Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T00:21:33.873Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Engineering plants for animal feed for improved nutritional value

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2007

Peter E. V. Williams
Peter E. V. Williams*
Affiliation:
Syngenta Crop Protection AG, WRO-1002.13.63, Schwarzwaldallee 215, CH-4058, Basel, Switzerland
*
Corresponding author: Dr Peter E. V. Williams, fax +4161 323 69 44, [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Feed formulation to meet nutritional requirements of livestock is becoming increasingly challenging. Regulations have banned the use of traditional high-quality protein supplements such as meat-and-bone meal, pollution from animal excreta of N and P is an issue and antibiotics are no longer available as insurance against the impact of enteric infection and feed anti-nutritional factors. The improved genetic potential of livestock is increasing daily requirement for energy and protein (essential amino acids). To benefit from the enhanced growth potential of livestock diets with high nutrient density are needed that can be formulated from crops without increased cost. Genetic modification of commodity crops used to manufacture animal feed in order to improve the density and quality of available nutrients is a potential solution to some of these problems. Furthermore, crops may be used as biofactories to produce molecules and products used in animal feed with considerable reductions in manufacturing fixed costs. Nevertheless, there are considerable not insurmountable challenges, such as the creation of sufficient economic value to deliver benefit to all members in the feed production chain, which is an essential element of identity preserving and delivering the technology to livestock producers. Individual output traits in the major commodity crops may not provide sufficient value to adequately compensate all the members of the feed production chain. Successful adoption of output traits may rely on inserting combinations of agronomic input traits with specific quality traits or increasing the value proposition by inserting combinations of output traits.

Keywords

FeedGenetic engineeringGenetically-modified crops
Type
The food chain: Plants, animals and man Plenary Lecture
Information
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , May 2003 , pp. 301 - 309
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 2003

References

Aumaitre, L-A (2001) Equivalence substantielle et nutritionelle des nouveaux aliments issus d'organisms genetiquement modifies: efficacite et securite chez les animaux de ferme (Substantial nutritional equivalence of new foods derived from genetically-modified organisms: effectiveness and safety for farm animals) International Conference, GMO and Food: Can Benefits for Health be Evaluated 226–241 Paris Agence Francaise de Securite Sanitaire des AlimentsGoogle Scholar
Avery, AA (2001) The war against confinement livestock: Strategies for success. Annual Nutrition Conference of the Poultry Federation for Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, 2000.Google Scholar
Baumel, CP, Yu, T, Hardy, C, Johnson, LA, McVey, MJ & Sell, J (1999) Genetically modified corn has impact on feed consumption. Feedstuffs 71 27 September issue, 16Google Scholar
Bennett, R (2000) Non-GMO diet demands will hit pig farms hard Farmers Weekly 9 June issue, 47.Google Scholar
Chen, L, Marmey, P, Taylor, NJ, Brizard, J-P, Espinoza, C, D'Cruz, P, Huet, H, Zhang, S, de, Kochko, A, Beachy, RN Fauquet, CM (1998) Expression and inheritance of multiple transgenes in rice plants. Nature Biotechnology 16, 1060–1064CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chung, C & Pettigrew, JE (1998) Economics of soybean biotechnology in the livestock industry. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 1, 373–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, JH & Ipharranguerre, IR (2001) Livestock performance: Feeding biotech crops. Journal of Dairy Science 84 E9 – E18 Suppl.Google Scholar
Farmers, Weekly (2000) Isolating GM crops will see costs soar. Farmers Weekly 4 August issue, 6.Google Scholar
Folmer, JD, Grant, RJ, Milton, CT & Beck, J (2002) Utilization of BT corn residues by grazing beef steers and Bt corn silage and grain by growing cattle and lactating dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1352–1361Google Scholar
James, C (2001) Global review of commercialized transgenic crops: 2000. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications Briefs no. 23, p. 4. Ithica, NY: ISAAA.Google Scholar
Maltsbarger, R & & Kalaitzandonakes, N (2000) Studies reveal hidden costs in IP supply chain. Feedstuffs 72, 28 August issue, 1.Google Scholar
Pietri, A & Piva, G (2000) Occurrence and control of mycotoxines in maize grown in Italy Food Safety: Current Situation and perspectives in the European Community. Proceedings of the 6 th International Feed Production Conference 27–28 Piva G Masoero F Picenza, ItalyGoogle Scholar
Spencer, JD, Allee, GL & Sauber, TE (2000) Phosphorus bioavailability and digestibility of normal and genetically modified lowphytate corn for pigs. Journal of Animal Science 78, 675–681Google Scholar
Stilborn, HL & Crum, RC (1997) New corn varieties to provide feed options in the future. Feedstuffs 69, 12–16 6 October issueGoogle Scholar
The, Royal Society (2000) Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture London The Royal SocietyGoogle Scholar
Wheat, D (1998) Delivery of GMO-free soybeans to consumers in Europe not possible without added costs. Feedstuffs 70 15 June issue, 16Google Scholar