Content uploaded by Paul C. West
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paul C. West on Nov 15, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 1 April 2017
e33
Articles
Lancet Planet Health 2017;
1: e33–42
See Comment page e15
Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research
Organisation, St Lucia, QLD,
Australia (Prof M Herrero PhD,
P K Thornton PhD, B Power MSc,
J R Bogard PhD, K Waha PhD,
E Stephenson MSc); CGIAR
Research Program on Climate
Change, Agriculture and Food
Security, Nairobi, Kenya
(P K Thornton); School of Public
Health, University of
Queensland, Herston, QLD,
Australia (J R Bogard);
Bioversity International,
Heverlee, Belgium
(R Remans PhD); Faculty of
Bioscience Engineering, Ghent
University, Ghent, Belgium
(R Remans); International
Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria
(S Fritz PhD, P Havlík PhD,
L See PhD); Institute on the
Environment, University of
Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN,
USA (J S Gerber PhD,
P C West PhD, L H Samberg PhD);
University of Illinois,
Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA
(Prof G Nelson PhD); Institute
for Marine and Antarctic
Studies, University of
Tasmania, Taroona, TAS,
Australia (Prof R A Watson PhD);
HAS University of Applied
Sciences, International Food
and Agribusiness,
‘s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands
(J van de Steeg PhD); Griffith
School of Environment, Griffith
University, Brisbane, QLD,
Australia (E Stephenson MSc);
and International Livestock
Research Institute, Nairobi,
Kenya (M van Wijk PhD)
Correspondence to:
Prof Mario Herrero,
Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation,
St Lucia, QLD 4067, Australia
mario.herrero@csiro.au
Farming and the geography of nutrient production for
human use: a transdisciplinary analysis
Mario Herrero, Philip K Thornton, Brendan Power, Jessica R Bogard, Roseline Remans, Steffen Fritz, James S Gerber, Gerald Nelson, Linda See,
Katharina Waha, Reg A Watson, Paul C West, Leah H Samberg, Jeannette van de Steeg, Eloise Stephenson, Mark van Wijk, Petr Havlík
Summary
Background Information about the global structure of agriculture and nutrient production and its diversity is essential
to improve present understanding of national food production patterns, agricultural livelihoods, and food chains, and
their linkages to land use and their associated ecosystems services. Here we provide a plausible breakdown of global
agricultural and nutrient production by farm size, and also study the associations between farm size, agricultural
diversity, and nutrient production. This analysis is crucial to design interventions that might be appropriately targeted
to promote healthy diets and ecosystems in the face of population growth, urbanisation, and climate change.
Methods We used existing spatially-explicit global datasets to estimate the production levels of 41 major crops,
seven livestock, and 14 aquaculture and fish products. From overall production estimates, we estimated the production
of vitamin A, vitamin B₁₂, folate, iron, zinc, calcium, calories, and protein. We also estimated the relative contribution
of farms of different sizes to the production of different agricultural commodities and associated nutrients, as well as
how the diversity of food production based on the number of different products grown per geographic pixel and
distribution of products within this pixel (Shannon diversity index [H]) changes with different farm sizes.
Findings Globally, small and medium farms (≤50 ha) produce 51–77% of nearly all commodities and nutrients
examined here. However, important regional differences exist. Large farms (>50 ha) dominate production in North
America, South America, and Australia and New Zealand. In these regions, large farms contribute between 75% and
100% of all cereal, livestock, and fruit production, and the pattern is similar for other commodity groups. By contrast,
small farms (≤20 ha) produce more than 75% of most food commodities in Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia,
South Asia, and China. In Europe, West Asia and North Africa, and Central America, medium-size farms (20–50 ha)
also contribute substantially to the production of most food commodities. Very small farms (≤2 ha) are important and
have local significance in Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and South Asia, where they contribute to about 30% of
most food commodities. The majority of vegetables (81%), roots and tubers (72%), pulses (67%), fruits (66%), fish
and livestock products (60%), and cereals (56%) are produced in diverse landscapes (H>1·5). Similarly, the majority
of global micronutrients (53–81%) and protein (57%) are also produced in more diverse agricultural landscapes
(H>1·5). By contrast, the majority of sugar (73%) and oil crops (57%) are produced in less diverse ones (H≤1·5),
which also account for the majority of global calorie production (56%). The diversity of agricultural and nutrient
production diminishes as farm size increases. However, areas of the world with higher agricultural diversity produce
more nutrients, irrespective of farm size.
