No abstract

Beef has been identified as the farm animal product with the largest total water footprint in previous research, although various concerns have been raised regarding the top-down analyses approach followed in these studies. The objective of this study was to estimate the water footprint of weaned calves and culled cows from seven different beef breeds by applying a revised water footprint analyses approach. A bottom-up approach was followed to provide a true representation of the production system, and the water footprint of the production system, with the estimated water footprint for the system being allocated to weaned calves and culled cows according to the value factor of each. The results show that there are prominent differences between the seven breeds in terms of their respective water footprints per kilogram weaned calf, even though the total water footprint per herd for each breed revealed little variation between the breeds. There is a 45% difference between the breed with the lowest and the breed with the highest water footprint per kg calf. This knowledge can be applied by both water users (primary producers) and policy formulators to assist in the optimal use of fresh water for beef production.

The feed conversion rate is one of the most important determinants of the water footprint (WF) of beef and is known to vary between different cattle breeds. The objective of this study was to estimate the WF of industrially finished calves of seven different cattle breeds on two different feeding regimes: normal pre-determined feeding period (NPFP) and profit-maximising feeding period (PMFP). Data were collected by finishing 35 calves of each of the seven breeds in a feedlot. Green, blue and grey WFs were estimated for the different feeding regimes, and a feedlot simulation provided the effect of the different feeding regimes on the water footprint, financial margin and the water footprint per rand of margin. The results indicated that the water footprint differed notably between breeds on the same feeding regime, as well as between the feeding regimes. While the PMFP had a 1% higher water footprint per year in a typical feedlot than the NPFP, the financial margin was 33% more, resulting in a 24% decrease in the water footprint per South African rand of margin. The contributions of green, blue and grey water to the total WF were 91.5%, 2.5% and 6%, respectively, irrespective of breed or feeding regime.

The high water intake and wastewater discharge of slaughterhouses have been a concern for many years. One neglected factor in previous research is allocating the water footprint (WF) to beef production’s different products and by-products. The objective of this article was to estimate the WF of different cattle breeds at a slaughterhouse and cutting plant and allocate it according to the different cuts (products) and by-products of beef based on the value fraction of each. The results indicated a negative relationship between the carcass weight and the processing WF when the different breeds were compared. Regarding a specific cut of beef, a kilogram of rib eye from the heaviest breed had a processing WF of 614.57 L/kg, compared to the 919.91 L/kg for the rib eye of the lightest breed. A comparison of the different cuts indicated that high-value cuts had higher WFs than low-value cuts. The difference between a kilogram of rib eye and flank was 426.26 L/kg for the heaviest breed and 637.86 L/kg for the lightest breed. An option to reduce the processing WF of beef is to lessen the WF by slaughtering heavier animals. This will require no extra investment from the slaughterhouse. At the same time, the returns should increase as the average production inputs per kilogram of output (carcass) should reduce, as the slaughterhouse will process more kilograms.

No abstract

No abstract

Various consumer perceptions exist about white and yellow beef fat. These perceptions subsequently affect the price of beef with yellow or white fat. Although only 25% of South African beef is grass-fed (yellow fat), lower prices offered for yellow fat result in farmers potentially receiving about R157.5 million less income per year. This study determined consumer preferences for beef fat colour in the Cape Town area of the Western Cape, South Africa. The largest percentage (43.74%) of consumers preferred white fat, followed by consumers (42.68%) to who fat colour did not matter and those who preferred yellow fat (13.59%). Analysis of the different consumer groups found that consumers who preferred yellow fat were buyers with higher education levels. These consumers were more concerned about the physical visual properties of the meat than about the branding, classification and packaging neatness. Consumers who preferred white fat had lower education levels, were more concerned about the packaging neatness and grade, and did not care much about the physical visual properties of the meat. Rather than discriminating against the price of yellow fat beef, a niche market could be created to accommodate this product.

No abstract