How Much Beef and Veal Does the Us Produce
Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2018 Jul; 31(7): 1007–1016.
Current state of affairs and time to come trends for beef production in the United States of America — A review
James S. Drouillard
aneSection of Animal Sciences and Manufacture, Kansas Land University, Manhattan, KS 66506, U.s.a.
Received 2016 Jun viii; Accepted 2018 Jun 8.
Abstract
USA beef product is characterized past a variety of climates, ecology conditions, animal phenotypes, management systems, and a multiplicity of nutritional inputs. The United states beef herd consists of more than lxxx breeds of cattle and crosses thereof, and the industry is divided into singled-out, only ofttimes overlapping sectors, including seedstock production, moo-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 beefiness industry is very technology driven, utilizing reproductive management strategies, genetic comeback 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 boilerplate of 5 months, mostly in feedlots of 1,000 caput capacity or more, and typically are slaughtered at 15 to 28 months of age to produce tender, well-marbled beef. Per capita beefiness consumption is most 26 kg annually, over half of which is consumed in the form of footing products. Beef exports, which are increasingly important, consist primarily of high value cuts and variety meats, depending on destination. In recent years, agin climatic conditions (i.e., draught), a shrinking agronomical workforce, emergence of nutrient-borne pathogens, concerns over evolution of antimicrobial resistance, animal welfare/well-existence, environmental touch, consumer perceptions of healthfulness of beefiness, consumer perceptions of nutrient animal production practices, and culling uses of traditional feed grains have become increasingly important with respect to their bear on on both beef production and need for beef products. Similarly, changing consumer demographics and globalization of beefiness markets take dictated changes in the types of products demanded by consumers of USA beefiness, both domestically and abroad. The industry is highly adaptive, nevertheless, and responds quickly to evolving economic 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, creature phenotypes, management practices, and a multiplicity of nutritional inputs. In contrast to international perceptions, USA production systems are, with the notable exception of male dairy calves, predominantly pastoral-based, with young stock typically spending relatively brief portions of their life in confinement facilities for finishing on high-concentrate diets. Beefiness product at the cow-calf level is widely distributed, and exists in all l states, spanning the range from tropical savannah to Chill tundra, temperate plains, and mountain pastures. Vast differences in geographies and climatic conditions necessitate the employ of a broad spectrum of fauna 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 inside 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 nigh commonly are marketed at ages ranging from xv to 28 months. Production of beef in the U.S. historically has been very technology driven, utilizing reproductive management strategies, genetic comeback technologies, exogenous growth promoting compounds, vaccines, antibiotics, and feed processing strategies, all of which focused on improving efficiency and(or) decreasing price of beefiness production. In more recent years, adverse climatic conditions (i.e., draught), a shrinking agricultural workforce, control of food-borne pathogens, concerns over development of antimicrobial resistance, animate being welfare, animal well-being, environmental touch of solitude feeding operations, consumer perceptions of healthfulness of beef, consumer perceptions of food brute product practices, and alternative uses for traditional feed grains accept become increasingly important with respect to their affect on both beef 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.S. beef. Beefiness production systems are thus increasingly dynamic in their nature, and poised to exploit new market opportunities past altering production practices to meet changing consumer demands.
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF U.S. Moo-cow-Dogie OPERATIONS AND FEEDLOTS
Equally of January 31, 2018, total Usa inventory of beefiness cows was estimated at 31.seven 1000000 head, with cow-calf operations in all fifty states [1]. The beefiness cow inventory fluctuates considerably from twelvemonth to year, as shown in Figure i, and can be influenced heavily by marketplace conditions and environmental factors, such as persistent draught conditions. In the United states of america, about 320 million hectares are used for livestock grazing [2], which is equivalent to 41% of the total land surface area of the continental USA. Approximately 55% of all beefiness cows are maintained in the Central region of the continental USA [3], which is characterized past vast native grasslands and expansive production 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 country areas that are federally owned and leased to beef producers by authorities agencies. The Southeastern region, ofttimes typified by smaller production units that rely heavily on improved pastures, also is domicile to approximately 20% of the national herd. The remaining 5% are interspersed throughout the Northeast, Alaska, and Hawaii. Each of these regions makes utilise of very dissimilar systems of beef product, owing to a divergent range of climates and feed resource in each area. For example, western herds oft apply 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 cycle. Past dissimilarity, operations in the Central 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.a. beef cow inventory on January 1, from 1938 to 2018. Source: The states Department of Agriculture [1].
Feedlots, unlike cow-calf operations, are far more than full-bodied geographically, with over 72% of feedlot production occurring in the 5-state area [4] of Nebraska (xix.8%), Texas (18.nine%), Kansas (17.5%), Iowa (9.0%), and Colorado (7.i%). Concentration of feedlots in this surface area is largely driven by access to cereal grains and grain byproducts that predominate the diets of finishing cattle. Other important regions for cattle feeding have adult throughout the country in response to availability of low-cost feedstuffs, particularly byproduct feeds. For example, the Washington-Idaho region is a major site for production and processing of potatoes, fruits, and vegetables every bit foods for humans. Cattle feeding operations accept developed in response to availability of large quantities of processed food residues in this region, and represent an important means for disposal of these byproducts, thereby creating boosted value to the food chain.
CATTLE BREEDS USED FOR Beefiness PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The USA beef herd is very heterogeneous in nature, consisting of more than 80 breeds and crosses thereof, and reflecting the diversity of environments in which they are produced. Co-ordinate to the most contempo report on brood registrations by the National Pedigreed Livestock Council [5], member breed associations with the greatest number of registrations were Angus, Hereford, Simmental, Red Angus, Charolais, Gelbvieh, Brangus, Limousin, Beefmaster, Shorthorn, and Brahman. While this list gives some sense of the diversity of cattle types in the U.S., about cattle fed for slaughter actually are crossbreds, with 60% or more having some degree of Angus influence. Dairy breeds, most notably Holsteins, also make upward a substantial portion of Us feedlot cattle, with as many equally 3 to four meg dairy calves existence fed in U.s. feedlots each yr.
The states Organisation FOR Beefiness Product
The USA organisation 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 production of cow-calf operations is weaned calves, which are sold to stocker operators, backgrounding lots, or feedlots. Effigy 2 illustrates the possible paths that animals may have through the beefiness product chain earlier beingness slaughtered. Calves from moo-cow-calf operations generally follow one of two paths. They tin can be transferred directly to feedlots at or around the time of weaning, in which example they are referred to as "calf-feds" that remain in the feedlot for 240 days or more before being harvested. Calf-fed may make up 40% or more than of the fed cattle population in the Usa. The largest share of the dogie population, usually 60% or more than, is first placed into a backgrounding or stocker operation, or a combination thereof, to be grown for a catamenia of time before fattened on high-concentrate diets. These animals are grown mostly using forage-based diets so transferred to feedlots when they are a twelvemonth or more of age, and thus are referred to every bit "yearlings". Stocker (grazing) and backgrounding (drylot) systems rely heavily on forages as the predominant component of the diet, supplementing protein, energy, vitamins, and minerals every bit needed to optimize cattle performance. A relatively small-scale proportion of backgrounded cattle are grown at minor rates of gain using limit-feeding programs in which they are fed loftier-concentrate diets, similar to a high-free energy finishing nutrition, but in restricted amounts to prevent premature fattening.
Schematic for menses of cattle through the U.Southward. beefiness production concatenation, illustrating straight entry from moo-cow-calf and dairy operations into feedlots (blue lines) and abattoirs (red lines), or post-obit a growing phase (purple lines) carried out in specialized facilities (calf ranches, backgrounding operations, or stocker operations).
Male calves from dairies too constitute an important com ponent of the beefiness cattle market. These calves are gathered from dairies at an early historic period (normally virtually three days) and transferred to specialized rearing operations known as calf ranches. Calves typically are confined to individual stalls to prevent intermingling, every bit they are highly susceptible to disease at this stage of their lives. Calves are fed a combination of milk replacers, grain, and small amounts of provender until weaning at 40 to lxxx days of age, and and then transferred to group housing within the same operation. These animals unremarkably are sold to feedlots when they attain a weight of approximately 150 to 200 kg.
Cull beef and dairy animals besides contribute to the beefiness sup ply, and most commonly are shipped from seedstock, cow-calf, or dairy operations directly to abattoirs for harvest. A relatively 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 earlier being slaughtered varies substantially from year to twelvemonth, and is largely a function of the relationships betwixt feed costs, beefiness supply, and beef demand.
Male person cattle in the USA are nearly always fed as steers, and abattoirs apply heavy discounts to intact males or males that display advanced secondary sex characteristics. Castration finer decreases the occurrence of undesirable social behaviors and meat quality characteristics, such as dark, firm, and dry beefiness. Muscle from steers besides contains less connective tissue than that from bulls, and steers deposit more than intramuscular fat (marbling) than bulls. Castration can occur at various times between nascence and subsequently entry into feedlots, with the vast majority existence castrated before or almost the age of weaning. A relatively small proportion is castrated afterwards entry into feedlots, though this practice is heavily discouraged and meaning 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, bull calves are most frequently castrated surgically or by banding.
Heifers fed in feedlots constitute approximately 28% to 30% of beefiness supply in the U.s.a. [4]. Compared to steers, however, most feedlot heifers are fed intact, and while some are ovariectomized, information technology is far more common to feed melengestrol acetate (a synthetic course of progesterone) to inhibit estrus behavior.
Marketplace weather at the fourth dimension of weaning tin greatly im pact the age at which cattle are placed into feedlots. Size of the national herd is cyclical in nature, owing to fluctuations in weather (such equally 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 between prices of grain and forages also can influence age of entry into feedlots. When costs for pasture and harvested forages are low in comparison to grains, producers have incentive to grow cattle before placing them into feedlots. Past contrast, when grain prices are low relative to prices for forages, a greater proportion of eligible animals may enter the feedlot directly.
Conditions likewise plays a very significant role in the age at which cattle are placed into feedlots. Ecology temperatures and atmospheric precipitation patterns obviously impact both quantity and quality of forages produced, so it stands to reason that adverse climatic weather condition can influence duration of the grazing flavour, and equally a result the proportion of cattle that are marketed every bit calves versus every bit yearlings. For example, several 1000000 cattle normally are grazed on small grain pastures in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas in the fall and wintertime each year. In the absence of adequate rainfall, poor fodder yield may dictate premature termination of the grazing season, in which instance cattle are transferred to feedlots to be fed. The same is true for native grass pastures that are grazed in the jump, summer, and fall. Drought weather condition tin can forcefulness producers to marketplace cattle early, as they frequently have limited feed reserves. Regardless of crusade, the organization of merchandising cattle is very dynamic, responding quickly to marketplace conditions.
Prices paid for slaughter cattle in the U.S. are influenced by historic period, quality grade, yield grade, and weight. The USA quality grading system takes into account age, equally determined by os 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 take loftier intramuscular fatty 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 take poor red 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 430 kg are subject field to substantial discounts. Given the high correlation between intramuscular fat and other fat depots, securing high market place value requires that cattle be fed long enough to attain sufficient (but not excessive) body fatty, produce carcasses ranging in weight from 250 to 430 kg, and do and so at fewer than thirty months of age. Consequently, there are limitations with respect to the power to shift cattle into different production scenarios. For example, cattle that are heavily influenced by British-breed beginnings often are smaller framed, and therefore benefit from extended growing programs that allow for skeletal growth and musculus degradation before fattening, thereby ensuring that they achieve desired market weights at appropriate fatness. Initiating the feedlot phase as well early on in the life of the animals tin can predispose them to premature fattening, low carcass weights, or both. This is particularly truthful 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 time before finishing in feedlots. These animals are well-suited to the calf-fed feedlot organization in which they are placed into feedlots directly after weaning.
