Table 1
Amounts (% of carcass) subtracted from the total carcass weight to calculate the amount of edible meat for different animals (based on Wildling (2016), personal communication)
Tabelle 1. Berücksichtigte Faktoren (% vom Schlachtkörper) zur Berechnung des essbaren Fleischanteils von unterschiedlichen Nutztieren ausgehend vom Schlachtkörper (basierend auf Wildling (2016), mündliche Mitteilung)
| Carcass category | Bones | Losses from slaughter to consumption | Pet food |
|---|---|---|---|
| Beef | 15.5 | 9.0 | 8.5 |
| Veal | 18.0 | 9.0 | 8.5 |
| Swine | 12.0 | 9.0 | 8.5 |
| Chicken | 28.0 | 4.0 | 8.5 |
| Turkey | 17.01) | 4.0 | 8.5 |
| Sheep | 16.0 | 9.0 | 8.5 |
| Goat | 16.0 | 9.0 | 8.5 |
1) From Kauffman (2001)
Table 2
Presumed protein and energy contents of animal products and respective references
Tabelle 2. Angenommene Protein- und Energiegehalte von tierischen Produkten, sowie zugehörige Quellenangaben
| Animal product | Protein content (g/kg) | Energy content (kJ/g)1) | USDA nutrient database number (USDA, 2016) or other reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Beef whole carcass | 173 | 13.34 | 13001 |
| Veal carcass | 194 | 7.08 | 17088 |
| Swine carcass | 139 | 16.84 | 10001 |
| Chicken meat and skin | 186 | 10.14 | 05006 |
| Turkey meat and skin | 216 | 7.17 | 05165 |
| Sheep carcass | 167 | 12.70 | 17062 |
| Goat carcass | 167 | 10.89 | 17062 and Ringdorfer et al. (2006) |
| Cow milk | 34.0 | 3.22 | ZuchtData (2014) |
| Sheep milk | 52.1 | 4.23 | Mayer and Fiechter (2012) |
| Goat milk | 31.5 | 2.92 | Mayer and Fiechter (2012) |
| Whole chicken egg | 126 | 6.71 | 01123 |
1) Calculated from the nutrient composition using the caloric factors 23 kJ/g protein, 38.9 kJ/g fat, and 17.2 kJ/g carbohydrates (Persson, 2011).
Table 3
Presumed yields (% of live weight) and protein and energy contents of animal by-products for different animal species (calculated with data from Venegas Fornias (1996), Ockerman and Hansen (2000) and USDA (2016))
Tabelle 3. Angenommene Erträge (% vom Lebendgewicht) und Protein- und Energiegehalte von tierischen Nebenprodukten unterschiedlicher Nutztierarten
| Species | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cattle | Swine | Sheep/Goats | Chicken | Turkey | ||||
| Blood | ||||||||
| Yield | 2.4 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||
| Protein (g/kg) | 178 | 185 | - | - | - | |||
| Energy (MJ/kg) | 4.13 | 4.29 | - | - | - | |||
| Fancy meats1) | ||||||||
| Yield | 3.68 | 2.65 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||
| Protein (g/kg) | 184 | 181 | 193 | - | - | |||
| Energy (MJ/kg) | 6.23 | 5.94 | 6.14 | - | - | |||
| Total by-products (without blood and edible kill fat) | ||||||||
| Yield | 9.6 | 12.0 | 14.0 | 3.6 | 3.6 | |||
| Protein (g/kg) | 202 | 148 | 167 | 166 | 179 | |||
| Energy (MJ/kg) | 6.80 | 13.99 | 5.59 | 6.09 | 6.43 | |||
| Edible kill fat | ||||||||
| Yield | 4.0 | 2.4 | 12.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||
| Protein (g/kg) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | - | - | |||
| Energy (MJ/kg) | 32.09 | 32.09 | 32.84 | - | - | |||
1) heart, liver, kidney, and tongue.
