What Perecentage of Beef Does the United States Produce
Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2018 Jul; 31(seven): 1007–1016.
Current situation and futurity trends for beef production in the United States of America — A review
James Due south. Drouillard
1Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas Land University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
Received 2016 Jun 8; Accepted 2018 Jun 8.
Abstruse
United states of america beef production is characterized by a diversity of climates, environmental conditions, animal phenotypes, direction systems, and a multiplicity of nutritional inputs. The USA beef herd consists of more than lxxx breeds of cattle and crosses thereof, and the industry is divided into distinct, just frequently overlapping sectors, including seedstock product, cow-calf production, stocker/backgrounding, and feedlot. Exception for male dairy calves, production is predominantly pastoral-based, with immature stock spending relatively cursory portions of their life in feedlots. The beef industry is very engineering science 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 production. Young steers and heifers are grain-based diets fed for an average of five 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 virtually 26 kg annually, over one-half of which is consumed in the form of ground products. Beefiness exports, which are increasingly of import, consist primarily of high value cuts and variety meats, depending on destination. In recent years, agin climatic atmospheric condition (i.east., draught), a shrinking agricultural workforce, emergence of nutrient-borne pathogens, concerns over development of antimicrobial resistance, animal welfare/well-existence, environmental affect, consumer perceptions of healthfulness of beef, consumer perceptions of nutrient animal production practices, and alternative uses of traditional feed grains accept become increasingly important with respect to their impact on both beefiness product and demand for beef products. Similarly, changing consumer demographics and globalization of beef markets take dictated changes in the types of products demanded by consumers of United states of america beefiness, both domestically and abroad. The industry is highly adaptive, notwithstanding, and responds quickly to evolving economic signals.
Keywords: Beef, Production Systems, Growth Promotion, Carcass Quality
INTRODUCTION
Beefiness production systems in the U.s. are characterized by a broad range of climates, environmental weather condition, creature phenotypes, management practices, and a multiplicity of nutritional inputs. In contrast to international perceptions, Us production systems are, with the notable exception of male 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 moo-cow-calf level is widely distributed, and exists in all fifty states, spanning the range from tropical savannah to Arctic tundra, temperate plains, and mount pastures. Vast differences in geographies and climatic conditions 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 ordinarily is betwixt 100 and 300 days elapsing, is heavily concentrated within the interior of the continental United states, and relies heavily on cereal grains and grain byproducts produced within this area as predominant feed resources, and feedlot cattle well-nigh usually are marketed at ages ranging from 15 to 28 months. Production of beef in the U.S. historically has been very engineering science 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 cost of beefiness product. In more than recent years, adverse climatic weather condition (i.e., draught), a shrinking agricultural workforce, control of food-borne pathogens, concerns over evolution of antimicrobial resistance, animate being welfare, animal well-being, ecology bear on of solitude feeding operations, consumer perceptions of healthfulness of beefiness, consumer perceptions of food animal production practices, and alternative uses for traditional feed grains have become increasingly of import with respect to their impact on both beef production and need for beef products. Similarly, changing consumer demographics and globalization of beef markets have dictated changes in the types of products demanded from producers of U.Southward. beef. Beef product systems are thus increasingly dynamic in their nature, and poised to exploit new market opportunities past altering product practices to see changing consumer demands.
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF U.South. COW-CALF OPERATIONS AND FEEDLOTS
As of January 31, 2018, full The states inventory of beef cows was estimated at 31.seven million head, with cow-calf operations in all 50 states [one]. The beef cow inventory fluctuates considerably from year to year, as shown in Figure 1, and 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 [two], which is equivalent to 41% of the full land area of the continental USA. Approximately 55% of all beef cows are maintained in the Central region of the continental U.s. [three], which is characterized by 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, normally utilizing expansive land areas that are federally owned and leased to beef producers past government agencies. The Southeastern region, oftentimes typified past smaller product units that rely heavily on improved pastures, also is home to approximately xx% of the national herd. The remaining five% are interspersed throughout the Northeast, Alaska, and Hawaii. Each of these regions makes use of very different systems of beefiness production, owing to a divergent range of climates and feed resources in each surface area. For example, western herds frequently employ federal lands for grazing in the spring and summer, and cattle and then are removed from federal lands and overwintered on privately-owned pastures and/or fed harvested forages until the beginning of the side by side grazing cycle. By contrast, operations in the Central region frequently brand employ of a mixture of native grass pastures, crop residues, harvested forages, and protein concentrates to sustain their moo-cow herds.
