Mycotoxins reduce growth efficiency, lowers feed conversion and reproductive rates. They impair resistance to infectious diseases and damages the liver and other organs. There is clear evidence that mycotoxins cause acute and chronic human disease including cancer from food contamination. And it may be surprising to learn that scientists estimate that about 25 percent of the world's crops are affected by mycotoxins.If the Bt gene is utilised in corn and other crops to reduce mycotoxin and aflatoxin problems alone then this advancement alone will increase our chances of defeating world hunger. Without the Bt gene and combined with stringent import standards on grains in western countries, contaminated grains are being consumed more and more in concentrated regions and countries.

There are some added-value feedstuffs, such as high oil corn varieties, commercially

available. But these have been developed through improved traditional breeding and backrossing methods .Two products which have been developed by modern plant biotechnology are Calgene's laurate canola and DuPont's Optimum High-Oleic Soybeans that offer the food industry different choices for oil ingredients. The first can be used in the manufacturer of soaps and body care products while the second contains less saturated fat than regular soybean oil.

But there are several genetically enhanced cereals and legume grains, with added

quality traits such as amino acid profiles under development for the feed industry and which we should see commercialised over the next two or three years. They will include high oleic acid-high oil corn, high lysine and high methionine high oil corn, low oligosaccharide soybean meal, low phytic acid grains or grains with phytase activity, soybeans with high lysine or methionine concentrations, high oil or low linolenic. The list is forever increasing. The USDA estimated that this year genetically engineered crops account for 25 Percent of US crop land - 35 percent of corn and 55 percent of soybeans. And there are 36 altered vegetables and fruit.

The campaign for mandatory labelling of food products containing GMO ingredients

by pressure groups is likely to fail. Already supermarkets are recognising that tackling the issue of GMOs in livestock products is not the same as replacing a GMO soybean lacitin in a chocolate bar. The USDA's position is one that says if the GM material does not differ from the organic or normally products material then it does not have to be labelled. Last year the Federal Centre for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 76 million Cases of food borne illness. Among those traceable, 77 percent resulted from improper handling in food service and 20 percent in the home. Food itself was found to be responsible for only three percent.

There are also genetically modified foods with health to cure specific diseases and maintain health. Quaker Oats, Benecol margarine and saled dressings that lower cholesterol.

A survey carried out by IFIF to identify views and concerns of national feed associations in Western Europe towards the use of genetically modified feed ingredients showed

The policy of Europe's feed organisations differ from one country to the next :

1. "Is to inform members of developments. As there is no particular need for GMO ingredients in feed production we not advocating GMO applications."
2. "Those which are EU and UK approved can be and are being used safely. Any exclusion of GMOs is a matter for commercial agreement between trading partners, but presents huge difficulties for feed compounders."
3. "They must be safe for use in animal feeds according to authorisation based on European Directive 90/220 and/or by national authorities."

1. Demand from food retailers not to use GMO products in animals feeds
2. Uncertainties as to what the consumer really want – we know only what food companies and retailers want.
3. Retailers and their markets are moving quickly towards non-GMO feedingstuff, so our members have to adapt to GMO-free feed deliveries to their clients.

Yes. In dairy feed non

1. -GMO feeds are being demanded
2. Yes. More concern than resistance to date. Some retailers are determinedly seeking non-GM feeds, but without definitions helpful to the feed industry.
3. Yes, but at the level the farmer unions. There is still confidence in the adoption and use of GMO technologies but politics and publications are uncertain elements in the discussion.

Our survey shows that no feed companies are yet segregating according to GMO, but all

expected to be doing so in the future.

We are constantly striving to reduce the quantity and duration for feeding in order to get livestock – particularly broilers – to market earlier. The feed conversion ratio is a standard measure of efficiency and only truly balanced diets based on the essential amino acids rather than crude protein will do where the pressure on profitable production is paramount. At present Western European pig producers are not doing well despite improved genetics and more targeted feed formulations.

