Laila Aass's research while affiliated with Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU) and other places

... The higher fermentation forage fat and carbohydrate, such as ruminal acetic acid as a precursor of fatty acid synthesis from NG-FTMR, could explain the higher levels of myristic acid, stearic acid, arachidic acid, oleic acid, arachidonic acid, and MUFA in the LT muscle of cattle fed NG-FTMR compared to cattle fed RS-FTMR. According to Randby et al. [62], the chemical composition of silage-crude protein, crude fat, water-soluble carbohydrates, and metabolizable energy-decreased with increasing plant maturity. They also found that oleic acid and some of the MUFA in intramuscular fat decreased with increasing plant maturity. ...

... Various strategies have been proposed to reduce GHG emissions per animal or unit of product including greater beef output per head, improved reproductive performance, novel manure management practices, precision diet formulation, reduced age at slaughter and feed supplementation (Pellerin et al., 2017;Samsonstuen et al., 2020). Mitigation practices which do not required farmers to make substantial changes to management practices and simultaneously increase farm profitability are more likely to be adopted at farm level (Ryan, 2022). ...

... The small scale of production 9 also impacts the return on capital investment (Barreto, 2021) [59], perpetuating a cycle that keeps many of these farmers in a poverty loop, as depicted below (Figure 3). [60][61][62] are adding pressure on the economic margins of farms. Reports from Athenagro Rural Consultancy indicate that beef farmers with varying levels of technology began 2024 with cash reserves ranging from BRL 300/BRL 400 ha -1 (USD 57.8/USD 77.0) to BRL 750/BRL 1,200 ha -1 (USD 144.5/USD 231.1), depending on whether the farms had low or high technology uptake, respectively. ...

... Dual-purpose production of milk and beef is considered to be more climate friendly as specialized beef production has higher GHG emission intensities (i.e., CO 2 eq per kg) compared to beef produced in dairy systems due to the allocation of emissions to both milk and beef (de Vries et al., 2015;Probst et al., 2019). Several studies have investigated the GHG emissions from dairy (e.g., Bonesmo et al., 2013;Mazzetto et al., 2022) and beef production (e.g., Samsonstuen et al., 2020;Pishgar-Komleh and Beldman, 2022), but few studies have assessed the entire production system including the link between the two (Zehetmeier et al., 2012). Ripple et al. (2014) stated that increased animal productivity (e.g., milk yield, growth) can provide the ability to produce the same amount of e.g. ...

... Several previous studies have attempted to develop models for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in beef cattle farming. For example, the Whole-Farm Approach has concluded that changes in soil carbon content can have a significant impact on assessing the GHG emission intensity of beef production in grassland farming systems (Samsonstuen et al., 2019). Additionally, an integrated model combining dairy and beef cattle, resulting in crossbred calves, was able to reduce annual GHG emissions from beef production by nearly 2000 kt CO2e or 22% in New Zealand (Blignaut et al., 2022). ...

... During the control slaughter of the descendants of the estimated breeding bulls, the highest removable and pre-slaughter live weight was noted in the successors of the bull Grillage 916 of the newly created and most common factory line Pirate 6626. With a significant difference (P>95), they outperformed their peers -the sons of other bulls by [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] kg in terms of slaughter and mass of paired carcasses, and their slaughter yield exceeded 58% (Table 6). ...

... In intensive livestock systems (with a younger slaughter age), the gestation phase becomes the main source of GHG emissions (FLORINDO et al., 2017). Thus, the use of tools like genetic improvement to improve reproduction and growth characteristics will lessen the environmental impacts of the beef production chain (ABY et al., 2013). Genetic improvement can also contribute directly to reducing the environmental impacts of beef production, through selection, by reducing methane emissions (PINARES-PATINO et al., 2013), or indirectly, through selection to improve feed efficiency, since more efficient animals produce less CH4 per kilo of body weight than less efficient animals (NKRUMAH et al., 2006). ...

... Nevertheless, cultivated pastures are indispensable to meet the energy requirements of low LT systems and avoid culling cows due to reproductive failures or calving difficulties (45,46), especially for young cows. Although only 10% of the total area of LT13 consists of oat/ryegrass pasture (144 ha), this was the most representative item for this system because feed costs are among the most onerous for beef cattle production systems (47)(48)(49). Hence, it is important to clarify that the increase in the number of animals, as the LT decreases, also contributes to the increase in costs, as there is a need for a greater feed supply. ...

... Although breeding objectives may be sensitive to production environments and production levels, they depend on the levels of inputs and outputs (Walmsley, 2021). Therefore, bio-economic modeling are critical tools in demonstrating appropriate biological and economic aspects of production systems for different breeds (Åby et al., 2012;Halasa et al., 2010). According to Nielsen et al. (2006), the bio-economic model also permits to explain the many complicated inter-relationships that arise between variables and genetic traits in the models. ...

... However, the yield of subcutaneous fat was higher in EF compared to NR and Hol (p<0.05). Aass and Vangen (1998) suggested that commercial conformation grading is in general an imprecise method for evaluation of carcass composition. Also in the present study the differences in conformation score suggested a superior muscling of the NR bulls compared to the Hol and native breed bulls. ...