Causes of the Decline in Beef Cattle Prodction
Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2018 Jul; 31(7): 1007–1016.
Electric current situation and time to come trends for beef production in the United states — A review
James Southward. Drouillard
1Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, U.s.
Received 2016 Jun 8; Accepted 2018 Jun viii.
Abstract
Us beef production is characterized by a diverseness of climates, environmental conditions, beast 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, but frequently overlapping sectors, including seedstock production, 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 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 5 months, by and large in feedlots of 1,000 head chapters or more, and typically are slaughtered at 15 to 28 months of historic period to produce tender, well-marbled beef. Per capita beef consumption is nearly 26 kg annually, over half of which is consumed in the form of basis products. Beef exports, which are increasingly important, consist primarily of high value cuts and variety meats, depending on destination. In recent years, adverse climatic weather condition (i.e., draught), a shrinking agronomical workforce, emergence of food-borne pathogens, concerns over development of antimicrobial resistance, animal welfare/well-being, environmental touch on, consumer perceptions of healthfulness of beef, consumer perceptions of food animal production practices, and alternative uses of traditional feed grains accept become increasingly important with respect to their touch on both beef production and demand for beefiness products. Similarly, changing consumer demographics and globalization of beef markets take dictated changes in the types of products demanded by consumers of Us beef, both domestically and abroad. The industry is highly adaptive, still, and responds quickly to evolving economic signals.
Keywords: Beef, Production Systems, Growth Promotion, Carcass Quality
INTRODUCTION
Beef production systems in the Usa are characterized by a wide range of climates, environmental conditions, beast phenotypes, direction practices, and a multiplicity of nutritional inputs. In dissimilarity to international perceptions, Us 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 moo-cow-calf level is widely distributed, and exists in all 50 states, spanning the range from tropical savannah to Chill tundra, temperate plains, and mount pastures. Vast differences in geographies and climatic weather 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 production, which normally is between 100 and 300 days duration, 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 most commonly are marketed at ages ranging from fifteen to 28 months. Production of beef in the U.Southward. historically has been very technology driven, utilizing reproductive management strategies, genetic improvement technologies, exogenous growth promoting compounds, vaccines, antibiotics, and feed processing strategies, all of which focused on improving efficiency and(or) decreasing price of beefiness product. In more contempo years, agin climatic conditions (i.e., draught), a shrinking agricultural workforce, control of food-borne pathogens, concerns over development of antimicrobial resistance, beast welfare, animal well-being, ecology impact of confinement feeding operations, consumer perceptions of healthfulness of beef, consumer perceptions of food beast production practices, and alternative uses for traditional feed grains accept go increasingly important with respect to their impact on both beefiness production 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.Southward. beefiness. Beef production systems are thus increasingly dynamic in their nature, and poised to exploit new market opportunities by altering production practices to meet changing consumer demands.
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF U.Due south. COW-Dogie OPERATIONS AND FEEDLOTS
As of January 31, 2018, total U.s.a. inventory of beefiness cows was estimated at 31.7 million head, with cow-calf operations in all 50 states [1]. The beefiness moo-cow inventory fluctuates considerably from year to year, equally shown in Effigy ane, and can be influenced heavily by market conditions and environmental factors, such as persistent draught conditions. In the Us, about 320 million hectares are used for livestock grazing [2], which is equivalent to 41% of the full state expanse of the continental USA. Approximately 55% of all beef cows are maintained in the Primal region of the continental USA [iii], which is characterized past vast native grasslands and expansive production of row crops such as corn, soybeans, wheat, grain sorghum, and other crops. Roughly 20% of the national herd is in the Western region, commonly utilizing expansive land areas that are federally owned and leased to beef producers past regime agencies. The Southeastern region, often typified by smaller production units that rely heavily on improved pastures, besides is habitation to approximately 20% of the national herd. The remaining v% are interspersed throughout the Northeast, Alaska, and Hawaii. Each of these regions makes use of very dissimilar systems of beefiness production, attributable to a divergent range of climates and feed resources in each area. For instance, western herds often employ federal lands for grazing in the spring and summertime, and cattle then are removed from federal lands and overwintered on privately-endemic pastures and/or fed harvested forages until the beginning of the next grazing bicycle. By contrast, operations in the Primal region frequently make use of a mixture of native grass pastures, crop residues, harvested forages, and poly peptide concentrates to sustain their cow herds.
