<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

# How the Global Burden of Animal Diseases links to the Global Burden of Crop Loss: a food systems perspective

A.M. Szyniszewska* (1), K.M. Simpkins (2, 3), L. Thomas (2, 3, 4), T. Beale (1), A.E. Milne (5), M.E. Brown (6), B. Taylor (1), G. Oliver (1), D.P. Bebber (7), T. Woolman (2, 3), S. Mahmood (1), C. Murphy (1), B. Huntington (2, 3) & C. Finegold (1)

(1) Digital Development, CABI, Nosworthy Way, Wallingford, OX10 8DE, United Kingdom

A.M. Szyniszewska's ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4897-3878

T. Beale's ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3312-1549

B. Taylor's ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7676-2824

G. Oliver's ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4871-1447

S. Mahmood's ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8223-9303

C. Murphy's ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1486-9439

C. Finegold's ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2749-4912

(2) Department of Livestock and One Health, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, 146 Brownlow Hill, Liverpool, L3 5RF, United Kingdom

K.M. Simpkins's ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2584-9323

L. Thomas's ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8447-1210

T. Woolman's ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2277-2454

B. Huntington's ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1560-538X

(3) Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) Programme, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, 146 Brownlow Hill, Liverpool, L3 5RF, United Kingdom (https://animalhealthmetrics.org)

(4) International Livestock Research Institute, PO Box 30709, Nairobi, 00100, Kenya

(5) Net Zero and Resilient Farming, Rothamsted Research, West Common, Harpenden, AL5 2JQ, United Kingdom

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4509-0578

(6) Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, 7251 Preinkert Drive, College Park, MD 20742-8211, United States of America

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7384-3314

(7) Biosciences, Geoffrey Pope Building, University of Exeter, Stocker Road, Exeter, EX4 4QD, United Kingdom

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4440-1482

*Corresponding author: a.szyniszewska@cabi.org

## Summary

Food systems comprise interconnected webs of processes that together transform inputs (land, labour, water, nutrients and genetics, to mention just a few) into outputs such as nutrition and revenue for human societies. Perfect systems do not exist; rather, global food systems operate in the presence of hazards, biotic and abiotic alike, and under the constraint of limited resources to mitigate these hazards. There are, therefore, inefficiencies in these systems, which lead to losses in terms of monetary, nutritional, health and environmental values and create additional negative externalities in the health, social and environmental spaces. Health hazards in the food system do not respect arbitrary distinctions between the crop and livestock sectors, which are highly interconnected. These linkages exist where one sector provides inputs to another or through substitution effects where supply in one sector influences demand in another. The One Health approach advocates investigating the intersectoral hazards in a highly interdisciplinary manner. This article provides a conceptual framework for integrating the methodologies developed by the Global Burden of Crop Loss and Global Burden of Animal Diseases initiatives to generate burden estimates for hazards in food systems that better account for interconnectivity and foster an improved understanding of food systems that is aligned with
the interdisciplinary nature of the One Health approach. A case study related to maize and poultry sector linkages in
the wider context of public and environmental health is presented.

Keywords

Animal health - Crop loss - Crop production - Food systems - GBADs - GBCL - Global Burden of Animal Diseases - Global Burden of Crop Loss - Maize - One Health - Poultry - South Africa.

Introduction

Meeting the growing demand for food while reducing the
environmental impact of agriculture is one of the defining
challenges of the Anthropocene. In response to population
increase, urbanisation and growing consumer expectations,
food systems will need to produce significantly more to feed
the growing world population, predicted to reach 9 billion by
around 2050 [1-3]. These food systems currently account
for one-third of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions,
projected to increase by 30-40% by 2050 [4], and it is im-
perative to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture
to maintain ecosystem function [5].

Food systems comprise interconnected processes that transform inputs (e.g. land, labour, water, nutrients) into outputs that create nutrition and revenue for human societies. A perfect food system would allow this transformation to happen efficiently without waste or losses. However, perfect systems do not exist, and global food systems face biotic and abiotic hazards that create inefficiencies and lead to monetary, nutritional and environmental losses.

Strategies to reduce the impact of hazards across food sys-
tems are needed to reduce losses and mitigate environmen-
tal degradation while improving nutritional and economic
outcomes. There is an urgent need for robust data-driven
evidence on the scale and nature of these hazards to inform
decisions on investments and interventions to achieve these
objectives. A body of work exists on estimating the burden
of hazards in the food system [6-8], but standardised robust
methodologies that allow comparisons between hazards or
production systems are lacking.