Food safety has become a "hot subject" among food activists who see a good opportunity to raise money by provoking consumer hysteria – with little regard for sound science or the facts. n general, the public is becoming more informed and more concerned about what they eat. How our entire industry responds to these new concerns, is increasingly a factor in our competitiveness.

Feed mills are having to satisfy increasing calls for cleaner feed, feed which is free

from unnecessary additives such as antimicrobials and even colorants. But it is hygiene and hence food safety that is the hot issue for us, and this means greater control of organisms in feed, eliminating cross contamination between production runs and keeping finished feed from being reinfected.

But the most recent advancement that is now out of the testing facility and into the

feed production sector is thermal treatment of `mash’ for those new to our industry, final feedingstuffs are produced in either pellets (to ensure equal distribution of feed ingredients and nutrients – avoid separation of components distribution of feed ingredients and nutrients – avoid separation of components when moved or transported) to crumbles and extruded and expanded products where some heat treatment has been applied. Until now `mash’ has been considered the Cinderella product despite the fact that most of the world’s compound feed is fed in this form.

(R S Morris and P R Davies, EpiCentre, Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zeeland. This paper was presented at WPSC World Poultry Science Congress 2000 at Montreal, Canada)

Events of the last decade have demonstrated dramatically the extent to which current food production and distribution systems can create opportunities for the occurrence of large-scale food-borne disease incidents due to microbial and chemical contamination of products. They have also shown the extent of problems caused by rumours of food-borne hazards, where people who could not possibly have been exposed to a particular hazard they may face every day from other sources – mainly because those have not attracted media attention.

It is clear that we are going to have to develop new systems for providing assurance of food safety to consumers, and that these systems will need to deal with both genuine hazards and with rumours of hazards – since the latter behave just like true food-borne disease epidemics, but are more difficult to control since there is no underlying disease process to manage! Such events have been recognized for a long time, and are known in epidemiology as ""hysterical epidemics"". It is not by chance that the majority of these have historically been associated with food, but on a local scale. Their scale in recent times has become so large that they are approaching the scale of "hysterical pandemics", which are transmitted by global media. The way in which people perceive particular risks is one of the factors that must be taken into account, since it raises the profile of some risks and lowers that of others, relative to their objectively assessed significance. Research has identified a range of specific "fright factors" which cause people to react more strongly than the true risk to them justifies, and food-borne hazards embody many of these fright factors. Hence food scares trigger strong adverse community perceptions, and it will be necessary to provide safety assurance systems which allay these fears, and give people confidence that protective measures are in place, without making unrealistic claims that could have legal repercussions.

Food Safety assurance up to the point of consumer purchase has for the last century traditionally relied on organoleptic evaluation during post-slaughter handling, and the adoption of "safe handling" practices based largely on practical experience, converted into official rules. The various measures were at best tenuously founded on epidemiological evidence, and many of the procedures added little to the degree of protection of human health. Measures which purported to deal with health hazards in reality often dealt only with the sensory attractiveness of the product to the consumer, which is vitally important but not synonymous with protection against health hazards. The rule-tariff trade barriers, further confounding the situation. The system survived for decades despite criticism, because factors outside the inspection system were protective of consumer health, and inspection had benefits in consumer satisfaction. The approach had grown out of concerns with tuberculosis in cattle (despite the fact that transmission to man was through milk, not meat), and the same approach was progressively extended to other species. Total inspection of all animals was a cornerstone of the process, and sampling strategies were anathema.

The emergence of large-scale poultry production and the movement of poultry from prestige to staple food item was a crucial step along the path to change. As food production and marketing chains became more complex, and extended in distribution coverage from small localities to worldwide, the cracks in the system became increasingly evident. Moreover, food-borne disease outbreaks which did not reach official records when distribution of product was very localized became major health issues when they occurred on a larger scale, and increasingly attracted the attention of regional and national media.

