 First, let me say I want to thank Vice President Jack Payne and his colleagues, Bola and others at the lab for inviting me here. Along with my Ilry colleagues, we are particularly pleased to have this opportunity to be here. Let me also thank Rob and his colleagues for making their livestock lab possible. As I will say in a few minutes, we need more investments in the animal sector and Rob and his colleagues at USAID have been very good about pushing this along. When Bola asked me to speak on the role of livestock in food and nutritional security, I was hesitant because it seemed like almost taking calls to Newcastle. This is a livestock group, they must know everything about this. But I reasoned that maybe that since this is focused more on nutrition, that perhaps there are elements of the livestock story that could still be told that was related to the broader role of livestock beyond nutrition. And as you will see in the developing world, as most have said already, how we achieve food and nutritional security is a very complex matter. I also reasoned that maybe not everyone here understood as well as others the story in developing world. So maybe the slant of the developing world was what he wanted me to bring. But more importantly, that achieving food and nutritional security is a multifaceted engagement in the developing world and I've seen many others have been trying to bring that out already. So I want to talk briefly about these three things. Livestock in the global food security, issues of food and nutritional security, the multiple roles of livestock and some of the complexities and tradeoffs. So first livestock in the global food security context. Did you know that four of the five highest value agricultural commodities come from livestock? When we talk about global food security, we immediately talk about wheat and maize and so on. But it's only rice that comes in that top five in value terms. If economic growth and development is a wrong value creation, then livestock must be numbered there. And this importance of livestock in the developing world is going to continue because per capita consumption is still relatively low. Consumption of meat in Africa, for example, is just 13 kilograms. I think here in North America it's closer to 100 kilograms. So as incomes rise, people diversify their diets and that includes more animal source foods. And in this graph projected to 2050, we try to show the difference between the high income countries where demand has mostly stabilized and the low and middle income countries where the blue here are eggs, the green is milk, the red is pork. This is poultry. So as income rise as there are in developing countries, demand for animal source foods are going to be rising very steeply. And the opportunity there is not only to contribute to food security, food and nutritional security, but also to help to deal with the income issues because most of the production in the developing world is in the hands of small holders. These will not remain small holders forever, as I would say later, but this is the base of the production. Less than 10 percent of animal source foods are traded at the present time. They're produced and consumed in the same country. So we have a glorious opportunity to link food and nutritional issues with poverty reduction. So agriculture contributes about animal source and the livestock sector contributes about 40 percent to agriculture GDP, yet it is telling that agriculture only receives about 4.5 percent of current official development assistance. And these graphs represent the total development assistance, about 165 billion now of which agriculture is in red and livestock is in green. It's hardly perceptible. This is a graph where that is translated. If this is total ODA, this is a share that livestock gets. And this is a share of agriculture of total ODA, 4.5 percent. And this is the share that livestock gets of agriculture. So livestock gets about 4.5 percent of agriculture ODA. A very small amount, despite the fact that it's 40 percent of GDP. So let me turn to some issues relating to food and nutritional security as it relates to the global context. Someone already said that it's only a small, less than a third of the world are well fed and well nourished. The rest are very hungry. Rob said 850 million, we know this figure. The number of stunted children, insufficient nutrients, and overweight. So it's a very small percentage, at less than a third of the world that are really well fed and nourished. In this graph, we try to show income levels, low, middle, and high income countries, in relation to micronutrient and energy deficiency. The only point I want you to note here is that as incomes rise, malnutrition and energy deficiency reduces, but obesity tends to increase. Some have said that already. This is not necessarily related to the income distribution across countries, but it's also related to income distribution within countries. So the more wealthy, higher income people in those countries tend to, obesity tends to be greater amongst them. But I want to put this up because if we go back to the old definition of what is food and nutritional security, there are several components. We need availability, we need to utilize it well, and we need accessibility. So availability is producing more, and this we must do in developing countries if we are going to meet the demand I alluded to earlier. But we need income in order to increase accessibility, so the income aspect of this book. And of course, we need education about how to utilize these foods well. More recently, this stability has been added to the equation by the food security panel. So let me in that context present the multiple roles that livestock play. And of course, we have said this several times today, they produce balanced nutrients. We want enough food and it produce diversity. I want to put this up because I want to test to see whether our calculations about what is the contribution of animal-sourced foods to protein intake is correct. This is not a researched figure, this is a calculated figure from the FAO database. We used to say that animal-sourced foods contribute 16% of total protein. According to these calculations, it's closer to 40%. We putting this out there, you should challenge it because this is a calculated figure. But if these bars represent total amount of protein that is consumed, the blue is the amount from other sources and the red is from livestock over two periods, 1961 and 2013. So you can see animal-sourced foods have been having an increasing share of the total protein that is consumed. And that share, we argue, is closer to 40%, not the 26% that we have hit it to use. So we all know this, but I put it up here for complete list. We know that animal-sourced foods provide high density micro and macro nutrients. They contain essential nutrients, difficult or almost impossible to consume in sufficient quantities from other sources. They contain micro nutrients of good biological value, good digestibility, and contain lower anti-nutritional factors. These are all the virtues of animal-sourced foods that have been alluded to several times today. What also alluded to is the importance that we avoid the negative effects, such as that we avoid the negative effects that you can have from zoonotic disease and so on. I'm going to put this slide up earlier on, not this slide, but the same message. And the message is that meat and milk are good for you. We know this, but there are some who argue at the present time that they are not so good for us. We knew this fact all along. But we also know that our interventions in livestock is to produce more and get more income and get more expenditure to buy food, to contribute more animal-sourced foods so we can diversify our diets and the compositions. And we should avoid the ill effects of diseases from animal-sourced foods. We're starting to see some evidence. In my old job, we looked very hard to see how investments in agriculture contributed in