Register      Login
Animal Production Science Animal Production Science Society
Food, fibre and pharmaceuticals from animals
PERSPECTIVES ON ANIMAL BIOSCIENCES (Open Access)

Net protein contribution from an intensive Australian pork supply chain

R. J. van Barneveld https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0661-8149 A * , R. J. E. Hewitt https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3353-2754 A and D. N. D’Souza https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4388-3785 A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A SunPork Group, 1/6 Eagleview Place, Eagle Farm, Qld 4009, Australia.


Handling Editor: David Masters

Animal Production Science 63(18) 1837-1850 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN23057
Submitted: 6 February 2023  Accepted: 11 April 2023  Published: 25 May 2023

© 2023 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND)

Abstract

Debate surrounding the adverse consequences of feeding human-edible feedstuffs to livestock can be addressed through calculation of the net protein contribution (NPC) of the production system. If the NPC is greater than 1.0 for the production system, then there are net benefits from the system for human populations with an ever-increasing requirement for protein and amino acids. The aim of this paper was to calculate the NPC for an Australian pork supply chain on the basis of the unique characteristics of Australian ingredients. While calculation of NPC is not complex, intimate knowledge of the source of the nutrients and their quality, and interpretation of their human-edible protein fractions is essential if an accurate estimate is to be achieved. The NPC for an Australian pork supply chain was calculated using (a) actual, published or estimated values for human-edible fractions of feedstuffs, (b) the percentage of protein available within raw materials considered to be human edible, (c) recommended amino acid scoring patterns for infants, adolescents and adults, (d) published, and calculated from standard reference nutrient databases, digestible indispensable amino acid scores, (e) carcase yields and carcase composition from published studies, and (f) actual feed formulations, feed volumes and production data from a large Australian pork supply chain. The NPC for the assessed Australian pork supply chain was 3.26. This means the supply chain generates more than three times the human-edible protein it consumes in the process. This NPC is higher than previously published values, largely because of the composition of Australian pig diets, but demonstrates the positive value that livestock production systems make to human food supply. Livestock systems are often targeted as net consumers of vital nutrients such as protein and amino acids and the diversion of these nutrients from human diets. If production systems focus on the utilisation of waste streams, co-products and human-inedible feedstuffs, then they can make a net contribution to human-edible protein supply.

Keywords: animal nutrition, carcass composition, digestibility, feed quality, net protein contribution, pigs, proteins, pork quality, sustainability indicators.

References

Ariyaratne WKH, Melaaen MC, Tokheim L-A (2015) CFD modeling of multi-fuel combustion of coal and meat and bone meal (MBM) in a cement rotary kiln. International Journal of Modeling and Optimization 5, 353-360.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Baber JR, Sawyer JE, Wickersham TA (2018) Estimation of human-edible protein conversion efficiency, net protein contribution, and enteric methane production from beef production in the United States. Translational Animal Science 2, 439-450.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Beer T, Grant T, Campbell PK (2007) The greenhouse and air quality emissions of biodiesel blends in Australia. Report Number KS54C/1/F2.29. CSIRO, Aspendale VIC, Australia. Available at http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/2007/beert_b.pdf [Verified 16 March 2023]

CAST (1999) Animal agriculture and global food supply. Task force report 135. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, IA USA.

Chiles RM, Fitzgerald AJ (2018) Why is meat so important in Western history and culture? A genealogical critique of biophysical and political-economic explanations. Agriculture and Human Values 35, 1-17.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Conrad Z, Niles MT, Neher DA, Roy ED, Tichenor NE, Jahns L (2018) Relationship between food waste, diet quality, and environmental sustainability. PLoS ONE 13, e0195405.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Davis J, Sonesson U, Baumgartner DU, Nemecek T (2010) Environmental impact of four meals with different protein sources: case studies in Spain and Sweden. Food Research International 43, 1874-1884.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Dourmad J-Y, Nassy G, Salaun Y, Riquet J, Lebret B (2015) Estimation des pertes alimentaires dans la filière porcine entre la sortie de l’élevage et la commercialisation des produits. Innovations Agronomiques 48, 115-125.
| Google Scholar |

Ertl P, Klocker H, Hörtenhuber S, Knaus W, Zollitsch W (2015) The net contribution of dairy production to human food supply: the case of Austrian dairy farms. Agricultural Systems 137, 119-125.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Ertl P, Steinwidder A, Schönauer M, Schönauer K, Krimberger K, Knaus W, Zollitsch W (2016a) Net food production of different livestock: a national analysis for Austria including relative occupation of different land categories. Die Bodenkultur: Journal of Land Management, Food and Environment 67, 91-103.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Ertl P, Knaus W, Zollitsch W (2016b) An approach to including protein quality when assessing the net contribution of livestock to human food supply. Animal 10, 1883-1889.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

FAO (2011) Dietary protein quality evaluation in human nutrition. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Available at http://www.fao.org/ag/humannutrition/35978-02317b979a686a57aa4593304ffc17f06.pdf [Verified 13 January 2022]

FAO (2018) The future of food and agriculture – alternative pathways to 2050. Rome, Italy. Available at https://www.fao.org/global-perspectives-studies/food-agriculture-projections-to-2050/en/ [Verified 22 January 2023]

FAO (2021) The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2021. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Available at https://www.fao.org/3/cb4474en/cb4474en.pdf [Verified 13 January 2022]

FIAL (2021) The national food waste strategy feasibility study – final report. FIAL – The Food and Agribusiness Growth Centre, Macquarie Park, NSW, Australia. Available at https://www.fial.com.au/sharing-knowledge/food-waste#FSES [Verified 16 March 2023]

Flachowsky G, Meyer U, Südekum K-H (2017) Land use for edible protein of animal origin - a review. Animals 7, 25.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Galloway JN, Burke M, Bradford GE, Naylor R, Falcon W, Chapagain AK, Gaskell JC, McCullough E, Mooney HA, Oleson KLL, Steinfeld H, Wassenaar T, Smil V (2007) International trade in meat: the tip of the pork chop. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 36, 622-629.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Goldsmith PD (2008) Economics of soybean production, marketing, and utilization. In ‘Soybeans: chemistry, production, processing, and utilization’. (Eds LA Johnson, PJ White, R Galloway) pp. 117–150. (AOCS Press: Urbana, IL, USA)

Greenwood PL (2021) Review: an overview of beef production from pasture and feedlot globally, as demand for beef and the need for sustainable practices increase. Animal 15, 100295.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Hennessy DP, Shalloo L, van Zanten HHE, Schop M, De Boer IJM (2021) The net contribution of livestock to the supply of human edible protein: the case of Ireland. The Journal of Agricultural Science 159, 463-471.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Herreman L, Nommensen P, Pennings B, Laus MC (2020) Comprehensive overview of the quality of plant- and animal-sourced proteins based on the digestible indispensable amino acid score. Food Science & Nutrition 8, 5379-5391.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Herrero M, Havlík P, Valin H, Notenbaert A, Rufino MC, Thornton PK, Blümmel M, Weiss F, Grace D, Obersteiner M (2013) Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110, 20888-20893.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Kowalski Z, Muradin M, Kulczycka J, Makara A (2021) Comparative analysis of meat bone meal and meat bone combustion using the life cycle assessment method. Energies 14, 3292.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Laisse S, Rouille B, Baumont R, Peyraud J-L (2016) Évaluation de la contribution nette des systèmes bovins laitiers français à l’approvisionnement alimentaire protéique pour l’être humain. (Evaluation of net contribution of French dairy cattle systems to the protein supply for humans.). Rencontres autour des Recherches sur les Ruminants 23, 263-266.
| Google Scholar |

Laisse S, Baumont R, Dusart L, Gaudré D, Rouillé B, Benoit M, Veysset P, Rémond D, Peyraud J-L (2018a) L’efficience nette de conversion des aliments par les animaux d’élevage: une nouvelle approche pour évaluer la contribution de l’élevage à l’alimentation humaine. INRA Productions Animales 31, 269-288.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Laisse S, Gaudré D, Salaün Y, Dourmad J-Y (2018b) Évaluation de la contribution nette des élevages de porcs en France à la production alimentaire de protéines pour l’homme. [Estimating the net contribution of French pig livestock to the protein supply for humans]. Journees Recherche Porcine 50, 37-42.
| Google Scholar |

