Search

Compared with annual grain and seed crops, perennial grassland has significantly lower losses of nutrients and low pesticide requirements, whilst also supporting soil carbon build‐up. Until now grassland crops have almost exclusively been fed to ruminants and horses. Our experiments on biorefining forages have produced protein of a quality equal to soybean meal. Forage crops can deliver high yields of biomass as well as protein with a well‐balanced amino acid profile. In grass crops from unfertilised permanent grassland, focus has to be on the fibre part of the grass due to a low protein yield. With current techniques we have recovered up to 40% of the forage protein into a protein concentrate with around 50% protein. In addition, a fibre fraction containing 15%–18% protein of dry matter can be produced and used as ruminant feed, bioenergy, or further biorefined into chemical building blocks or bio‐materials. Our feeding experiments have shown that biorefined grassland protein can provide a substitute for soybean meal for poultry and pigs without negative effects on animal performance. The first industrial scale biorefineries on green biomass for feed and bioenergy are now established in Denmark, although more research is needed in order to evaluate protein quality for both feed and food applications. In addition, a full EFSA approval has to be obtained for the application for food. The green biorefinery concept opens new markets for grassland and opportunities for increasing the grassland area to obtain associated ecosystem services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background New evidence indicates that increased dietary protein ingestion promotes health and recovery from illness, and also maintains functionality in older adults. The present study aimed to investigate whether a novel food service concept with protein-supplementation would increase protein and energy intake in hospitalised patients at nutritional risk. Methods A single-blinded randomised controlled trial was conducted. Eighty-four participants at nutritional risk, recruited from the departments of Oncology, Orthopaedics and Urology, were included. The intervention group ( IG) received the protein-supplemented food service concept. The control group ( CG) received the standard hospital menu. Primary outcome comprised the number of patients achieving ≥75% of energy and protein requirements. Secondary outcomes comprised mean energy and protein intake, body weight, handgrip strength and length of hospital stay. Results In IG, 76% versus 70% CG patients reached ≥75% of their energy requirements ( P = 0.57); 66% IG versus 30% CG patients reached ≥75% of their protein requirements ( P = 0.001). The risk ratio for achieving ≥75% of protein requirements: 2.2 (95% confidence interval = 1.3-3.7); number needed to treat = 3 (95% confidence interval = 2-6). IG had a higher mean intake of energy and protein when adjusted for body weight (CG: 82 kJ kg−1 versus IG: 103 kJ kg−1, P = 0.013; CG: 0.7 g protein kg−1 versus 0.9 g protein kg−1, P = 0.003). Body weight, handgrip strength and length of hospital stay did not differ between groups. Conclusions The novel food service concept had a significant positive impact on overall protein intake and on weight-adjusted energy intake in hospitalised patients at nutritional risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]