U.s. beefiness cow inventory on January 1, from 1938 to 2018. Source: U.s.a. Department of Agriculture [1].
Feedlots, unlike cow-dogie operations, are far more than concentrated geographically, with over 72% of feedlot production occurring in the 5-state area [4] of Nebraska (19.eight%), Texas (18.9%), Kansas (17.5%), Iowa (9.0%), and Colorado (vii.1%). Concentration of feedlots in this surface area is largely driven by admission 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-price feedstuffs, specially byproduct feeds. For example, the Washington-Idaho region is a major site for production and processing of potatoes, fruits, and vegetables as foods for humans. Cattle feeding operations have developed in response to availability of large quantities of processed nutrient residues in this region, and represent an of import ways for disposal of these byproducts, thereby creating boosted value to the food chain.
CATTLE BREEDS USED FOR Beef PRODUCTION IN THE U.s.a.
The United states beef herd is very heterogeneous in nature, consisting of more 80 breeds and crosses thereof, and reflecting the diversity of environments in which they are produced. Co-ordinate to the nearly recent report on breed registrations by the National Pedigreed Livestock Quango [five], member breed associations with the greatest number of registrations were Angus, Hereford, Simmental, Cherry-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.S., most cattle fed for slaughter actually are crossbreds, with 60% or more having some degree of Angus influence. Dairy breeds, nigh notably Holsteins, too make up a substantial portion of U.s.a. feedlot cattle, with as many every bit 3 to iv million dairy calves being fed in The states feedlots each twelvemonth.
Us SYSTEM FOR Beefiness Production
The USA system of beefiness production is highly segmented, often resulting in several changes of ownership between the fourth dimension 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-dogie operations is weaned calves, which are sold to stocker operators, backgrounding lots, or feedlots. Figure 2 illustrates the possible paths that animals may take through the beef production concatenation before being slaughtered. Calves from cow-calf operations more often than not follow one of two paths. They can be transferred direct to feedlots at or around the time of weaning, in which case they are referred to every bit "dogie-feds" that remain in the feedlot for 240 days or more before being harvested. Calf-fed may make up xl% or more than of the fed cattle population in the USA. The largest share of the calf population, usually sixty% or more, is beginning placed into a backgrounding or stocker performance, or a combination thereof, to be grown for a period of time before fattened on loftier-concentrate diets. These animals are grown by and large using forage-based diets and so transferred to feedlots when they are a year or more of age, and thus are referred to as "yearlings". Stocker (grazing) and backgrounding (drylot) systems rely heavily on forages every bit the predominant component of the nutrition, supplementing poly peptide, free energy, vitamins, and minerals as needed to optimize cattle functioning. A relatively small-scale proportion of backgrounded cattle are grown at modest rates of gain using limit-feeding programs in which they are fed high-concentrate diets, similar to a high-energy finishing diet, but in restricted amounts to prevent 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 (blood-red lines), or following a growing stage (regal lines) carried out in specialized facilities (calf ranches, backgrounding operations, or stocker operations).
Male calves from dairies as well constitute an of import com ponent of the beefiness cattle market place. These calves are gathered from dairies at an early age (usually about three days) and transferred to specialized rearing operations known equally calf ranches. Calves typically are confined to individual stalls to foreclose intermingling, as they are highly susceptible to affliction at this phase of their lives. Calves are fed a combination of milk replacers, grain, and small amounts of forage until weaning at 40 to 80 days of age, and and so transferred to group housing within the same operation. These animals commonly are sold to feedlots when they reach a weight of approximately 150 to 200 kg.