Table 4
Presumed human-edible fractions (% of protein and energy) of feedstuffs for a current (CURR) and a maximum (MAX) scenario (based on Ertl et al., 2015 and own calculations according to the same methods) and the calculated digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS) of the main human-edible feed protein sources (Ertl et al., 2016)
Tabelle 4. Angenommene humanernährungstaugliche Anteile von Futtermitteln unter einem derzeitigen (CURR) und einem Szenario mit maximalen Ausbeuten (MAX) (basierend auf Ertl et al., 2015 und eigenen Berechnungen nach denselben Methoden), sowie Score für Proteinqualität (DIAAS) (Ertl et al., 2016)
| Feedstuff1) | Protein (%) | Energy (%) | DIAAS (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CURR | MAX | CURR | MAX | |||
| Barley | 40 | 80 | 40 | 80 | 47.2 | |
| Cottonseed cake | 63 | 80 | 42 | 50 | n.d.2) | |
| Field beans | 70 | 90 | 37 | 90 | 57.0 | |
| Fish meal | 0 | 80 | 0 | 80 | n.d. | |
| Flax seed cake | 5 | 19 | 10 | 15 | n.d. | |
| Gluten (from starch production) | 0 | 80 | 0 | 80 | n.d. | |
| Maize, grain | 70 | 90 | 70 | 90 | 42.4 | |
| Maize, silage | 19 | 45 | 19 | 45 | 42.4 | |
| Maize, whole plant | 19 | 45 | 19 | 45 | 42.4 | |
| Molasses (from sugar beets) | 0 | 80 | 0 | 80 | n.d. | |
| Oats | 50 | 75 | 50 | 75 | 56.7 | |
| Other grains | 51 | 82 | 51 | 82 | n.d. | |
| Other oilseed cakes | 27 | 52 | 22 | 31 | n.d. | |
| Other oilseeds | 28 | 68 | 53 | 62 | n.d. | |
| Other pulses | 63 | 81 | 33 | 81 | n.d. | |
| Palm-kernel cake | 50 | 80 | 21 | 27 | n.d. | |
| Peas | 70 | 90 | 37 | 90 | 64.7 | |
| Plant fats and oils | - | - | 0 | 80 | n.d. | |
| Potato-protein feed | 0 | 80 | 0 | 80 | n.d. | |
| Potatoes | 0 | 80 | 0 | 80 | n.d. | |
| Rapeseed | 30 | 87 | 64 | 74 | 70.2 | |
| Rapeseed cake | 30 | 87 | 26 | 47 | 70.2 | |
| Rye | 60 | 100 | 60 | 100 | 47.6 | |
| Rye, bran and middlings | 0 | 20 | 0 | 20 | n.d. | |
| Skimmed milk, fluid | 0 | 80 | 0 | 80 | 115.9 | |
| Soybean cake | 50 | 92 | 42 | 65 | 97.0 | |
| Soybeans | 50 | 93 | 51 | 93 | 99.6 | |
| Sugar | - | - | 0 | 80 | n.d. | |
| Sunflower | 14 | 46 | 64 | 68 | 47.8 | |
| Sunflower cake | 14 | 46 | 20 | 30 | 46.4 | |
| Triticale | 60 | 100 | 60 | 100 | 49.8 | |
| Wheat | 60 | 100 | 60 | 100 | 40.2 | |
| Wheat, bran and middlings | 0 | 20 | 0 | 20 | 48.8 | |
| Whey, fluid | 0 | 80 | 0 | 80 | 115.9 | |
| Whole cow milk for feeding, fluid | 30 | 50 | 30 | 50 | 115.9 | |
1) Feedstuffs not included in this table (n = 44) were considered as human-inedible.
2) n.d. = not determined.
