AnimalhealthEurope reflects the findings of recent reports on animal health and sustainability, investigating the impact of investments in animal health for a greener planet and safer food systems.
Livestock farming is often a central issue in discussions on climate change in Brussels and on sustainability on the global stage. However, it is often overlooked how Europe’s farms are positively shaping the health of the continent, not only by producing nutritious and abundant food, but also through lowering emissions and reducing the land required to produce such food at affordable prices.
A new analysis published by Oxford Analytica for AnimalhealthEurope, Animal Health: Towards a More Resilient and Sustainable Future for Europe, puts bold ideas at the heart of the sustainability debate. The idea is that animal health may be one of Europe’s least recognized solutions to climate and food security.
And, more importantly, we can quantify the impact of our investments in animal disease prevention. Demonstrating why animal health matters is the central idea behind this new report, which was commissioned by the European Animal Health Industry Association and carried out by leading research and analytics firm Oxford Analytica, which developed unique regression models to measure a range of animal health indicators.
Based on data-driven modeling and detailed case studies from Germany, the UK and France, the report reveals how animal health can directly lead to reduced emissions, reduced food waste and increased resource efficiency. For policymakers and consumers seeking a win against climate change that doesn’t require reinventing the entire food system, the message that supporting animal health is low-hanging fruit and has a big impact is shocking.
The hidden costs of animal disease
The public often hears about diseases affecting animals, such as foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), avian influenza, bluetongue, and lumpy skin disease, only during major outbreaks that affect the agricultural economy. But every day, food production is reduced due to animal disease, while the carbon footprint of livestock systems increases, potentially forcing farmers to use more feed, land and water just to maintain food production for Europeans and exporters.
Oxford Analytica’s report quantifies these losses through three representative examples.
Improving food production efficiency
Taking the German pig sector as an example, Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) is a well-known challenge among pig farmers, but its wide-ranging impact has received little public attention. Analysis shows that increasing vaccination coverage by just 20% could reduce pig mortality by 11%, saving more than 65 million pork servings that would otherwise be lost.
What seems like a small change in behavior suddenly becomes a sustainability milestone, with 21.9 million kilograms of feed, half the area of Brussels, not wasted and land saved. A shift to more holistic veterinary practices with prevention at the core also means hundreds of thousands more animals will be saved from premature death when they are no longer able to produce food.
Further scaling up vaccination increases from 20% to 80% would dramatically double the benefits. Approximately 197 million servings of pork could be saved. This is enough to feed everyone in Germany at least twice.
Reducing emissions intensity
Let’s take the British dairy herd as an example. Although foot-and-mouth disease is typically discussed in terms of causing trade barriers and animal suffering, a lesser-known impact of such disease outbreaks is the emissions intensity in milk production.
In short, healthier dairy cows produce more milk with fewer resources. Preventive measures to eliminate FMD from low disease prevalence scenarios could reduce CO2e emissions by 1.11% per liter of milk produced. This equates to an estimated 36,000 kg of CO2e. This jumps to a 10% reduction in emissions when moving from a severe epidemic scenario to a no-disease scenario.
Even in a mild outbreak scenario, milk losses can reach 25,000 liters, and product losses require additional feed and land use, ultimately resulting in no milk production and methane emissions.
Preventing food loss and protecting livelihoods
Finally, using the French poultry sector as an example, analysis shows that increasing vaccination coverage against highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) from 20-50% could reduce poultry losses by a third.
In addition to eliminating the need for farmers to slaughter countless birds, the 50% disease prevention rate has the following benefits:
Over 16 million meals available. Production costs were saved by €5.5 million. Five million kilograms of feed were not wasted.
When applied to broiler production, preventing losses could lead to savings of €16.7 million, a vital financial cushion for poultry farmers navigating volatile markets.
Three benefits of improved animal health
These case studies individually provide a strong case for improving national investment in integrated animal health care and encouraging a more preventive approach to animal disease management across Europe.
Taken together, they point to an overarching conclusion – good animal health pays a “triple dividend”.
Improves resource efficiency. When fewer animals are lost to disease, fewer resources such as land, water, feed and energy are wasted upstream. In a climate-constrained world, this is a sustainability imperative. Greenhouse gases are reduced. Increased productivity reduces emissions per kilogram of meat, liter of milk and even one egg. Healthy animals simply use resources more efficiently. It strengthens food security: Europe’s food system is already facing pressure from climate change, global trade shocks and geopolitical instability. Reducing losses, especially preventable losses, helps stabilize both food supplies and prices.
In other words, healthy animals help feed more people at less environmental cost.
This analysis highlights a rare win-win relationship. This means improving animal health does not require fundamental shifts in production or changes in consumer behavior, while simultaneously promoting climate action, economic resilience and animal welfare.
So why isn’t animal disease prevention a key action?
Given such clear benefits, it is quite surprising that widespread vaccination and promotion of preventive measures is not the norm in Europe.
We believe there are several barriers to a more “fireproof” approach to animal disease management.
Awareness: Much of the sustainability debate overlooks animal health as a tool for climate change. Analysis shows that the animal health sector receives just 0.01% of global climate finance. Policy incentives: Regulations and subsidies rarely reward farmers for disease prevention compared to emergency management. Not all diseases are considered “priorities” for preventive approaches. Hidden ROI: Farmers who pay for vaccines upfront may not see an immediate financial benefit, even if all goes well. Disease outbreaks are only a concern if losses occur. Trade: An effective vaccination program requires guarantees that the food produced can still be sold in other markets.
The conclusions drawn from the analysis are both simple and profound. Investing in animal health is not optional, it is fundamental if Europe wants a sustainable food future.
A more resilient and sustainable Europe could very well start with something as simple as preventing disease in animals.
This article will be published in an upcoming Special Focus Publication on Animal Health.
Source link