A developing partnership between the Global Burden of
Crop Loss (GBCL) and the Global Burden of Animal Diseases
(GBADs) aims to fill this gap through the quantification of
losses caused by socio-economic, biotic and abiotic factors
on an 'ideal', hazard-free production system. This approach
will quantify the cost of preventable food production losses
to highlight key hazards and thus inform policy decisions
[9,10]. This developing methodology is inherently interdis-
ciplinary, recognising the significant interaction between
major pillars of the food system, and utilises complementary
theoretical frameworks to integrate the mapping of hazards
between crops and livestock.

This article identifies synergies between food systems and
One Health approaches, introduces the GBCL and GBADs
approaches to burden assessment and elaborates on the
linkages between these approaches. To further illustrate
these linkages, it presents a case study on the linkages of the
maize and broiler production sectors in South Africa. Finally,
it considers the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead
for this type of approach.

Food systems and One Health
approaches

While food systems comprise the multiple inputs, activities
and outputs involved in bringing a food product from field
to fork, One Health expands the concept to explicitly in-
clude the human, animal and ecosystem health impacts of
these processes. Food systems activities span production,
processing, packaging, distribution, retail and consumption
and are linked to the ecological, economic, social and polit-
ical context within which they occur [11]. A food systems ap-
proach acknowledges the complexity of these systems and
the inherent trade-offs between different food system func-
tions. Food systems themselves are a key driver of health
outcomes, both positive and negative, across the three do-
mains of humans, animals and the environment [12].

The One Health concept brings important contributions to the food systems approach, being ‘an integrated, unifying approach which aims to sustainably balance and optimise the health of people, animals and ecosystems’ [13]. Both One Health and food systems approaches recognise the interdependence of humans, animals and the wider environment. While One Health explicitly aims to optimise health of humans, animals and the environment, a food systems approach would focus on the maximisation of human nutritional and economic outcomes. The application of a One Health lens to create success metrics for food systems on a sustainable aquaculture case study illustrates the potential for the integration of these two concepts.

Applying a unified One Health–food systems approach to
the understanding of hazards within the system requires
conceptualising the fundamental dynamics of the processes
within the system, interactions with externalities, including
environment, and associated feedback loops. Building upon
sector-specific knowledge and process models, the
integration of the crop and livestock sectors into an integrated process model comes closer to a true representation of the complex dynamics of the food system.

## The Global Burden of Crop Loss approach

GBCL aims to support food security by generating actionable estimates of crop losses and identifying the underlying causes, in order to support better decision-making across plant health and the food system. Research suggests that pests alone account for a significant loss of approximately 20–40% in major crops [14,15]. Crop loss disrupts the availability and affordability of essential agricultural outputs, leading to compromised human and livestock nutrition and increased food prices while placing more pressure on already limited environmental resources, such as land, to bridge the gap caused by suboptimal production.

While it is clear that reducing yield losses due to biotic or abiotic factors, especially in the context of a growing population, represents a major opportunity to increase food production with minimal further environmental impact, there is a lack of robust evidence to mobilise action. Data on the scale, scope, spatial patterns and drivers of loss are outdated, lacking in granularity, not shared or missing altogether. This evidence gap poses a significant challenge for decision-makers, hindering their ability to identify the most critical problems

and evaluate the returns on their investments. GBCL aims to bridge this knowledge gap by providing an evidence-based assessment of crop losses, identifying the specific crops affected and analysing the factors contributing to these losses. The ultimate goal is to provide stakeholders in the agricultural sector, including research donors, policy-makers and industry, with the information they need to make informed decisions.

