Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T09:46:03.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An approach to including protein quality when assessing the net contribution of livestock to human food supply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2016

P. Ertl
Affiliation:
Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor-Mendel-Strasse 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
W. Knaus
Affiliation:
Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor-Mendel-Strasse 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
W. Zollitsch*
Affiliation:
Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor-Mendel-Strasse 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria

Abstract

The production of protein from animal sources is often criticized because of the low efficiency of converting plant protein from feeds into protein in the animal products. However, this critique does not consider the fact that large portions of the plant-based proteins fed to animals may be human-inedible and that the quality of animal proteins is usually superior as compared with plant proteins. The aim of the present study was therefore to assess changes in protein quality in the course of the transformation of potentially human-edible plant proteins into animal products via livestock production; data from 30 Austrian dairy farms were used as a case study. A second aim was to develop an approach for combining these changes with quantitative aspects (e.g. with the human-edible feed conversion efficiency (heFCE), defined as kilogram protein in the animal product divided by kilogram potentially human-edible protein in the feeds). Protein quality of potentially human-edible inputs and outputs was assessed using the protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score and the digestible indispensable amino acid score, two methods proposed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations to describe the nutritional value of proteins for humans. Depending on the method used, protein scores were between 1.40 and 1.87 times higher for the animal products than for the potentially human-edible plant protein input on a barn-gate level (=protein quality ratio (PQR)). Combining the PQR of 1.87 with the heFCE for the same farms resulted in heFCE×PQR of 2.15. Thus, considering both quantity and quality, the value of the proteins in the animal products for human consumption (in this case in milk and beef) is 2.15 times higher than that of proteins in the potentially human-edible plant protein inputs. The results of this study emphasize the necessity of including protein quality changes resulting from the transformation of plant proteins to animal proteins when evaluating the net contribution of livestock to the human food supply. Furthermore, these differences in protein quality might also need to be considered when choosing a functional unit for the assessment of environmental impacts of the production of different proteins.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

Implications

The results of this study showed that the protein quality in products from dairy systems (milk and beef) is up to 1.87 higher than the quality of the potentially human-edible protein input via feeds. This suggests that these differences must be considered when evaluating the role of livestock systems for human food supply and probably also when assessing environ1mental impacts of the production of different protein sources.

Introduction

Proteins are among the most important nutrients in human diets, and an adequate protein supply is a prerequisite for normal growth and development of all organs in the body (Boye et al., Reference Boye, Wijesinha-Bettoni and Burlingame2012). Adequate protein supply is defined as the ability of dietary proteins to meet the body’s nutritional demands and depends not only on the amount of protein provided, but also on the protein quality in terms of the balance of (essential) amino acids and their digestibility (Neumann et al., Reference Neumann, Harris and Rogers2002; World Health Organization (WHO) et al., 2007). For the assessment of protein quality, the digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS) has been proposed recently by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) as the preferred method to describe dietary protein quality (FAO, 2013). It will replace the protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS) (FAO and WHO, 1991), which was used to assess protein quality for more than 20 years. Amino acid scores are defined as the content of the first limiting indispensable amino acid in the test protein over the content of the same amino acid in a reference protein (Schaafsma, Reference Schaafsma2012). For PDCAAS, the amino acid score is corrected for true faecal nitrogen digestibility, whereas DIAAS uses true ileal amino acid digestibility (TID) of each indispensable amino acid (Rutherfurd et al., Reference Rutherfurd and Moughan2015). Regarding quality, animal-source proteins are usually superior as compared with plant proteins and they are an important contributor to the human protein supply worldwide. However, in terms of food security, the production of animal-source proteins is often criticized because of the low conversion efficiency of plant proteins from feeds into animal proteins (<15%) (Aiking, Reference Aiking2011). Although this general critique may be justified, it does not take into account that not all animal feeds are suitable for direct human consumption and that the transformation of these human-inedible feedstuffs via livestock can have strong positive effects on food security (FAO, 2011; Smith et al., Reference Smith, Sones, Grace, MacMillan, Tarawali and Herrero2013; Reynolds et al., Reference Reynolds, Wulster-Radcliffe, Aaron and Davis2015).