nutrition some years ago and couldn't find much evidence. We're starting to see evidence now that if you own a cow, if you have animals, you're better off in terms of your food, your nutritional situation. It is true, as Robert alluded to, that when you're very poor and have low levels of disposable income, things you can sell, you sell as quickly as you can. And that is true. But as farmers produce more and more, they come an inflection point, is our argument, that they begin to consume more and more of what they produce. So at first, the initial response is to sell what we have and buy food, but their inflection point comes where the benefits by producing more in the household are accrued. But there are other things that animals bring to food and nutritional security that are more indirect. And let me discuss these for a few minutes. Here I want to refer to animal manure, traction, and of course we have already talked about income. These contribute very directly to crop production, which is part of the food and nutritional equation. And even in the developed world, most of the cereals, milk, lamb and beef are produced in mixed systems, and we should not forget this. A good 14 from extensive and intensive systems are related to livestock production. So the core benefits of having livestock that contributes not only directly to nutritional security, but also indirectly to crop production, which form part of the food and nutritional equation is very important to remember. 23% of the soil nitrogen for crop production come from livestock. This figure is even higher for Europe, it's 38%. So crop and livestock production are closely intertwined in the global food security equation beyond just the animal source foods in this context. And animal traction is still a very important means of producing crops in the developing world. So income as I said is very important and we are also starting to see good evidence that income is from animal source enterprises are playing huge dividends. We calculate that by 2050, the value of animal source foods in Africa alone will be $151 billion. As I said, most of the animal source foods produced by small holders, it would be good if much of this value has accrued to the small holders who are in transition and becoming medium and larger enterprises over time. We should not forget the employment that this contributes, 700 employed in the dairy sector in Kenya alone, and major opportunities in the livestock sector to deal with the youth bulge. You may hear if you go to Africa, leaders talking about the youth bulge, a large percentage of the population in Africa between 19 and 25 and how they will find employment is very important. The argument is becoming very often that animal source foods are not good for you for environmental and other reasons and as I close, I will say a few words about that. But if you are in this group of countries and eight of them here that produce that consume, use less than 10% of their income to meet their food and nutritional needs, as against this group which use more than 40% of their income to meet their food and nutritional needs. Their options are quite different. So I rather like this graph from Washington state where the colors represent the extent of malnutrition and the darker it gets the more malnutrition there is and the percentage of income that is spent on food. And you can see the high correlation in those darker countries where a large proportion of their income is spent on food but yet people are malnourished. A few, a bit of evidence from Zambia where we're, as I, the point I made earlier, that we can see livestock ownership having a big dividend not only on income but also on nutritional security. There are complexities of trade-offs, of course. There's a big argument now about livestock and the environment and obesity and so on. What we envisage is that although we're the champions of the small holders, these for us are the small holders, they are enterprises, they are part of the private sector. And they are the people we focus on in our research. As I said, they are in transition and the conditions are not always good for many, all of them will not be in the sector. About a third of them should begin to transition out of the sector. There is about a third who are doing pretty well now and will do better, even better over time. And there are a third who can fall more into poverty or begin to do better and Rob alluded to the very important issue of resilience to stop those particularly who are in adverse ecological environments far away from market and so on, to stop them from falling deeper into poverty. On the complexity again, I mean, it's argued a lot. You hear this figure over and over that it takes hundreds of thousands of gallons of water to produce one kilogram of beef and how many thousands of kilograms of grain to produce one kilogram of beef. Those numbers are taken from feedlot systems. Feedlot systems are only 17% of total animal agriculture production. The rest of it is a different sort of equation that we must apply. And here in this graph we show that it's only a small percentage, 14% of the total tonnage of dry feed that comes from grain. The rest of it is mostly from pastures. And if we look at this graph, you will see this is the grain. This is grasslands that could be converted to crops to produce grain. But the vast rest of it is not convertible. So there is not a high opportunity cost between livestock production now in relation to its implication for crop farming. And when we compute new numbers using these figures, these are the estimates. For one kilogram of boneless meat it's 2.8 kilograms of human edible food from ruminants and 3.2 kilograms of edible food from monogastrics. So animal source foods in the developing world right now is not in serious competition from crop agriculture. This is the message here, and that much of the animal source food comes from converting material that could not be used for anything else to produce high quality protein. The panel for food security just put out a report and they made these three points. They are sort of motherhood and apple pie sort of statements, but it's true. And I close by saying a few words about the greenhouse gas emission situation. We know that livestock, I just told you that over a third of the terrestrial surface is contributing to animal production, so animal production is tied to the environment. And of course we need an important transform in markets. So it is true that as I conclude that animal agriculture contributed about 40 percent of the greenhouse gases. The best way we can reduce that is to increase productivity which is very low in developing countries. If the cow in Africa which produces now an average of 2 to 3 liters start producing 10, then emissions per unit of product will go down. We also know that there is good science that is relating to genetics and breeding and feeding and nutrition that can massively cut the greenhouse gas emissions. So we can make animal systems more environmentally friendly. There is inconvertible evidence that animal-sourced foods are contributing significantly to food and nutritional security. It is also true that over 600 million people depend directly on the sector for their livelihoods in developing countries. And about that number depend on it indirectly. The sector is under amazing pressure at the moment that those who say if you want to save the planet you have to get rid of the livestock and if you want to save your health you have to stop eating meat. Well in parts of the world we probably do consume too much and I don't argue against reducing that a little in those parts of the world. But I argue strongly against those who say that those who eat so little should eat even less. So as I conclude these remarks ladies and gentlemen I do not believe as my colleague Rob says there is an equivalence between those who are obese because they make poor choice of food and those who are hungry and have no choice of food. Thank you very much.