Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Improving efficiency in meat production

  • John M. Brameld (a1) and Tim Parr (a1)

Abstract

Selective breeding and improved nutritional management over the past 20–30 years has resulted in dramatic improvements in growth efficiency for pigs and poultry, particularly lean tissue growth. However, this has been achieved using high-quality feed ingredients, such as wheat and soya that are also used for human consumption and more recently biofuels production. Ruminants on the other hand are less efficient, but are normally fed poorer quality ingredients that cannot be digested by human subjects, such as grass or silage. The challenges therefore are to: (i) maintain the current efficiency of growth of pigs and poultry, but using more ingredients not needed to feed the increasing human population or for the production of biofuels; (ii) improve the efficiency of growth in ruminants; (iii) at the same time produce animal products (meat, milk and eggs) of equal or improved quality. This review will describe the use of: (a) enzyme additives for animal feeds, to improve feed digestibility; (b) known growth promoting agents, such as growth hormone, β-agonists and anabolic steroids, currently banned in the European Union but used in other parts of the world; (c) recent transcriptomic studies into molecular mechanisms for improved growth efficiency via low residual feed intake. In doing so, the use of genetic manipulation in animals will also be discussed.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Improving efficiency in meat production
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Improving efficiency in meat production
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Improving efficiency in meat production
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

