Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:43:46.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Upgrading plant amino acids through cattle to improve the nutritional value for humans: effects of different production systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2016

M. Patel ,
U. Sonesson  and
A. Hessle
M. Patel*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7024, 75007 Uppsala, Sweden
U. Sonesson
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Bioscience, Technical Research Institute of Sweden, PO Box 5401, 40229 Gothenburg, Sweden
A. Hessle
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 234, 53223 Skara, Sweden
*
†E-mail: Mikaela.Patel@slu.se
Get access

Abstract

Efficiency in animal protein production can be defined in different ways, for example the amount of human-digestible essential amino acids (HDEAA) in the feed ration relative to the amount of HDEAA in the animal products. Cattle production systems are characterised by great diversity and a wide variety of feeds and feed ration compositions, due to ruminants’ ability to digest fibrous materials inedible to humans such as roughage and by-products from the food and biofuel industries. This study examined the upgrading of protein quality through cattle by determining the quantity of HDEAA in feeds and animal products and comparing different milk and beef production systems. Four different systems for milk and beef production were designed, a reference production system for milk and beef representing typical Swedish production systems today and three alternative improved systems: (i) intensive cattle production based on maize silage, (ii) intensive systems based on food industry by-products for dairy cows and high-quality forage for beef cattle, and (iii) extensive systems based on forage with only small amounts of concentrate. In all four production systems, the quantity of HDEAA in the products (milk and meat) generally exceeded the quantity of HDEAA in the feeds. The intensive production models for beef calves generally resulted in output of the same magnitude as input for most HDEAA. However, in beef production based on calves from dairy cows, the intensive rearing systems resulted in lower output than input of HDEAA. For the extensive models, the amounts of HDEAA in meat were of the same magnitude as the amounts in the feeds. The extensive models with beef calves from suckler cows resulted in higher output in meat than input in feeds for all HDEAA. It was concluded that feeding cattle plants for production of milk and meat, instead of using the plants directly as human food, generally results in an upgrading of both the quantity and quality of protein, especially when extensive, forage-based production models are used. The results imply that the key to efficiency is the utilisation of human-inedible protein by cattle and justifies their contribution to food production, especially in regions where grasslands and/or forage production has comparative benefits over plant food production. By fine-tuning estimation of the efficiency of conversion from human-edible protein to HDEAA, comparisons of different sources of protein production may be more complete and the magnitude of amino acid upgrading in plants through cattle more obvious.