US beef moo-cow inventory on January i, from 1938 to 2018. Source: The states Department of Agriculture [ane].
Feedlots, unlike cow-calf operations, are far more concentrated geographically, with over 72% of feedlot production occurring in the 5-state area [iv] of Nebraska (19.8%), Texas (18.9%), Kansas (17.five%), Iowa (nine.0%), and Colorado (7.1%). Concentration of feedlots in this area is largely driven by 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 country in response to availability of low-cost feedstuffs, particularly byproduct feeds. For example, the Washington-Idaho region is a major site for product 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 represent an important means for disposal of these byproducts, thereby creating additional value to the food concatenation.
CATTLE BREEDS USED FOR BEEF PRODUCTION IN THE Us OF AMERICA
The USA beef herd is very heterogeneous in nature, consisting of more than 80 breeds and crosses thereof, and reflecting the multifariousness of environments in which they are produced. According to the most contempo report on brood registrations by the National Pedigreed Livestock Quango [5], fellow member breed associations with the greatest number of registrations were Angus, Hereford, Simmental, Red Angus, Charolais, Gelbvieh, Brangus, Limousin, Beefmaster, Shorthorn, and Brahman. While this list gives some sense of the diversity of cattle types in the U.S., near cattle fed for slaughter actually are crossbreds, with 60% or more having some degree of Angus influence. Dairy breeds, most notably Holsteins, also make up a substantial portion of The states feedlot cattle, with equally many as three to 4 million dairy calves being fed in The states feedlots each year.
USA SYSTEM FOR BEEF PRODUCTION
The USA system of beefiness production is highly segmented, often resulting in several changes of ownership between the time animals are weaned and slaughtered. Seedstock operations primarily produce bulls that are used to service cows in commercial cow-dogie operations. The primary product of moo-cow-calf operations is weaned calves, which are sold to stocker operators, backgrounding lots, or feedlots. Figure 2 illustrates the possible paths that animals may take through the beef product chain earlier being slaughtered. Calves from moo-cow-calf operations more often than not follow i of 2 paths. They can be transferred directly to feedlots at or around the fourth dimension of weaning, in which example they are referred to equally "calf-feds" that remain in the feedlot for 240 days or more before existence harvested. Calf-fed may make up 40% or more of the fed cattle population in the U.s.a.. The largest share of the calf population, usually 60% or more, is first placed into a backgrounding or stocker operation, or a combination thereof, to be grown for a menstruum of time before fattened on high-concentrate diets. These animals are grown by and large using provender-based diets and and then transferred to feedlots when they are a year or more than 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 poly peptide, free energy, vitamins, and minerals equally needed to optimize cattle performance. A relatively small proportion of backgrounded cattle are grown at pocket-sized rates of gain using limit-feeding programs in which they are fed high-concentrate diets, similar to a loftier-energy finishing diet, but in restricted amounts to preclude 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 (reddish lines), or following a growing phase (purple lines) carried out in specialized facilities (calf ranches, backgrounding operations, or stocker operations).
Male calves from dairies likewise constitute an important com ponent of the beef cattle market. These calves are gathered from dairies at an early on age (normally nigh three days) and transferred to specialized rearing operations known as calf ranches. Calves typically are confined to private stalls to preclude intermingling, as they are highly susceptible to affliction at this phase of their lives. Calves are fed a combination of milk replacers, grain, and pocket-size amounts of fodder until weaning at 40 to 80 days of age, and then transferred to group housing within the aforementioned operation. These animals normally are sold to feedlots when they attain a weight of approximately 150 to 200 kg.
Cull beef and dairy animals also contribute to the beef sup ply, and most commonly are shipped from seedstock, moo-cow-calf, or dairy operations direct to abattoirs for harvest. A relatively small and variable proportion is sent to feedlots to be fed high-free energy diets for 50 to 100 days earlier being slaughtered. The number of cull animals that are fattened in feedlots before being slaughtered varies essentially from twelvemonth to twelvemonth, and is largely a function of the relationships betwixt feed costs, beef supply, and beefiness need.
Male 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 beef. Muscle from steers also contains less connective tissue than that from bulls, and steers deposit more intramuscular fat (marbling) than bulls. Castration can occur at diverse times between birth and subsequently entry into feedlots, with the vast bulk being castrated before or near the historic period of weaning. A relatively pocket-sized proportion is castrated after 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 advanced historic period. In terms of methodology, bull calves are well-nigh oft castrated surgically or by banding.
Heifers fed in feedlots constitute approximately 28% to 30% of beef supply in the USA [4]. Compared to steers, however, near feedlot heifers are fed intact, and while some are ovariectomized, it is far more than common to feed melengestrol acetate (a constructed form of progesterone) to inhibit estrus behavior.
Market place conditions at the fourth dimension of weaning tin profoundly im pact the age at which cattle are placed into feedlots. Size of the national herd is cyclical in nature, attributable to fluctuations in weather (such every bit extended draught periods), and fluctuating prices. When overall size of the national beefiness herd is relatively low, fewer animals are bachelor, creating competition between stocker and backgrounding operations and feedlots for supply of cattle. Relationships betwixt prices of grain and forages also can influence historic period of entry into feedlots. When costs for pasture and harvested forages are depression in comparing to grains, producers have incentive to grow cattle before placing them into feedlots. By contrast, when grain prices are low relative to prices for forages, a greater proportion of eligible animals may enter the feedlot directly.
Weather also plays a very significant role in the age at which cattle are placed into feedlots. Environmental temperatures and precipitation patterns obviously affect both quantity and quality of forages produced, so information technology stands to reason that adverse climatic conditions tin influence duration of the grazing season, and as a result the proportion of cattle that are marketed every bit calves versus every bit yearlings. For case, several million cattle normally are grazed on small grain pastures in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas in the fall and winter each year. In the absence of acceptable rainfall, poor forage yield may dictate premature termination of the grazing season, in which example cattle are transferred to feedlots to be fed. The aforementioned is true for native grass pastures that are grazed in the leap, summertime, and autumn. Drought weather condition can forcefulness producers to market cattle early, as they ofttimes have limited feed reserves. Regardless of crusade, the system of merchandising cattle is very dynamic, responding quickly to market conditions.
Prices paid for slaughter cattle in the U.South. are influenced by age, quality grade, yield grade, and weight. The USA quality grading system takes into account age, equally determined past bone ossification patterns, color of lean tissue, and the amount of intramuscular fat (marbling). Increased intramuscular fat degradation increases class, and premiums are paid for cattle that have high intramuscular fatty content. Yield grade is a measure of fatness that accounts for increases in fat within the subcutaneous, intermuscular, and peritoneal regions of the carcass. Animals that deposit excesses of fatty in these areas generally have poor red meat yield, and prices are discounted accordingly. Weight of carcasses as well is an important determinant of value, as carcasses that are less than 250 kg or more than 430 kg are field of study to substantial discounts. Given the loftier correlation betwixt intramuscular fatty and other fat depots, securing loftier market value requires that cattle be fed long plenty to attain sufficient (merely not excessive) torso fat, produce carcasses ranging in weight from 250 to 430 kg, and practise so at fewer than 30 months of age. Consequently, there are limitations with respect to the power to shift cattle into unlike production scenarios. For example, cattle that are heavily influenced by British-breed beginnings oftentimes are smaller framed, and therefore benefit from extended growing programs that let for skeletal growth and muscle deposition before fattening, thereby ensuring that they achieve desired market weights at advisable fatness. Initiating the feedlot phase too early in the life of the animals tin predispose them to premature fattening, low carcass weights, or both. This is peculiarly true for heifers, which comprise a substantial portion of the fed cattle population in the United states of america. 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 organization in which they are placed into feedlots directly after weaning.
The segmented nature of the beef manufacture in the Usa is an important distinction from the vertical integration commonly associated with other meat animal product systems such as pork and poultry. While in that location is a relative absence of vertical integration in the beef supply concatenation, at that place are increasingly attempts for producers representing the various production segments to align vertically with other segments via supply agreements. The value of, or necessity for, vertical alignment is particularly evident with branded beef programs. For case, marketing of some branded beef products is based on the premise of no antibiotic or steroidal hormone use throughout the lifetime of the animal, requiring that purveyors have command over production methods employed through each phase of product in lodge to ensure compliance. This frequently is achieved using supply agreements that reward producers with premiums for producing animals that meet specifications of the branded beefiness program.
