東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Influence of Production System on An...

Webb, Megan Jean.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Influence of Production System on Animal Performance, Carcass Characteristics, Meat Quality, Environmental Impacts, Production Economics, and Consumer Preference for Beef.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Influence of Production System on Animal Performance, Carcass Characteristics, Meat Quality, Environmental Impacts, Production Economics, and Consumer Preference for Beef./
Author:	Webb, Megan Jean.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2018,
Description:	269 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 79-12, Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International79-12B.
Subject:	Animal sciences. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10748940
ISBN:	9780355973716

Influence of Production System on Animal Performance, Carcass Characteristics, Meat Quality, Environmental Impacts, Production Economics, and Consumer Preference for Beef.
Webb, Megan Jean.

Influence of Production System on Animal Performance, Carcass Characteristics, Meat Quality, Environmental Impacts, Production Economics, and Consumer Preference for Beef. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2018 - 269 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 79-12, Section: B.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--South Dakota State University, 2018.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

The overall objective of this study was to determine if the level of growth promotant technology used among production systems influence animal and carcass performance, meat quality, production economics, the environmental impact, and determine consumer preferences and perception. Angus Х Simmental steer calves (n =120) were stratified by birth date, birth weight, and dam age in a completely randomized design and assigned to one of four treatments: 1) no antibiotics (NA, receiving no technology); 2) non-hormone treated (NHTC, fed monensin and tylosin); 3) implant (IMPL, administered a series of three implants), and 4) implant plus fed a beta-agonist (IMBA, administered the same implant strategy as IMPL plus, fed ractopamine-HCI for the last 30 d prior to harvest). Animal weight, production expenses, and environmental factor data were collected from the production segments including: cow-calf, backgrounding, and finishing. During the finishing segment, animal feed intake, average daily gain (ADG), and efficiency was obtained. Carcass meat quality and yield performace was assessed. Striploins were collected for analyses post fabrication. Steaks were designated to specific postmortem aging periods, utilized for Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF), crude fat, and consumer sensory analyses. The consumer analyses evaluated beef production system information undisclosed and disclosed or simiply, without and later with information to assess palatability only, perception only, and perception plus palatability among untrained consumer panelists. IMPL had the greatest (P < 0.01) ADG and gain to feed (G:F). The final calculated body weight and hot carcass weight was similar (P > 0.05) and heavier (P 0.05). The actual branded carcass value was similar ( P > 0.01) for NA and IMPL and greater (P 0.05). Excluding the cost of the calf, production costs were similar (P > 0.05) and lowest (P < 0.05) for NA and IMPL, NHTC was intermediate (P < 0.05), and IMBA had the greatest ( P 0. 01) between NA and IMPL, which was greater (P 0.01). In the environmental analysis, IMPL reduced GHG (CO2e/kg HCW) emissions by 8%, energy use (MJ/kg HCW) by 6%, water use (kg H2O/kg HCW) by 6%, and reactive N loss (g N/kg HCW) by 6%. The IMBA reduced GHG emissions by 7%, energy use by 3%, and reactive N loss by 1%. Meat quality analyses for marbling score and crude fat among NA and NHTC did not differ (P > 0.05) but were greater (P 0.05) and lower in crude fat. Steaks from NA and NHTC did not differ (P > 0.05) for WBSF though were more tender (P ≤ 0.05) than IMPL and IMBA, which were similar (P ≤ 0.05) and tougher (P ≤ 0.05). During the Undisclosed without Meat panel, NA was most preferred (P ≤ 0.05) and IMBA was least preferred (P ≤ 0.05) while NHTC and IMPL were intermediate and similar (P > 0.05). All samples differed (P ≤ 0.05) during the Disclosed with Meat panel where, NHTC was most preferred followed by NA, IMPL, and IMBA. Despite improvements from use of monensin, tylosin, growth promoting implants with and without ractopamine HCl, cattle within IMPL and IMBA resulted in greater animal and carcass weights, were most effective at minimizing the environmental impact, and improved producer net return (IMPL only). However, consumers may have detected reductions in tenderness and palatability as IMPL and IMBA were least preferred. Consumers preferred the palatability of meat raised with judicious use of antimicrobials and antibiotics to ensure animal health when production information was disclosed (NHTC).