The segmented nature of the beef industry in the Us is an important distinction from the vertical integration unremarkably associated with other meat animal production systems such as pork and poultry. While in that location is a relative absenteeism of vertical integration in the beef supply chain, there are increasingly attempts for producers representing the various production segments to align vertically with other segments via supply agreements. The value of, or necessity for, vertical alignment is particularly axiomatic with branded beef programs. For example, marketing of some branded beef products is based on the premise of no antibiotic or steroidal hormone use throughout the lifetime of the brute, requiring that purveyors have control over production methods employed through each phase of production in guild to ensure compliance. This frequently is achieved using supply agreements that reward producers with premiums for producing animals that meet specifications of the branded beef program.
Use OF GROWTH PROMOTING TECHNOLOGIES IN U.Southward. BEEF Production SYSTEMS
Beef producers in the United states historically have been very applied science driven. Examples of this include strategic supplementation of provender-based diets to fulfill animal 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 USA for decades, thus making information technology possible to regain some of the growth-promoting effects of endogenous hormones that are lost every bit a result of castration. Implants employ estrogenic (estradiol or zeranol) and androgenic (testosterone or trenbolone acetate) components, or combinations thereof. Steroidal implants stimulate feed intake and protein deposition, and take dramatic impact on cattle operation and efficiency of feed utilization. Their use is very widespread, encompassing both growing and finishing phases of production. They are about heavily used in confinement operations, including backgrounding operations and feedlots. Notable exceptions are branded beef programs that disqualify their use, such as natural, organic, or non-hormone treated cattle programs aimed at specific value-added markets.
Similarly, antibiotics take been widely used in U.s. cattle production systems. Ionophore antibiotics, the most mutual of which are monensin and lasalocid, are used widely for beef production in the USA, both for control of coccidiosis and for improving feed efficiency. Feed additive forms of tetracyclines and macrolide antibiotics have been used extensively in the United states of america. Starting in January, 2017, the USA Food and Drug Administration imposed new regulations that prohibit sub-therapeutic feeding of medically-of import antibiotics [half dozen], which includes oxtetracyline, chlortetracycline, and the macrolide antibiotic, tylosin. These drugs now are restricted for employ merely in the handling or prevention of illness, and must be prescribed by a veterinary. Changes in the regulatory status of these compounds has spawned an unprecedented interest in culling production methods and research aimed at reducing or eliminating antibiotics from food animal production systems, particularly for compounds that are deemed medically important for human being health. Essential oils, minerals, prebiotics, and probiotics are among the many production categories that are now being evaluated as alternatives to traditional antibiotics for promotion of growth and efficiency.
Beta adrenergic receptor agonists are used extensively in diets of feedlot cattle to stimulate musculus accretion. Beta agonists are non-steroidal, and they stimulate muscle accretion past increasing protein synthesis and decreasing poly peptide catabolism. The beta adrenergic agonist, ractopamine hydrochloride, was approved for employ in cattle starting in 2003. Zilpaterol was approved for use in the USA in 2008, and though more potent than ractopamine, zilpaterol it is at present seldom used due to restrictions imposed by major slaughter-house companies. Ractopamine is administered to cattle during the final 28 to 42 days before slaughter, and though the exact number of cattle fed ractopamine is not known, it is used by the vast majority of USA feedlots. A recent survey of feedlot nutritionists [7] revealed that approximately 85% of feedlots represented in the survey use beta agonists.
Constructed progestin (melengestrol acetate) is fed to synchro nize heat in convenance herds, especially where bogus insemination is used. It is estimated that fewer than ten% of beefiness females are bred by artificial insemination, then the greatest utilize of synthetic progestin is in feedlots, where they are included in the diet to suppress estrus in heifers that are fed in solitude for slaughter. Feeding progestin aids in minimizing physical injuries attributable to sexual behaviors in which animals mount one another, and also improves efficiency of feed utilization. Melengestrol acetate is non approved for utilise in male bovines.
THE FEEDLOT SECTOR
The most 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 one,000 animals. These feedlots exist throughout the The states, but by far the heaviest concentration of cattle finishing occurs in the Great Plains region, which is generally characterized by a semi-barren, temperate climate that is well-suited to cattle production. Approximately two thirds of U.s.a. feedlot cattle production is concentrated within us of Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas. Logically, large abattoirs also are concentrated within this region. Crop production in this geography is heavily dependent on groundwater from the underlying Ogallala aquifer, which is used extensively for irrigation of corn, wheat, sorghum, and other crops.
FEEDLOT FINISHING DIETS
Energy content of finishing diets, expressed as net energy for gain (NEg), typically ranges from 1.fifty 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 as a human food 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 as immediately following wheat harvest. Wheat and barley are, still, the predominant grains used by feedlots in the Pacific Northwest. Sorghum is an important cereal crop produced in the semi-arid states of Kansas and Texas, and to a lesser extent Oklahoma, Colorado, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Though regarded every bit being nutritionally inferior to corn, it too is incorporated into feedlot diets when economic weather favor its use.
Feedlots are opportunistic users of a broad range of by production free energy feeds. Cereal grain byproducts have go increasingly of import as staples of feedlot cattle diets, particularly in the interior of the continental USA where corn and sorghum product prevail. The most important of these is distiller's grain, which is a byproduct of fuel ethanol product from cereal grains. Distiller's grains can be fed either as wet or stale co-products, the grade 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 flow of alter for the USA beef industry, during which traditional feedstuffs (i.e. grains) reached historically high prices while distiller's grains increased dramatically in abundance. This was cause for major shifts in composition of feedlot diets. Wet corn gluten feed (approximately 60% dry out thing), which is derived as a byproduct from the production of corn sweeteners and starches, also is widely used in the feedlot sector. Distiller's grains, gluten feed, and other byproducts most commonly comprise between 10% and xl% of the diet 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 70% or more of nutrition dry out matter in some circumstances. Other byproducts are used as well, including cull potatoes or tater 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 also contain intermediate to high concentrations of protein, thus making it possible to displace all or a portion of the oilseed meals (soybean, cottonseed, sunflower, canola, and others) traditionally used to satisfy poly peptide requirements of cattle. Consequently, dietary protein often is fed in excess, which has potentially important environmental implications. Byproduct feeds typically contain more phosphorus than the cereal grains that they replace, further contributing to environmental challenges associated with confined animal feeding operations.
Forages normally constitute a relatively minor fraction of feedlot diets, and are used primarily to promote digestive health. Alfalfa hay and corn silage are the well-nigh normally used roughages. Increased reliance on byproduct feeds in contempo years has made information technology 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 vi% to 12% [7].
Production AND DISPOSITION OF BEEF
The objective of United states of america feedlots is to produce beef from immature cattle (<30 months of age) with ample tenderness and with relatively high intramuscular fat content. The Us system of beef quality grading rewards feedlots for production of highly marbled beef, but also discourages over-fattening of cattle through classification of carcasses into one of five yield grade categories. Animals that yield carcasses in higher yield grade categories (iv or 5) generally incur heavy market penalties. Size of carcasses as well is of import, and shambles companies mostly use heavy price discounts for undersized (<250 kg) or oversized (>430 kg) carcasses.
The beef slaughter industry in the United states of america is heavily concen trated, with only 4 firms accounting for more 80% of the beefiness slaughter capacity. Most of the beef they procedure is distributed in boxed class, a significant portion of which is exported to other countries. Domestic beef production in 2017 was eleven.98 meg metric tonnes, approximately x.6% (one.26 million tonnes) of which was exported [8], either every bit variety meets or as high-quality beef products. The largest volume export markets for USA beefiness in 2017 were Nihon (24.three%); Mexico (18.8%); South korea (14.six%); Hong Kong (10.4%), Canada (nine.2%); and Taiwan (3.5%). Exports were roughly outset by imports (1.36 million tonnes), with Canada (24.seven%), Australia (23.2%); Mexico (19.2%), and New Zealand (18.6%) making upward the vast majority of imported beef (and veal) products.