Interpretation Our results show that farm size and diversity of agricultural production vary substantially across regions and
are key structural determinants of food and nutrient production that need to be considered in plans to meet social,
economic, and environmental targets. At the global level, both small and large farms have key roles in food and nutrition
security. Efforts to maintain production diversity as farm sizes increase seem to be necessary to maintain the production of
diverse nutrients and viable, multifunctional, sustainable landscapes.
Funding Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, CGIAR
Research Programs on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security and on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health
funded by the CGIAR Fund Council, Daniel and Nina Carasso Foundation, European Union, International Fund for
Agricultural Development, Australian Research Council, National Science Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore
Foundation, and Joint Programming Initiative on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change—Belmont Forum.
Copyright © The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY license.
Introduction
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a
framework to monitor advances in human and eco-
systems prosperity.1 Global food systems are central to the
attainment of several of these largely interconnected
goals. How food is produced and consumed is closely
linked to the goals of ending poverty (SDG1), ending
hunger and achieving food security and improved
nutrition while promoting sustainable agri culture (SDG2),
ensuring sustainable consumption and pro duction
Articles
e34
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 1 April 2017
patterns (SDG12), taking urgent action to combat climate
change (SDG13), and sustainably using oceans (SDG14)
and terrestrial ecosystems (SDG15).
Agriculture, livestock, and fisheries provide the basis of
production for edible nutrients used by mankind, whether
directly through food manufacturing and consumption,
or indirectly to feed animals and fish or for energy or fibre
production. These sectors are part of the global food
systems and are responsible for maintaining millions of
livelihoods, from farmers, retailers, farm advisers, and
scientists, all the way to the consumers. Their importance
in regulating environmental services mainly through land
and water use, nutrient cycles, and climate regulation is
also undeniable.2
The scale of the food production challenge is clear:
some studies3 suggest that a 70% increase in food
availability by the 2050s will be essential to keep up with
the demand for food from an increasingly numerous
and affluent population. Put another way, more food
will need to be produced on the planet in the next
50 years than has been produced in the past 400 years,4
with the additional constraint of ensuring that key
environmental planetary boundaries are not exceeded
in the process.2
This increase in food availability alone will not guarantee
human wellbeing. Additionally, food systems must also
provide foods of high nutritional quality and diversity to
support the needs for human health and nutrition,5 while
other crucial challenges such as poverty reduction, equity,
land tenure, education and health accessibility, and
reductions in emissions are resolved simultaneously.
Diversity in the food species that contribute to a diet is
associated with improved nutrient adequacy and food
security.6,7 However, the global diversity of national food
supplies has been decreasing since 1960, with a steady
increase in the importance of major cereals and oil crops8
relative to other commodities like fruits or vegetables.
Agricultural systems change through time in response to a
wide range of drivers, particularly intensification processes
(ie, increasing production per unit of land, labour, or
capital), which can often lead to specialisation of production
in the pursuit of economic efficiencies.9 As efforts are made
to increase food production, achieving a balance between
intensification and diversity of pro duction has become
increasingly important from a nutritional perspective.
Identification of the policy options and technological
changes that can achieve this balance will depend on a
more complete understanding of the geography of current
Research in context
Evidence before this study
A substantial body of work exists on the topic of agricultural
production and farm size. 570 million farmers are estimated to
be responsible for the global food supply, with small farms
contributing the majority of food production, especially in
low-income and middle-income countries. Spatially explicit
global mapping of plot sizes has supported this prevalence of
small plots in many low-income and middle-income countries.
Some of these analyses have been extended through estimation
of the average size of agricultural areas (a proxy for average farm
size) using spatial and statistical methods, yielding information
on the contribution of different average agricultural areas to crop
production, which varied significantly depending on crop type.
This analysis, however, did not account for the distribution of
different farm sizes across the same areas, nor for production of
livestock and fish. Several studies have shown links between
agriculture and dietary diversity, and diversity of national food
supplies has been reported to have become more homogeneous
over time, raising concerns about the evolution of global
nutritional diversity, which is associated with many measures of
human and ecosystems wellbeing, including child malnutrition.
The structure of global food production, and diversity of food
supply are key to debates on how food should be produced now
and in the future, and are fundamental for the design of feasible
responses to attaining global human and planetary health.
Added value of this study
Previously, spatial linking of the global structure of food
production to its functional diversity and the provision of key
nutrients for anthropogenic use has not been fully quantified.
Since the land connects human beings to both food production
and the environment, this information is essential for designing
more sustainable food systems and for the attainment of many
of the sustainable development goals. Our results show that both
production and nutrient diversity diminish with increasing farm
size and that, irrespective of farm size, more diverse areas produce
more nutrients. Our study also incorporates the latest spatial and
statistical data on crops, livestock, and fish products, which have
seldom been included simultaneously in these types of analyses.