The economic burden of crop loss is defined as the value of crops lost to hazards, plus the costs of control measures employed to mitigate losses, including inputs and labour (Fig. 1). The Crop Loss Envelope is calculated as the gap between actual production and a hypothetical attainable yield in the absence of hazards. Attainable yield is the yield achieved under economically optimal practices with minimal limitations due to weather during the growing season [16-18]. Attainable yield in context, as GBCL defines it, represents an upper threshold for a particular crop that can be achieved given local context encompassing climate, water availability, expected nutrient inputs and socio-economic context of the area, including predominant agronomical practices. Hazard-specific burdens are then estimated through the attribution of the overall burden to specific abiotic (e.g. drought, flood) and biotic (e.g. weeds, fungi, bacteria, viruses and other pests) causes. Understanding and effectively managing these various factors is crucial for optimising crop yields and ensuring the resilience and sustainability of food systems.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1**

**Global Burden of Crop Loss conceptual framework**</figcaption></figure>

The illustrated framework represents the factors considered in the assessment of attainable yield under local conditions as well as Crop Loss Envelope and the attribution of losses to biotic and abiotic factors. The calculation of the burden combines the value of crop losses with the cost of controls to mitigate hazards in the field
## The Global Burden of Animal Diseases approach

GBADs shares with GBCL a vision of providing decision-makers with robust, standardised burden data to inform investment decisions. Analogous to GBCL, the GBADs initiative aims to achieve this vision through a gap analysis approach to quantify and attribute the losses sustained in the livestock sector from infectious diseases, non-infectious diseases and external hazards (i.e. extreme climatic events, predation, theft). This gap analysis, developed by GBADs, is referred to as the Animal Health Loss Envelope (AHLE) [19] and forms the boundary of any hazard-specific attribution, while removing the risk of double counting hazard-specific impacts as may occur in a 'traditional' summative burden estimate [19].

The approach allows for the current state of production to be compared to an ideal production level to assess the 'gap' that the burden of loss creates in the livestock sector (Fig. 2). Locally relevant values are affixed to the total liveweight biomass on the hoof and to the yielded livestock source products, and these outcomes are quantified in economic terms, allowing for compatibility between systems and with the GBCL approach. The AHLE and the scenario of perfect health are also populated by context-specific data, taking into account factors such as genetics and husbandry approaches [20].

Hazard-specific burdens are attributed within the AHLE according to the relative impacts of different diseases and

conditions. In order to undertake such attribution in a standardised way, animal health ontology [21] has been developed to ensure interoperable and clear definitions of animal health concepts and relationships. Additionally, attribution methodologies have been developed that specifically incorporate the association between disease states and the synergistic or antagonistic impacts of comorbidities [22].

Defining the value of an AHLE is important as it allows risks to be evaluated and ranked. Where financial resources are limited, whether on an individual farm or within a development agency or government, quantifying risks enables interventions to demonstrate a return on investment. This complements the management of small-scale or macro food systems and improves resilience by reducing the economic impact of disease in the most financially efficient way.

## Linkages between the Global Burden of Crop Loss and the Global Burden of Animal Diseases

The approach presented in this article recognises that the two largest components of food production, the crop and livestock sectors, are interconnected and rely on a highly interdependent input-output relationship. The methodological alignment between GBCL and GBADs allowed the development of a conceptual framework for integrating assessment of the two sectors that will support a pioneering food systems approach to burden assessment. Given the tangible connections, illustrated on page 179 in a conceptual

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2**</figcaption></figure>

**Conceptual framework of the Animal Health Loss Envelope developed by the Global Burden of Animal Diseases programme**

The optimal production considering local factors is represented by the green cow outline. The orange section represents lost production value, which, in addition to the cost of control, equals overall burden. This burden can be attributed to biotic and abiotic factors
case study of maize and poultry in South Africa, it is evident that hazards, whether they originate within crops or livestock systems, have widespread impacts across the food system. Crop production and related residues provide inputs to the livestock sector, and therefore the availability, quality and price of crop production have a direct impact on livestock productivity. Conversely, livestock by-products (manure, meat and bone meal) provide fertiliser to the crop sector and in many parts of the world, livestock are harnessed to provide traction for the management, production, harvest and distribution of crop-sector products. Crop and livestock products may hold a substitutional relationship based on elasticity of demand or driven by regulatory pressures.

For example, the European Union ban on meat and bone meal as feed input to poultry and pig production between 2001 and 2021 resulted in a corresponding increase in the soybean import over this period, demonstrating a strong substitutional relationship between these sectors [23]. The hazards present in crops or crop residues can lead to direct health impacts on livestock (e.g. aflatoxicosis and copper toxicity), while hazards originating in livestock by-products, for example manure application leading to increases in soil cadmium, chromium, copper and zinc, can have consequential impacts on plant health [24,25]. As a result of the interconnectivity between the two industries, the crop and livestock sectors experience a plethora of identical hazards

that affect productivity, including aflatoxins resulting in food waste and causing toxicity for livestock and humans, as well as disease outbreaks, extreme weather events, environmental contaminants and more. Where these hazards have direct impacts across both sectors, the burden of the hazard can be attributed within both sectors for a more accurate burden estimate to guide policy decisions.

