Archaeal abundance in post-mortem ruminal digesta may help predict methane emissions from beef cattle

The Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health and SRUC are funded by the Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division (RESAS) of the Scottish Government. The project was supported by DEFRA and DA funded Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Inventory Research Platform. Our thanks are due to the excellent support staff at the SRUC Beef Research Centre, Edinburgh, also to Graham Horgan of BioSS, Aberdeen, for conducting multivariate analysis.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Algorithms Visualization Tool for Students and Lectures in Computer Science

The best way to understand complex data structures or algorithm is to see them in action. The present work presents a new tool, especially useful for students and lecturers in computer science. It is written in Java and developed at Bordeaux University of Sciences and Technology. Its purposes is to help students in understanding classical algorithms by illustrating them in different ways: graphical (animated), formal, and descriptive. We think that it can be useful to everyone interested in algorithms, in particular to students in computer science that want to beef up their readings and university lecturers in their major effort to enhance the data structures and algorithms course. The main new thing of this tool is the fact of making it possible to the user to animate their own algorithms

The possible impacts and consequences for public health, trade and agriculture of the Government's decision to relax import restrictions on beef

On 20 October 2009 the government announced that Australia was adjusting its imported food policy settings regarding bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) for beef and beef products. The changes follow a review of current settings, including an update of the science of BSE and consideration of the risks associated with importing beef and beef products undertaken by Professor John Mathews. The new policy came into effect on 1 March 2010. In its final report, the committee further considers the risk assessment processes that will be undertaken by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) and Biosecurity Australia (BA). The committee also notes developments in relation to the review of food labelling law and policy in relation to unpackaged meat, particularly beef. Membership of the Committee Senate Members Fiona Nash, Chair Glenn Sterle, Deputy Chair Bill Heffernan Julian McGauran Christine Milne Kerry O\u27Brien Participating Senate members participating in this inquiry Chris Back  Richard Colbeck &nbsp

Consumer Preferences for Biopreservatives in Beef and Pork Packaging and Testing the Importance of Product Origin

Recent food science research on packaging at the University of Alberta has focused on the use of biological agents (biopreservatives) to extend meat shelf life. This potential technology involves the introduction of microbial organisms into food packages to control or inhibit the growth of disease causing organisms such as Escherichia coli (commonly associated with hamburger disease). Biopreservatives are not yet in commercial use. The study evaluated Western Canadian consumers' preferences regarding the potential use of biopreservatives in fresh red meat packages (beef and pork). The study also assessed the effect of product origin on consumers' purchasing decisions; in particular, whether there is an increasing or decreasing probability of purchase if a fresh meat product is labeled as a product of Alberta, product of Canada, product of United States or if no origin is displayed. The research objectives were achieved through the collection and analysis of data from mailed survey questionnaires that included stated preference and scaling methodologies. The study used multinomial nested logit models to examine the potential effect of the identified product characteristics on the probability of a product being purchased. It is found that in aggregate, the potential use of biopreservatives in fresh meats packages is currently not acceptable to consumers, although many consumers are not opposed to research in this area. The price reductions required for consumer acceptance of a product packaged with a biopreservative are not currently feasible. The study also finds that Western Canadian consumers are generally loyal to meat products from Alberta and Canada as a whole, relative to fresh meat products sourced from the US or products without any indication of origin. For high quality beef products, Alberta is seen as a preferred source compared to other sources in Canada. Simulation results suggest that the price of beef cuts from other Canadian sources need to be reduced before consumers will be indifferent between that product and a beef cut from Alberta. On average, a price reduction of about 15 percent is required for a high quality beef product from other Canadian sources before consumers are indifferent to a Canadian labeled product versus an Alberta product. For a high quality pork cut and for ground beef, the study results indicate that consumers generally are indifferent between products from Alberta and products from other Canadian sources. Branding Alberta pork for export to other provinces does not appear to provide benefits at this time. A comparison of a US product and a product from Alberta suggests that the US product price would have to be reduced by at least 35 percent, whether for a beef cut or a pork cut, before consumers would be indifferent between these products from the two sources. There is a strong bias towards purchase of local product in meat consumption by Western Canadian consumers as long as the domestic product is perceived to be of the same quality as the US fresh meat product.Demand and Price Analysis,

