MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396651512 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae102.206

112 Nutritional, feed safety, and environmental benefits and limitations of using soybean co-products in swine diets

2024· article· en· W4396651512 on OpenAlexaff
Zhaohui Yang, Pedro E Urriola, G. C. Shurson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsNutrasource
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood scienceBusinessEnvironmental scienceChemistryBiotechnologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Various types of soybean co-products are used in swine diets which have benefits and limitations related to protein quality, environmental impact, and feed safety. To address these concerns for sustainable pork production, methodologies have evolved. Soybean processing and storage methods affecting protein oxidation have been studied less than lipid oxidation. Protein carbonyl concentrations were measured and compared among diverse samples of soybeans and soybean meal from different regions of the US and processed by mechanical or solvent extraction. Mechanically extracted soybean meal had greater concentrations of protein carbonyls than solvent extracted soybean meal which were associated with a greater concentration of residual oil. Soybeans and their co-products also contain antioxidants that may protect against more extensive lipid and protein oxidation. Understanding the interactions between natural antioxidants and oxidation of lipid and proteins in soy co-products is important for optimizing nutritional efficiency and health in sustainable pork production systems. Because soybean meal is a major component of swine diets, its origin and environmental footprint affects the environmental impact of feed, manure, and pork production. Using a spatially explicit lifecycle assessment of feed ingredients and regional manure management programs, we compared the effect of using four feeding programs on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, land use, and embedded water consumption in 3 major U.S. pork production regions assuming they would provide equal growth performance and carcass composition. Although environmental impacts varied among regions, the corn-soybean meal feeding program resulted in the greatest land and water use of all grower-finisher feeding programs, and more GHG emissions than feeding low protein amino acid supplemented (LP) diets and diets containing 8% supermarket food waste, but less overall GHG emissions than the distiller’s dried grains with solubles (DDGS) feeding program. Results from a subsequent study showed that feeding corn-soybean meal diets optimized growth performance and carcass composition while simultaneously reducing impacts on climate change, marine and freshwater eutrophication, and fossil resource use compared with feeding DDGS and LP diets. Lastly, the extended survival of infectious agents such as African swine fever virus in feed ingredients has important implications for biosecurity and prevention of transboundary transmission of swine diseases. We developed a risk-free in situ surrogate non-animal assay (RISNA) to estimate survival of ASFV in various feed ingredients and conditions, and results indicate greater thermal stability than previously observed, and comparable extended survival among corn- and soybean-based ingredients. These new insights will be useful in revising feed biosecurity protocols to prevent introduction and transmission of ASFV in feed supply chains. In conclusion, holistic assessments of feed ingredients, like our evaluation of soybean co-products, are needed to achieve a more sustainable, One Health approach to pork production.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactFrench-language works237,207