Examining the effect of Feedlot versus Free- Range cattle management on Botswana beef quality through sustainability assessment, post-mortem examinations, and SWOT analysis.

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4508724/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Examining the effect of Feedlot versus Free- Range cattle management on Botswana beef quality through sustainability assessment, post-mortem examinations, and SWOT analysis.

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4508724/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

African agriculture faces triple threats of climate change, population growth and inequality, necessitating agricultural research which examines sustainability holistically across social, economic, and environmental trade-offs. We examined meat quality from Botswana’s beef sector, by comparing management practices of feedlot finished beef versus free-range pasture management in three ways. First, we assessed competing but overlapping factors of environmental, economic, and social sustainability in the beef sector. Second, we used abattoir post-mortem examinations and compared 25 feedlot cattle and 22 free-range cattle across factors including: carcass dress mass (CDM), sex, carcass grade, fat color, conformation, dentition, carcass and offal postmortem decisions, and reasons for the decisions. We present a conceptual framework that portrays sustainability trade-offs between social, economic, and environmental factors, all constrained and influenced by geo- and socio-political and economic structures. Feedlot animals had a significantly higher CDM (p = 0.0001) at 237.56 kg ± 6.98 (Mean ± SEM) and higher incidences of lung, liver, and spleen condemnation rates at 72%, 40%, and 16% respectively compared to free-range cattle. Free-range CDM was 184.50kg ± 7.44 with higher (p = 0.0260) small and large tripe condemnation rate at (36%). Lastly, we examine sustainability trade-offs for feedlot and free-range cattle management through a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunity, and Threat (SWOT) analysis. With these nuanced research findings, one can envision multifaceted solutions to address cattle farming challenges in Botswana, including reducing disease burdens in feedlot cattle herds while also implementing pasture management and resiliency strategies for free-range cattle herds to improve animal nutrition and productivity.

beef

feedlot

free-range

meat quality

sustainability

African agriculture and food systems are under threat, needing to produce more food for a growing population (Ritchie et al., 2023; United Nations, 2023) with environments under threats of climate change including increased droughts, flooding, heat, and wildfires, across regions. Botswana like much of Southern Africa, is expected to experience the largest increases in temperature, greater than the global mean temperature increase projected by 2050, evidence presented and known since the United Nations Climate Change Conference COP17 in 2011 (Akoon et al. 2011). Similarly, climate change is projected to cause a 10% decline in rainfall across Southern Africa by 2050 (IPCC 2014). The net impact of agriculture – a sector contributing to climate change, while also very fragile to the effects of climate change – is about the how, how we grow food. As a social service and economic sector with ecosystem impacts, agriculture touches many of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, a set of 17 key goals for global wellbeing we are in grave jeopardy of not achieving by the target year 2030 (United Nations, 2022). With these looming and already felt challenges, the time for action for sustainable agricultural transformation led by the people and their values is now.

The Botswana beef sector is globally renowned, containing over 1.7 million head of cattle (International Trade Administration, 2024) and with the ninth largest market share of countries exporting beef to the European Union (Chatibura, 2023). Cattle rearing was the backbone of Botswana’s economy in the pre-colonial period and remains a critical part of the rural economy, experiencing significant government investment over the last decades to develop infrastructure, marketing, and veterinary services in support of the sector (Darkoh & Mbaiwa, 2002). Seswaa (pounded beef), the national dish of Botswana, pays tribute to the unique taste of Botswana beef as well as the Setswana culture of cattle raising across the savanna, bush, and semi-arid landscape of the country. Many attribute the unique taste of Botswana beef to free-range pastured cattle consuming the native and indigenous plants of the nation (Sunday Standard Reporter, 2023).

We wanted to understand how cattle production systems in Botswana impact meat quality, as well as whether the production systems are ‘sustainable’ under the ongoing impacts of climate change. To do so, we compared feedlot managed cattle to free-range pasture managed cattle at abattoir post-mortem examination, looking at factors including weight, age, fat quality, and carcass and organ condemnation rates. We share results from 47 examined cattle and discuss possible reasons for differences, including nutrition and animal health. We speculate on production system and sustainability trade-offs and the implications for Botswana’s agricultural sector at large.

