How Much Money Does the Beef Indistry Male
Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2018 Jul; 31(7): 1007–1016.
Current situation and hereafter trends for beef production in the United States of America — A review
James Southward. Drouillard
1Section of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
Received 2016 Jun 8; Accepted 2018 Jun 8.
Abstract
U.s.a. beef production is characterized by a diversity of climates, ecology conditions, animal phenotypes, management systems, and a multiplicity of nutritional inputs. The United states beefiness herd consists of more than eighty breeds of cattle and crosses thereof, and the industry is divided into distinct, but ofttimes 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 cursory portions of their life in feedlots. The beefiness manufacture is very technology driven, utilizing reproductive management strategies, genetic improvement technologies, exogenous growth promoting compounds, vaccines, antibiotics, and feed processing strategies, focusing on improvements in efficiency and cost of product. Young steers and heifers are grain-based diets fed for an average of 5 months, mostly in feedlots of 1,000 caput capacity or more, and typically are slaughtered at fifteen to 28 months of historic period to produce tender, well-marbled beef. Per capita beef consumption is nearly 26 kg annually, over one-half of which is consumed in the form of footing products. Beef exports, which are increasingly of import, consist primarily of high value cuts and multifariousness meats, depending on destination. In recent years, adverse climatic weather (i.e., draught), a shrinking agricultural workforce, emergence of food-borne pathogens, concerns over evolution of antimicrobial resistance, animal welfare/well-being, environmental impact, consumer perceptions of healthfulness of beefiness, consumer perceptions of food animal production practices, and culling uses of traditional feed grains have become increasingly important with respect to their impact 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 USA beef, both domestically and away. The industry is highly adaptive, however, and responds speedily to evolving economical signals.
Keywords: Beef, Product Systems, Growth Promotion, Carcass Quality
INTRODUCTION
Beef production systems in the United states of america are characterized by a wide range of climates, environmental atmospheric condition, beast phenotypes, management practices, and a multiplicity of nutritional inputs. In contrast to international perceptions, The states product systems are, with the notable exception of male person dairy calves, predominantly pastoral-based, with young stock typically spending relatively cursory portions of their life in confinement 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 use of a broad spectrum of creature 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 elapsing, is heavily concentrated inside the interior of the continental USA, and relies heavily on cereal grains and grain byproducts produced inside this expanse equally predominant feed resources, and feedlot cattle most ordinarily are marketed at ages ranging from xv to 28 months. Production of beef in the U.Southward. historically has been very applied science driven, utilizing reproductive direction strategies, genetic improvement technologies, exogenous growth promoting compounds, vaccines, antibiotics, and feed processing strategies, all of which focused on improving efficiency and(or) decreasing cost of beef production. In more recent years, adverse climatic conditions (i.east., draught), a shrinking agricultural workforce, control of food-borne pathogens, concerns over development of antimicrobial resistance, brute welfare, animal well-being, environmental touch on of solitude feeding operations, consumer perceptions of healthfulness of beef, consumer perceptions of food animal product practices, and alternative uses for traditional feed grains have become increasingly important with respect to their bear upon on both beefiness production and demand for beef products. Similarly, changing consumer demographics and globalization of beef markets take dictated changes in the types of products demanded from producers of U.Southward. beefiness. Beefiness product 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.Southward. COW-Dogie OPERATIONS AND FEEDLOTS
As of Jan 31, 2018, total USA inventory of beef cows was estimated at 31.vii million head, with cow-calf operations in all 50 states [one]. The beef cow inventory fluctuates considerably from year to year, every bit shown in Effigy i, and tin can be influenced heavily past market conditions and environmental factors, such every bit persistent draught conditions. In the USA, almost 320 million hectares are used for livestock grazing [2], which is equivalent to 41% of the total land expanse of the continental USA. Approximately 55% of all beefiness cows are maintained in the Key region of the continental USA [iii], which is characterized by vast native grasslands and expansive product of row crops such as corn, soybeans, wheat, grain sorghum, and other crops. Roughly twenty% of the national herd is in the Western region, unremarkably utilizing expansive land areas that are federally owned and leased to beefiness producers by government agencies. The Southeastern region, often typified by smaller product units that rely heavily on improved pastures, besides is dwelling to approximately 20% of the national herd. The remaining five% are interspersed throughout the Northeast, Alaska, and Hawaii. Each of these regions makes utilize of very different systems of beef production, owing to a divergent range of climates and feed resources in each expanse. For example, western herds often use federal lands for grazing in the spring and summertime, and cattle then are removed from federal lands and overwintered on privately-owned pastures and/or fed harvested forages until the outset of the next grazing cycle. By contrast, operations in the Central region frequently make use of a mixture of native grass pastures, ingather residues, harvested forages, and protein concentrates to sustain their cow herds.
US beef cow inventory on Jan 1, from 1938 to 2018. Source: U.s.a. Department of Agriculture [1].
Feedlots, different cow-dogie operations, are far more concentrated geographically, with over 72% of feedlot production occurring in the five-country area [4] of Nebraska (nineteen.viii%), Texas (18.ix%), Kansas (17.5%), Iowa (9.0%), and Colorado (seven.1%). Concentration of feedlots in this surface area is largely driven past access to cereal grains and grain byproducts that predominate the diets of finishing cattle. Other of import regions for cattle feeding have developed throughout the state in response to availability of depression-cost feedstuffs, particularly 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 take developed in response to availability of large quantities of processed food residues in this region, and stand for an important means for disposal of these byproducts, thereby creating additional value to the nutrient chain.
CATTLE BREEDS USED FOR Beef Product IN THE Usa OF AMERICA
The United states beef herd is very heterogeneous in nature, consisting of more than fourscore breeds and crosses thereof, and reflecting the diverseness of environments in which they are produced. According to the most recent report on brood registrations by the National Pedigreed Livestock Council [five], 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 diverseness of cattle types in the U.Due south., well-nigh cattle fed for slaughter actually are crossbreds, with 60% or more than having some degree of Angus influence. Dairy breeds, almost notably Holsteins, likewise make up a substantial portion of U.s.a. feedlot cattle, with as many as 3 to four million dairy calves being fed in United states of america feedlots each year.
United states Organization FOR BEEF Production
The USA system of beef production is highly segmented, ofttimes 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-dogie operations. The master product of moo-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 product chain before being slaughtered. Calves from cow-dogie operations generally follow ane of ii paths. They can be transferred directly to feedlots at or around the time of weaning, in which instance they are referred to as "calf-feds" that remain in the feedlot for 240 days or more earlier beingness harvested. Calf-fed may brand up 40% or more of the fed cattle population in the The states. The largest share of the dogie population, unremarkably 60% or more than, is start placed into a backgrounding or stocker functioning, or a combination thereof, to be grown for a flow of time earlier fattened on high-concentrate diets. These animals are grown mostly using forage-based diets and so transferred to feedlots when they are a year or more of historic period, and thus are referred to as "yearlings". Stocker (grazing) and backgrounding (drylot) systems rely heavily on forages as the predominant component of the diet, supplementing poly peptide, free energy, vitamins, and minerals as needed to optimize cattle operation. A relatively modest proportion of backgrounded cattle are grown at modest rates of proceeds using limit-feeding programs in which they are fed high-concentrate diets, similar to a high-free energy finishing diet, but in restricted amounts to prevent premature fattening.
Schematic for flow of cattle through the U.S. beef product chain, illustrating direct entry from cow-calf and dairy operations into feedlots (blue lines) and abattoirs (red lines), or following a growing phase (purple lines) carried out in specialized facilities (calf ranches, backgrounding operations, or stocker operations).
Male calves from dairies besides constitute an important com ponent of the beefiness cattle marketplace. These calves are gathered from dairies at an early on historic period (normally about three days) and transferred to specialized rearing operations known as calf ranches. Calves typically are confined to individual stalls to prevent intermingling, as they are highly susceptible to disease at this stage of their lives. Calves are fed a combination of milk replacers, grain, and small amounts of forage until weaning at forty to 80 days of historic period, and then transferred to grouping housing inside the aforementioned functioning. These animals commonly are sold to feedlots when they accomplish a weight of approximately 150 to 200 kg.
Cull beefiness and dairy animals as well contribute to the beef sup ply, and most unremarkably are shipped from seedstock, cow-calf, or dairy operations direct to abattoirs for harvest. A relatively modest and variable proportion is sent to feedlots to be fed high-energy diets for 50 to 100 days before being slaughtered. The number of cull animals that are fattened in feedlots before being slaughtered varies essentially from yr to twelvemonth, and is largely a function of the relationships betwixt feed costs, beef supply, and beefiness demand.
Male person cattle in the USA are nearly e'er fed as steers, and abattoirs apply heavy discounts to intact males or males that display avant-garde secondary sex activity characteristics. Castration effectively decreases the occurrence of undesirable social behaviors and meat quality characteristics, such every bit nighttime, firm, and dry beef. Muscle from steers also contains less connective tissue than that from bulls, and steers eolith more intramuscular fatty (marbling) than bulls. Castration can occur at diverse times between nascence and after entry into feedlots, with the vast bulk beingness castrated earlier or near the age of weaning. A relatively minor proportion is castrated after entry into feedlots, though this practice is heavily discouraged and significant discounts are applied to intact feeder cattle due to high morbidity rates in animals that are castrated at an avant-garde age. In terms of methodology, balderdash calves are most frequently castrated surgically or past banding.
Heifers fed in feedlots constitute approximately 28% to 30% of beef supply in the United states [4]. Compared to steers, however, nearly feedlot heifers are fed intact, and while some are ovariectomized, information technology is far more mutual to feed melengestrol acetate (a synthetic form of progesterone) to inhibit oestrus behavior.
Market conditions at the time of weaning can greatly im pact the historic period at which cattle are placed into feedlots. Size of the national herd is cyclical in nature, owing to fluctuations in weather (such as extended draught periods), and fluctuating prices. When overall size of the national beef herd is relatively low, fewer animals are available, creating competition between stocker and backgrounding operations and feedlots for supply of cattle. Relationships betwixt prices of grain and forages also can influence historic period of entry into feedlots. When costs for pasture and harvested forages are low in comparison to grains, producers have incentive to grow cattle before placing them into feedlots. By contrast, when grain prices are depression relative to prices for forages, a greater proportion of eligible animals may enter the feedlot directly.
Weather too plays a very 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, and so it stands to reason that agin climatic weather condition can influence elapsing of the grazing flavour, and as a result the proportion of cattle that are marketed as calves versus as yearlings. For instance, several million cattle normally are grazed on small grain pastures in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas in the autumn and winter each yr. In the absenteeism of acceptable rainfall, poor fodder yield may dictate premature termination of the grazing season, in which case cattle are transferred to feedlots to exist fed. The same is truthful for native grass pastures that are grazed in the spring, summer, and fall. Drought atmospheric condition tin force producers to market place cattle early, as they frequently have express feed reserves. Regardless of cause, the system of merchandising cattle is very dynamic, responding quickly to market place atmospheric condition.
Prices paid for slaughter cattle in the U.S. are influenced by age, quality grade, yield grade, and weight. The U.s. quality grading arrangement takes into account age, every bit determined by bone ossification patterns, colour of lean tissue, and the corporeality of intramuscular fat (marbling). Increased intramuscular fatty deposition increases form, and premiums are paid for cattle that accept high intramuscular fat content. Yield grade is a mensurate of fatness that accounts for increases in fatty within the subcutaneous, intermuscular, and peritoneal regions of the carcass. Animals that eolith excesses of fat in these areas generally have poor cerise meat yield, and prices are discounted appropriately. Weight of carcasses also is an of import determinant of value, every bit 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 fat depots, securing loftier market place value requires that cattle exist fed long enough to attain sufficient (but not excessive) body fatty, produce carcasses ranging in weight from 250 to 430 kg, and do then at fewer than 30 months of age. Consequently, in that location are limitations with respect to the power to shift cattle into unlike product scenarios. For example, cattle that are heavily influenced by British-brood ancestry often are smaller framed, and therefore benefit from extended growing programs that allow for skeletal growth and musculus deposition earlier fattening, thereby ensuring that they achieve desired market weights at appropriate fatness. Initiating the feedlot phase too early 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 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 time before finishing in feedlots. These animals are well-suited to the calf-fed feedlot system in which they are placed into feedlots directly after weaning.
The segmented nature of the beef industry in the United states of america is an of import distinction from the vertical integration commonly associated with other meat animate being production systems such as pork and poultry. While there is a relative absence of vertical integration in the beefiness supply chain, at that place are increasingly attempts for producers representing the diverse product segments to align vertically with other segments via supply agreements. The value of, or necessity for, vertical alignment is peculiarly axiomatic with branded beefiness programs. For example, marketing of some branded beef products is based on the premise of no antibody or steroidal hormone utilise throughout the lifetime of the creature, requiring that purveyors take control over production methods employed through each phase of production in order to ensure compliance. This frequently is achieved using supply agreements that advantage producers with premiums for producing animals that meet specifications of the branded beef program.
USE OF GROWTH PROMOTING TECHNOLOGIES IN U.S. Beef Production SYSTEMS
Beef producers in the U.s. historically have been very technology driven. Examples of this include strategic supplementation of forage-based diets to fulfill animal requirements for protein, energy, vitamins, or minerals. Several key classes of growth promotants likewise are used widely, either as feed additives or equally hormone-impregnated implants that are inserted below the skin of the ears.
Steroidal-based growth implants have been used in the United states of america for decades, thus making information technology possible to regain some of the growth-promoting effects of endogenous hormones that are lost as a consequence 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 performance and efficiency of feed utilization. Their utilize is very widespread, encompassing both growing and finishing phases of production. They are virtually heavily used in solitude 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 USA cattle product systems. Ionophore antibiotics, the most common of which are monensin and lasalocid, are used widely for beef production in the USA, both for control of coccidiosis and for improving feed efficiency. Feed condiment forms of tetracyclines and macrolide antibiotics have been used extensively in the United States. Starting in January, 2017, the USA Nutrient 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 handling or prevention of disease, and must be prescribed by a veterinarian. Changes in the regulatory status of these compounds has spawned an unprecedented involvement in alternative production methods and research aimed at reducing or eliminating antibiotics from food animal production systems, specially 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 every bit alternatives to traditional antibiotics for promotion of growth and efficiency.
Beta adrenergic receptor agonists are used extensively in diets of feedlot cattle to stimulate muscle accession. Beta agonists are non-steroidal, and they stimulate musculus accretion by increasing protein synthesis and decreasing poly peptide catabolism. The beta adrenergic agonist, ractopamine hydrochloride, was approved for use in cattle starting in 2003. Zilpaterol was approved for utilize in the USA in 2008, and though more than potent than ractopamine, zilpaterol information technology 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 earlier 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 [seven] revealed that approximately 85% of feedlots represented in the survey utilize beta agonists.
Synthetic progestin (melengestrol acetate) is fed to synchro nize estrus in convenance herds, particularly where artificial insemination is used. It is estimated that fewer than 10% of beefiness females are bred by artificial insemination, then the greatest utilise of synthetic progestin is in feedlots, where they are included in the diet to suppress rut in heifers that are fed in confinement for slaughter. Feeding progestin aids in minimizing physical injuries attributable to sexual behaviors in which animals mountain one some other, and too improves efficiency of feed utilization. Melengestrol acetate is not canonical for use in male person bovines.
THE FEEDLOT SECTOR
The almost recent census of agronomics [three] reported an estimated 26,586 feedlots in the U.s.. Of these, approximately 61% take fewer than 100 cattle. Approximately 77% of cattle were produced in feedlots with capacity greater than 1,000 animals. These feedlots exist throughout the United states, but by far the heaviest concentration of cattle finishing occurs in the Cracking Plains region, which is mostly characterized past a semi-barren, temperate climate that is well-suited to cattle production. Approximately two thirds of USA feedlot cattle product is concentrated within the states of Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas. Logically, large abattoirs as well are concentrated inside this region. Crop production in this geography is heavily dependent on groundwater from the underlying Ogallala aquifer, which is used extensively for irrigation of corn, wheat, sorghum, and other crops.
FEEDLOT FINISHING DIETS
Energy content of finishing diets, expressed as net free energy for gain (NEg), typically ranges from 1.50 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 by and large is regarded as a human food crop, oftentimes is used to readapt a portion of corn in feedlot diets. Its use typically is restricted to certain times of the twelvemonth when wheat prices are depression in comparing to corn, such as immediately following wheat harvest. Wheat and barley are, however, the predominant grains used by feedlots in the Pacific Northwest. Sorghum is an important cereal crop produced in the semi-barren states of Kansas and Texas, and to a lesser extent Oklahoma, Colorado, Due south Dakota, and Nebraska. Though regarded equally being nutritionally inferior to corn, it too is incorporated into feedlot diets when economic conditions favor its use.
Feedlots are opportunistic users of a broad range of past product energy feeds. Cereal grain byproducts accept become increasingly important as staples of feedlot cattle diets, particularly in the interior of the continental U.s. where corn and sorghum production prevail. The most important of these is distiller'south grain, which is a byproduct of fuel ethanol production from cereal grains. Distiller's grains can be fed either every bit wet or dried co-products, the class of which is dictated past proximity of feedlots to ethanol production facilities. Growth of the fuel ethanol industry between 2000 and 2007 represented an unprecedented period of change for the U.s.a. beef manufacture, during which traditional feedstuffs (i.due east. grains) reached historically high prices while distiller's grains increased dramatically in abundance. This was cause for major shifts in composition of feedlot diets. Wet corn gluten feed (approximately 60% dry out thing), which is derived as a byproduct from the production of corn sweeteners and starches, as well is widely used in the feedlot sector. Distiller's grains, gluten feed, and other byproducts most commonly comprise between 10% and twoscore% of the nutrition dry matter for feedlot cattle. Large differentials in pricing between grain and grain byproducts occasionally dictate much greater rates of inclusion, with concentrations of byproducts reaching lxx% or more of diet dry matter in some circumstances. Other byproducts are used likewise, including cull potatoes or potato processing wastes (predominantly in the Pacific Northwest), fruit and vegetable byproducts, byproducts from carbohydrate refining, and co-products derived from milling of wheat and processing of soybeans. Many of these byproduct feeds besides contain intermediate to loftier concentrations of poly peptide, 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 comprise more phosphorus than the cereal grains that they replace, further contributing to ecology challenges associated with confined creature feeding operations.
Forages normally constitute a relatively pocket-size fraction of feedlot diets, and are used primarily to promote digestive health. Alfalfa hay and corn silage are the nigh normally used roughages. Increased reliance on byproduct feeds in recent years has made it economically feasible to use low protein roughages in feedlot diets, including corn stalks, wheat harbinger, and other low-value ingather residues. Forage content of finishing diets typically is in the range of 6% to 12% [7].
PRODUCTION AND DISPOSITION OF BEEF
The objective of USA feedlots is to produce beef from young cattle (<30 months of age) with ample tenderness and with relatively high intramuscular fat content. The USA system of beefiness quality grading rewards feedlots for production of highly marbled beef, but besides discourages over-fattening of cattle through classification of carcasses into one of five yield grade categories. Animals that yield carcasses in higher yield grade categories (4 or 5) generally incur heavy market penalties. Size of carcasses also is important, and abattoir companies generally utilize heavy toll discounts for undersized (<250 kg) or oversized (>430 kg) carcasses.
The beefiness slaughter industry in the U.s.a. is heavily concen trated, with only iv firms accounting for more than fourscore% of the beef slaughter capacity. Most of the beef they process is distributed in boxed form, a significant portion of which is exported to other countries. Domestic beef product in 2017 was 11.98 1000000 metric tonnes, approximately 10.half dozen% (1.26 million tonnes) of which was exported [8], either as variety meets or every bit high-quality beef products. The largest volume export markets for USA beef in 2017 were Japan (24.3%); United mexican states (18.8%); Republic of korea (xiv.half dozen%); Hong Kong (10.iv%), Canada (9.ii%); and Taiwan (3.5%). Exports were roughly offset by imports (1.36 one thousand thousand tonnes), with Canada (24.seven%), Australia (23.2%); Mexico (19.2%), and New Zealand (18.6%) making upward the vast majority of imported beefiness (and veal) products.
Per capita beef consumption of beef in the USA in 2017 was 25.8 kg [9], and consumption is expected to be slightly higher or stable through 2027 [10]. It is estimated that 57% of the beef consumed is in the form of ground products [11]. Imported products, particularly from Australia, are important in fulfilling the increasing demand for footing beefiness products.
Hereafter TRENDS IN THE BEEF INDUSTRY
Domestic demand for beefiness products is expected to remain stable. Consequently, export markets are increasingly recognized as beingness an of import target for increasing demand for USA beefiness products. OECD/FAO estimates of one.v% almanac increases in need for meat products through 2026 [10] are cause for optimism among producers. Though information technology is projected that most of this need will be fulfilled by increases in product of poultry products, information technology is likely that all meat sectors will benefit to some degree.
At that place is a growing tendency within the USA for big purveyors of meat products to exert influence on livestock producers, encouraging them to implement product practices that are perceived as being in line with consumer interests. Among the major players are shambles 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 condign increasingly mutual, and take emerged as key elements in marketing campaigns adopted by many major food companies. This evolution in thinking challenges conventional food animate being product systems, and is forcing rapid change in production practices. As a consequence, the focal points of many research programs across the The states have shifted to encompass these topics.
USA beef producers have a long history of adapting apace to changing marketplace signals in an effort to capture added value. Branded beef programs, which institute a form of vertical integration or alignment, are relatively commonplace. Maybe the best known of these is the Certified Angus Beef programme, which since its inception in 1978 has arguably transformed the Usa beef manufacture equally a result of substantial premiums paid to cattle producers for producing beef that fulfills certain quality standards. In excess of 60% of cattle fed in the USA now have some proportion of Angus ancestry, which is testimony to the success of the plan that is now recognized globally as being consistent with quality. Numerous other programs take been spawned in the terminal 40 years, with the Usa Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agronomical Marketing Service now listing 90 different federal certification programs for beef, lxxx of which were conceived in the year 2000 or later. Scores of other non-certified branding programs have appeared at the consumer level too, touting features such equally omega-3 enrichment of beef; antibiotic free; hormone-costless; organic feeding programs; grass-fed programs, and others that are distinguished by the region of production, specific producers, or other features. All are aimed at enhancing value by advertising appealing attributes for which consumers are willing to pay price premiums. As branding programs become more than prevalent, vertical alignment between diverse sectors of the beef industry also is increasingly common. A course of symbiosis tin develop in which large production units or consortia of producers align themselves with retail outlets, hotels, or large restaurant companies to ensure ongoing demand or to capture market place premiums for their products. In turn, the nutrient companies benefit through supply agreements that guarantee availability or pricing of products that are produced to meet sure standards that tin can encompass beef quality, meat limerick (equally in the case of omega-3 enrichment), ecology compatibility, sustainability, or product practices that exclude antibiotics and(or) growth promotants, and numerous other marketable concepts.
Traceability programs accept been a topic of much discus sion for the past ii decades. This discussion intensified immediately following events in Dec of 2003 surrounding importation of a cull dairy cow from Canada that was discovered to accept been infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Several key export markets later on were closed to Usa beef, which had devastating financial consequences for beefiness producers and slaughter-house companies in the USA. Producer organizations are, for the most office, however, opposed to evolution of a federally-mandated traceability system, opting instead for a voluntary system of animal identification and traceability that is marketplace-driven.
In Jan of 2017 the USA Food and Drug administration fully enacted revised regulations aimed at decreasing utilize of medically-important antibiotics in nutrient animal production systems [6]. Central to the new regulations is the necessity for veterinarian oversight of antibiotic utilize. 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 event, pharmaceutical companies that produce afflicted drug compounds take cited abrupt declines in need 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 antibody use. The "anti" antibiotic movement is thus well underway, and it has given birth to an era of research pertaining to identification of antibody alternatives for use in livestock. Much of our own research at Kansas State University is devoted to the task of finding alternative strategies for mitigation of digestive disorders or infectious diseases, but without use of antibiotics. Whether as a result of market pressures or regulatory changes, information technology seems inevitable that beef production systems of the future are apt to employ production practices that preclude apply of antibiotics.
Probiotics are becoming increasingly prevalent in the beef product chain, only especially feedlot systems. It has been estimated that approximately threescore% of feedlot cattle receive some course of probiotic [seven]. Often these consist of Lactobacillus species, fed lone or in combination with Propionibacterium. Normalization of gastrointestinal tract function and competitive inhibition of food-borne pathogens, such as Eastward. coli O157:H7 [12], are the most commonly 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 loftier-concentrate diets [13], as well as improved cattle operation and decreased incidence of disease in young cattle after arrival in feedlots [14]. Anecdotal evidence from commercial abattoirs has suggested it may as well decrease fecal shedding of food-borne pathogens, only this result has yet to be validated in a controlled research experiment.
Plants extracts as feed additives constitutes another active surface area of inquiry, with the notion that these compounds may be useful every bit substitutes for conventional antimicrobial drugs as a result of their antimicrobial activities. Several plant extracts have been studied in depth, including beta acids of hops [15], menthol [xvi], eugenol [17], cinnamaldehyde [18], limonene [19], and others, and their bear on on gut microflora is in some cases well documented. These compounds frequently emulate the actions of traditional antibiotic drugs, attributable in office to similarities in chemical structure. Similarly, heavy metals, including the trace minerals copper and zinc, have been exploited for antibiotic-like effects [20], particularly when used in pigs or poultry, merely also in cattle. Zinc is the antimicrobial mineral of option in cattle due to the relative toxicity of copper, and oft information technology is fed at supra-nutritional concentrations to suppress bacteria that cause foot-rot (infectious pododermatitis), or to help 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 footing for excluding antibiotic drugs from the diets of cattle is to avoid development of antimicrobial resistance in gastrointestinal tract bacteria, it would seem that similar circumspection is warranted in the application of plant extracts or heavy metals equally 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 antibody-free, non-hormone treated, or organic beef. In 2012 information technology was estimated that over 4% of retail foods sold in the U.S. were organically produced [24]. Fruits and vegetable led the market place in organic sales, while 3% of meat/poultry/fish were estimated to have been produced organically. Co-ordinate to the Organic Merchandise 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 kickoff time in 2017. Certification of organically produced meats is administered by the USDA, which maintains official standards for organic production practices. Currently, availability of sufficient quantities of certified organic feedstuffs constitutes a major limitation for growth of this segment of the beef industry. Several branding programs certified past the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service specify beefiness as being "antibiotic complimentary" or "non-hormone treated". Some of these restrict their definition to a specified production phase, while others reflect production practices employed throughout the lifetime of the fauna. There is a sense that demand for this market segment is increasing, merely official estimates are not available. Programs for production of cattle without use of hormones, referred to as non-hormone treated cattle, are key to penetrating certain markets, both domestically and internationally. Toll of production generally is higher for any of the specialty programs compared to conventional product systems, and producers must therefore be rewarded accordingly with price premiums.
CONCLUSION
United states beefiness supply is the product of a multi-segmented industry that is consolidating into larger and larger production units, and is increasingly characterized by vertical alignment among industry segments, equally well as with food wholesalers and retailers and the hotel and restaurant industries. The industry makes utilize of a broad spectrum of nutritional inputs and animal phenotypes that span a wide range of geographies and climates. The industry is closely tied to natural grazing resource, as well as cereal grains and cereal grain byproducts. Information technology is highly adaptive, responding rapidly to market signals that reward innovation and alignment with consumer demands. The industry makes extensive use of a wide range of technologies related to feed processing, identity preservations, and growth promotion. Complexity of beefiness markets is increasing due to extensive branding efforts and evolution of niche markets, and demand for product of beef representing grass-fed, not-hormone, not-antibiotic, and organic beef markets is growing steadily. Maintaining and expanding need for The states beef 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
Nosotros certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial system regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. USDA Economic Research Service . Livestock and meat domestic data: Livestock and poultry slaughter. United States Department of Agronomics; c2018. [cited 2018 June 1]. Available from: http://world wide web.ers.usda.gov. [Google Scholar]
3. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Census of Agriculture. c2012 [cited 2016 June 1]. Available from: world wide web.agcensus.usda.gov.
4. USDA National Agronomical Statistics Service . Cattle on Feed. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Lath, U.s.a. Department of Agriculture (USDA); 2018. Released May 25, 2018. [Google Scholar]
six. Federal Register . Veterinary feed directive: concluding rule. U.S. Department of Health and Homo Services; 2015. Available in: 21 CFR Parts 514 and 558 [Docket No. FDA–2010–North–0155] RIN 0910-AG95. [Google Scholar]
7. Samuelson KL, Hubbert ME, Galyean ML, Löest CA. Nutritional recommendations of feedlot consulting nutritionists: The 2015 New Mexico State and Texas Tech Academy survey. J Anim Sci. 2016;94:2648–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. U.S. Meat Consign Federation (USMEF) Full beef exports, including variety meats [Internet] USMEF; c2018. [cited 2016 June 1]. Bachelor from: www.usmef.org. [Google Scholar]
11. Rabobank . Ground beefiness nation: The effect of changing consumer tastes and preferences on the U.S. cattle manufacture. Nutrient and Agribusiness Research and Advisory. Rabobank International; January, 2014. [Google Scholar]
12. Younts-Dahl SM, Galyean ML, Loneragan GH, Elam NA, Brashears MM. Dietary supplementation with Lactobacillus-Propionibacterium-based direct-fed with microbials and prevalence of Escherichia coli O157 in beef feedlot cattle and on hides at harvest. J Food Prot. 2004;67:889–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Drouillard JS, Henning PH, Meissner HH, Leeuw KJ. Megasphaera elsdenii on the performance of steers adapting to a high-concentrate diet, using three or 5 transition diets. S Afr J Anim Sci. 2012;42:195–9. [Google Scholar]
fourteen. Miller KA, Van Bibber-Krueger CL, Hollis LC, Drouillard JS. Megasphaera elsdenii dosed orally at processing to reduce BRD and improve gain in loftier-gamble calves during the receiving menstruum. Bovine Prac. 2013;47:137–43. [Google Scholar]
15. Flythe Doc. The antimicrobial effects of hops (Humulus lupulus L.) on ruminal hyper ammonia-producing bacteria. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2009;48:712–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xvi. Valero MV, do Prado RM, Zawadzki F, et al. Propolis and essential oils additives in the diets improved animal performance and feed efficiency of bulls finished in feedlot. Acta Sci Anim Sci. 2014;36:419–26. [Google Scholar]
17. Yang WZ, Benchaar C, Ametaj BN, Beauchemin KA. Dose response to eugenol supplementation in growing beef cattle: Ruminal fermentation and 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. Furnishings of limonene on ruminal concentrations, fermentation, and lysine deposition in cattle. J Anim Sci. 2016;94:3420–3430. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Aarestrup FM, Hasman H. Susceptibility of different bacterial species isolated from food animals to copper sulphate, zinc chloride and antimicrobial substances used for disinfection. Vet Microbiol. 2004;100:83–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Aperce CC, Amachawadi R, Van Bibber-Krueger CL, et al. Furnishings of menthol supplementation in feedlot cattle diets on the fecal prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli . PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0168983. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Jacob ME, Fob JT, Nagaraja TG, et al. Effects of feeding elevated concentrations of copper and zinc on the antimicrobial susceptibilities of fecal leaner in feedlot cattle. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2010;seven:643–viii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Amachawadi RG, Scott HM, Aperce CC, et al. Furnishings of in-feed copper and tylosin supplementations on copper and antimicrobial resistance in fecal enterococci of feedlot cattle. J Appl Microbiol. 2015;118:1287–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Manufactures from Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences are provided hither courtesy of Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (AAAP)
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039332/
0 Response to "How Much Money Does the Beef Indistry Male"
Post a Comment