Table 5
Calculated digestible indispensable amino acid scores (DIAAS) for animal products using amino acid composition from USDA (2016)
Tabelle 5. Berechnete Scores für Proteinqualität (DIAAS) für tierische Produkte (Aminosäuren-Zusammensetzung von USDA (2016))
| Animal Product | DIAAS (%) |
|---|---|
| Beef | 109.3 |
| Pork | 113.9 |
| Chicken meat and skin | 108.2 |
| Turkey meat and skin | 83.11) |
| Sheep / Goat meat | 116.8 |
| Cow milk | 115.92) |
| Sheep milk | 109.1 |
| Goat milk | 123.5 |
| Whole chicken egg | 116.4 |
1) Low score due to a low valine content given in USDA (2016).
2) Score from Ertl et al. (2016).
Table 6
Calculated percentages of potentially human-edible protein and energy in the total dietary protein and energy1), respectively, of different Austrian livestock categories for a current scenario (CURR) and a scenario with maximum human-edible fractions (MAX) (average over the years 2011–2013)
Tabelle 6. Berechneter Anteil an potenziell humanernährungstauglichem Protein sowie humanernährungstauglicher Energie in den Rationen von österreichischen Nutztierkategorien in % von Gesamtprotein und -Energie in der Ration1) für ein derzeitiges (CURR) und ein Szenario mit maxima-len angenommene Extraktionsraten (MAX) (Durchschnitt für die Jahre 2011–2013)
| Livestock category | ProteinCURR | ProteinMAX | EnergyCURR | EnergyMAX |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cattle | 9.0 | 17.3 | 9.1 | 17.2 |
| Dairy cows | 10.0 | 18.6 | 10.3 | 18.6 |
| Growing-fattening bulls | 19.8 | 41.2 | 17.4 | 36.7 |
| Swine | 47.3 | 82.3 | 51.3 | 78.2 |
| Laying hens | 46.9 | 82.7 | 51.0 | 77.2 |
| Broiler chickens | 45.6 | 84.3 | 48.5 | 76.2 |
| Turkeys | 45.7 | 83.6 | 48.9 | 76.2 |
| Sheep | 10.0 | 18.8 | 10.3 | 19.1 |
| Goats | 10.2 | 19.6 | 9.4 | 17.3 |
1) The total amounts of dietary protein and energy for each livestock category were calculated based on the quantities fed of each feedstuff (Statistics Austria, 2015) multiplied with their respective crude protein and gross energy contents. For calculation of the human-edible protein and energy, the gross energy and crude protein contents of feeds were multiplied with their respective human-edible fraction prior to multiplication with their respective amounts.
Table 7
Human-edible feed conversion efficiencies (heFCE = human-edible output / human-edible input) for protein and energy for a current scenario (CURR) and a scenario with maximum potentially human-edible fractions (MAX) for different Austrian livestock categories (average over the years 2011–2013)
Tabelle 7. Lebensmittelkonversionseffizienzen (heFCE = humanernährungstauglicher Output / humanernährungstauglicher Input) für Protein und Energie für die wichtigsten österreichischen Nutztierkategorien (Durchschnitt für die Jahre 2011–2013)
| Livestock category | heFCE protein | heFCE energy | PQR1) | PQR × heFCE protein | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CURR | MAX | CURR | MAX | CURR | MAX | ||
| Cattle | 1.52 | 0.87 | 1.06 | 0.62 | 1.84 | 2.81 | 1.60 |
| Dairy cows | 1.98 | 1.11 | 1.44 | 0.83 | 1.90 | 3.78 | 2.10 |
| Growing-fattening bulls | 0.45 | 0.31 | 0.26 | 0.19 | 1.66 | 0.73 | 0.53 |
| Swine | 0.36 | 0.29 | 0.35 | 0.34 | 1.74 | 0.64 | 0.50 |
| Laying hens | 0.63 | 0.36 | 0.31 | 0.21 | 1.63 | 1.04 | 0.58 |
| Broiler chickens | 0.52 | 0.36 | 0.30 | 0.24 | 1.43 | 0.76 | 0.51 |
| Turkeys | 0.50 | 0.33 | 0.17 | 0.13 | 1.11 | 0.56 | 0.36 |
| Sheep | 0.54 | 0.39 | 0.31 | 0.31 | 1.94 | 1.04 | 0.75 |
| Goats | 0.82 | 0.46 | 0.64 | 0.40 | 1.86 | 1.53 | 0.86 |
1) PQR = protein quality ratio (Ertl et al., 2016, weighted average protein score of human-edible output / weighted average protein score of human-edible input); average for both scenarios.