Implications of all the available evidence
Our results show that farm size and nutritional functional
diversity are key factors for global nutrient production. This
finding has crucial implications for food and nutritional security.
The evidence also shows that both small and large farms have
crucial importance on a global basis. Small farms are still
essential to the provision of food and nutrients in low-income
and middle-income countries, whereas surpluses from larger
farms ensure the necessary trade balances to deal with scarcity in
some parts of the world. Furthermore, agricultural diversity
needs to be safeguarded when agricultural intensification
practices are promoted, given that, historically, intensification
has decreased the number of crops planted, especially as farm
sizes increase. Management of the risks associated with
agricultural diversity losses will be essential in efforts to attain
the Sustainable Development Goals. The information presented
will be useful in attempts to improve the sustainability of food
production, especially in countries in which the dynamics of
global change processes are causing profound changes to
livelihoods, economies, and ecosystems.
Articles
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 1 April 2017
e35
food production, and how this might evolve as agricultural
systems change in response to drivers of change such as
population growth, urbanisation, and climate change.
Whether food is produced on small or large farms, with
minimal or large amounts of external inputs, or whether
crops are grown singly or in combination with other crops
and livestock or fish, all forms of food production have
associated societal, economic, and environmental costs
and benefits, which spread from the farmer all the way to
the consumer. Different methods of production will have
different abilities to handle challenges such as dealing
with climatic and economic risk, adapting and mitigating
climate change, generating employment and livelihood
options, and maintaining ecosystem services.
Our study is a small first step towards building
consistent, global data for the study of these key issues.
We aimed to estimate the relative contribution of farms
of different sizes to the production of various agricultural
commodities and associated nutrients, as well as
analysing how the diversity of food and nutrient
production changes with farm size. We also present
high-resolution global maps of the production of several
key nutrients, with underlying information on the crop
or animal producing systems.
Methods
Study design
We estimated the relative contribution of farms of
different sizes to the production of different agricultural
commodities and nutrients and the associations between
diversity of production and size of farm. We used
existing, spatially explicit global datasets of location and
production of major crops, livestock, and aquacultural
products and estimated the production of essential
nutrients. We allocated national food and nutrient
production data for these commodities to farms of
different sizes using a global dataset of field size coupled
with non-spatial methods, and we calculated diversity
metrics for vegetables, cereals, livestock, fish, sugar
crops, pulses, roots and tubers, oil crops, and fibre crops.
We focused on estimating the production of dietary
energy (calories) of seven essential nutrients: vitamin A,
vitamin B12, folate, iron, zinc, calcium, and protein. This
selection reflects nutrients of public health interest
because of either existing widespread deficiencies
(vitamin A, iron, and zinc) or because intakes are
commonly low particularly in developing countries
(vitamin B12, folate, and calcium). We also included
calories and protein as essential macronutrients.
More detailed descriptions of the methods are available
in the appendix. Our analysis included 161 countries (we
excluded several small island states); the country list and
allocation to regions are shown in the appendix.
Data sources
We extracted production data for 41 crops in 2005 from
the dataset of Ray and colleagues,10 which was based on
the work of Monfreda and colleagues.11 For seven livestock
products in 2005 we used data from Herrero and
colleagues.12 For the 14 fish functional groups, we used
data from Watson and colleagues.13 We used the fish data
for the computation of the nutrient yield and diversity
metrics only, as they could not be allocated to farm sizes.
We sourced data on the nutrient compositions of the
62 commodities from the US Department of Agriculture
(USDA) online database and adjusted for edible portions.
To estimate farm size distributions, we used the data of
Lowder and colleagues,14,15 supplemented where needed
with additional data for missing countries (appendix).
Statistical analysis
To allocate agricultural production data to different farm
sizes at a country level, we used a spatially explicit global
dataset on field-size distribution.16 For each country, we
calculated the relative proportion of four different field
sizes: “very small” (≤0·5 ha), “small” (>0·5–2 ha),
“medium” (>2–100 ha), and “large” (>100 ha) and imputed
a plausible field-size distribution to the country’s farm-
size distribution in such a way that the national (non-
spatial) farm-size areas matched the national (spatial)
field-size areas. We used the resulting matrix of relative
proportions to allocate all the fields of a certain size to
farms of different sizes. We then allocated production to
all farm sizes in relation to the ratio of relative production
to relative area, first weighting field size by suitability
class, using length of growing period as a proxy for general
agricultural suitability. This allowed us to allocate
production to a country’s distribution of farm sizes, taking
account of agricultural suitability within the country.
We calculated and mapped nutritional yield17 for all
crops, livestock, and fish combined, expressed as the
number of people whose annual recommended daily
allowance (RDA) for different nutrients could be met
from crop, livestock, and fish production per grid cell.18
We calculated three diversity metrics based on all of the
crop, livestock, and fish products used in the analysis:19 the
Shannon diversity index, H, which represents how many
different types of foods are produced in a pixel and how
evenly these different types are distributed; the species
richness, S, a simple count of the number of commodities
produced in each pixel; and the Modified Functional
Attribute Diversity index (MFAD), the sum of pairwise
distances between functional units; this index reflects the
diversity in nutrient composition of foods produced in each
pixel. Maps of S and MFAD are available in the appendix.
We did all analyses using the R open source statistical
package (version 3.3.2).
Role of the funding source
The funder of the study had no role in study design, data
collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of
the report. The corresponding author had full access to
all the data in the study and had final responsibility for
the decision to submit for publication.
See Online for appendix
Articles
e36
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 1 April 2017
Results
Our analyses show that globally, farms smaller than
50 ha produce between 51% and 77% of the volume of
the major food groups for human consumption: cereals,
fruits, pulses, roots and tubers, and vegetables (figure 1).
Exceptions are sugar and oil crops, which tend to be
produced on large farms (>50 ha) as large plantation
crops, and livestock, of which 48% of global pro duction
is on small (≤20 ha) and medium (>20–50 ha) farms.
Although these global numbers are important, they
mask substantial regional differences in what food is
produced and how it is produced (figure 1 and figure 2).
Large farms (>50 ha) dominate production in North
America, South America, and Australia and New Zealand.
For example, in these regions large farms contribute
approximately 75–100% of all cereal, livestock, and fruit
pro duction, and the pattern is similar for other commodity
groups (appendix). By contrast, small farms (≤20 ha)
produce more than 75% of most food commodities in
Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, South Asia, and
China. A clear example of these structural differences is
the production of cereals in Europe and North America
compared with South Asia and China, where similar
volumes of cereals are produced, but with very different
production structures (large vs small farms; figure 2).
Europe, West Asia and North Africa, and Central America
are different from other regions in that medium size
farms (>20−50 ha) also contribute substantially to the
production of most food commodities.
Very small farms (≤2 ha) are important and have
local significance in Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast
Asia, and South Asia, where they contribute around
30% of most food commodities and where they are
managed by millions of smallholder farmers. In China,
such farms produce more than 50% of all food
commodities (except for fibre crops), in particular
fruits (64%), vegetables (60%), sugar crops (59%), roots
and tubers (72%), and livestock (63%).
The global patterns of nutrient production by farm size
are similar to those of the production of food commodities
(figure 3). With the exception of iron and folate, small
(≤20 ha) and medium (>20–50 ha) farms supply
51−77% of the essential nutrients studied here. Notably,
small farms (≤20 ha) provide 71% of global vitamin A
production; vitamin A is supplied mainly from fruits and
vegetables, some livestock, and orange-fleshed roots and
tubers, which are produced mostly on these small farms.
A regional analysis (figure 3) shows that both small and
large farms are vital to local nutrient production in each
of the regions studied. Small farms (≤20 ha) produce
most of the essential nutrients (>80%) in Sub-Saharan
Africa, Southeast Asia, South Asia, China, and the rest of
East Asia Pacific. Farms smaller than 2 ha produce more
than 50% of all nutrients in China and are of key
importance in South Asia, Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan
Africa, and East Asia Pacific, where they produce more
than 25% of the nutrients. Farms larger than 50 ha
contribute most of the nutrient production in Europe,
North America, and South America, and Australia and
New Zealand. In South America and Australia and
New Zealand, very large farms (>200 ha) produce more
than 50% of the nutrients.
Figure 1: Production of key food groups by farm size
Australia and New Zealand Central America China East Asia Pacific
Europe North America South Asia South America
Southeast Asia Sub-Saharan Africa
Production (%)
West Asia and North Africa World
Vegetables
Sugar crops
Roots and tubers
Pulses
Oil crops
Livestock
Fruit
Fibre
Cereals
Vegetables
Sugar crops
Roots and tubers
Pulses
Oil crops
Livestock
Fruit
Fibre
Cereals
Vegetables
Sugar crops
Roots and tubers
Pulses
Oil crops
Livestock
Fruit
Fibre
Cereals
0255075 100 0255075 100 0255075 100 0255075 100
Farm size
(ha)
>200
>50–200
>20–50
>2–20
≤2
Articles
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 1 April 2017
e37
Areas of substantial nutrient production can be identified
around the world. Figure 4 shows nutritional yields—ie, the
number of people whose annual recommended allowances
for each nutrient could be met from the aggregated nutrient
production from crops, livestock, and fish combined per
unit of land (grid cell). Although there are some differences
for specific nutrients, the general overall patterns in the
maps are similar, with parts of China, India, Europe, the
North American Great Plains, southern Brazil and northern
Argentina, East African highlands, and parts of West Africa
being noticeable production areas. The lowest productivity
is for vitamin A and vitamin B12, which are supplied in large
quantities by fewer commodities (ie, roots and tubers for
vitamin A and livestock and fish products for vitamin B12).