ISBN: 9780355973716Subjects--Topical Terms:

3174829
Animal sciences.

Influence of Production System on Animal Performance, Carcass Characteristics, Meat Quality, Environmental Impacts, Production Economics, and Consumer Preference for Beef.
LDR:04708nmm a2200313 4500 001 2208658
005 20191028072729.5
008 201008s2018 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9780355973716
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10748940
035 $a (MiAaPQ)sdstate:10443
035 $a AAI10748940
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Webb, Megan Jean. $3 3435701
245 1 0 $a Influence of Production System on Animal Performance, Carcass Characteristics, Meat Quality, Environmental Impacts, Production Economics, and Consumer Preference for Beef.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2018
300 $a 269 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 79-12, Section: B.
500 $a Publisher info.: Dissertation/Thesis.
500 $a Advisor: Blair, Amanda D.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--South Dakota State University, 2018.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a The overall objective of this study was to determine if the level of growth promotant technology used among production systems influence animal and carcass performance, meat quality, production economics, the environmental impact, and determine consumer preferences and perception. Angus Х Simmental steer calves (n =120) were stratified by birth date, birth weight, and dam age in a completely randomized design and assigned to one of four treatments: 1) no antibiotics (NA, receiving no technology); 2) non-hormone treated (NHTC, fed monensin and tylosin); 3) implant (IMPL, administered a series of three implants), and 4) implant plus fed a beta-agonist (IMBA, administered the same implant strategy as IMPL plus, fed ractopamine-HCI for the last 30 d prior to harvest). Animal weight, production expenses, and environmental factor data were collected from the production segments including: cow-calf, backgrounding, and finishing. During the finishing segment, animal feed intake, average daily gain (ADG), and efficiency was obtained. Carcass meat quality and yield performace was assessed. Striploins were collected for analyses post fabrication. Steaks were designated to specific postmortem aging periods, utilized for Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF), crude fat, and consumer sensory analyses. The consumer analyses evaluated beef production system information undisclosed and disclosed or simiply, without and later with information to assess palatability only, perception only, and perception plus palatability among untrained consumer panelists. IMPL had the greatest (P < 0.01) ADG and gain to feed (G:F). The final calculated body weight and hot carcass weight was similar (P > 0.05) and heavier (P 0.05). The actual branded carcass value was similar ( P > 0.01) for NA and IMPL and greater (P 0.05). Excluding the cost of the calf, production costs were similar (P > 0.05) and lowest (P < 0.05) for NA and IMPL, NHTC was intermediate (P < 0.05), and IMBA had the greatest ( P 0. 01) between NA and IMPL, which was greater (P 0.01). In the environmental analysis, IMPL reduced GHG (CO2e/kg HCW) emissions by 8%, energy use (MJ/kg HCW) by 6%, water use (kg H2O/kg HCW) by 6%, and reactive N loss (g N/kg HCW) by 6%. The IMBA reduced GHG emissions by 7%, energy use by 3%, and reactive N loss by 1%. Meat quality analyses for marbling score and crude fat among NA and NHTC did not differ (P > 0.05) but were greater (P 0.05) and lower in crude fat. Steaks from NA and NHTC did not differ (P > 0.05) for WBSF though were more tender (P ≤ 0.05) than IMPL and IMBA, which were similar (P ≤ 0.05) and tougher (P ≤ 0.05). During the Undisclosed without Meat panel, NA was most preferred (P ≤ 0.05) and IMBA was least preferred (P ≤ 0.05) while NHTC and IMPL were intermediate and similar (P > 0.05). All samples differed (P ≤ 0.05) during the Disclosed with Meat panel where, NHTC was most preferred followed by NA, IMPL, and IMBA. Despite improvements from use of monensin, tylosin, growth promoting implants with and without ractopamine HCl, cattle within IMPL and IMBA resulted in greater animal and carcass weights, were most effective at minimizing the environmental impact, and improved producer net return (IMPL only). However, consumers may have detected reductions in tenderness and palatability as IMPL and IMBA were least preferred. Consumers preferred the palatability of meat raised with judicious use of antimicrobials and antibiotics to ensure animal health when production information was disclosed (NHTC).
590 $a School code: 0205.
650 4 $a Animal sciences. $3 3174829
690 $a 0475
710 2 $a South Dakota State University. $b Animal Science. $3 3279622
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 79-12B.
790 $a 0205
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2018
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10748940