Choose beef and dairy animals also contribute to the beef sup ply, and most ordinarily are shipped from seedstock, cow-calf, or dairy operations directly to abattoirs for harvest. A relatively small and variable proportion is sent to feedlots to be fed high-energy diets for fifty to 100 days before being slaughtered. The number of cull animals that are fattened in feedlots before beingness slaughtered varies essentially from year to year, and is largely a function of the relationships betwixt feed costs, beef supply, and beef demand.
Male cattle in the U.s. are nearly always fed equally steers, and abattoirs apply heavy discounts to intact males or males that display avant-garde secondary sex characteristics. Castration finer decreases the occurrence of undesirable social behaviors and meat quality characteristics, such as dark, firm, and dry beef. Muscle from steers also contains less connective tissue than that from bulls, and steers deposit more intramuscular fatty (marbling) than bulls. Castration can occur at various times between birth and afterwards entry into feedlots, with the vast bulk being castrated before or near the age of weaning. A relatively small proportion is castrated after entry into feedlots, though this practice is heavily discouraged and significant discounts are practical to intact feeder cattle due to high morbidity rates in animals that are castrated at an advanced historic period. In terms of methodology, bull calves are near ofttimes castrated surgically or by banding.
Heifers fed in feedlots constitute approximately 28% to 30% of beef supply in the United states of america [iv]. 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 estrus behavior.
Market atmospheric condition at the fourth dimension 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 atmospheric condition (such equally extended draught periods), and fluctuating prices. When overall size of the national beefiness herd is relatively low, fewer animals are bachelor, creating competition between stocker and backgrounding operations and feedlots for supply of cattle. Relationships betwixt prices of grain and forages besides tin can influence age of entry into feedlots. When costs for pasture and harvested forages are low in comparison to grains, producers take incentive to grow cattle earlier placing them into feedlots. By contrast, when grain prices are low relative to prices for forages, a greater proportion of eligible animals may enter the feedlot straight.
Weather also plays a very significant role in the age at which cattle are placed into feedlots. Environmental temperatures and precipitation patterns obviously impact both quantity and quality of forages produced, so it stands to reason that adverse climatic conditions tin can influence elapsing of the grazing season, and equally a result the proportion of cattle that are marketed as calves versus as yearlings. For example, several meg cattle normally are grazed on modest grain pastures in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas in the fall and winter each year. In the absenteeism of adequate rainfall, poor fodder yield may dictate premature termination of the grazing season, in which case cattle are transferred to feedlots to be fed. The same is true for native grass pastures that are grazed in the spring, summer, and fall. Drought weather condition can force producers to market cattle early on, as they oftentimes have limited feed reserves. Regardless of crusade, the system of merchandising cattle is very dynamic, responding quickly to market place conditions.
Prices paid for slaughter cattle in the U.Southward. are influenced by historic period, quality grade, yield course, and weight. The United states quality grading system takes into account age, as determined past bone ossification patterns, color of lean tissue, and the amount of intramuscular fat (marbling). Increased intramuscular fat deposition increases grade, and premiums are paid for cattle that accept high intramuscular fat content. Yield grade is a measure of fatness that accounts for increases in fat within the subcutaneous, intermuscular, and peritoneal regions of the carcass. Animals that eolith excesses of fat in these areas mostly have poor cerise meat yield, and prices are discounted accordingly. Weight of carcasses also is an of import determinant of value, equally carcasses that are less than 250 kg or more than than 430 kg are subject to substantial discounts. Given the high correlation between intramuscular fat and other fatty depots, securing high market value requires that cattle be fed long plenty to achieve sufficient (merely not excessive) torso fat, produce carcasses ranging in weight from 250 to 430 kg, and do so at fewer than 30 months of age. Consequently, there are limitations with respect to the ability to shift cattle into different product scenarios. For example, cattle that are heavily influenced by British-brood beginnings often are smaller framed, and therefore benefit from extended growing programs that let for skeletal growth and musculus degradation earlier fattening, thereby ensuring that they achieve desired market weights at appropriate fatness. Initiating the feedlot stage too early on in the life of the animals tin can predispose them to premature fattening, depression carcass weights, or both. This is particularly true for heifers, which incorporate a substantial portion of the fed cattle population in the USA. Alternatively, big-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 organisation in which they are placed into feedlots directly after weaning.
The segmented nature of the beef industry in the USA is an important distinction from the vertical integration commonly associated with other meat animate being production systems such as pork and poultry. While in that location is a relative absence 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 especially evident with branded beefiness programs. For example, marketing of some branded beef products is based on the premise of no antibiotic or steroidal hormone utilize throughout the lifetime of the brute, requiring that purveyors have command over production methods employed through each phase of production in club to ensure compliance. This frequently is accomplished using supply agreements that reward producers with premiums for producing animals that meet specifications of the branded beef program.
USE OF GROWTH PROMOTING TECHNOLOGIES IN U.Southward. Beef PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
Beef producers in the USA historically take been very engineering 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 as feed additives or as hormone-impregnated implants that are inserted beneath the skin of the ears.
Steroidal-based growth implants have been used in the U.s.a. for decades, thus making information technology possible to regain some of the growth-promoting effects 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 have dramatic affect on cattle performance and efficiency of feed utilization. Their use is very widespread, encompassing both growing and finishing phases of production. They are near heavily used in confinement operations, including backgrounding operations and feedlots. Notable exceptions are branded beef programs that disqualify their use, such every bit natural, organic, or non-hormone treated cattle programs aimed at specific value-added markets.
Similarly, antibiotics accept been widely used in United states of america cattle production systems. Ionophore antibiotics, the nigh mutual of which are monensin and lasalocid, are used widely for beef production in the USA, both for command of coccidiosis and for improving feed efficiency. Feed additive forms of tetracyclines and macrolide antibiotics take been used extensively in the United States. Starting in January, 2017, the USA Food and Drug Administration imposed new regulations that prohibit sub-therapeutic feeding of medically-important antibiotics [six], which includes oxtetracyline, chlortetracycline, and the macrolide antibiotic, tylosin. These drugs now are restricted for use just in the treatment or prevention of disease, 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, particularly for compounds that are deemed medically of import for human health. Essential oils, minerals, prebiotics, and probiotics are amid the many product categories that are at present existence 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 not-steroidal, and they stimulate muscle accretion by increasing poly peptide synthesis and decreasing poly peptide catabolism. The beta adrenergic agonist, ractopamine hydrochloride, was canonical for use in cattle starting in 2003. Zilpaterol was approved for use in the USA in 2008, and though more than strong than ractopamine, zilpaterol it is now seldom used due to restrictions imposed by major butchery companies. Ractopamine is administered to cattle during the last 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 United states of america feedlots. A recent survey of feedlot nutritionists [7] revealed that approximately 85% of feedlots represented in the survey use beta agonists.
Synthetic progestin (melengestrol acetate) is fed to synchro nize heat in breeding herds, peculiarly where bogus insemination is used. It is estimated that fewer than 10% of beef females are bred past artificial insemination, and so the greatest apply of constructed 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 physical injuries attributable to sexual behaviors in which animals mountain i another, and too improves efficiency of feed utilization. Melengestrol acetate is non canonical for use in male bovines.
THE FEEDLOT SECTOR
The virtually recent 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 Us, but by far the heaviest concentration of cattle finishing occurs in the Smashing Plains region, which is by and large characterized by a semi-arid, temperate climate that is well-suited to cattle product. Approximately two thirds of USA feedlot cattle product is concentrated within united states of Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas. Logically, large abattoirs also are concentrated inside this region. Crop 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 equally net free energy for gain (NEg), typically ranges from i.l to 1.54 Mcal/kg. Consequently, diets of feedlot cattle consist primarily of cereal grains and cereal grain byproducts. Corn is by far the predominant cereal grain. Wheat, which mostly is regarded every bit a human nutrient crop, frequently is used to displace a portion of corn in feedlot diets. Its use typically is restricted to certain times of the year when wheat prices are low in comparison to corn, such equally immediately following wheat harvest. Wheat and barley are, however, the predominant grains used by feedlots in the Pacific Northwest. Sorghum is an of import cereal ingather produced in the semi-barren states of Kansas and Texas, and to a lesser extent Oklahoma, Colorado, S Dakota, and Nebraska. Though regarded equally being nutritionally inferior to corn, it too is incorporated into feedlot diets when economic atmospheric condition favor its utilize.
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, especially in the interior of the continental Us where corn and sorghum production prevail. The well-nigh important of these is distiller'southward grain, which is a byproduct of fuel ethanol production from cereal grains. Distiller'southward grains can be fed either equally moisture or stale co-products, the form of which is dictated by proximity of feedlots to ethanol production facilities. Growth of the fuel ethanol industry between 2000 and 2007 represented an unprecedented period of modify for the USA beef industry, during which traditional feedstuffs (i.eastward. grains) reached historically high prices while distiller's grains increased dramatically in affluence. This was cause for major shifts in composition of feedlot diets. Moisture corn gluten feed (approximately 60% dry matter), which is derived every bit a byproduct from the product of corn sweeteners and starches, also is widely used in the feedlot sector. Distiller's grains, gluten feed, and other byproducts most ordinarily comprise betwixt 10% and 40% of the diet dry matter for feedlot cattle. Big differentials in pricing betwixt grain and grain byproducts occasionally dictate much greater rates of inclusion, with concentrations of byproducts reaching 70% or more than of nutrition dry out matter in some circumstances. Other byproducts are used as well, including cull potatoes or potato processing wastes (predominantly in the Pacific Northwest), fruit and vegetable byproducts, byproducts from sugar refining, and co-products derived from milling of wheat and processing of soybeans. Many of these byproduct feeds also comprise 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 poly peptide requirements of cattle. Consequently, dietary poly peptide often is fed in excess, which has potentially important ecology implications. Byproduct feeds typically incorporate more than phosphorus than the cereal grains that they replace, further contributing to ecology challenges associated with bars animal feeding operations.
Forages normally constitute a relatively pocket-sized fraction of feedlot diets, and are used primarily to promote digestive health. Alfalfa hay and corn silage are the well-nigh usually used roughages. Increased reliance on byproduct feeds in recent years has made it economically viable to utilize low protein roughages in feedlot diets, including corn stalks, wheat straw, and other low-value ingather residues. Fodder content of finishing diets typically is in the range of 6% to 12% [seven].
PRODUCTION AND DISPOSITION OF Beefiness
The objective of USA feedlots is to produce beef from young cattle (<thirty months of historic period) with aplenty tenderness and with relatively loftier intramuscular fat content. The USA organization of beef quality grading rewards feedlots for product of highly marbled beef, but also discourages over-fattening of cattle through classification of carcasses into ane of v yield grade categories. Animals that yield carcasses in higher yield grade categories (iv or five) generally incur heavy market penalties. Size of carcasses as well is of import, and shambles companies generally apply heavy price discounts for undersized (<250 kg) or oversized (>430 kg) carcasses.
The beef slaughter industry in the United states is heavily concen trated, with only 4 firms accounting for more than fourscore% of the beefiness slaughter capacity. Most of the beef they process is distributed in boxed form, a significant portion of which is exported to other countries. Domestic beefiness production in 2017 was 11.98 1000000 metric tonnes, approximately 10.half-dozen% (1.26 million tonnes) of which was exported [8], either as diverseness meets or equally loftier-quality beef products. The largest volume export markets for USA beef in 2017 were Japan (24.3%); United mexican states (eighteen.8%); Southward Korea (14.6%); Hong Kong (10.iv%), Canada (9.2%); and Taiwan (3.v%). Exports were roughly commencement past imports (1.36 million tonnes), with Canada (24.7%), Australia (23.ii%); Mexico (19.2%), and New Zealand (eighteen.half dozen%) making upwards the vast bulk of imported beef (and veal) products.
Per capita beef consumption of beef in the USA in 2017 was 25.8 kg [9], and consumption is expected to be slightly higher or stable through 2027 [ten]. Information technology is estimated that 57% of the beef consumed is in the form of footing products [11]. Imported products, specially from Australia, are of import in fulfilling the increasing demand for ground beef products.
FUTURE TRENDS IN THE BEEF INDUSTRY
Domestic demand for beefiness products is expected to remain stable. Consequently, consign markets are increasingly recognized as existence an important target for increasing demand for USA beef products. OECD/FAO estimates of ane.v% annual increases in demand for meat products through 2026 [x] are cause for optimism among producers. Though information technology is projected that most of this need will be fulfilled past increases in product of poultry products, it is likely that all meat sectors will benefit to some degree.
There is a growing trend within the The states for large purveyors of meat products to exert influence on livestock producers, encouraging them to implement product practices that are perceived as existence in line with consumer interests. Among the major players are butchery companies, wholesalers, grocery bondage, the hotel and restaurant industries, and others. Topics such equally sustainability, brute welfare/wellbeing, ecology compatibility, traceability, antimicrobial resistance, use of exogenous growth promotants, natural or organic production systems, and other areas are becoming increasingly mutual, and take emerged as cardinal elements in marketing campaigns adopted by many major food companies. This evolution in thinking challenges conventional food animal production systems, and is forcing rapid change in production practices. As a consequence, the focal points of many research programs across the United states of america have shifted to encompass these topics.
United states of america beef producers take a long history of adapting quickly to changing market place signals in an effort to capture added value. Branded beefiness programs, which institute a form of vertical integration or alignment, are relatively commonplace. Perhaps the best known of these is the Certified Angus Beef programme, which since its inception in 1978 has arguably transformed the U.s.a. beef manufacture as a consequence of substantial premiums paid to cattle producers for producing beef that fulfills certain quality standards. In excess of 60% of cattle fed in the Usa now have some proportion of Angus ancestry, which is testimony to the success of the program that is now recognized globally equally 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 list 90 different federal certification programs for beef, 80 of which were conceived in the year 2000 or later. Scores of other non-certified branding programs accept appeared at the consumer level likewise, touting features such equally omega-iii enrichment of beefiness; antibiotic costless; 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 past advertising appealing attributes for which consumers are willing to pay price premiums. As branding programs become more prevalent, vertical alignment between various sectors of the beef manufacture too is increasingly common. A form of symbiosis tin can develop in which large production units or consortia of producers marshal themselves with retail outlets, hotels, or large restaurant companies to ensure ongoing demand or to capture marketplace premiums for their products. In turn, the food companies benefit through supply agreements that guarantee availability or pricing of products that are produced to encounter certain standards that tin comprehend beef quality, meat composition (as in the case of omega-iii enrichment), ecology 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 post-obit events in December of 2003 surrounding importation of a choose dairy cow from Canada that was discovered to have been infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Several central export markets subsequently were closed to USA beefiness, which had devastating financial consequences for beef producers and abattoir companies in the USA. Producer organizations are, for the virtually part, even so, opposed to development of a federally-mandated traceability system, opting instead for a voluntary system of animate being identification and traceability that is market-driven.
In January of 2017 the USA Food and Drug administration fully enacted revised regulations aimed at decreasing apply of medically-important antibiotics in nutrient creature production systems [6]. Central to the new regulations is the necessity for veterinary oversight of antibiotic employ. Drugs that previously were available "over the counter" at present can exist used only with the written prescription of a licensed veterinarian. Since the regulations took effect, pharmaceutical companies that produce affected drug compounds have cited sharp declines in demand for their products, meat purveyors and retailers have publicly announced timelines for procurement of products produced without antibiotics, and major beef producers take announced strategies that will be (or have been) implemented to decrease antibiotic use. The "anti" antibiotic move is thus well underway, and it has given birth to an era of inquiry pertaining to identification of antibiotic alternatives for use in livestock. Much of our ain enquiry at Kansas State University is devoted to the task of finding alternative strategies for mitigation of digestive disorders or infectious diseases, but without employ of antibiotics. Whether as a result of market pressures or regulatory changes, information technology seems inevitable that beefiness production systems of the time to come are apt to utilise production practices that prevent use of antibiotics.
Probiotics are becoming increasingly prevalent in the beef production chain, just peculiarly feedlot systems. It has been estimated that approximately 60% of feedlot cattle receive some form of probiotic [seven]. Ofttimes these consist of Lactobacillus species, fed alone or in combination with Propionibacterium. Normalization of gastrointestinal tract role and competitive inhibition of nutrient-borne pathogens, such every bit E. coli O157:H7 [12], are the most unremarkably cited reasons for their use. More recently, Megasphaera elsdenii, a lactate-utilizing bacteria, has been introduced into the market place. Reported benefits include avoidance of ruminal acidosis and the ability to transition more quickly to high-concentrate diets [13], every bit well as improved cattle performance and decreased incidence of disease in young cattle after inflow in feedlots [14]. Anecdotal evidence from commercial abattoirs has suggested it may also decrease fecal shedding of food-borne pathogens, but this effect has nonetheless to be validated in a controlled research experiment.
Plants extracts equally feed additives constitutes some other active surface area of inquiry, with the notion that these compounds may be useful as substitutes for conventional antimicrobial drugs as a result of their antimicrobial activities. Several found extracts have been studied in depth, including beta acids of hops [15], menthol [xvi], eugenol [17], cinnamaldehyde [18], limonene [19], and others, and their touch on on gut microflora is in some cases well documented. These compounds often emulate the actions of traditional antibiotic drugs, owing in part to similarities in chemical structure. Similarly, heavy metals, including the trace minerals copper and zinc, have been exploited for antibody-like furnishings [20], particularly when used in pigs or poultry, but also in cattle. Zinc is the antimicrobial mineral of choice in cattle due to the relative toxicity of copper, and frequently it is fed at supra-nutritional concentrations to suppress bacteria that cause foot-rot (infectious pododermatitis), or to assistance in combatting respiratory illness. Numerous studies have revealed that it is possible to co-select for resistance to antimicrobial drugs when bacteria are exposed to plant extracts [21] or high concentrations of heavy metals [22,23], even without exposure to the antimicrobial drugs themselves. Given that the basis for excluding antibody drugs from the diets of cattle is to avert development of antimicrobial resistance in gastrointestinal tract bacteria, it would seem that similar caution is warranted in the awarding of plant extracts or heavy metals equally antimicrobials, in spite of the fact that they are non marketed specifically as antibiotics.
The USDA does non maintain official statistics on volumes of antibiotic-free, non-hormone treated, or organic beef. In 2012 it was estimated that over four% of retail foods sold in the U.S. were organically produced [24]. Fruits and vegetable led the market in organic sales, while iii% of meat/poultry/fish were estimated to have been produced organically. According to the Organic Trade Clan [25], sales of organic meat and poultry surged past 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 free" 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 animal. There is a sense that demand for this market 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 sure markets, both domestically and internationally. Cost of production generally is college for whatsoever of the specialty programs compared to conventional production systems, and producers must therefore be rewarded accordingly with price premiums.
CONCLUSION
USA beef supply is the product of a multi-segmented industry that is consolidating into larger and larger production units, and is increasingly characterized past vertical alignment among manufacture segments, as well as with nutrient wholesalers and retailers and the hotel and restaurant industries. The industry makes use of a wide 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 as cereal grains and cereal grain byproducts. It is highly adaptive, responding chop-chop to market place signals that reward innovation and alignment with consumer demands. The industry makes all-encompassing use of a broad range of technologies related to feed processing, identity preservations, and growth promotion. Complexity of beef markets is increasing due to extensive branding efforts and development of niche markets, and demand for production of beef representing grass-fed, non-hormone, non-antibody, and organic beef markets is growing steadily. Maintaining and expanding demand for USA beefiness likely will necessitate ongoing efforts to develop markets for export, both for variety meats and for high-value cuts of beef.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This is contribution number 18-601-J of the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Manhattan.
Footnotes
Conflict OF Interest
We certify that there is no conflict of involvement with whatever financial organization regarding the textile discussed in the manuscript.
REFERENCES
i. USDA Economic Inquiry Service . Livestock and meat domestic data: Livestock and poultry slaughter. United states Section of Agriculture; c2018. [cited 2018 June 1]. Available from: http://www.ers.usda.gov. [Google Scholar]
three. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Census of Agriculture. c2012 [cited 2016 June ane]. Available from: www.agcensus.usda.gov.
four. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service . Cattle on Feed. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agronomical Statistics Board, United States Department of Agronomics (USDA); 2018. Released May 25, 2018. [Google Scholar]
six. Federal Register . Veterinary feed directive: last dominion. U.Due south. Department of Health and Human Services; 2015. Bachelor in: 21 CFR Parts 514 and 558 [Docket No. FDA–2010–N–0155] RIN 0910-AG95. [Google Scholar]
vii. Samuelson KL, Hubbert ME, Galyean ML, Löest CA. Nutritional recommendations of feedlot consulting nutritionists: The 2015 New Mexico Land and Texas Tech University survey. J Anim Sci. 2016;94:2648–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
eight. U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) Total beef exports, including variety meats [Net] USMEF; c2018. [cited 2016 June 1]. Available from: www.usmef.org. [Google Scholar]
11. Rabobank . Ground beef nation: The effect of irresolute consumer tastes and preferences on the U.S. cattle industry. Nutrient and Agribusiness Research and Advisory. Rabobank International; Jan, 2014. [Google Scholar]
12. Younts-Dahl SM, Galyean ML, Loneragan GH, Elam NA, Brashears MM. Dietary supplementation with Lactobacillus-Propionibacterium-based directly-fed with microbials and prevalence of Escherichia coli O157 in beef feedlot cattle and on hides at harvest. J Nutrient Prot. 2004;67:889–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
thirteen. Drouillard JS, Henning PH, Meissner HH, Leeuw KJ. Megasphaera elsdenii on the performance of steers adapting to a high-concentrate diet, using three or five transition diets. Southward Afr J Anim Sci. 2012;42:195–nine. [Google Scholar]
14. Miller KA, Van Bibber-Krueger CL, Hollis LC, Drouillard JS. Megasphaera elsdenii dosed orally at processing to reduce BRD and amend proceeds in high-risk calves during the receiving menstruation. Bovine Prac. 2013;47:137–43. [Google Scholar]
15. Flythe MD. The antimicrobial effects of hops (Humulus lupulus L.) on ruminal hyper ammonia-producing leaner. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2009;48:712–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
sixteen. Valero MV, do Prado RM, Zawadzki F, et al. Propolis and essential oils additives in the diets improved creature functioning and feed efficiency of bulls finished in feedlot. Acta Sci Anim Sci. 2014;36:419–26. [Google Scholar]
17. Yang WZ, Benchaar C, Ametaj BN, Beauchemin KA. Dose response to eugenol supplementation in growing beef cattle: Ruminal fermentation and abdominal digestion. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2010;158:57–64. [Google Scholar]
xviii. Yang WZ, Ametaj BN, Benchaar C, He ML, Beauchemin KA. Cinnamaldehyde in feedlot cattle diets: intake, growth functioning, 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]
20. Aarestrup FM, Hasman H. Susceptibility of different bacterial species isolated from nutrient animals to copper sulphate, zinc chloride and antimicrobial substances used for disinfection. Vet Microbiol. 2004;100:83–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Aperce CC, Amachawadi R, Van Bibber-Krueger CL, et al. Furnishings of menthol supplementation in feedlot cattle diets on the fecal prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli . PLoS ONE. 2016;11: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 Animate being Sciences are provided hither courtesy of Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Product Societies (AAAP)
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039332/
0 Response to "Causes of the Decline in Beef Cattle Prodction"
Post a Comment