Mapping agricultural diversity at grid level allows
several trends to be identified (figure 5A). First,
differences in diversity between regions are sub stantial,
with higher diversity (H>1·5) in large parts of Europe,
Africa, Asia, and the western part of South America, and
lower diversity in large parts of Australia, North America,
and South America. Second, overlaying the diversity data
with the food and nutrient production data shows that,
on a global level, farm areas with higher diversity (H>1·5)
produce most of the vege tables (81%), fibre crops (76%),
roots and tubers (72%), pulses (67%), fruits (66%),
livestock (60%), and cereals (56%), although they occupy
a smaller per centage of the grid cells than do the
less diverse areas (figure 5). The exceptions are sugar
crops (27%) and oil crops (43%), which are often grown
in single crop plantations.
Third, combining the diversity measures with spatially
explicit plot sizes, which are highly correlated with farm
size, shows that agricultural diversity (H) decreases as
plot size increases (p<0·0001; appendix). In particular,
areas with small and medium farms (≤50 ha) have larger
diversity than do larger scale farms. These differences
also translate into differences in nutrient production
(figure 6). On a global level, areas with higher diversity of
food commodities (higher H) produce more
micronutrients than do areas with less diversity. This
effect is particularly noticeable in places such as China,
Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia Pacific, and West Asia and
North Africa. In contrast with North America, in Europe,
although production comes mostly from medium and
large farms, it is not farm size, but the diversity of
production that drives nutrient production in this region.
Discussion
Our results show that the geography, structure,
and diversity of farming matters significantly in the pro-
duction of key nutrients for anthropogenic use. The
production of global food commodities differs geo-
graphically and is governed by agroclimatic conditions,
soil types, population density, and distance to markets.
These factors, together with the competitiveness of the
agricultural sector and alternative sources of employ ment,
largely determine the structure of farming in the world.
We show that both large and small farms have crucial
roles in food and nutrient production and that this role
largely depends on the region. Small farms are not only
Figure 2: Distribution of production of key food commodity groups by farm size
Australia and New Zealand Central America China East Asia Pacific
Europe North America South Asia South America
Southeast Asia Sub-Saharan Africa
Production (tonnes × 10–8)
Production (tonnes × 10–8)
West Asia and North Africa
Vegetables
Sugar crops
Roots and tubers
Pulses
Oil crops
Livestock
Fruit
Fibre
Cereals
Vegetables
Sugar crops
Roots and tubers
Pulses
Oil crops
Livestock
Fruit
Fibre
Cereals
Vegetables
Sugar crops
Roots and tubers
Pulses
Oil crops
Livestock
Fruit
Fibre
Cereals
024602460246
0246
Farm size
(ha)
>200
>50–200
>20–50
>2–20
≤2
0
Articles
e38
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 1 April 2017
responsible for supporting millions of smallholders in
low-income and middle-income countries, but also
produce the majority of a very diverse set of commod ities
for human consumption, especially for poor people.20 By
contrast, large farms can be less diverse, but their sheer
sizes and productivity of fewer, easier to grow, high-
yielding crops, ensure that there are tradeable surpluses
of nutrients available to the parts of the world that need
them most.21 This situation represents a marriage of
convenience for global nutri ent supply and for mankind’s
wellbeing. However, their environmental consequences
remain to be more comprehensively studied than they
have been to date.
To achieve nutrient adequacy, food diversity is an
essential aspect of diet quality,22 and diversity in agri-
cultural production systems can stimulate long-term
productivity, stability, ecosystem services to and from
agricultural lands, and resilience to shocks (eg, pests
and diseases, climate, or price shocks).23 Our findings
on diversity suggest that as farm sizes increase, a shift
occurs in the type and intensity of crops grown. Species
that are more suitable to be grown in smaller plots
(eg, vegetables, fruits, and some roots and tubers) are
reduced, whereas species that can be easily cultivated
with mechanised techniques, such as cereals and sugar
and oil crops, are maintained. By contrast, smaller plots
also contain a broader mixture of crops and livestock.
The historical intensifi cation of agriculture has
yielded more but less diverse food and a reduction in
the sources of key essential nutrients.8 Our data suggest
that although most commodity groups are present
across all farm sizes, there is a risk that numbers of
species cultivated, particularly highly nutritious food
groups, will decrease as farm sizes increase. Reversing
of this trend is essential to safeguard the adaptive
capacity of agriculture to maintain the supply of
essential nutrients for human health. In low-income
countries, the production of di verse commodities con-
tributes to consumption diversity because trade is
limited and most production is con sumed locally.19 Pro-
duction diversity is therefore part of a coping strategy
that needs to be maintained. In high-income and
middle-income countries, diversity of food can be
obtained more easily from markets supplied by national
or by inter national trade than in low-income countries,
so production and supply diversity are not coupled.
Incentives might be needed to manage diversity in such
settings for risk management and long-term economic,
health, and environmental benefits.24,25
From a socioeconomic perspective, a shift in the
typical development of small farms needs to occur to
ensure that agricultural intensification in low-income
and middle-income countries, which is usually pro-
moted through the use of a few cereals and legumes,
does not lead to reductions in agrobiodiversity. The
number of species promoted needs to increase and
in vest ments and policy incentives to diversify agri-
culture to promote healthier diets and gender-sensitive
agri culture needs to be pursued. This need has already
been acknowledged in some parts of the world and
Australia and New Zealand Central America China East Asia Pacific
Europe North America South AsiaSouth America
Southeast Asia Sub-Saharan Africa
Production (%)
West Asia and North AfricaWorld
Zinc
Vitamin B12
Vitamin A
Protein
Iron
Folate
Calories
Calcium
Zinc
Vitamin B12
Vitamin A
Protein
Iron
Folate
Calories
Calcium
Zinc
Vitamin B12
Vitamin A
Protein
Iron
Folate
Calories
Calcium
0255075 100 0255075 100 0255075 100 0255075 100
Farm size
(ha)
>200
>50–200
>20–50
>2–20
≤2
Figure 3: Distribution of nutrient production by farm size
Articles
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 1 April 2017
e39
successful examples of the promotion of diversified
smallholder agriculture exist.26–29 Similarly, nutritional
quality must become a more prominent driving force in
agriculture and food policy development and incentives
such as price pre miums or low-interest credits,
certification, or guaranteed markets to promote the
production of nutrient-rich foods including vegetables,
AB
CD
EF
G
20
10
0
Grid cells
(%)
30
20
10
0
Grid cells
(%)
20
10
0
Grid cells
(%)
20
10
0
Grid cells
(%)
20
10
0
Grid cells
(%)
20
10
0
Grid cells
(%)
20
10
0
Grid cells
(%)
≤2
>2–10
>10–40
>40–150
>150–2500
>2500–6000
>6000–15
000
>15
000
Figure 4: Global hotspots of nutritional yield
Nutritional yield was calculated from 41 crops, seven livestock products, and 14 fish groups for (A) calcium, (B) folate, (C) iron, (D) protein, (E) vitamin A, (F) vitamin B₁₂, and (G) zinc. The maps
represent the number of people whose recommended daily allowance for each nutrient could be met, per grid cell. Maps for individual commodities are available in the appendix.
fruits, perennial crops, live stock and fish species will
need to be developed.
Our analysis focused on the production of a range of
commodities for human use, and, as such, represents
only one of the building blocks contributing to how
nutrients are used. The food industry plays an essen-
tial part in how nutrients are transformed, packaged,
Articles
e40
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 1 April 2017
and accessed by consumers. The industry is also
pivotal in establishing production patterns in certain
regions by the creation and promotion of markets for
commodities of interest through large agribusiness
companies. Policies, regulation, and effective public-
private part ner ships are and will be needed to ensure
improved harmonisation of goals among the actors of
the food chain to achieve human and ecosystems
health.
Our study opens up new research opportunities
to improve attempts to attain the SDG goals.