2.1 Botswana beef sector conceptual framework on sustainability

We assessed competing but overlapping factors of environmental, economic, and social sustainability in the Botswana beef sector. We applied sustainability concept, principles, and definitions as reviewed by Ruggerio, 2021 and considered differences across production systems of feedlot and free-range grazing in Botswana to create a conceptual framework for beef cattle sustainability in Botswana. Traditional free-range grazing predominates and accounts for over 80% of the total cattle population (Darkoh & Mbaiwa, 2002), while commercial production represents 1% of all farms, holding 8% of total farmland area, and producing 20% of the country’s cattle (FAO, 2005; International Trade Administration, 2024; USAID LandLinks, 2024). Beef export sales to the E.U. are primarily facilitated by the Botswana Meat Commission (BMC), a parastatal-run abattoir and marketing body (Darkoh & Mbaiwa, 2002). Both cattle management approaches are affected by climate change, but the landless farmers relying on communal lands which often lack pasture management strategies suffer the most intense consequences of both a changing climate and the ‘tragedy of the commons’ through overgrazing of cattle. Drought is the major climate change concern, leading to bushfires with increased periods of high heat with minimal rainfall. However, other land use changes, including protected lands of approximately 45% of the country’s total land mass and mining related changes impact farming resiliency strategies (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2024).

2.2 Comparison of Feedlot versus Free-range cattle at postmortem

We compared carcasses of cattle raised in a feedlot with those from free-range management to determine whether there were differences owing to nutrition and management of the animals. Feedlot cattle are fed a grain-based diet and kept on smaller areas of land, whereas free-range animals are reared on pasture. We collected post-mortem examination reports from the Botswana Multispecies Abattoir over May-July 2023. Postmortem reports were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for 25 feedlot cattle and 22 free-range cattle. Collected data included: management type, carcass dress mass, bull/heifer, fat color, conformation, dentition, carcass and offal detention, and reasons for detention. This data was analysed using SAS to perform ANOVA, chi-square, and Fishers’ exact tests to examine differences between the two groups.

2.3 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunity, and Threat (SWOT) Analysis of Botswana beef sector

A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunity, and Threat (SWOT) analysis of Botswana beef sector was carried out comparing Feedlot to Free-range cattle management. Considerations included cattle productivity and profitability, feed costs, reliability of feed source, resilience during global turbulence, disease conditions and impact of climate change. The concept of food sovereignty, the right of all peoples to culturally appropriate, healthy, and nutritious foods, as well as the right of ownership of agricultural production systems (La Via Campesina, 2008), was factored into the analysis. This analysis compliments the sustainability framework by considering how feed availability impacts cattle productivity and acknowledging that each system has its own distinct challenges, namely pasture quality degradation for free-range cattle and reliance on imported grains and feed for feedlot raised cattle.

3.1 Botswana beef sector conceptual framework on sustainability

By examining literature on sustainability challenges for Botswana beef production, we conceptualized sustainability trade-offs in accordance with Ruggerio 2021, and present a framework of sustainability for the Botswana beef sector (Fig. 1). The framework represents sustainability trade-offs between social, economic, and environmental factors, all constrained by geo-and socio-political and economic structures. This framework illustrates how farm production decisions necessitate sustainability trade-offs, which are determined both by values, norms, economics, and power structures. Cattle feeding is an important sustainability decision – influenced by economic and environmental factors, and resulting in threats, challenges, and opportunities for each system. Feedlots rely on imported corn and soybean feeds, increasing producers’ uncertainty as an increasingly turbulent world affects grains availability and pricing. Free-range pasture systems, on the other hand, rely on rainfed agriculture (and often communal lands), which are increasingly challenged by the intersections of climate change, overgrazing and issues of land access. The sustainability framework in Fig. 1 facilitates an understanding of the complex interconnectivity of the various sustainability challenges for Botswana’s beef sector.

3.2 Comparison of Feedlot versus Free-range cattle at postmortem

The effect of finishing beef cattle in a feedlot as compared to free-range pasture rearing was determined by comparing abattoir postmortem findings of the two groups of animals. There was a significant difference (p = 0.0001) between the carcass dressed mass (CDM) of cattle from the feedlot compared to cattle from free-range with feedlot cattle weighing 53 kg more (Table 1). Feedlot cattle attained a higher grade of prime significantly (p = 0.0001) more than free-range cattle that were graded grade 1 or grade 2 but not prime. Factors that affect grade are age which is determined by dentition, conformation, and fat colour. There was no significant difference (p = 0.1634) in dentition between the two groups of cattle. For free-range cattle 64% had 0 teeth, 27% 1–6 teeth, and 9% 8 teeth, whereas for feedlot cattle 84% had 0 teeth, 16% 1–6 teeth, and 0% 8 teeth.

Feedlot cattle were significantly (p = 0.0001) different from free-range cattle for fat colour and carcass conformation (Table 2). The former had 100% white fat whilst the latter had 59% no fat, 27% coloured fat, and 14% white fat. Feedlot cattle had 100% good conformation and free-range cattle had 23% poor, 50% fair and 27% good conformation.

The abattoir serves to remove meat that is not fit for human consumption from the food chain. The abattoir also carries out disease surveillance for the livestock sector. None of the carcasses in the current study were condemned. The heart of one feedlot animal was condemned for infestation with Cysticercus bovis (Table 3). There were no significant differences (p = 0.2375) in the number of carcasses, heads, hearts, and tongues that were detained between the two groups of cattle. The sole reason for detention across feed types was infestation with beef measles (Cysticercosis bovis).

The outcome of offal inspection is condemnation, detention, or being passed as fit for human consumption (Table 4). The decision to condemn organs differed (p < 0.05) between the two management groups for all organs except small intestine. Feedlot cattle had higher incidences of condemned liver, spleen, and lung, while free-range cattle had higher incidences of condemned small and large tripe.

Livers of feedlot cattle were condemned significantly more at 72% than those of free-range cattle at 12% (Table 4, Fig. 2). Contamination and pathology were reasons for condemnation in feedlot and not in free-range cattle.

Spleens of feedlot cattle were condemned significantly more at 16% (p = 0.03) than those of free-range cattle at 0% (Table 4, Fig. 3). Condemnation of feedlot cattle spleens was attributable to contamination and pathology whereas in free-range cattle the reason was parasites.

Lungs of feedlot cattle were condemned significantly more at 72% (p < 0.001) than those of free-range cattle at 0% (Table 4, Fig. 4). Condemnation of lungs was attributable to pathology under Feedlot and parasites under free-range cattle.

Small and large tripe of free-range cattle was condemned significantly more at 38% (p < 0.03) than that of feedlot cattle at 16% (Table 4, Fig. 5). The reasons for condemnation varied with tripe from free-range cattle being condemned mostly for parasites and less so for pathology whereas feedlot cattle tripe was condemned mostly for pathology and less so for contamination. Thus, parasites were a much more important factor in free-range cattle compared to feedlot cattle in determining condemnation of tripe.

Condemnation of small intestines did not differ (p = 0. 2975) between the cattle groups (Table 4, Fig. 6). Condemnation was attributable to contamination and pathology in feedlot cattle whereas parasites and pathology were under responsible for condemnation in free-range cattle.

3.3 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunity, and Threat (SWOT) Analysis of Botswana beef sector.

Sustainability considerations for the Botswana beef sector were classified according to a SWOT analysis, presented in Table 5. The SWOT analysis compliments the sustainability framework in Fig. 1, highlighting how food sovereignty and sustainability research is defined by trade-offs, in this case, the trade-offs between intensive (feedlot) management and disease pressures, as well as between feed type, costs, resiliency, and animal productivity (weight gain). Feedlot systems showed larger carcass weights, a reliance on imported grains to feed cattle, and higher rates of organ condemnation (liver, lung, spleen), whereas free-range cattle had smaller carcass weights due to declining native pasture qualities. Feed costs as well as carcass weights affect profitability of the sector, resulting in various strategies for cattle raising. One must note these trade-offs are impacted by global economic markets and political systems, as evidenced by the trade-offs around imported or native feeds.

Table 1

Mean Carcass Dressed Mass, Grade and Dentition Frequencies for Feedlot versus Free-range Cattle.
Parameter	Feed type
Parameter	Feedlot	Free-range	P-value
Carcass Dressed Mass (CDM) (kg ± s.e.m*)	237.56 ± 6.98	184.50 ± 7.44	< 0.0001
Grade
1	0	17	< 0.0001
2	0	5
Prime	25	0
Dentition
0 tooth	21	14	0.1634
1–6 teeth	4	6
8 teeth	0	2
*s.e.m = standard error of the mean

Table 2

Frequencies of Fat Colour and Carcass Conformation for Feedlot versus Free-range Cattle.
Parameter	Feed type
Parameter	Feedlot	Free-range	P-value
Fat colour
None	0	13	< 0.0001
Cream or yellow	0	6
White	25	3
Carcass Conformation
Poor	0	5	< 0.0001
Fair	0	11
Good	25	6

Table 3

Frequencies of postmortem decision of Carcass, Head, Tongue, and Heart for Feedlot versus Free-range Cattle.
Parameter	Feed type
Parameter	Feedlot	Free-range	P-value
Carcass post-mortem
Detained	1	3	0.2375
Passed	24	19	0.2375
Reason for detention of Carcass
C. bovis	1	3	0.2375
None	24	19	0.2375
Head post-mortem
Detained	1	3	0.2375
Passed	24	19	0.2375
Reason for detention of Head
C. bovis	1	3	0.2375
None	24	19	0.2375
Tongue post-mortem
Detained	1	3	0.2375
Passed	24	19	0.2375
Reason for detention of Tongue
C. bovis	1	0	0.3430
None	24	22	0.3430
Heart post-mortem
Condemned	1	0	0.3331
Detained	1	3
Passed	23	19
Reasons for post-mortem decision of Heart
Contamination	1	0	0.3331
C. bovis	1	3
Fit for human consumption	23	19

Table 4

Frequencies of postmortem decision of liver, spleen, lung, small and large tripe and small intestine condemnation for Feedlot versus Free-range cattle.
Parameter	Feed type
Parameter	Feedlot	Free-range	P-value
Liver post-mortem
Condemned	10	2	0.0158*
Detained	0	3
Passed	15	17
Spleen post-mortem
Condemned	4	0	0.0312*
Detained	0	3
Passed	21	19
Lung post-mortem
Condemned	18	0	< 0.0001**
Detained	0	3
Passed	7	19
SL Tripe post-mortem
Condemned	4	8	0.0260*
Detained	0	3
Passed	21	11
Small intestine post-mortem
Condemned	7	5	0.2975
Detained	0	2
Passed	18	15
Significance of < 0.05 and *significance of < 0.01

Table 5

Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threat (SWOT) analysis for feedlot versus free-range cattle management in Botswana
	Feedlot	Free-range
Strengths	- Large carcass weight = higher revenues - Production efficiency economic model effective under current economic systems - Stable cattle nutrition compared to pasture systems	- Low feed costs - Relies on native feeds ◊ some resiliency during periods of global turbulence
Strengths	- Botswana Government offers various supports for farmers across cattle production systems, such as subsidies, grants, and veterinary services
Weakness	- Reliance on imported feed – volatility in availability and pricing ◊ affects feed costs - High rates of organ condemnation	- Declining pasture qualities (with evidence of parasitisation) leading to lower slaughter weights - Smaller carcass weights = lower revenues
Opportunity	- Reduce disease conditions in feedlot ◊ understand the trade-off consequences for productivity as ways to reduce disease conditions can decrease productivity (ex. reduce crowding / overstocking)	- Managing cattle to ‘manage’ pastures (ex. 'regenerative agriculture’ / ‘regenerative grazing’), strategic grazing practices to restore soil/pasture quality. - Other communal pasture management strategies to improve forage quality - Market segments demanding organic and grass-fed beef
Threats	- Changes in global markets impacting global export market access or grain importation and pricing - Climate change impacting health of intensively managed animals at higher risk of disease spread from close animal conditions (ex. infectious and zoonotic diseases, heat stress)	- Climate change causing continued pasture degradation. - Climate change impacting health of animals (heat stress, infectious/ zoonotic disease) - Vulnerability to predators and theft