The response by government agencies to the failure of "end-of-line" inspection systems to adequately protect consumers has been to implement improved systems of process control during slaughter and post-slaughter processing. These have evolved over recent years into a strategic approach generally called the Hazard-Analysis-Critical-Control-Point (HACCP) approach. Although the framework is now widely used, the details of implementation are very variable in content and effectiveness.

HACCP was a major step forward, in that it conceptualized epidemiological transmission pathways for disease agents, identified susceptible points for preventive or corrective intervention and formulated procedures to reduce or prevent agent transmission. Thus, for the first time, there was an epidemiological framework, which could be used to develop control actions.

However in its present form it is at best a step along the pathway to effective management of food-borne hazards, and need to move on is being recognized. Some of its inherent limitations as currently applied are:

1. It has a strong focus on microbiological hazards, and within those on hazards, which are influenced by slaughter practices and post-slaughter processing.
2. In practice, chemical hazards and other hazards which are not susceptible to intervention at this stage are not dealt with effectively. As applied, it does not consider the complete "farm to fork" continuum, which an effective food safety system must deal with.
3. It treats varied kinds of microbiological hazards as sharing the same critical control points, and oversimplifies the epidemiological issues.
4. For some hazards, the number of control points in the processing phase of the food production chain is small, so the scope for applying protective measures is also small.
5. The approach remains formulaic – "do this" and protection is assured, which is not true.
6. The best solution to many hazards is through an integrated control package, in which measures are applied in a coordinated and interlocking fashion, often at a series of different steps of the production system. HACCP does not adequately deal with this.
7. It assumes the need for intervention against all identified hazards in all cases, whereas in reality this need may vary considerably according to circumstances, which in epidemiological terms means the varying influence of interacting risk factors.
8. It provides no feedback to producers, which could assist them to reduce risks for the future, at their stage of the production system.
9. It does not contain a concept of tractability of animals and products through the chain.
10. It lacks the capacity to "learn from experience".

Briefly, HACCP has an implicit view of the production and processing system and associated hazard occurrence as linear, with intervention possible at various points in the chain, when in fact it is a multifactorial web, with different risk factors interacting in ways, which do not suit the linear model. There is therefore a need to move beyond the HACCP approach to a genuinely risk-based epidemiological approach, in which the mix of measures is matched to the hazards. The main reason that this has not been effectively achieved has been the lack of a practical framework for implementing the approach. A genuinely risk-based approach is not inherently more costly, and is likely to be more cost-effective in achieving food safety objectives , which could be set in conjunction with a truly risk-based system.

Just as international trade in animals and animal products has switched in recent years from a rule-based approach to a risk-based system for managing health hazards to animal and plant populations of countries resulting from importation’s, we need a similar approach for consumer protection, both for domestic consumption and international trade.

The central feature of such a system has to be the adoption of a real-time risk evaluation system directly linked to the production and processing chain. It will take data accumulated through the various stages in the chain, and in the light of relevant scientific knowledge use this to guide decisions on how to keep the risk of an individual consumer being exposed to a specific hazard below a threshold value. This threshold will be set to provide confidence that the risk is low enough that it is not of concern for consumer health. Such a system has to be "real-time", meaning that the evaluations and guidance occurs at the time intervention is possible, and provides the guidance instantaneously.

We have developed a software product called Hand-RISK which could be adapted to meet these requirements, although in the first instance it was developed to assist with decisions on import policy to provide protection against health hazards while meeting World Trade Organization free trade obligations. In that form it poses questions to the decision-maker, and in the light of the responses formulates a risk analysis for a particular product/hazard combination, then calculates the risk, and can quickly repeat the calculation for many different risk management strategies. It considers the consequences of importing the agent, as well as the probability.

