4 Major Thens in the Beef Industry
Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2018 Jul; 31(7): 1007–1016.
Current situation and future trends for beefiness product in the Usa — A review
James S. Drouillard
oneDepartment of Animal Sciences and Manufacture, Kansas State Academy, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
Received 2016 Jun 8; Accepted 2018 Jun 8.
Abstract
USA beef production is characterized by a diversity of climates, environmental conditions, animal phenotypes, management systems, and a multiplicity of nutritional inputs. The USA beef herd consists of more than 80 breeds of cattle and crosses thereof, and the industry is divided into distinct, merely frequently overlapping sectors, including seedstock production, cow-calf product, 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 manufacture 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 cost of production. Young steers and heifers are grain-based diets fed for an average of five months, mostly in feedlots of 1,000 caput chapters or more, and typically are slaughtered at 15 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 course of ground products. Beefiness exports, which are increasingly important, consist primarily of loftier value cuts and variety meats, depending on destination. In recent years, agin 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 nutrient animal production practices, and alternative uses of traditional feed grains accept become increasingly important with respect to their impact 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 Us beef, both domestically and away. The industry is highly adaptive, nonetheless, and responds quickly to evolving economic signals.
Keywords: Beef, Production Systems, Growth Promotion, Carcass Quality
INTRODUCTION
Beef product systems in the United States are characterized by a wide range of climates, environmental weather, creature 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 loftier-concentrate diets. Beef production at the cow-calf level is widely distributed, and exists in all l states, spanning the range from tropical savannah to Arctic tundra, temperate plains, and mountain pastures. Vast differences in geographies and climatic conditions necessitate the use 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 phase of product, which normally is betwixt 100 and 300 days elapsing, is heavily concentrated within the interior of the continental USA, and relies heavily on cereal grains and grain byproducts produced within this area every bit predominant feed resources, and feedlot cattle well-nigh ordinarily are marketed at ages ranging from xv to 28 months. Product of beef in the U.S. historically has been very engineering 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 price of beef production. In more recent years, adverse climatic weather condition (i.e., draught), a shrinking agricultural workforce, control of food-borne pathogens, concerns over development of antimicrobial resistance, animal welfare, brute well-being, environmental impact of confinement feeding operations, consumer perceptions of healthfulness of beef, consumer perceptions of nutrient fauna production practices, and alternative uses for traditional feed grains have become increasingly important with respect to their impact on both beefiness product and need 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.S. beefiness. Beef production systems are thus increasingly dynamic in their nature, and poised to exploit new market opportunities past altering production practices to meet changing consumer demands.
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF U.S. Moo-cow-CALF OPERATIONS AND FEEDLOTS
As of January 31, 2018, total USA inventory of beef cows was estimated at 31.7 million caput, with cow-dogie operations in all 50 states [1]. The beef cow inventory fluctuates considerably from yr to yr, as shown in Effigy ane, and can exist influenced heavily past marketplace conditions and environmental factors, such every bit persistent draught weather condition. In the The states, nigh 320 meg hectares are used for livestock grazing [2], which is equivalent to 41% of the total land area of the continental USA. Approximately 55% of all beefiness cows are maintained in the Central region of the continental United states of america [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, normally utilizing expansive country areas that are federally endemic and leased to beef producers by government agencies. The Southeastern region, often typified by smaller product units that rely heavily on improved pastures, also is abode to approximately xx% of the national herd. The remaining 5% are interspersed throughout the Northeast, Alaska, and Hawaii. Each of these regions makes use of very different systems of beef product, owing to a divergent range of climates and feed resource in each area. For example, western herds oftentimes employ federal lands for grazing in the jump and summer, and cattle then are removed from federal lands and overwintered on privately-endemic pastures and/or fed harvested forages until the starting time of the adjacent grazing wheel. By contrast, operations in the Fundamental region frequently make use of a mixture of native grass pastures, crop residues, harvested forages, and poly peptide concentrates to sustain their cow herds.
United states of america beef cow inventory on January one, from 1938 to 2018. Source: Us Department of Agriculture [1].
Feedlots, unlike moo-cow-calf operations, are far more than full-bodied geographically, with over 72% of feedlot production occurring in the 5-country area [4] of Nebraska (19.8%), Texas (18.ix%), Kansas (17.5%), Iowa (9.0%), and Colorado (7.i%). Concentration of feedlots in this expanse is largely driven by access to cereal grains and grain byproducts that predominate the diets of finishing cattle. Other important regions for cattle feeding have developed throughout the country in response to availability of low-toll feedstuffs, particularly byproduct feeds. For example, the Washington-Idaho region is a major site for production and processing of potatoes, fruits, and vegetables equally 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 of import ways for disposal of these byproducts, thereby creating boosted value to the food concatenation.
CATTLE BREEDS USED FOR Beefiness Production IN THE U.s. OF AMERICA
The USA beef herd is very heterogeneous in nature, consisting of more than 80 breeds and crosses thereof, and reflecting the variety of environments in which they are produced. According to the most contempo report on breed registrations by the National Pedigreed Livestock Quango [5], fellow member breed associations with the greatest number of registrations were Angus, Hereford, Simmental, Red Angus, Charolais, Gelbvieh, Brangus, Limousin, Beefmaster, Shorthorn, and Brahman. While this list gives some sense of the multifariousness of cattle types in the U.Due south., near cattle fed for slaughter actually are crossbreds, with sixty% or more than having some degree of Angus influence. Dairy breeds, about notably Holsteins, also make up a substantial portion of Usa feedlot cattle, with as many as 3 to iv 1000000 dairy calves being fed in U.s. feedlots each yr.
USA SYSTEM FOR Beefiness Production
The USA organization of beef production is highly segmented, oftentimes 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-calf operations. The primary production of 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 take 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 around the time of weaning, in which example they are referred to as "calf-feds" that remain in the feedlot for 240 days or more than before being harvested. Calf-fed may make up forty% or more of the fed cattle population in the USA. The largest share of the calf population, usually 60% or more than, is outset placed into a backgrounding or stocker operation, or a combination thereof, to exist grown for a period of time before fattened on high-concentrate diets. These animals are grown generally using forage-based diets and then transferred to feedlots when they are a year or more of historic period, and thus are referred to as "yearlings". Stocker (grazing) and backgrounding (drylot) systems rely heavily on forages as the predominant component of the diet, supplementing poly peptide, energy, vitamins, and minerals every bit 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 loftier-energy finishing diet, but in restricted amounts to foreclose premature fattening.
Schematic for flow of cattle through the U.S. beef production chain, illustrating direct entry from cow-dogie and dairy operations into feedlots (blue lines) and abattoirs (reddish lines), or post-obit a growing phase (purple lines) carried out in specialized facilities (dogie ranches, backgrounding operations, or stocker operations).
Male calves from dairies also constitute an important com ponent of the beef cattle market place. These calves are gathered from dairies at an early on age (normally about 3 days) and transferred to specialized rearing operations known as calf ranches. Calves typically are bars to private stalls to prevent intermingling, as they are highly susceptible to disease at this stage of their lives. Calves are fed a combination of milk replacers, grain, and minor amounts of provender until weaning at twoscore to fourscore days of historic period, and and so transferred to group housing inside the same operation. These animals commonly are sold to feedlots when they achieve a weight of approximately 150 to 200 kg.
Cull beef and dairy animals likewise contribute to the beef sup ply, and most commonly are shipped from seedstock, cow-calf, or dairy operations direct to abattoirs for harvest. A relatively small and variable proportion is sent to feedlots to exist 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 substantially from twelvemonth to yr, and is largely a function of the relationships between feed costs, beefiness supply, and beef demand.
Male cattle in the USA are nearly e'er fed equally steers, and abattoirs apply heavy discounts to intact males or males that display advanced secondary sex characteristics. Castration effectively decreases the occurrence of undesirable social behaviors and meat quality characteristics, such every bit dark, firm, and dry beef. Muscle from steers also contains less connective tissue than that from bulls, and steers deposit more intramuscular fat (marbling) than bulls. Castration tin can occur at various times between birth and afterwards 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 pregnant discounts are applied to intact feeder cattle due to loftier morbidity rates in animals that are castrated at an advanced historic period. In terms of methodology, bull calves are nearly oftentimes castrated surgically or by banding.
Heifers fed in feedlots establish approximately 28% to 30% of beef supply in the The states [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 place conditions at the time of weaning tin greatly im pact the age at which cattle are placed into feedlots. Size of the national herd is cyclical in nature, owing to fluctuations in atmospheric condition (such every bit extended draught periods), and fluctuating prices. When overall size of the national beef herd is relatively low, fewer animals are available, creating competition betwixt stocker and backgrounding operations and feedlots for supply of cattle. Relationships betwixt prices of grain and forages also can influence age of entry into feedlots. When costs for pasture and harvested forages are low in comparison to grains, producers have incentive to grow cattle earlier placing them into feedlots. By dissimilarity, when grain prices are depression relative to prices for forages, a greater proportion of eligible animals may enter the feedlot directly.
Weather too plays a very meaning role in the age at which cattle are placed into feedlots. Environmental temperatures and precipitation patterns evidently impact both quantity and quality of forages produced, so it stands to reason that agin climatic weather condition can influence duration of the grazing flavour, and every bit a issue the proportion of cattle that are marketed as calves versus as yearlings. For example, several million cattle normally are grazed on pocket-size grain pastures in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas in the fall and winter each yr. In the absence of adequate rainfall, poor forage yield may dictate premature termination of the grazing flavour, in which case cattle are transferred to feedlots to be fed. The same is truthful for native grass pastures that are grazed in the spring, summertime, and fall. Drought conditions can force producers to marketplace cattle early, equally they often accept limited feed reserves. Regardless of cause, the system of merchandising cattle is very dynamic, responding quickly to market place weather.
Prices paid for slaughter cattle in the U.Due south. are influenced past historic period, quality grade, yield form, and weight. The USA quality grading organization takes into account age, as adamant by bone ossification patterns, color of lean tissue, and the amount of intramuscular fat (marbling). Increased intramuscular fat deposition increases form, and premiums are paid for cattle that have high intramuscular fat content. Yield grade is a measure out of fatness that accounts for increases in fatty within the subcutaneous, intermuscular, and peritoneal regions of the carcass. Animals that deposit excesses of fatty in these areas generally take poor red meat yield, and prices are discounted accordingly. Weight of carcasses as well is an of import determinant of value, every bit carcasses that are less than 250 kg or more than 430 kg are subject to substantial discounts. Given the high correlation between intramuscular fat and other fatty depots, securing loftier market value requires that cattle exist fed long enough to attain sufficient (but not excessive) torso fat, produce carcasses ranging in weight from 250 to 430 kg, and do then at fewer than thirty months of age. Consequently, at that place are limitations with respect to the ability to shift cattle into different production scenarios. For example, cattle that are heavily influenced by British-brood ancestry often are smaller framed, and therefore do good from extended growing programs that allow for skeletal growth and muscle deposition before fattening, thereby ensuring that they achieve desired marketplace weights at advisable fatness. Initiating the feedlot phase too early on in the life of the animals tin predispose them to premature fattening, low carcass weights, or both. This is especially truthful for heifers, which contain a substantial portion of the fed cattle population in the USA. Alternatively, large-framed phenotypes that are typical of breeds from continental Europe tin produce carcasses with excessive weights if grown for extended periods of time before finishing in feedlots. These animals are well-suited to the calf-fed feedlot system in which they are placed into feedlots directly subsequently weaning.
The segmented nature of the beef industry in the United states of america 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 concatenation, 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 beef products is based on the premise of no antibiotic or steroidal hormone use throughout the lifetime of the animal, requiring that purveyors take control over production methods employed through each phase of production in order to ensure compliance. This frequently 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.Due south. BEEF PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
Beef producers in the USA historically have been very technology driven. Examples of this include strategic supplementation of forage-based diets to fulfill creature requirements for protein, energy, vitamins, or minerals. Several key classes of growth promotants also are used widely, either equally feed additives or equally hormone-impregnated implants that are inserted beneath the pare of the ears.
Steroidal-based growth implants have been used in the Usa for decades, thus making information technology possible to regain some of the growth-promoting furnishings of endogenous hormones that are lost as a outcome of castration. Implants use estrogenic (estradiol or zeranol) and androgenic (testosterone or trenbolone acetate) components, or combinations thereof. Steroidal implants stimulate feed intake and protein deposition, and accept dramatic affect on cattle functioning and efficiency of feed utilization. Their use is very widespread, encompassing both growing and finishing phases of production. They are most heavily used in confinement operations, including backgrounding operations and feedlots. Notable exceptions are branded beefiness programs that disqualify their use, such as natural, organic, or non-hormone treated cattle programs aimed at specific value-added markets.
Similarly, antibiotics have been widely used in USA cattle production systems. Ionophore antibiotics, the most common of which are monensin and lasalocid, are used widely for beefiness 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 United states of america Food 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 merely in the handling or prevention of affliction, 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 production systems, especially for compounds that are deemed medically important 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 accession. Beta agonists are not-steroidal, and they stimulate muscle accretion by increasing protein synthesis and decreasing protein catabolism. The beta adrenergic agonist, ractopamine hydrochloride, was approved for apply in cattle starting in 2003. Zilpaterol was approved for use in the USA 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 final 28 to 42 days before slaughter, and though the exact number of cattle fed ractopamine is not known, it is used by the vast bulk of USA feedlots. A recent survey of feedlot nutritionists [vii] revealed that approximately 85% of feedlots represented in the survey utilise beta agonists.
Synthetic progestin (melengestrol acetate) is fed to synchro nize estrus in breeding herds, especially where artificial insemination is used. It is estimated that fewer than 10% of beefiness females are bred by bogus insemination, and so the greatest use 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 owing to sexual behaviors in which animals mountain i another, and also improves efficiency of feed utilization. Melengestrol acetate is non approved for use in male person bovines.
THE FEEDLOT SECTOR
The nearly recent census of agriculture [3] reported an estimated 26,586 feedlots in the United states of america. Of these, approximately 61% have fewer than 100 cattle. Approximately 77% of cattle were produced in feedlots with capacity greater than one,000 animals. These feedlots exist throughout the USA, only by far the heaviest concentration of cattle finishing occurs in the Great Plains region, which is mostly characterized by a semi-arid, temperate climate that is well-suited to cattle production. Approximately 2 thirds of USA feedlot cattle production is full-bodied inside the states of Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas. Logically, big abattoirs besides are concentrated inside this region. Ingather product 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 as cyberspace free energy for gain (NEthousand), typically ranges from ane.50 to ane.54 Mcal/kg. Consequently, diets of feedlot cattle consist primarily of cereal grains and cereal grain byproducts. Corn is past far the predominant cereal grain. Wheat, which mostly is regarded equally a man food crop, frequently is used to readapt a portion of corn in feedlot diets. Its employ typically is restricted to certain times of the twelvemonth when wheat prices are low in comparison to corn, such every bit immediately following wheat harvest. Wheat and barley are, yet, the predominant grains used by feedlots in the Pacific Northwest. Sorghum is an of import cereal crop produced in the semi-arid states of Kansas and Texas, and to a bottom extent Oklahoma, Colorado, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Though regarded equally being nutritionally inferior to corn, it too is incorporated into feedlot diets when economic weather condition favor its use.
Feedlots are opportunistic users of a broad range of past product energy feeds. Cereal grain byproducts have become increasingly important as staples of feedlot cattle diets, particularly in the interior of the continental USA where corn and sorghum production prevail. The virtually important of these is distiller's grain, which is a byproduct of fuel ethanol production from cereal grains. Distiller'due south grains tin be fed either as moisture or dried co-products, the course 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 alter for the United states of america beefiness industry, during which traditional feedstuffs (i.e. grains) reached historically high prices while distiller'due south grains increased dramatically in affluence. This was cause for major shifts in composition of feedlot diets. Moisture corn gluten feed (approximately 60% dry out affair), which is derived every bit a byproduct from the production of corn sweeteners and starches, also is widely used in the feedlot sector. Distiller'southward grains, gluten feed, and other byproducts most unremarkably incorporate between x% and forty% of the nutrition dry out thing 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 every bit well, including choose 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 too contain intermediate to high concentrations of poly peptide, 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 poly peptide ofttimes is fed in excess, which has potentially important environmental implications. Byproduct feeds typically comprise more phosphorus than the cereal grains that they replace, further contributing to environmental challenges associated with confined animal feeding operations.
Forages normally establish a relatively small-scale fraction of feedlot diets, and are used primarily to promote digestive wellness. Alfalfa hay and corn silage are the near usually used roughages. Increased reliance on byproduct feeds in recent years has made information technology economically feasible to use low protein roughages in feedlot diets, including corn stalks, wheat straw, and other depression-value ingather residues. Fodder 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 (<xxx months of age) with ample tenderness and with relatively high intramuscular fatty content. The U.s.a. system of beef quality grading rewards feedlots for production of highly marbled beef, but besides discourages over-fattening of cattle through classification of carcasses into ane of 5 yield form categories. Animals that yield carcasses in higher yield grade categories (4 or v) generally incur heavy market place penalties. Size of carcasses also is of import, and abattoir companies more often than not apply heavy price discounts for undersized (<250 kg) or oversized (>430 kg) carcasses.
The beef slaughter industry in the USA is heavily concen trated, with merely iv firms accounting for more than 80% of the beefiness slaughter chapters. Virtually of the beefiness they process is distributed in boxed form, a significant portion of which is exported to other countries. Domestic beef production in 2017 was 11.98 million metric tonnes, approximately 10.half dozen% (i.26 meg tonnes) of which was exported [8], either every bit diversity meets or as high-quality beef products. The largest book export markets for USA beef in 2017 were Nihon (24.three%); Mexico (xviii.8%); South Korea (14.6%); Hong Kong (x.4%), Canada (9.2%); and Taiwan (3.5%). Exports were roughly offset past imports (1.36 million tonnes), with Canada (24.7%), Commonwealth of australia (23.2%); Mexico (19.2%), and New Zealand (18.vi%) making upward the vast majority of imported beef (and veal) products.
Per capita beef consumption of beef in the USA in 2017 was 25.eight kg [9], and consumption is expected to exist slightly higher or stable through 2027 [10]. Information technology is estimated that 57% of the beefiness consumed is in the course of ground products [11]. Imported products, particularly from Commonwealth of australia, are important in fulfilling the increasing demand for basis beefiness products.
FUTURE TRENDS IN THE Beef Manufacture
Domestic demand for beef products is expected to remain stable. Consequently, consign markets are increasingly recognized equally being an important target for increasing need for USA beef products. OECD/FAO estimates of ane.5% annual increases in need for meat products through 2026 [ten] are cause for optimism among producers. Though it is projected that well-nigh of this demand will be fulfilled by increases in production of poultry products, information technology is likely that all meat sectors will benefit to some degree.
In that location is a growing trend inside the Usa for large purveyors of meat products to exert influence on livestock producers, encouraging them to implement production practices that are perceived as being in line with consumer interests. Amidst the major players are abattoir companies, wholesalers, grocery chains, the hotel and eating place industries, and others. Topics such equally sustainability, animal welfare/wellbeing, environmental compatibility, traceability, antimicrobial resistance, utilise of exogenous growth promotants, natural or organic production systems, and other areas are becoming increasingly common, and accept emerged as primal elements in marketing campaigns adopted by many major food companies. This evolution in thinking challenges conventional food animal production systems, and is forcing rapid modify in production practices. Every bit a consequence, the focal points of many inquiry programs across the USA take shifted to encompass these topics.
USA beef producers accept a long history of adapting rapidly to changing market signals in an effort to capture added value. Branded beefiness programs, which found a form of vertical integration or alignment, are relatively commonplace. Possibly the best known of these is the Certified Angus Beef program, which since its inception in 1978 has arguably transformed the USA beef industry as a result of substantial premiums paid to cattle producers for producing beef that fulfills certain quality standards. In excess of threescore% of cattle fed in the U.s.a. now take some proportion of Angus ancestry, which is testimony to the success of the program that is now recognized globally as being consistent with quality. Numerous other programs have been spawned in the last 40 years, with the Us Section of Agronomics (USDA) Agronomical Marketing Service now listing xc different federal certification programs for beef, 80 of which were conceived in the year 2000 or later. Scores of other non-certified branding programs have appeared at the consumer level as well, touting features such as omega-three enrichment of beef; antibiotic gratuitous; 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 ad appealing attributes for which consumers are willing to pay cost premiums. As branding programs go more prevalent, vertical alignment between diverse sectors of the beef industry too 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 restaurant companies to ensure ongoing demand or to capture marketplace premiums for their products. In plow, the food companies do good through supply agreements that guarantee availability or pricing of products that are produced to encounter certain standards that can embrace beefiness quality, meat composition (every bit in the case of omega-iii enrichment), environmental compatibility, sustainability, or production practices that exclude antibiotics and(or) growth promotants, and numerous other marketable concepts.
Traceability programs have been a topic of much discus sion for the past two decades. This discussion intensified immediately following events in Dec 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 closed to USA beefiness, which had devastating financial consequences for beef producers and shambles companies in the USA. Producer organizations are, for the most part, nonetheless, opposed to development of a federally-mandated traceability system, opting instead for a voluntary organisation of fauna identification and traceability that is market-driven.
In January of 2017 the USA Food and Drug assistants fully enacted revised regulations aimed at decreasing utilise of medically-of import antibiotics in nutrient animal production systems [6]. Central to the new regulations is the necessity for veterinary oversight of antibody employ. Drugs that previously were bachelor "over the counter" now can be used simply with the written prescription of a licensed veterinarian. Since the regulations took upshot, pharmaceutical companies that produce affected drug compounds have cited sharp declines in demand for their products, meat purveyors and retailers accept publicly announced timelines for procurement of products produced without antibiotics, and major beef producers have announced strategies that will be (or have been) implemented to decrease antibiotic use. The "anti" antibiotic movement is thus well underway, and it has given nativity to an era of research pertaining to identification of antibiotic alternatives for employ 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 as a outcome of market pressures or regulatory changes, it seems inevitable that beef production systems of the future are apt to employ production practices that preclude employ of antibiotics.
Probiotics are becoming increasingly prevalent in the beef product chain, just especially feedlot systems. Information technology has been estimated that approximately 60% of feedlot cattle receive some course of probiotic [7]. Often these consist of Lactobacillus species, fed solitary or in combination with Propionibacterium. Normalization of gastrointestinal tract role and competitive inhibition of food-borne pathogens, such every bit E. coli O157:H7 [12], are the nearly normally cited reasons for their use. 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 quickly to loftier-concentrate diets [13], as well as improved cattle performance and decreased incidence of disease in immature cattle after arrival in feedlots [14]. Anecdotal show from commercial abattoirs has suggested it may also decrease fecal shedding of food-borne pathogens, but this effect has however to be validated in a controlled research experiment.
Plants extracts every bit feed additives constitutes another active 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 constitute extracts have been studied in depth, including beta acids of hops [fifteen], menthol [16], eugenol [17], cinnamaldehyde [eighteen], limonene [xix], and others, and their impact on gut microflora is in some cases well documented. These compounds oft emulate the actions of traditional antibody drugs, owing in part to similarities in chemic structure. Similarly, heavy metals, including the trace minerals copper and zinc, accept been exploited for antibody-similar furnishings [20], particularly when used in pigs or poultry, but besides in cattle. Zinc is the antimicrobial mineral of option in cattle due to the relative toxicity of copper, and frequently information technology is fed at supra-nutritional concentrations to suppress bacteria that crusade human foot-rot (infectious pododermatitis), or to aid in combatting respiratory disease. 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 antibiotic drugs from the diets of cattle is to avoid development of antimicrobial resistance in gastrointestinal tract bacteria, it would seem that similar circumspection is warranted in the awarding of establish extracts or heavy metals as antimicrobials, in spite of the fact that they are non marketed specifically as antibiotics.