Our study examined meat quality from Botswana’s beef sector, an intangible cultural heritage of the nation, by comparing management practices of feedlot finished beef versus free-range pasture management and examining trade-offs. Animal productivity, animal disease, and farmer profitability all exist on an interactive continuum, creating trade-offs dependent on the management system (Breure et al., 2024; Kanter et al., 2018; Thomson et al., 2019). African Agriculture, including the beef sector, needs to be sustainable. Our assessment concurs with Ruggerio, 2021 with regard to recognising that sustainability is the outcome of competing but overlapping factors of environmental, economic, and social nature all influenced by geo- and socio-political and economic structures.

Free-range cattle were significantly thinner than feedlot cattle, and feedlot cattle had higher incidences of lung, liver, and spleen condemnation both of which are impacted by management style. It is not surprising that free-range cattle were thinner and had fewer ‘good’ conformation carcasses than feedlot, where the production goal is to raise and fatten animals to slaughter weight in short periods of time, often relying on imported concentrate feeds (corn, soybean) to do so. Free-range management, on the other hand, utilizes native pasture systems to feed cattle. In Botswana, communal pasture quality has been declining for some time, the result of overgrazing and climate change affecting rainfall patterns (Mogomotsi et al., 2020). Significant variability in rainfall patterns has been reported over the last decade, affecting the livelihoods of those dependant on rainfed agriculture (O. E. Kgosikoma et al., 2015; O. O. Kgosikoma et al., 2012; Mogotsi et al., 2013). It is therefore unsurprising that free-range cattle were thinner at slaughter, as they suffered the consequences of climate change on pasture quality.

Differences in fat color and composition between free-range and feedlot cattle can also be attributed to management. Various studies have shown grass-fed cattle have fat more yellow in color (Leheska et al., 2008), with evidence that grain feeding through feedlot causes changes in fat color, becoming more white colored over feedlot feeding time (Strachan et al., 1993). Differences in diet contribute to the different fat color profiles between feedlot (white fat) and free-range cattle (yellow/cream fat), while the lack of fat in free-range cattle can be attributed to poor pasture quality causing severe undernutrition.

Feedlot cattle had higher rates of lung, liver, and spleen condemnation, another consequence of differences in management systems. Close conditions of animals in feedlot management system increase the cattle’s susceptibility to a variety of infectious diseases, as well as increase in stress levels allowing subclinical illnesses opportunity to proliferate. We suspect high levels of respiratory disease across feedlot cattle as 72% of feedlot cattle sampled in our study had condemned lungs after inspection (18 of the 25 feedlot cattle). Similarly, 40% and 16% of feedlot cattle sampled had condemned livers and spleens, respectively, after inspection. The liver and spleen serve detoxification roles, so it can be theorized that feedlot animals have some level of clinical and/or subclinical disease. Free-range cattle, on the other hand, had higher levels of small and large tripe condemnation with 38% of sampled cattle condemned (8 condemned out of 21 sampled cattle) predominately due to parasites, a management consequence from grass-feeding.

The sole reason for whole carcass detention across feed types was infestation with beef measles (Cysticercosis bovis). Beef measles is endemic to Botswana with national prevalence rates of 6.2% and significant variation in prevalence across districts (Mazhani et al., 2022). Bovine cysticercosis is caused by the larval stage of the human parasitic tapeworm, Taenia saginata. Thus, C. bovis is of major concern both for public health and economic profitability for the beef sector (Mazhani et al., 2022). Carcasses with more than ten cysts are condemned. Carcasses with less than ten cysts are detained and undergo cold treatment before being passed as fit for human consumption. In addition, the presence of cysts downgrades both carcasses and offal at a cost to the farmer and abattoir alike.

Food sovereignty is the right of all peoples to culturally appropriate, healthy, and nutritious foods, as well as the right of ownership of agricultural production systems (La Via Campesina, 2008). Under this approach, the values, needs and culture of Botswana should determine how to prioritize efforts to improve agricultural production and food availability across the country. With this in mind, we condensed major trade-offs between feedlot and free-range cattle raising to show strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for each system. This analysis compliments the sustainability conceptual framework by providing specific details on how sustainability trade-offs affect beef production systems in Botswana.

Importantly, both production systems are impacted by climate change, which highlights the need for the research community to contribute to strategies for beef resilience. Further research should explore various management options and clearly define the ‘pros and cons’ and economic consequences of each system to help the relevant stakeholders (farmers, policymakers, agricultural professionals) make informed decisions regarding investment, management, research, policy, and programs for the betterment of Botswana agriculture. Similarly, additional research is needed on effective communal pasture management strategies to help address the needs and concerns of Batswana farmers relying on the traditional, cultural practices of raising cattle on pasture.

We conclude that animal productivity, animal disease, and beef sector profitability all exist on an interactive continuum, creating trade-offs dependent on the management system. Feedlot compared to Free-range cattle management reveals productivity and economic trade-offs for each system represented by higher CDM and higher liver, lung, and spleen condemnation for Feedlot cattle and lower CDM and lower liver, lung, and spleen condemnation for Free-range cattle. The trade-offs become clear when the cattle farming systems are subjected to a SWOT analysis.

Competing Interests:

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. (see Line 378)

Funding:

This research was funded in-kind by the efforts of the authors. Open access publication costs are supported by an institutional partnership with the University of Pennsylvania.

Author Contributions:

BP, GTR, SSR, and BM: conceptualized the study. BM: data collection. JM: statistical calculations. BP, SSR, JM, GTR, BM: Interpreted results. SSR, JM: prepared results section and conducted several revisions of full manuscript. BP: first draft and several revisions of full manuscript. All authors read, revised, and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements:

We are thankful for the support of the Botswana Ministry of Agriculture to conduct this study! A Global Engagement Fund award by Penn Global supports ongoing research led by Dr. Brianna Parsons, which first brought her to Botswana and facilitated collaborations with the authorships team.

Data Availability: The datasets generated and analyzed during this study are available for public access in the Supplementary Information

Akoon, I., Archer, E., Colvin, C., Davis, C., Diedricks, G., Engelbrecht, F., Vincent, K., Cull, T. (2011). Climate risk and vulnerability: A handbook for Southern Africa. Accessed at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236144201_Climate_risk_and_vulnerability_A_handbook_for_Southern_Africa
Breure, T. S., Estrada-Carmona, N., Petsakos, A., Gotor, E., Jansen, B., & Groot, J. C. J. (2024). A systematic review of the methodology of trade-off analysis in agriculture. Nature Food, 5(3), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-00926-x
Chatibura, D. M. (2023). Beef as intangible cultural heritage in Botswana: A documentary review. Journal of Ethnic Foods, 10(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42779-023-00199-y
Convention on Biological Diversity. (2024). Botswana—Country Profile. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/countries/profile?country=bw
Darkoh, M. B. K., & Mbaiwa, J. E. (2002). Globalisation and the Livestock Industry in Botswana. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 23(2), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9493.00123
FAO. (2005). AQUASTAT Country Profile—Botswana.
International Trade Administration. (2024, February 28). Botswana—Agricultural Sectors. https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/botswana-agricultural-sectors
Kanter, D. R., Musumba, M., Wood, S. L. R., Palm, C., Antle, J., Balvanera, P., Dale, V. H., Havlik, P., Kline, K. L., Scholes, R. J., Thornton, P., Tittonell, P., & Andelman, S. (2018). Evaluating agricultural trade-offs in the age of sustainable development. Agricultural Systems, 163, 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.010
Kgosikoma, O. E., Mojeremane, W., & Harvie, B. (2015). The impact of livestock grazing management systems on soil and vegetation characteristics across savanna ecosystems in Botswana. African Journal of Range & Forage Science, 32(4), 271–278. https://doi.org/10.2989/10220119.2015.1008042
Kgosikoma, O. O., Mogotsi, K., & Makhabu, S. W. (2012). Cattle Productivity and Nutritional Limitation in the Semi-Arid Makgadikgadi Region of Botswana.
La Via Campesina. (2008). Food Sovereignty for Africa: A Challenge at Fingertips. https://viacampesina.org/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2008/03/Food-sovereignty-for-Africa-2007.pdf
Leheska, J. M., Thompson, L. D., Howe, J. C., Hentges, E., Boyce, J., Brooks, J. C., Shriver, B., Hoover, L., & Miller, M. F. (2008). Effects of conventional and grass-feeding systems on the nutrient composition of beef. Journal of Animal Science, 86(12), 3575–3585. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0565
Mazhani, B., Masitha, E., Ntwaetsile, M., Thutwa, K., & Sehularo, K. (2022). Distribution of bovine cysticercosis prevalence in the southeastern districts of Botswana from 2015 to 2016. Veterinary World, 15(2), 368–373. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2022.368-373
Mogomotsi, P. K., Sekelemani, A., & Mogomotsi, G. E. J. (2020). Climate change adaptation strategies of small-scale farmers in Ngamiland East, Botswana. Climatic Change, 159(3), 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02645-w
Mogotsi, K., Nyangito, M. M., & Nyariki, D. M. (2013). The role of drought among agro-pastoral communities in a semi-arid environment: The case of Botswana. Journal of Arid Environments, 91, 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.11.006
Ritchie, H., Rodés-Guirao, L., Mathieu, E., Gerber, M., Ortiz-Ospina, E., Hasell, J., & Roser, M. (2023). Population Growth. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/population-growth
Ruggerio, C. A. (2021). Sustainability and sustainable development: A review of principles and definitions. Science of The Total Environment, 786, 147481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147481
Strachan, D. B., Yang, A., & Dillon, R. D. (1993). Effect of grain feeding on fat colour and other carcass characteristics in previously grass-fed Bos indicus steers. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 33(3), 269–273. https://doi.org/10.1071/ea9930269
Sunday Standard Reporter. (2023, February 27). Feedlotting could ‘undermine Botswana beef’s positioning as a premium brand’ | Sunday Standard. https://www.sundaystandard.info/feedlotting-could-undermine-botswana-beefs-positioning-as-a-premium-brand/
Thomson, A. M., Ellis, E. C., Grau, Hé. R., Kuemmerle, T., Meyfroidt, P., Ramankutty, N., & Zeleke, G. (2019). Sustainable intensification in land systems: Trade-offs, scales, and contexts. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 38, 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.04.011
United Nations. (2022). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2022. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2022/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2022.pdf
United Nations. (2023). Global Issues: Population. United Nations; United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/population
USAID LandLinks. (2024). Botswana. https://www.land-links.org/country-profile/botswana/

BotswanaMeatStudyGrainvPasturedataset1FINAL.xlsx

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Major revision with re-assessment
22 Aug, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
25 Jul, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
18 Jul, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
03 Jun, 2024
First submitted to journal
31 May, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Examining the effect of Feedlot versus Free- Range cattle management on Botswana beef quality through sustainability assessment, post-mortem examinations, and SWOT analysis.

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Botswana beef sector conceptual framework on sustainability

2.2 Comparison of Feedlot versus Free-range cattle at postmortem

2.3 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunity, and Threat (SWOT) Analysis of Botswana beef sector

3. Results

3.1 Botswana beef sector conceptual framework on sustainability

3.2 Comparison of Feedlot versus Free-range cattle at postmortem

3.3 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunity, and Threat (SWOT) Analysis of Botswana beef sector.

4. Discussion

5. Conclusions

Declarations

Competing Interests:

Funding:

Author Contributions:

Acknowledgements:

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1