Understanding of the structure of food and nutrient
production in the world can help the targeting and
prioritisation of research and investment actions to
A
BAustralia and New Zealand Central America China East Asia Pacific
Europe North America South Asia South America
Southeast Asia Sub-Saharan Africa
Production (%)
West Asia and north Africa World
Vegetables
Sugar crops
Roots and tubers
Pulses
Oil crops
Livestock
Fruit
Fibre
Cereals
Vegetables
Sugar crops
Roots and tubers
Pulses
Oil crops
Livestock
Fruit
Fibre
Cereals
Vegetables
Sugar crops
Roots and tubers
Pulses
Oil crops
Livestock
Fruit
Fibre
Cereals
0255075 100 0255075 100 0255075 100 0255075 100
H
>2·5–3·0
>2·0–2·5
>1·5–2·0
>1·0–1·5
>0·5–1·0
≤0·5
20
10
0
Grid cells (%)
H
≤0·5
>0·5–1·0
>1·0–1·5
>1·5–2·0
>2·0–2·5
>2·5–3·0
Figure 5: Diversity of global food production
(A) Map of global diversity of food commodities. (B) Commodity group production by diversity category. Diversity is represented by the Shannon diversity index, H, which represents how many
different types of foods are produced in a pixel and how evenly these different types are distributed. The higher the Shannon index, the higher the diversity.
Articles
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 1 April 2017
e41
support the attainment of sustainable and equitable
agricultural development together with healthier diets
and healthier ecosystems. Our data provide the basis for
the analysis of the effects of climate change on global and
regional nutrient supply, or for projecting and in-
corporating scenarios of the consequences of farm size
consolidation on food and nutrient supply in the future
and the associated social and environmental costs, and
for the investigation of nutrient yield gaps. Essential to
advancement in this subject would be to link the results
of our study to nutrient consumption data from dis-
aggregated human popu lation distributions, as well as to
increase the number of nutrients included in the analysis
(eg, adding essential fatty acids). Such work would enable
the computation of specific dietary patterns and nutrient
supply solutions to contribute to the SDGs.
Despite the importance of our findings, our study has
also shown many inadequacies and data gaps that could
guide further research of this topic. For example, we
could not allocate aquacultural production to farm sizes,
as a large proportion of aquaculture occurs in deltas or
close to water bodies, which are difficult to allocate to
terrestrial land use systems. Efforts to better map these
systems are crucial. Advances have been made in the
mapping of agricultural areas,11 plot size distributions,16
and the pre dominance of certain farm sizes.30 However,
the develop ment of high-resolution, global, continuous
rep resen tations of farm size distri butions remain
Australia and New Zealand Central America China East Asia Pacific
Europe North America South AsiaSouth America
Southeast Asia Sub-Saharan Africa
Production (%)
West Asia and North AfricaWorld
Zinc
Vitamin B12
Vitamin A
Protein
Iron
Folate
Calories
Calcium
Zinc
Vitamin B12
Vitamin A
Protein
Iron
Folate
Calories
Calcium
Zinc
Vitamin B12
Vitamin A
Protein
Iron
Folate
Calories
Calcium
0255075 100 0255075 100 0255075 100 0255075 100
H
>2·5–3·0
>2·0–2·5
>1·5–2·0
>1·0–1·5
>0·5–1·0
≤0·5
Figure 6: Production of nutrients by the diversity category
Diversity is represented by the Shannon diversity index, H, which represents how many different types of foods are produced in a pixel and how evenly these different types are distributed. The higher
the Shannon index, the higher the diversity.
elusive. Our analyses covered more than 85% of the
global cropped area. However, we need to increase the
number of mapped commodities, especially nutrient-
rich foods that occupy small areas and contribute to
dietary quality, particularly for women and children.
Advances in crowd sourcing, remote sensing,31 and farm
data collection will help to circumvent these problems32
in the future.
Contributors
MH, PKT, BP, JRB, and RR designed the study. MH, PKT, BP, RR, GN,
SF, LHS, PCW, JSG, and RAW provided data. BP, PKT, JRB, RR, KW,
JvdS, and MH did the analyses. All authors interpreted the results. MH,
PKT, and RR wrote the manuscript, and all authors commented on the
draft version and approved the submission documents.
Declaration of interests
We declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, CGIAR
Research Programs on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
and on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health funded by the CGIAR
Fund Council, Daniel and Nina Carasso Foundation, European Union,
International Fund for Agricultural Development, Australian Research
Council, National Science Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore
Foundation, and Joint Programming Initiative on Agriculture, Food
Security and Climate Change—Belmont Forum.
References
1 UN. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable
development. New York: United Nations, 2015.
2 Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, et al. A safe operating space for
humanity. Nature 2009; 461: 472–75.
Articles
e42
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 1 April 2017
3 Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J. World agriculture towards
2030/2050: the 2012 revision. ESA working paper No. 12-03.
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, 2012.
4 Keating BA, Herrero M, Carberry PS, et al. Food wedges: framing
the global food demand and supply challenge towards 2050.
Glob Food Sec 2014; 3: 125–32.
5 Haddad L, Hawkes C, Webb P, et al. A new global research agenda
for food. Nature 2016; 540: 30−32.
6 Graham RD, Welch RM, Saunders DA, et al. Nutritious subsistence
food systems. In: Sparks DL, ed. Advances in agronomy, vol 92.
San Diego: Academic Press, 2007: 1−74.
7 Ruel MT. Operationalizing dietary diversity: a review of
measurement issues and research priorities. J Nutr 2003;
133 (11 suppl 2): 3911S–3926S.
8 Khoury CK, Bjorkman AD, Dempewolf H, et al.
Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the
implications for food security. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2014;
111: 4001−06.
9 Boserup E. The condition of agricultural growth: the economics of
agrarian change under population pressure. London: Aldine
Publishing Company, 1965.
10 Ray DK, Mueller ND, West PC, Foley JA. Yield trends are
insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS One
2013; 8: e66428.
11 Monfreda C, Ramankutty N, Foley JA. Harvested area and yields of
175 crops (M3-307 crops data). 2008. http://www.earthstat.org/data-
download (accessed Feb 15, 2016).
12 Herrero M, Havlík P, Valin H, et al. Biomass use, production,
feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions 309 from global
livestock systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013; 110: 20888–93.
13 Watson R. A database of global marine commercial, small-scale,
illegal and unreported fisheries catch 1950−2014. Sci Data
(in press).
14 Lowder SK, Skoet J, Singh S. What do we really know about the
number and distribution of farms and family farms worldwide?
Background paper for The State of Food and Agriculture 2014. ESA
Working Paper No. 14-02. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, 2014.
15 Lowder SK, Skoet J, Raney T. The number, size, and distribution of
farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World Dev
2016; 87: 16–29.
16 Fritz S, See L, McCallum I, et al. Mapping global cropland and field
size. Glob Chang Biol 2015; 21: 1980–92.
17 DeFries R, Fanzo J, Remans R, Palm C, Wood S, Anderman TL.
Metrics for land-scarce agriculture. Science 2015; 349: 238−40.
18 Ottin JJ, Hellwig JP, Meyers LD. Dietary reference intakes:
the essential guide to nutrient requirements. Washington:
Institute of Medicine, 2006.
19 Remans R, Wood SA, Saha N, Anderman TL, DeFries RS.
Measuring nutritional diversity of national food supplies.
Glob Food Sec 2014; 3: 174−82.
20 Hazell P, Poulton C, Wiggins S and Dorward A. The future of
small farms: trajectories and policy priorities. World Dev 2010;
38: 1349–61.
21 Deininger K, Byerlee D. The rise of large farms in land abundant
countries: do they have a future? World Dev 2012; 40: 701–14.
22 Arimond M, Wiesmann D, Becquey E, et al. Dietary diversity as a
measure of the micronutrient adequacy of women’s diets in
resource-poor areas: summary of results from five sites.
Washington: FANTA-2 Bridge, FHI 360, 2011.
23 Wood S, Karp DS, DeClerck F, et al. Functional traits in agriculture:
agrobiodiversity and ecosystem services. Trends Ecol Evol 2015;
30: 531–39.
24 Altieri M, Funes-Monzote FR, Petersen P. Agroecologically efficient
agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: contributions to food
sovereignty. Agron Sustain Dev 2012; 32: 1–13.
25 IPES Food. From uniformity to diversity: a paradigm shift from
industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems.
International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems,
June 2016. http://www.ipes-food.org/images/Reports/
UniformityToDiversity_FullReport.pdf (accessed Sept 23, 2016).
26 La Via Campesina. Peasant and family farm-based sustainable
agriculture can feed the world. Jakarta: La Via Campesina, 2010.
27 ETC Group. Who will feed us? Questions for the food and climate
crises. Ottawa: Erosion, Technology and Concentration Group,
2009.
28 GRAIN. Hungry for land. Small farmers feed the world with less
than a quarter of all farmland. Girona: GRAIN, 2014.
29 Rosset PM. The multiple functions and benefits of small farm
agriculture in the context of global trade negotiations. Food First
Policy Brief No. 4 . Oakland: Institute for Food and Development
Policy, 1999.
30 Samberg L, Gerber J, Ramankutty N, Herrero M, West P. Subnational
distribution of average farm size and smallholder contributions to
global food production. Environ Res Lett 2016; 11: 124010.
31 Jean N, Burke M, Xie M, Davi WM, Lobell D, Ermon S.
Combining satellite imagery and machine learning to predict
poverty. Science 2016; 353: 790−94.
32 Belward S, Skoien J. Who launched what, when and why; trends in
global land-cover. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 2015;
103: 115–28.
