In order to avoid misunderstandings (which could arise in the poultry sector and among consumers), it is necessary to clarify that the professional approach that led me to produce the research on Aviagen and Cobb that you can find here:
It aims to determine the opportunity for double protection:
- for the sector’s reputation as an entity relevant to the economy and the nourishment of billions of people,
- for consumers, so that access to quality nutrition guaranteed by the poultry sector is always available and always at affordable costs.
An approach oriented towards action, prevention and problem solving, rather than merely responding to existing situations.
The aim of the research is therefore “proactive”, that is, to submit a reflection that aims to
- prevent problems and needs of the poultry sector
- be able to plan preventive actions in advance
Returning to the research, I then highlighted a critical factor that I called the ‘global genetic bottleneck’ which represents an “Achilles heel”, the risk that a dominant position in the market such as that of Aviagen and Cobb could translate into an economic and social boomerang.
What I mean by “global genetic bottleneck”
(the text explaining the bottleneck can also be found HERE within the research it is part of)
Imagine a funnel or an hourglass:
- The broad top represents the vast genetic diversity that originally existed between wild chickens and early domesticated breeds throughout the world.
- The narrow “neck” represents the point at which genetic diversity narrows dramatically. In our case, this “neck” is represented by a very few global companies, such as Aviagen and Cobb, which hold almost all the starting genetic material for broiler chickens and, to a slightly lesser extent, for laying hens.
- The broad bottom represents the billions of chickens that are raised and slaughtered every year around the world. All of these chickens come from that narrow genetic base controlled by a few companies.
What is the “global genetic bottleneck” in the context of Aviagen and Cobb:
- Market Dominance – Aviagen (with brands such as Ross and Arbor Acres) and Cobb (with the Cobb brand) are the two major players in global poultry genetics. They have invested enormous resources in research and breeding to create lines of chickens that grow very fast, are efficient at converting feed to meat, and are relatively resistant to certain diseases. They have been so successful that their genetic strains have become the global standard.
- Narrow Genetic Base – This means that the vast majority of chickens that end up on our tables come from an extremely limited number of core genetic lines developed and maintained by these two companies. The “Grand Parents” and “Parents” lines we discussed earlier come almost exclusively from them.
- Lack of Diversity – Although these companies have several genetic lines within them that crossbreed with each other, the overall genetic diversity of the global commercially raised chicken population is much less than it would be if there were many more independent genetic sources.
What are the implications of this “global genetic bottleneck”:
- High Health Risk – If a new, particularly virulent disease were to emerge and target the dominant genetic strains of Aviagen or Cobb (because they have an inherent, perhaps not yet known, susceptibility to that disease), there would be a huge risk to the entire global poultry production. The lack of genetic diversity means that fewer birds would have natural resistance to the disease, increasing the likelihood of widespread and devastating outbreaks.
- Economic Dependence – Chicken producers around the world are effectively dependent on these two companies for their starting genetic material (the “Parents” or “Grand Parents” chicks). This gives Aviagen and Cobb enormous market power and influence throughout the supply chain.
- Lower Resilience – A system with little genetic diversity is less resilient to changes in the environment, climate, nutrition, or new health challenges. If farming conditions change dramatically, or if a particular feed ingredient becomes scarce, a genetically homogeneous population may have difficulty adapting.
- Loss of Local Breeds – The emphasis on intensive production and genetic efficiency has led to the abandonment of many local or traditional breeds of chickens, which despite having slower growth rates or lower egg production, possessed greater genetic variability and adaptation to specific local environments. These breeds are in many cases at risk of extinction, further reducing the overall genetic diversity of the species.
In short, by calling what is evident in the poultry sector a “global genetic bottleneck,” I mean that the genetic base from which almost all the chicken we consume is derived is extremely narrow and controlled by a very limited number of companies, bringing with it significant risks to biosecurity and the long-term sustainability of production.
————-
Considerations and proposed solutions
The issues that raise the “global genetic bottleneck” This is a critical point of vulnerability in the global poultry supply chain. The “genetic bottleneck,” dominated by Aviagen and Cobb, should become a real concern for biodiversity and the resilience of the sector.
My proactive approach is therefore as follows.
I propose that these two multinationals “create a competing but complementary and larger market” to mitigate the risk. A challenge, given their current advantageous position.
I can then make suggestions that aim for a long-term benefit for them too, linking it to sustainability and the reduction of systemic risk.