Among various existing concepts, one way to measure the net contribution of livestock to human food supply is the human-edible feed conversion efficiency (heFCE), defined as human-edible output via the animal products divided by the potentially human-edible input via feedstuffs (Wilkinson, Reference Wilkinson2011; Ertl et al., Reference Ertl, Klocker, Hörtenhuber, Knaus and Zollitsch2015).

Concepts such as heFCE, however, are only quantitative measurements of the (relative) net contribution of livestock to human food supply and do not consider the profound differences in protein quality between animal products and potentially human-edible plant protein inputs. To adequately assess the contribution of livestock to human protein supply, however, both quantitative and qualitative aspects need to be considered. Therefore, the aim of the present work was to develop an approach for determining the changes in protein quality that result from the transformation of human-edible protein from plants into animal products via livestock systems and to combine these changes with the quantitative concept of the heFCE. Data from commercial dairy farms were used as a case study and protein quality was assessed using DIAAS, as well as PDCAAS.

Material and methods

Data sources and calculations

On-farm data were derived from 30 dairy farms during a national research project assessing the sustainability status of different Austrian dairy production systems. On average, these farms kept 28 dairy cows, with an annual milk yield of about 7540 kg energy-corrected milk/cow and an average concentrate supplementation of 0.287 kg/kg energy-corrected milk (Hörtenhuber et al., Reference Hörtenhuber, Kirner, Neumayr, Quendler, Strauss, Drapela and W Zollitsch2013). A more detailed overview of the main farm characteristics and production data has been given elsewhere (Ertl et al., Reference Ertl, Klocker, Hörtenhuber, Knaus and Zollitsch2015). Calculations of potentially human-edible protein inputs via feedstuffs, as well as protein outputs via animal products were performed as described in detail in Ertl et al. (Reference Ertl, Klocker, Hörtenhuber, Knaus and Zollitsch2015). The amount of potentially human-edible protein from feedstuffs was estimated based on current standard technology for protein extraction for each feedstuff (i.e. the medium scenario; Ertl et al., Reference Ertl, Klocker, Hörtenhuber, Knaus and Zollitsch2015). For the calculations in this study, only feedstuffs containing potentially human-edible protein were considered, as protein quality of human-inedible feedstuffs (such as forages) is not relevant for the research question. CP content, as well as amino acid composition of feedstuffs were obtained from an online feed database (National Institute of Agricultural Research et al., 2015).

Calculation of protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score

The PDCAAS of each individual human-edible input via feedstuffs and human-edible output via animal products was calculated according to FAO and WHO (1991) as follows:

$$\eqalignno{ &#x0026; {{\rm PDCAAS}\,{\rm (\,\&#x0025;\,)} \,{\equals}}\,{\displaystyle{{\rm mg} \ {\rm of} \ {\rm limiting} \ {\rm amino} \ {\rm acid} \ {\rm in} \ {\rm 1}\:{\rm g} \ {\rm of} \ {\rm the \ dietary} \ {\rm protein}} \over \displaystyle{{\rm mg} \ {\rm of} \ {\rm same} \ {\rm amino} \ {\rm acid} \ {\rm in} \ {\rm 1}\:{\rm g} \ {\rm of} \ {\rm the \ reference} \ {\rm protein}}} \cr &#x0026;\qquad\qquad\qquad {\times}{\rm true} \ {\rm faecal} \ {\rm digestibility} \ {\rm (\,\&#x0025;\,)}{\times}{\rm 100} $$

Values for true faecal digestibility for rye, barley, wheat bran and all other feedstuffs as well as milk and meat were obtained from Pedersen and Eggum (Reference Pedersen and Eggum1983a, Reference Pedersen and Eggum1983b), Rutherfurd et al. (Reference Rutherfurd and Moughan2015) and FAO and WHO (1991), respectively. The reference indispensable amino acid profile in the reference protein was the amino acid requirement pattern for a 6-month to 3-year-old child as suggested in FAO (2013). Values of PDCAAS>100 where either truncated to 100% (PDCAAS t ) as suggested when the PDCAAS was introduced (FAO and WHO, 1991), or kept without truncation (PDCAAS) to include the potential of high-quality proteins to complement proteins lacking in indispensable amino acids in mixed diets (Boye et al., Reference Boye, Wijesinha-Bettoni and Burlingame2012; Rutherfurd et al., Reference Rutherfurd and Moughan2015). In addition to calculating PDCAAS for single inputs and outputs, PDCAAS were calculated on a barn-gate level, considering all human-edible inputs and all human-edible outputs together as an input and an output mixture, respectively, in order to account for a potentially higher protein quality of mixtures as compared with individual protein sources. The content of each amino acid in these mixtures was calculated as the sum of human-edible faecal digestible protein (kg) for each input and output times the respective amino acid content, divided by the original amount of human-edible protein present in the diet as proposed by Boye et al. (Reference Boye, Wijesinha-Bettoni and Burlingame2012).

