Comparison of feeding systems: Feed cost, palatability and environmental impact among hay-fattened beef, consistent grass-only-fed beef and conventional marbled beef in Wagyu (Japanese Black cattle)

Khounsaknalath Sithyphone, Mitsuyasu Yabe, Hiroshi Horita, Keisuke Hayashi, Tomiko Fumita, Yuji Shiotsuka, Tetsuji Etoh, Fumio Ebara, Olavanh Samadmanivong, Jochen Wegner, Takafumi Gotoh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The objective of this article is to compare feed cost, palatability and environmental impacts among feeding systems of high concentrate (HC), high hay (HH) and grass-only-fed (Gof) groups. Feed cost was the sum of costs paid for feed intake times the price of feed per kilogram. Palatability was measured by a panel taste test using HH and Gof beef and analyzed for differences. Environmental impacts were calculated based on 1kg of Japanese beef yield of CO 2 equivalents (eq) and animal end weights at each feeding stage. Results showed that the HH and Gof feeding systems could significantly reduce feed costs by approximately 60% and 78%, respectively, from the HC. In the panel taste test, 50% and 47.50% of panelists indicated that HH beef was 'extremely delicious' and 'acceptable,' respectively, while 15% indicated that Gof beef was 'extremely delicious'; 62.50% indicated that Gof beef was 'acceptable.' Environmental impacts of each feeding system in terms of CO 2 equivalents (eq) were 9.32, 6.10 and 2.04 tonnes of eq for the HC, HH and Gof, respectively. The HH was an economical system that produced moderate impacts on the environment and had impressive taste.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)352-359
Number of pages8
JournalAnimal Science Journal
Volume82
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 1 2011

Fingerprint

Wagyu
palatability
Poaceae
hay
environmental impact
beef
grasses
Costs and Cost Analysis
cattle
Carbon Monoxide
concentrates
sensory evaluation
Red Meat
Weights and Measures
feed intake
testing

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)

Cite this

Comparison of feeding systems : Feed cost, palatability and environmental impact among hay-fattened beef, consistent grass-only-fed beef and conventional marbled beef in Wagyu (Japanese Black cattle). / Sithyphone, Khounsaknalath; Yabe, Mitsuyasu; Horita, Hiroshi; Hayashi, Keisuke; Fumita, Tomiko; Shiotsuka, Yuji; Etoh, Tetsuji; Ebara, Fumio; Samadmanivong, Olavanh; Wegner, Jochen; Gotoh, Takafumi.

In: Animal Science Journal, Vol. 82, No. 2, 01.04.2011, p. 352-359.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sithyphone, Khounsaknalath ; Yabe, Mitsuyasu ; Horita, Hiroshi ; Hayashi, Keisuke ; Fumita, Tomiko ; Shiotsuka, Yuji ; Etoh, Tetsuji ; Ebara, Fumio ; Samadmanivong, Olavanh ; Wegner, Jochen ; Gotoh, Takafumi. / Comparison of feeding systems : Feed cost, palatability and environmental impact among hay-fattened beef, consistent grass-only-fed beef and conventional marbled beef in Wagyu (Japanese Black cattle). In: Animal Science Journal. 2011 ; Vol. 82, No. 2. pp. 352-359.
@article{63dd4b60c47543bf93ad16dec5641739,
title = "Comparison of feeding systems: Feed cost, palatability and environmental impact among hay-fattened beef, consistent grass-only-fed beef and conventional marbled beef in Wagyu (Japanese Black cattle)",
abstract = "The objective of this article is to compare feed cost, palatability and environmental impacts among feeding systems of high concentrate (HC), high hay (HH) and grass-only-fed (Gof) groups. Feed cost was the sum of costs paid for feed intake times the price of feed per kilogram. Palatability was measured by a panel taste test using HH and Gof beef and analyzed for differences. Environmental impacts were calculated based on 1kg of Japanese beef yield of CO 2 equivalents (eq) and animal end weights at each feeding stage. Results showed that the HH and Gof feeding systems could significantly reduce feed costs by approximately 60{\%} and 78{\%}, respectively, from the HC. In the panel taste test, 50{\%} and 47.50{\%} of panelists indicated that HH beef was 'extremely delicious' and 'acceptable,' respectively, while 15{\%} indicated that Gof beef was 'extremely delicious'; 62.50{\%} indicated that Gof beef was 'acceptable.' Environmental impacts of each feeding system in terms of CO 2 equivalents (eq) were 9.32, 6.10 and 2.04 tonnes of eq for the HC, HH and Gof, respectively. The HH was an economical system that produced moderate impacts on the environment and had impressive taste.",
author = "Khounsaknalath Sithyphone and Mitsuyasu Yabe and Hiroshi Horita and Keisuke Hayashi and Tomiko Fumita and Yuji Shiotsuka and Tetsuji Etoh and Fumio Ebara and Olavanh Samadmanivong and Jochen Wegner and Takafumi Gotoh",
year = "2011",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1740-0929.2010.00836.x",
language = "English",
volume = "82",
pages = "352--359",
journal = "Animal Science Journal",
issn = "1344-3941",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of feeding systems