As an example, the abiotic hazard of climate change will create impacts across the crop and livestock sectors. Changing weather patterns will result in vector and pathogen distribution changes, potentially increasing their geographic range or the number of generations completed. An increase in heat, as well as water deficit or excess stresses, has the potential to reduce yields [26,27]. A reduction in cereal yield is forecasted in certain localities and may lead to resource competition between human and animal nutrition. Such competition and resource limitation may result in the favouring of livestock breeds with a higher feed conversion ratio. These breeds, however, may in turn suffer from increased burden of non-communicable disease, for instance limb deformities associated with faster-growing poultry breeds.

The high-level conceptual framework provides a simplified representation of the linkages between parts of the food system as well as between environmental and human health (Fig. 3). The capability to model hazards that impact both

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3</figcaption></figure>

Conceptual framework depicting the interconnections and feedback loops between Global Burden of Crop Loss, Global Burden of Animal Diseases and human systems models

The figure illustrates the linkages between inputs and outputs in these modelling sectors, emphasising their relationship with the environmental model
the crop and livestock sectors will provide a novel platform for the management of problems that affect the two sectors concomitantly.

## Impact

Both GBCL and GBADs aim to support evidence-based decision-making and could be used to great advantage by local, national and global policy-makers (Fig. 4). Collaboration between these initiatives accounts for interconnectivity among the food system sectors to provide robust empirical evidence on the scale of factors contributing to crop and livestock losses, thus identifying the synergies and trade-offs associated with hazard mitigation and contributing to a greater understanding of the wider implications of losses caused by biotic and abiotic hazards in the food system.

Decisions may relate to hazard control strategies, subsidi-
sation approaches or development of adaptation strategies.
For example, it may turn out to be more cost effective for
governments to subsidise crop protection strategies up-
stream than to pay for the consequences of the downstream
impacts (e.g. regarding nutritional quality, economic loss,

water security, greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity
loss) [28]. The relative costs of preventive versus prophylac-
tic strategies have been well defined for the impact of inva-
sive species [28]. This awareness can support the allocation
of appropriate resources and enable comparison with other
potential investment opportunities, including the potential
to stimulate increased private or public sector investment in
agricultural hazard mitigation.

At the farmer level, communicating the risk of losses caused by stresses (e.g. extreme climate events or disease) can empower farmers to take timely action and implement appropriate mitigation strategies. Recent studies in South Africa and Kenya [29,30] have found that most smallholder livestock farmers are not resilient to droughts; although adaptation strategies had proven beneficial, adoption was still low. These studies highlight the need for appropriate support and policy alignment, all of which can be supported by integration of GBCL and GBADs.

The estimates of loss created through GBCL and GBADs will enable improved risk assessment, potentially supporting credit applications and the development of appropriate

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4**</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Illustration of the synergistic impact of the Global Burden of Crop Loss and Global Burden of Animal Diseases modelling frameworks within a One Health system to aid informed policy-making, engage stakeholders in intermediate and long-term outcomes, and provide improved food security and resilience for farmers globally</caption>
insurance products for farmers. The loss estimates generated through these initiatives may also provide additional data on which disease freedom dossiers may be developed, opening up improved export channels for commercial operations and enhancing market access and trade opportunities.

A proactive approach to hazard mitigation based on data may lessen the negative impacts on food systems, optimising and balancing human nutritional, health and economic outcomes as well as the health of animals, people working with animals, and the ecosystem in line with the One Health approach.

## Maize and poultry sector linkages in South Africa

GBCL and GBADs have been appointed to collaborate on the One Food programme, a partnership between the United Kingdom and South African governments that aims to apply an ‘all hazards’ approach to mapping hazards within the food system. The focus of the project is to integrate models produced by GBCL and GBADs to estimate the burden of hazards across the crop and livestock sectors. It utilises an exemplar crop (maize) and a livestock value chain (poultry meat) as a basis for exploration of hazards.

In the first year of the three-year project, key processes and drivers were analysed to produce a conceptual model of the linkages between the crop and animal sectors in food systems. The GBCL attainable yield estimation method assesses crop production in context of local conditions, based on local climate, availability of water and expected nutrient input. In the preliminary phase this was achieved using the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project’s Global Gridded Crop Model phase 3a data ensemble to calculate multi-model mean. The team calculated attainable yield in each location based on historical climatologies between 1996 and 2015 [31]. On average, 28% of pre-harvest yield is lost to biotic and abiotic factors. In some years, such as during the 2015–2016 drought, this figure is much greater, reaching over 50% losses. On average, post-harvest losses incurred during drying, storage and transport stages are estimated at 15% according to data in the African Post Harvest Loss Information System [32]. Approximately half of maize produced in South Africa is used for human food products and almost half is used as livestock feed, with a small amount used for industrial purposes. Maize-based animal feed makes up the majority of diets by volume in the poultry sector. The broiler industry is the second largest maize market in South Africa [33] (Fig. 5).

The combined crop and livestock hazard mapping approach can provide valuable insights into issues that affect both systems. For example, some fungal pathogens of maize cause in-field crop losses in the form of ear and stalk rot and can also be transferred into maize processing systems as mould growth can occur after harvest during storage, both in and on

food [34]. These mould growths can lead to mycotoxin synthesis, which poses risks to both livestock and human health. Through further economic modelling using a partial equilibrium framework, the GBCL-GBADs-One Food collaboration will quantify the variability of losses and hazards and will investigate their impact on the volume and cost of maize and poultry products. Links will be created with South African partners to improve input datasets to models and drive useful, local insights that, in turn, will inform policy.

## Challenges, data requirements and future directions

The GBCL-GBADs partnership aspires to provide accurate estimates of food system losses, in order to increase the efficacy of research in hazard surveillance, hazard response and epidemiology. The alignment of the GBCL and GBADs programmes aims to create synergistic methodologies that will enable these improved results. This partnership has the potential to provide a holistic and well-rounded view of the problems faced in food production, and therefore its results must be continually interlinked in the coming years to accelerate understanding of losses in the food system. The partnership’s work to date has investigated ways to improve the efficiency of evidence collection, and these processes can be shared across programmes to increase the data pool available for modelling.

The success of this partnership is dependent upon the availability of these data to drive models to create meaningful outputs that can then improve the depth of evidence available for decision-making around food system hazards [27]. Data provision can be a barrier to modelling because many levels of the food system are not yet fully equipped to accurately capture all inputs and outputs of food production [35]. Through the integration and alignment of the two initiatives, it is possible to ensure that the FAIR data principles – findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable – are at the forefront of food systems approaches. Through a commitment to the FAIR principles, the initiatives will provide an open platform for a truly global and community-driven effort to tackle the greatest economic and environmental burdens that impact the food system [9].

## Conclusions

Scientific estimates on crop and livestock loss and economic impact are pivotal in food systems. They raise awareness, drive targeted interventions, secure resources and enhance resilience, resulting in reduced price volatility, improved market access and a reliable food supply. Estimations of losses and associated health hazards have thus far been approached in a sector-specific manner. The collaboration described in this article is an example of a shift towards a holistic, One Health-food systems approach that will allow optimal decision-making from a societal perspective.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5**</figcaption></figure>

**A combined conceptual Sankey diagram showing the link between maize and poultry sectors in South Africa**

The preliminary estimates in this figure represent flows between sectors and were formulated using both accessible public data sources and approximations in cases where data was lacking, underlining the need for cautious interpretation
## Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the One Food programme, funded by the United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and led by the United Kingdom Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, for the funding that made this collaboration possible, and to express gratitude to Sarah Hilliar, who provided visual enhancement to the figures. Global Burden of Crop Loss (GBCL) wishes to acknowledge members of its Technical Working Group, including Assimila Ltd, CABI, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, Luma Consulting, Rothamsted Research, the University of Exeter and the University of

Maryland, as well as historical contributions by the University of York. GBCL thanks its past and current funders, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the CABI Development Fund, Syngenta Group and the Alan Turing Institute. A.E. Milne acknowledges support from the Growing Health (BB/X010953/1) Institute Strategic Programme. The Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) programme has received funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office of the United Kingdom; and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.