Here are some suggestions, based on principles of diversification, innovation and collaboration, that I present as opportunities to discuss together with the sector to which I submit them, trusting in its honesty. Trust is a serious thing that is given to serious things:
1. Diversification of minor/niche genetic lines
The suggestion
Proactively invest in the development and commercialization of alternative genetic lines, perhaps less ‘performing’ on current parameters of rapid growth, but with different characteristics (e.g. greater resistance to specific emerging diseases, greater longevity, better adaptability to extensive or organic farming systems, or distinct organoleptic profiles for market niches).
Why Aviagen/Cobb might/should care (benefits for them):
- Systemic Risk Mitigation – If a devastating disease were to strike one of the current dominant genetic lines, the entire industry would be at risk. Having diverse lines would reduce this vulnerability, while also protecting their core investments.
- New Markets and Added Value – There is a growing consumer demand for poultry products that emphasize animal welfare, sustainability, biodiversity and specific organoleptic characteristics (e.g. darker meat, more intense flavour). These “minor” lines could open up premium and higher value-added market segments, where competition is not just on price per kg.
- Innovation and Research – Maintaining a diverse portfolio stimulates genetic research on new fronts, ensuring that companies remain at the forefront of innovation.
- Image and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) – Being perceived as custodians of genetic biodiversity and promoters of more resilient farming systems would significantly improve their reputation and increase consumer and stakeholder trust.
2. Licensing or collaboration programs for access to non-dominant genetic material
The suggestion
Create a structured program (or a research ‘fund’) through which to make accessible (perhaps under controlled license or in partnership with academic/governmental institutions) part of their large gene pool not currently used for dominant commercial lines, to startups, research centers or small companies that intend to develop niche genetic lines or lines resistant to specific future threats.
Why Aviagen/Cobb might/should care:
- Low-Cost Exploration – Other entities (startups, universities) could explore and develop new lines without a massive direct investment by multinationals, which however hold the rights to the starting genetic material.
- Source of External Innovation – Unexpected solutions or new genetic combinations may emerge that could then be integrated into their portfolio.
- Leadership Role in the “Common Good” – Positioning themselves as facilitators of genetic diversification, rather than monopolies, would strengthen their ethical leadership in the industry.
- Avoiding Stringent Regulations – A proactive approach to diversification could prevent future government regulations that could impose quotas or limits on genetic concentration.
3. Creation of a Consortium/Fund for Poultry Biodiversity
The suggestion
Promote the creation of an industrial consortium (perhaps in collaboration with FAO, universities and other actors in the supply chain) also financed by them, with the aim of conserving, studying and, if necessary, reintroducing rare or less common genetic lines. This fund could also finance research on the genetics of resistance to emerging diseases.
Why Aviagen/Cobb might/should care:
- Genetic Insurance – This would act as a long-term “insurance policy” for the entire industry, ensuring that the gene pool is not lost.
- Shared Responsibility – The cost and responsibility of biodiversity conservation and research would be shared with other actors.
- Image of Illuminati Leaders – Leading an initiative of this magnitude would demonstrate a long-term vision and commitment to the sustainability of the entire food system.
- Access to New Skills – By collaborating with external research institutions, they could access new skills and perspectives.
Final Considerations on the Proposals and Suggestions
It is desirable that these suggestions are not read as a threat or an imposition, but as opportunities for growth, risk reduction and strengthening of the leadership position in the long term.
What has just been suggested in such an open way describes the qualities of the advisor (Pietro Greppi) who is proposing them publicly, having up to now found great difficulty in submitting his proposals to the sector.
Aims and objectives of the considerations and suggestions submitted so far
Long-term economic benefit
While niche lines may not offer the same volumes as dominant lines, they can offer higher margins and increasing attractiveness to a market segment that is sensitive to values other than price alone.
Risk scenario
Highlight the risks of “business as usual”: a single epidemic or drastic regulatory/consumer shift could have devastating effects on a genetically homogeneous industry.
Increasing external pressure
Growing consumer awareness, animal welfare and sustainability policies, and the risk of future pandemics will still push for greater diversification and resilience. Better to anticipate than to suffer.
These suggestions aim to stimulate a broader and more strategic vision by Aviagen and Cobb, to transform a potential weakness (the genetic bottleneck) into an opportunity and to strengthen their leadership through the diversification and sustainability of the global poultry industry.
Note by Pietro Greppi, the advisor who generated these contents of proposal and reflection:
“I hope that the sector will consider it appropriate to avail itself of my professional contribution to develop and integrate strategies useful for the protection and increasingly responsible development of the poultry sector.”