Per capita beef consumption of beefiness in the U.s.a. in 2017 was 25.eight kg [ix], and consumption is expected to be slightly higher or stable through 2027 [10]. Information technology is estimated that 57% of the beef consumed is in the form of ground products [11]. Imported products, specially from Commonwealth of australia, are of import in fulfilling the increasing need for ground beefiness products.
FUTURE TRENDS IN THE Beefiness INDUSTRY
Domestic demand for beef products is expected to remain stable. Consequently, consign markets are increasingly recognized as existence an of import target for increasing demand for U.s. beef products. OECD/FAO estimates of ane.five% almanac increases in demand for meat products through 2026 [10] are cause for optimism among producers. Though information technology is projected that nigh of this demand volition be fulfilled past increases in product of poultry products, information technology is likely that all meat sectors will benefit to some degree.
There is a growing trend inside the Us for large purveyors of meat products to exert influence on livestock producers, encouraging them to implement production practices that are perceived as being in line with consumer interests. Among the major players are abattoir companies, wholesalers, grocery chains, the hotel and restaurant industries, and others. Topics such every bit sustainability, animate being welfare/wellbeing, environmental compatibility, traceability, antimicrobial resistance, use of exogenous growth promotants, natural or organic product systems, and other areas are becoming increasingly common, and accept emerged as fundamental elements in marketing campaigns adopted by many major food companies. This evolution in thinking challenges conventional food creature product systems, and is forcing rapid alter in production practices. As a issue, the focal points of many research programs across the USA have shifted to encompass these topics.
USA beefiness producers have a long history of adapting quickly to changing market signals in an try to capture added value. Branded beefiness programs, which institute a course of vertical integration or alignment, are relatively commonplace. Perchance the best known of these is the Certified Angus Beef plan, which since its inception in 1978 has arguably transformed the U.s. beef industry equally a upshot of substantial premiums paid to cattle producers for producing beef that fulfills sure quality standards. In excess of 60% of cattle fed in the U.s.a. at present have some proportion of Angus ancestry, which is testimony to the success of the programme that is now recognized globally as beingness consistent with quality. Numerous other programs accept been spawned in the terminal 40 years, with the Usa Section of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service now listing xc different federal certification programs for beefiness, 80 of which were conceived in the year 2000 or later. Scores of other non-certified branding programs accept appeared at the consumer level as well, touting features such as omega-3 enrichment of beef; antibiotic gratuitous; hormone-free; organic feeding programs; grass-fed programs, and others that are distinguished by the region of production, specific producers, or other features. All are aimed at enhancing value by advertising appealing attributes for which consumers are willing to pay price premiums. As branding programs get more prevalent, vertical alignment between various sectors of the beef industry also is increasingly common. A form 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 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 meet certain standards that tin can comprehend beef quality, meat limerick (as in the case of omega-3 enrichment), ecology compatibility, sustainability, or production practices that exclude antibiotics and(or) growth promotants, and numerous other marketable concepts.
Traceability programs take been a topic of much discus sion for the past two decades. This give-and-take intensified immediately post-obit events in December of 2003 surrounding importation of a cull dairy cow from Canada that was discovered to take been infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Several key consign markets afterward were closed to USA beef, which had devastating financial consequences for beefiness producers and slaughterhouse companies in the Us. Producer organizations are, for the near part, however, opposed to development of a federally-mandated traceability system, opting instead for a voluntary system of creature identification and traceability that is marketplace-driven.
In January of 2017 the USA Food and Drug administration fully enacted revised regulations aimed at decreasing utilise of medically-important antibiotics in food animate being product systems [6]. Central to the new regulations is the necessity for veterinary oversight of antibiotic use. Drugs that previously were available "over the counter" now can exist used just with the written prescription of a licensed veterinarian. Since the regulations took issue, pharmaceutical companies that produce affected drug compounds accept cited sharp declines in demand for their products, meat purveyors and retailers take 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 movement is thus well underway, and it has given nativity to an era of research pertaining to identification of antibiotic alternatives for use in livestock. Much of our own research at Kansas State Academy is devoted to the task of finding alternative strategies for mitigation of digestive disorders or infectious diseases, only without use of antibiotics. Whether as a outcome of market place pressures or regulatory changes, information technology seems inevitable that beefiness product systems of the future are apt to utilise product practices that preclude employ of antibiotics.
Probiotics are becoming increasingly prevalent in the beef production chain, but especially feedlot systems. It has been estimated that approximately sixty% of feedlot cattle receive some form of probiotic [vii]. Often these consist of Lactobacillus species, fed alone or in combination with Propionibacterium. Normalization of gastrointestinal tract function and competitive inhibition of food-borne pathogens, such as E. coli O157:H7 [12], are the most commonly cited reasons for their utilise. 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], as well as improved cattle functioning and decreased incidence of illness in young cattle after arrival in feedlots [14]. Anecdotal show from commercial abattoirs has suggested it may as well subtract fecal shedding of food-borne pathogens, but this outcome has withal to be validated in a controlled inquiry experiment.
Plants extracts as feed additives constitutes another active area of inquiry, with the notion that these compounds may be useful equally substitutes for conventional antimicrobial drugs every bit a result of their antimicrobial activities. Several plant extracts have been studied in depth, including beta acids of hops [15], menthol [16], eugenol [17], cinnamaldehyde [18], limonene [xix], and others, and their touch on gut microflora is in some cases well documented. These compounds frequently emulate the actions of traditional antibiotic drugs, owing in role to similarities in chemical structure. Similarly, heavy metals, including the trace minerals copper and zinc, have been exploited for antibiotic-similar effects [twenty], especially when used in pigs or poultry, but also in cattle. Zinc is the antimicrobial mineral of option in cattle due to the relative toxicity of copper, and frequently it is fed at supra-nutritional concentrations to suppress leaner that cause foot-rot (infectious pododermatitis), or to aid in combatting respiratory illness. Numerous studies accept revealed that it is possible to co-select for resistance to antimicrobial drugs when bacteria are exposed to found extracts [21] or high concentrations of heavy metals [22,23], fifty-fifty without exposure to the antimicrobial drugs themselves. Given that the footing for excluding antibiotic drugs from the diets of cattle is to avert development of antimicrobial resistance in alimentary canal bacteria, it would seem that similar caution is warranted in the application of institute extracts or heavy metals equally antimicrobials, in spite of the fact that they are not marketed specifically as antibiotics.
The USDA does non maintain official statistics on volumes of antibiotic-free, non-hormone treated, or organic beef. In 2012 information technology was estimated that over 4% of retail foods sold in the U.Southward. 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 by 17% in 2016, and full sales were expected to exceed $ane 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 beefiness industry. Several branding programs certified past the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service specify beef as being "antibody free" or "not-hormone treated". Some of these restrict their definition to a specified product phase, while others reflect production practices employed throughout the lifetime of the animate being. There is a sense that demand for this marketplace segment is increasing, only official estimates are non bachelor. 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. Price of production generally is higher for any of the specialty programs compared to conventional production systems, and producers must therefore be rewarded accordingly with price premiums.
Conclusion
Us beef supply is the product of a multi-segmented industry that is consolidating into larger and larger product units, and is increasingly characterized by vertical alignment among industry segments, as well as with food wholesalers and retailers and the hotel and eatery industries. The industry makes employ 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 resource, as well as cereal grains and cereal grain byproducts. It is highly adaptive, responding rapidly to market signals that advantage innovation and alignment with consumer demands. The industry makes extensive use of a wide range of technologies related to feed processing, identity preservations, and growth promotion. Complication of beefiness 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-antibiotic, and organic beef markets is growing steadily. Maintaining and expanding demand for U.s.a. beef likely will necessitate ongoing efforts to develop markets for export, both for diverseness 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 Involvement
We certify that at that place is no conflict of involvement with any fiscal system regarding the textile discussed in the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. USDA Economic Enquiry Service . Livestock and meat domestic data: Livestock and poultry slaughter. United States Department of Agriculture; c2018. [cited 2018 June 1]. Available from: http://world wide web.ers.usda.gov. [Google Scholar]
3. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Census of Agronomics. c2012 [cited 2016 June 1]. Available from: www.agcensus.usda.gov.
4. USDA National Agronomical Statistics Service . Cattle on Feed. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, United states of america Department of Agriculture (USDA); 2018. Released May 25, 2018. [Google Scholar]
6. Federal Register . Veterinary feed directive: final rule. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2015. Available in: 21 CFR Parts 514 and 558 [Docket No. FDA–2010–North–0155] RIN 0910-AG95. [Google Scholar]
7. Samuelson KL, Hubbert ME, Galyean ML, Löest CA. Nutritional recommendations of feedlot consulting nutritionists: The 2015 New Mexico Land and Texas Tech University survey. J Anim Sci. 2016;94:2648–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
eight. U.Due south. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) Full beef exports, including variety meats [Internet] USMEF; c2018. [cited 2016 June 1]. Available from: www.usmef.org. [Google Scholar]
11. Rabobank . Ground beefiness nation: The effect of changing consumer tastes and preferences on the U.Southward. cattle industry. Food and Agribusiness Enquiry and Advisory. Rabobank International; Jan, 2014. [Google Scholar]
12. Younts-Dahl SM, Galyean ML, Loneragan GH, Elam NA, Brashears MM. Dietary supplementation with Lactobacillus-Propionibacterium-based direct-fed with microbials and prevalence of Escherichia coli O157 in beefiness feedlot cattle and on hides at harvest. J Food Prot. 2004;67:889–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xiii. Drouillard JS, Henning PH, Meissner HH, Leeuw KJ. Megasphaera elsdenii on the performance of steers adapting to a loftier-concentrate diet, using three or 5 transition diets. S Afr J Anim Sci. 2012;42:195–9. [Google Scholar]
14. Miller KA, Van Bibber-Krueger CL, Hollis LC, Drouillard JS. Megasphaera elsdenii dosed orally at processing to reduce BRD and improve proceeds in loftier-run a risk calves during the receiving menstruum. Bovine Prac. 2013;47:137–43. [Google Scholar]
15. Flythe MD. The antimicrobial effects of hops (Humulus lupulus L.) on ruminal hyper ammonia-producing bacteria. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2009;48:712–vii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Valero MV, practice 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 beefiness cattle: Ruminal fermentation and abdominal digestion. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2010;158:57–64. [Google Scholar]
18. Yang WZ, Ametaj BN, Benchaar C, He ML, Beauchemin KA. Cinnamaldehyde in feedlot cattle diets: intake, growth operation, 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. Effects of menthol supplementation in feedlot cattle diets on the fecal prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli . PLoS Ane. 2016;eleven:e0168983. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Jacob ME, Play tricks JT, Nagaraja TG, et al. Furnishings of feeding elevated concentrations of copper and zinc on the antimicrobial susceptibilities of fecal bacteria in feedlot cattle. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2010;vii:643–eight. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Amachawadi RG, Scott HM, Aperce CC, et al. Effects of in-feed copper and tylosin supplementations on copper and antimicrobial resistance in fecal enterococci of feedlot cattle. J Appl Microbiol. 2015;118:1287–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Asian-Australasian Journal of Animate being Sciences are provided here courtesy of Asian-Australasian Clan of Beast Product Societies (AAAP)
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039332/
0 Response to "How Much Beef and Veal Does the Us Produce"
Post a Comment