Beef Cattle Production by States in Us
Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2018 Jul; 31(vii): 1007–1016.
Current state of affairs and future trends for beef production in the United states of america — A review
James Due south. Drouillard
oneDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
Received 2016 Jun 8; Accepted 2018 Jun eight.
Abstruse
USA beefiness production is characterized past a multifariousness of climates, environmental conditions, animal phenotypes, management systems, and a multiplicity of nutritional inputs. The U.s.a. beef herd consists of more than than 80 breeds of cattle and crosses thereof, and the industry is divided into singled-out, but ofttimes overlapping sectors, including seedstock product, cow-calf 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 applied science driven, utilizing reproductive management strategies, genetic improvement technologies, exogenous growth promoting compounds, vaccines, antibiotics, and feed processing strategies, focusing on improvements in efficiency and toll of product. Young steers and heifers are grain-based diets fed for an average of v months, generally in feedlots of 1,000 head capacity or more, and typically are slaughtered at xv to 28 months of age to produce tender, well-marbled beef. Per capita beef consumption is near 26 kg annually, over half of which is consumed in the course of basis products. Beef exports, which are increasingly important, consist primarily of high value cuts and diversity 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 bear upon, consumer perceptions of healthfulness of beef, consumer perceptions of food animal product practices, and alternative uses of traditional feed grains have become increasingly of import with respect to their impact on both beef production and demand for beef products. Similarly, irresolute consumer demographics and globalization of beef markets have dictated changes in the types of products demanded past consumers of USA beef, both domestically and abroad. The industry is highly adaptive, however, and responds quickly to evolving economic signals.
Keywords: Beefiness, Production Systems, Growth Promotion, Carcass Quality
INTRODUCTION
Beefiness production systems in the U.s. are characterized past a wide range of climates, environmental conditions, beast 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 solitude facilities for finishing on high-concentrate diets. Beef production at the cow-dogie 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 atmospheric condition 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 phase of production, which normally is betwixt 100 and 300 days duration, is heavily concentrated inside the interior of the continental USA, and relies heavily on cereal grains and grain byproducts produced inside this area every bit predominant feed resource, and feedlot cattle well-nigh commonly are marketed at ages ranging from 15 to 28 months. Product of beef in the U.S. historically has been very technology driven, utilizing reproductive direction strategies, genetic comeback technologies, exogenous growth promoting compounds, vaccines, antibiotics, and feed processing strategies, all of which focused on improving efficiency and(or) decreasing cost of beefiness production. In more recent years, adverse climatic conditions (i.east., draught), a shrinking agricultural workforce, command of food-borne pathogens, concerns over evolution of antimicrobial resistance, animal welfare, fauna well-beingness, environmental impact of confinement feeding operations, consumer perceptions of healthfulness of beef, consumer perceptions of food animal production practices, and culling uses for traditional feed grains have become increasingly important with respect to their impact on both beef product and demand for beefiness products. Similarly, changing consumer demographics and globalization of beef markets have dictated changes in the types of products demanded from producers of U.S. beef. Beef product systems are thus increasingly dynamic in their nature, and poised to exploit new market place opportunities by altering product practices to run into changing consumer demands.
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF U.S. COW-Calf OPERATIONS AND FEEDLOTS
Equally of January 31, 2018, total USA inventory of beefiness cows was estimated at 31.seven 1000000 caput, with cow-calf operations in all l states [1]. The beef moo-cow inventory fluctuates considerably from year to year, every bit shown in Figure 1, and can exist influenced heavily by marketplace weather condition and environmental factors, such equally persistent draught weather. In the United states of america, nearly 320 million hectares are used for livestock grazing [2], which is equivalent to 41% of the total land area of the continental U.s.a.. Approximately 55% of all beef cows are maintained in the Fundamental region of the continental U.s. [3], which is characterized by 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 land areas that are federally owned and leased to beef producers by government agencies. The Southeastern region, oftentimes typified by smaller production units that rely heavily on improved pastures, too is dwelling to approximately 20% 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 production, owing to a divergent range of climates and feed resource in each area. For example, western herds frequently employ federal lands for grazing in the spring and summer, and cattle then are removed from federal lands and overwintered on privately-endemic pastures and/or fed harvested forages until the start of the next grazing bike. Past contrast, operations in the Central region frequently make utilise of a mixture of native grass pastures, crop residues, harvested forages, and protein concentrates to sustain their cow herds.
US beefiness moo-cow inventory on January 1, from 1938 to 2018. Source: United states of america Section of Agronomics [1].
Feedlots, unlike cow-calf operations, are far more than full-bodied geographically, with over 72% of feedlot production occurring in the 5-state area [4] of Nebraska (19.viii%), Texas (18.9%), Kansas (17.5%), Iowa (9.0%), and Colorado (vii.1%). Concentration of feedlots in this surface area 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 state in response to availability of low-cost feedstuffs, especially byproduct feeds. For instance, the Washington-Idaho region is a major site for production and processing of potatoes, fruits, and vegetables as foods for humans. Cattle feeding operations accept developed in response to availability of large quantities of processed food residues in this region, and correspond an important means for disposal of these byproducts, thereby creating additional value to the food concatenation.
CATTLE BREEDS USED FOR Beef Production IN THE U.s.a.
The USA beef herd is very heterogeneous in nature, consisting of more than lxxx breeds and crosses thereof, and reflecting the diversity of environments in which they are produced. According to the well-nigh recent report on breed registrations by the National Pedigreed Livestock Quango [5], 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 variety of cattle types in the U.Due south., most cattle fed for slaughter actually are crossbreds, with 60% or more having some degree of Angus influence. Dairy breeds, about notably Holsteins, besides make upward a substantial portion of The states feedlot cattle, with as many as 3 to four 1000000 dairy calves beingness fed in USA feedlots each year.
United states of america Arrangement FOR BEEF Production
The United states system of beefiness production is highly segmented, often resulting in several changes of buying betwixt the time animals are weaned and slaughtered. Seedstock operations primarily produce bulls that are used to service cows in commercial cow-calf operations. The primary product of cow-calf operations is weaned calves, which are sold to stocker operators, backgrounding lots, or feedlots. Effigy 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 exist transferred direct to feedlots at or effectually the time of weaning, in which instance they are referred to as "dogie-feds" that remain in the feedlot for 240 days or more before being harvested. Calf-fed may make upward forty% or more than of the fed cattle population in the USA. The largest share of the calf population, commonly 60% or more than, is first placed into a backgrounding or stocker functioning, or a combination thereof, to be grown for a period of time earlier fattened on high-concentrate diets. These animals are grown generally using forage-based diets and 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 equally the predominant component of the diet, supplementing protein, energy, vitamins, and minerals as needed to optimize cattle performance. A relatively small-scale proportion of backgrounded cattle are grown at modest rates of gain using limit-feeding programs in which they are fed loftier-concentrate diets, similar to a high-energy finishing diet, but in restricted amounts to preclude premature fattening.
Schematic for flow of cattle through the U.S. beef product concatenation, illustrating straight entry from cow-calf and dairy operations into feedlots (blueish lines) and abattoirs (red lines), or following a growing stage (imperial lines) carried out in specialized facilities (calf ranches, backgrounding operations, or stocker operations).
Male calves from dairies too plant an of import com ponent of the beefiness cattle market place. These calves are gathered from dairies at an early on historic period (usually about iii days) and transferred to specialized rearing operations known as dogie ranches. Calves typically are confined to private stalls to prevent intermingling, equally they are highly susceptible to disease at this phase of their lives. Calves are fed a combination of milk replacers, grain, and pocket-sized amounts of forage until weaning at 40 to fourscore days of historic period, and and then transferred to group housing within the aforementioned performance. These animals normally are sold to feedlots when they reach a weight of approximately 150 to 200 kg.
Cull beef and dairy animals also contribute to the beefiness sup ply, and most commonly are shipped from seedstock, cow-calf, or dairy operations directly to abattoirs for harvest. A relatively pocket-size 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 year to year, and is largely a function of the relationships between feed costs, beefiness supply, and beef demand.
Male cattle in the USA are well-nigh always fed as steers, and abattoirs apply heavy discounts to intact males or males that brandish advanced secondary sex activity characteristics. Castration effectively decreases the occurrence of undesirable social behaviors and meat quality characteristics, such as dark, house, and dry out beef. Muscle from steers likewise contains less connective tissue than that from bulls, and steers eolith more than intramuscular fatty (marbling) than bulls. Castration can occur at various times betwixt birth and subsequently entry into feedlots, with the vast majority being castrated before or most the age of weaning. A relatively minor proportion is castrated after entry into feedlots, though this practice is heavily discouraged and significant discounts are practical to intact feeder cattle due to loftier morbidity rates in animals that are castrated at an advanced age. In terms of methodology, bull calves are most frequently castrated surgically or by banding.
Heifers fed in feedlots constitute approximately 28% to 30% of beef supply in the Usa [4]. Compared to steers, still, nearly feedlot heifers are fed intact, and while some are ovariectomized, it is far more common to feed melengestrol acetate (a constructed form of progesterone) to inhibit estrus behavior.
Market conditions at the time of weaning can 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 weather (such as extended draught periods), and fluctuating prices. When overall size of the national beef herd is relatively low, fewer animals are bachelor, creating competition between stocker and backgrounding operations and feedlots for supply of cattle. Relationships between prices of grain and forages besides tin influence age of entry into feedlots. When costs for pasture and harvested forages are low in comparing to grains, producers have incentive to grow cattle before placing them into feedlots. Past contrast, when grain prices are low relative to prices for forages, a greater proportion of eligible animals may enter the feedlot direct.
Atmospheric condition as well plays a very pregnant role in the historic period at which cattle are placed into feedlots. Environmental temperatures and atmospheric precipitation patterns manifestly bear on both quantity and quality of forages produced, so it stands to reason that adverse climatic conditions can influence duration of the grazing flavor, and as a result the proportion of cattle that are marketed every bit calves versus every bit yearlings. For instance, several one thousand thousand cattle commonly are grazed on pocket-size grain pastures in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas in the fall and winter each year. In the absenteeism of adequate rainfall, poor forage yield may dictate premature termination of the grazing flavour, in which case cattle are transferred to feedlots to exist fed. The same is true for native grass pastures that are grazed in the leap, summer, and fall. Drought conditions can force producers to market cattle early, as they oft take limited feed reserves. Regardless of cause, the system of merchandising cattle is very dynamic, responding quickly to market place conditions.
Prices paid for slaughter cattle in the U.S. are influenced by age, quality course, yield class, and weight. The Us quality grading organization takes into account age, equally determined by os ossification patterns, color of lean tissue, and the amount of intramuscular fat (marbling). Increased intramuscular fatty deposition increases class, and premiums are paid for cattle that accept loftier intramuscular fat content. Yield grade is a mensurate of fatness that accounts for increases in fat inside the subcutaneous, intermuscular, and peritoneal regions of the carcass. Animals that deposit excesses of fat in these areas generally have poor red meat yield, and prices are discounted accordingly. Weight of carcasses likewise is an important 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 fatty and other fatty depots, securing loftier marketplace value requires that cattle be fed long enough to attain sufficient (but non excessive) body fat, produce carcasses ranging in weight from 250 to 430 kg, and practise then at fewer than xxx months of age. Consequently, there are limitations with respect to the ability to shift cattle into different production scenarios. For example, cattle that are heavily influenced by British-brood beginnings ofttimes are smaller framed, and therefore benefit from extended growing programs that allow for skeletal growth and musculus deposition earlier fattening, thereby ensuring that they reach desired market weights at advisable fatness. Initiating the feedlot phase too early on in the life of the animals can predispose them to premature fattening, depression carcass weights, or both. This is especially true for heifers, which comprise a substantial portion of the fed cattle population in the USA. Alternatively, large-framed phenotypes that are typical of breeds from continental Europe 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 arrangement 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 normally associated with other meat animal production systems such as pork and poultry. While there is a relative absenteeism of vertical integration in the beef supply concatenation, there are increasingly attempts for producers representing the diverse production segments to align vertically with other segments via supply agreements. The value of, or necessity for, vertical alignment is specially axiomatic with branded beefiness programs. For case, 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 have control over product 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 run into specifications of the branded beefiness program.
USE OF GROWTH PROMOTING TECHNOLOGIES IN U.S. Beefiness PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
Beef producers in the USA historically take been very technology driven. Examples of this include strategic supplementation of forage-based diets to fulfill animal requirements for poly peptide, free energy, vitamins, or minerals. Several key classes of growth promotants also are used widely, either equally feed additives or as hormone-impregnated implants that are inserted below the peel of the ears.
Steroidal-based growth implants have been used in the Us for decades, thus making it possible to regain some of the growth-promoting effects of endogenous hormones that are lost every bit a result of castration. Implants apply estrogenic (estradiol or zeranol) and androgenic (testosterone or trenbolone acetate) components, or combinations thereof. Steroidal implants stimulate feed intake and protein deposition, and have dramatic impact on cattle functioning and efficiency of feed utilization. Their 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 beef programs that disqualify their utilize, such equally natural, organic, or non-hormone treated cattle programs aimed at specific value-added markets.
Similarly, antibiotics have been widely used in Us cattle product systems. Ionophore antibiotics, the most common of which are monensin and lasalocid, are used widely for beef product in the Usa, both for control of coccidiosis and for improving feed efficiency. Feed additive forms of tetracyclines and macrolide antibiotics have been used extensively in the Usa. Starting in Jan, 2017, the USA Food and Drug Administration imposed new regulations that prohibit sub-therapeutic feeding of medically-important antibiotics [6], which includes oxtetracyline, chlortetracycline, and the macrolide antibiotic, tylosin. These drugs now are restricted for use only in the treatment or prevention of disease, and must be prescribed by a veterinarian. Changes in the regulatory status of these compounds has spawned an unprecedented interest in culling production methods and inquiry aimed at reducing or eliminating antibiotics from food fauna production systems, particularly for compounds that are deemed medically important for human health. Essential oils, minerals, prebiotics, and probiotics are amongst the many product categories that are at present being evaluated as alternatives to traditional antibiotics for promotion of growth and efficiency.
Beta adrenergic receptor agonists are used extensively in diets of feedlot cattle to stimulate muscle accession. Beta agonists are non-steroidal, and they stimulate musculus accession by increasing protein synthesis and decreasing poly peptide catabolism. The beta adrenergic agonist, ractopamine hydrochloride, was approved for use in cattle starting in 2003. Zilpaterol was canonical for use in the The states in 2008, and though more potent than ractopamine, zilpaterol it is at present seldom used due to restrictions imposed by 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 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 estrus in breeding herds, particularly where artificial insemination is used. It is estimated that fewer than 10% of beef females are bred by artificial insemination, so the greatest utilise of synthetic progestin is in feedlots, where they are included in the diet to suppress heat in heifers that are fed in confinement for slaughter. Feeding progestin aids in minimizing physical injuries attributable to sexual behaviors in which animals mount i another, and likewise improves efficiency of feed utilization. Melengestrol acetate is not canonical for utilize in male person bovines.
THE FEEDLOT SECTOR
The most contempo census of agriculture [3] reported an estimated 26,586 feedlots in the USA. Of these, approximately 61% have fewer than 100 cattle. Approximately 77% of cattle were produced in feedlots with capacity greater than 1,000 animals. These feedlots be throughout the United states, but by far the heaviest concentration of cattle finishing occurs in the Great Plains region, which is mostly characterized by a semi-barren, temperate climate that is well-suited to cattle product. Approximately ii thirds of United states of america feedlot cattle production is concentrated inside united states of america of Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas. Logically, big abattoirs likewise are concentrated inside this region. Ingather 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 as net energy for gain (NEm), typically ranges from one.50 to 1.54 Mcal/kg. Consequently, diets of feedlot cattle consist primarily of cereal grains and cereal grain byproducts. Corn is by far the predominant cereal grain. Wheat, which mostly is regarded every bit a man nutrient crop, often is used to readapt a portion of corn in feedlot diets. Its use typically is restricted to sure times of the year when wheat prices are low in comparing to corn, such as immediately following wheat harvest. Wheat and barley are, nevertheless, 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 as being nutritionally inferior to corn, it as well is incorporated into feedlot diets when economic conditions favor its use.
Feedlots are opportunistic users of a wide range of by production energy feeds. Cereal grain byproducts have become increasingly important every bit staples of feedlot cattle diets, specially in the interior of the continental United states where corn and sorghum production prevail. The most important of these is distiller's grain, which is a byproduct of fuel ethanol production from cereal grains. Distiller'south grains tin can be 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 betwixt 2000 and 2007 represented an unprecedented period of change for the U.s. beef industry, during which traditional feedstuffs (i.east. grains) reached historically loftier 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, also is widely used in the feedlot sector. Distiller's grains, gluten feed, and other byproducts most ordinarily comprise between x% and 40% of the nutrition 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 cull 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 also comprise intermediate to high concentrations of protein, thus making information technology 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 often is fed in excess, which has potentially important environmental implications. Byproduct feeds typically contain more phosphorus than the cereal grains that they replace, further contributing to environmental challenges associated with confined animal feeding operations.
Forages normally found a relatively small fraction of feedlot diets, and are used primarily to promote digestive health. Alfalfa hay and corn silage are the most normally used roughages. Increased reliance on byproduct feeds in recent years has fabricated it economically feasible to utilize low protein roughages in feedlot diets, including corn stalks, wheat harbinger, and other low-value crop residues. Provender content of finishing diets typically is in the range of 6% to 12% [7].
Product AND DISPOSITION OF Beefiness
The objective of United states of america feedlots is to produce beefiness from young cattle (<30 months of age) with aplenty tenderness and with relatively high intramuscular fatty content. The USA system of beef quality grading rewards feedlots for production of highly marbled beef, 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 course categories (iv or 5) more often than not incur heavy marketplace penalties. Size of carcasses also is of import, and slaughter-house companies generally apply heavy toll discounts for undersized (<250 kg) or oversized (>430 kg) carcasses.
The beef slaughter industry in the USA is heavily concen trated, with only 4 firms accounting for more than eighty% of the beef slaughter capacity. Most of the beef they procedure is distributed in boxed form, a significant 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 [viii], either every bit multifariousness meets or as loftier-quality beef products. The largest volume export markets for Us beef in 2017 were Japan (24.3%); United mexican states (18.8%); South korea (14.vi%); Hong Kong (10.4%), Canada (9.two%); and Taiwan (three.5%). Exports were roughly offset by imports (1.36 1000000 tonnes), with Canada (24.7%), Australia (23.2%); Mexico (19.two%), and New Zealand (18.six%) making upwardly the vast majority of imported beefiness (and veal) products.
Per capita beef consumption of beef in the USA in 2017 was 25.viii kg [9], and consumption is expected to be slightly higher or stable through 2027 [10]. Information technology is estimated that 57% of the beef consumed is in the form of basis products [11]. Imported products, particularly from Australia, are important in fulfilling the increasing need for ground beefiness products.
Hereafter TRENDS IN THE BEEF Manufacture
Domestic need for beef products is expected to remain stable. Consequently, export markets are increasingly recognized as being an of import target for increasing demand for United states of america beef products. OECD/FAO estimates of 1.5% annual increases in demand for meat products through 2026 [ten] are crusade for optimism amidst producers. Though it is projected that almost of this demand will be fulfilled past increases in production of poultry products, it is likely that all meat sectors volition do good to some degree.
There is a growing trend within the U.s. 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. Amongst the major players are abattoir companies, wholesalers, grocery bondage, the hotel and restaurant industries, and others. Topics such as sustainability, animal welfare/wellbeing, environmental compatibility, traceability, antimicrobial resistance, use of exogenous growth promotants, natural or organic production systems, and other areas are becoming increasingly common, and have emerged as primal elements in marketing campaigns adopted by many major food companies. This evolution in thinking challenges conventional food beast production systems, and is forcing rapid change in production practices. As a consequence, the focal points of many research programs across the U.s.a. have shifted to cover these topics.
The states beef producers have a long history of adapting quickly to changing market signals in an effort to capture added value. Branded beefiness programs, which constitute a grade of vertical integration or alignment, are relatively commonplace. Perhaps the best known of these is the Certified Angus Beefiness plan, which since its inception in 1978 has arguably transformed the USA beef industry equally a result of substantial premiums paid to cattle producers for producing beef that fulfills sure quality standards. In excess of 60% of cattle fed in the USA at present have some proportion of Angus beginnings, which is testimony to the success of the plan that is at present recognized globally every bit existence consistent with quality. Numerous other programs have been spawned in the concluding twoscore years, with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service now listing 90 different federal certification programs for beef, 80 of which were conceived in the year 2000 or afterward. Scores of other not-certified branding programs have appeared at the consumer level likewise, touting features such as omega-iii enrichment of beef; antibiotic gratuitous; hormone-gratis; organic feeding programs; grass-fed programs, and others that are distinguished by the region of product, specific producers, or other features. All are aimed at enhancing value by advertizing appealing attributes for which consumers are willing to pay toll premiums. As branding programs go more prevalent, vertical alignment betwixt various sectors of the beef industry likewise is increasingly common. A form of symbiosis tin can develop in which large production units or consortia of producers align themselves with retail outlets, hotels, or large restaurant companies to ensure ongoing need 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 encompass beef quality, meat composition (as in the case of omega-3 enrichment), environmental compatibility, sustainability, or production 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 two decades. This word intensified immediately post-obit events in Dec of 2003 surrounding importation of a choose dairy cow from Canada that was discovered to take been infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Several key export markets subsequently were closed to Us beefiness, which had devastating financial consequences for beef producers and slaughter-house companies in the The states. Producer organizations are, for the most part, still, opposed to development of a federally-mandated traceability arrangement, opting instead for a voluntary system of beast identification and traceability that is market place-driven.
In January of 2017 the USA Food and Drug administration fully enacted revised regulations aimed at decreasing use of medically-of import antibiotics in food animal production systems [6]. Fundamental to the new regulations is the necessity for veterinary oversight of antibody apply. Drugs that previously were available "over the counter" now can be used only with the written prescription of a licensed veterinarian. Since the regulations took effect, pharmaceutical companies that produce affected drug compounds have cited abrupt declines in demand for their products, meat purveyors and retailers have publicly announced timelines for procurement of products produced without antibiotics, and major beef producers accept appear strategies that will be (or have been) implemented to decrease antibiotic utilise. The "anti" antibiotic movement is thus well underway, and information technology has given nascence to an era of inquiry pertaining to identification of antibiotic alternatives for use in livestock. Much of our ain inquiry at Kansas State University is devoted to the task of finding culling strategies for mitigation of digestive disorders or infectious diseases, just without use of antibiotics. Whether equally a result of market pressures or regulatory changes, it seems inevitable that beef product systems of the future are apt to employ product practices that preclude use of antibiotics.
Probiotics are becoming increasingly prevalent in the beefiness production chain, but particularly feedlot systems. It has been estimated that approximately threescore% of feedlot cattle receive some course of probiotic [7]. Oft these consist of Lactobacillus species, fed alone 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 most ordinarily cited reasons for their use. More recently, Megasphaera elsdenii, a lactate-utilizing bacteria, has been introduced into the market. Reported benefits include avoidance of ruminal acidosis and the ability to transition more than quickly to loftier-concentrate diets [13], as well every bit improved cattle performance and decreased incidence of disease in young cattle after arrival in feedlots [xiv]. Anecdotal evidence from commercial abattoirs has suggested it may also decrease fecal shedding of nutrient-borne pathogens, only this effect has yet to exist validated in a controlled enquiry experiment.
Plants extracts as feed additives constitutes another active expanse of inquiry, with the notion that these compounds may be useful as substitutes for conventional antimicrobial drugs as a upshot of their antimicrobial activities. Several plant extracts have been studied in depth, including beta acids of hops [fifteen], menthol [xvi], eugenol [17], cinnamaldehyde [18], limonene [xix], and others, and their impact on gut microflora is in some cases well documented. These compounds often emulate the deportment of traditional antibiotic drugs, owing in part to similarities in chemic construction. Similarly, heavy metals, including the trace minerals copper and zinc, have been exploited for antibiotic-like effects [20], peculiarly when used in pigs or poultry, simply also 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 human foot-rot (infectious pododermatitis), or to aid in combatting respiratory affliction. 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 loftier concentrations of heavy metals [22,23], even without exposure to the antimicrobial drugs themselves. Given that the basis for excluding antibiotic drugs from the diets of cattle is to avert development of antimicrobial resistance in gastrointestinal tract bacteria, information technology would seem that similar circumspection is warranted in the awarding of plant extracts or heavy metals every bit antimicrobials, in spite of the fact that they are non marketed specifically every bit antibiotics.
The USDA does not maintain official statistics on volumes of antibiotic-gratis, non-hormone treated, or organic beef. In 2012 it was estimated that over iv% 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. According 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 commencement 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 every bit being "antibiotic costless" or "not-hormone treated". Some of these restrict their definition to a specified product stage, while others reflect production practices employed throughout the lifetime of the animal. In that location is a sense that demand for this marketplace segment is increasing, but official estimates are 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. Cost of product generally is higher for whatever of the specialty programs compared to conventional production systems, and producers must therefore be rewarded accordingly with price premiums.
CONCLUSION
U.s. beef supply is the product of a multi-segmented manufacture that is consolidating into larger and larger product units, and is increasingly characterized by vertical alignment among industry segments, as well as with food wholesalers and retailers and the hotel and restaurant industries. The manufacture makes use of a broad spectrum of nutritional inputs and animal phenotypes that span a wide range of geographies and climates. The manufacture is closely tied to natural grazing resource, every bit well as cereal grains and cereal grain byproducts. It is highly adaptive, responding rapidly to marketplace signals that advantage 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. Complexity of beef markets is increasing due to extensive branding efforts and development of niche markets, and demand for production of beefiness representing grass-fed, non-hormone, non-antibody, and organic beefiness markets is growing steadily. Maintaining and expanding demand for USA beef likely 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 Agronomical Experiment Station, Manhattan.
Footnotes
CONFLICT OF Involvement
Nosotros certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. USDA Economic Research Service . Livestock and meat domestic data: Livestock and poultry slaughter. U.s.a. Section of Agronomics; c2018. [cited 2018 June 1]. Available from: http://www.ers.usda.gov. [Google Scholar]
iii. USDA National Agronomical Statistics Service Census of Agriculture. c2012 [cited 2016 June 1]. Bachelor from: world wide web.agcensus.usda.gov.
iv. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service . Cattle on Feed. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, United states of america Department of Agriculture (USDA); 2018. Released May 25, 2018. [Google Scholar]
6. Federal Annals . Veterinary feed directive: final rule. U.S. Department of Wellness and Human being Services; 2015. Available in: 21 CFR Parts 514 and 558 [Docket No. FDA–2010–Northward–0155] RIN 0910-AG95. [Google Scholar]
7. Samuelson KL, Hubbert ME, Galyean ML, Löest CA. Nutritional recommendations of feedlot consulting nutritionists: The 2015 New Mexico State and Texas Tech Academy survey. J Anim Sci. 2016;94:2648–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) Total beef exports, including variety meats [Internet] USMEF; c2018. [cited 2016 June i]. Available from: www.usmef.org. [Google Scholar]
11. Rabobank . Ground beef nation: The event of changing consumer tastes and preferences on the U.South. cattle industry. Food and Agribusiness Inquiry 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]
13. Drouillard JS, Henning PH, Meissner HH, Leeuw KJ. Megasphaera elsdenii on the performance of steers adapting to a high-concentrate diet, using iii or v transition diets. Southward Afr J Anim Sci. 2012;42:195–9. [Google Scholar]
14. Miller KA, Van Bibber-Krueger CL, Hollis LC, Drouillard JS. Megasphaera elsdenii dosed orally at processing to reduce BRD and improve proceeds in high-risk calves during the receiving period. Bovine Prac. 2013;47:137–43. [Google Scholar]
15. Flythe MD. The antimicrobial furnishings of hops (Humulus lupulus L.) on ruminal hyper ammonia-producing bacteria. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2009;48:712–vii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Valero MV, do Prado RM, Zawadzki F, et al. Propolis and essential oils additives in the diets improved beast functioning and feed efficiency of bulls finished in feedlot. Acta Sci Anim Sci. 2014;36:419–26. [Google Scholar]
17. Yang WZ, Benchaar C, Ametaj BN, Beauchemin KA. Dose response to eugenol supplementation in growing beef cattle: Ruminal fermentation and intestinal digestion. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2010;158:57–64. [Google Scholar]
xviii. Yang WZ, Ametaj BN, Benchaar C, He ML, Beauchemin KA. Cinnamaldehyde in feedlot cattle diets: intake, growth operation, 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 degradation in cattle. J Anim Sci. 2016;94:3420–3430. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xx. Aarestrup FM, Hasman H. Susceptibility of unlike bacterial species isolated from food animals to copper sulphate, zinc chloride and antimicrobial substances used for disinfection. Vet Microbiol. 2004;100:83–nine. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Aperce CC, Amachawadi R, Van Bibber-Krueger CL, et al. Effects of menthol supplementation in feedlot cattle diets on the fecal prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli . PLoS ONE. 2016;eleven:e0168983. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Jacob ME, Fox 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;vii:643–8. [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 Brute Sciences are provided hither courtesy of Asian-Australasian Clan of Beast Production Societies (AAAP)
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039332/
0 Response to "Beef Cattle Production by States in Us"
Post a Comment