Calculation of digestible indispensable amino acid score

The DIAAS for individual human-edible inputs and outputs were calculated as suggested by the FAO (2013) as follows:

$${\rm DIAAS} \ {\rm (\,\&#x0025;\,)\,{\equals}} &#x0026; \,{\displaystyle{{\rm mg} \ {\rm of} \ {\rm digestible} \ {\rm indispensable} \ {\rm amino} \ {\rm acid} \atop {\rm in} \ {\rm 1}\:{\rm g} \ {\rm of} \ {\rm the} \ {\rm dietary} \ {\rm protein}} \over \displaystyle{{\rm mg} \ {\rm of} \ {\rm the} \ {\rm same} \ {\rm indispensable} \ {\rm amino} \ {\rm acid} \atop {\rm in} \ {\rm 1}\:{\rm g} \ {\rm of} \ {\rm the} \ {\rm reference} \ {\rm protein}}}{\times}100$$

For the amino acid profile of the reference protein, the amino acid requirement pattern for a 6-month to 3-year-old child was taken (FAO, 2013). Due to limited data on ileal digestibility in humans, TID was predicted as suggested in FAO (2013) from TID in pigs based on the following equation of Deglaire and Moughan (Reference Deglaire and Moughan2012):

$${\rm TID} \ {\rm in} \ {\rm humans}\,(\,\&#x0025;\,)\,{\equals}\,1.05{\times}{\rm TID} \ {\rm in} \ {\rm pigs} \ {\rm (\,\&#x0025;\,)}\,{\minus}\,0.06$$

TID for pigs was obtained from the French Association for Animal Production et al. (2000), and DIAAS values exceeding 100% were not truncated (FAO, 2013). For all soy protein inputs, TID values for soy concentrates were taken. The DIAAS for the mixture of human-edible inputs and outputs at the barn-gate were calculated based on weighted average true ileal digestible amino acid contents of the mixtures as stated in FAO (2013). Data were analysed using the GLM procedure of the statistical software package SAS 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NY, USA), with ‘farm’ included as a fixed effect in the model.

Results

Protein scores for inputs and outputs

Values for PDCAAS t , PDCAAS and DIAAS, as well as the differences between PDCAAS t and DIAAS for all individual potentially human-edible protein inputs and outputs of selected dairy farms are shown in Table 1. The PDCAAS t for plant proteins were on average 30.2% points lower than for the animal-source proteins, whereas for PDCAAS and DIAAS these differences were 45% and 52.6% points, respectively.

Table 1 Protein digestibility-corrected amino acid scores truncated (PDCAAS t ) or without truncation (PDCAAS) and digestible indispensable amino acid scores (DIAAS) for individual protein sources

For mixtures of human-edible protein outputs, PDCAAS t , PDCAAS and DIAAS were on average 1.40, 1.66 and 1.87 times higher, respectively, when compared with scores for human-edible protein input mixtures on the barn-gate level (Table 2). A strong relationship was found between DIAAS and the ratio of kilogram CP supplied by cereal feeds (all concentrate feedstuffs with a CP content <20% on a dry matter basis) to kilogram CP derived from protein feeds (>20% CP on a dry matter basis) (Figure 1). This relationship was similar for PDCAAS (data not shown).

Figure 1 Relationship between digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS) for a mixture of potentially human-edible inputs and the ratio of kilogram CP supplied by cereal feeds (all feedstuffs containing a potential human-edible fraction with a CP content of <20% in the dry matter) to kilogram CP supplied by protein feeds (>20% CP in the dry matter) on selected dairy farms (n=29); y=65.69 ×−0.2 (R 2=0.92).

Table 2 Least square means for protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score truncated (PDCAAS t ) or without truncation (PDCAAS), as well as digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS) for mixtures of human-edible protein inputs and outputs at barn-gate of selected dairy farms (n=30)

a,b,cValues within a row with different superscripts differ at P<0.01.

Protein quality changes and their combination with quantitative changes

The method used to assess protein scores had strong effects on the protein quality ratio (PQR), defined as protein score of the output divided by the protein quality score of the input. The PQR was lowest for PDCAAS t (1.40) and highest for DIAAS (1.87) (Table 2). Combining this qualitative ratio (PQR) with the quantitative changes in human-edible protein for the same farms (with an average heFCE of 1.15 (Ertl et al., Reference Ertl, Klocker, Hörtenhuber, Knaus and Zollitsch2015)), resulted in one single value (heFCE×PQR), which was on average between 1.61 and 2.15 for the 30 case study farms, depending on the method used to determine protein quality. The effect of the combination of the quantitative heFCE with the qualitative PQR (heFCE×PQR) on the net contribution to human protein supply of the individual farms compared with heFCE alone, is shown in Figure 2 (using DIAAS to calculate PQR). Considering only the quantitative heFCE for protein, not >50% of the farms achieved a value >1, but when PQR is included (heFCE×PQR), 90% of the case study farms reached values >1.

Figure 2 Human-edible feed conversion efficiency (heFCE) and human-edible feed conversion efficiency times protein quality ratio(PQR) (heFCE×PQR) for selected Austrian dairy farms (using digestible indispensable amino acid score to determine protein quality).

Discussion

Protein quality evaluation and methodological limitations

Over the last few decades, several methods have been established for evaluating protein quality, as reviewed by Boye et al. (Reference Boye, Wijesinha-Bettoni and Burlingame2012). In 1989, a group of FAO and WHO expert consultants proposed the use of the PDCAAS to determine protein quality (FAO and WHO, 1991) and it has been the preferred method since then. However, the approach has also been criticized for its technical limitations. Especially, the use of faecal rather than ileal protein digestibility, as well as the truncation of PDCAAS>100% to 100% were considered inaccurate, leading to an underestimation of high-quality proteins (Schaafsma, Reference Schaafsma2012; Leser, Reference Leser2013). To overcome these limitations, the DIAAS was proposed as a more accurate method of evaluating protein quality. Before its general implementation, however, more scientific data, mainly on TID, are needed (FAO, 2013). Nevertheless, both PDCAAS and DIAAS were calculated in this study because it has been shown recently that the use of PDCAAS compared with DIAAS overestimates the nutritional value of lower quality (plant) proteins (Rutherfurd et al., Reference Rutherfurd and Moughan2015). Thus, calculating only PDCAAS might, with the current scientific understanding of protein quality evaluation, lead to inaccurate conclusions on the magnitude of protein quality changes when potentially human-edible feed plant protein is transformed into animal protein.

Protein scores of >100% (both for DIAAS and PDCAAS) can never be used when assessing the protein quality of complete diets, or when the score is used to adjust protein intake to meet nutritional requirements (safe protein intake=safe protein requirement/DIAAS or PDCAAS), because this would mean that for high-quality proteins, the safe intake is lower than the safe requirement (Millward, Reference Millward2012; FAO, 2013). Although human-edible plant protein inputs and animal protein outputs were considered as mixtures to calculate scores on a barn-gate level (Table 2), these mixtures are neither sole protein sources in the human diet, nor are scores used to adjust protein intakes; therefore, no truncation of DIAAS or PDCAAS>100% is necessary. Truncation of scores >100% is particularly critical when comparing the value of animal and legume proteins because in this case, using truncated scores suggests that these proteins are of similar quality, whereas absolute values show that animal-source proteins are superior (Tome, Reference Tome2012). Thus, regarding protein quality in the debate on feed v. food competition, the truncation of scores >100% is an important issue. This is demonstrated by the results in Table 2, where the ratio of PDCAAS for animal protein output to plant protein input was 18.6% higher when using PDCAAS as compared with PDCAAS t .

Depending on the study, TID can vary strongly for the same foods (Gilani et al., Reference Gilani, Xiao and Cockell2012a), resulting in variations in DIAAS. For example, DIAAS of 58% (Rutherfurd et al., Reference Rutherfurd and Moughan2015), 64% (FAO, 2013) and over 70% (Wolfe, Reference Wolfe2015) have been reported for peas, as compared with the 65% calculated in this study. In addition, DIAAS and PDCAAS also vary for the same protein source, depending on the type of processing involved. For cooked peas for example, the DIAAS (58%) and PDCAAS (60%) are much lower than for a pea protein concentrate (82% and 89%, respectively) (Rutherfurd et al., Reference Rutherfurd and Moughan2015). Consequently, the scores presented in Table 1 for individual commodities represent only average values and may vary to a smaller or greater extent in practice, depending on various factors such as variety or processing technology.

Our calculated scores also only consider digestible, but not available amino acids, which might be inadequate for some essential amino acids especially in processed foods (Rutherfurd and Moughan, Reference Rutherfurd, Fanning, Miller and Moughan2012; FAO, 2013). Furthermore, these scores do not include potential negative effects of antinutritional factors present in plant protein sources on amino acid digestibility (Gilani et al., Reference Gilani, Tomé, Moughan and Burlingame2012b). Nor do scores for input and output mixtures consider potential interactions between the different protein sources, affecting overall digestibility (e.g. fibre content or antinutritional factors). Nevertheless, the calculated DIAAS show a reasonable consensus with published DIAAS (e.g. for wheat, barley and rye DIAAS of 40%, 47% and 48%, respectively, were calculated in this study, whereas Cervantes-Pahm et al. (Reference Cervantes-Pahm, Liu and Stein2014) reported DIAAS of 43%, 51% and 47% for these cereal grains). This suggests that calculating DIAAS (and also PDCAAS) based on available data is probably sufficient to demonstrate the magnitude of quality changes that occur during the transformation of potentially human-edible plant proteins to animal proteins via livestock systems.

Relevance of protein quality in the contribution of dairy cows to net protein supply

Excluding the differences in protein quality from the debate about plant v. animal proteins has been justified recently by the fact that modern western diets include more proteins than needed (Nijdam et al., Reference Nijdam, Rood and Westhoek2012). From a global perspective, however, this argumentation is a problematic generalization for several reasons: protein quality is very important for the assessment of the adequacy of the protein supply in developing and newly industrialized countries. It has been shown, for example, that at a national level the quality of available protein is connected to the prevalence of stunting (Ghosh et al., Reference Ghosh, Suri and Uauy2012). The consumption of high-quality milk proteins is also linked to a reduced prevalence of some metabolic disorders, not only in the developing world (McGregor and Poppitt, Reference McGregor and Poppitt2013). Furthermore, essential amino acid requirements can be met with a lower caloric intake when amino acids are supplied via high-quality proteins as compared with lower quality proteins, which is especially important for elderly people, for whom a protein intake above requirements is connected to a better health status (Wolfe, Reference Wolfe2015). Thus, when evaluating the role of dairy cows in terms of their contribution to human protein supply, for example, via the heFCE (Wilkinson, Reference Wilkinson2011; Ertl et al., Reference Ertl, Klocker, Hörtenhuber, Knaus and Zollitsch2015) or the land use ratio (LUR) (van Zanten et al., Reference van Zanten, Mollenhorst, Klootwijk, van Middelaar and de Boer2015), it is essential to consider not only the quantities of CP or of digestible protein. The protein quality differences between the human-edible animal protein output and the potentially human-edible plant protein input in terms of digestible amino acids also need to be taken into account.

The quality of the potentially human-edible protein input strongly depends on the ratio between dietary CP inputs via cereal feedstuffs and CP via protein-rich feedstuffs (Figure 1). This is due to the fact that cereal feeds have usually a lower protein quality compared with protein feeds (Table 1) (Leser, Reference Leser2013; Rutherfurd et al., Reference Rutherfurd and Moughan2015). These differences also explain differences between the individual dairy farms. The farms number 7 and 10 in Figure 2 for example, have a similar heFCE of about 2.1, whereas their contribution to human protein supply with quality differences included (heFCE×PQR), is 3.2 and 5.3 for farms number 7 and 10, respectively. Hence, PQR is higher for farm number 10 as compared with farm number 7. This is because potentially human-edible protein on farm number 10 originates solely from cereal feeds (barley, corn, triticale and rye), whereas on farm number 7, over 70% of human-edible protein is sourced from soy and rapeseed proteins. Thus, when mainly high-quality plant proteins such as soy are fed, the PQR decreases, as does the necessity to consider differences in protein quality via PQR, whereas at higher inclusion rates of cereal feeds, these differences are more profound.