The USDA does not maintain official statistics on volumes of antibody-gratis, non-hormone treated, or organic beef. In 2012 it was estimated that over 4% of retail foods sold in the U.S. were organically produced [24]. Fruits and vegetable led the market place in organic sales, while 3% of meat/poultry/fish were estimated to have been produced organically. Co-ordinate to the Organic Trade Association [25], sales of organic meat and poultry surged by 17% in 2016, and total sales were expected to exceed $1 billion dollars for the first fourth dimension 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 beingness "antibiotic costless" or "non-hormone treated". Some of these restrict their definition to a specified product phase, while others reflect product practices employed throughout the lifetime of the brute. There is a sense that demand for this market segment is increasing, merely official estimates are not available. Programs for production of cattle without utilize of hormones, referred to equally non-hormone treated cattle, are key to penetrating certain markets, both domestically and internationally. Toll of production more often than not is higher for any of the specialty programs compared to conventional product systems, and producers must therefore be rewarded accordingly with price premiums.
Determination
USA beef supply is the production of a multi-segmented industry that is consolidating into larger and larger production units, and is increasingly characterized by vertical alignment amid industry segments, every bit well as with food wholesalers and retailers and the hotel and restaurant industries. The industry makes apply of a broad spectrum of nutritional inputs and animal phenotypes that span a wide range of geographies and climates. The industry is closely tied to natural grazing resources, as well equally 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 use of a wide range of technologies related to feed processing, identity preservations, and growth promotion. Complication of beef markets is increasing due to extensive branding efforts and development of niche markets, and demand for production of beef representing grass-fed, not-hormone, not-antibody, and organic beef markets is growing steadily. Maintaining and expanding demand for USA beef probable volition necessitate ongoing efforts to develop markets for export, both for variety meats and for high-value cuts of beef.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This is contribution number 18-601-J of the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Manhattan.
Footnotes
Conflict OF INTEREST
We certify that there is no disharmonize of involvement with whatever fiscal organisation regarding the textile discussed in the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. USDA Economical Research Service . Livestock and meat domestic data: Livestock and poultry slaughter. Usa Department of Agriculture; c2018. [cited 2018 June 1]. Available from: http://world wide web.ers.usda.gov. [Google Scholar]
3. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Census of Agronomics. c2012 [cited 2016 June 1]. Bachelor from: world wide web.agcensus.usda.gov.
four. USDA National Agronomical Statistics Service . Cattle on Feed. National Agronomical Statistics Service (NASS), Agronomical Statistics Board, U.s.a. Department of Agriculture (USDA); 2018. Released May 25, 2018. [Google Scholar]
6. Federal Register . Veterinary feed directive: final rule. U.S. Department of Wellness and Homo 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 United mexican states State and Texas Tech University survey. J Anim Sci. 2016;94:2648–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. U.Southward. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) Full beef exports, including variety meats [Net] USMEF; c2018. [cited 2016 June i]. Available from: www.usmef.org. [Google Scholar]
11. Rabobank . Ground beefiness nation: The upshot of changing consumer tastes and preferences on the U.Southward. cattle manufacture. Food and Agribusiness Research 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 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 high-concentrate nutrition, using three or 5 transition diets. South 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 meliorate gain in high-take chances calves during the receiving period. Bovine Prac. 2013;47:137–43. [Google Scholar]
fifteen. Flythe Md. The antimicrobial effects of hops (Humulus lupulus Fifty.) on ruminal hyper ammonia-producing bacteria. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2009;48:712–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Valero MV, exercise Prado RM, Zawadzki F, et al. Propolis and essential oils additives in the diets improved animal operation 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 blood 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]
twenty. Aarestrup FM, Hasman H. Susceptibility of different bacterial species isolated from food 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. Furnishings of menthol supplementation in feedlot cattle diets on the fecal prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli . PLoS 1. 2016;11:e0168983. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Jacob ME, Play tricks JT, Nagaraja TG, et al. Effects of feeding elevated concentrations of copper and zinc on the antimicrobial susceptibilities of fecal leaner in feedlot cattle. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2010;seven:643–viii. [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]
Articles from Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences are provided here courtesy of Asian-Australasian Clan of Creature Production Societies (AAAP)
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039332/
0 Response to "4 Major Thens in the Beef Industry"
Postar um comentário