# Les liens réciproques entre l'impact mondial des maladies animales et le fardeau mondial des pertes agricoles : la perspective des systèmes alimentaires

A.M. Szyniszewska, K.M. Simpkins, L. Thomas, T. Beale, A.E. Milne, M.E. Brown, B. Taylor, G. Oliver, D.P. Bebber, T. Woolman, S. Mahmood, C. Murphy, B. Huntington & C. Finegold

## Résumé

Les systèmes alimentaires sont des réseaux de processus interconnectés qui concourent à transformer des intrants (terre, main-d'œuvre, eau, nutriments et génétique, pour n'en mentionner que quelques-uns) en extrants tels que des aliments et des revenus pour les sociétés humaines. Il n'existe pas de système parfait ; les systèmes alimentaires mondiaux sont exposés en permanence à des dangers de nature tant biotique qu'abiotique et contraints par les ressources limitées consacrées à l'atténuation de ces dangers. Les problèmes d'efficacité sont donc inéluctables ; ils entraînent des pertes de valeur tant monétaire que nutritionnelle, sanitaire et environnementale, et génèrent de nouvelles externalités négatives dans le domaine de la santé ainsi que dans l'espace social et dans l'environnement. Les dangers sanitaires présents dans le système alimentaire ignorent les distinctions arbitraires entre les secteurs agricole et d'élevage, lesquels sont fortement interconnectés. Ces liens se manifestent lorsqu'un secteur fournit des intrants à l'autre et, par l'effet de substitutions, lorsque l'offre dans un secteur influence la demande dans l'autre. L'approche « Une seule santé » préconise d'adopter une méthode fondée sur l'interdisciplinarité pour enquêter sur les dangers intersectoriels. Les auteurs décrivent le cadre conceptuel de l'intégration des méthodes des initiatives « Fardeau mondial des pertes agricoles » et « Impact mondial des maladies animales » dans le but de produire des estimations de la charge induite par les dangers des systèmes alimentaires qui prennent davantage en compte leur inter-connectivité et donnent lieu à une meilleure compréhension des systèmes alimentaires, en cohérence avec le caractère interdisciplinaire de l'approche « Une seule santé ». Est également présentée une étude de cas portant sur les liens entre la culture du maïs et l'élevage de volailles dans le contexte plus large de la santé publique et environnementale.

## Mots-clés

Afrique du Sud - Fardeau mondial des pertes agricoles - GBADs - GBCL - Impact mondial des maladies animales - Maïs - Perte agricole - Production agricole - Santé animale - Systèmes alimentaires - Une seule santé - Volailles.
# Cómo se relaciona el impacto global de las enfermedades animales con el impacto global de las pérdidas de cosechas: una perspectiva de los sistemas alimentarios

A.M. Szyniszewska, K.M. Simpkins, L. Thomas, T. Beale, A.E. Milne, M.E. Brown, B. Taylor, G. Oliver, D.P. Bebber, T. Woolman, S. Mahmood, C. Murphy, B. Huntington & C. Finegold

## Resumen

Los sistemas alimentarios comprenden redes interconectadas de procesos que, conjuntamente, transforman insumos (tierra, mano de obra, agua, nutrientes y genética, por mencionar solo algunos) en productos como alimentos e ingresos para las sociedades humanas. No existen sistemas perfectos; más bien, los sistemas alimentarios mundiales funcionan en un entorno de peligros, tanto bióticos como abióticos, y con las restricciones impuestas por los limitados recursos disponibles para mitigarlos. En estos sistemas se observan, por tanto, ineficiencias, que provocan pérdidas en términos monetarios, nutricionales, sanitarios y ambientales y que crean externalidades negativas adicionales en los ámbitos sanitario, social y ambiental. Los peligros para la salud en los sistemas alimentarios no atienden a distinciones arbitrarias entre los sectores agrícola y ganadero, que están muy interconectados. Estos vínculos surgen cuando un sector proporciona insumos a otro o a través de efectos de sustitución en los que la oferta de un sector influye en la demanda de otro. El enfoque de «Una sola salud» aboga por investigar los peligros intersectoriales de manera eminentemente interdisciplinaria. En este artículo se ofrece un marco teórico para la integración de las metodologías desarrolladas por las iniciativas dedicadas al impacto global de las pérdidas de cosechas y al impacto global de las enfermedades animales a fin de obtener estimaciones de los peligros en los sistemas alimentarios que tengan más en cuenta la interconexión y fomenten una mejor comprensión de los sistemas alimentarios acorde con el carácter interdisciplinario del enfoque de «Una sola salud». En este sentido, se presenta un estudio de caso relacionado con los vínculos entre los sectores del maíz y las aves de corral en el contexto más amplio de la salud pública y ambiental.