It consists of a very extensive decision tree framework, it which the decision-maker has a large number of choices available, but as successive choices are made for each of the control points in the export/import process, the strategy under consideration is more and more tightly defined until a complete analysis is laid out. The program then creates the mathematical/statistical logic and formulae required to conduct the evaluation as defined by the user, undertakes the analytical process, and presents a range of automated reports to the user, describing the results of the analysis. The user can later go back and adjust one or more factors, and hence create multiple analyses evaluating variations in the strategy and seeking an optimum cost-effective strategy for the circumstances. Multiple analyses can be conducted for different disease agents, and then an importation policy formulated which meets requirements for all the agents of concern. Because the process is automated, it can be done quickly.

It can be seen that this has similarities to HACCP, in that hazards of concern are identified, and control points are specified at which the risk of introduction of the disease agent can be modified, leading to a risk reduction strategy if one is needed for the agents and the importation of interest. The important new features are that the system is dynamic, includes multiple interacting factors, and can readily be re-run with new information as it becomes available. It is also agent-specific rather than generic, and it considers risk in a probabilistic way rather than simply defining a procedure as necessary or unnecessary. Therefore it overcomes the main weaknesses of HACCP, while sharing its virtues. Developing such software is an exceptionally difficult technical challenge, but now that it has been done for one type of analysis, the approach can be adapted to other problems of a broadly similar nature, and information and specific techniques, which would be required for such an approach is increasingly becoming available. For example, McNab (1998) has created a conceptual framework for undertaking food safety risk assessment, which demonstrates how such a system could operate.

For a food safety information system, the software would be adapted so that it would make use of data progressively becoming available as an animal (and then its products) moves through the production and marketing chain, and would integrate this with scientific information about the implications of the accumulating data to assess whether at that point the risk of a consumer being exposed to a hazardous level of the particular disease agent was predicted to be above or below the risk threshold. If the risk were unacceptable, a set of choices would be presented to allow a decision to be made about corrective action, or downgrading of the status and value of the product. Such calculations would be made automatically at each control point or whenever new data was provided, and would handle each of the microbiological and chemical hazards separately for that product type and history. We have developed a tracking system for analyzing inter-farm movement of animals, which could be adapted to meet the goal of providing effective tractability.

Quality considerations could equally well be incorporated into the system, so that compliance with quality procedures of the supermarket chain or other purchaser could be assured.

Information would be accumulated in the system over time about the source production unit, its production system, participation in a quality assurance program, location, any local environmental influences of relevance, previous risk history and management factors of relevance to meat quality. Linked to dispatch of stock to slaughter, information would be entered into the system about the treatment history and any relevant information about the management and disease history of the particular group of animals. In general, almost all of the information needed is already supplied by producers in many countries, but is currently not used effectively. One objective would be to make better use of the information, and to reduce unnecessary data gathering, which contributes nothing to safety or quality objectives. All animals and product would be tracked through the system from farm to final product packs, with progressive development of inventory reconciliation systems, to account as far as possible for the degree of success achieved in maintaining tractability. Software already developed for animal disease tracing could be adapted for this purpose. In poultry and pigs, feed ingredient tracking is likely to become part of the system as well, because of the recent dioxin contamination incident.

Date and time of departure from the source unit and arrival at the slaughter plant would be recorded, plus any unusual events in transit. Slaughter plant events and findings would also be entered, as would post-slaughter processing information, and product handling information through to the supermarket display case. Thus at that point, the product would carry its history of factors influencing both safety and quality, to provide the required level of assurance for the specific product type and expected end use.

At any realistic sampling intensity and financial investment, testing of animals and products for chemical and microbial hazards is very poorly effective at detecting and hence preventing rare events, especially if they are clustered in space or time. A lost of money can be spent, without achieving the food safety objectives. However sampling and testing of throughput can add considerably to safety assurance, if built into the risk management strategy, and the level of sampling required is likely to be quite low, which may well reduce the total cost of the health protection strategy below current levels, while increasing its effectiveness. Some of the low-cost highly sensitive tests being developed for food safety purposes are likely to be very beneficial, provided they are used for risk management, not for traditional surveillance purposes. Such systems are likely to include in future simple indicator strips, built into the product pack, which can be used to monitor pathogen levels right through to the point of food preparation, and will offer a major advance in safety procedures.