T2 - Feed cost, palatability and environmental impact among hay-fattened beef, consistent grass-only-fed beef and conventional marbled beef in Wagyu (Japanese Black cattle)

AU - Sithyphone, Khounsaknalath

AU - Yabe, Mitsuyasu

AU - Horita, Hiroshi

AU - Hayashi, Keisuke

AU - Fumita, Tomiko

AU - Shiotsuka, Yuji

AU - Etoh, Tetsuji

AU - Ebara, Fumio

AU - Samadmanivong, Olavanh

AU - Wegner, Jochen

AU - Gotoh, Takafumi

PY - 2011/4/1

Y1 - 2011/4/1

N2 - The objective of this article is to compare feed cost, palatability and environmental impacts among feeding systems of high concentrate (HC), high hay (HH) and grass-only-fed (Gof) groups. Feed cost was the sum of costs paid for feed intake times the price of feed per kilogram. Palatability was measured by a panel taste test using HH and Gof beef and analyzed for differences. Environmental impacts were calculated based on 1kg of Japanese beef yield of CO 2 equivalents (eq) and animal end weights at each feeding stage. Results showed that the HH and Gof feeding systems could significantly reduce feed costs by approximately 60% and 78%, respectively, from the HC. In the panel taste test, 50% and 47.50% of panelists indicated that HH beef was 'extremely delicious' and 'acceptable,' respectively, while 15% indicated that Gof beef was 'extremely delicious'; 62.50% indicated that Gof beef was 'acceptable.' Environmental impacts of each feeding system in terms of CO 2 equivalents (eq) were 9.32, 6.10 and 2.04 tonnes of eq for the HC, HH and Gof, respectively. The HH was an economical system that produced moderate impacts on the environment and had impressive taste.

AB - The objective of this article is to compare feed cost, palatability and environmental impacts among feeding systems of high concentrate (HC), high hay (HH) and grass-only-fed (Gof) groups. Feed cost was the sum of costs paid for feed intake times the price of feed per kilogram. Palatability was measured by a panel taste test using HH and Gof beef and analyzed for differences. Environmental impacts were calculated based on 1kg of Japanese beef yield of CO 2 equivalents (eq) and animal end weights at each feeding stage. Results showed that the HH and Gof feeding systems could significantly reduce feed costs by approximately 60% and 78%, respectively, from the HC. In the panel taste test, 50% and 47.50% of panelists indicated that HH beef was 'extremely delicious' and 'acceptable,' respectively, while 15% indicated that Gof beef was 'extremely delicious'; 62.50% indicated that Gof beef was 'acceptable.' Environmental impacts of each feeding system in terms of CO 2 equivalents (eq) were 9.32, 6.10 and 2.04 tonnes of eq for the HC, HH and Gof, respectively. The HH was an economical system that produced moderate impacts on the environment and had impressive taste.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79953044054&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79953044054&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2010.00836.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2010.00836.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 21729217

AN - SCOPUS:79953044054

VL - 82

SP - 352

EP - 359

JO - Animal Science Journal

JF - Animal Science Journal

SN - 1344-3941

IS - 2

ER -