## Palabras clave

Aves de corral – GBADs – GBCL – Impacto global de las enfermedades animales – Impacto global de las pérdidas de cosechas – Maíz – Pérdida de cosechas – Producción de cultivos – Sanidad animal – Sistemas alimentarios – Sudáfrica – Una sola salud.

## References

[1] Tilman D, Balzer C, Hill J, Befort BL. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2011;108(50):20260-4. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1116437108

[2] Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. ESA Working Paper No. 12-03. Rome (Italy): Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2012. 147 p. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.288998

[3] Godfray HCJ, Beddington JR, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF, et al. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science. 2010;327(5967):812-8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185383

[4] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate change and land: IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Cambridge (United Kingdom): Cambridge University Press; 2022. 896 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157988

[5] Hunter MC, Smith RG, Schipanski ME, Atwood LW, Mortensen DA. Agriculture in 2050: recalibrating targets for sustainable intensification. BioScience. 2017;67(4):386-91. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix010

[6] Vermeulen SJ, Campbell BM, Ingram JSI. Climate change and food systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2012;37:195-222. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608
[7] Myers SS, Smith MR, Guth S, Golden CD, Vaitla B, Mueller ND, et al. Climate change and global food systems: potential impacts on food security and undernutrition. Annu. Rev. Public Health. 2017;38:259-77. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044356

[8] Béné C, Prager SD, Achicanoy HAE, Toro PA, Lamotte L, Cedrez CB, et al. Understanding food systems drivers: a critical review of the literature. Glob. Food Secur. 2019;23:149-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.04.009

[9] Rushton J, Bruce M, Bellet C, Torgerson P, Shaw A, Marsh T, et al. Initiation of Global Burden of Animal Diseases Programme. Lancet. 2018;392(10147):538-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31472-7

[10] CABI. Global Burden of Crop Loss. Wallingford (United Kingdom): CABI; 2024. Available at: https://www.cabi.org/projects/global-burden-of-crop-loss (accessed on 5 September 2023).

[11] Brown ME, Antle JM, Backlund P, Carr ER, Easterling WE, Walsh MK, et al. Climate change, global food security, and the U.S. food system. Washington DC (United States of America): U.S. Global Change Research Program; 2015. 146 p. https://doi.org/10.7930/J0862DC7

[12] Häsler B, Queenan K, Alarcon P, Raj E, Whatford L. Where One Health meets food systems teaching and learning: expanding skillsets for food system transformation. One Health Cases. 2023;2023:ohcs20230010. https://doi.org/10.1079/onehealthcases.2023.0010

[13] One Health High-Level Expert Panel, Adisasmito WB, Almuhairi S, Behravesh CB, Bilivogui P, Bukachi SA, et al. One Health: a new definition for a sustainable and healthy future. PLoS Pathog. 2022;18(6):e1010537. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1010537

[14] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 27th Session of the Committee on Agriculture. Item 2.2: preventing, anticipating and responding to high-impact animal and plant diseases and pests. Rome (Italy): FAO; 2020. Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/nd740en/nd740en.pdf (accessed on 5 September 2023).

[15] Savary S, Willocquet L, Pethybridge SJ, Esker P, McRoberts N, Nelson A. The global burden of pathogens and pests on major food crops. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2019;3(3):430-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0793-y

[16] Fischer RA. Definitions and determination of crop yield, yield gaps, and of rates of change. Field Crops Res. 2015;182:9-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2014.12.006

[17] Reynolds M, Kropff M, Crossa J, Koo J, Kruseman G, Molero Milan A, et al. Role of modelling in international crop research: overview and some case studies. Agronomy. 2018;8(12):291. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy8120291

[18] Lobell DB, Cassman KG, Field CB. Crop yield gaps: their importance, magnitudes, and causes. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2009;34:179-204. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ.041008.093740

[19] Torgerson PR, Shaw APM. A simple metric to capture losses: the concept of an animal health loss envelope. Bull. Panorama 2021-1. Paris (France): World Organisation for Animal Health; 2021. https://doi.org/10.20506/bull.2021.1.3259