Practical implications

For an adequate assessment of the net contribution of dairy and other animal production systems to the human food supply, changes in protein quality need to be considered together with quantitative changes in human-edible protein (kilogram output compared with kilogram input, e.g. via heFCE). Combining quantitative (heFCE) and qualitative changes (PQR) results in one single value (heFCE×PQR), describing the efficiency of transforming potentially human-edible plant proteins from feeds into animal-source proteins. The average heFCE×PQR value of 2.15 implies that for the 30 farms in this study, the value of the proteins in the animal products for human consumption (i.e. milk and beef) is, on average, 2.15 times higher than that of the potentially human-edible plant protein inputs. Our concept of combining the quantitative evaluations with the PQR suggests that, even when heFCE is <1, the net contribution of livestock systems to the protein supply for human consumption can be positive. For example, for the dairy farms investigated in this study, even a heFCE of as low as 0.55 would mean that via the transformation through animals, the value of proteins available for human consumption still increases (heFCE×PQR >1). However, when correcting for PQR, it is important that the quantitative measurement (e.g. heFCE) does not consider any qualitative aspects (such as digestible protein, for example), as this would lead to a double correction for quality. The approach of correcting for protein quality differences between output and input via PQR could also be used for other, already established concepts that quantitatively evaluate the net contribution of livestock to the human protein supply, such as the LUR, for example. The LUR is defined as the maximum amount of human-digestible protein derived from food crops on all land used to cultivate feed required to produce 1 kg animal-source food over the amount of human-digestible protein in that 1 kg animal-source food (van Zanten et al., Reference van Zanten, Mollenhorst, Klootwijk, van Middelaar and de Boer2015). Thus, as discussed in van Zanten et al. (Reference van Zanten, Mollenhorst, Klootwijk, van Middelaar and de Boer2015) animal and plant proteins are corrected for their respective digestibility, but not for differences in their amino acid composition. We argue that considering these differences would result in significantly lower LUR, thus land use efficiency of livestock systems would increase. To illustrate the effects of including PQR when calculating LUR, data from the laying hen (van Zanten et al., Reference van Zanten, Mollenhorst, Klootwijk, van Middelaar and de Boer2015) are taken as an example: the weighted average human protein digestibility for the presumed three main feed ingredients (corn, soybean, wheat) and for the animal outputs for laying hens (eggs and chicken meat) is 81.6% and 94.2%, respectively. The weighted average DIAAS for these three plant proteins would be 71.1% compared with a weighted average DIAAS of 115.8% for the animal output (own calculations based on data from van Zanten et al. (Reference van Zanten, Mollenhorst, Klootwijk, van Middelaar and de Boer2015); DIAAS for egg (116.4) and chicken meat (108.2) were calculated using amino acid composition from United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Nutrient Database (USDA, 2016)). This results in a ratio between animal and plant protein digestibility of 1.15 and a PQR of 1.63. Thus, correcting for PQR instead of protein digestibility would lead to an increase in the land use efficiency of the laying hens of about 30%. It can be assumed that LUR for other livestock systems would be affected in a similar way when corrected for PQR instead of protein digestibility.

The profound differences between the quality of animal and plant proteins found in this study lead to the question of whether the use of kilogram (digestible) protein as a functional unit in the evaluation of the environmental impacts of protein production is adequate. Functional units are generally used in evaluations such as life cycle assessments to compare systems on the basis of equivalent functions (Klöpffer and Grahl, Reference Klöpffer and Grahl2014). However, dietary proteins differing in quality are not equivalent in terms of their ability to meet nutritional requirements (DIAAS for milk and beef protein, for example, are about 2.8 times higher than for wheat protein (Table 1)). To account for these different functions, the environmental impacts of different protein sources (e.g. de Vries and de Boer, 2010; Nijdam et al., Reference Nijdam, Rood and Westhoek2012) should be corrected for differences in protein quality by dividing the impact per kilogram protein by the protein score for the respective protein source. This would result in a functional unit corrected for protein quality (environmental impacts per kilogram protein with a protein quality score of 100%) and would take into account that proteins differ widely in their ability to meet human nutritional demands. It should be further investigated whether this approach is applicable and how this would affect the calculated environmental impacts of the production of different proteins.

Conclusions

Dietary proteins differ widely in their ability to meet human nutritional requirements. Depending on the method used, results of this study showed that the scores for protein quality of animal products (milk, beef) were between 1.40 and 1.87 times higher than those for potentially human-edible plant protein inputs in dairy production systems. This emphasizes the necessity of including these differences when assessing the role of animal production systems in terms of protein supply or when comparing the environmental impacts of the production of animal v. plant-source proteins. Changes in protein quality can be combined with existing concepts that quantitatively compare human-edible protein outputs and potentially human-edible protein inputs in animal production systems by multiplying the two ratios (output/input) for quantity and quality. The resulting value allows an interpretation of the efficiency of an animal production system in transforming potentially human-edible protein inputs into animal proteins from a perspective which integrates quantitative and qualitative aspects.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the staff of the Department of Animal Science at UC Davis, California, as well as Gerhard Piringer from the Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems at BOKU-University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna for their important ideas on this manuscript. Furthermore, the authors are thankful to Kathleen Knaus for editing assistance and to two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

References

Aiking, H 2011. Future protein supply. Trends in Food Science & Technology 22, 112120.Google Scholar
Boye, J, Wijesinha-Bettoni, R and Burlingame, B 2012. Protein quality evaluation twenty years after the introduction of the protein digestibility corrected amino acid score method. British Journal of Nutrition 108, S183S211.Google Scholar
Cervantes-Pahm, SK, Liu, YH and Stein, HH 2014. Digestible indispensable amino acid score and digestible amino acids in eight cereal grains. British Journal of Nutrition 111, 16631672.Google Scholar
Deglaire, A and Moughan, PJ 2012. Animal models for determining amino acid digestibility in humans – a review. British Journal of Nutrition 108, S273S281.Google Scholar
de Vries, M and de Boer, IJM 2010. Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science 128, 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ertl, P, Klocker, H, Hörtenhuber, S, Knaus, W and Zollitsch, W 2015. The net contribution of dairy production to human food supply: the case of Austrian dairy farms. Agricultural Systems 137, 119125.Google Scholar
FAO 2011. World livestock 2011 – livestock in food security. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
FAO 2013. Dietary protein quality evaluation in human nutrition – report of an FAO expert consultation. Food and nutrition paper 51. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
FAO and WHO 1991. Protein quality evaluation: report of the joint FAO/WHO expert consultation. Food and nutrition paper 92. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
French Association for Animal Production, Ajinomoto Eurolysine, Aventis Animal Nutrition, National Institute of Agricultural Research and Technical Institute for Cereals and Forage 2000. AmiPig, Ileal standardised digestibility of amino acids in feedstuffs for pigs. Retrieved on 27 October 2015 from http://www.feedbase.com/amipig.php?Lang=E.Google Scholar
Ghosh, S, Suri, D and Uauy, R 2012. Assessment of protein adequacy in developing countries: quality matters. British Journal of Nutrition 108, S77S87.Google Scholar
Gilani, GS, Tomé, D, Moughan, PJ and Burlingame, B 2012a. The assessment of amino acid digestibility in foods for humans and including a collation of published ileal amino acid digestibility data for human foods. Retrieved on 27 October 2015 from http://www.fao.org/ag/humannutrition/nutrition/63158/en/.Google Scholar
Gilani, GS, Xiao, CW and Cockell, KA 2012b. Impact of antinutritional factors in food proteins on the digestibility of protein and the bioavailability of amino acids and on protein quality. British Journal of Nutrition 108, S315S332.Google Scholar
Hörtenhuber, S, Kirner, L, Neumayr, C, Quendler, E, Strauss, A, Drapela, T and W Zollitsch, W 2013. Integrative evaluation of ecological, economical and social sustainability aspects in agricultural production systems – the case of dairy production. Retrieved on 30 June 2015 from https://www.dafne.at/dafne_plus_homepage/index.php?section=dafneplus&content=result&come_from=homepage&&project_id=3197.Google Scholar
Klöpffer, W and Grahl, B 2014. Life cycle assessment (LCA): a guide to best practice. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany.Google Scholar
Leser, S 2013. The 2013 FAO report on dietary protein quality evaluation in human nutrition: recommendations and implications. Nutrition Bulletin 38, 421428.Google Scholar
