{"title":"Human needs and future challenges","authors":"R. Zaheer, T. Reuter","doi":"10.2527/AF.2017.0111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2527/AF.2017.0111","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48645,"journal":{"name":"Animal Frontiers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2017-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2527/AF.2017.0111","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46643767","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Agricultural biotechnology, particularly the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops continues to be controversial more than two decades after they were introduced. For a technology that is now so widely adopted around the world, why is this so? Among the many explanations that have been offered, one focuses on the way that differing perspectives on new technology introductions become entrenched, whether or not they are warranted by the available evidence. Genetically modified crops have experienced a long tradition of entrenched and polarized views, commencing with an insalubrious exchange between Richard Dawkins and Prince Charles on the occasion of the latter’s 2000 Reith Lecture (Ruse and Castle, 2002). More recently in late 2016, the New York Times claimed it had conducted an “extensive examination” of GM crops and found their benefits to be lacking, a claim that was vociferously challenged by scientists and famers alike, some of whom wrote a pointed rebuttal (Hakim, 2016; Giddings, 2016). The rebuttal gives references to several reviews and analyses of the benefits—and it should be added, the limitations—of GM crops, particularly in the United States and Canada, and other GM crop adopting nations. No one has claimed that GM crop technologies are the “silver bullet” to effective yield gain and pesticide reduction (Scott, 2016), but the record of evidence suggests there have been substantial benefits for consumers, farmers, human health, the environment, and sustainable development. Despite research dating back 15 yr reporting the benefits of GM crops, and acknowledgment of their limitations, critics of GM crops (and biotechnology more generally) continue to dismiss this information and ignore the multitude of benefits resulting from their adoption. Critics go as far as insinuating that the biotechnology industry has co-opted academic researchers and is paying academics to mislead the public in the quantification of the benefits of biotech crops, as is evidenced by the US Right to Know campaign’s request for freedom-of-information access to the emails of more than 40 leading American academics (Kloor, 2015). These opponents suggest that the distribution of benefits is not equal (benefit distribution is not equal for any technology), causes farmers to commit suicide, and is polluting the land (Adams, 2014). Much of this misleading information was captured in the 2013 report released by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) entitled, “Trade and Environmental Review 2013: Wake Up Before It Is Too Late” (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2013). While containing contributions from more than 60 experts, no single expert in biotechnology or GM crops was listed in the table of contents. On the contrary, many of the contributors listed have been longstanding critics of biotechnology and GM crops. The essential message of this lengthy report was that for food security to exist over the remainder of th
{"title":"Mis)information and the politicization of food security","authors":"S. Smyth, P. Phillips, D. Castle","doi":"10.2527/AF.2017.0116","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2527/AF.2017.0116","url":null,"abstract":"Agricultural biotechnology, particularly the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops continues to be controversial more than two decades after they were introduced. For a technology that is now so widely adopted around the world, why is this so? Among the many explanations that have been offered, one focuses on the way that differing perspectives on new technology introductions become entrenched, whether or not they are warranted by the available evidence. Genetically modified crops have experienced a long tradition of entrenched and polarized views, commencing with an insalubrious exchange between Richard Dawkins and Prince Charles on the occasion of the latter’s 2000 Reith Lecture (Ruse and Castle, 2002). More recently in late 2016, the New York Times claimed it had conducted an “extensive examination” of GM crops and found their benefits to be lacking, a claim that was vociferously challenged by scientists and famers alike, some of whom wrote a pointed rebuttal (Hakim, 2016; Giddings, 2016). The rebuttal gives references to several reviews and analyses of the benefits—and it should be added, the limitations—of GM crops, particularly in the United States and Canada, and other GM crop adopting nations. No one has claimed that GM crop technologies are the “silver bullet” to effective yield gain and pesticide reduction (Scott, 2016), but the record of evidence suggests there have been substantial benefits for consumers, farmers, human health, the environment, and sustainable development. Despite research dating back 15 yr reporting the benefits of GM crops, and acknowledgment of their limitations, critics of GM crops (and biotechnology more generally) continue to dismiss this information and ignore the multitude of benefits resulting from their adoption. Critics go as far as insinuating that the biotechnology industry has co-opted academic researchers and is paying academics to mislead the public in the quantification of the benefits of biotech crops, as is evidenced by the US Right to Know campaign’s request for freedom-of-information access to the emails of more than 40 leading American academics (Kloor, 2015). These opponents suggest that the distribution of benefits is not equal (benefit distribution is not equal for any technology), causes farmers to commit suicide, and is polluting the land (Adams, 2014). Much of this misleading information was captured in the 2013 report released by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) entitled, “Trade and Environmental Review 2013: Wake Up Before It Is Too Late” (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2013). While containing contributions from more than 60 experts, no single expert in biotechnology or GM crops was listed in the table of contents. On the contrary, many of the contributors listed have been longstanding critics of biotechnology and GM crops. The essential message of this lengthy report was that for food security to exist over the remainder of th","PeriodicalId":48645,"journal":{"name":"Animal Frontiers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2017-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44077159","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture offers all its Extension and Research programs and services without regard to race, color, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, age, disability, marital or veteran status, genetic information, or any other legally protected status, and is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer. Arkansas Is Our Campus Agriculture is associated with several critical societal issues, including carbon footprint and climate change, water use, biodiversity, food security, early childhood nutrition and food vs. feed vs. fuel. As an industry, agriculture needs to do a better job communicating with a public that in industrialized countries has become too distant from current agricultural practices.
{"title":"GMO crops in animal nutrition","authors":"J. Vicini","doi":"10.2527/AF.2017.0113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2527/AF.2017.0113","url":null,"abstract":"The University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture offers all its Extension and Research programs and services without regard to race, color, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, age, disability, marital or veteran status, genetic information, or any other legally protected status, and is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer. Arkansas Is Our Campus Agriculture is associated with several critical societal issues, including carbon footprint and climate change, water use, biodiversity, food security, early childhood nutrition and food vs. feed vs. fuel. As an industry, agriculture needs to do a better job communicating with a public that in industrialized countries has become too distant from current agricultural practices.","PeriodicalId":48645,"journal":{"name":"Animal Frontiers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2017-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2527/AF.2017.0113","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47304300","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The agricultural application of genetic engineering has advanced in the field of crop breeding. In 1994, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a genetically modified (GM) tomato variety, the world’s first GM crop for food consumption (Bruening and Lyons, 2000). In this GM tomato (the Flavr Savr), ripening was delayed by the insertion of an antisense gene that interferes with polygalacturonase production. Although the regulatory approval of GM crops largely demands strict assessments of the environmental risks and food safety, the commercial cultivation of GM crops with an exogenous gene (termed transgene) has spread to at least 28 countries, including the USA, Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada, China, and some European countries (Ishii and Araki, 2016). Conversely, there have been few regulatory approvals regarding GM livestock, with the exception of GM goats for “pharming” in which biopharmaceuticals are manufactured using transgenesis (FDA, 2009). Currently, older genetic engineering practices, such as transgenesis, are giving way to genome editing. Genome editing tools, such as zincfinger nucleases (ZFNs; Klug, 2010), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs; Joung and Sander, 2013), and the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/Cas 9 (Barrangou and Doudna, 2016), can break DNA double strands at target sites and then achieve various types of genetic modification via non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) or homology-directed repair (HDR), thus potentially adding new value to agriculture (Figure 1). Recent reviews suggest that NHEJ is preferred in crop genome editing because the resultant plants are considered to contain no transgenes, which is one of the major concerns over GM crops from regulatory and social aspects (Hartung and Schiemann, 2014; Voytas and Gao, 2014; Araki and Ishii, 2015). Genome editing has also been applied in livestock breeding (Carlson et al., 2012; Hai et al., 2014; Crispo et al., 2015; Cui et al., 2015; Proudfoot et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2015a; Wang et al., 2015b; Wang et al., 2015c; Carlson et al., 2016; Fischer et al., 2016; Oishi et al., 2016; Petersen et al., 2016; Tanihara et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016; Whitworth et al., 2016). Animals modified via NHEJ are unlikely to impose substantial risks on the environment because they can be managed within a farm, unlike GM crops, which are intentionally released into the environment (field cultivation). Thus, one can presume that the products derived from genome-edited livestock will soon be accepted in society if the food safety can be confirmed. However, it would be inappropriate to presume that such a favorable course of events is the only possibility. In November 2015, the FDA approved a GM salmon for food consumption (FDA, 2015). Nonetheless, citizen groups and environmentalists still loudly oppose the FDA’s decision about its safety. In addition, they questioned the environmental risk that it posed to wild salmon
基因工程的农业应用在作物育种领域取得了进展。1994年，美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)批准了一种转基因番茄品种，这是世界上第一个用于食品消费的转基因作物(Bruening and Lyons, 2000)。在这个转基因番茄(Flavr Savr)中，由于插入了一个干扰聚半乳糖醛酸酶产生的反义基因，成熟被推迟了。尽管转基因作物的监管批准在很大程度上要求对环境风险和食品安全进行严格评估，但带有外源基因的转基因作物(称为转基因)的商业化种植已经蔓延到至少28个国家，包括美国、巴西、阿根廷、印度、加拿大、中国和一些欧洲国家(Ishii和Araki, 2016)。相反，很少有监管机构批准转基因牲畜，除了转基因山羊用于“制药”，其中使用转基因生产生物制药(FDA, 2009)。目前，转基因等较老的基因工程实践正在让位于基因组编辑。基因组编辑工具，如锌指核酸酶(ZFNs);Klug, 2010)，转录激活子样效应核酸酶(TALENs;young and Sander, 2013)和聚集的规则间隔短回文重复序列(CRISPR)/ cas9 (Barrangou and Doudna, 2016)可以在目标位点破坏DNA双链，然后通过非同源末端连接(NHEJ)或同源定向修复(HDR)实现各种类型的遗传修饰。因此可能为农业增加新的价值(图1)。最近的评论表明，NHEJ在作物基因组编辑中更受青睐，因为由此产生的植物被认为不含转基因，这是监管和社会方面对转基因作物的主要担忧之一(Hartung和Schiemann, 2014;Voytas and Gao, 2014;Araki and Ishii, 2015)。基因组编辑也已应用于家畜育种(Carlson et al.， 2012;Hai et al.， 2014;Crispo et al.， 2015;崔等，2015;Proudfoot et al.， 2015;Wang et al.， 2015a;Wang et al.， 2015b;Wang et al.， 2015c;Carlson et al.， 2016;Fischer et al.， 2016;Oishi et al.， 2016;Petersen et al.， 2016;Tanihara et al.， 2016;Wang et al.， 2016;Whitworth et al.， 2016)。通过NHEJ改造的动物不太可能对环境造成重大风险，因为它们可以在农场内管理，不像转基因作物那样故意释放到环境中(田间种植)。因此，可以推测，如果能够确认食品安全性，基因组编辑家畜衍生的产品将很快被社会所接受。然而，假定这种有利的事态发展是唯一的可能性是不恰当的。2015年11月，FDA批准了一种转基因鲑鱼用于食品消费(FDA, 2015)。尽管如此，公民团体和环保主义者仍然大声反对FDA关于其安全性的决定。此外，他们质疑它对野生鲑鱼种群构成的环境风险;尽管不育的转基因鱼只在内陆水箱中饲养(Pollack, 2015)。这样的公众运动可能延长了FDA对转基因鲑鱼的审查。它花了将近四分之一个世纪，耗资超过7700万美元(Van Eenennaam and Muir, 2011)。心理学调查表明，人们认为转基因动物比转基因植物更不容易被接受，而人们的道德观念对接受程度的影响比其他因素(如感知到的风险、认识到的好处或对监管机构和研究人员的信任)更为显著(Zechendorf, 1994;Siegrist, 2000)。同样，在牲畜基因组编辑的情况下，可能会出现复杂的情况，因为通过NHEJ修饰的动物也是转基因的。在本文中，我们考虑了通过基因组编辑获得动物育种的社会接受度的实践和伦理瓶颈，重点是家畜品系的开发。
{"title":"Genome-edited livestock: Ethics and social acceptance","authors":"T. Ishii","doi":"10.2527/AF.2017.0115","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2527/AF.2017.0115","url":null,"abstract":"The agricultural application of genetic engineering has advanced in the field of crop breeding. In 1994, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a genetically modified (GM) tomato variety, the world’s first GM crop for food consumption (Bruening and Lyons, 2000). In this GM tomato (the Flavr Savr), ripening was delayed by the insertion of an antisense gene that interferes with polygalacturonase production. Although the regulatory approval of GM crops largely demands strict assessments of the environmental risks and food safety, the commercial cultivation of GM crops with an exogenous gene (termed transgene) has spread to at least 28 countries, including the USA, Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada, China, and some European countries (Ishii and Araki, 2016). Conversely, there have been few regulatory approvals regarding GM livestock, with the exception of GM goats for “pharming” in which biopharmaceuticals are manufactured using transgenesis (FDA, 2009). Currently, older genetic engineering practices, such as transgenesis, are giving way to genome editing. Genome editing tools, such as zincfinger nucleases (ZFNs; Klug, 2010), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs; Joung and Sander, 2013), and the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/Cas 9 (Barrangou and Doudna, 2016), can break DNA double strands at target sites and then achieve various types of genetic modification via non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) or homology-directed repair (HDR), thus potentially adding new value to agriculture (Figure 1). Recent reviews suggest that NHEJ is preferred in crop genome editing because the resultant plants are considered to contain no transgenes, which is one of the major concerns over GM crops from regulatory and social aspects (Hartung and Schiemann, 2014; Voytas and Gao, 2014; Araki and Ishii, 2015). Genome editing has also been applied in livestock breeding (Carlson et al., 2012; Hai et al., 2014; Crispo et al., 2015; Cui et al., 2015; Proudfoot et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2015a; Wang et al., 2015b; Wang et al., 2015c; Carlson et al., 2016; Fischer et al., 2016; Oishi et al., 2016; Petersen et al., 2016; Tanihara et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016; Whitworth et al., 2016). Animals modified via NHEJ are unlikely to impose substantial risks on the environment because they can be managed within a farm, unlike GM crops, which are intentionally released into the environment (field cultivation). Thus, one can presume that the products derived from genome-edited livestock will soon be accepted in society if the food safety can be confirmed. However, it would be inappropriate to presume that such a favorable course of events is the only possibility. In November 2015, the FDA approved a GM salmon for food consumption (FDA, 2015). Nonetheless, citizen groups and environmentalists still loudly oppose the FDA’s decision about its safety. In addition, they questioned the environmental risk that it posed to wild salmon ","PeriodicalId":48645,"journal":{"name":"Animal Frontiers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2017-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2527/AF.2017.0115","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41737320","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The future of genetically engineered plants to stabilize yield and improve feed","authors":"G. Dhariwal, A. Laroche","doi":"10.2527/AF.2017.0112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2527/AF.2017.0112","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48645,"journal":{"name":"Animal Frontiers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2017-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2527/AF.2017.0112","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46204723","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
For centuries, milk and dairy products have been an important source of dietary energy, protein, and fat for the global population. Currently, milk is the EU’s number one agricultural product, accounting for circa 15% of agricultural output in terms of value (European Parliament, 2015). The EU diary sector is supported by 650,000 specialized dairy farmers and 18 million milking cows and has a labor force of about 1.2 million people (European Parliament, 2015). However, since the abolishment of milk quotas in 2015, farmers are facing increased pressures to exploit the economies of scale by increasing the size of their herds. With larger numbers of cows per farm, farmers no longer have the same time traditionally had to care for their animals. Therefore, the application of technology is becoming more important for EU dairy farmers than ever before. Precision livestock farming (PLF) represents the application of modern information and computer technology (ICT) for the real-time monitoring and management of animals. In dairy production, PLF systems can be important tools to complement and support the skills of the farmer in the monitoring and assessing cow health and welfare. Automated PLF systems enable dairy farmers to manage larger herds on a more time-efficient manner (Rutten et al., 2013). Automated systems exist to monitor behavioral activities for detection of lameness (Kashiha et al., 2013) and eustrus (Dolecheck et al., 2015). However, there are far fewer studies on the design/implementation of cow behavior monitoring for other important health events such as metabolic diseases or mastitis. When developing PLF systems for real-time monitoring of dairy cow health, welfare, and productivity, the development process should be done within a framework specifically designed for living organisms. A core principle in this regard is that any living organism can be considered a CITD system, which stands for complex, individually different, time-varying, and dynamic (Berckmans and Aerts, 2006; Quanten et al., 2006). A living organism is much more complex than any mechanical, electronic or ICT system. The complexity of information transmission in a single cell of a living organism is for example much higher than in most man-made systems (e.g., today’s most powerful microchip). It is obvious that all living organisms are individually different. The general approach in biological research and the management of biological process (e.g., medical world, livestock world) in industry and society is still to compare groups of living organisms by looking for statistical differences between group averages using experiments. However, there is not a single living organism that lives or acts as the purely theoretical average of a group since all living organisms are individually differDeveloping precision livestock farming tools for precision dairy farming
几个世纪以来，牛奶和乳制品一直是全球人口膳食能量、蛋白质和脂肪的重要来源。目前，牛奶是欧盟的头号农产品，约占农业产值的15%(欧洲议会，2015年)。欧盟乳制品行业由65万专业奶农和1800万头奶牛支撑，劳动力约为120万人(欧洲议会，2015年)。然而，自2015年取消牛奶配额以来，农民面临越来越大的压力，需要通过扩大牛群规模来利用规模经济。随着每个农场奶牛数量的增加，农民不再有传统上照顾他们的动物的时间。因此，技术的应用对欧盟奶农来说比以往任何时候都更加重要。精准畜牧业(PLF)代表了现代信息和计算机技术(ICT)对动物实时监测和管理的应用。在乳制品生产中，PLF系统可以成为补充和支持农民监测和评估奶牛健康和福利技能的重要工具。自动化PLF系统使奶农能够以更省时的方式管理更大的牛群(Rutten et al.， 2013)。现有自动化系统用于监测行为活动，以检测跛行(Kashiha等人，2013年)和发情(Dolecheck等人，2015年)。然而，对其他重要健康事件(如代谢性疾病或乳腺炎)的奶牛行为监测设计/实施的研究要少得多。在开发用于实时监测奶牛健康、福利和生产力的PLF系统时，开发过程应在专门为生物设计的框架内完成。这方面的一个核心原则是，任何活的有机体都可以被认为是一个CITD系统，它代表复杂的、个体不同的、时变的和动态的(Berckmans和Aerts, 2006;Quanten et al.， 2006)。一个生命体比任何机械、电子或信息通信技术系统都要复杂得多。例如，在生物体的单个细胞中，信息传输的复杂性远远高于大多数人造系统(例如，当今最强大的微芯片)。很明显，所有的生物个体都是不同的。在工业和社会中，生物研究和生物过程管理(例如，医学界，畜牧业)的一般方法仍然是通过使用实验寻找组平均值之间的统计差异来比较生物体组。然而，没有一个单一的生物体生活或作为一个群体的纯理论平均值，因为所有的生物体都是不同的，开发精确的牲畜养殖工具，用于精确的奶牛养殖
{"title":"Developing precision livestock farming tools for precision dairy farming","authors":"Tomas Norton, D. Berckmans","doi":"10.2527/AF.2017.0104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2527/AF.2017.0104","url":null,"abstract":"For centuries, milk and dairy products have been an important source of dietary energy, protein, and fat for the global population. Currently, milk is the EU’s number one agricultural product, accounting for circa 15% of agricultural output in terms of value (European Parliament, 2015). The EU diary sector is supported by 650,000 specialized dairy farmers and 18 million milking cows and has a labor force of about 1.2 million people (European Parliament, 2015). However, since the abolishment of milk quotas in 2015, farmers are facing increased pressures to exploit the economies of scale by increasing the size of their herds. With larger numbers of cows per farm, farmers no longer have the same time traditionally had to care for their animals. Therefore, the application of technology is becoming more important for EU dairy farmers than ever before. Precision livestock farming (PLF) represents the application of modern information and computer technology (ICT) for the real-time monitoring and management of animals. In dairy production, PLF systems can be important tools to complement and support the skills of the farmer in the monitoring and assessing cow health and welfare. Automated PLF systems enable dairy farmers to manage larger herds on a more time-efficient manner (Rutten et al., 2013). Automated systems exist to monitor behavioral activities for detection of lameness (Kashiha et al., 2013) and eustrus (Dolecheck et al., 2015). However, there are far fewer studies on the design/implementation of cow behavior monitoring for other important health events such as metabolic diseases or mastitis. When developing PLF systems for real-time monitoring of dairy cow health, welfare, and productivity, the development process should be done within a framework specifically designed for living organisms. A core principle in this regard is that any living organism can be considered a CITD system, which stands for complex, individually different, time-varying, and dynamic (Berckmans and Aerts, 2006; Quanten et al., 2006). A living organism is much more complex than any mechanical, electronic or ICT system. The complexity of information transmission in a single cell of a living organism is for example much higher than in most man-made systems (e.g., today’s most powerful microchip). It is obvious that all living organisms are individually different. The general approach in biological research and the management of biological process (e.g., medical world, livestock world) in industry and society is still to compare groups of living organisms by looking for statistical differences between group averages using experiments. However, there is not a single living organism that lives or acts as the purely theoretical average of a group since all living organisms are individually differDeveloping precision livestock farming tools for precision dairy farming","PeriodicalId":48645,"journal":{"name":"Animal Frontiers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2527/AF.2017.0104","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68979252","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article focuses on precision livestock farming (PLF) as it pertains to egg production. Specific contents include: (1) an overview of evolution in the egg industry that is reflective of what is now known as PLF and the new trend of egg production, (2) prominent characteristics of modern egg production systems that necessitate further development and adoption of PLF technologies, (3) some examples of PLF tools or technologies for establishment of science-based production guidelines or applications in field operations, and finally (4) outlook of PLF for egg production. For the fundamental principles and elements of PLF, readers can refer to the opening paper by Berckmans (2017) in this issue. Disciplines Agriculture | Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering | Poultry or Avian Science Comments This article is from Animal Frontiers 7 (2017): 24–31, doi:10.2527/af.2017.0105. Posted with permission. This article is available at Iowa State University Digital Repository: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_pubs/824 Evolution of the Egg Industry Egg production has undergone remarkable advancements over the past six decades. A recent life cycle analysis (LCA) study on the U.S. egg industry, conducted by the Egg Industry Center (Pelletier et al., 2014), revealed drastic reductions of 54–63% in total environmental footprints (greenhouse gases, acidification and eutrophication emissions) from 1960 to 2010. In the meantime, egg supply increased by 30%. These outcomes stemmed from advancements in poultry breeding and genetics, nutrition, disease prevention and control, housing equipment and environmental control, and utilization efficiency in feed and other natural resources as well as increased crop yields. For instance, during the period of 1960– 2010, laying hens in the USA showed a consistent increase of 1.16 extra eggs each year, i.e., 58 extra eggs per hen annually from 1960 to 2010. Feed conversion (FC) (kilogram of feed intake per kilogram of egg output) improved from 3.41 to 1.98 for the same period. Protecting the birds from the influence of seasonal climates has made their productivity much more consistent year-round. An example of maintaining relatively constant indoor temperature despite the largely fluctuating outside weather is illustrated in Figure 1. The same LCA study also identified two “hot spots” that have profound impact on environmental footprints of the operation, namely, feed efficiency and manure management, where further improvements should be focused on. For instance, while FC averaged 1.98, it ranged from 1.8 to 2.2 for the laying-hen flocks surveyed. Clearly, those operations with a poorer FC of 2.2 can particularly benefit from exercising some PLF principles and practices. While the egg industry enjoys these highly commendable advancements and always looks for new ways to provide the population nutritious and affordable protein at unprecedented efficiency, new challenges never stop emerging. Today, concerns over animal welfare
{"title":"Precision livestock farming in egg production","authors":"H. Xin, Kai Liu","doi":"10.2527/AF.2017.0105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2527/AF.2017.0105","url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on precision livestock farming (PLF) as it pertains to egg production. Specific contents include: (1) an overview of evolution in the egg industry that is reflective of what is now known as PLF and the new trend of egg production, (2) prominent characteristics of modern egg production systems that necessitate further development and adoption of PLF technologies, (3) some examples of PLF tools or technologies for establishment of science-based production guidelines or applications in field operations, and finally (4) outlook of PLF for egg production. For the fundamental principles and elements of PLF, readers can refer to the opening paper by Berckmans (2017) in this issue. Disciplines Agriculture | Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering | Poultry or Avian Science Comments This article is from Animal Frontiers 7 (2017): 24–31, doi:10.2527/af.2017.0105. Posted with permission. This article is available at Iowa State University Digital Repository: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_pubs/824 Evolution of the Egg Industry Egg production has undergone remarkable advancements over the past six decades. A recent life cycle analysis (LCA) study on the U.S. egg industry, conducted by the Egg Industry Center (Pelletier et al., 2014), revealed drastic reductions of 54–63% in total environmental footprints (greenhouse gases, acidification and eutrophication emissions) from 1960 to 2010. In the meantime, egg supply increased by 30%. These outcomes stemmed from advancements in poultry breeding and genetics, nutrition, disease prevention and control, housing equipment and environmental control, and utilization efficiency in feed and other natural resources as well as increased crop yields. For instance, during the period of 1960– 2010, laying hens in the USA showed a consistent increase of 1.16 extra eggs each year, i.e., 58 extra eggs per hen annually from 1960 to 2010. Feed conversion (FC) (kilogram of feed intake per kilogram of egg output) improved from 3.41 to 1.98 for the same period. Protecting the birds from the influence of seasonal climates has made their productivity much more consistent year-round. An example of maintaining relatively constant indoor temperature despite the largely fluctuating outside weather is illustrated in Figure 1. The same LCA study also identified two “hot spots” that have profound impact on environmental footprints of the operation, namely, feed efficiency and manure management, where further improvements should be focused on. For instance, while FC averaged 1.98, it ranged from 1.8 to 2.2 for the laying-hen flocks surveyed. Clearly, those operations with a poorer FC of 2.2 can particularly benefit from exercising some PLF principles and practices. While the egg industry enjoys these highly commendable advancements and always looks for new ways to provide the population nutritious and affordable protein at unprecedented efficiency, new challenges never stop emerging. Today, concerns over animal welfare ","PeriodicalId":48645,"journal":{"name":"Animal Frontiers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2527/AF.2017.0105","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68980031","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
To guarantee accurate and continuous monitoring of individual animals at a modern livestock farm, farmers nowadays need reliable and affordable technologies to assist them in performing daily management of tasks. The application of the principles and techniques of process engineering to livestock farming to monitor, model, and manage animal production is called precision livestock farming (PLF). Precision livestock farming seems like the only realistic way to support farmers and other stakeholders in the livestock production chain in the near future while at the same time coping with the rising demand for meat. Precision livestock farming is a series of practices aimed at increasing the farmer’s ability to keep contact with individual animals despite the growing intensification of livestock production. It aims to achieve economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable farming through the observation, behavioral interpretation, and control of the smallest possible group of animals. It enables farmers to reduce operational costs such as expenditures to feed, medication, and energy. Moreover, farmers can use PLF technologies to monitor animal health and welfare to ensure that animals live well and are free of diseases. Precision livestock farming systems aim to translate the output of the technology to useful information to the farmer. Commercial products need a combination of hardware complying with certain technical and safety standards in combination with software, a good user interface, a backup solution to store data, an auto-restart function in case of power failure, manual and help functions, and installers who can install and service the product, etc. Results and potential of PLF technology are mostly unknown to animal scientists, veterinarians, ethologists, etc. due to a lack of collaboration among different disciplines. However, there is no doubt that the combination of new technologies with biology offers great opportunities for the EU in terms of realizing and implementing directives as well as in economic and social terms. A lot of data are already automatically registered by the in-house control computers and collected on a farm computer. In practice, however, the pig farmers hardly use this information. As a result, they miss out on money because deviations in the production process are not noticed or noticed too late. However, the biggest challenge with PLF is to convert this growing amount of data into usable information so that, throughout the day, the farmer can use the relevant information directly to manage operations.
{"title":"Precision livestock farming for pigs","authors":"E. Vranken, D. Berckmans","doi":"10.2527/AF.2017.0106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2527/AF.2017.0106","url":null,"abstract":"To guarantee accurate and continuous monitoring of individual animals at a modern livestock farm, farmers nowadays need reliable and affordable technologies to assist them in performing daily management of tasks. The application of the principles and techniques of process engineering to livestock farming to monitor, model, and manage animal production is called precision livestock farming (PLF). Precision livestock farming seems like the only realistic way to support farmers and other stakeholders in the livestock production chain in the near future while at the same time coping with the rising demand for meat. Precision livestock farming is a series of practices aimed at increasing the farmer’s ability to keep contact with individual animals despite the growing intensification of livestock production. It aims to achieve economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable farming through the observation, behavioral interpretation, and control of the smallest possible group of animals. It enables farmers to reduce operational costs such as expenditures to feed, medication, and energy. Moreover, farmers can use PLF technologies to monitor animal health and welfare to ensure that animals live well and are free of diseases. Precision livestock farming systems aim to translate the output of the technology to useful information to the farmer. Commercial products need a combination of hardware complying with certain technical and safety standards in combination with software, a good user interface, a backup solution to store data, an auto-restart function in case of power failure, manual and help functions, and installers who can install and service the product, etc. Results and potential of PLF technology are mostly unknown to animal scientists, veterinarians, ethologists, etc. due to a lack of collaboration among different disciplines. However, there is no doubt that the combination of new technologies with biology offers great opportunities for the EU in terms of realizing and implementing directives as well as in economic and social terms. A lot of data are already automatically registered by the in-house control computers and collected on a farm computer. In practice, however, the pig farmers hardly use this information. As a result, they miss out on money because deviations in the production process are not noticed or noticed too late. However, the biggest challenge with PLF is to convert this growing amount of data into usable information so that, throughout the day, the farmer can use the relevant information directly to manage operations.","PeriodicalId":48645,"journal":{"name":"Animal Frontiers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2527/AF.2017.0106","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68980096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M. Guarino, Tomas Norton, D. Berckmans, E. Vranken, D. Berckmans
{"title":"A blueprint for developing and applying precision livestock farming tools: A key output of the EU-PLF project","authors":"M. Guarino, Tomas Norton, D. Berckmans, E. Vranken, D. Berckmans","doi":"10.2527/AF.2017.0103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2527/AF.2017.0103","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48645,"journal":{"name":"Animal Frontiers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2527/AF.2017.0103","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68979707","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：