[20] Gilbert W, Marsh TL, Chaters G, Jemberu WT, Bruce M, Steeneveld W, et al. Measuring disease cost in farmed animals for the Global Burden of Animal Diseases: a model of the Animal Health Loss Envelope [pre-print]. Social Science Research Network; 2023. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4472099

[21] Bruce M, McIntyre KM. Animal health ontology and attribution: linking key elements in the GBADs programme. Bull. Panorama 2021-1. Paris (France): World Organisation for Animal Health; 2021. https://doi.org/10.20506/bull.2021.1.3260

[22] Rasmussen P, Shaw APM, Muñoz V, Bruce M, Torgerson PR. Estimating the burden of multiple endemic diseases and health conditions using Bayes' Theorem: a conditional probability model applied to UK dairy cattle. Prev. Vet. Med. 2022;203:105617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2022.105617

[23] Elferink EV, Nonhebel S, Schoot Uiterkamp AJM. Does the Amazon suffer from BSE prevention? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007;120(2-4):467-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.09.009

[24] Borobia M, Villanueva-Saz S, Ruiz de Arcaute M, Fernández A, Verde MT, González JM, et al. Copper poisoning, a deadly hazard for sheep. Animals (Basel). 2022;12(18):2388. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12182388

[25] Rizvi A, Zaidi A, Ameen F, Ahmed B, AlKahtani MDF, Saghir Khan M. Heavy metal induced stress on wheat: phytotoxicity and microbiological management. RSC Adv. 2020;10(63):38379-403. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RA05610C

[26] Thornton P, Nelson G, Mayberry D, Herrero M. Impacts of heat stress on global cattle production during the 21st century: a modelling study. Lancet Planet. Health. 2022;6(3):e192-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00002-X

[27] Raymond K, BenSassi N, Patterson GT, Huntington B, Rushton J, Stacey DA, et al. Informatics progress of the Global Burden of Animal Diseases programme towards data for One Health. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2023;42:218-29. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.42.3365

[28] Cuthbert RN, Diagne C, Hudgins EJ, Turbelin A, Ahmed DA, Albert C, et al. Biological invasion costs reveal insufficient proactive management worldwide. Sci. Total Environ. 2022;819:153404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153404

[29] Bahta YT, Myeki VA. The impact of agricultural drought on smallholder livestock farmers: empirical evidence insights from Northern Cape, South Africa. Agriculture. 2022;12(4):442. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12040442

[30] Kalele DN, Ogara WO, Oludhe C, Onono JO. Climate change impacts and relevance of smallholder farmers' response in arid and semi-arid lands in Kenya. Sci. Afr. 2021;12:e00814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e00814

[31] Frieler K, Volkholz J, Lange S, Schewe J, Mengel M, del Rocío Rivas López M, et al. Scenario setup and forcing data for impact model evaluation and impact attribution within the third round of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP3a). Geosci. Model Dev. 2024;17(1):1-51. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1-2024

[32] Dry weight loss: South Africa – Maize – All years. African Postharvest Losses Information System. Chatham Maritime (United Kingdom): Natural Resources Institute; 2024. Available at: https://www.aphlis.net/en/data/tables/dry-weight-losses/ZA/maize/all-years?metric=prc (accessed on 20 March 2023).
[33] South African Poultry Association (SAPA). 2021 industry profile.
Honeydew (South Africa): SAPA; 2021. 100 p. Available at:
https://www.sapoultry.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/2021-
Industry-Profile.pdf (accessed on 5 September 2023).

[34] Mycotoxins. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2023.
Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/
mycotoxins (accessed on 12 January 2024).

[35] Biermann O, Koya SF, Corkish C, Abdalla SM, Galea S. Food, big data, and decision-making: a scoping review – the 3-D Commission. J. Urban Health. 2021;98(Suppl. 1):69-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-021-00562-x

© 2024 Szyniszewska A.M., Simpkins K.M., Thomas L., Beale T., Milne A.E., Brown M.E., Taylor B., Oliver G., Bebber D.P., Woolman T., Mahmood S., Murphy C., Huntington B. & Finegold C.; licensee the World Organisation for Animal Health. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution IGO Licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/legalcode), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any reproduction of this article there should not be any suggestion that WOAH or this article endorses any specific organisation, product or service. The use of the WOAH logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.