This conference was organized by IBC Asia Limited, Singapore – based company. Due to very high registration fees, there were less than 20 participants. The speakers were Dr.Chitta Rajan Hazara, Agricultural Commissioner,( Ministry of Agriculture, India); Dr. Jan Pen, Chief Executive Officer, (Orynova B.V., The Netherlands); Dr.Baijnath Singh, Director, (Central Rice Research Institute, India); Professor Anupam Verma, Dean, Professor ,Indian Agriculture Research Institute, India); Mr. Siva Kumar, Chief Executive-IBD, I.T.C. Ltd., India); Roger Gilbert, Secretary General,( International Feed Industries Federation, U.K.); Dr.(Mrs) Gurinder Jit Randhawa, Senior Scientest,

(National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, India); Mr. Saurabh Singhal, Executive Director, (All India Biotech Association, India); Mr. David Panasiak, Consultant, ( Food Liasion PTY LTD, Australia).

Imports shut up oil mills in Rajasthan

Centre’s liberalized policy on edible oil imports has led to the closure of 1,600 oil mills and 54 solvent extraction plants in Rajasthan, reviving a specter of grim industrial recession in the state. Oil industry sources said the total loss suffered by the industry was estimated to be around Rs 25,000 crore. There is also a net outgo of foreign worth Rs 40,000 crore on import of edible oil annually.

The liberalized import regime has virtually sounded the death knell for edible oil industry, particularly mustard oil. The sources said Malaysia produces 91-lakh tones palm, of which they consumed only 9 lakh tones. The balance can either be exported or dumped as they do not have adequate storing facilities. If India increases import duty, they decrease the export duty or cut down the prices. In such a scenario, domestic farmers will never have the opportunity to realize the value of their production. Several factors have compounded the situation.

With the support price for rapeseed –mustard (which was Rs 1,100 per quintal ) the cost of oil comes to Rs 27 per kg, Rs6 higher than the imported refined oil and Rs 9 per kg higher than palm oil. Farmers are not happy with the support price because they are selling Rs100 per quintal lower than the support price and are being forced to divert to other crops.

The effect of this will be felt after two to three years when there would be no indigenous oil seed producers and the consumers would have to pay five to six times more than the present market price. Already, self-sufficiency in the production of oil had dropped from 97 per cent in 1990-91 to 60 per cent in 1999-2000 on imports. Aggrieved at the treatment being meted out at the indigenous oil industry, a group of oil mill owners along with three members of Parliament had recently met home minister L K Advani and

Shanta Kumar. The ministers reportedly told the delegates that the government could not increase the import duty any further as this may lead to an escalation of prices with disastrous political consequences for them.

(Source: Economic Times)

As part of the campaign to create a proportionate demand and supply ratio, the Broiler Coordination Committee continued to destroy broiler chick eggs in lakhs per week in Coimbatore district. The committee had decided last month to destroy 25 lakh unedible eggs per week, following sharp decline in prices since eight months due to over production and fall in demand. The producers, mainly centred in Udumalpet, Pollachi belts in the district, have destroyed 19 lakh eggs so far. Average cost of production per one kg of broiler chick being Rs 27, the producers fetch only Rs 25 per kg, leading to a total loss of Rs 10 crore . Though the prices had picked up marginally by Rs 4 from last week, there was all possibility of if going down again with stagnation of boriler chick.

Non-reconition of broilers either as agriculture or as industry in Tamil Nadu, has resulted in higher cost of production. Neighbouring Kerala was encouraging it by providing subsidy in power tariff and feed. Kerala had introduced tax for the broilers sent from Tamil Nadu. Another bottleneck was the problem in exporting the eggs owing to heavy production costs and lack of proper cold storage facilities. The producers have no other option, but are forced to take this extreme step to maintain the demand-supply ratio. The producers also feel that though broiler chicken were sold at Rs55-60 per kg, the producers were forced to sell it for a song, thus putting them at heavy loss.