Identifying Communication Gaps in Ohio's Beef Supply Chain

Ohio has a unique infrastructure: a large urban-rural interface, active beef industry, and several small meat processing facilities, which provide opportunities for food animal producers to engage in value-added marketing strategies. Information regarding where discrepancies lie between the various links of the beef production chain and market drivers of locally produced beef will help producers and processors make more informed decisions on production and marketing strategies and thus, enhance their economic sustainability and success. Producers, especially, could benefit from increased revenues, which may help Ohio retain its number of small family farms. A series of surveys conducted in association with previous market research projects and feasibility studies in Ohio were used to compare responses regarding market drivers and perceived priorities of beef characteristics that were important to consumers by each of the various segments of the supply chain (consumer – processor – producer). Similar questions were identified among the surveys and were evaluated to recognize trends among responses. In regard to the attributes consumers find most important in beef purchases, processor awareness was hypothesized to be greater than producer awareness due to closer proximity to the consumer in the production chain. Results indicate that consumers rank freshness as the greatest priority in making purchasing decisions of locally produced beef while processors and producers ranked taste as the greatest priority. Across all three groups, tenderness and price ranked second and third, respectively. This study indicates that Ohio producers and processors have a different perception of important features for locally produced beef than consumers. Thus, there is opportunity to realign and improve awareness of Ohio consumers' primary focus areas concerning beef products, as well as the potential to adjust marketing strategies to improve sales for locally produced beef in Ohio.No embargoAcademic Major: Animal Science

A Study of the Factors That Influence Consumer Attitudes Toward Beef Products Using the Conjoint Market Analysis Tool

This study utilizes an analysis technique commonly used in marketing, the conjoint analysis method, to examine the relative utilities of a set of beef steak characteristics considered by a national sample of 1,432 US consumers, as well as additional localized samples representing undergraduate students at a business college and in an animal science department. The analyses indicate that among all respondents, region of origin is by far the most important characteristic; this is followed by animal breed, traceability, animal feed, and beef quality. Alternatively, the cost of cut, farm ownership, the use (or nonuse) of growth promoters, and whether the product is guaranteed tender were the least important factors. Results for animal science undergraduates are similar to the aggregate results, except that these students emphasized beef quality at the expense of traceability and the nonuse of growth promoters. Business students also emphasized region of origin but then emphasized traceability and cost. The ideal steak for the national sample is from a locally produced, choice Angus fed a mixture of grain and grass that is traceable to the farm of origin. If the product was not produced locally, respondents indicated that their preferred production states are, in order from most to least preferred, Iowa, Texas, Nebraska, and Kansas.

Evaluation of the Water Footprint of Beef Cattle Production in Nebraska

Data were compiled on feed usage to model the amount of water needed to produce beef in typical Nebraska production systems. Production systems where cows were wintered on corn residue utilized 18% less water than systems utilizing native range as a wintering source, because of water allocations. Therefore, the water footprint (gallons of water required to produce one pound of boneless meat) was decreased by 18%. In addition, increasing the dietary inclusion of distillers grains from 0% to 40% decreased the water footprint in the finishing phase by 29%, again based on water allocation. Utilizing corn residue and distillers grains in Nebraska beef cattle systems decreases the overall water footprint of production. Additionally, the water footprint of the systems analyzed was 80% green water as rain, minimizing the environmental impact of beef production on freshwater use and ecological water balance

Effects of breed type, silage harvest date and pattern of offering concentrates on intake, performance and carcass traits of finishing steers

peer-reviewedThe objective of this experiment was to investigate the effects and interactions of breed type, silage harvest date and pattern of offering concentrates on intake, performance and carcass traits of finishing steers. Seventy-two steers (36 Friesian and 36 beef cross) were blocked on weight within breed type and assigned to a pre-experimental slaughter group or to one of 4 dietary treatments in a 2 (breed type) 2 (early- or late- cut silage) 2 (flat rate or varied pattern of offering concentrates) factorial arrangement of treatments. The flat-rate feeding pattern was silage ad libitum plus 5 kg concentrates per head daily to slaughter. The varied feeding pattern was silage only for 79 days followed by concentrates ad libitum to slaughter. All animals were slaughtered together after 164 days when the groups on the two feeding patterns had consumed the same total quantity of concentrates. Friesians had a higher (P < 0.001) silage dry matter (DM) intake and a higher (P < 0.01) total DM intake than the beef crosses. Live-weight gain was similar for both breed types but the beef-cross animals had a higher (P < 0.001) kill-out proportion, higher (P < 0.01) carcass gain, and better (P < 0.001) carcass conformation than the Friesians. The beef-cross type also had a higher (P < 0.001) proportion of muscle and a lower (P < 0.001) proportion of bone in the carcass. Silage harvest date had no effect on silage or total DM intakes but the early-cut silage did result in higher (P < 0.01) carcass gain. Animals on the varied feeding pattern consumed less (P < 0.01) silage DM and less (P < 0.001) total DM than those on the flat rate feeding pattern. Live-weight gain and carcass gain were similar for the two feeding patterns. It is concluded that Friesians had a higher intake, but had lower carcass gain than the beef-cross type. Animals on the early-cut silage had higher carcass gain than those on the late-cut silage. The varied feeding pattern resulted in lower DM intake but efficiency of feed energy utilisation was similar for both feeding patterns. Interactions were generally not statistically significant