Beef Cows in Pasture Western Usa
Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2018 Jul; 31(7): 1007–1016.
Current state of affairs and future trends for beefiness production in the Us — A review
James Southward. Drouillard
1Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas Land University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
Received 2016 Jun viii; Accepted 2018 Jun 8.
Abstract
Usa beefiness production is characterized by a diversity of climates, environmental weather, animal phenotypes, direction systems, and a multiplicity of nutritional inputs. The USA beefiness herd consists of more than fourscore breeds of cattle and crosses thereof, and the industry is divided into singled-out, but ofttimes overlapping sectors, including seedstock product, moo-cow-calf production, stocker/backgrounding, and feedlot. Exception for male person dairy calves, product is predominantly pastoral-based, with young stock spending relatively brief portions of their life in feedlots. The beefiness industry is very technology driven, utilizing reproductive management strategies, genetic improvement technologies, exogenous growth promoting compounds, vaccines, antibiotics, and feed processing strategies, focusing on improvements in efficiency and toll of production. Young steers and heifers are grain-based diets fed for an average of five months, by and large in feedlots of 1,000 head capacity or more, and typically are slaughtered at xv to 28 months of age to produce tender, well-marbled beef. Per capita beefiness consumption is nearly 26 kg annually, over half of which is consumed in the form of ground products. Beefiness exports, which are increasingly important, consist primarily of high value cuts and multifariousness meats, depending on destination. In recent years, adverse climatic conditions (i.eastward., draught), a shrinking agricultural workforce, emergence of food-borne pathogens, concerns over development of antimicrobial resistance, animal welfare/well-being, environmental touch on, consumer perceptions of healthfulness of beef, consumer perceptions of food fauna product practices, and alternative uses of traditional feed grains take go increasingly of import with respect to their bear on on both beef production and demand for beef products. Similarly, changing consumer demographics and globalization of beef markets have dictated changes in the types of products demanded by consumers of USA beef, both domestically and away. The manufacture is highly adaptive, however, and responds quickly to evolving economic signals.
Keywords: Beef, Product Systems, Growth Promotion, Carcass Quality
INTRODUCTION
Beef product systems in the United States are characterized by a broad range of climates, environmental conditions, animal phenotypes, management practices, and a multiplicity of nutritional inputs. In contrast to international perceptions, USA production systems are, with the notable exception of male dairy calves, predominantly pastoral-based, with young stock typically spending relatively brief portions of their life in confinement facilities for finishing on high-concentrate diets. Beefiness product at the cow-calf level is widely distributed, and exists in all 50 states, spanning the range from tropical savannah to Arctic tundra, temperate plains, and mountain pastures. Vast differences in geographies and climatic weather condition necessitate the use of a broad spectrum of brute phenotypes that are suited to these environments, encompassing both Bos taurus and Bos indicus breeds and crosses thereof. The feedlot phase of production, which usually is betwixt 100 and 300 days duration, is heavily concentrated within the interior of the continental United states, and relies heavily on cereal grains and grain byproducts produced within this area as predominant feed resources, and feedlot cattle most commonly are marketed at ages ranging from 15 to 28 months. Production of beef in the U.S. historically has been very technology driven, utilizing reproductive management strategies, genetic improvement technologies, exogenous growth promoting compounds, vaccines, antibiotics, and feed processing strategies, all of which focused on improving efficiency and(or) decreasing price of beef production. In more than recent years, adverse climatic atmospheric condition (i.e., draught), a shrinking agricultural workforce, control of food-borne pathogens, concerns over evolution of antimicrobial resistance, animal welfare, fauna well-being, environmental touch of confinement feeding operations, consumer perceptions of healthfulness of beefiness, consumer perceptions of food brute production practices, and culling uses for traditional feed grains have become increasingly important with respect to their bear on on both beef product and demand for beef products. Similarly, changing consumer demographics and globalization of beef markets have dictated changes in the types of products demanded from producers of U.Due south. beef. Beef production systems are thus increasingly dynamic in their nature, and poised to exploit new market opportunities by altering production practices to meet changing consumer demands.
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF U.S. COW-CALF OPERATIONS AND FEEDLOTS
Equally of January 31, 2018, total Usa inventory of beefiness cows was estimated at 31.seven one thousand thousand head, with cow-calf operations in all 50 states [one]. The beefiness cow inventory fluctuates considerably from year to year, equally shown in Figure 1, and tin can exist influenced heavily by market place conditions and environmental factors, such as persistent draught conditions. In the USA, about 320 one thousand thousand hectares are used for livestock grazing [2], which is equivalent to 41% of the total country area of the continental The states. Approximately 55% of all beefiness cows are maintained in the Primal region of the continental U.s. [3], which is characterized by vast native grasslands and expansive product of row crops such every bit corn, soybeans, wheat, grain sorghum, and other crops. Roughly 20% of the national herd is in the Western region, commonly utilizing expansive land areas that are federally owned and leased to beefiness producers by government agencies. The Southeastern region, often typified by smaller product units that rely heavily on improved pastures, also is home to approximately twenty% of the national herd. The remaining 5% are interspersed throughout the Northeast, Alaska, and Hawaii. Each of these regions makes utilise of very unlike systems of beef production, owing to a divergent range of climates and feed resources in each surface area. For instance, western herds frequently employ federal lands for grazing in the leap and summer, and cattle then are removed from federal lands and overwintered on privately-owned pastures and/or fed harvested forages until the beginning of the next grazing cycle. By dissimilarity, operations in the Central region frequently brand apply of a mixture of native grass pastures, crop residues, harvested forages, and protein concentrates to sustain their cow herds.
US beef cow inventory on Jan 1, from 1938 to 2018. Source: United states of america Department of Agriculture [i].
Feedlots, different cow-dogie operations, are far more concentrated geographically, with over 72% of feedlot production occurring in the 5-country surface area [4] of Nebraska (19.8%), Texas (eighteen.9%), Kansas (17.v%), Iowa (9.0%), and Colorado (7.i%). Concentration of feedlots in this area is largely driven past access to cereal grains and grain byproducts that predominate the diets of finishing cattle. Other of import regions for cattle feeding have adult throughout the country in response to availability of depression-cost feedstuffs, specially byproduct feeds. For example, the Washington-Idaho region is a major site for product and processing of potatoes, fruits, and vegetables every bit foods for humans. Cattle feeding operations accept developed in response to availability of large quantities of processed food residues in this region, and represent an of import ways for disposal of these byproducts, thereby creating additional value to the food chain.
CATTLE BREEDS USED FOR Beefiness PRODUCTION IN THE Us OF AMERICA
The The states beef herd is very heterogeneous in nature, consisting of more than fourscore breeds and crosses thereof, and reflecting the diversity of environments in which they are produced. According to the most recent written report on breed registrations by the National Pedigreed Livestock Council [5], member breed associations with the greatest number of registrations were Angus, Hereford, Simmental, Ruddy Angus, Charolais, Gelbvieh, Brangus, Limousin, Beefmaster, Shorthorn, and Brahman. While this list gives some sense of the diversity of cattle types in the U.South., almost cattle fed for slaughter actually are crossbreds, with 60% or more having some caste of Angus influence. Dairy breeds, most notably Holsteins, also brand upwards a substantial portion of United states feedlot cattle, with as many as iii to 4 million dairy calves being fed in Us feedlots each year.
USA System FOR Beef Production
The USA arrangement of beef product is highly segmented, frequently resulting in several changes of ownership betwixt the time animals are weaned and slaughtered. Seedstock operations primarily produce bulls that are used to service cows in commercial cow-calf operations. The primary product of moo-cow-calf operations is weaned calves, which are sold to stocker operators, backgrounding lots, or feedlots. Figure ii illustrates the possible paths that animals may accept through the beef production concatenation earlier being slaughtered. Calves from moo-cow-calf operations generally follow one of 2 paths. They can be transferred directly to feedlots at or effectually the time of weaning, in which instance they are referred to as "dogie-feds" that remain in the feedlot for 240 days or more than earlier being harvested. Calf-fed may brand upwards xl% or more of the fed cattle population in the USA. The largest share of the dogie population, usually sixty% or more, is first placed into a backgrounding or stocker operation, or a combination thereof, to exist grown for a menstruum of time before fattened on loftier-concentrate diets. These animals are grown mostly using fodder-based diets and and then transferred to feedlots when they are a year or more of age, and thus are referred to equally "yearlings". Stocker (grazing) and backgrounding (drylot) systems rely heavily on forages every bit the predominant component of the diet, supplementing protein, energy, vitamins, and minerals every bit needed to optimize cattle performance. A relatively minor proportion of backgrounded cattle are grown at modest rates of proceeds using limit-feeding programs in which they are fed high-concentrate diets, similar to a loftier-energy finishing diet, just in restricted amounts to prevent premature fattening.
Schematic for flow of cattle through the U.S. beef production chain, illustrating straight entry from cow-dogie and dairy operations into feedlots (blueish lines) and abattoirs (cherry lines), or following a growing phase (regal lines) carried out in specialized facilities (dogie ranches, backgrounding operations, or stocker operations).
Male calves from dairies likewise plant an important com ponent of the beef cattle market place. These calves are gathered from dairies at an early age (normally about three days) and transferred to specialized rearing operations known as calf ranches. Calves typically are confined to individual stalls to prevent intermingling, as they are highly susceptible to illness at this stage of their lives. Calves are fed a combination of milk replacers, grain, and pocket-size amounts of forage until weaning at 40 to 80 days of age, and then transferred to grouping housing within the aforementioned functioning. These animals normally are sold to feedlots when they accomplish a weight of approximately 150 to 200 kg.
Cull beef and dairy animals also contribute to the beef sup ply, and most ordinarily are shipped from seedstock, cow-calf, or dairy operations directly to abattoirs for harvest. A relatively minor and variable proportion is sent to feedlots to be fed high-free energy diets for 50 to 100 days before being slaughtered. The number of choose animals that are fattened in feedlots earlier being slaughtered varies substantially from year to year, and is largely a function of the relationships betwixt feed costs, beefiness supply, and beef demand.
Male cattle in the Us are nearly always fed equally steers, and abattoirs apply heavy discounts to intact males or males that display avant-garde secondary sexual activity characteristics. Castration effectively decreases the occurrence of undesirable social behaviors and meat quality characteristics, such every bit night, firm, and dry beef. Musculus from steers also contains less connective tissue than that from bulls, and steers deposit more intramuscular fat (marbling) than bulls. Castration can occur at various times between nascency and afterwards entry into feedlots, with the vast majority being castrated before or most the age of weaning. A relatively pocket-sized proportion is castrated after entry into feedlots, though this practice is heavily discouraged and significant discounts are applied to intact feeder cattle due to high morbidity rates in animals that are castrated at an advanced age. In terms of methodology, bull calves are most oft castrated surgically or by banding.
Heifers fed in feedlots constitute approximately 28% to 30% of beef supply in the USA [4]. Compared to steers, however, most feedlot heifers are fed intact, and while some are ovariectomized, it is far more common to feed melengestrol acetate (a synthetic form of progesterone) to inhibit rut beliefs.
Market conditions at the time of weaning tin greatly im pact the historic period at which cattle are placed into feedlots. Size of the national herd is cyclical in nature, attributable to fluctuations in weather (such as extended draught periods), and fluctuating prices. When overall size of the national beefiness herd is relatively depression, fewer animals are available, creating contest between stocker and backgrounding operations and feedlots for supply of cattle. Relationships betwixt prices of grain and forages likewise can influence age of entry into feedlots. When costs for pasture and harvested forages are depression in comparison to grains, producers have incentive to grow cattle before placing them into feedlots. By contrast, when grain prices are low relative to prices for forages, a greater proportion of eligible animals may enter the feedlot direct.
Atmospheric condition also plays a very significant role in the historic period at which cattle are placed into feedlots. Environmental temperatures and precipitation patterns obviously impact both quantity and quality of forages produced, so it stands to reason that adverse climatic conditions can influence duration of the grazing season, and as a result the proportion of cattle that are marketed every bit calves versus as yearlings. For case, several million cattle usually are grazed on small grain pastures in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas in the fall and wintertime each year. In the absence of adequate rainfall, poor forage yield may dictate premature termination of the grazing season, in which example cattle are transferred to feedlots to be fed. The aforementioned is true for native grass pastures that are grazed in the spring, summer, and autumn. Drought conditions tin force producers to marketplace cattle early, as they frequently accept limited feed reserves. Regardless of cause, the system of merchandising cattle is very dynamic, responding quickly to market conditions.
Prices paid for slaughter cattle in the U.South. are influenced by age, quality grade, yield form, and weight. The USA quality grading organization takes into account historic period, as determined by bone ossification patterns, color of lean tissue, and the amount of intramuscular fat (marbling). Increased intramuscular fat deposition increases course, and premiums are paid for cattle that have loftier intramuscular fat content. Yield grade is a measure of fatness that accounts for increases in fat within the subcutaneous, intermuscular, and peritoneal regions of the carcass. Animals that deposit excesses of fat in these areas more often than not have poor red meat yield, and prices are discounted accordingly. Weight of carcasses also is an of import determinant of value, every bit carcasses that are less than 250 kg or more 430 kg are subject to substantial discounts. Given the high correlation between intramuscular fat and other fat depots, securing high marketplace value requires that cattle be fed long enough to reach sufficient (just not excessive) body fat, produce carcasses ranging in weight from 250 to 430 kg, and do and so at fewer than 30 months of age. Consequently, there are limitations with respect to the ability to shift cattle into dissimilar production scenarios. For case, cattle that are heavily influenced by British-breed ancestry often are smaller framed, and therefore do good from extended growing programs that allow for skeletal growth and muscle degradation before fattening, thereby ensuring that they achieve desired market place weights at appropriate fatness. Initiating the feedlot phase too early in the life of the animals can predispose them to premature fattening, low carcass weights, or both. This is particularly truthful for heifers, which comprise a substantial portion of the fed cattle population in the USA. Alternatively, big-framed phenotypes that are typical of breeds from continental Europe tin can produce carcasses with excessive weights if grown for extended periods of time before finishing in feedlots. These animals are well-suited to the dogie-fed feedlot arrangement in which they are placed into feedlots direct later weaning.
The segmented nature of the beef industry in the United states is an important distinction from the vertical integration normally associated with other meat animal production systems such as pork and poultry. While there is a relative absence of vertical integration in the beefiness supply chain, there are increasingly attempts for producers representing the various production segments to align vertically with other segments via supply agreements. The value of, or necessity for, vertical alignment is particularly evident with branded beef programs. For example, marketing of some branded beefiness products is based on the premise of no antibody or steroidal hormone use throughout the lifetime of the beast, requiring that purveyors take control over product methods employed through each phase of product in order to ensure compliance. This often is achieved using supply agreements that reward producers with premiums for producing animals that meet specifications of the branded beef plan.
USE OF GROWTH PROMOTING TECHNOLOGIES IN U.Southward. BEEF Production SYSTEMS
Beef producers in the USA historically have been very applied science driven. Examples of this include strategic supplementation of forage-based diets to fulfill animate being requirements for protein, energy, vitamins, or minerals. Several fundamental classes of growth promotants as well are used widely, either as feed additives or equally hormone-impregnated implants that are inserted below the skin of the ears.
Steroidal-based growth implants have been used in the USA for decades, thus making it possible to regain some of the growth-promoting effects of endogenous hormones that are lost every bit a consequence of castration. Implants employ estrogenic (estradiol or zeranol) and androgenic (testosterone or trenbolone acetate) components, or combinations thereof. Steroidal implants stimulate feed intake and protein deposition, and have dramatic impact on cattle functioning and efficiency of feed utilization. Their apply is very widespread, encompassing both growing and finishing phases of product. They are nigh heavily used in confinement operations, including backgrounding operations and feedlots. Notable exceptions are branded beef programs that disqualify their use, such as natural, organic, or not-hormone treated cattle programs aimed at specific value-added markets.
Similarly, antibiotics have been widely used in USA cattle production systems. Ionophore antibiotics, the virtually common of which are monensin and lasalocid, are used widely for beef product in the USA, both for command of coccidiosis and for improving feed efficiency. Feed additive forms of tetracyclines and macrolide antibiotics have been used extensively in the U.s.. Starting in January, 2017, the United states of america Nutrient and Drug Administration imposed new regulations that prohibit sub-therapeutic feeding of medically-of import antibiotics [6], which includes oxtetracyline, chlortetracycline, and the macrolide antibiotic, tylosin. These drugs now are restricted for use only in the treatment or prevention of disease, and must be prescribed by a veterinarian. Changes in the regulatory condition of these compounds has spawned an unprecedented interest in alternative product methods and research aimed at reducing or eliminating antibiotics from food animal product systems, peculiarly for compounds that are accounted medically important for human being health. Essential oils, minerals, prebiotics, and probiotics are amid the many production categories that are now being evaluated as alternatives to traditional antibiotics for promotion of growth and efficiency.
Beta adrenergic receptor agonists are used extensively in diets of feedlot cattle to stimulate muscle accretion. Beta agonists are not-steroidal, and they stimulate muscle accretion by increasing poly peptide synthesis and decreasing protein catabolism. The beta adrenergic agonist, ractopamine hydrochloride, was approved for employ in cattle starting in 2003. Zilpaterol was canonical for utilize in the USA in 2008, and though more potent than ractopamine, zilpaterol it is now seldom used due to restrictions imposed past major slaughterhouse companies. Ractopamine is administered to cattle during the final 28 to 42 days before slaughter, and though the exact number of cattle fed ractopamine is not known, information technology is used by the vast bulk of United states feedlots. A recent survey of feedlot nutritionists [7] revealed that approximately 85% of feedlots represented in the survey employ beta agonists.
Synthetic progestin (melengestrol acetate) is fed to synchro nize estrus in convenance herds, particularly where artificial insemination is used. Information technology is estimated that fewer than x% of beef females are bred by artificial insemination, so the greatest use of synthetic progestin is in feedlots, where they are included in the diet to suppress oestrus in heifers that are fed in confinement for slaughter. Feeding progestin aids in minimizing concrete injuries attributable to sexual behaviors in which animals mount one some other, and also improves efficiency of feed utilization. Melengestrol acetate is non approved for use in male bovines.
THE FEEDLOT SECTOR
The most recent census of agriculture [iii] reported an estimated 26,586 feedlots in the USA. Of these, approximately 61% have fewer than 100 cattle. Approximately 77% of cattle were produced in feedlots with capacity greater than 1,000 animals. These feedlots exist throughout the U.s.a., but by far the heaviest concentration of cattle finishing occurs in the Swell Plains region, which is more often than not characterized by a semi-arid, temperate climate that is well-suited to cattle production. Approximately two thirds of USA feedlot cattle production is full-bodied within usa of Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas. Logically, large abattoirs likewise are concentrated inside this region. Crop production in this geography is heavily dependent on groundwater from the underlying Ogallala aquifer, which is used extensively for irrigation of corn, wheat, sorghum, and other crops.
FEEDLOT FINISHING DIETS
Energy content of finishing diets, expressed equally net energy for gain (NEg), typically ranges from one.50 to 1.54 Mcal/kg. Consequently, diets of feedlot cattle consist primarily of cereal grains and cereal grain byproducts. Corn is by far the predominant cereal grain. Wheat, which generally is regarded equally a human nutrient crop, frequently is used to displace a portion of corn in feedlot diets. Its use typically is restricted to certain times of the year when wheat prices are depression in comparison to corn, such as immediately following wheat harvest. Wheat and barley are, withal, the predominant grains used by feedlots in the Pacific Northwest. Sorghum is an important cereal crop produced in the semi-arid states of Kansas and Texas, and to a lesser extent Oklahoma, Colorado, Southward Dakota, and Nebraska. Though regarded as being nutritionally inferior to corn, it as well is incorporated into feedlot diets when economic weather favor its use.
Feedlots are opportunistic users of a broad range of by production free energy feeds. Cereal grain byproducts have go increasingly of import every bit staples of feedlot cattle diets, particularly in the interior of the continental USA where corn and sorghum production prevail. The nigh important of these is distiller'due south grain, which is a byproduct of fuel ethanol production from cereal grains. Distiller's grains can exist fed either as moisture or dried co-products, the form of which is dictated by proximity of feedlots to ethanol production facilities. Growth of the fuel ethanol industry between 2000 and 2007 represented an unprecedented menses of change for the Us beef industry, during which traditional feedstuffs (i.e. grains) reached historically high prices while distiller's grains increased dramatically in abundance. This was cause for major shifts in composition of feedlot diets. Moisture corn gluten feed (approximately 60% dry affair), which is derived equally a byproduct from the production of corn sweeteners and starches, likewise is widely used in the feedlot sector. Distiller's grains, gluten feed, and other byproducts most normally comprise between 10% and 40% of the nutrition dry matter for feedlot cattle. Large differentials in pricing between grain and grain byproducts occasionally dictate much greater rates of inclusion, with concentrations of byproducts reaching lxx% or more of nutrition dry matter in some circumstances. Other byproducts are used every bit well, including cull potatoes or potato processing wastes (predominantly in the Pacific Northwest), fruit and vegetable byproducts, byproducts from sugar refining, and co-products derived from milling of wheat and processing of soybeans. Many of these byproduct feeds also contain intermediate to loftier concentrations of protein, thus making it possible to displace all or a portion of the oilseed meals (soybean, cottonseed, sunflower, canola, and others) traditionally used to satisfy poly peptide requirements of cattle. Consequently, dietary protein often is fed in backlog, which has potentially important environmental implications. Byproduct feeds typically contain more phosphorus than the cereal grains that they replace, further contributing to environmental challenges associated with confined animal feeding operations.
Forages normally constitute a relatively small fraction of feedlot diets, and are used primarily to promote digestive health. Alfalfa hay and corn silage are the almost commonly used roughages. Increased reliance on byproduct feeds in recent years has made information technology economically feasible to use low poly peptide roughages in feedlot diets, including corn stalks, wheat straw, and other low-value ingather residues. Forage content of finishing diets typically is in the range of half dozen% to 12% [7].
Product AND DISPOSITION OF Beefiness
The objective of U.s. feedlots is to produce beef from young cattle (<30 months of age) with ample tenderness and with relatively high intramuscular fat content. The Usa system of beef quality grading rewards feedlots for production of highly marbled beefiness, but also discourages over-fattening of cattle through nomenclature of carcasses into one of five yield grade categories. Animals that yield carcasses in college yield grade categories (four or v) generally incur heavy market penalties. Size of carcasses as well is important, and shambles companies generally utilize heavy price discounts for undersized (<250 kg) or oversized (>430 kg) carcasses.
The beef slaughter industry in the USA is heavily concen trated, with simply 4 firms accounting for more than than eighty% of the beefiness slaughter capacity. Well-nigh of the beef they process is distributed in boxed form, a significant portion of which is exported to other countries. Domestic beef product in 2017 was 11.98 one thousand thousand metric tonnes, approximately 10.6% (ane.26 million tonnes) of which was exported [8], either as variety meets or as loftier-quality beef products. The largest volume export markets for Usa beef in 2017 were Japan (24.iii%); Mexico (18.8%); South korea (14.vi%); Hong Kong (10.4%), Canada (nine.2%); and Taiwan (three.5%). Exports were roughly starting time past imports (1.36 meg tonnes), with Canada (24.7%), Commonwealth of australia (23.2%); Mexico (xix.two%), and New Zealand (18.six%) making up the vast bulk of imported beefiness (and veal) products.
Per capita beef consumption of beef in the Usa in 2017 was 25.8 kg [9], and consumption is expected to be slightly higher or stable through 2027 [10]. It is estimated that 57% of the beef consumed is in the class of ground products [11]. Imported products, peculiarly from Australia, are important in fulfilling the increasing need for basis beef products.
Future TRENDS IN THE Beef INDUSTRY
Domestic need for beef products is expected to remain stable. Consequently, consign markets are increasingly recognized as being an important target for increasing demand for USA beef products. OECD/FAO estimates of 1.v% annual increases in demand for meat products through 2026 [10] are crusade for optimism among producers. Though it is projected that about of this demand volition exist fulfilled by increases in production of poultry products, it is likely that all meat sectors volition benefit to some caste.
In that location is a growing trend inside the U.s. for large purveyors of meat products to exert influence on livestock producers, encouraging them to implement product practices that are perceived as being in line with consumer interests. Among the major players are slaughter-house companies, wholesalers, grocery chains, the hotel and eating place industries, and others. Topics such as sustainability, animal welfare/wellbeing, environmental compatibility, traceability, antimicrobial resistance, use of exogenous growth promotants, natural or organic production systems, and other areas are condign increasingly common, and accept emerged as central elements in marketing campaigns adopted by many major food companies. This development in thinking challenges conventional food creature production systems, and is forcing rapid modify in production practices. As a consequence, the focal points of many research programs beyond the United states have shifted to cover these topics.
USA beef producers have a long history of adapting quickly to changing market place signals in an endeavour to capture added value. Branded beef programs, which establish a form of vertical integration or alignment, are relatively commonplace. Maybe the best known of these is the Certified Angus Beef program, which since its inception in 1978 has arguably transformed the USA beef manufacture as a result of substantial premiums paid to cattle producers for producing beef that fulfills certain quality standards. In backlog of 60% of cattle fed in the United states now accept some proportion of Angus ancestry, which is testimony to the success of the program that is now recognized globally equally existence consistent with quality. Numerous other programs have been spawned in the last 40 years, with the United states Section of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service now listing 90 dissimilar federal certification programs for beef, 80 of which were conceived in the twelvemonth 2000 or subsequently. Scores of other non-certified branding programs have appeared at the consumer level equally well, touting features such as omega-3 enrichment of beef; antibiotic gratis; hormone-free; organic feeding programs; grass-fed programs, and others that are distinguished by the region of production, specific producers, or other features. All are aimed at enhancing value by advertizement appealing attributes for which consumers are willing to pay price premiums. Equally branding programs get more prevalent, vertical alignment between various sectors of the beef industry also is increasingly common. A form of symbiosis can develop in which large production units or consortia of producers align themselves with retail outlets, hotels, or large eating house companies to ensure ongoing demand or to capture market premiums for their products. In plow, the food companies benefit through supply agreements that guarantee availability or pricing of products that are produced to meet certain standards that can cover beef quality, meat composition (as in the example of omega-three enrichment), ecology compatibility, sustainability, or production practices that exclude antibiotics and(or) growth promotants, and numerous other marketable concepts.
Traceability programs accept been a topic of much discus sion for the past two decades. This discussion intensified immediately following events in December of 2003 surrounding importation of a cull dairy cow from Canada that was discovered to have been infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Several fundamental export markets afterwards were closed to USA beefiness, which had devastating financial consequences for beef producers and slaughter-house companies in the USA. Producer organizations are, for the most role, withal, opposed to development of a federally-mandated traceability arrangement, opting instead for a voluntary system of animal identification and traceability that is market-driven.
In January of 2017 the U.s.a. Food and Drug administration fully enacted revised regulations aimed at decreasing utilise of medically-important antibiotics in nutrient animal production systems [half-dozen]. Central to the new regulations is the necessity for veterinary oversight of antibiotic use. Drugs that previously were available "over the counter" now can be used only with the written prescription of a licensed veterinary. Since the regulations took effect, pharmaceutical companies that produce affected drug compounds have cited sharp declines in demand for their products, meat purveyors and retailers have publicly announced timelines for procurement of products produced without antibiotics, and major beefiness producers take announced strategies that will be (or have been) implemented to decrease antibiotic utilise. The "anti" antibody movement is thus well underway, and it has given birth to an era of research pertaining to identification of antibiotic alternatives for use in livestock. Much of our own research at Kansas State University is devoted to the task of finding alternative strategies for mitigation of digestive disorders or infectious diseases, but without use of antibiotics. Whether every bit a result of market pressures or regulatory changes, it seems inevitable that beef production systems of the time to come are apt to employ production practices that preclude use of antibiotics.
Probiotics are becoming increasingly prevalent in the beefiness production chain, but especially feedlot systems. It has been estimated that approximately 60% of feedlot cattle receive some form of probiotic [7]. Oftentimes these consist of Lactobacillus species, fed solitary or in combination with Propionibacterium. Normalization of gastrointestinal tract function and competitive inhibition of food-borne pathogens, such as E. coli O157:H7 [12], are the well-nigh usually cited reasons for their use. More recently, Megasphaera elsdenii, a lactate-utilizing bacteria, has been introduced into the market. Reported benefits include abstention of ruminal acidosis and the ability to transition more than quickly to high-concentrate diets [13], as well equally improved cattle performance and decreased incidence of disease in young cattle afterward inflow in feedlots [14]. Anecdotal testify from commercial abattoirs has suggested it may also decrease fecal shedding of food-borne pathogens, but this effect has yet to be validated in a controlled research experiment.
Plants extracts as feed additives constitutes another active surface area of inquiry, with the notion that these compounds may exist useful as substitutes for conventional antimicrobial drugs as a result of their antimicrobial activities. Several plant extracts have been studied in depth, including beta acids of hops [fifteen], menthol [xvi], eugenol [17], cinnamaldehyde [18], limonene [19], and others, and their impact on gut microflora is in some cases well documented. These compounds frequently emulate the actions of traditional antibody drugs, attributable in part to similarities in chemic structure. Similarly, heavy metals, including the trace minerals copper and zinc, accept been exploited for antibiotic-like effects [20], particularly when used in pigs or poultry, but too in cattle. Zinc is the antimicrobial mineral of choice in cattle due to the relative toxicity of copper, and oft it is fed at supra-nutritional concentrations to suppress bacteria that cause foot-rot (infectious pododermatitis), or to aid in combatting respiratory affliction. Numerous studies take revealed that it is possible to co-select for resistance to antimicrobial drugs when bacteria are exposed to institute extracts [21] or high concentrations of heavy metals [22,23], even without exposure to the antimicrobial drugs themselves. Given that the basis for excluding antibiotic drugs from the diets of cattle is to avert development of antimicrobial resistance in gastrointestinal tract bacteria, it would seem that similar circumspection is warranted in the application of plant extracts or heavy metals every bit antimicrobials, in spite of the fact that they are not marketed specifically as antibiotics.
The USDA does not maintain official statistics on volumes of antibiotic-free, non-hormone treated, or organic beef. In 2012 it was estimated that over 4% of retail foods sold in the U.South. were organically produced [24]. Fruits and vegetable led the market in organic sales, while three% of meat/poultry/fish were estimated to have been produced organically. According to the Organic Trade Association [25], sales of organic meat and poultry surged by 17% in 2016, and full sales were expected to exceed $1 billion dollars for the first time in 2017. Certification of organically produced meats is administered by the USDA, which maintains official standards for organic production practices. Currently, availability of sufficient quantities of certified organic feedstuffs constitutes a major limitation for growth of this segment of the beef industry. Several branding programs certified past the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service specify beefiness as existence "antibiotic free" or "not-hormone treated". Some of these restrict their definition to a specified production phase, while others reflect production practices employed throughout the lifetime of the animal. In that location is a sense that demand for this marketplace segment is increasing, but official estimates are non bachelor. Programs for production of cattle without use of hormones, referred to as non-hormone treated cattle, are key to penetrating certain markets, both domestically and internationally. Price of production generally is higher for any of the specialty programs compared to conventional production systems, and producers must therefore be rewarded accordingly with price premiums.
Determination
USA beef supply is the product of a multi-segmented industry that is consolidating into larger and larger product units, and is increasingly characterized past vertical alignment among industry segments, every bit well as with food wholesalers and retailers and the hotel and restaurant industries. The industry makes apply of a wide spectrum of nutritional inputs and animal phenotypes that span a wide range of geographies and climates. The manufacture is closely tied to natural grazing resources, besides as cereal grains and cereal grain byproducts. Information technology is highly adaptive, responding rapidly to market signals that advantage innovation and alignment with consumer demands. The industry makes extensive utilise of a broad range of technologies related to feed processing, identity preservations, and growth promotion. Complexity of beefiness markets is increasing due to extensive branding efforts and development of niche markets, and demand for product of beefiness representing grass-fed, not-hormone, non-antibiotic, and organic beefiness markets is growing steadily. Maintaining and expanding demand for U.s.a. beef likely will necessitate ongoing efforts to develop markets for consign, both for variety meats and for high-value cuts of beefiness.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This is contribution number 18-601-J of the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Manhattan.
Footnotes
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Nosotros certify that there is no disharmonize of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. USDA Economic Research Service . Livestock and meat domestic data: Livestock and poultry slaughter. U.s.a. Department of Agriculture; c2018. [cited 2018 June one]. Bachelor from: http://www.ers.usda.gov. [Google Scholar]
3. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Demography of Agriculture. c2012 [cited 2016 June 1]. Available from: world wide web.agcensus.usda.gov.
4. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service . Cattle on Feed. National Agronomical Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Lath, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); 2018. Released May 25, 2018. [Google Scholar]
6. Federal Annals . Veterinary feed directive: final rule. U.S. Department of Wellness and Human Services; 2015. Bachelor in: 21 CFR Parts 514 and 558 [Docket No. FDA–2010–N–0155] RIN 0910-AG95. [Google Scholar]
7. Samuelson KL, Hubbert ME, Galyean ML, Löest CA. Nutritional recommendations of feedlot consulting nutritionists: The 2015 New Mexico State and Texas Tech Academy survey. J Anim Sci. 2016;94:2648–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
eight. U.S. Meat Consign Federation (USMEF) Total beef exports, including variety meats [Internet] USMEF; c2018. [cited 2016 June 1]. Bachelor from: www.usmef.org. [Google Scholar]
xi. Rabobank . Footing beef nation: The effect of changing consumer tastes and preferences on the U.S. cattle industry. Food and Agribusiness Inquiry and Advisory. Rabobank International; January, 2014. [Google Scholar]
12. Younts-Dahl SM, Galyean ML, Loneragan GH, Elam NA, Brashears MM. Dietary supplementation with Lactobacillus-Propionibacterium-based directly-fed with microbials and prevalence of Escherichia coli O157 in beef feedlot cattle and on hides at harvest. J Nutrient Prot. 2004;67:889–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Drouillard JS, Henning PH, Meissner HH, Leeuw KJ. Megasphaera elsdenii on the performance of steers adapting to a high-concentrate diet, using three or five transition diets. S Afr J Anim Sci. 2012;42:195–9. [Google Scholar]
14. Miller KA, Van Bibber-Krueger CL, Hollis LC, Drouillard JS. Megasphaera elsdenii dosed orally at processing to reduce BRD and improve gain in loftier-gamble calves during the receiving menses. Bovine Prac. 2013;47:137–43. [Google Scholar]
fifteen. Flythe MD. The antimicrobial effects of hops (Humulus lupulus L.) on ruminal hyper ammonia-producing bacteria. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2009;48:712–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Valero MV, do Prado RM, Zawadzki F, et al. Propolis and essential oils additives in the diets improved brute functioning and feed efficiency of bulls finished in feedlot. Acta Sci Anim Sci. 2014;36:419–26. [Google Scholar]
17. Yang WZ, Benchaar C, Ametaj BN, Beauchemin KA. Dose response to eugenol supplementation in growing beef cattle: Ruminal fermentation and abdominal digestion. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2010;158:57–64. [Google Scholar]
18. Yang WZ, Ametaj BN, Benchaar C, He ML, Beauchemin KA. Cinnamaldehyde in feedlot cattle diets: intake, growth functioning, carcass characteristics, and claret metabolites. J Anim Sci. 2010;88:1082–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Samii SS, Wallace N, Nagaraja TG, et al. Effects of limonene on ruminal concentrations, fermentation, and lysine degradation in cattle. J Anim Sci. 2016;94:3420–3430. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Aarestrup FM, Hasman H. Susceptibility of different bacterial species isolated from nutrient animals to copper sulphate, zinc chloride and antimicrobial substances used for disinfection. Vet Microbiol. 2004;100:83–nine. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Aperce CC, Amachawadi R, Van Bibber-Krueger CL, et al. Effects of menthol supplementation in feedlot cattle diets on the fecal prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli . PLoS Ane. 2016;eleven:e0168983. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Jacob ME, Fox JT, Nagaraja TG, et al. Furnishings of feeding elevated concentrations of copper and zinc on the antimicrobial susceptibilities of fecal bacteria in feedlot cattle. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2010;7:643–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Amachawadi RG, Scott HM, Aperce CC, et al. Furnishings of in-feed copper and tylosin supplementations on copper and antimicrobial resistance in fecal enterococci of feedlot cattle. J Appl Microbiol. 2015;118:1287–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Manufactures from Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences are provided here courtesy of Asian-Australasian Association of Beast Product Societies (AAAP)
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039332/
0 Response to "Beef Cows in Pasture Western Usa"
Enviar um comentário