(Source: Economics Times)

FAO’s animal production service has found that in terms of digestible nutrients, mulberry produces more than traditional forages. The leaves can be used as the main feed for goats, sheep and rabbits, as supplement replacing concentrates for dairy cattle and as an ingredient in the diets if livestock such as pigs.

How was the breakthrough achieved when for over centuries no one had found this? FAO says the breakthrough came in the 1980s when a Costa Rican farmer, who had raised mulberry trees for a failed silkworm project, fed the leaves to his goats. Impressed by the mulberry’s apparent palatability and the performance of his animals, he shared his experience with scientists at the Tropical Agriculture Research Centre, Costa Rica. That lead to the Centre including mulberry in their tree fodder evaluations. Around the same time, the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Kenya and the Livestock Production Research Institute,Tnazania also began independent agronomic and animal trials of the tree.

The studies revealed that mulberry could replace grain-based concentrates in lactating cows with excellent results- yield did not decrease significantly even after 75 per cent of the concentrate was replaced with mulberry leaves. Among goats on a diet if King grass, milk production increased along with the amount of mulberry they were fed. At the Costa Rican center, dairy goats fed exclusively on mulberry and king grass produced an average of four litres of milk a day.

Trials carried out with growing pigs by replacing 15 per cent of a commercial concentrate with mulberry leaves showed that their daily weight gain was 680-750 gm.

The other significant study has shown that dried mulberry leaf meal in the mash of laying hens led to better egg yolk colour and increased egg size and production. FAO says that the long selection and improvement of mulberry has made it comparable to and often better than many other forage plants in terms of nutritional value and yield of digestible nutrients per unit of area, especially in tropical environments. Yield, quality and availability worldwide makes mulberry a very important option to intensify livestock systems, especially in places where enough nutrients can be applied to obtained maximum response in biomass production. The greatest immediate impact could be in tropical areas if it is introduced as supplement to lactating cows and as feed to growing calves. On the other hand, cactus can serve as a strategic fodder in arid and semi-arid areas. The use of cactus dates back to the 19^th century when there was extensive trade in it in cattle-raising regions of Texas in the US. Both wild and cultivated cactus are used today in Tunisia, Mexico and South Africa as an emergency forage during drought.

Cactus has been found to be a useful livestock feed as its converts water into dry matter or digestible energy far more efficiently than grasses and legumes, says FAO. The plan also responds well to fertilizing, tolerates heavy pruning and can be fed as fresh forage. FAO points out to studies showing a hectare of mature cactus producing up to 100 tonnes of cladodes (leaves) a year in areas with as little as 150 mm rainfall. However, there is a caution in the use of cactus. It does not provide a balanced diet. It has to be fed along with fibrous stuffs such as straw and hay and supplemented with nitrogen.

Oct . 2-4, 2000 Petfood Forum Europe 2000

Symposium and Exhibition for Petfood Professionals

Venue : The Golden Tulip Grand Hotel

Krasnapolsky Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contact : Fax: +1-815.734.4201

Oct. 5-8, 2000 Fleravicola 39^th Poultry Show

Venue : Forli, Italy

Contact: Tel: +39543-793511, Fax: +39543 724488 or PFI, India

Oct. 12-14, 2000 XX Annual Conference and Symposium of Indian

Poultry Science Association "Challenges to Poultry

Industry in the New Millennium"

Venue : TANUVAS, Chennai

Contact : Organizing Secretary, IPSA and Professor & Head,

Poultry Research Station, Chennai – 600 035

Oct. 18-21, 2000 3^rd Annual Equine School

Venue : Fort Worth, Texas

Contact : Mr. Carol Johnson

Tel: +1-859-885-9613, Fax: +1-859-887-3256.