McGregor, RA and Poppitt, SD 2013. Milk protein for improved metabolic health: a review of the evidence. Nutrition & Metabolism 10, 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millward, DJ 2012. Amino acid scoring patterns for protein quality assessment. British Journal of Nutrition 108, S31S43.Google Scholar
National Institute of Agricultural Research, Agricultural Research for Development, French Association for Animal Production and FAO 2015. Feedipedia – animal feed resources information system. Retrieved on 10 August 2015 from feedipedia.org.Google Scholar
Neumann, C, Harris, DM and Rogers, LM 2002. Contribution of animal source foods in improving diet quality and function in children in the developing world. Nutrition Research 22, 193220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nijdam, D, Rood, T and 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, 760770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, B and Eggum, BO 1983a. The influence of milling on the nutritive-value of flour from cereal-grains. 1. Rye. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 32, 185196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, B and Eggum, BO 1983b. The influence of milling on the nutritive-value of flour from cereal-grains. 3. Barley. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 33, 99112.Google Scholar
Reynolds, LP, Wulster-Radcliffe, M, Aaron, DK and Davis, TA 2015. Importance of animals in agricultural sustainability and food security. The Journal of Nutrition 145, 13771379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutherfurd, SM, Fanning, AC, Miller, BJ and Moughan, PJ 2015. Protein digestibility-corrected amino acid scores and digestible indispensable amino acid scores differentially describe protein quality in growing male rats. The Journal of Nutrition 145, 372379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutherfurd, SM and Moughan, PJ 2012. Available versus digestible dietary amino acids. British Journal of Nutrition 108, S298S305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaafsma, G 2012. Advantages and limitations of the protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS) as a method for evaluating protein quality in human diets. British Journal of Nutrition 108 (suppl. 2), S333S336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, J, Sones, K, Grace, D, MacMillan, S, Tarawali, S and Herrero, M 2013. Beyond milk, meat, and eggs: role of livestock in food and nutrition security. Animal Frontiers 3, 613.Google Scholar
Tome, D 2012. Criteria and markers for protein quality assessment – a review. British Journal of Nutrition 108, S222S229.Google Scholar
USDA 2016. National nutrient database for standard reference release 28. Retrieved on 3 February 2016 from http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods.Google Scholar
van Zanten, HHE, Mollenhorst, H, Klootwijk, CW, van Middelaar, CE and de Boer, IJM 2015. Global food supply: land use efficiency of livestock systems. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 21, 747758.Google Scholar
WHO, FAO and United Nations University 2007. Protein and amino acid requirements in human nutrition. World Health Organisation technical report series 935. WHO Press, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, JM 2011. Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock. Animal 5, 10141022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfe, RR 2015. Update on protein intake: importance of milk proteins for health status of the elderly. Nutrition Reviews 73 (suppl. 1), 4147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1 Protein digestibility-corrected amino acid scores truncated (PDCAASt) or without truncation (PDCAAS) and digestible indispensable amino acid scores (DIAAS) for individual protein sources

Figure 1

Figure 1 Relationship between digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS) for a mixture of potentially human-edible inputs and the ratio of kilogram CP supplied by cereal feeds (all feedstuffs containing a potential human-edible fraction with a CP content of <20% in the dry matter) to kilogram CP supplied by protein feeds (>20% CP in the dry matter) on selected dairy farms (n=29); y=65.69 ×−0.2 (R2=0.92).

Figure 2

Table 2 Least square means for protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score truncated (PDCAASt) or without truncation (PDCAAS), as well as digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS) for mixtures of human-edible protein inputs and outputs at barn-gate of selected dairy farms (n=30)

Figure 3

Figure 2 Human-edible feed conversion efficiency (heFCE) and human-edible feed conversion efficiency times protein quality ratio(PQR) (heFCE×PQR) for selected Austrian dairy farms (using digestible indispensable amino acid score to determine protein quality).