Higher Swiss Self-Sufficiency with Lower Environmental Impact

If we systematically reduce inefficiencies in the food system—such as the heavy use of cropland-based feed, concentrate feed for cattle, and avoidable food waste—we can achieve much higher self-sufficiency while lowering environmental impacts.

The self-sufficiency rate (SSR) measures the share of a country’s food calories that can be produced domestically. In Switzerland, the SSR is currently just under 50%. Many countries aim to increase this rate. Switzerland’s AP2030+ agricultural policy seeks to at least maintain the current SSR, while the ‘Initiative for Food Security’ calls for raising it to at least 70%. In this article, we model various measures that could both increase Switzerland’s SSR and reduce the environmental impact of agriculture.

The major levers: “feed no food” and less food waste

A much higher SSR is achievable. If the full potential were realised, Switzerland’s self-sufficiency rate could exceed 100%, allowing the country to feed almost 10 million people—more than twice today’s number—from domestic production alone. Achieving this is not necessarily the goal – but this number shows how large an option space we have. The key levers are, first, reducing food waste and, second, shifting arable land from producing animal feed to producing food for direct human consumption. This matters because feeding people indirectly through livestock uses far more land, meaning only a small share of the population can be fed compared with using the same land to grow crops for people directly. Many smaller measures, such as feeding remaining waste to pigs, increasing the number of lactations in dairy cows, more efficient grassland management and increased fruit production on grassland, also have a significant overall impact.

High potential in cattle feeding

In addition to the high cultivation of concentrated feed for pigs and chicken rather than using this land for direct human consumption, the use of concentrate feed in cattle farming is particularly inefficient. If milk production relied almost entirely on grassland and used little to no concentrate feed, an additional one million people could be fed — 0.4 million of them from freed-up arable land in Switzerland, 0.6 million abroad, from the land where the corresponding feed imports come from. Milk production would fall by about 15%, roughly matching today’s market surplus. Reducing feed maize would make it possible to feed another 0.5 million people. However, small amounts of concentrate feed and maize can still play a useful role in cattle nutrition, as they help balance the protein and energy supplied by grass.

Without concentrate feed, Switzerland could still meet its domestic demand for milk. However, if meat consumption stays at current levels, more meat would need to be imported. Animal welfare and other sustainability aspects would, of course, have to be carefully considered, but on the positive side, this shift would still strengthen nutrient cycles: livestock would be kept where their feed is produced, whereas today’s feed imports contribute significantly to Switzerland’s nutrient surpluses.

The environment benefits

Already when using these two levers, the climate strategy’s targets can be fully met, and the ammonia reduction target can be nearly achieved. Most greenhouse gas emissions in Swiss agriculture come from the digestion of ruminants. Because less cropland feed is used and fewer feed imports are needed, livestock numbers decrease—and with them, emissions. The same applies to ammonia: lower animal numbers and reduced manure volumes, resulting from a smaller overall feed supply, are the main reasons for the decline.

Many measures would be relatively easy to implement

Many measures could be implemented without major investments or changes. Some could already be adopted by farms at no cost—or even with economic benefits—particularly in milk and beef production. However, this would require better integration of these topics in training, continuing education and advisory services, which is currently hardly the case.

Policy must change

Many measures are hampered or even blocked by unfavourable government regulations and misguided incentives. For instance, today’s agricultural policy strongly favours animal production over plant production through border protection measures and direct payments. This makes growing crops for direct human consumption less competitive than producing animal feed.