E-mail: cjohnson@alltech-bio.com

Oct. 30- Nov.1, 2000 International Dairy Short Course

Venue : Boise, Idaho

Contact : Mr. Carol Johnson

Tel: +1-859-885-9613, Fax: +1-859-887-3256

E-mail: cjohnson@alltech-bio.com

Venue : Management Development Centre

Contact : Mr. T.N. Naskar – Administrative Officer – CMDP

IIMC, Joka, Diamond Harbour Road, P.B. No. 16757

Alipore Post Office, Calcutta – 700 027

Tel: 467-9189/ 467-8300 to 04

Fax: 033-467-7851/ 282-1498/ 467-8307.

Nov.7-9, 2000 Livestock Feeding Strategies in the New Millennium

Venue : CCSHAU, Hisar

Contact : Dr. Kusumakar Sharma

Centre of Advance Studies in Animal Nutrition

IVRI, Izatnagar-243122, Uttar Pradesh

Tel: 0581-442313 (O); 443035 (R)

Fax: (0581) 447284

Nov. 21-25, 2000 Management Development Programme on

"R&D Management"

Venue : Management Development Centre, Tata Hall,

Contact : Mr. T.N. Naskar – Administrative Officer – CMDP

IIMC, Joka, Diamond Harbour Road, P.B. No. 16757

Alipore Post Office, Calcutta – 700 027

Tel: 467-9189/ 467-8300 to 04

Fax: 033-467-7851/ 282-1498/ 467-8307.

Nov. 27 – Dec. 1, 2000 Concepts & Stratigic Issues in General Management

Contact : Mr. T.N. Naskar – Administrative Officer – CMDP

IIMC, Joka, Diamond Harbour Road, P.B. No. 16757

Alipore Post Office, Calcutta – 700 027

Tel: 467-9189/ 467-8300 to 04

Fax: 033-467-7851/ 282-1498/ 467-8307.

Venue : Hannover, Germany

Contact : Daniel M. Koning

Fax: +4969 2478 8113.

Dec. 4-8, 2000 Management Development Programme on

"Managerial Leadership and Team Effectiveness"

Venue : Management Development Centre, Tata Hall,

IIM Calcutta Campus

Contact : Mr. T.N. Naskar – Administrative Officer – CMDP

IIMC, Joka, Diamond Harbour Road, P.B. No. 16757

Alipore Post Office, Calcutta – 700 027

Tel: 467-9189/ 467-8300 to o4

Fax: 033-467-7851/ 282-1498/ 467-8307.

1. Maize- Production and prices

Although all India kharif maize production for the year 2000 is expected to be short by about a million mt, price of maize/corn in the domestic markets will continue to be under severe downward pressure in the near future, on account of expected comfortable supplies till end November 2000. Hence trade participants and users are advised to buy on the declines and maintain optimal stocks and avoid accumulation in the short term.

*Preliminary estimates for Current year’s production figures, subject to revision.

We estimate the following State-wise crop figures for kharif 2000:

• Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh which are the main maize growing states in South India are likely to have good kharif maize crop this year. While Karnataka is set to have a bumper crop, Andhra Pradesh which was also expecting a bumper crop has suffered slightly due to floods. However, due to increased acreage and overall better growing conditions both Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh are likely to harvest above normal crop.

• In North India Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab which account for about 30, percent of North Indian crop are expected to be normal to better. However Rajasthan, Gujarat , Madhya Pradesh and Bihar which account for another about 30 to 40% of North Indian crop are suffering from drought and consequently the production is likely to be down considerably in these states.

• Uttar Pradesh which contributes more than 10 percent of all India production is likely to have reduced yields on account of moisture stress in some areas, but overall crop is expected to be normal to better than last year.)
• Rajasthan and Karnataka maize are expected to arrive Delhi markets from early October onwards.
• We had earlier estimated the all India Kharif crop at 9.5 mil mt, when the crop conditions were good in most parts of India. In the last 2-4 weeks the situation has changed in many states due to lack of adequate rains, drought and floods. Now the situation is not likely to change any further on account of the receding monsoon and the fact that even if it rains, crops are not going to be benefitted.