Fat- and protein-corrected milk formulation to be used in the life-cycle assessment of Mediterranean dairy goat systems

被引:9
|
作者
Mancilla-Leyton, Juan Manuel [1 ]
Morales-Jerrett, Eduardo [2 ]
Delgado-Pertinez, Manuel [2 ]
Mena, Yolanda [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Seville, Fac Biol, Dept Biol Vegetal & Ecol, Seville 41012, Spain
[2] Univ Seville, Escuela Tecn Super Ingn Agron, Dept Agron, Seville 41013, Spain
关键词
Energy content; FPCM; Murciano-Granadina; Saanen; Alpine; ENERGY-UTILIZATION; NUTRIENT UTILIZATION; CARBON FOOTPRINT; CONCENTRATE; LACTATION; LEVEL; STAGE; YIELD;
D O I
10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104697
中图分类号
S8 [畜牧、 动物医学、狩猎、蚕、蜂];
学科分类号
0905 ;
摘要
The aim of this paper is to develop a new specific algorithm (fat- and protein-corrected milk calculation) for dairy goat to be used in life-cycle assessment (LCA) studies. Though the contribution of goat milk to world milk production ranks third, the literature does not report any specific correction for goat's milk. Using the available bibliographic data, a multiple regression was performed that allowed obtaining the relationship between the energy content (EC) and the fat (FC) and protein content (PC) of dairy goat milk. The multiple regression resulting from the 3 variables analyzed through the data drawn from the literature was significant (R-2 = 0.99; p <= 0.001). The equation resulting from the correlation was used to develop algorithms for the calculation of fat- and protein-corrected milk (FPCM) at specific FC and PC. Since FC and PC are very different depending on the goat breed two different groups have been defined: i) goat breeds with FC in milk below 4% (FCB4), and ii) goat breeds with FC in milk above 4% (FCA4). The EC found for the FCB4 group((FC = 3.70 and PC = 3.27)) was 728.11 kcal kg(-1), while that of the FCA4 group((FC = 4.92 and PC = 3.61)) was 860.69 kcal kg(-1). After substituting the EC values obtained before, the resulting FPCM equations to calculate specific FC and PC by unit of mass (kg of milk = M), according to each group, are shown below: FCB4 group = FPCM(FC = 3.70, PC = 3.27) = M * [(0.12 * FC + 0.10 * PC + 0.23)]; FCA4 group = FPCM(FC = 4.92, PC = 3.61) = M * [(0.10 * FC + 0.08 * PC + 0.20)]. Finally, the variation between the FPCM values calculated using the specific equation obtained in this study for goats and those previously published (for sheep or modifications made from dairy cattle) was evaluated; in FCB4 group the differences varied between (-) 32% and (+) 14% and in FCA4 group between (-) 21% and (+) 35%. Values are overestimated if sheep's FPCM calculations are used (because sheep milk has higher fat content than goat milk) and underestimated if dairy cattle's FPCM calculations are used (because cow milk has lower fat content than goat milk). In conclusion, the results found in the present study show the need to use a specific FPCM formulation in the LCA equation for goat's milk.
引用
收藏
页数:4
相关论文
共 5 条
  • [1] Fat- and protein-corrected milk formulation to be used in the life-cycle assessment of Mediterranean dairy goat systems (vol 253, 104697, 2021)
    Mancilla-Leyton, Juan Manuel
    Morales-Jerrett, Eduardo
    Delgado-Pertinez, Manuel
    Mena, Yolanda
    [J]. LIVESTOCK SCIENCE, 2024, 282
  • [2] Developing a predictive model for the energy content of goat milk as the basis for a functional unit formulation to be used in the life cycle assessment of dairy goat production systems
    Danieli, P. P.
    Ronchi, B.
    [J]. ANIMAL, 2018, 12 (02) : 408 - 416
  • [3] Life-cycle assessment of pasture- and grassland-based milk production systems
    Zumwald, Josephine
    Braunschweig, Martin
    Hofstetter, Pius
    Reidy, Beat
    Nemecek, Thomas
    [J]. AGRARFORSCHUNG SCHWEIZ, 2018, 9 (05): : 156 - 163
  • [4] Life cycle assessment of milk produced in two smallholder dairy systems in the highlands and the coast of Peru
    Bartl, Karin
    Gomez, Carlos A.
    Nemecek, Thomas
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2011, 19 (13) : 1494 - 1505
  • [5] Relative emissions intensity of dairy production systems: employing different functional units in life-cycle assessment
    Ross, S. A.
    Topp, C. F. E.
    Ennos, R. A.
    Chagunda, M. G. G.
    [J]. ANIMAL, 2017, 11 (08) : 1381 - 1388