Table 8
Comparison of different feed conversion parameters for major Austrian meat production systems (current scenario, average over the years 2011–2013)
Tabelle 8. Vergleich von unterschiedlichen Futtereffizienz-Parametern der wichtigsten österreichischen Fleischproduktionssysteme (derzeitiges Szenario, Durchschnitt für die Jahre 2011–2013)
| Meat production system | Feed conversion parameter1) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FCR | FCRprotein | FCRenergy | FCRhe-protein | FCRhe-energy | |
| Growing-fattening bull | 11.54 | 11.35 | 22.56 | 2.24 | 3.91 |
| Pork production | 3.68 | 5.89 | 5.63 | 2.79 | 2.89 |
| Broiler chicken | 2.18 | 4.23 | 6.88 | 1.92 | 3.34 |
| Turkey meat | 3.25 | 4.41 | 12.11 | 2.01 | 5.92 |
1) FCR = kg feed dry matter / kg bone-in carcass; FCRprotein = kg feed protein / kg human-edible protein in the animal product; FCRenergy = kJ feed energy / kJ human-edible energy in the animal product; FCRhe-protein = kg human-edible feed protein / kg human-edible protein in the animal product; FCRhe-energy = kJ human-edible feed energy / kJ human-edible energy in the animal product.
Table 9
Relative occupation of different land categories for the production of feed protein and energy for main livestock categories in Austria (% of the total feed protein and energy derived from respective land category, average for the years 2011–2013)
Tabelle 9. Relative Flächenbeanspruchung für die Produktion von Futterprotein und –Energie (% gesamt) für die wichtigsten österreichischen Nutztierkategorien (Durchschnitt für die Jahre 2011–2013)
| Livestock category | Protein | Energy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A-MAIN1) | A-Co | GRASS | OTHER | A-MAIN | A-Co | GRASS | OTHER | |
| Cattle | 32.3 | 15.3 | 52.3 | 0.0 | 39.4 | 8.8 | 51.8 | 0.0 |
| Dairy cows | 34.8 | 17.0 | 47.8 | 0.4 | 41.2 | 10.2 | 48.3 | 0.3 |
| Growing-fattening bulls | 58.3 | 31.0 | 10.7 | 0.0 | 77.4 | 13.1 | 9.5 | 0.0 |
| Swine | 50.7 | 48.3 | 0.1 | 0.9 | 75.5 | 24.0 | 0.1 | 0.4 |
| Laying hens | 48.8 | 50.7 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 73.7 | 26.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 |
| Broiler chickens | 39.1 | 58.6 | 0.0 | 2.3 | 67.1 | 32.0 | 0.0 | 0.9 |
| Turkeys | 40.7 | 56.9 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 68.9 | 30.2 | 0.0 | 0.9 |
| Sheep | 34.8 | 10.4 | 54.2 | 0.6 | 41.6 | 6.1 | 51.9 | 0.4 |
| Goats | 34.3 | 13.9 | 51.6 | 0.2 | 40.7 | 7.6 | 51.6 | 0.2 |
1) A-MAIN: feed protein and energy from arable land where the feedstuff is the main crop; A-Co: feed protein and energy from arable land where the feedstuff is a co-product; GRASS: feed energy and protein from grassland; OTHER: other origin (e.g., fish-meal, feed yeast).