Beef Cattle Politics in the Usa
Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2018 Jul; 31(7): 1007–1016.
Current situation and hereafter trends for beefiness production in the United states of america — A review
James Southward. Drouillard
1Section of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas Land Academy, Manhattan, KS 66506, U.s.a.
Received 2016 Jun viii; Accustomed 2018 Jun viii.
Abstruse
United states of america beef production is characterized past a diversity of climates, environmental conditions, animal phenotypes, management systems, and a multiplicity of nutritional inputs. The United states beef herd consists of more than 80 breeds of cattle and crosses thereof, and the industry is divided into distinct, but ofttimes overlapping sectors, including seedstock production, cow-dogie production, stocker/backgrounding, and feedlot. Exception for male dairy calves, production is predominantly pastoral-based, with young stock spending relatively brief portions of their life in feedlots. The beef industry is very technology driven, utilizing reproductive direction 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, mostly in feedlots of 1,000 head capacity or more than, and typically are slaughtered at xv to 28 months of age to produce tender, well-marbled beef. Per capita beef consumption is nearly 26 kg annually, over half of which is consumed in the class of ground products. Beef exports, which are increasingly important, consist primarily of high value cuts and diverseness meats, depending on destination. In recent years, adverse climatic conditions (i.e., draught), a shrinking agricultural workforce, emergence of food-borne pathogens, concerns over development of antimicrobial resistance, animal welfare/well-being, environmental impact, consumer perceptions of healthfulness of beef, consumer perceptions of food animal product practices, and culling uses of traditional feed grains have become increasingly important with respect to their bear upon on both beefiness production and need for beef products. Similarly, irresolute consumer demographics and globalization of beef markets have dictated changes in the types of products demanded by consumers of USA beef, both domestically and abroad. The industry is highly adaptive, however, and responds apace to evolving economical signals.
Keywords: Beef, Production Systems, Growth Promotion, Carcass Quality
INTRODUCTION
Beef production systems in the United States are characterized by a wide range of climates, environmental conditions, animal phenotypes, management practices, and a multiplicity of nutritional inputs. In contrast to international perceptions, USA product systems are, with the notable exception of male dairy calves, predominantly pastoral-based, with young stock typically spending relatively cursory portions of their life in solitude 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 mount pastures. Vast differences in geographies and climatic conditions necessitate the employ of a broad spectrum of animal phenotypes that are suited to these environments, encompassing both Bos taurus and Bos indicus breeds and crosses thereof. The feedlot stage of production, which unremarkably is between 100 and 300 days duration, is heavily concentrated within the interior of the continental U.s., and relies heavily on cereal grains and grain byproducts produced inside this expanse as predominant feed resources, and feedlot cattle nigh commonly are marketed at ages ranging from 15 to 28 months. Production of beef in the U.S. historically has been very applied science driven, utilizing reproductive direction strategies, genetic improvement technologies, exogenous growth promoting compounds, vaccines, antibiotics, and feed processing strategies, all of which focused on improving efficiency and(or) decreasing cost of beef production. In more contempo years, adverse climatic weather (i.e., draught), a shrinking agricultural workforce, control of nutrient-borne pathogens, concerns over development of antimicrobial resistance, animate being welfare, animal well-being, environmental impact of solitude feeding operations, consumer perceptions of healthfulness of beefiness, consumer perceptions of food animal product practices, and culling uses for traditional feed grains have become increasingly important with respect to their affect on both beef production and demand for beef products. Similarly, irresolute consumer demographics and globalization of beefiness markets have dictated changes in the types of products demanded from producers of U.S. beef. Beef production systems are thus increasingly dynamic in their nature, and poised to exploit new market opportunities by altering production practices to meet irresolute consumer demands.
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF U.S. COW-Dogie OPERATIONS AND FEEDLOTS
Every bit of January 31, 2018, total Us inventory of beef cows was estimated at 31.7 one thousand thousand caput, with cow-calf operations in all l states [1]. The beefiness cow inventory fluctuates considerably from year to year, as shown in Figure 1, and tin can be influenced heavily past marketplace atmospheric condition and environmental factors, such as persistent draught weather condition. In the USA, about 320 one thousand thousand hectares are used for livestock grazing [two], which is equivalent to 41% of the full land area of the continental USA. Approximately 55% of all beef cows are maintained in the Cardinal region of the continental USA [3], which is characterized past vast native grasslands and expansive product of row crops such equally corn, soybeans, wheat, grain sorghum, and other crops. Roughly twenty% of the national herd is in the Western region, commonly utilizing expansive state areas that are federally owned and leased to beef producers by regime agencies. The Southeastern region, often typified by smaller product units that rely heavily on improved pastures, as well is domicile to approximately 20% of the national herd. The remaining v% are interspersed throughout the Northeast, Alaska, and Hawaii. Each of these regions makes use of very dissimilar systems of beef production, owing to a divergent range of climates and feed resource in each area. For case, western herds frequently employ federal lands for grazing in the jump and summertime, and cattle and so are removed from federal lands and overwintered on privately-owned pastures and/or fed harvested forages until the beginning of the adjacent grazing cycle. Past dissimilarity, operations in the Fundamental region frequently brand employ of a mixture of native grass pastures, crop residues, harvested forages, and poly peptide concentrates to sustain their moo-cow herds.
US beef moo-cow inventory on January 1, from 1938 to 2018. Source: Us Section of Agriculture [i].
Feedlots, dissimilar cow-calf operations, are far more full-bodied geographically, with over 72% of feedlot production occurring in the 5-state expanse [4] of Nebraska (19.eight%), Texas (18.nine%), Kansas (17.5%), Iowa (ix.0%), and Colorado (7.one%). Concentration of feedlots in this surface area is largely driven past admission to cereal grains and grain byproducts that predominate the diets of finishing cattle. Other important regions for cattle feeding take developed throughout the state in response to availability of depression-toll feedstuffs, particularly byproduct feeds. For example, the Washington-Idaho region is a major site for product and processing of potatoes, fruits, and vegetables as foods for humans. Cattle feeding operations have developed in response to availability of large quantities of processed food residues in this region, and represent an important means for disposal of these byproducts, thereby creating boosted value to the nutrient chain.
CATTLE BREEDS USED FOR Beef PRODUCTION IN THE U.s.a.
The The states beefiness herd is very heterogeneous in nature, consisting of more than than lxxx breeds and crosses thereof, and reflecting the diverseness of environments in which they are produced. According to the nearly recent written report on brood registrations by the National Pedigreed Livestock Council [5], member brood associations with the greatest number of registrations were Angus, Hereford, Simmental, Cerise Angus, Charolais, Gelbvieh, Brangus, Limousin, Beefmaster, Shorthorn, and Brahman. While this list gives some sense of the diversity of cattle types in the U.Due south., most cattle fed for slaughter actually are crossbreds, with lx% or more than having some caste of Angus influence. Dairy breeds, most notably Holsteins, also make upwards a substantial portion of The states feedlot cattle, with equally many as 3 to 4 meg dairy calves being fed in USA feedlots each yr.
Us SYSTEM FOR BEEF Production
The Usa system of beef production is highly segmented, oft resulting in several changes of ownership between the time animals are weaned and slaughtered. Seedstock operations primarily produce bulls that are used to service cows in commercial cow-dogie operations. The primary production of cow-dogie operations is weaned calves, which are sold to stocker operators, backgrounding lots, or feedlots. Figure 2 illustrates the possible paths that animals may accept through the beef production chain before being slaughtered. Calves from cow-calf operations generally follow one of two paths. They can be transferred directly to feedlots at or around the time of weaning, in which instance they are referred to every bit "dogie-feds" that remain in the feedlot for 240 days or more than before being harvested. Calf-fed may brand up xl% or more than of the fed cattle population in the The states. The largest share of the dogie population, ordinarily sixty% or more, is first placed into a backgrounding or stocker functioning, or a combination thereof, to be grown for a catamenia of time earlier fattened on high-concentrate diets. These animals are grown by and large using forage-based diets and then transferred to feedlots when they are a year or more of age, and thus are referred to every bit "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 as needed to optimize cattle performance. A relatively small proportion of backgrounded cattle are grown at modest rates of gain using limit-feeding programs in which they are fed high-concentrate diets, similar to a high-energy finishing nutrition, but in restricted amounts to prevent premature fattening.
Schematic for catamenia of cattle through the U.S. beef product concatenation, illustrating direct entry from cow-calf and dairy operations into feedlots (blue lines) and abattoirs (red lines), or following a growing stage (majestic lines) carried out in specialized facilities (calf ranches, backgrounding operations, or stocker operations).
Male calves from dairies also institute an important com ponent of the beefiness cattle market. These calves are gathered from dairies at an early age (normally most three days) and transferred to specialized rearing operations known as calf ranches. Calves typically are confined to individual stalls to prevent intermingling, every bit they are highly susceptible to disease at this stage of their lives. Calves are fed a combination of milk replacers, grain, and modest amounts of forage until weaning at twoscore to 80 days of historic period, and then transferred to group housing inside the same performance. These animals commonly are sold to feedlots when they reach a weight of approximately 150 to 200 kg.
Cull beef and dairy animals as well contribute to the beef sup ply, and most unremarkably are shipped from seedstock, cow-calf, or dairy operations directly to abattoirs for harvest. A relatively small and variable proportion is sent to feedlots to be fed high-energy diets for 50 to 100 days before being slaughtered. The number of cull animals that are fattened in feedlots before being slaughtered varies essentially from year to year, and is largely a function of the relationships between feed costs, beef supply, and beef demand.
Male cattle in the USA are nearly always fed as steers, and abattoirs employ heavy discounts to intact males or males that display advanced secondary sex characteristics. Castration finer decreases the occurrence of undesirable social behaviors and meat quality characteristics, such every bit dark, house, and dry beefiness. Muscle from steers besides contains less connective tissue than that from bulls, and steers eolith more intramuscular fat (marbling) than bulls. Castration tin occur at various times between birth and after entry into feedlots, with the vast majority being castrated before or near the age of weaning. A relatively small proportion is castrated after entry into feedlots, though this practise is heavily discouraged and significant discounts are practical to intact feeder cattle due to high morbidity rates in animals that are castrated at an advanced age. In terms of methodology, balderdash calves are well-nigh frequently castrated surgically or by banding.
Heifers fed in feedlots constitute approximately 28% to 30% of beef supply in the United states of america [4]. Compared to steers, however, most feedlot heifers are fed intact, and while some are ovariectomized, it is far more mutual to feed melengestrol acetate (a synthetic course of progesterone) to inhibit estrus beliefs.
Market weather condition at the time of weaning can greatly im pact the historic period at which cattle are placed into feedlots. Size of the national herd is cyclical in nature, owing 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 competition between stocker and backgrounding operations and feedlots for supply of cattle. Relationships between prices of grain and forages also can influence historic period of entry into feedlots. When costs for pasture and harvested forages are low in comparison to grains, producers have incentive to grow cattle before placing them into feedlots. By dissimilarity, when grain prices are low relative to prices for forages, a greater proportion of eligible animals may enter the feedlot straight.
Weather likewise plays a very significant role in the age at which cattle are placed into feedlots. Ecology temperatures and precipitation patterns obviously impact both quantity and quality of forages produced, so it stands to reason that adverse climatic atmospheric condition tin can influence elapsing of the grazing season, and every bit a issue the proportion of cattle that are marketed as calves versus as yearlings. For example, several million cattle unremarkably are grazed on minor grain pastures in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas in the fall and winter each year. In the absence of acceptable rainfall, poor forage yield may dictate premature termination of the grazing flavor, in which instance cattle are transferred to feedlots to be fed. The same is truthful for native grass pastures that are grazed in the spring, summer, and autumn. Drought conditions can strength producers to market cattle early, as they often take limited feed reserves. Regardless of cause, the organisation of merchandising cattle is very dynamic, responding quickly to market weather condition.
Prices paid for slaughter cattle in the U.S. are influenced by historic period, quality grade, yield grade, and weight. The USA quality grading organisation takes into account historic period, as determined past bone ossification patterns, colour of lean tissue, and the corporeality of intramuscular fatty (marbling). Increased intramuscular fat deposition increases course, and premiums are paid for cattle that have high 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 fatty in these areas mostly have poor red meat yield, and prices are discounted appropriately. Weight of carcasses also is an of import determinant of value, as carcasses that are less than 250 kg or more than 430 kg are subject to substantial discounts. Given the loftier correlation between intramuscular fat and other fat depots, securing loftier market value requires that cattle exist fed long enough to attain sufficient (but non excessive) body fatty, produce carcasses ranging in weight from 250 to 430 kg, and do and so at fewer than thirty months of historic period. Consequently, in that location are limitations with respect to the ability to shift cattle into different product scenarios. For example, cattle that are heavily influenced by British-breed ancestry often are smaller framed, and therefore benefit from extended growing programs that allow for skeletal growth and muscle deposition before fattening, thereby ensuring that they attain desired market weights at appropriate fatness. Initiating the feedlot stage too early in the life of the animals can predispose them to premature fattening, depression carcass weights, or both. This is particularly true for heifers, which comprise a substantial portion of the fed cattle population in the The states. 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 fourth dimension before finishing in feedlots. These animals are well-suited to the calf-fed feedlot system in which they are placed into feedlots directly after weaning.
The segmented nature of the beefiness industry in the USA is an important distinction from the vertical integration commonly associated with other meat animal production systems such as pork and poultry. While there is a relative absence of vertical integration in the beef supply chain, there are increasingly attempts for producers representing the various product 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 antibiotic or steroidal hormone use throughout the lifetime of the animal, requiring that purveyors accept control over production methods employed through each phase of production in order to ensure compliance. This frequently is accomplished using supply agreements that reward producers with premiums for producing animals that come across specifications of the branded beef program.
USE OF GROWTH PROMOTING TECHNOLOGIES IN U.Southward. BEEF PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
Beef producers in the United states of america historically take been very technology driven. Examples of this include strategic supplementation of forage-based diets to fulfill animal requirements for protein, energy, vitamins, or minerals. Several cardinal classes of growth promotants too are used widely, either as feed additives or equally hormone-impregnated implants that are inserted beneath the skin of the ears.
Steroidal-based growth implants have been used in the U.s. for decades, thus making information technology possible to regain some of the growth-promoting furnishings of endogenous hormones that are lost as a result 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 degradation, and have dramatic bear on on cattle operation and efficiency of feed utilization. Their use is very widespread, encompassing both growing and finishing phases of production. They are virtually 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 non-hormone treated cattle programs aimed at specific value-added markets.
Similarly, antibiotics accept been widely used in USA cattle production systems. Ionophore antibiotics, the most mutual of which are monensin and lasalocid, are used widely for beef production in the USA, both for control of coccidiosis and for improving feed efficiency. Feed additive forms of tetracyclines and macrolide antibiotics take been used extensively in the United States. Starting in January, 2017, the USA Nutrient and Drug Assistants imposed new regulations that prohibit sub-therapeutic feeding of medically-of import antibiotics [half-dozen], which includes oxtetracyline, chlortetracycline, and the macrolide antibiotic, tylosin. These drugs now are restricted for use merely in the treatment or prevention of illness, and must be prescribed past a veterinarian. Changes in the regulatory status of these compounds has spawned an unprecedented interest in alternative production methods and research aimed at reducing or eliminating antibiotics from food animal product systems, particularly for compounds that are deemed medically of import for human health. Essential oils, minerals, prebiotics, and probiotics are among the many product categories that are at present existence evaluated every bit 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 non-steroidal, and they stimulate musculus accretion by increasing protein synthesis and decreasing poly peptide catabolism. The beta adrenergic agonist, ractopamine hydrochloride, was approved for apply in cattle starting in 2003. Zilpaterol was approved for use in the Us in 2008, and though more potent than ractopamine, zilpaterol it is now seldom used due to restrictions imposed past major abattoir companies. Ractopamine is administered to cattle during the concluding 28 to 42 days before slaughter, and though the exact number of cattle fed ractopamine is not known, it is used by the vast majority of USA feedlots. A recent survey of feedlot nutritionists [7] revealed that approximately 85% of feedlots represented in the survey use beta agonists.
Synthetic progestin (melengestrol acetate) is fed to synchro nize heat in breeding herds, particularly where artificial insemination is used. Information technology is estimated that fewer than ten% of beef females are bred by bogus insemination, so the greatest utilise of synthetic progestin is in feedlots, where they are included in the diet to suppress estrus in heifers that are fed in confinement for slaughter. Feeding progestin aids in minimizing concrete injuries attributable to sexual behaviors in which animals mount i another, and besides improves efficiency of feed utilization. Melengestrol acetate is not canonical for use in male person bovines.
THE FEEDLOT SECTOR
The well-nigh contempo demography of agriculture [3] reported an estimated 26,586 feedlots in the United states. Of these, approximately 61% take fewer than 100 cattle. Approximately 77% of cattle were produced in feedlots with capacity greater than i,000 animals. These feedlots be throughout the United states of america, just by far the heaviest concentration of cattle finishing occurs in the Great Plains region, which is mostly characterized past a semi-barren, temperate climate that is well-suited to cattle production. Approximately two thirds of Us feedlot cattle production is concentrated within the states of Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas. Logically, big abattoirs too are full-bodied within 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 every bit internet energy for gain (NEg), typically ranges from i.l 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 more often than not is regarded equally a homo food crop, ofttimes is used to displace a portion of corn in feedlot diets. Its use typically is restricted to certain times of the yr when wheat prices are low in comparison to corn, such equally 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, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Though regarded equally existence nutritionally inferior to corn, it too is incorporated into feedlot diets when economic conditions favor its use.
Feedlots are opportunistic users of a broad range of by production energy feeds. Cereal grain byproducts have become increasingly important as staples of feedlot cattle diets, particularly in the interior of the continental United states of america where corn and sorghum production prevail. The nigh important of these is distiller'south grain, which is a byproduct of fuel ethanol product from cereal grains. Distiller's grains can exist fed either as wet 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 Usa 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. Wet corn gluten feed (approximately 60% dry matter), which is derived as 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 virtually commonly comprise between ten% and 40% of the diet dry out 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 70% or more of diet dry matter in some circumstances. Other byproducts are used as well, including choose potatoes or irish 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 too incorporate 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 protein requirements of cattle. Consequently, dietary protein oftentimes is fed in excess, which has potentially of import ecology implications. Byproduct feeds typically contain more phosphorus than the cereal grains that they supervene upon, farther contributing to environmental challenges associated with confined brute feeding operations.
Forages usually constitute a relatively pocket-size fraction of feedlot diets, and are used primarily to promote digestive wellness. Alfalfa hay and corn silage are the nigh normally used roughages. Increased reliance on byproduct feeds in recent years has made it economically feasible to apply depression protein roughages in feedlot diets, including corn stalks, wheat straw, and other low-value ingather residues. Provender content of finishing diets typically is in the range of half dozen% to 12% [7].
Production AND DISPOSITION OF BEEF
The objective of USA feedlots is to produce beef from young cattle (<thirty 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 classification of carcasses into one of five yield grade categories. Animals that yield carcasses in higher yield grade categories (four or 5) generally incur heavy marketplace penalties. Size of carcasses also is of import, and abattoir companies by and large apply heavy price discounts for undersized (<250 kg) or oversized (>430 kg) carcasses.
The beef slaughter industry in the United states of america is heavily concen trated, with merely four firms bookkeeping for more 80% of the beefiness slaughter capacity. Most of the beef they process is distributed in boxed form, a pregnant portion of which is exported to other countries. Domestic beef production in 2017 was eleven.98 million metric tonnes, approximately 10.6% (1.26 million tonnes) of which was exported [8], either as variety meets or as high-quality beef products. The largest book export markets for U.s.a. beef in 2017 were Nihon (24.3%); Mexico (xviii.8%); S Korea (fourteen.6%); Hong Kong (10.iv%), Canada (9.2%); and Taiwan (3.5%). Exports were roughly kickoff past imports (i.36 million tonnes), with Canada (24.7%), Australia (23.2%); Mexico (19.2%), and New Zealand (18.6%) making upwards the vast majority of imported beef (and veal) products.
Per capita beef consumption of beef in the USA in 2017 was 25.8 kg [9], and consumption is expected to exist slightly college or stable through 2027 [10]. It is estimated that 57% of the beef consumed is in the form of ground products [11]. Imported products, particularly from Australia, are important in fulfilling the increasing need for ground beef products.
Future TRENDS IN THE BEEF INDUSTRY
Domestic demand for beef products is expected to remain stable. Consequently, consign markets are increasingly recognized as existence an important target for increasing demand for U.s.a. beef products. OECD/FAO estimates of ane.v% annual increases in demand for meat products through 2026 [ten] are crusade for optimism among producers. Though it is projected that well-nigh of this demand volition exist fulfilled past 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 within the USA for large purveyors of meat products to exert influence on livestock producers, encouraging them to implement production practices that are perceived equally being in line with consumer interests. Among the major players are abattoir companies, wholesalers, grocery chains, the hotel and eating place industries, and others. Topics such as sustainability, animate being 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 take emerged as central elements in marketing campaigns adopted by many major food companies. This evolution in thinking challenges conventional food animate being production systems, and is forcing rapid change in production practices. As a consequence, the focal points of many research programs across the Usa have shifted to cover these topics.
U.s. beef producers accept a long history of adapting quickly to changing market signals in an effort to capture added value. Branded beef programs, which constitute a form of vertical integration or alignment, are relatively commonplace. Perchance the all-time known of these is the Certified Angus Beef program, which since its inception in 1978 has arguably transformed the U.s.a. beef industry as a result of substantial premiums paid to cattle producers for producing beef that fulfills certain quality standards. In excess of 60% of cattle fed in the USA now have some proportion of Angus ancestry, which is testimony to the success of the programme that is now recognized globally as being consistent with quality. Numerous other programs have been spawned in the concluding 40 years, with the Us Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service at present listing 90 different federal certification programs for beef, 80 of which were conceived in the year 2000 or afterward. Scores of other non-certified branding programs have appeared at the consumer level too, touting features such equally omega-3 enrichment of beefiness; antibiotic free; hormone-gratuitous; 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 past advertising appealing attributes for which consumers are willing to pay toll premiums. As branding programs become more than prevalent, vertical alignment between various sectors of the beefiness manufacture as well is increasingly mutual. A class of symbiosis can develop in which large production units or consortia of producers align themselves with retail outlets, hotels, or large restaurant companies to ensure ongoing demand or to capture market premiums for their products. In turn, the food companies benefit through supply agreements that guarantee availability or pricing of products that are produced to meet certain standards that can embrace beef quality, meat composition (every bit in the instance of omega-3 enrichment), environmental compatibility, sustainability, or product practices that exclude antibiotics and(or) growth promotants, and numerous other marketable concepts.
Traceability programs take been a topic of much discus sion for the past ii 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 key export markets subsequently were airtight to USA beef, which had devastating fiscal consequences for beef producers and shambles companies in the Usa. Producer organizations are, for the well-nigh function, however, opposed to development of a federally-mandated traceability system, opting instead for a voluntary system of creature identification and traceability that is market-driven.
In January of 2017 the Us Nutrient and Drug administration fully enacted revised regulations aimed at decreasing use of medically-important antibiotics in nutrient animal production systems [half-dozen]. Cardinal to the new regulations is the necessity for veterinary oversight of antibiotic use. Drugs that previously were available "over the counter" now can exist used only with the written prescription of a licensed veterinarian. 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 appear timelines for procurement of products produced without antibiotics, and major beef producers have announced strategies that volition exist (or have been) implemented to subtract antibiotic use. The "anti" antibiotic movement is thus well underway, and it has given birth to an era of research pertaining to identification of antibiotic alternatives for apply in livestock. Much of our own research at Kansas State University is devoted to the task of finding culling strategies for mitigation of digestive disorders or infectious diseases, simply without apply of antibiotics. Whether as a result of market pressures or regulatory changes, it seems inevitable that beefiness production systems of the futurity are apt to employ production practices that preclude apply of antibiotics.
Probiotics are condign increasingly prevalent in the beefiness product concatenation, but especially feedlot systems. It has been estimated that approximately sixty% of feedlot cattle receive some form of probiotic [vii]. Ofttimes these consist of Lactobacillus species, fed alone or in combination with Propionibacterium. Normalization of alimentary canal function and competitive inhibition of food-borne pathogens, such as E. coli O157:H7 [12], are the most commonly cited reasons for their utilize. More recently, Megasphaera elsdenii, a lactate-utilizing bacteria, has been introduced into the marketplace. Reported benefits include avoidance of ruminal acidosis and the ability to transition more than chop-chop to loftier-concentrate diets [13], also as improved cattle performance and decreased incidence of disease in young cattle later arrival in feedlots [14]. Anecdotal show from commercial abattoirs has suggested information technology may as well decrease fecal shedding of nutrient-borne pathogens, but this effect has still to be validated in a controlled enquiry experiment.
Plants extracts as feed additives constitutes another active surface area of research, with the notion that these compounds may be useful equally 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 [16], eugenol [17], cinnamaldehyde [18], limonene [19], and others, and their bear upon on gut microflora is in some cases well documented. These compounds ofttimes emulate the actions of traditional antibiotic drugs, owing in part to similarities in chemical structure. Similarly, heavy metals, including the trace minerals copper and zinc, take been exploited for antibiotic-like furnishings [xx], specially when used in pigs or poultry, only too in cattle. Zinc is the antimicrobial mineral of option in cattle due to the relative toxicity of copper, and frequently it is fed at supra-nutritional concentrations to suppress leaner that cause foot-rot (infectious pododermatitis), or to aid in combatting respiratory illness. Numerous studies have revealed that information technology is possible to co-select for resistance to antimicrobial drugs when bacteria are exposed to plant extracts [21] or high concentrations of heavy metals [22,23], even without exposure to the antimicrobial drugs themselves. Given that the basis for excluding antibody drugs from the diets of cattle is to avoid development of antimicrobial resistance in alimentary canal bacteria, information technology would seem that similar caution is warranted in the application of found 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-gratuitous, 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 3% of meat/poultry/fish were estimated to have been produced organically. According to the Organic Merchandise 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 by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service specify beef as being "antibody free" or "non-hormone treated". Some of these restrict their definition to a specified production stage, while others reverberate production practices employed throughout the lifetime of the fauna. In that location is a sense that need for this marketplace segment is increasing, but official estimates are not available. 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. Toll of production by and large is college for any of the specialty programs compared to conventional production systems, and producers must therefore exist rewarded accordingly with price premiums.
Decision
Us beef supply is the product of a multi-segmented manufacture that is consolidating into larger and larger production units, and is increasingly characterized by vertical alignment among industry segments, likewise equally with nutrient wholesalers and retailers and the hotel and restaurant industries. The industry makes employ of a broad spectrum of nutritional inputs and animal phenotypes that bridge a broad range of geographies and climates. The industry is closely tied to natural grazing resource, as well every bit cereal grains and cereal grain byproducts. It is highly adaptive, responding rapidly to market signals that reward innovation and alignment with consumer demands. The industry makes extensive utilize of a broad range of technologies related to feed processing, identity preservations, and growth promotion. Complexity of beef markets is increasing due to extensive branding efforts and evolution of niche markets, and demand for production of beef representing grass-fed, non-hormone, not-antibody, and organic beef markets is growing steadily. Maintaining and expanding demand for USA beefiness probable will necessitate ongoing efforts to develop markets for export, both for variety meats and for high-value cuts of beef.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This is contribution number xviii-601-J of the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Manhattan.
Footnotes
Conflict OF INTEREST
We certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organisation regarding the fabric discussed in the manuscript.
REFERENCES
one. USDA Economic Research Service . Livestock and meat domestic information: Livestock and poultry slaughter. Usa Department of Agronomics; c2018. [cited 2018 June 1]. Available from: http://world wide web.ers.usda.gov. [Google Scholar]
three. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Census of Agriculture. c2012 [cited 2016 June one]. Available from: www.agcensus.usda.gov.
iv. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service . Cattle on Feed. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); 2018. Released May 25, 2018. [Google Scholar]
6. Federal Register . Veterinary feed directive: final rule. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2015. Available in: 21 CFR Parts 514 and 558 [Docket No. FDA–2010–North–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 Country and Texas Tech University survey. J Anim Sci. 2016;94:2648–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. U.Southward. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) Total beef exports, including multifariousness meats [Internet] USMEF; c2018. [cited 2016 June i]. Available from: www.usmef.org. [Google Scholar]
11. Rabobank . Footing beef nation: The effect of changing consumer tastes and preferences on the U.S. cattle industry. Nutrient and Agribusiness Research and Advisory. Rabobank International; Jan, 2014. [Google Scholar]
12. Younts-Dahl SM, Galyean ML, Loneragan GH, Elam NA, Brashears MM. Dietary supplementation with Lactobacillus-Propionibacterium-based direct-fed with microbials and prevalence of Escherichia coli O157 in beef feedlot cattle and on hides at harvest. J Food Prot. 2004;67:889–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xiii. Drouillard JS, Henning PH, Meissner HH, Leeuw KJ. Megasphaera elsdenii on the performance of steers adapting to a loftier-concentrate diet, using three or five transition diets. S Afr J Anim Sci. 2012;42:195–9. [Google Scholar]
xiv. Miller KA, Van Bibber-Krueger CL, Hollis LC, Drouillard JS. Megasphaera elsdenii dosed orally at processing to reduce BRD and better gain in high-chance calves during the receiving period. Bovine Prac. 2013;47:137–43. [Google Scholar]
15. Flythe Physician. The antimicrobial effects of hops (Humulus lupulus L.) on ruminal hyper ammonia-producing leaner. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2009;48:712–vii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Valero MV, practise Prado RM, Zawadzki F, et al. Propolis and essential oils additives in the diets improved animal performance 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 intestinal 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 performance, carcass characteristics, and claret metabolites. J Anim Sci. 2010;88:1082–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Samii SS, Wallace Due north, Nagaraja TG, et al. Furnishings of limonene on ruminal concentrations, fermentation, and lysine deposition 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;100:83–9. [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;11:e0168983. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Jacob ME, Trick JT, Nagaraja TG, et al. Effects of feeding elevated concentrations of copper and zinc on the antimicrobial susceptibilities of fecal bacteria in feedlot cattle. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2010;seven:643–eight. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Amachawadi RG, Scott HM, Aperce CC, et al. Effects 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]
Articles from Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences are provided here courtesy of Asian-Australasian Association of Creature Production Societies (AAAP)
harringtoninving84.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039332/
0 Response to "Beef Cattle Politics in the Usa"
Post a Comment