Keywords

proteinroughageby-productdairy cowhuman-edible
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , March 2017 , pp. 519 - 528
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agriwise 2014. Regional enterprise budgets. Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Aguerre, MJ, Wattiaux, MA, Powell, JM, Broderick, GA and Arndt, C 2011. Effect of forage-to-concentrate ratio in dairy cow diets on emission of methane, carbon dioxide, and ammonia, lactation performance, and manure excretion. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 3081–3093.Google Scholar
Alvåsen, K, Mörk, MJ, Sandgren, CH, Thomsen, PT and Emanuelson, U 2012. Herd-level risk factors associated with cow mortality in Swedish dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 4352–4362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ball, RO, Courtney-Martin, G and Pencharz, PB 2006. The in vivo sparing of methionine by cysteine in sulfur amino acid requirements in animal models and adult humans. Journal of Nutrition 136, 1682S–1693S.Google Scholar
Berglund, M, Clason, C, Bååth Jacobsson, S, Bergström Nilsson, S and Sund, V 2013. Klimatavtryck av insatsvaror i jordbruket – ungnöt, smågrisar, gyltor och strömedel. Rapport från Hushållningssällskapet Halland, Eldsberga, Sweden.Google Scholar
Carlsson-Kanyama, A and Gonzalez, AD 2009. Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to climate change. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 89, S1704–S1709.Google Scholar
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) 1999. Animal agriculture and global food supply. Task force report No. 135 July 1999, Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, CA, USA.Google Scholar
CVB Feed Table (ed.) 2011. Chemical compositions and nutritional values of feed materials. PDV, Zoetermeer, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Ertl, P, Zebeli, Q, Zollitsch, W and Knaus, W 2015a. Feeding of by-products completely replaced cereals and pulses in dairy cows and enhanced edible feed conversion ratio. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 1225–1233.Google Scholar
Ertl, P, Klocker, H, Hortenhuber, S, Knaus, W and Zollitsch, W 2015b. The net contribution of dairy production to human food supply: the case of Austrian dairy farms. Agricultural Systems 137, 119–125.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2012. Report of a sub-committee of the 2011 FAO consultation on ‘protein quality evaluation in human nutrition’ on: The assessment of amino acid digestibility in foods for humans and including a collation of published ileal amino acid digestibility data for human foods, Appendix 1: true ileal amino acid and protein digestibility (%) for selected human foods. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2013. Dietary protein quality evaluation in human nutrition. Report of an FAO expert consultation. FAO food and nutrition paper 92. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
GeneticAUSTRIA 2015. Fleckvieh breed information. Retrieved on 20 March 2015 from www.genetic-austria.at/en/breeds-info/fleckvieh/892.html.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, AD, Frostell, B and Carlsson-Kanyama, A 2011. Protein efficiency per unit energy and per unit greenhouse gas emissions: potential contribution of diet choices to climate change mitigation. Food Policy 36, 562–570.Google Scholar
Hallström, E, Carlsson-Kanyama, A and Börjesson, P 2015. Environmental impact of dietary change: a systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production 91, 1–11.Google Scholar
Hansson, I 1989. Nötslaktkroppar sammansättning och egenskaper. En rapport baserad på styckningar utförda vid Avd. för köttvetenskap. Rapport 89. Department of Animal Breeding And Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Hessle, A, Nadeau, E and Svensson, C 2004. Feeding dairy calves and replacement heifers in south-western Sweden: a survey. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A-Animal Science 54, 94–102.Google Scholar
Ihse, M and Norderhaug, A 1995. Biological values of the Nordic cultural landscape: different perspectives. International Journal of Heritage Studies 1, 156–170.Google Scholar
Jerrentrup, JS, Wrage-Monnig, N, Rover, KU and Isselstein, J 2014. Grazing intensity affects insect diversity via sward structure and heterogeneity in a long-term experiment. Journal of Applied Ecology 51, 968–977.Google Scholar
Kremen, C and Miles, A 2012. Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems: benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecology and Society 17, 25.Google Scholar
Matthews, DE 2007. An overview of phenylalanine and tyrosine kinetics in humans. Journal of Nutrition 137, 1549S–1575S.Google Scholar
Mogensen, L, Kristensen, T, Nielsen, NI, Spleth, P, Henriksson, M, Swensson, C, Hessle, A and Vestergaard, M 2015. Greenhouse gas emissions from beef production systems in Denmark and Sweden. Livestock Science 174, 126–143.Google Scholar
Oberli, M, Marsset-Baglieri, A, Airinei, G, Sante-Lhoutellier, V, Khodorova, N, Remond, D, Foucault-Simonin, A, Piedcoq, J, Tome, D, Fromentin, G, Benamouzig, R and Gaudichon, C 2015. High true ileal digestibility but not postprandial utilization of nitrogen from bovine meat protein in humans is moderately decreased by high-temperature, long-duration cooking. Journal of Nutrition 145, 2221–2228.Google Scholar
Patel, M 2012. Effects of increasing the proportion of high-quality grass silage in the diet of dairy cows. PhD thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Rockström, J, Steffen, W, Noone, K, Persson, A, Chapin, FS III, Lambin, EF, Lenton, TM, Scheffer, M, Folke, C, Schellnhuber, HJ, Nykvist, B, de Wit, CA, Hughes, T, van der Leeuw, S, Rodhe, H, Sorlin, S, Snyder, PK, Costanza, R, Svedin, U, Falkenmark, M, Karlberg, L, Corell, RW, Fabry, VJ, Hansen, J, Walker, B, Liverman, D, Richardson, K, Crutzen, P and Foley, JA 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Runemark, P 1983. Slakt, styckning och förädling av kött. In Stora köttboken (ed. A Lindberg), p. 62. Svensk kötthandel, Uddevalla, Sweden.Google Scholar
Scarborough, P, Appleby, PN, Mizdrak, A, Briggs, ADM, Travis, RC, Bradbury, KE and Key, TJ 2014. Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Climatic Change 125, 179–192.Google Scholar
Soussana, JF, Allard, V, Pilegaard, K, Ambus, P, Amman, C, Campbell, C, Ceschia, E, Clifton-Brown, J, Czobel, S, Domingues, R, Flechard, C, Fuhrer, J, Hensen, A, Horvath, L, Jones, M, Kasper, G, Martin, C, Nagy, Z, Neftel, A, Raschi, A, Baronti, S, Rees, RM, Skiba, U, Stefani, P, Manca, G, Sutton, M, Tubaf, Z and Valentini, R 2007. Full accounting of the greenhouse gas (CO2, N2O, CH4) budget of nine European grassland sites. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 121, 121–134.Google Scholar
Spörndly, R 2003. Fodertabeller för idisslare. Rapport 257. Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Statistics Sweden 2015. Agricultural statistics 2015 – including food statistics – tables. Retrieved on 15 October 2015 from http://www.jordbruksverket.se/omjordbruksverket/statistik/jordbruksstatistisksammanstallning/jordbruksstatistisksammanstallning2015.4.5c09bf0b14e0f8f1b01f16b8.html.Google Scholar
Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, T, Castel, V, Rosales, M and Haan, Cd 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Swedish Board of Agriculture 2012. Nötkreaturssektorns uppbyggnad. Statistikrapport 2012:03. Jordbruksverket, Jönköping, Sweden.Google Scholar
Swedish Environmental Objectives Council 2008. Sweden’s environmental objectives - no time to loose (p. 198. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Taurus 2013. Slaktstatistik helår 2012. Retrieved on 15 October 2015 from www.gardochdjurhalsan.se/sv/not/kunskapsbank/statistik/slaktstatistik/ In.Google Scholar
Torsein, M, Lindberg, A, Sandgren, CH, Waller, KP, Törnquist, M and Svensson, C 2011. Risk factors for calf mortality in large Swedish dairy herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 99, 136–147.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2014. National nutrient database for standard reference, release 27 (revised). Retrieved on 5 May 2015 from http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/.Google Scholar
Växa Sverige 2014. Cattle Statistics. Retrieved on 2 December 2014 from www.vxa.se.Google Scholar
Volden, H (ed.) 2011. Norfor – the Nordic feed evaluation system (EAAP publication No. 130. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, JM 2011. Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock. Animal 5, 1014–1022.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Patel supplementary material

Patel supplementary material

Download Patel supplementary material(File)
File 90.3 KB