MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1666642404 · doi:10.1071/ea01052

Cattle supply, production systems and markets for Australian beef

2001· article· en· W1666642404 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
B. M. Bindon, Nádia Jones

Notice bibliographique

RevueAustralian Journal of Experimental Agriculture · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesMeat and Livestock Australia
Mots-clésAgricultural economicsBusinessLivestockCompetition (biology)Beef cattleGovernment (linguistics)International tradeGeographyEconomicsBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Markets for Australian beef throughout the 20th century have been moulded by world wars, economic depressions, droughts, transport technology, cattle breeding, trade barriers, global competition, livestock disease eradication, human health risks, food safety, Australian Government policy, consumerism and beef quality. Major ‘shocks’ to beef marketing include the development of successful shipments of chilled carcases to Britain in the 1930s, the widespread trade disruption caused by World War II, expansion (early 1950s) and then a reduction in beef exports to Britain (1956), the introduction and then proliferation of Bos indicus derived cattle in northern Australia (1960s), licensing and upgrading of Australian abattoirs to export to USA and the consequential brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign leading to record export tonnages of Australian processing beef to USA (1960–70). In 1980, increased beef trade to Japan began, leading in the late 1980s to expansion of high-quality grain finished products into that market. By 1993, beef exports to Japan (280.5 kt) exceeded those to USA (274.4 kt), signalling the significant shift in beef exports to Asia. Commencing in about 1986, the USA recognised the value of beef exports to Asian markets pioneered by Australia. Australia’s share of the Japanese and South Korean markets has been under intense competition since that time. Another major influence on Australia’s beef market in the early 1990s was growth in live cattle exports to Asian markets in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. Live exports accounted for 152000 heads in 1992 and 858000 heads in 1996. Improved management systems (e.g. fences) and consequent regulation of cattle supply even in the wet season, a by-product of the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign, were indirect drivers of the growth in live exports. Throughout the period 1940–2000, domestic consumption of beef and veal declined from 68 to 33.3 kg/head.year, reflecting competition from other foods, perceptions of health risks, price of beef, periodic food safety scares, vegetarianism, changes in lifestyle and eating habits and lack of consistency of eating quality of beef. Despite this decline, the domestic Australian beef market still consumes a significant component (37%) of total Australian beef production. In 1984–85, the reform of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation set in train a major directional change (‘New Direction’) of the beef sector in response to beef market trends. Under Dick Austen’s leadership, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation changed the industry’s culture from being ‘production-driven’ to being ‘consumer-driven’. Market research began in Australia, Japan and Korea to establish consumer preferences and attitudes to price, beef appearance and eating quality. Definite consumer requirements were identified under headings of consistency and reliability. The AusMeat carcass descriptors were introduced and a decade later traits like tenderness, meat colour, fat colour, meat texture, taste, smell, and muscle size were addressed. These historical ‘shocks’ that shaped the Australian beef markets have all been accompanied by modification to production systems, breeding programs, herd structure, processing procedures, advertising and promotion, meat retailing and end-use. The increasing importance of the food service sector and the ‘Asian merge’ influence on beef cuts usage in restaurant meals and take-away products are the most recognisable changes in the Australian food landscape. The Cooperative Research Centre¿s research portfolio was built around the changing forces influencing beef markets in the early 1990s. Australia needed to better understand the genetic and non-genetic factors affecting beef quality. One example was the poor success rate of cattle being grain-fed for the Japanese premium markets. Another was the relative contribution of pre- and post-slaughter factors to ultimate eating quality of beef. The Meat Standards Australia scheme was launched in 1997 to address this problem in more detail. The Cooperative Research Centre contributed significantly to this initiative. In the year 2001, Australia, with only 2.5% of world cattle numbers retains the position of world number one beef trader. We trade to 110 countries worldwide. The Australian beef sector is worth A$6 billion annually. The diversity of Australian environments, cattle genotypes and production systems provides us with the ability to meet diverse specifications for beef products. A new set of market forces is now emerging. Strict accreditation rules apply to Australian producers seeking access to the lucrative European Union market. Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies like bovine spongiform encephalopathy and scrapie are a continuing food safety concern in Europe. This and the foot and mouth disease outbreak in Britain early in 2001 have potentially significant indirect effects on markets for Australian beef. And the sleeping giant, foot and mouth disease-free status of Latin American countries Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina continues to emerge as a major threat to Australian beef markets in Canada and Taiwan. As in the past, science and technology will play a significant role in Australia¿s response to these market forces.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,150
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,484

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,261
Écart entre enseignants0,246 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations62
Publié2001
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAustralian Journal of Experimental AgricultureMême sujetGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockTravaux en français237 207