* Corresponding author: J. M. Brameld, email John.Brameld@nottingham.ac.uk

References

Hide All
1. Foresight (2011) The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and Choices for Global Sustainability. Final Project Report. The Government Office for Science, London. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/288329/11-546-future-of-food-and-farming-report.pdf
2. Godfray, HCJ, Beddington, JR, Crute, IR et al. (2010) Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812818.
3. Seppelt, R, Manceur, AM, Liu, J et al. (2014) Synchronized peak-rate years of global resources use. Ecol Soc 19, 50.
4. Patience, JF, Rossoni-Serao, MC & Gutierrez, NA (2015) A review of feed efficiency in swine: biology and application. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 6, 33.
5. Siegel, PB (2014) Evolution of the modern broiler and feed efficiency. Annu Rev Anim Biosci 2, 375385.
6. Berry, DP & Crowley, JJ (2013) Cell biology symposium: genetics of feed efficiency in dairy and beef cattle. J Anim Sci 91, 15941613.
7. Martin, C, Morgavi, DP & Doreau, M (2010) Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4, 351365.
8. Bedford, MR & Schulze, H (1998) Exogenous enzymes for pigs and poultry. Nutr Res Rev 11, 91114.
9. Masey O'Neill, HV, Smith, JA & Bedford, MR (2014) Multicarbohydrase enzymes for non-ruminants. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci 27, 290301.
10. Humer, E, Schwarz, C & Schedle, K (2015) Phytate in pig and poultry nutrition. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 99, 605625.
11. Amerah, AM, Mathis, G & Hofacre, CL (2012) Effect of xylanase and a blend of essential oils on performance and Salmonella colonization of broiler chickens challenged with Salmonella Heidelberg. Poult Sci 91, 943947.
12. Singh, A, Masey O'Neill, HV, Ghosh, TK et al. (2012) Effects of xylanase supplementation on performance, total volatile fatty acids and selected bacterial population in caeca, metabolic indices and peptide YY concentrations in serum of broiler chickens fed energy restricted maize–soybean based diets. Anim Feed Sci Technol 177, 194203.
13. May, K, O'Sullivan, SE, Brameld, JM et al. (2015) Xylanase supplementation in weaned piglets and its effect on gut hormone production. J Anim Sci 93, Suppl. s3, 201.
14. Simons, PCM, Versteegh, HAJ, Jongbloed, AW et al. (1990) Improvement of phosphorus availability by microbial phytase in broilers and pigs. Br J Nutr 64, 525540.
15. Liu, N, Ru, YJ, Li, FD et al. (2009) Effect of dietary phytate and phytase on proteolytic digestion and growth regulation of broilers. Arch Anim Nutr 63, 292303.
16. Masey O'Neill, HV, Bedford, MR & Walker, N (2015) Recent developments in feed enzyme technology. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition 2014, pp. 97106 [Garnsworthy, PC and Wiseman, J, editors]. Packington, Leics.: Context Products Ltd.
17. Sillence, MN (2004) Technologies for the control of fat and lean deposition in livestock. Vet J 167, 242257.
18. Lamming, GE, Ballarini, G, Baulieu, EE et al. (1987) Scientific report on anabolic agents in animal production. Scientific working group on anabolic agents. Vet Rec 121, 389392.
19. Al-Doski, S, Parr, T, Hemmings, K et al. (2015) The effects of growth promoting agents on ovine metabolism and growth (Abstract 112). J Anim Sci 93, Suppl. s3/ J. Dairy Sci. 98, Suppl. 2, 224.
20. Hemmings, KM, Parr, T, Daniel, ZCTR et al. (2015) Differential effects of short term β agonist and growth hormone treatments on expression of Myosin Heavy Chain IIB and associated metabolic genes in sheep muscle. Animal 9, 285294.
21. Parr, T, Al-Doski, S, Hemmings, K et al. (2015) Increased expression of serine biosynthetic pathway genes is associated with skeletal muscle hypertrophy in sheep. Proc Nutr Soc 74(OCE2), E183.
22. Brameld, JM, Atkinson, JL, Saunders, JC et al. (1996) Effects of growth hormone administration and dietary protein intake on insulin-like growth factor-I and growth hormone receptor mRNA expression in porcine liver, skeletal muscle and adipose tissue. J Anim Sci 74, 18321841.
23. Brameld, J, Ryan, K, Williams, H et al. (2015) Transcriptomic and metabolomic assessment of growth promoter effects on porcine muscle growth (Abstract 109). J Anim Sci 93, Suppl. s3/J. Dairy Sci. 98, Suppl. 2, 223.
24. Sensky, PL, Jewell, KK, Ryan, KJP et al. (2006) Effect of anabolic agents on calpastatin promoters in porcine skeletal muscle and their responsiveness to cyclic adenosine monophosphate- and calcium-related stimuli. J Anim Sci 84, 29732982.
25. Niemann, H, Kuhla, B & Flachowsky, G (2011) Perspectives for feed-efficient animal production. J Anim Sci 89, 43444363.
26. USDA FAS GAIN Report Number CH11002 (2011) China – Peoples Republic of Biotechnology – GE Plants and Animals. http://gain.fas.usda.gov/RecentGAINPublications/Biotechnology-GEPlantsandAnimals_Beijing_China-PeoplesRepublicof_3-15-2011.pdf
27. Rosenvold, K & Andersen, HJ (2003) Factors of significance for pork quality – a review. Meat Sci 64, 219237.
28. Tellam, RL, Cockett, NE, Vuocolo, T et al. (2012) Genes contributing to genetic variation of muscling in sheep. Front Genet 3, 164.
29. Herd, RM, Oddy, VH & Richardson, EC (2004) Biological basis for variation in residual feed intake in beef cattle. 1. Review of potential mechanisms. Aust J Exp Agric 44, 423430.
30. Sartin, JL (2013) Cell biology symposium: molecular basis for feed efficiency. J Anim Sci 91, 15801581.
31. Luo, C, Sun, L, Ma, J et al. (2015) Association of single nucleotide polymorphisms in the microRNA miR-1596 locus with residual feed intake in chickens. Anim Genet 46, 265271.
32. Jing, L, Hou, Y, Wu, H et al. (2015) Transcriptome analysis of mRNA and miRNA in skeletal muscle indicates an important network for differential Residual Feed Intake in pigs. Sci Rep 5, 11953.
33. Bottje, W & Kong, B-W (2013) Cell biology symposium: feed efficiency: mitochondrial function to global gene expression. J Anim Sci 91, 15821593.
34. Grubbs, JK, Huff-Lonergan, E, Gabler, NK et al. (2014) Liver and skeletal muscle mitochondria proteomes are altered in pigs divergently selected for residual feed intake. J Anim Sci 92, 19952007.

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed