Next Article in Journal
Salivary Gland Adaptation to Dietary Inclusion of Hydrolysable Tannins in Boars
Next Article in Special Issue
Trace Minerals Supplementation with Great Impact on Beef Cattle Immunity and Health
Previous Article in Journal
Dosage Compensation of the X Chromosome during Sheep Testis Development Revealed by Single-Cell RNA Sequencing
Previous Article in Special Issue
Breeding Sustainable Beef Cows: Reducing Weight and Increasing Productivity
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 12
Issue 17
10.3390/ani12172170
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Net Conversion of Human-Edible Vitamins and Minerals in the U.S. Southern Great Plains Beef Production System

by
Phillip A. Lancaster
1,*,
Deann Presley
2,
Walt Fick
2,
Dustin Pendell
3,
Adam Ahlers
4,
Andrew Ricketts
4 and
Minfeng Tang
1
1
Beef Cattle Institute, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
2
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
3
Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
4
Department of Horticulture and Natural Resources, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2022, 12(17), 2170; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172170
Submission received: 24 June 2022 / Revised: 10 August 2022 / Accepted: 20 August 2022 / Published: 24 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Beef Cattle: Advances for Sustainable Intensification)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Beef production is often viewed as a waste of human-edible food, but overall beef cattle consume primarily feedstuffs nonedible by humans. Previous analyses indicate that the current beef production system is a positive net contributor of high quality protein to the human diet. However, beef provides several important nutrients besides protein: iron, zinc, selenium, phosphorus, vitamin B12, vitamin B6, riboflavin, niacin, and choline. The goal of the current study was to calculate the net nutrient conversion ratio of a beef production system to supply these nutrients to the human diet. The amount of human-absorbable nutrient consumption by beef cattle was calculated as well as the amount of human-absorbable nutrient produced in beef products. The net nutrient conversion ratio was computed as the ratio of nutrient production to nutrient consumption with a value greater than one being a positive net contribution to the human diet. The Southern Great Plains beef production system is a positive net contributor of human-absorbable iron, phosphorus, riboflavin, niacin, and choline to the human diet. Further analysis demonstrates that the amount of corn grain, the primary human-edible feedstuff, consumed by cattle during the feedlot phase is an important indicator of the net nutrient contribution of the beef production system.

Abstract

Beef is a good source of several vitamins and minerals but data on the net contribution to the human diet is lacking. The objective was to quantify the net nutrient contribution of the beef supply chain to provide vitamins and minerals to the human diet. Beef cattle production parameters for the beef supply chain were as described by Baber et al., 2018 with the red and organ meat yield from each production segment estimated using literature values of serially-harvested beef cattle. Nutrient concentration of feeds was acquired from feed composition tables in nutrient requirement texts, and the nutrient concentration of beef and organ meats was based on 2018 USDA Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies. The nutrient absorption coefficients of feeds, red meat, and organs were acquired from the literature. The human-edible conversion ratio was >1.0 for phosphorus when only red meat yield was considered indicating that the beef supply chain produced more human-edible phosphorus than it consumed. When organ meats were included, riboflavin, niacin, choline, and phosphorus had conversion ratios >1.0. After adjusting for the absorption of nutrients, the beef supply chain was a net contributor of niacin and phosphorus in the human diet when accounting for red meat yield only, but when including organ meats, iron, riboflavin, and choline also had conversion ratios >1.0. The maximum proportion of corn in the corn grain plus distillers’ grains component of the feedlot diets for the absorbable conversion ratio to be ≥1 ranged from 8.34 to 100.00% when only red meat yield was considered and from 32.02 to 100.00% when red and organ meats were considered. In conclusion, the current beef production system in the Southern Great Plains produces more human-absorbable iron, phosphorus, riboflavin, niacin, and choline to the human diet than is consumed in the beef supply chain.

1. Introduction

Critics have disparaged beef as a food source due to concerns around environmental impacts and consumption of human edible foods. However, beef production systems, even intensive feedlot systems, convert large amounts of human inedible products such as plant biomass into beef, a human edible food. For example, the beef supply chain converts low-quality protein from plant sources into high-quality protein for human consumption [1,2,3]. In addition to protein, beef is a good source of several minerals and vitamins (iron, zinc, selenium, phosphorus, vitamin B12 and B6, riboflavin, niacin, and choline) in the human diet as well as contributing to pet foods.
Recently, Baber et al. [4] reported that the beef supply chain is a net contributor of digestible indispensable amino acids accounting for differences in concentration and digestibility of amino acids in beef compared with plant-based foods. Likewise, vitamins and minerals contained in beef are more available than in plant-based foods [5,6], which can enhance their value in the human diet.
Accurately accounting for the human nutrient supply of the beef production system is necessary to fully assess the sustainability of beef production. Previous analyses have focused on the contribution to human protein supply [2,4,7,8,9], but no analyses have been conducted evaluating other nutrients with high concentrations in beef. Therefore, the objective of this study is to determine the net nutrient contribution of the beef supply chain as a mineral and vitamin source to the human diet.

2. Materials and Methods

No animals were used in this research and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approval was not required.
A summative model of net nutrient contribution (NNC) was developed based on the current industry diets (Table 1) and production parameters (Table 2) reported by Baber et al. [4] for the entire beef supply chain. This was done so that results would align with the net protein contribution reported by Baber et al. [4]. The cow-calf phase included a breeding population to produce calves for slaughter. Calves from the cow-calf phase moved into the stocker, then feedlot phase where the cow-calf production cycle represents 365 days, and the stocker and feedlot phases represent the time animals were managed in those sectors of the industry. A portion of calves (22.8%) from the cow-calf phase moved directly to the feedlot phase to represent current industry practices. Additionally, open replacement heifers were moved directly to the feedlot phase.
Production parameters adapted from Baber et al. [4].
Model diets were based on typical US beef cattle feedstuffs used in each phase of the Southern Great Plains beef production system. Cows and nursing calves consumed pasture along with small amount of protein supplement as cottonseed meal. In the stocker phase, calves consumed wheat forage and small amount of corn grain and distiller’s grains. The feedlot phase was divided into a receiving phase using a typical receiving diet in Southern Great Plains feedlots, and a finishing phase using a typical finishing diet for Southern Great Plains feedlots.
Human-edible nutrient produced was computed for each production phase and the entire beef supply chain. Red and organ meat yield was estimated from published serial harvest studies [10,11,12,13,14,15,16] and represented the change in weight that occurs in each production phase (Table S1). Estimation of the nutrient content of feeds, beef meat, and beef organ meats (liver, heart, kidney, spleen, pancreas, gastrointestinal tract) were gathered from nutrient composition tables and published literature (Table S2). If data were not available, as sometimes happened with organ meats, that organ was not included in the analysis. Values used for corn silage were same as those for corn grain assuming that corn silage is 50% corn grain, and that the corn grain would be 100% human-edible if harvested as grain rather plant biomass. The amount of human-edible nutrient produced was based on that amount of animal product produced in each phase such that each phase was independent rather than a running total. The amount of human-edible nutrient consumed and produced for the entire supply chain was the sum of the three production phases. Human-edible conversion ratio was then computed as the amount of human-edible nutrient produced in beef products to the amount of human-edible nutrient consumed in feed, thus a value greater than 1 indicates that the supply chain is a net contributor to the human diet.
Human-absorbable nutrient consumed and produced was computed for each production phase and the entire beef supply chain by multiplying the human-edible nutrient consumed and produced by the nutrient absorption coefficient. Estimates of nutrient absorption coefficients from feed, beef meat, and beef organ meats were gathered from published studies using humans, swine or poultry (Table S3). Swine have been an acceptable model for assessing nutrient digestibility in humans [17]. If a feedstuff had a human-edible fraction of zero, then the human absorption coefficient was assumed to be zero. Studies on the digestibility of nutrients from organ meats other than liver could not be found in a literature search, thus the nutrient absorption coefficient value for liver was used on the basis that in vitro protein digestibility of heart, kidney, and spleen are similar to liver [18]. The amount of human-absorbable nutrient produced was based on that amount of animal product produced in each phase such that each phase was independent rather than a running total. The amount of human-absorbable nutrient consumed and produced for the entire supply chain was the sum of the three production phases. The human-absorbable conversion ratio was then computed as the amount of human-absorbable nutrient produced in beef products to the amount of human-absorbable nutrient consumed in feed; thus a value greater than 1 indicates that the supply chain is a net contributor to the human diet.
Human-edible and human-absorbable conversion ratios were computed for iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), selenium (Se), phosphorus (P), vitamin B6 (B6), riboflavin, niacin, niacin + tryptophan, and choline. Tryptophan is a precursor for niacin synthesis [19] with a conversion efficiency of 60 mg of tryptophan producing 1 mg of niacin [20]. The human-edible and human-absorbable conversion ratios for niacin were computed with and without inclusion of tryptophan.
The primary human-edible feedstuff consumed by cattle is corn grain; thus, the amount of corn grain fed to cattle is the primary factor by which the beef industry can affect the net nutrient conversion ratio. Feedlot diets are the main source of corn fed to beef cattle where corn can be replaced with corn byproducts. The proportion of corn in the corn grain plus distillers’ grains component of the feedlot diets was varied from 0 to 100% by increments of 10, and the resulting net nutrient conversion ratios for red meat and red plus organ meats were recorded. The relationship between the proportion of corn and the net nutrient conversion ratio was curvilinear. A non-linear model was fit to the data using Origin software (ver. 2022b; OriginLab, Northampton, MA, USA; https://www.originlab.com/; Accessed on 1 May 2022). The best fit based on adjusted coefficient of determination and the Chi-square was a two-phase exponential decay function.
Y = A1 × e(−x/t1) + A2 × e(−x/t2) + y0
where, Y is the net nutrient conversion ratio, A1 and A2 are the two time constants, t1 and t2 are the two rate constants, y0 is the y-intercept, and x is the proportion of corn in the corn grain plus distillers’ grains component of the feedlot diets. The GoalSeek function in Microsoft Excel was then used to find the proportion of corn at which the net nutrient conversion ratio is equal to or greater than 1.

3. Results

Among the beef production phases, human-edible nutrient consumption was greatest for all nutrients in the feedlot phase as is expected, as corn grain is the primary human-edible feedstuff used in beef cattle diets and the majority of corn grain is consumed in the feedlot phase of production (Table 3). Human-edible nutrient production accounting for red meat yield only was least for the stocker phase, and approximately equal between the cow-calf and feedlot phases for all nutrients. The cow-calf phase had the greatest human-edible nutrient conversion ratio for all investigated mineral and B-vitamin nutrients except Zn, Se, and P. However, only P had a positive human-edible net contribution to the human diet in the entire beef supply chain when considering red meat consumption only. The beef supply chain has a large positive contribution of vitamin B12 to the human diet as B12 is not produced in plants, and thus there is not a tradeoff between human-edible feedstuffs and beef.
When organ meats were included in the computation of human-edible nutrient production, the pattern was similar among production phases as when only red meat yield was used (Table 4). The net nutrient conversion ratios were increased compared to consideration of only red meat consumption, resulting in a net positive contribution for riboflavin, niacin, niacin plus tryptophan, and choline, along with P, for the entire beef supply chain. Phosphorus is the only nutrient of those evaluated with a net positive contribution to the human diet in the feedlot phase when both red meat and organ meat were considered.
After accounting for differences in absorption between human-edible feedstuffs and red meat, the beef supply chain had net positive contribution of P, niacin, and niacin plus tryptophan to the human diet (Table 5). The feedlot phase has the greatest human-absorbable nutrient consumption whereas the cow-calf phase has the greatest nutrient conversion ratio for all nutrients except for Zn and P. The feedlot phase had the greatest human-absorbable nutrient production for all nutrients, and had the lowest nutrient conversion ratios for all nutrients except for Zn and P. The positive net contribution of niacin and niacin plus tryptophan is somewhat different than the results for human-edible nutrient conversion ratios in that accounting for absorption resulted in conversion ratios greater than one.
With the inclusion of organ meats in the calculation of human-absorbable nutrient produced, the beef supply chain was a net contributor of Fe, P, riboflavin, niacin, niacin plus tryptophan, and choline to the human diet compared to only P, niacin, and niacin plus tryptophan when only red meat yield was included (Table 6). Similar to when only red meat was used in the calculation of human-absorbable nutrient produced, the stocker phase had the least human-absorbable nutrient produced for all nutrients, and the feedlot phase had the lowest nutrient conversion ratios for all nutrients except for Zn. The cow-calf phase had the greatest human-absorbable nutrient conversion ratios for all nutrients except for Zn.
The proportion of corn in the corn grain plus distillers’ grains component of the feedlot diet where the net nutrient conversion ratio is equal to or greater than one is presented in Table 7. When organ meats were included in the calculation of human-edible or human-absorbable nutrient produced, the proportion of corn that could be used in feedlot diets increased. For P, 100% corn could be used in the corn grain plus distillers’ grains component of feedlot diets regardless of whether evaluating human-edible or human-absorbable nutrient conversion ratio with or without organ meats. For Zn and Se, there was no proportion of corn that would result in a net nutrient conversion ratio equal to or greater than one. When evaluating human-edible net nutrient conversion ratio, the maximum proportion of corn that could be used in the corn grain plus distillers’ grains component of feedlot diets was 0.00% for red meat yield only and 5.65% for red and organ meat yield with Fe being the limiting nutrient in both cases. However, based on human-absorbable net nutrient conversion ratio, the maximum proportion of corn that could be used in the corn grain plus distillers’ grains component of feedlot diets was 9.57% for red meat yield only and 32.15% for red and organ meat yield with vitamin B6 being the limiting nutrient in both cases.

4. Discussion

Beef is a good source of many vitamins and minerals for humans; iron, zinc, selenium, phosphorus, vitamin B6 (pyridoxine), vitamin B12 (cobalamin), riboflavin, niacin, and choline [6,21]. Iron is a key component of hemoglobin and deficiency can result in anemia especially in women of child-bearing age [22]. Zinc is a component of many enzymes in the body and deficiency can impair immune function and reproduction. Selenium is an important component of glutathione peroxidase mitigating oxidative damage to cells. Phosphorus in the form of phosphate is an important component of bone structure and a key part of energy metabolism as are riboflavin and niacin [20]. Phosphorus deficiency can lead to abnormal bone growth (ricketts) and osteomalacia. Vitamin B6 and B12 are essential to amino acid metabolism, and B12 is an important component in folate metabolism and nucleic acid synthesis. Additionally, absorption of vitamins and minerals from beef by humans is greater than that for plant sources [5,6,22].
Vitamin B12 synthesis is limited almost exclusively to microorganisms, and the vitamin is only present in animal food products [20]. Meat and liver are excellent sources of the vitamin with beef meat and liver having appreciably greater concentrations than pork or chicken due to the synthesis of B12 by rumen microorganisms. The lack of vitamin B12 in plants indicates that the beef production system consumes no human-edible B12 resulting in a positive net contribution to the human diet; however, since the input of human-edible B12 to the beef production system is zero, a net nutrient conversion ratio cannot be computed.
To our knowledge no previous reports have published the net vitamin and mineral contribution of beef production systems to the human diet, but several previous analyses of net protein conversion have been published. Early estimates of protein conversion efficiency indicated that beef required 9 to 19 kg of protein to produce 1 kg of edible meat protein, which was 30 to 900% greater than eggs, poultry, pork or milk, due to using total rather than human-edible protein intake [23,24,25]. Ertl et al. [26] indicated that human-edible protein conversion efficiency averaged 1.52 for beef cattle in Austria, which was greater than for pork, eggs, poultry, and mutton, but not milk. Additionally, accounting for the protein quality or biological value of plant vs. meat protein increased the net protein conversion efficiency of beef from 1.52 to 2.81 which compares more favorably with 3.78 (milk), 0.56 to 0.76 (poultry and pork), and 1.04 (eggs and mutton) for other livestock products [26]. Similarly, for many vitamins and minerals absorption by humans is greater from beef than from plant sources [5,6,22]. Adjusting the net nutrient conversion ratio for differences in nutrient absorption between human-edible feedstuffs and beef increased the net nutrient conversion ratio of several nutrients in the current analysis and resulted in the beef production system having a positive net contribution for additional nutrients.
Organ meats are excellent sources of many vitamins and minerals. The organ meats used in this analysis included heart, liver, kidney, spleen, pancreas, and gastrointestinal tract; all of which could be consumed by humans. Including organ meats in the output of human-edible and human-absorbable nutrients increased the net nutrient conversion ratio for all nutrients, and resulted in positive net contributions for Fe, riboflavin, niacin, and choline, but rarely are these organ meats consumed by the US population. Approximately 1.36 million metric tons of organ meats are produced in the beef supply chain annually (calculated from USDA AMS statistics). The pet food industry utilizes 136,000 metric tons of organ meats annually [27] and 300,000 metric tons are exported annually (U.S. Meat Export Federation). It is unlikely that the US population consumes the remaining 924,000 metric tons of organ meats produced (consumption data is unavailable) indicating that most of the organ meats are used for non-food purposes. Consumption of nutrients by pets is not normally included in the analysis of net contribution of nutrients from the beef production system, but many household pets being monogastric animals as humans are benefit from more bioavailable nutrients in beef. Consumption of pet edible feedstuffs such as corn by the beef production system has the same implications as for the human diet as it is using land to produce animal feed rather than directly producing pet food. Increasing the consumption of organ meats by humans and pets would improve the nutrient conversion efficiency of beef production.
Similar to the differences in mineral and B-vitamin nutrient conversion ratios among production phases in the current analysis, Baber et al. [4] reported that the feedlot phase of production consumed the most human-edible protein, whereas the cow-calf phase had the greatest human-edible and net protein conversion efficiency. This trend is based on the diet ingredients used in the different sectors of the beef industry where the vast majority of feedstuffs used in the cow-calf phase are non-edible by humans compared with the feedlot phase where approximately 50% of the feedstuffs are edible by humans, primarily corn grain. Grass-finished beef production systems utilize almost exclusively feedstuffs non-edible by humans resulting in net protein contribution 800 times greater (1597 vs. 1.96) than grain-finished production systems [28]. Additionally, the human-edible protein conversion ratio was 6.1 for Argentina beef production compared with 1.19 for US beef production due to the fact that cattle in Argentina mostly consume pasture and byproducts non-edible by humans [25]. Thus, the net nutrient contribution of any beef production system is primarily determined by the amount of human-edible feedstuffs used in the different production systems.
In agreement with analysis of Thomas et al. [28] and Broderick [25], the analysis of the proportion of corn in the corn grain plus distillers’ grains component of the feedlot diet indicated that corn consumption is an important component of the net nutrient contribution of the beef production system to the human diet. With the exception of Zn and Se, there is a proportion of corn that will allow for a positive net nutrient contribution for all nutrients. However, the proportion of corn required for a positive net contribution for vitamin B6 is low and may not be very practical as inclusion of wet distillers’ grains above 40% of diet dry matter reduces cattle performance [29,30]. To maintain a maximum of 40% wet distillers’ grains in the feedlot diet, the minimum proportion of corn in the corn grain plus distillers’ grains component of the feedlot diet would be 43%. A proportion of 43% would not allow a positive net contribution of iron, B6, riboflavin, or choline when using red meat only, but when organ meats are added, the beef production system becomes a positive net contributor of iron, riboflavin, niacin, and choline at a proportion of 43% corn. The reason for the poor net nutrient conversion ratios for Zn and Se and the lack of a proportion of corn that will allow a positive net contribution is that a large amount of each nutrient is consumed in mineral supplements in forms that are human edible, and that the absorption coefficients for beef are more similar to human-edible feedstuffs than for other nutrients (Table S3).
With corn being the primary human-edible feedstuff consumed by beef cattle, the nutrient concentration and availability in corn is expected to be important to the net nutrient conversion ratio. Ertl et al. [8] suggested that animal production systems could be evaluated based on their ability to transform human-edible protein inputs to animal protein by multiplying the ratio (output/input) of protein quantity with the ratio (output/input) of protein quality. Based on this concept, the ratio of nutrients of beef to corn is likely a good indicator of the net nutrient conversion ratio. The ratio of nutrient concentration in beef to corn multiplied by the ratio of absorption coefficients in beef to corn for each nutrient was strongly correlated (r = 0.99) with the net nutrient conversion ratio.

5. Conclusions

The cow-calf phase of the beef supply chain consumes the least amount of human-edible mineral and B-vitamin nutrients for most nutrients evaluated, resulting in the greatest net nutrient contribution to the human diet. The feedlot phase has the lowest net nutrient contribution to the human diet for all evaluated mineral and B-vitamin nutrients except phosphorus. The stocker phase generally had the least human-edible nutrient consumption and production with net nutrient contribution intermediate of the cow-calf and feedlot phases. Adjusting nutrient consumption and production based on absorbable nutrient improved the net nutrient contribution of the beef supply chain to the human diet as did inclusion of organ meats in the nutrient production calculation. The beef supply chain is a net positive contributor of iron, phosphorus, vitamin B12, riboflavin, niacin, and choline to the human diet. The amount of corn grain consumed by cattle is a primary determinant of the net nutrient contribution of beef production systems. The net nutrient contribution could be improved by decreasing as much as possible the proportion of human-edible feedstuffs in cattle diets and utilizing as much organ meats as possible in human and pet diets.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ani12172170/s1, Table S1. Beef product yield (% shrunk body weight) estimates used to compute human-edible nutrient production; Table S2. Nutrient concentration of feedstuffs, red meat, and organ meats used in summative model; Table S3. Nutrient absorption coefficients (%) of feedstuffs, red meat, and organ meats used in the summative model; Literature used to determine nutrient concentrations [6,21,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62]; Literature used to determine nutrient absorption coefficients [7,19,22,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.A.L., D.P. (Deann Presley), W.F., D.P. (Dustin Pendell), A.A. and A.R.; Methodology, P.A.L., D.P. (Deann Presley), W.F., D.P. (Dustin Pendell) and M.T.; Software, P.A.L. and M.T.; Validation, P.A.L., D.P. (Deann Presley) and W.F.; Formal Analysis, P.A.L. and M.T.; Investigation, P.A.L., D.P. (Deann Presley), W.F., D.P. (Dustin Pendell), A.A. and A.R.; Resources, P.A.L., D.P. (Deann Presley), W.F., D.P. (Dustin Pendell), A.A. and A.R.; Data Curation, P.A.L. and M.T.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, P.A.L. and M.T.; Writing—Review and Editing, P.A.L., D.P. (Deann Presley), W.F., D.P. (Dustin Pendell), A.A., A.R. and M.T.; Visualization, P.A.L., D.P. (Deann Presley), W.F., D.P. (Dustin Pendell), A.A., A.R. and M.T.; Supervision, P.A.L., D.P. (Deann Presley), W.F., D.P. (Dustin Pendell), A.A. and A.R.; Project Administration, P.A.L.; Funding Acquisition, P.A.L., D.P. (Deann Presley), W.F., D.P. (Dustin Pendell), A.A. and A.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This project was funded by the Beef Checkoff #1850.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Oltjen, J.W.; Beckett, J.L. Role of Ruminant Livestock in Sustainable Agricultural Systems. J. Anim. Sci. 1996, 74, 1406–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Wilkinson, J.M. Re-Defining Efficiency of Feed Use by Livestock. Animal 2011, 5, 1014–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ertl, P.; Klocker, H.; Hörtenhuber, S.; Knaus, W.; Zollitsch, W. The Net Contribution of Dairy Production to Human Food Supply: The Case of Austrian Dairy Farms. Agric. Syst. 2015, 137, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Baber, J.R.; Sawyer, J.E.; Wickersham, T.A. Estimation of Human-Edible Protein Conversion Efficiency, Net Protein Contribution, and Enteric Methane Production from Beef Production in the United States. Trans. Anim. Sci. 2018, 2, 439–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ortega-Barrales, P.; Fernández-de Córdova, M.L. Meat. In Handbook of Mineral Elements in Food; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 599–619. ISBN 978-1-118-65431-6. [Google Scholar]
  6. Li, C. The Role of Beef in Human Nutrition and Health. In Ensuring Safety and Quality in the Production of Beef; Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2017; pp. 329–338. ISBN 978-1-78676-060-9. [Google Scholar]
  7. Young, V.R.; Pellett, P.L. Plant Proteins in Relation to Human Protein and Amino Acid Nutrition. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1994, 59, 1203S–1212S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ertl, P.; Knaus, W.; Zollitsch, W. An Approach to Including Protein Quality When Assessing the Net Contribution of Livestock to Human Food Supply. Animal 2016, 10, 1883–1889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Herreman, L.; Nommensen, P.; Pennings, B.; Laus, M.C. Comprehensive Overview of the Quality of Plant- and Animal-Sourced Proteins Based on the Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 8, 5379–5391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ferrell, C.L.; Jenkins, T.G. Relationships among Various Body Components of Mature Cows. J. Anim. Sci. 1984, 58, 222–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sainz, R.D.; Bentley, B.E. Visceral Organ Mass and Cellularity in Growth-Restricted and Refed Beef Steers. J. Anim. Sci. 1997, 75, 1229–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hersom, M.J.; Krehbiel, C.R.; Horn, G.W. Effect of Live Weight Gain of Steers during Winter Grazing: II. Visceral Organ Mass, Cellularity, and Oxygen Consumption. J. Anim. Sci. 2004, 82, 184–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. McCurdy, M.P.; Krehbiel, C.R.; Horn, G.W.; Lancaster, P.A.; Wagner, J.J. Effects of Winter Growing Program on Visceral Organ Mass, Composition, and Oxygen Consumption of Beef Steers during Growing and Finishing. J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 88, 1554–1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sharman, E.D.; Lancaster, P.A.; McMurphy, C.P.; Mafi, G.G.; Starkey, J.D.; Krehbiel, C.R.; Horn, G.W. Effect of Rate of Body Weight Gain of Steers during the Stocker Phase. II. Visceral Organ Mass and Body Composition of Growing-Finishing Beef Cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 2355–2366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wood, K.M.; Awda, B.J.; Fitzsimmons, C.; Miller, S.P.; McBride, B.W.; Swanson, K.C. Influence of Pregnancy in Mid-to-Late Gestation on Circulating Metabolites, Visceral Organ Mass, and Abundance of Proteins Relating to Energy Metabolism in Mature Beef Cows. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 5775–5784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wood, K.M.; Awda, B.J.; Fitzsimmons, C.; Miller, S.P.; McBride, B.W.; Swanson, K.C. Effect of Moderate Dietary Restriction on Visceral Organ Weight, Hepatic Oxygen Consumption, and Metabolic Proteins Associated with Energy Balance in Mature Pregnant Beef Cows. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 4245–4255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Deglaire, A.; Moughan, P.J. Animal Models for Determining Amino Acid Digestibility in Humans—A Review. Br. J. Nutr. 2012, 108, S273–S281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wu, G.; Hicks, T.M.; Frost, D.; Staincliffe, M.; Farouk, M.M. Organ-Meat Functionality and Digestibility. In Proceedings of the 64th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, Melbourne, Australia, 12–17 August 2018. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ball, G.F.M. Niacin and Tryptophan. In Bioavailability and Analysis of Vitamins in Foods; Ball, G.F.M., Ed.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1998; pp. 319–359. ISBN 978-1-4899-3414-7. [Google Scholar]
  20. Combs, G.F. The Vitamins: Fundamental Aspects in Nutrition and Health; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  21. United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies. Available online: https://data.nal.usda.gov/ (accessed on 13 January 2022).
  22. O’Dell, B.L.; Sunde, R.A. (Eds.) Handbook of Nutritionally Essential Mineral Elements; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 1997; ISBN 0-8247-9312-9. [Google Scholar]
  23. Flachowsky, G. Efficiency of Energy and Nutrient Use in the Production of Edible Protein of Animal Origin. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2002, 22, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Peters, C.J.; Picardy, J.A.; Darrouzet-Nardi, A.; Griffin, T.S. Feed Conversions, Ration Compositions, and Land Use Efficiencies of Major Livestock Products in U.S. Agricultural Systems. Agric. Syst. 2014, 130, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Broderick, G.A. Review: Optimizing Ruminant Conversion of Feed Protein to Human Food Protein. Animal 2018, 12, 1722–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ertl, P.; Steinwidder, A.; Schonauer, M.; Krimberger, K.; Knaus, W.; Zollitsch, W. Net Food Production of Different Livestock: A National Analysis for Austria Including Relative Occupation of Different Land Categories. J. Land Manag. Food Environ. 2016, 67, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Anonymous. Pet Food Production and Ingredient Analysis. Available online: https://www.petfoodinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/20200310-Pet-Food-Report-FINAL.pdf (accessed on 7 January 2022).
  28. Thomas, D.T.; Beletse, Y.G.; Dominik, S.; Lehnert, S.A. Net Protein Contribution and Enteric Methane Production of Pasture and Grain-Finished Beef Cattle Supply Chains. Animal 2021, 15, 100392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Klopfenstein, T.J.; Erickson, G.E.; Bremer, V.R. Board-Invited Review: Use of Distillers by-Products in the Beef Cattle Feeding Industry. J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 86, 1223–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Watson, A.K.; Vander Pol, K.J.; Huls, T.J.; Luebbe, M.K.; Erickson, G.E.; Klopfenstein, T.J.; Greenquist, M.A. Effect of Dietary Inclusion of Wet or Modified Distillers Grains plus Solubles on Performance of Finishing Cattle11A Contribution of the University of Nebraska Agricultural Research Division, Supported in Part by Funds Provided through the Hatch Act. Prof. Anim. Sci. 2014, 30, 585–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Abdilova, G.; Rebezov, M.; Nesterenko, A.; Safronov, S.; Knysh, I.; Ivanova, I.; Mikolaychik, I.; Morozova, L. Characteristics of Meat By-Products: Nutritional and Biological Value. Int. J. Mod. Agric. 2021, 10, 3895–3904. [Google Scholar]
  32. Adams, J.F.; McEwan, F.; Wilson, A. The vitamin B12 content of meals and items of diet. British. J. Nutr. 1973, 29, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Arthur, D. Selenium Content of Canadian Foods. Can. Inst. Food Sci. Technol. J. 1972, 5, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Biel, W.; Czerniawska-Piątkowska, E.; Kowalczyk, A. Offal Chemical Composition from Veal, Beef, and Lamb Maintained in Organic Production Systems. Animals 2019, 9, 489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Daun, C.; Åkesson, B. Glutathione Peroxidase Activity, and Content of Total and Soluble Selenium in Five Bovine and Porcine Organs Used in Meat Production. Meat Sci. 2004, 66, 801–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Elvehjem, C.A.; Peterson, W.H. The iron content of animal tissues. J. Biol. Chem. 1927, 74, 433–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Engel, R.W. The Choline Content of Animal and Plant Products. J. Nutr. 1943, 25, 441–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Forbes, E.B.; Swift, R.W. The iron content of meats. J. Biol. Chem. 1926, 67, 517–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Francis, C.K.; Trowbridge, P.F. Phosphorus in Beef Animals. Part II. J. Biol. Chem. 1910, 8, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gille, D.; Schmid, A. Vitamin B12 in Meat and Dairy Products. Nutr. Rev. 2015, 73, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Van Heerden, S.M.; Morey, L. Nutrient Content of South African C2 Beef Offal. Food Meas. 2014, 8, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Henderson, L.M.; Waisman, H.A.; Elvehjem, C.A. The Distribution of Pyridoxine (Vitamin B6) in Meat and Meat Products. J. Nutr. 1941, 21, 589–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Howe, J.C.; Williams, J.; Holden, J.M.; Zeisel, S.H.; Mar, M.-H. USDA Database for the Choline Content of Common Foods. Available online: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Choline/Choline.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2021).
  44. Kesterson, H.F.; Nutrient Analysis of Ten Raw U.S. Beef Variety Meat Items and Beef Flavor Myology. Text, Colorado State University. 2017. Available online: https://mountainscholar.org/handle/10217/191483 (accessed on 5 June 2021).
  45. Kizlaitis, L.; Steinfeld, M.I.; Siedler, A.J. Nutrient Content of Variety Meats. J. Food Sci. 1962, 27, 459–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lawler, T.L.; Taylor, J.B.; Finley, J.W.; Caton, J.S. Effect of Supranutritional and Organically Bound Selenium on Performance, Carcass Characteristics, and Selenium Distribution in Finishing Beef Steers. J. Anim. Sci. 2004, 82, 1488–1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Luecke, R.W.; Pearson, P.B. The determination of free choline in animal tissues. J. Biol. Chem. 1944, 155, 507–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. McIntire, J.M.; Schweigert, B.S.; Elvehjem, C.A. The Choline and Pyridoxine Content of Meats. J. Nutr. 1944, 28, 219–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Morris, V.C.; Levander, O.A. Selenium Content of Foods. J. Nutr. 1970, 100, 1383–1388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Eighth Revised Edition; Animal Nutrition Series; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-0-309-31702-3. [Google Scholar]
  51. National Research Council United States. Canadian Tables of Feed Composition: Nutritional Data for United States and Canadian Feeds, Third Revision, 3rd ed.; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  52. National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry: Ninth Revised Edition, 9th ed.; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  53. National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Swine: Eleventh Revised Edition, 11th ed.; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-0-309-22423-9. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ockerman, H.W.; Basu, L. By-Products. In Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences; Devine, C., Dikeman, M., Eds.; Elsevier Academic Press Inc: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 104–112. ISBN 978-0-08-092444-1. [Google Scholar]
  55. Rouser, G.; Simon, G.; Kritchevsky, G. Species Variations in Phospholipid Class Distribution of Organs: I. Kidney, Liver and Spleen. Lipids 1969, 4, 599–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Scheid, H.E.; Andrews, M.M.; Schweigert, B.S. Comparison of Methods for Determination of the Vitamin B12 Potency of Meats: One Figure. J. Nutr. 1952, 47, 601–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Scheid, H.E.; Schweigert, B.S. Vitamin B12 Content of Organ Meats. J. Nutr. 1954, 53, 419–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Seong, P.N.; Kang, G.H.; Park, K.M.; Cho, S.H.; Kang, S.M.; Park, B.Y.; Moon, S.S.; Ba, H.V. Characterization of Hanwoo Bovine By-Products by Means of Yield, Physicochemical and Nutritional Compositions. Korean J. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2014, 34, 434–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Simon, G.; Rouser, G. Species Variations in Phospholipid Class Distribution of Organs: II. Heart and Skeletal Muscle. Lipids 1969, 4, 607–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ullrey, D.E.; Brady, P.S.; Whetter, P.A.; Ku, P.K.; Magee, W.T. Selenium Supplementation of Diets for Sheep and Beef Cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 1977, 45, 559–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Valenzuela, C.; López de Romaña, D.; Olivares, M.; Morales, M.S.; Pizarro, F. Total Iron and Heme Iron Content and Their Distribution in Beef Meat and Viscera. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2009, 132, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Williams, P. Nutritional Composition of Red Meat. Nutr. Diet. 2007, 64, S113–S119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Adams, C.L.; Hambidge, M.; Raboy, V.; Dorsch, J.A.; Sian, L.; Westcott, J.L.; Krebs, N.F. Zinc Absorption from a Low–Phytic Acid Maize. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2002, 76, 556–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Almeida, F.N.; Petersen, G.I.; Stein, H.H. Digestibility of Amino Acids in Corn, Corn Coproducts, and Bakery Meal Fed to Growing Pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 89, 4109–4115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Aoyagi, S.; Hiney, K.M.; Baker, D.H. Estimates of Zinc and Iron Bioavailability in Pork Liver and the Effect of Sex of Pig on the Bioavailability of Copper in Pork Liver Fed to Male and Female Chicks. J. Anim. Sci. 1995, 73, 793–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ball, G.F.M. Riboflavin and Other Flavins (Vitamin B2). In Bioavailability and Analysis of Vitamins in Foods; Ball, G.F.M., Ed.; Springer US: Boston, MA, USA, 1998; pp. 293–317. ISBN 978-1-4899-3414-7. [Google Scholar]
  67. Bindari, Y.R.; Lærke, H.N.; Nørgaard, J.V. Standardized Ileal Digestibility and Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score of Porcine and Bovine Hydrolyzates in Pigs. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 2131–2137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Bohlke, R.A.; Thaler, R.C.; Stein, H.H. Calcium, Phosphorus, and Amino Acid Digestibility in Low-Phytate Corn, Normal Corn, and Soybean Meal by Growing Pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 2005, 83, 2396–2403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Brnić, M.; Wegmüller, R.; Zeder, C.; Senti, G.; Hurrell, R.F. Influence of Phytase, EDTA, and Polyphenols on Zinc Absorption in Adults from Porridges Fortified with Zinc Sulfate or Zinc Oxide. J. Nutr. 2014, 144, 1467–1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Budowski, P.; Kafri, I.; Sklan, D. Utilization of Choline From Crude Soybean Lecithin by Chicks: 2. Absorption Measurements. Poult. Sci. 1977, 56, 754–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Carter, E.G.A.; Carpenter, K.J. The Available Niacin Values of Foods for Rats and Their Relation to Analytical Values. J. Nutr. 1982, 112, 2091–2103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Çatak, J. Determination of Niacin Profiles in Some Animal and Plant Based Foods by High Performance Liquid Chromatography: Association with Healthy Nutrition. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2019, 61, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Cervantes-Pahm, S.K.; Liu, Y.; Stein, H.H. Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score and Digestible Amino Acids in Eight Cereal Grains. Br. J. Nutr. 2014, 111, 1663–1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Chomba, E.; Westcott, C.M.; Westcott, J.E.; Mpabalwani, E.M.; Krebs, N.F.; Patinkin, Z.W.; Palacios, N.; Hambidge, K.M. Zinc Absorption from Biofortified Maize Meets the Requirements of Young Rural Zambian Children. J. Nutr. 2015, 145, 514–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Christensen, M.J.; Janghorbani, M.; Steinke, F.H.; Istfan, N.; Young, V.R. Simultaneous Determination of Absorption of Selenium from Poultry Meat and Selenite in Young Men: Application of a Triple Stable-Isotope Method. Br. J. Nutr. 1983, 50, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Chung, T.K.; Baker, D.H. Riboflavin Requirement of Chicks Fed Purified Amino Acid and Conventional Corn-Soybean Meal Diets. Poult. Sci. 1990, 69, 1357–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Cook, J.D.; Reddy, M.B.; Burri, J.; Juillerat, M.A.; Hurrell, R.F. The Influence of Different Cereal Grains on Iron Absorption from Infant Cereal Foods. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1997, 65, 964–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Emmert, J.L.; Baker, D.H. A Chick Bioassay Approach for Determining the Bioavailable Choline Concentration in Normal and Overheated Soybean Meal, Canola Meal and Peanut Meal. J. Nutr. 1997, 127, 745–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Farouk, M.M.; Wu, G.; Frost, D.A.; Staincliffe, M.; Knowles, S.O. Factors Affecting the Digestibility of Beef and Consequences for Designing Meat-Centric Meals. J. Food Qual. 2019, 2019, e2590182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Finley, J.W. The Retention and Distribution by Healthy Young Men of Stable Isotopes of Selenium Consumed as Selenite, Selenate or Hydroponically-Grown Broccoli Are Dependent on the Isotopic Form. J. Nutr. 1999, 129, 865–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Gallaher, D.D.; Johnson, P.E.; Hunt, J.R.; Lykken, G.I.; Marchello, M.J. Bioavailability in Humans of Zinc from Beef: Intrinsic vs Extrinsic Labels. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1988, 48, 350–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Gregory, J.F., III; Trumbo, P.R.; Bailey, L.B.; Toth, J.P.; Baumgartner, T.G.; Cerda, J.J. Bioavailability of Pyridoxine-5′-β-D-Glucoside Determined in Humans by Stable-Isotopic Methods. J. Nutr. 1991, 121, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Griffiths, N.M.; Stewart, R.D.H.; Robinson, M.F. The Metabolism of [75Se] Selenomethionine in Four Women. Br. J. Nutr. 1976, 35, 373–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hambidge, K.M.; Huffer, J.W.; Raboy, V.; Grunwald, G.K.; Westcott, J.L.; Sian, L.; Miller, L.V.; Dorsch, J.A.; Krebs, N.F. Zinc Absorption from Low-Phytate Hybrids of Maize and Their Wild-Type Isohybrids. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2004, 79, 1053–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Harris, R.S.; Mosher, L.M.; Bunker, J.W.M. The Nutritional Availability of Iron in Molasses. Am. J. Dig. Dis. 1939, 6, 459–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Heyssel, R.M.; Bozian, R.C.; Darby, W.J.; Bell, M.C. Vitamin B12 Turnover in Man. The Assimilation of Vitamin B12 from Natural Foodstuff by Man and Estimates of Minimal Daily Dietary Requirements. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1966, 18, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Hodgkinson, S.M.; Montoya, C.A.; Scholten, P.T.; Rutherfurd, S.M.; Moughan, P.J. Cooking Conditions Affect the True Ileal Digestible Amino Acid Content and Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS) of Bovine Meat as Determined in Pigs. J. Nutr. 2018, 148, 1564–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Folate, Vitamin B12, Pantothenic Acid, Biotin, and Choline; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1998; ISBN 978-0-309-06554-2. [Google Scholar]
  89. Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Selenium, and Carotenoids; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2000; ISBN 978-0-309-06935-9. [Google Scholar]
  90. Itkonen, S.T.; Karp, H.J.; Lamberg-Allardt, C.J.E. Bioavailability of Phosphorus. In Dietary Phosphorus: Health, Nutrition, and Regulatory Aspects; Uribarri, J., Calvo, M.S., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; pp. 221–233. [Google Scholar]
  91. Johnson, J.M.; Walker, P.M. Zinc and Iron Utilization in Young Women Consuming a Beef-Based Diet. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1992, 92, 1474–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Johnson, P.E.; Gallaher, D.D.; Lykken, G.I.; Hunt, J.R. Zinc Availability from Beef Served with Various Carbohydrates or Beverages. Nutr. Res. 1990, 10, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Layrisse, M.; Cook, J.D.; Martinez, C.; Roche, M.; Kuhn, I.N.; Walker, R.B.; Finch, C.A. Food Iron Absorption: A Comparison of Vegetable and Animal Foods. Blood 1969, 33, 430–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Li, S.F.; Niu, Y.B.; Liu, J.S.; Lu, L.; Zhang, L.Y.; Ran, C.Y.; Feng, M.S.; Du, B.; Deng, J.L.; Luo, X.G. Energy, Amino Acid, and Phosphorus Digestibility of Phytase Transgenic Corn for Growing Pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 298–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Long, Z.; Pittman, M.S. Utilization of Meat by Human Subjects: II. The Utilization of the Nitrogen and Phosphorus of Round and Liver of Beef. J. Nutr. 1935, 9, 677–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Martínez-Torres, C.; Layrisse, M. Iron Absorption from Veal Muscle. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1971, 24, 531–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Maseta, E.; Mosha, T.C.; Nyaruhucha, C.; Laswai, H. Nutritional Quality of Quality Protein Maize-Based Supplementary Foods. Nutr. Food Sci. 2017, 47, 42–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Mazariegos, M.; Hambidge, K.M.; Krebs, N.F.; Westcott, J.E.; Lei, S.; Grunwald, G.K.; Campos, R.; Barahona, B.; Raboy, V.; Solomons, N.W. Zinc Absorption in Guatemalan Schoolchildren Fed Normal or Low-Phytate Maize. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2006, 83, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. McClellan, W.S.; Rupp, V.R.; Toscani, V. Clinical Calorimetry. XLVI. Prolonged Meat Diets with a Study of the Metabolism of Nitrogen, Calcium, and Phosphorus. J. Biol. Chem. 1930, 87, 669–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Mendoza, C.; Viteri, F.E.; Lönnerdal, B.; Young, K.A.; Raboy, V.; Brown, K.H. Effect of Genetically Modified, Low-Phytic Acid Maize on Absorption of Iron from Tortillas. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1998, 68, 1123–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Menten, J.; Pesti, G.; Bakalli, R. A New Method for Determining the Availability of Choline in Soybean Meal. Poult. Sci. 1997, 76, 1292–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Moser-Veillon, P.; Reed Mangels, A.; Patterson, Y.K.; Veillon, C. Utilization of Two Different Chemical Forms of Selenium during Lactation Using Stable Isotope Tracers: An Example of Speciation in Nutrition. Analyst 1992, 117, 559–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Nakano, H.; McMahon, L.G.; Gregory, J.F. III Pyridoxine-5′-β-D-Glucoside Exhibits Incomplete Bioavailability as a Source of Vitamin B-6 and Partially Inhibits the Utilization of Co-Ingested Pyridoxine in Humans. J. Nutr. 1997, 127, 1508–1513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Nyberg, W.; Reizenstein, P. Intestinal Absorption of Radiovitamin B12 Bound in Pig Liver. Lancet 1958, 2, 832–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Oberli, M.; Marsset-Baglieri, A.; Airinei, G.; Santé-Lhoutellier, V.; Khodorova, N.; Rémond, D.; Foucault-Simonin, A.; Piedcoq, J.; Tomé, D.; Fromentin, G.; et al. High True Ileal Digestibility but Not Postprandial Utilization of Nitrogen from Bovine Meat Protein in Humans Is Moderately Decreased by High-Temperature, Long-Duration Cooking. J. Nutr. 2015, 145, 2221–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. O’Leary, F.; Samman, S. Vitamin B12 in Health and Disease. Nutrients 2010, 2, 299–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Patterson, B.H.; Levander, O.A.; Helzlsouer, K.; McAdam, P.A.; Lewis, S.A.; Taylor, P.R.; Veillon, C.; Zech, L.A. Human Selenite Metabolism: A Kinetic Model. Am. J. Physiol.-Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 1989, 257, R556–R567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kunerth, B.L.; Pittman, M.S. A Longtime Study of Nitrogen, Calcium and Phosphorus Metabolism on a Low-Protein Diet. J. Nutr. 1939, 17, 161–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Reizenstein, P.G.; Nyberg, W. Intestinal Absorption of Liver-Bound Radiovitamin B12 in Patients with Pernicious Anaemia and in Controls. Lancet 1959, 2, 248–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Rohse, W.G.; Searle, G.W. Absorption of Choline from Intestinal Loops in Dogs. Am. J. Physiol.-Leg. Content 1955, 181, 207–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. De Romaña, D.L.; Lönnerdal, B.; Brown, K.H. Absorption of Zinc from Wheat Products Fortified with Iron and Either Zinc Sulfate or Zinc Oxide. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2003, 78, 279–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Roth-Maier, D.A.; Kettler, S.I.; Kirchgessner, M. Availability of Vitamin B 6 from Different Food Sources. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2002, 53, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Roth-Maier, D.A.; Kirchgessner, M. Investigations on the precaecal digestibility of natural thiamine, riboflavin and natural pantothenic acid in the swine animal model. Z Ernahr. 1996, 35, 318–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Roth-Maier, D.A.; Kirchgessner, M.; Erhardt, W.; Henke, J.; Hennig, U. Comparative Studies for the Determination of Precaecal Digestibility as a Measure for the Availability of B-Vitamins. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 1998, 79, 198–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Roth-Maier, D.; Wauer, A.; Stangl, G.; Kirchgessner, M. Precaecal Digestibility of Niacin and Pantothenic Acid from Different Foods. Int. J. Vitam. Nutr. Res. 2000, 70, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Schuette, S.A.; Linkswiler, H.M. Effects on Ca and P Metabolism in Humans by Adding Meat, Meat Plus Milk, or Purified Proteins Plus Ca and P to a Low Protein Diet. J. Nutr. 1982, 112, 338–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Sirichakwal, P.P.; Young, V.R.; Janghorbani, M. Absorption and Retention of Selenium from Intrinsically Labeled Egg and Selenite as Determined by Stable Isotope Studies in Humans. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1985, 41, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Spencer, J.D.; Allee, G.L.; Sauber, T.E. Phosphorus Bioavailability and Digestibility of Normal and Genetically Modified Low-Phytate Corn for Pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 2000, 78, 675–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Thomson, C.D.; Robinson, M.F. Urinary and Fecal Excretions and Absorption of a Large Supplement of Selenium: Superiority of Selenate over Selenite. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1986, 44, 659–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Tran, C.D.; Miller, L.V.; Krebs, N.F.; Lei, S.; Hambidge, K.M. Zinc Absorption as a Function of the Dose of Zinc Sulfate in Aqueous Solution. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2004, 80, 1570–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Tsubaki, H.; Komai, T. Intestinal Absorption of Choline in Rats. J. Pharm.-Dyn. 1987, 10, 571–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Turnbull, A.; Cleton, F.; Finch, C.A. Iron Absorption. IV. The Absorption of Hemoglobin Iron. J. Clin. Invest. 1962, 41, 1897–1907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Vrzhesinskaia, O.A.; Kodentsova, V.M.; Spirichev, V.B. Absorption of vitamin B2 from plant and animal food products. Fiziolohichnyi Zhurnal 1994, 40, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  124. Wauer, A.; Stangl, G.I.; Kirchgessner, M.; Erhardt, W.; Henke, J.; Hennig, U.; Roth-Maier, D.A. A Comparative Evaluation of Ileo-Rectal Anastomosis Techniques for the Measurement of Apparent Precaecal Digestibilities of Folate, Niacin and Pantothenic Acid. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 1999, 82, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Weremko, D.; Fandrejewski, H.; Zebrowska, T.; Han, I.K.; Kim, J.H.; Cho, W.T. Bioavailability of Phosphorus in Feeds of Plant Origin for Pigs—Review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 1997, 10, 551–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Yen, J.T.; Jensen, A.H.; Baker, D.H. Assessment of the Concentration of Biologically Available Vitamin B-6 in Corn and Soybean Meal. J. Anim. Sci. 1976, 42, 866–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Zhai, H.; Adeola, O. True Total-Tract Digestibility of Phosphorus in Corn and Soybean Meal for Fifteen-Kilogram Pigs Are Additive in Corn–Soybean Meal Diet. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 219–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Zheng, J.J.; Mason, J.B.; Rosenberg, I.H.; Wood, R.J. Measurement of Zinc Bioavailability from Beef and a Ready-to-Eat High-Fiber Breakfast Cereal in Humans: Application of a Whole-Gut Lavage Technique. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1993, 58, 902–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Zierenberg, O.; Grundy, S.M. Intestinal Absorption of Polyenephosphatidylcholine in Man. J. Lipid Res. 1982, 23, 1136–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Ingredient composition and human-edible fraction of feedstuffs for each phase of the beef supply chain used in the summative model.
Table 1. Ingredient composition and human-edible fraction of feedstuffs for each phase of the beef supply chain used in the summative model.
Production Phase and Diet IngredientHuman-Edible Fraction, % 1Dietary Amount, % as-Fed
Cow-calf phase
Bermudagrass, fresh097.75
Cottonseed meal01.99
Corn grain (filler in mineral)1000.01
Mineral supplementNutrient dependent 20.25
Stocker phase
Wheat forage097.12
Corn grain1001.00
Distiller’s grains, dry01.50
Mineral supplementNutrient dependent 20.38
Feedlot receiving phase
Alfalfa hay016.70
Corn silage5026.36
Steam-flaked corn10018.01
Distiller’s grains, wet035.24
Molasses1001.76
Urea00.53
Mineral supplementNutrient dependent 21.40
Feedlot finishing phase
Alfalfa hay02.12
Corn silage5020.43
Steam-flaked corn10042.24
Distiller’s grains, wet029.58
Molasses1002.79
Urea00.72
Tallow00.62
Mineral supplementNutrient dependent 21.49
1 Percent of feed ingredient that is human-edible. 2 Iron = 0% as iron oxide, Zinc = 100% as zinc sulfate, Selenium = 100% as selenite, Phosphorus = 100% mono- or di-calcium phosphate, vitamins (B12, B6, riboflavin, niacin, choline) = not applicable.
Table
Table 2. Production parameters used in the summative model to estimate human edible nutrient intake, production, and conversion ratio.
Table 2. Production parameters used in the summative model to estimate human edible nutrient intake, production, and conversion ratio.
ParameterValue
Cow-calf phase
Days on feed, d365
Age of calf at weaning, d207
Cows per bull24
Calving rate, %88.6
Calf mortality rate, %4.0
Cow mortality rate, %2.8
Cow culling rate, %10.2
Calves sent direct to feedlot, %22.8
Calves sent to stocker, %77.2
Replacement heifers per cow0.19
Mature cow body weight, kg571
Bull body weight, kg907
Weaned steer body weight, kg253
Weaned heifer body weight, kg240
Replacement heifer body weight at breeding, kg342
Dry cow feed intake, kg DM/d10.40
Lactating cow feed intake, kg DM/d12.75
Bull feed intake, kg DM/d18.45
Replacement heifer feed intake, kg DM/d7.20
Steer calf feed intake, kg DM/d3.42
Heifer calf feed intake, kg DM/d3.28
Stocker phase
Days on feed, d129
Mortality rate, %1.5
Steer body weight entering feedlot, kg360
Heifer body weight entering feedlot, kg326
Steer feed intake, kg DM/d6.92
Heifer feed intake, kg DM/d6.52
Feedlot phase
Days on feed, d159
Mortality rate (heavyweight), %1.3
Mortality rate (lightweight), %2.0
Finished steer body weight, kg649
Finished heifer body weight, kg588
Steer feed intake, kg DM/d10.17
Heifer feed intake, kg DM/d9.21
Table
Table 3. Human-edible nutrient conversion efficiency of the beef supply chain (red meat yield only).
Table 3. Human-edible nutrient conversion efficiency of the beef supply chain (red meat yield only).
ItemIronZincSeleniumPhosphorusB6RiboflavinNiacinNiacin + TrpCholine
Cow-calf
Intake, mg764115,475,83278,531241,130116118341265654107,277
Production, mg228,463519,31323641,852,30536,90519,683448,138825,9807,987,407
Conversion ratio29.900.030.037.6831.78107.33108.61146.0874.46
Stocker
Intake, mg90,6042,244,94117,76040,11513,772217448,92667,0471,272,080
Production, mg58,440132,840605473,81794405035114,633211,2852,043,169
Conversion ratio0.650.060.0311.810.692.322.343.151.61
Feedlot
Intake, mg2,692,9118,557,32865,609221,400442,68277,2541,508,6012,104,54738,994,033
Production, mg246,866561,14725542,001,51839,87821,268484,238892,5178,630,833
Conversion ratio0.090.070.049.040.090.280.320.420.22
Supply chain
Intake, mg2,791,15626,278,101161,901502,644457,61579,6111,561,6542,177,24840,373,391
Production, mg533,7701,213,29955224,327,64086,22445,9861,047,0101,929,78318,661,409
Conversion ratio0.190.050.038.610.190.580.670.890.46
Table
Table 4. Human-edible nutrient conversion efficiency of the beef supply chain (red + organ meat yield).
Table 4. Human-edible nutrient conversion efficiency of the beef supply chain (red + organ meat yield).
ItemIronZincSeleniumPhosphorusB6RiboflavinNiacinNiacin + TrpCholine
Cow-calf
Intake, mg764115,475,83278,531241,130116118341265654107,277
Production, mg544,957544,24750544,086,27577,29052,137982,9211,760,13617,687,328
Conversion ratio71.320.040.0616.9566.55284.31238.22331.30164.87
Stocker
Intake, mg90,6042,244,94117,76040,11513,772217448,92667,0471,272,080
Production, mg140,755138,43813071,050,40820,05814,242255,141455,2684,649,087
Conversion ratio1.550.060.0726.181.466.555.216.793.65
Feedlot
Intake, mg2,692,9118,557,32865,609221,400442,68277,2541,508,6012,104,54738,994,033
Production, mg568,475580,45453574,338,67083,25154,9951,049,8061,886,95018,925,592
Conversion ratio0.210.070.0819.600.190.700.700.900.49
Supply chain
Intake, mg2,791,15626,278,101161,901502,644457,61579,6111,561,6542,177,24840,373,391
Production, mg1,254,1881,263,13811,7179,475,353180,600121,3742,287,8684,102,35341,262,008
Conversion ratio0.450.050.0718.850.391.521.471.881.02
Table
Table 5. Human-absorbable nutrient conversion efficiency of the beef supply chain (red meat yield only).
Table 5. Human-absorbable nutrient conversion efficiency of the beef supply chain (red meat yield only).
ItemIronZincSeleniumPhosphorusB6RiboflavinNiacinNiacin + TrpCholine
Cow-calf
Intake, mg4581,733,62442,431204,7086211151650287380,458
Production, mg41,417188,69821041,278,09132,84617,518378,677747,0737,588,036
Conversion ratio90.340.110.056.2452.86151.63229.44260.0494.31
Stocker
Intake, mg5436255,352987831,1027368137019,57034,067954,060
Production, mg10,59448,269538326,9348402448196,865191,1001,941,010
Conversion ratio1.950.190.0510.511.143.274.955.612.03
Feedlot
Intake, mg154,0261,078,86149,017107,492242,45048,670620,6611,100,28829,147,368
Production, mg44,753203,89822731,381,04735,49218,929409,181807,2538,199,292
Conversion ratio0.290.190.0512.850.150.390.660.730.28
Supply chain
Intake, mg159,9213,067,837101,327343,302250,44050,155641,8821,137,22830,181,887
Production, mg96,764440,86449152,986,07276,74040,928884,7231,745,42717,728,338
Conversion ratio0.610.140.058.700.310.821.381.530.59
Table
Table 6. Human-absorbable nutrient conversion efficiency of the beef supply chain (red + organ meat yield).
Table 6. Human-absorbable nutrient conversion efficiency of the beef supply chain (red + organ meat yield).
ItemIronZincSeleniumPhosphorusB6RiboflavinNiacinNiacin + TrpCholine
Cow-calf
Intake, mg4581,733,62442,431204,7086211151650287380,458
Production, mg92,516383,90244982,806,17268,78847,168843,9981,601,45916,683,085
Conversion ratio201.800.220.1113.71110.71408.28511.38557.43207.35
Stocker
Intake, mg5436255,352987831,1027368137019,57034,067954,060
Production, mg23,81598,0891163721,18417,85212,925219,605414,6264,377,241
Conversion ratio4.380.380.1223.192.429.4411.2212.174.59
Feedlot
Intake, mg154,0261,078,86149,017107,492242,45048,670620,6611,100,28829,147,368
Production, mg97,727412,81847682,981,93574,09449,693899,6921,715,59817,862,838
Conversion ratio0.630.380.1027.740.311.021.451.560.61
Supply chain
Intake, mg159,9213,067,837101,327343,302250,44050,155641,8821,137,22830,181,887
Production, mg214,058894,00010,4286,509,291160,734109,7871,963,2953,731,68438,923,164
Conversion ratio1.340.290.1018.960.642.193.063.281.29
Table
Table 7. Proportion of corn grain replacing distiller’s grains in feedlot diets where net nutrient conversion is equal to or greater than 1.
Table 7. Proportion of corn grain replacing distiller’s grains in feedlot diets where net nutrient conversion is equal to or greater than 1.
ItemIronZincSeleniumPhosphorusB6RiboflavinNiacinNiacin + TrpCholine
Red meat only
Edible conversionNPNPNP100.000.6425.4335.5447.1921.53
Absorbable conversion21.98NPNP100.009.5743.6281.1689.5230.48
Red and organ meat
Edible conversion5.65NPNP100.0015.3395.4286.13100.0058.25
Absorbable conversion86.27NPNP100.0032.15100.00100.00100.0074.43
NP = not possible, proportion of corn necessary for net nutrient conversion equal to one is below 0%.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lancaster, P.A.; Presley, D.; Fick, W.; Pendell, D.; Ahlers, A.; Ricketts, A.; Tang, M. Net Conversion of Human-Edible Vitamins and Minerals in the U.S. Southern Great Plains Beef Production System. Animals 2022, 12, 2170. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172170

AMA Style

Lancaster PA, Presley D, Fick W, Pendell D, Ahlers A, Ricketts A, Tang M. Net Conversion of Human-Edible Vitamins and Minerals in the U.S. Southern Great Plains Beef Production System. Animals. 2022; 12(17):2170. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172170

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lancaster, Phillip A., Deann Presley, Walt Fick, Dustin Pendell, Adam Ahlers, Andrew Ricketts, and Minfeng Tang. 2022. "Net Conversion of Human-Edible Vitamins and Minerals in the U.S. Southern Great Plains Beef Production System" Animals 12, no. 17: 2170. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172170

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop