One Welfare and Sustainability Center, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States.
PeerJ. 2023 Oct 26;11:e16321. doi: 10.7717/peerj.16321. eCollection 2023.
Soybean meal based diets have been suggested to cause gastrointestinal issues in certain species when used as a protein alternative. Using a randomized design, we tested 1,728 alligators in one of 13 communal pens offered one of two diets (seven pens ( = 928) of soybean-based protein diets and six pens ( = 800) of animal-based protein diets) to determine if soybeans would negatively affect the growth, hide quality, behavior and health, when compared with an otherwise identical diet using animal-based protein. Both feeds were nearly identical in composition for protein and fat percentages and identical for all minerals and elements. Crude protein was a minimum of 50%, crude fat a minimum of 12%, crude fiber a minimum of 4%, and phosphorous was maintained at 1%. From this information we estimated the One Welfare of using soy as a protein in commercial diets. Although there was a statistically significant decrease in belly width ( = 0.0009; harvested hide size) for alligators fed soybean-based protein diets, all other measured parameters of soybean . animal-based protein diets were comparable, suggesting this environmentally sustainable alternative protein source warrants consideration as a feed base. Weight was not significantly different suggesting either diet would yield similar volumes of meat. Total length was significantly affected by diet. Hide quality was not negatively impacted by protein type, with both diets producing high quality hides free of defects (assessed at the salted hide stage prior to tanning). Behaviors were not influenced by the feed type, with animals fed either diet using the pen structures the same. Further, feeding times were the same suggesting the soybean-based protein diet was equally easy to eat and palatable as the animal-based protein diet. Behavior and feeding suggested soy-based diets do not alter time budgets or activities. There were no differences in the frequency or severity of pathologies for animals fed either diet. Respiratory (lung and trachea as a proxy to measure dust inhalation), gastrointestinal (small intestine as a proxy to measure digestive disturbances), and renal (kidney as a proxy for excretory stress) histopathology demonstrated neither diet was causing overt problems. One Welfare conclusions were feeding a soybean-based protein diet did not cause production or welfare issues. Further, soybean protein-based diets may be an environmentally sustainable alternative to currently used animal-based diets. Research examining different soybean protein concentrations and sources is warranted.
基于大豆的饮食被认为在某些物种中作为蛋白质替代品会引起胃肠道问题。我们采用随机设计,在 13 个公共围栏中的一个围栏中测试了 1728 只短吻鳄,每个围栏提供两种饮食中的一种(7 个围栏(= 928 只)的大豆蛋白饮食和 6 个围栏(= 800 只)的动物蛋白饮食),以确定与使用动物蛋白的相同饮食相比,大豆是否会对生长、隐藏质量、行为和健康产生负面影响。两种饲料在蛋白质和脂肪百分比方面的成分几乎相同,所有矿物质和元素也完全相同。粗蛋白至少为 50%,粗脂肪至少为 12%,粗纤维至少为 4%,磷保持在 1%。根据这些信息,我们估计使用大豆作为商业饮食中的蛋白质的一种福利。虽然所有喂养大豆蛋白饮食的短吻鳄的腹部宽度(= 0.0009;收获的隐藏尺寸)都有统计学上的显著减少,但大豆和动物蛋白饮食的所有其他测量参数都相当,这表明这种环境可持续的替代蛋白质来源值得考虑作为饲料基础。体重没有显著差异,表明两种饮食都会产生类似体积的肉。总长度受饮食的显著影响。蛋白质类型对隐藏质量没有负面影响,两种饮食都产生了高质量的隐藏物,没有缺陷(在鞣制前的盐渍皮阶段进行评估)。行为不受饲料类型的影响,两种饮食喂养的动物都使用相同的围栏结构。此外,喂食时间相同,表明大豆蛋白饮食与动物蛋白饮食一样容易食用和美味。行为和喂养表明,大豆饮食不会改变时间预算或活动。两种饮食喂养的动物的病理学频率或严重程度没有差异。呼吸系统(肺和气管作为测量粉尘吸入的代理)、胃肠道(小肠作为测量消化紊乱的代理)和肾脏(肾脏作为排泄压力的代理)组织病理学显示,两种饮食都没有造成明显问题。一项福利结论是,喂养大豆蛋白饮食不会引起生产或福利问题。此外,大豆蛋白饮食可能是目前使用的动物蛋白饮食的一种环境可持续替代方案。值得研究不同大豆蛋白浓度和来源的饮食。