Liu F, Brewster CJ, Gilmour SL, Henman DJ, Smits RJ, Luxford BG, Dunshea FR, Pluske JR, Campbell RG (2021) Relationship between energy intake and growth performance and body composition in pigs selected for low backfat thickness. Journal of Animal Science 99, skab32.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Lusk JL (2022) Food and fuel: modelling food system wide impacts of increases in demand for soybean oil. Report prepared for the United Soybean Board. Available at https://ag.purdue.edu/cfdas/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/report_soymodel_revised13.pdf [Verified 13 March 2023]

Mathai JK, Liu Y, Stein HH (2017) Values for digestible indispensable amino acid scores (DIAAS) for some dairy and plant proteins may better describe protein quality than values calculated using the concept for protein digestibility-corrected amino acid scores (PDCAAS). British Journal of Nutrition 117, 490-499.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Mottet A, de Haan C, Falcucci A, Tempio G, Opio C, Gerber P (2017) Livestock: on our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate. Global Food Security 14, 1-8.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Nijdam D, Rood T, Westhoek H (2012) The price of protein: review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes. Food Policy 37, 760-770.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

NRC (2012) ‘Nutrient requirements of swine: eleventh revised edition.’ (The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA)

Ockerman HW, Hansen CL (2000) ‘Animal by-product processing and utilization.’ (CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA)

Peters CJ, Picardy JA, Darrouzet-Nardi A, Griffin TS (2014) Feed conversions, ration compositions, and land use efficiencies of major livestock products in US agricultural systems. Agricultural Systems 130, 35-43.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Rodríguez C, Ciroth A, Srocka M (2014) The importance of regionalized LCIA in agricultural LCA – new software implementation and case study. In ‘Proceedings of the 9th international conference on life cycle assessment in the agri-food sector (LCA Food 2014), 8–10 October 2014, San Francisco CA, USA’. (Eds R Schenck, D Huizen) pp. 1120–1128. (American Center for Life Cycle Assessment: Vashon, WA, USA) Available at https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20153221254

Schader C, Muller A, Scialabba NE-H, Hecht J, Isensee A, Erb K-H, Smith P, Makkar HPS, Klocke P, Leiber F, Schwegler P, Stolze M, Niggli U (2015) Impacts of feeding less food-competing feedstuffs to livestock on global food system sustainability. Journal of The Royal Society Interface 12, 20150891.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Schinckel AP, Wagner JR, Forrest JC, Einstein ME (2001) Evaluation of alternative measures of pork carcass composition. Journal of Animal Science 79, 1093-1119.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Selle PH, Macelline SP, Chrystal PV, Liu SY (2023) The challenge to reduce crude protein contents of wheat-based broiler diets. Animal Production Science
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Seong PN, Park KM, Cho SH, Kang SM, Kang GH, Park BY, Moon SS, Ba HV (2014) Characterization of edible pork by-products by means of yield and nutrition composition. Korean Journal for Food Science of Animal Resources 34, 297-306.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Taylor CA, Rising J (2021) Tipping point dynamics in global land use. Environmental Research Letters 16, 125012.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Thomas DT, Beletse YG, Dominik S, Lehnert SA (2021) Net protein contribution and enteric methane production of pasture and grain-finished beef cattle supply chains. Animal 15, 100392.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Wilkinson JM (2011) Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock. Animal 5, 1014-1022.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Wyngaarden SL, Lightburn KK, Martin RC (2020) Optimizing livestock feed provision to improve the efficiency of the agri-food system. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 44, 188-214.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Zampiga M, Calini F, Sirri F (2021) Importance of feed efficiency for sustainable intensification of chicken meat production: implications and role for amino acids, feed enzymes and organic trace minerals. World’s Poultry Science Journal 77, 639-659.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |