Review Article

Economic Values on Carcass and Non-Carcass of Beef Cattle Based on Sex at the Manokwari Slaughterhouse, West Papua, Indonesia

Iriani Sumpe1,2, Bambang Suhartanto1, Siti Andarwati1, Tri Anggraeni Kusumastuti1*

1Faculty of Animal Science, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Jl. Bulaksumur, Sleman, Yogyakarta, Indonesia; 2Faculty of Animal Science, Universitas Papua, Jl. Gunung Salju, Amban, Manokwari, West Papua, Indonesia.

Received | July 30, 2024; Accepted | October 19, 2024; Published | December 30, 2024

*Correspondence | Tri Anggraeni Kusumastuti, Faculty of Animal Science, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Jl. Bulaksumur, Sleman, Yogyakarta, Indonesia; Email: [email protected]

Citation | Sumpe I, Suhartanto B, Andarwati S, Kusumastuti TA (2025). Economic values on carcass and non-carcass of beef cattle based on sex at the manokwari slaughterhouse, west papua, Indonesia. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 13(1): 157-165.

DOI | https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.aavs/2025/13.1.157.165

ISSN (Online) | 2307-8316; ISSN (Print) | 2309-3331

Copyright: 2025 by the authors. Licensee ResearchersLinks Ltd, England, UK.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

INTRODUCTION

The high slaughter of productive cows at the slaughterhouse Manokwari Regency has an impact on the sustainability of beef cattle germplasm. The productivity of beef livestock based on economic aspects is largely determined by carcass weight, carcass percentage, quantity and quality of meat produced, as well as carcass cuts that can be sold (Nakitari 2021; Johnson and Ball 1989; Agustina et al., 2017). Beef cattle are one of the beef livestock resources in Manokwari Regency and have great potential to be developed as a source of income for livestock farmers (Iqubal et al., 2021; Sesay et al., 2022). According to Department of Agriculture and Food Security of Manokwari Regency in 2023 this area had potential local forage resource because they are supported by 3,458 hectares of food crop land that can generate agricultural waste as a source of livestock feed.

The center for beef cattle development in Manokwari Regency is located on agricultural areas that including the plantation, food crop agriculture, and “agropolitan” subsectors covering the Warmare, Prafi, Masni, and Sidey regions. Beef cattle farming business in Manokwari Regency is generally smallholder farming conducted by farmers in addition to their agricultural activities. Characteristics of this farming include a small number of livestock, labor generally from the farmer’s family, low technological input, and low income (Herawati and Anwarudin, 2023; Purba and Sitinjak, 2023). The beef cattle rearing system in this area varies from traditional (extensive) to semi-intensive (Iyai and Yaku, 2015). According to Widayati et al. (2018), it is also possible to develop beef cattle in Bintuni Regency, one of the regencies in West Papua Province, by enhancing land characteristics and raising community awareness of cow breeding. The beef cattle kept in Manokwari Regency are mostly Balinese cattle and a small number have undergone cross-breeding through the artificial insemination program (Labatar and Aswandi, 2017). It is possible to create the shepherd-based beef cattle ranching method in Indonesia (Amam and Harsita, 2021). The study on evaluating the economic potential of Acehnese cattle from the perspective of stock farmers, traders, and consumers was the high selling prices and easy maintenance (Sofyan et al., 2020).

The production and productivity of beef cattle in Manokwari Regency can be increased by controlling the slaughter of bulls, which is crucial for population growth and the sustainability of beef cattle genetic resources. One way to achieve this is by understanding the differences in livestock productivity based on sex, which is related to the economic value of live cattle, carcass, and non-carcass parts. The economic value of beef cattle is largely determined by the carcass percentage 50-60% (Soeparno, 2015). Carcass is the body weight of beef cattle after slaughter minus the head, blood, internal organs, feet, and hide. Meat is the main component of the carcass, consisting of tissue fat adipose, bones, cartilage, connective tissue, and tendons. Beef cattle are considered to have high economic value if the carcass production is also high. The result of slaughtering livestock can be separated into two parts: carcass and non-carcass.

Non-carcass part (offal) consists of edible and non-edible components. In Indonesia, edible non-carcass parts such as hide, head, tail, and viscera (liver, heart, lungs, and digestive tract) also have high economic value. These parts can be processed into various Indonesian foods such as “konro,” “coto Makassar,” and “kari.” Some non-edible non-carcass components can be processed with advanced technology to provide significant financial benefits (Soeparno, 2015). The economic value of local cattle and buffalo increases significantly when processed into carcass and non-carcass components (Fatonah et al., 2023). However, few thorough economic studies examine the expenses of the meat industry such as live animals and carcasses.

The objective of this study was to determine the economic values of beef cattle based on the sex of the slaughtered livestock at the Manokwari Regency slaughterhouses. The novelty of this research lies in its comprehensive analysis of economic values associated with carcass and non-carcass characteristics of beef cattle slaughtered based on livestock sex in Manokwari Regency, West Papua, Indonesia. These findings have theoretical implications for understanding the economic drivers of beef production and practical implications for stakeholders involved in the beef industry in the region.

The scope of this study includes random sampling at private slaughterhouses such as Kampung Bugis, Pasar Wosi, and Taman Ria Wosi in Manokwari Regency as well as evaluating the economic value based on the selling prices of carcass and non-carcass products and comparing the economic added values of bulls and cows.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Samples and Location

The study was conducted 30 days located at privately slaughterhouses in Manokwari Regency, namely Kampung Bugis, Pasar Wosi, and Tamanria Wosi. Samples were obtained from 30 Balinese cattle, consisting of 14 cows and 16 bulls originating from several districts, such as Warmare, Prafi, Masni and Sidey areas (Figure 1). The cattle were 3-5 years old. The selection of the slaughterhouse was carried out with the limitation of the minimum business length of 5 years, livestock were measured based on slaughter carried out at each slaughterhouse for 10 days so that 30 samples were obtained. Due to limitation number of slaughtering cattle per day and insufficient record of time schedule of these slaughtering houses, as much as 30 cattle were recorded and observed.

 

Data Collection Technique

Data collection techniques were carried out using a survey method through structured interviews and observations. An in-depth interview was done with livestock butchers who also act as final traders. Interviews were also conducted to obtain information on the prevailing market prices based on the purchase of live livestock and selling prices based on carcass and non-carcass components. Weighing of beef cattle products based on carcass and non-carcass sold at the slaughterhouse. Livestock sampling method done by employing purposive sampling based on the slaughter of beef cattle carried out at the slaughterhouse.

Measurement Variables

Measurement variables consisted of estimated live livestock weight (kg), including the carcass beef cattle percentage 50-60% (Soeparno, 2015); Bali cattle carcass percentage: 51-56% (Suryanto et al., 2014; Hafid et al., 2018; Prasetia et al., 2021). The live weight of beef cattle was approximately 50-60%. The weight of the carcass and non-carcass parts were calculated based on the products sold (kg). The percentage of carcass weight was determined based on the ratio of the carcass weight to the total weight of carcass and non-carcass parts multiplied by 100% (Prihandini et al., 2020).

The type and quantity (kg) of carcass and non-carcass beef cattle parts were classified based on classification and weighing of the type of product produced (kg) (Priyanto et al., 2019; Prihandini et al., 2020).

The economic values of beef cattle products were determined based on Total Revenue (TR) from the quantity of carcass and non-carcass parts (Q) multiplied by the price (P) of each cattle product (Fakhira et al., 2020; Astiti, 2022).

TR= P X Q

The value-added of beef cattle based on changes in form utility is the difference between the revenue from carcass and non-carcass parts at the cattle trader level and the price of live cattle at the farmer level formulated as follows (Astiti, 2022):

Value added= Price at the Butcher (Pr) - Price at the breeder level (PF)

Statistical Analysis

The data obtained was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistical data is presented in the form of means, percentages and standard deviations. The inferential statistics included the Independent Samples T-Test to determine the differences in beef cattle product components based on sex with the IBM SPSS Statistics version 25. The normality test was carried out with Kolmogorov-Smirnov assuming that if the value of Asymp.Sig>0,05 then the data was normally distributed.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Live weight of bulls ranged between 168.98 to 202.77 kg, while bulls had a higher live weight ranging from 184.19 to 221.03 kg. This difference in live weight suggests that bulls have a larger body mass compared to bulls. This result is the same with (Hafid, 2020) study that average of bull body weight of Bali cattle on slaughterhouse in Southeast Sulawesi Indonesia was 191.30 kg, and cows 181,98 kg. In another study, the live weight of male Bali cattle in non-people breeding station Bone Regency South Sulawesi Indonesia is 187,17±21,67 kg and 198.85±5.32 kg (Garantjang et al., 2020). The live weight of beef cattle at the Manokwari slaughterhouse was lower than that of traditionally raised Bali bulls without fortified feed, which weigh approximately 260.67±15.31 kg (Tahuk et al., 2018) (Table 1). This condition indicates a significant difference due to differences in rearing systems and feed management. The low live weight is also likely to affect livestock productivity, particularly the carcass products produced. Several studies suggest low live weight results in low carcass weight (Diwyanto et al., 2010; Hilmiati, 2019).

 

Table 1: Estimated live weight, carcass and non-carcass weight of beef cattle based on sex at slaughterhouses manokwari.

Sex	Live Weight (kg)	Carcass Weight (kg)	Carcass (%)	Non-Carcass Weight(kg)	Non- Carcass (%)	Total Weight (kg)	Total (%)
Cow	168.98 - 202.77	101.39	66.20	51.76	33.80	153.15	100
Bull	184.19 - 221.03	110.52	66.38	55.98	33.62	166.50	100

 

Source: Suryanto et al., (2014); Soeparno (2015).

 

The extensive to semi-intensive rearing systems used in cattle management have been noted by Pangelly and Lisson (2003) and Molina-Flores et al. (2012), which also contributed to the low live weight of these beef cattle. Extensive rearing system is a system of keeping livestock looking for their own food in pastures, while semi-intensive system is a rearing system where the farmer provides feed and the livestock are looking for their own grass in the pasture. The provision of varied and limited feed without supplementary feed also significantly affects the live weight of beef cattle (Oosting et al., 2014; Priyanto et al., 2015; Bain et al., 2016; Henry et al., 2018). The feed given to cattle is forage in the form of local grasses, including paspalum conjugatum

and panicum maximum, legumes such as mimosa pudica, centrosema pubescens, and desmanthus leptophyllus, while the type of grass most often given is elephant grass (pennisetum purpureum). The variation in the live weight of beef cattle at slaughterhouse can be caused by several factors such as extensive to semi-intensive maintenance systems such as forage feed without concentrates, reproductive management and livestock health management. This is in accordance with the study of (Garantjang et al., 2020; Lamy et al., 2012) where some aspects that affect livestock production are climate, feed, and health. Other study has also reported that parasitic disease such as the incidence of gastrointestinal nematode infection is higher in the traditional rearing system (Purwaningsih et al., 2020).

The study results show that both carcass and non-carcass components were different. The carcass weight of cow is 110.52 kg (66.38%) higher than bulls, which is 101.39 kg (66.20%). Bali cattle carcass weight is 123.64 kg and carcass percentage are 54.07% (Tahuk et al., 2018). The non-carcass weight of bull is 51.76 kg (33.80%), while cows have a non-carcass weight of 55.98 kg (33.62%). Although the percentage of non-carcass is similar for bulls and cows, bulls have a higher absolute weight. The current rearing and feed management systems are not optimal for increasing the live weight and carcass weight of beef cattle at the Manokwari slaughterhouse. To increase livestock productivity, especially in terms of carcass weight, improvements in rearing systems and the provision of more quality and adequate feed are necessary. The implementation of fortified feed is a solution to increase the live weight of beef cattle (Tahuk et al., 2018). The availability of quality and quantity feed is a prerequisite for increasing livestock productivity (Oosting et al., 2014; Priyanto et al., 2015; Bain et al., 2016; Henry et al., 2018).

The differences in weight, carcass percentage, and non-carcass components of cows and bulls have significant economic implications. Bulls with the higher carcass weight have the potential for higher market value than cows. This analysis helps determine rearing and slaughtering strategies for beef cattle to maximize economic profits. Efforts to increase the productivity and economic values of beef cattle can be achieved by improving feed quality and rearing management, especially for cows with lower live weight. Controlling the slaughter of productive cows is crucial to preserving the genetic resources of beef cattle in Manokwari Regency.

The carcass components of beef cattle include meat, rib, vertebrae, shank, and tail. Bulls and cow product are meat, which the bulls higher than cows, respectively 85.50 ± 7.60 kg (51.35%) and 78.06 ± 9.69 kg (50.97%). The study found that other products such as rib, vertebrae, shank, and tail are also higher for bulls than cows.

Non-carcass components include liver, lungs, intestines, tripe, head, feet, hide, heart, Brain, and Swallow. Generally, bulls produce more non-carcass components than cows; for instance, the average head weight of bulls is 11.74 ± 1.02 kg (7.05%), while cows are 11.03 ± 0.72 kg (7.20%). Bulls have heavier non-carcass components and the potential to generate higher economic value even though the difference in live weight is not very significant.

Each country has its own standards for selling carcass and non-carcass products (Adricli et al., 2018). According to EUROP Carcass Classification System especially within the European Union, standardization of carcass classification is based on conformation and fat cover. This system helps justify ranges for carcass percentage because it aligns dressing percentages with marketable meat yield. The categories are stated for E as excellent, namely lean meat content above 60%, followed by U for very good (55-60%), R for good (50-55%), O for fairly good (45-50%) and P for poor (less than 45%).

In various regions of Indonesia, including Manokwari, almost all non-carcass parts are used in delicious dishes and favorite menus with fairly high selling values. Products from cattle slaughter are sold in 15 components, including carcass parts such as meat, rib, vertebrae, shank, and tail, while non-carcass parts include head, feet, hide, liver, lungs, intestines, heart, brain, tripe and swallow (Figure 2).

The average product weight of bulls is 166.50 ± 11.98 kg, higher than that of cows which is 153.15 ± 12.56 kg. The highest percentage of beef cattle products is meat. In cows, the meat produced is 50.97% and bulls are 51.35%. The lowest percentage of beef cattle products is the brain, with cows producing 0.26 ± 0.07 kg (0.17%) and bulls producing 0.33 ± 0.07 kg (0.20%). The type and amount of beef cattle products based on various sex (Table 2). These data highlight the importance of all beef cattle components (both carcass and non-carcass) in economic value calculations. Meat traders can maximize profits by selling various parts of cattle products. Understanding the differences in product components based on sex helps farmers and traders make strategic decisions regarding livestock rearing and slaughtering.

 

Table 2: Components of beef cattle products based on changes in form at the manokwari slaughterhouses.

Product	Cow (kg)	%	Bull (kg)	%
Carcass
Meat	78.06 ± 9.69	50.97	85.50 ± 7.60	51.35
Rib	8.06 ± 0.83	5.26	8.49 ± 0.65	5.10
Vertebrae	9.27 ± 0.77	6.06	9.72 ± 0.63	5.84
Shank	4.71 ± 0.61	3.08	5.31 ± 0.69	3.19
Tail	1.29 ± 0.20	0.84	1.51 ± 0.23	0.90
Non-Carcass
Liver	2.81 ± 0.40	1.83	3.19 ± 0.57	1.92
Lung	3.30 ± 0.52	2.15	3.59 ± 0.58	2.15
Intestine	2.50 ± 0.44	1.63	3.11 ± 0.65	1.87
Tripe	3.98 ± 0.45	2.60	4.32 ± 0.46	2.59
Head	11.03 ± 0.72	7.20	11.74 ± 1.02	7.05
Legs	5.46 ± 0.66	3.57	5.76 ± 1.09	3.46
Hide	15.41 ± 1.25	10.07	16.68 ± 1.88	10.02
Heart	2.24 ± 0.53	1.46	2.10 ± 0.90	1.26
Brain	0.26 ± 0.07	0.17	0.33 ± 0.07	0.20
Swallow	4.76 ± 0.60	3.11	5.16 ± 0.62	3.10
Total	153.15 ± 12.56	100.00	166.50 ± 11.98	100.00

 

Non-carcass components such as liver, lungs, intestines and tripe have significant economic value. In Indonesia, these parts are used in various traditional dishes like “coto Makassar,” “rawon,” and “gulai.” The utilization of these non-carcass components adds economic value to beef cattle overall, even though their selling price per kilogram is lower than that of meat.

The economic value of cows can be increased through improved management practices and feed provision. Additionally, controlling the slaughter of productive cows is crucial for maintaining the sustainability of the livestock population.

The results of the analysis show significant differences in several carcass and non-carcass product components based on the sex of the livestock (Table 3). The research results showed that significant differences (P<0.05). This means that bulls have higher amounts than cows in meat (P=0.031), shank (P=0.023), and tail (0.012). There were significant differences in non-carcass products (P<0.01), indicating that bulls had a greater number of intestines, while significant differences (P<0.05) were found in the head (P=0.046), skin (P=0.049), liver (P=0.049), intestine (P=0.007), and brain (P=0.016). Other components such as rib, vertebrae bones, lungs, tripe, feet, and swallow show no significant differences between bulls and cows. These differences are influenced by different hormone levels in each sex (Irshad et al., 2013; Irshad and Sharma, 2015; Samur and Kunharjanti, 2023). Androgens are bulls sex hormones that function as growth stimulants (Owens et al., 2014). One of the androgen steroids is testosterone, produced by the testes. The higher the secretion of testosterone hormone, the higher the secretion of androgens (Setiyabudi et al., 2016; Nindhia et al., 2021; Samur and Kunharjanti, 2023). This causes bulls to grow faster than cows, especially after puberty (Musa et al., 2006; Mekonnen et al., 2012; Tavirimirwa et al., 2013; Nurtini et al., 2018).

 

Table 3: Comparative test of carcass and non-carcass products of beef cattle based on sex in manokwari, west papua.

Product	F	Sig.	T	Sig. (2-tailed)
Carcass
Meat	0.111	0.742	-2.274	0.031*
Rib	1.004	0.325	-1.523	0.139
Vertebrae Bones	0.098	0.757	-1.683	0.103
Shank	0.226	0.638	2.028	0.023*
Tail	0.348	0.560	-2.689	0.012*
Non-Carcass
Liver	1.537	0.225	-2.057	0.049*
Lungs	1.295	0.265	-1.374	0.180
Intestines	0.264	0.612	-2.890	0.007**
Tripe	0.466	0.500	-1.983	0.057
Head	2.241	0.146	-2.088	0.046*
Legs	5.736	0.024	-0.844	0.406
Hide	2.134	0.155	-2.057	0.049*
Heart	13.559	0.001	0.468	0.643
Brain	0.201	0.657	-2.568	0.016*
Swallow	0.012	0.915	-1.731	0.095

 

*Significant at the 0.05 level; ** Significant at the 0.01 level.

 

Meat is the primary carcass component that determines the economic value of cattle because it has the highest weight and selling price among other products at IDR140,000 per kg. Bulls and cows produced meat with the largest economic value, comprising 76.43% and 75.79% of total revenue, respectively. Additionally, other components like rib, vertebrae bones, shank and tail also contribute more to bulls than cows. The higher to percentage of meat caused the greater the profit obtained (Priyanto et al., 2015; Iyai, 2016; Prihandini et al., 2020; Islam et al., 2022).

Brain is the non-carcass product sold at the lowest price among other products, ranging from IDR10,000.00 to IDR15,000.00 per package. Bulls have a higher economic value of certain non-carcass components than cows (for example, the liver of bulls has an economic value of Rp.

 

Table 5: Analysis of economic value added of beef cattle based on sex in manokwari, west papua.

Sex	Live Price (IDR/Head)	Sale (IDR)/Head			Value Added (IDR)
		Carcass	Non-Carcass	Total
Cow	9,592,857.14	12,499,366.67	1,920,133.00	14,419,499.67	4,826,642.53
Bull	11,437,500.00	13,611,767.71	2,049,049.67	15,660,817.38	4,223,317.38

 

319,375.00, while that of cows is Rp. 280,928.57), while the heart of a cow is higher than that of a bull (223,57.43 vs. 210,312.50). The shank, tail, feet, hide, and brain parts have the same economic value.

These results showed that economic value of bull product components is higher than that of cows. Bulls, which produced more high-value products, can be prioritized for slaughter if the primary goal is to maximize meat production and other products. Traders gain more profit from the slaughter and sale of cows. However, for the sustainability of the beef cattle industry, it is essential to control the slaughter of productive cows as production machines to maintain the sustainability of genetic resources. From the result of this study, it can be conducted that the importance of skill of making carcass and non-carcass pieces so that it will increase the adde value of beef cattle.

Strict control policies on the sale of productive cows should be enforced to maintain the sustainability of genetic resources and the balance of beef cattle populations in Manokwari. Additionally, improving the quality and quantity of feed and rearing management helps maximize the economic value of beef cattle.

The average live price of bulls is higher than for cows at the farmer level, with a difference of IDR 1,844,642.86 (Table 5). This indicates that bulls have higher overall economic value. The price of beef cattle is determined based on the estimated weight of meat (Boujenane, 2015; Irshad and Sharma, 2015; Musa et al., 2021) because meat has the highest economic value among other components (Table 4).

One important factor in determining economic value-added is the specialized skill of the butcher in estimating the carcass weight of meat from live cattle. Studies show that a good understanding of live weight to carcass weight conversion is crucial for maximizing economic value. Skilled butchers accurately estimate meat weight, which in turn affects the selling price and economic value-added. This skill helps in setting fair prices and optimizing profits from each cattle slaughtered.

Price agreement is achieved through price negotiations to reach consensus. Farmers’ bargaining power is influenced by their economic conditions. Generally, livestock prices are lower during urgent needs, especially for children’s school needs, while prices are relatively higher during religious celebrations. The selling price of bulls is higher than cows at the farmer level, but the value-added based on the form change of cow sales is higher, amounting to IDR 4,826,642.52 versus bulls at IDR 4,226,317.38. This shows that the bargaining position of farmers in selling cows is lower than for selling bulls (Iyai et al., 2021).

 

Table 4: Economic value of beef cattle products based on sex in manokwari regency.

Product	Cow (IDR)	%	Bull (IDR)	%
Carcass
Meat	10,928,000.00	75.79	11,970,000.00	76.43
Rib	671,547.62	4.66	707,083.33	4.51
Vertebrae Bones	726,485.71	5.04	761,351.04	4.86
Shank	100,000.00	0.69	100,000.00	0.64
Tail	73,333.33	0.51	73,333.33	0.47
Non-Carcass
Liver	280,928.57	1.95	319,375.00	2.04
Lungs	352,000.00	2.44	382,666.67	2.44
Intestines	133,371.43	0.92	166,000.00	1.06
Tripe	238,714.29	1.66	259,237.50	1.66
Head	300,000.00	2.08	300,000.00	1.92
Feet	110,000.00	0.76	110,000.00	0.70
Skin	30,000.00	0.21	30,000.00	0.19
Heart	223,571.43	1.55	210,312.50	1.34
Brain	13,333.00	0.09	13,333.00	0.09
Swallow	238,214.29	1.65	258,125.00	1.65
Total	14,419,499.67	100.00	15,660,817.38	100.00

 

These findings indicate traders gain more profit from the slaughter and sale of cows than from bulls. This encourages traders to prefer slaughtering cows, although this can negatively impact the population of productive cows. Therefore, strict control policies on the slaughter of productive cows are needed to ensure the sustainability of the livestock population and the conservation of beef cattle genetic resources in Manokwari Regency.

The high rate of productive cow slaughter at slaughterhouses affects the sustainability of beef cattle (Ayob and Kabul, 2009; Bernues et al., 2011; Veysset et al., 2014; Cortner et al., 2019; Visser et al., 2020) because productive cows are the production machines (Nardone et al., 2004; Serey et al., 2014; Shirsath et al., 2017; Sekaran et al., 2021). The slaughter of productive cows at slaughterhouses is often due to the lower price of cows than that of bulls and the inconsistent enforcement of Law Number 18 of 2009 concerning Livestock and Animal Health Article 18 paragraph (2) regarding the prohibition of slaughtering productive cows.

 

This information helps farmers in making strategic decisions regarding livestock sales. The government is an institution that must play an active role in assisting the management of cattle rearing, sales age, price determination based on meat carcass weight and laws regarding the prohibition of slaughtering productive cows. Productive cows should be maintained for reproduction to preserve the population and genetic resources. Farmers may need to consider the higher potential economic value added from cows when deciding to sell their livestock. Additionally, improving management and feed provision can help maximize the economic value of beef cattle, both cows and bulls.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study revealed significant differences in the economic value between bulls and cows beef cattle in Manokwari Regency, West Papua. Bulls had higher live weight, carcass weight, and non-carcass components than cows, leading to higher selling prices at the farmer level. However, the economic value added from cows at the beef trader level was higher than that of bulls, despite the lower live price of cows at the farmer level. These findings highlighted the importance of considering all components of beef cattle (carcass and non-carcass) in economic value calculations to maximize profits. For the sustainability of the beef cattle industry in Manokwari, it was recommended for the local government to implement strict control policies on the slaughter of productive cow to ensure the preservation of genetic resources and balance of livestock populations. Additionally, improving the quality and quantity of feed and better management practices could help maximize the economic value of beef cattle, both cows and bulls.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank all participants, including farmers, slaughterhouse staff, and district officials, for their invaluable assistance and guidance.

NOVELTY STATEMENT

The novelty of this research is a source of information on comparing the economic value of livestock at the breeder into added value based on changes in form including carcass and non-carcass sold at the cattle trader level based on sex, so that it becomes a consideration for breeders to maintain cattle livestock as production machines in the context of maintain the continuity of beef cattle germplasm in Manokwari District.

AUTHOR’S CONTRIBUTIONS

The research concept was developed by Iriani Sumpe, Bambang Suhartanto, Siti Andarwati and Tri Anggraeni Kusumastuti. Iriani Sumpe conducted the field research project and created thematic maps. Iriani Sumpe, Bambang Suhartanto, Siti Andarwati and Tri Anggraeni Kusumastuti analyzed the field data and wrote the final draft of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

REFERENCES

Adricli S, Dincel D, Balci F (2018). Evaluation of Slaughter Weights and Carcass Traits of Bulls Marketed in South Marmara Region of Turkey. Harran Üniv. Vet. Fakültesi Derg., 7(1): 45-50. https://doi.org/10.31196/huvfd.470728

Agustina KK, Cahya IMRD, Widyantara GM, Swacita IBN, Dharmayudha AAGO, Rudyanto MD (2017). Nutrition Level and Physical Quality of Bali Beef According To the Sex and Age of Cattle. Bull. Vet. Udayana, 9(2):156-63. https://doi.org/10.21531/bulvet.2017.9.2.156

Amam A, Harsita PA (2021). Profil usaha peternakan sapi potong rakyat di Kabupaten Jember Provinsi Jawa Timur. Jurnal Ahli Muda Indonesia, 2(1), 1-12. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/kds/15/1.2/15_KJ00003927925/_article/-char/ja/

Astiti NMAGR (2022). Margin Analysis and Marketing Efficiency of Bali Cattle Post Covid-19 Pandemic. J. Res. Community Serv., 3(6): 585-591. https://devotion.greenvest.co.id/index.php/dev

Ayob MA, Kabul MA (2009). Cattle Integration in Oil Palm Plantation through Systematic Management Sustainability of Palm Oil Industry. The 1’st International Seminar on Animal Industry. Fac. Anim. Sci. Bogor Agric. Univ., 23-24.

Bain A, Astuti DA, Suharti S, Arman C, Wiryawan KG (2016). Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, and Meat Quality of Bali Cattle Fed a Ration Supplemented with Soybean Oil Calcium Soap and Cashew Fruit Flour. Media Peternakan. 39(3):180-88. https://doi.org/10.5398/medpet.2016.39.3.180

Bernués A, Ruiz R, Olaizola A, Villalba D, Casasús I (2011). Sustainability of Pasture-Based Livestock Farming Systems in the European Mediterranean Context: Synergies and Trade-Offs. Livestock Sci., 139(1-2): 44-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.018

Boujenane, Ismaïl (2015). Growth at Fattening and Carcass Characteristics of D’man, Sardi and Meat-Sire Crossbred Lambs Slaughtered at Two Stages of Maturity.Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 47(7): 1363-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-015-0872-x

Cortner O, Garrett RD, Valentim JF, Ferreira J, Niles MT, Reis J, Gil J (2019). Perceptions of Integrated Crop-Livestock Systems for Sustainable Intensification in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Use Policy. 82:841-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.01.006

Diwyanto K, Rusdiana S, Wibowo B (2010). Developing Cattle Agribusiness in An Intergrated Coconut Plantation Area. Wartazoa. 20(1):31-42.

Fakhira N, Oktariani A, Zulbainarni N (2020). Trophy smoothies for Teen Breakfast: A Business Model Canvas Approach. Bus. Rev. Case Stud., 1(2): 77-83.

Fatonah AF, Priyanto R, Nuraini H, Aditia EL (2023). Productivityand Economic Value of Local Cattle and Buffalo in Traditional Market. Jurnal Agripet. 23(1): 16-24. https://jurnal.usk.ac.id/agripet/article/view/22818/17541

Far Z, Yakhler H (2015). Typology of Cattle Farming Systems in the Semi-Arid Region of Setif: Diversity of Productive Directions? Livestock Res. Rural Dev., 27 (6):2015.

Garantjang S, Ako A, Syawal S, Yuliati FN, Hatta M, Talib C (2020). Body Weight and Morphometrics of Bali Cattle at People Breeding Station and Non Breeding Station Areas. IOP Conference Series: Earth Environ. Sci., 492(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/492/1/012037

Hafid H, Nuraini, Inderawati, Kurniawan W (2018). Bali Cattle Carcass Characteristic of Different Butt Shape Condition. IOP Conference Series: Earth Environ., 119(2018)012043.

Hafid H (2020). Performances Body Dimensions of Bali Cattle of Traditional Livestock in Southeast Sulawesi. Indones. J. Agric. Res., 3(2): 136-144. https://doi.org/10.32734/injar.v3i2.3997

Henry BK, Eckard RJ, Beauchemin KA (2018). Review: Adaptation of Ruminant Livestock Production Systems to Climate Changes. Animal 12(s2): S445-56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731118001301

Herawati M, Anwarudin O (2023). Household Income of Beef Cattle Farmer in Manokwari. Jurnal Penyuluhan Pertanian. 1(3): 39-47. https://jurnal.polbangtan-bogor.ac.id/index.php/jpp/article/view/582

Hilmiati N (2019). Cattle Farming Systems in Arid Sumbawa: Opportunities and Barriers to Improve Productivty and Farmers Income. J. Soc. Econ. Agric., 13(2): 142-154. https://doi.org/10.24843/soca.2019.v13.i02.p01

Iqubal, Asif, Alam MA, Alam M, Kundra S (2021). Assessment of Economic Behaviour and Trend of Livestock Rearing of the Farmers in Rural Areas of Western Division of Fiji. PalArch’s J. Archaeol. Egyptol.,18(4): 1696-1710.

Irshad A, Gurunathan K, Kumar S, Kumar AA, Vishnuraj MR, Shukla V (2013). Factors Influencing Carcass Composition of Livestock: A Review. J. Anim. Prod. Adv., 3(5): 177. https://doi.org/10.5455/japa.20130531093231

Irshad A, Sharma BD (2015). Abattoir By-Product Utilization for Sustainable Meat Industry: A Review. J. Anim. Prod. Adv., 5(6): 681. https://doi.org/10.5455/japa.20150626043918

Islam MS, Hossain MM, Akhter S, Noman MAA, Goswami PK, Hasan MM, Mustari A, Hashem MA (2022). Effect of Dental Age on Edible and Non-Edible Meat Yield Characteristics of Indigenous Beef Cattle. Meat Res., 2(6): 1-6. https://doi.org/10.55002/mr.2.6.41

Iyai DA, Yaku A (2015). The Identification of Livestock Farming Systems in Manokwari, West Papua-Indonesia. Indones. J. Anim. Sci., 17(2): 94. https://doi.org/10.25077/jpi.17.2.94-105.2015

Iyai DA (2016). Effect of Traditional Cattle Farming Systems on Farmer Knowledge, Cattle Performances and Agribusiness Potential in West New Guinea-Papua Barat Province, Indonesia. Anim. Vet. Sci., 4(1): 5. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.avs.20160401.12

Iyai DA, Mulyadi M, Wajo MJ, Naibey R, Hayati DN, Noviyanti N, Bajari M (2021). Defining and Valuing the Relationship Pattern of Actors’ Involvement on Cattle Farming Systems Using Stakeholder Network Analysis in West New Guinea, Indonesia. J. Trop. Anim. Vet. Sci., 11(3): 180. https://doi.org/10.46549/jipvet.v11i3.112

Johnson ER, Ball B (1989). Prediction of the Commercial Yield of Beef from Carcasses Destined for the Japanese Market by Using Measurements from the Carcass and Non-Carcass Parts. Australian J. Exp. Agric.,. 29(4): 489-96. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA9890489

Labatar SC, Aswandi A (2017). Maintenance System, Cattle Population Structure of Bali in Manokwari Regency People’s Farm West Papua Province.Triton. 88(1): 92-107.

Lamy E, Van Harten S, Sales-Baptista E, Guerra MMM, De Almeida AM (2012). Factors Influencing Livestock Productivity. In Environ. Stress Amelioration Livestock Prod., 9783642292057: 19-51. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29205-7_2

Mekonnen A, Haile A, Dessie T, Mekasha Y (2012). On Farm Characterization of Horro Cattle Breed Production Systems in Western Oromia, Ethiopia. Livestock Res. Rural Dev., 24(6): 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2010.12.025

Molina-Flores B, Velasco G, Loza S, Soliman I (2012). Socio-Cultural Factors Determining Roles and Responsibilities in Traditional Cattle Production Systems within Rural Communities of Upper Egypt. EAAP Sci. Ser., 131(1): 241-48. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-741-7_30

Musa AA, Mummed YY, Kurtu MY, Temesgen M, O’Quinn TG (2021). Carcass and Meat Characteristics of Bulls from Arsi, Boran, Harar and Holstein Frisian Crosses Cattle Breeds Finished under Similar Level of Concentrate Supplementation.Open J. Anim. Sci., 11(01): 11-30. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojas.2021.111002

Musa MA, Peters KJ, Ahmed MKA (2006). On Farm Characterization of Butana and Kenana Cattle Breed Production Systems in Sudan. Livestock Res. Rural Dev., 18(12): 2006.

Nakitari JB (2021). Growth, Carcass and Meat Quality Atrributtes of Dairy-Beef Bulls and Steers Slaugthered at Eleven Months of Age. Anim. Prod., https://mro.massey.ac.nz/items/1bb77da4-1d0c-4dfa-b5e0-412edad8d187

Nardone A, Zervas G, Ronchi B (2004). Sustainability of Small Ruminant Organic Systems of Production. Livestock Prod. Sci., 90(1): 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.07.004

Nindhia TS, Damayanti EK, P Sampurna (2021). Estimation of Bali Cattles Carcass Weight By Using Live Body Weight. Jurnal Vet., 22(1):49-55. https://doi.org/10.19087/jveteriner.2021.22.1.49

Nurtini S, Baliarti E, Maulana V (2018). Factors Affecting Cattle Prices During Year-End Holiday Season. Adv. Eng. Res., 172(FANRes): 229-32. https://doi.org/10.2991/fanres-18.2018.47

Oosting SJ, Udo HMJ, Viets TC (2014). Development of Livestock Production in the Tropics: Farm and Farmers’ Perspectives. Animal, 8(8): 1238-48. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114000548

Owens FN, Gill DR, Secrist DS, Coleman SW (2014). Reveiw of Some Aspect of Growth and Development of Feedlot Cattle. Revista Española de Tuberculosis 26 (266): 193-204.

Pangelly BC, Lisson SN (2003). Strategies for Using Improved Forages to Enhance Production in Bali Cattle. In Annual Workshop of Bali Cattle, Strategies to Improve Bali Cattle in Eastern Indonesia, 75-25. ACIAR Proc. No.110.

Purwaningsih, Palulungan JA, Tethool AN, Noviyanti, Satrija F, Murtini S (2020). Occurrence of Gastrointestinal Nematode of Cattle in Udapi Hilir Sub-District Manokwari Regency West Papua Province Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth Environ. Sci., 478(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/478/1/012032

Prasetia MA, Budisatria IGS, Widi TSM, Bintara S, Baliarti E (2021). Percentage of Bali Cattle Potential as Breeders in West Lombok Regency, West Nusa Tenggara Province, Indonesia. Int. Res. J. Adv. Eng. Sci., 6(1): 101-103.

Prihandini, Peni W, Maharani D, Sumadi (2020). Body Weight, Body Measurements and Slaughter Characteristics of Madura Cattle Raised in Pamekasan District, East Java Province, Indonesia. Biodiversitas, 21(8): 3415-3421. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d210801

Priyanto, Rudy, Fuah AM, Aditia EL, Baihaqi M, Ismail M (2015). Improving Productivity and Meat Quality of Local Beef Cattle Through Fattening on Cereals Based Feed with Different Energy Levels. Indones. J. Agric. Sci., 20(2): 108-14. https://doi.org/10.18343/jipi.20.2.108

Priyanto R, Nuraini H, Muladno, Ismail M, Wijayanto H (2019). Slaughter, Carcass and Non-Carcass Characteristics of Local Cattle and Buffalo in Indonesia. Pak. J. Nutr., 18(2): 117-124. https://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=pjn.2019.117.124

Purba LRS, Sitinjak W (2023). Contribution of Beef Cattle Business to The Income of Farmers Family in Simalungun Regency (Case Study: in Simalungun District). Jurnal Ekonomi. 12(2):1377-1384. https://ejournal.seaninstitute.or.id/index.php/Ekonomi

Samur, SN, Kunharjanti AW (2023). Correlation of Sex, Age and Carcass Weight of Simmental-PO Cattle in the Slaughterhouse, Sukorejo District, Blitar City, East Java. JOSAR J. Stud. Acad. Res.,. 8(2): 421-35. https://doi.org/10.35457/josar.v8i2.3141

Sekaran, Udayakumar, Lai L, David AN, Ussiri, Kumar K, Clay S (2021). Role of Integrated Crop-Livestock Systems in Improving Agriculture Production and Addressing Food Security - A Review. J. Agric. Food Res., 5: 100190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2021.100190

Serey, Mob, Mom S, Kouch T, Bunna C (2014). Cattle Production Systems in NW Cambodia. Livestock Res. Rural Dev., 26(3) 86320.

Sesay, Rahman A, Sesay AR, Kallon S (2022). Livestock Farmers’ Perception, Perceived Impacts, and Adaptations to Climate Change in Koinadugu District, Sierra Leone. J. Appl. Adv. Res., 25-34. https://doi.org/10.21839/jaar.2022.v7.7675

Setiyabudi RJW, Muladno, Priyanto R (2016). Estimation of Genetic Parameters for Growth Traits of Bali Cattle in Breeding Centre of Bali Cattle. J. Anim. Prod. Process. Technol., 4(3): 327-33. https://doi.org/10.29244/jipthp.4.3.327-333

Soeparno (2015). Ilmu dan Teknologi Daging. 6th Edition. Gadjah Mada University Press. Yogyakarta.

Sofyan H, Sudarnika E, Satyaningtijas AS, Sumantri C, Agungpriyono S (2020). The Economic Potential of Aceh Cattle Based on Its Farmers, Traders, and Consumers Perspective. Front. Sustainability, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2020.546177

Shirsath, Paresh B, Aggarwal BPK, Thornton PK, Dunnett A (2017). Prioritizing Climate-Smart Agricultural Land Use Options at a Regional Scale. Agric. Sys., 151: 174-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.018

Suryanto E, Bulkaini, Ashari, Karda IW (2014). Carcass Guality, Marblingand Cholesterol Content of Bulls Bali Catlle Fed Fermented Cocoa Shell. J. Indones. Trop. Anim. Agric., 39: 249-255. https://doi.org/10.14710/jitaa.39.4.249-255

Tahuk PK, Baliarti E, Budhi SPS, Panjono (2018). The Effect of Season on the Feed Quantity and Quality and Growth Performance of Bulls Bali Cattle Fattened in Smallholder Farms. Bull. Anim. Sci., 42(3): 203-209.

Tahuk PK, Budhi SPS, Panjono, Baliarti E (2018). Carcass and Meat Characteristics of Male Bali Cattle in Indonesian Smallholder Farm Fed Ration with Different Protein Levels. Trop. Anim. Sci. J., 41(3): 215-223. https://doi.org/10.5398/tasj.2018.41.3.215

Tavirimirwa B, Mwembe R, Ngulube R, Banan NYD, Nyamushamba GD, Ncube S, Nkombon D (2013). Communal Cattle Production in Zimbabwe: A Review. Livestock Res. Rural Dev., 25(12).

Veysset P, Lherm M, Bébin D, Roulenc M (2014). Mixed Crop-Livestock Farming Systems: A Sustainable Way to Produce Beef? Commercial Farms Results, Questions and Perspectives. Animal, 8(8): 1218-28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114000378

Visser, Carina, Marle-Köster EV, Myburgh HC, De Freitas A (2020). Phenomics for Sustainable Production in the South African Dairy and Beef Cattle Industry. Anim. Front., 10(2): 12-18. https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfaa003

Widayati TW, Santoso B, Woran D, Warsono IU, Palulungan JA (2018). Feasibility Study on Beef Cattle Development in Teluk Bintuni Regency, West Papua. Buletin Peternakan, 42(2).https://doi.org/10.21059/buletinpeternak.v42i2.32731