Literature DB >> 22440097

Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock.

J M Wilkinson1.   

Abstract

Livestock, particularly ruminants, can eat a wider range of biomass than humans. In the drive for greater efficiency, intensive systems of livestock production have evolved to compete with humans for high-energy crops such as cereals. Feeds consumed by livestock were analysed in terms of the quantities used and efficiency of conversion of grassland, human-edible ('edible') crops and crop by-products into milk, meat and eggs, using the United Kingdom as an example of a developed livestock industry. Some 42 million tonnes of forage dry matter were consumed from 2008 to 2009 by the UK ruminant livestock population of which 0.7 was grazed pasture and 0.3 million tonnes was conserved forage. In addition, almost 13 million tonnes of raw material concentrate feeds were used in the UK animal feed industry from 2008 to 2009 of which cereal grains comprised 5.3 and soyabean meal 1.9 million tonnes. The proportion of edible feed in typical UK concentrate formulations ranged from 0.36 for milk production to 0.75 for poultry meat production. Example systems of livestock production were used to calculate feed conversion ratios (FCR - feed input per unit of fresh product). FCR for concentrate feeds was lowest for milk at 0.27 and for the meat systems ranged from 2.3 for poultry meat to 8.8 for cereal beef. Differences in FCR between systems of meat production were smaller when efficiency was calculated on an edible input/output basis, where spring-calving/grass finishing upland suckler beef and lowland lamb production were more efficient than pig and poultry meat production. With the exception of milk and upland suckler beef, FCR for edible feed protein into edible animal protein were >1.0. Edible protein/animal protein FCR of 1.0 may be possible by replacing cereal grain and soyabean meal with cereal by-products in concentrate formulations. It is concluded that by accounting for the proportions of human-edible and inedible feeds used in typical livestock production systems, a more realistic estimate of efficiency can be made for comparisons between systems.

Entities:  

Year:  2011        PMID: 22440097     DOI: 10.1017/S175173111100005X

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Animal        ISSN: 1751-7311            Impact factor:   3.240


  30 in total

1.  Evaluation of net protein contribution, methane production, and net returns from beef production as duration of confinement increases in the cow-calf sector1.

Authors:  Jessica R Baber; Jason E Sawyer; Tryon A Wickersham
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  The economic effects of grazing in small-scale lamb fattening production systems in central México through a scenario analysis.

Authors:  Jesús Armando Salinas-Martínez; Rodolfo Rogelio Posadas-Domínguez; Juan Carlos Ángeles-Hernández; Leydi Diana Morales-Díaz; Samuel Rebollar-Rebollar; Rolando Rojo-Rubio; Carlos Manuel Arriaga-Jordán
Journal:  Trop Anim Health Prod       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 1.893

Review 3.  Indigenous village chicken production: a tool for poverty alleviation, the empowerment of women, and rural development.

Authors:  Takele Taye Desta
Journal:  Trop Anim Health Prod       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 1.559

4.  Use of Stochastic Simulation to Evaluate the Reduction in Methane Emissions and Improvement in Reproductive Efficiency from Routine Hormonal Interventions in Dairy Herds.

Authors:  Simon C Archer; Christopher D Hudson; Martin J Green
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Is the Grass Always Greener? Comparing the Environmental Impact of Conventional, Natural and Grass-Fed Beef Production Systems.

Authors:  Judith L Capper
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2012-04-10       Impact factor: 2.752

6.  Selection for growth performance in broiler chickens associates with less diet flexibility.

Authors:  Jana Pauwels; Frank Coopman; An Cools; Joris Michiels; Dirk Fremaut; Stefaan De Smet; Geert P J Janssens
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-04       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  The environmental costs and benefits of high-yield farming.

Authors:  Andrew Balmford; Tatsuya Amano; Harriet Bartlett; Dave Chadwick; Adrian Collins; David Edwards; Rob Field; Philip Garnsworthy; Rhys Green; Pete Smith; Helen Waters; Andrew Whitmore; Donald M Broom; Julian Chara; Tom Finch; Emma Garnett; Alfred Gathorne-Hardy; Juan Hernandez-Medrano; Mario Herrero; Fangyuan Hua; Agnieszka Latawiec; Tom Misselbrook; Ben Phalan; Benno I Simmons; Taro Takahashi; James Vause; Erasmus Zu Ermgassen; Rowan Eisner
Journal:  Nat Sustain       Date:  2018-09-14

8.  Nutrient provision capacity of alternative livestock farming systems per area of arable farmland required.

Authors:  M R F Lee; J P Domingues; G A McAuliffe; M Tichit; F Accatino; T Takahashi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Effect of Cooking Techniques on the in vitro Protein Digestibility, Fatty Acid Profile, and Oxidative Status of Mealworms (Tenebrio molitor).

Authors:  Simone Mancini; Simona Mattioli; Simone Paolucci; Filippo Fratini; Alessandro Dal Bosco; Tiziano Tuccinardi; Gisella Paci
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2021-06-04

10.  Environmental impact of the production of mealworms as a protein source for humans - a life cycle assessment.

Authors:  Dennis G A B Oonincx; Imke J M de Boer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-12-19       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.