Abstract
Simple SummaryThe sustainability of intensive beef production systems can be greatly improved using domestic protein sources as alternatives to imported soybean meal. Potential alternatives include indigenous grain legumes such as faba beans, food industry by-products including locally available oil cakes, or novel protein sources such as microalgae. Moreover, diets based on grassland-derived feeds increase dietary protein supply and have the potential to enhance food system sustainability. This study aimed to assess the effects on fattening performance, carcass and meat quality, and the meat fatty acid profile of beef cattle when replacing, or omitting, soybean meal in the diet. Bulls fed a grass/maize-silage based diet supplemented with concentrate containing either soybean meal, faba beans, pumpkin seed cake, or spirulina had similar growth performances and carcass and meat quality. No differences were observed in the meat fatty acid profiles. Most notably, omitting soybean meal without additional protein-concentrate replacements resulted in comparable carcass and meat quality without affecting the meat fatty acid profile while maintaining a high-performance level. Consequently, the grass silage-based diet supplemented with a grain-based concentrate without additional protein source was the most sustainable diet for growing bulls tested in this study.The aim of the study was to investigate the complete substitution of imported soybean meal in beef cattle diets and the consequences on performance, meat, and adipose tissue quality. Thirty growing crossbred Limousin bulls, with an initial bodyweight of 164 ± 13 kg and 4.3 ± 0.3 months of age, were fed a grass/maize-silage based diet with little additional concentrate (0.5:0.3:0.2). Concentrates contained either soybean meal (positive control), faba beans, pumpkin seed cake, or spirulina (Arthrospira platensis), resulting in about 226 g crude protein (CP)/kg concentrate dry matter (DM) and 158 g CP/kg total diet DM. A grain-based concentrate providing just 135 g CP/kg concentrate DM and 139 g CP/total diet DM served as a negative control. Bulls of all groups had comparable average daily gains (1.43 ± 0.1 kg) and feed intakes (6.92 ± 0.37 kg). Carcass and meat quality did not differ among groups. The fatty acid profile of meat lipids was hardly affected. These results indicate that soybean meal can be replaced by any of the tested protein sources without impairing performance or meat quality. Importantly, bulls fed the negative control achieved a fattening and slaughter performance comparable to that of the protein-supplemented groups without affecting meat and adipose tissue quality. Thus, the present findings suggest that feeding crossbred bulls a grass/maize-silage based diet does not require additional protein supplementation.
Highlights
Intensive beef production in Europe relies heavily on maize silage and large amounts of concentrate to achieve high average daily gains (ADG) and a desirable carcass quality.While these diets are rich in energy and starch, they necessitate the addition of extra protein to meet dietary requirements of beef cattle
The high proportion of the B2 -fraction of soybean meal (SBM) refers to a low ruminal protein degradability (RPD), whereas the numerically high proportions of the A and B1 -fractions in faba beans indicate a rather high RPD, which is consistent with former reports [41,42]
The comparably high proportion of the B2 -fraction in the pumpkin seed cake used in the present study indicates a moderate RPD, ranging between that of faba beans and SBM
Summary
Intensive beef production in Europe relies heavily on maize silage and large amounts of concentrate to achieve high average daily gains (ADG) and a desirable carcass quality. While these diets are rich in energy and starch, they necessitate the addition of extra protein to meet dietary requirements of beef cattle. Protein requirements, those of metabolizable protein, are traditionally met by the concentrate portion of the diet. Soy cultivation is increasingly controversial due to its negative environmental impacts (e.g., monocropping, loss of biodiversity and natural habitats, long transport routes, and high input requirements including land, fertilizers, and fuel) and poor socioeconomics (e.g., rural depopulation, loss of employment due to high levels of mechanization and agrarian transformation) [2,3]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.