During the 20th century scientists have made genuine progress in explaining and modifying usefully the processes of life. The main leap forward was, of course, the rediscovery of Mendelian genetics at the beginning of the century. Since the 1930s this theory has been put to use in an ever more efficient and systematic way, particularly in breeding domestic animals with desired traits. Thus the animal breeder can now plan how he wants future generations of domestic animals to be, knowing that the plans will work.

Many of the ethical issues regarding the livestock production systems of the late twentieth century have concentrated on the process of intensification. The extent of public disquiet at the welfare and ethical implications of intensification has been reflected in the burgeoning membership of animal welfare and animal rights organisations. The reasons for this increase as well as the impact that it has had on the livestock industry can be traced back to the 1960s, to factors such as the growing urbanisation of the population and especially the emergence of the animal rights movement which focused attention on a wide range of issues including the human exploitation of other animal species. This in turn led to a demarcation between those who supported the animal welfare cause and those who argued for animal rights.

The projected increase in global demand for animal products, recently termed ‘the Livestock Revolution’, presents livestock keepers, in both the developed and the developing world, with many opportunities but also some problems. The increase in demand, mainly in South and South-East Asia, is described, disaggregated by region and product type. Some of the implications, in terms of the environment, public health, grain prices etc, of this increase in demand are also identified.

Cellulose and hemicellulose are the major structural carbohydrates present in forages and form between 30 and 60% of the forage component of ruminant diets. The complex network of structural carbohydrates and lignin generally leads to low digestibility and limits the efficient utilisation of forages by ruminants. This situation occurs in both developed and developing countries, and in the latter it is particularly pronounced as much of the forage component is based around the use of crop residues (Owen and Jayasuria, 1989). Because forage costs are significantly lower than those of other dietary ingredients, improving forage quality has been a major objective for many research programmes in both the developed and developing world. Improvements in forage quality have been sort through a number of different strategies. These have included conventional breeding techniques, which have included the integration of mutant genes, leading to the development of Brown Midrib varieties of maize and the use of chemical and biological additives. Enzyme supplements are commonly used to improve the nutritive value of feeds for non ruminants and as silage additives where they have been shown to improve silage fermentation, feed intake and performance. Recent work with ruminants has however focused on the use of enzyme supplements to improve feed efficiency by the use of “direct-fed” fibrolytic enzymes. This strategy involves the application of enzymes to feed at or only hours before feeding. These studies have yielded very variable production responses. For any new technology to be implemented widely, the responses achieved must provide an acceptable level of consistency and predictability. The current paper reviews developments in enzymology, production responses achieved and the effects on nutrient digestion.

Enzymes that degrade the plant cell wall, collectively termed cellulases and hemicellulases, have attracted considerable research efforts recently, because of their potential to be used as additives for animal feeds. Widely used in monogastric animals, mainly to remove antinutritional factors (Bedford, 2000), enzymes are increasingly used in ruminant diets to enhance feedstuff degradability, following results from feeding trials where positive responses in rumen digestion and animal production were observed (Beauchemin et al., 1995; Feng et al., 1996; Yang et al., 1999). Enzymes could also provide an environmentally friendly alternative to the use of antibiotics as feed additives for ruminants.

Within 15 years after introduction, the application of enzymes in the feed industry has gained general acceptance. Even though the range of feed enzymes has not really been extended in this period, a lot of progress has been made, particularly in a better understanding of the mode of action of these enzymes. The main enzymes used are those able to hydrolyse non-starch polysaccharides (NSP) and phytase.

Zoonoses are those diseases of animals that can be transmitted to man or vice versa. These may be caused by bacteria, parasites, or more rarely by viruses. This paper will concentrate mainly on the zoonotic bacteria Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., E. coli O157 and Yersinia spp. Foodborne disease, often described as food poisoning, is defined as disease due to the consumption of food contaminated with microorganisms or their toxins. In 2000, the most common causes of food poisoning in humans in Great Britain were Campylobacter spp. (60340 cases) and Salmonella spp. (16567 cases). Less than 100 cases of Yersinia spp. infections were reported in humans in England and Wales. Results from surveillance of zoonotic organisms in farm livestock were presented at two conferences organised by MAFF in 2000. The main results are outlined in table 1. It is not possible to guarantee the complete absence from meat of bacteria that can cause infections in people. Thorough cooking of foods should kill all vegetative bacteria. Nevertheless, it is also important that steps are taken throughout the supply chain to minimise the transfer of the bacteria that could cause foodborne disease.

The last decade has witnessed a dramatic increase in the introduction of risk management and safety assurance throughout the UK’s food and feed processing and manufacturing industries. This has resulted in part from changes in legislation, but more significantly it has reflected a fundamental shift in the market environment in which the food-chain industries operate. Risk management was established as a key requirement when the emergence of food safety problems in the 1980s became a matter of public concern. Retailers responded by driving the safety assurance ‘down’ the food-supply chain, and politicians by moving food-chain regulation up their list of legislative priorities.

Reducing costs for unit output, be it per kg liveweight gain, per kg carcass gain or per kg saleable meat yield will be essential for the future of the UK beef industry. Traditionally emphasis has been placed on reducing feed costs per unit output and data from MLC’s Beefplan shows that between 65 – 82% of the variable cost of UK beef systems are accounted for by feed costs. However, with fixed costs being similar to total variable costs, it is also important to reduce the labour and machinery costs associated with the production of feed and feeding it. As far as nutrition/feeding of beef cattle is concerned, there are a number of areas where a reduction in costs can be achieved using existing knowledge but in other areas there are obvious gaps in knowledge which require further research. However, there appears to very little research into aspects of the nutrition/production of beef cattle going on, or being published, in the UK. (Only 8 out of a total of 228 papers presented at this conference are on nutrition/production of beef cattle.)

For thousands of years, perhaps ever since the domestication of cattle, farmers have favoured, and therefore selected, certain animals above others in an attempt to create a population of beasts best suited to their needs. Over time the sophistication with which breeding cattle have been selected has improved as technology and understanding has developed. In Great Britain today the genetic improvement of cattle makes use of the three main methods available: breed substitution, crossbreeding and within-breed selection. This paper concentrates on the last of these but recognises the importance of the first two in commercial practice. For example there has been considerable substitution of native British beef breeds with continental breeds during the 1960s and 70s and there is continued use of crossbreeding on dairy cows and in suckler beef production. Within breed selection and performance recording is valuable for the continued improvement of pedigree beef cattle and as a means for commercial producers to select suitable herd sires.

JSR Farms at Givendale runs a commercial cross-bred suckler herd of 100 cows alongside a pedigree Charolais herd of 110 cows. The Charolais breeding programme is focused on improving the output from the cross-bred herd by using BLUP to select sires with superior genetic merit for production traits. Breeding stock with high EBV’s for growth and carcase traits are selected for re-breeding and attention is also paid to 200 day milk EBV’s and to controlling the level of calving difficulty. Home-bred replacement heifers are selected with Beef Values ranked in the top 10% of the National breed and the stud of reference sires used in the programme have Beef Values in the top 1% of the breed.

The relationship between livestock producer and meat plant operator has always been one of suspicion. Now, as a result of last year’s tragic Foot & Mouth outbreak, it is the belief of the Speaker that to use this period of recuperation and rebuilding to develop solid relationships and meaningful trust between both parties. We have a shared challenge if Britain is to remain with a strong meat and livestock sector and not simply rely on the requirements of the consumer to be increasingly met by product from imported sources.

Two terms characterise the carcass and meat: carcass quality and meat quality. The former describes the yield of meat and the ratio of lean to fat and the farmer is paid for it, more directly in pigs. Meat quality describes the appearance and taste of meat and although these also vary and are arguably more important to consumers than yield, the industry does not obviously recognise this variation in terms of price differentials. Reasons for this include the difficulty of deciding where in the production-processing chain quality variation is introduced and the lack of reliable, easily-used measuring systems.