USE OF GROWTH PROMOTING TECHNOLOGIES IN U.S. Beefiness PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
Beef producers in the USA historically accept been very applied science driven. Examples of this include strategic supplementation of forage-based diets to fulfill beast requirements for protein, free energy, vitamins, or minerals. Several primal classes of growth promotants besides 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 United states of america for decades, thus making it possible to regain some of the growth-promoting furnishings of endogenous hormones that are lost every bit a outcome of castration. Implants employ estrogenic (estradiol or zeranol) and androgenic (testosterone or trenbolone acetate) components, or combinations thereof. Steroidal implants stimulate feed intake and poly peptide deposition, and have dramatic impact on cattle functioning and efficiency of feed utilization. Their use is very widespread, encompassing both growing and finishing phases of production. They are most heavily used in confinement operations, including backgrounding operations and feedlots. Notable exceptions are branded beefiness 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 U.s.a. cattle production systems. Ionophore antibiotics, the most common of which are monensin and lasalocid, are used widely for beef product in the USA, both for control of coccidiosis and for improving feed efficiency. Feed additive forms of tetracyclines and macrolide antibiotics have been used extensively in the United States. Starting in January, 2017, the USA Nutrient and Drug Assistants imposed new regulations that prohibit sub-therapeutic feeding of medically-important antibiotics [half dozen], 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 veterinary. Changes in the regulatory status of these compounds has spawned an unprecedented interest in alternative production methods and research aimed at reducing or eliminating antibiotics from food animal production systems, particularly for compounds that are deemed medically important for human health. Essential oils, minerals, prebiotics, and probiotics are amongst the many product categories that are now 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 accretion. Beta agonists are not-steroidal, and they stimulate muscle accretion by increasing protein synthesis and decreasing protein catabolism. The beta adrenergic agonist, ractopamine hydrochloride, was approved for use in cattle starting in 2003. Zilpaterol was approved for utilize in the USA in 2008, and though more potent than ractopamine, zilpaterol it is at present seldom used due to restrictions imposed past major shambles companies. Ractopamine is administered to cattle during the final 28 to 42 days before slaughter, and though the verbal number of cattle fed ractopamine is not known, it is used by the vast majority of U.s.a. feedlots. A recent survey of feedlot nutritionists [vii] revealed that approximately 85% of feedlots represented in the survey use beta agonists.
Constructed progestin (melengestrol acetate) is fed to synchro nize estrus in breeding herds, particularly where bogus insemination is used. It is estimated that fewer than 10% of beef females are bred by artificial insemination, so the greatest use of synthetic progestin is in feedlots, where they are included in the diet to suppress estrus in heifers that are fed in confinement for slaughter. Feeding progestin aids in minimizing physical injuries attributable to sexual behaviors in which animals mount one some other, and too improves efficiency of feed utilization. Melengestrol acetate is not approved for use in male bovines.
THE FEEDLOT SECTOR
The most contempo census of agriculture [three] reported an estimated 26,586 feedlots in the U.s.a.. Of these, approximately 61% have fewer than 100 cattle. Approximately 77% of cattle were produced in feedlots with chapters greater than 1,000 animals. These feedlots be throughout the United states, just by far the heaviest concentration of cattle finishing occurs in the Not bad Plains region, which is mostly characterized past a semi-barren, temperate climate that is well-suited to cattle production. Approximately ii thirds of Us feedlot cattle production is concentrated within the states of Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas. Logically, big abattoirs also are concentrated within this region. Ingather production in this geography is heavily dependent on groundwater from the underlying Ogallala aquifer, which is used extensively for irrigation of corn, wheat, sorghum, and other crops.
FEEDLOT FINISHING DIETS
Energy content of finishing diets, expressed every bit internet energy for proceeds (NEthou), typically ranges from i.50 to 1.54 Mcal/kg. Consequently, diets of feedlot cattle consist primarily of cereal grains and cereal grain byproducts. Corn is by far the predominant cereal grain. Wheat, which mostly is regarded 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 twelvemonth when wheat prices are depression in comparison 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 of import 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 as existence nutritionally junior to corn, it too is incorporated into feedlot diets when economic conditions favor its use.
Feedlots are opportunistic users of a broad range of by product energy feeds. Cereal grain byproducts have become increasingly important as staples of feedlot cattle diets, particularly in the interior of the continental USA where corn and sorghum production prevail. The most important of these is distiller's grain, which is a byproduct of fuel ethanol production from cereal grains. Distiller'due south grains can be fed either equally moisture or dried co-products, the form of which is dictated by proximity of feedlots to ethanol product facilities. Growth of the fuel ethanol industry between 2000 and 2007 represented an unprecedented period of modify for the Us 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 limerick of feedlot diets. Moisture corn gluten feed (approximately 60% dry thing), which is derived equally a byproduct from the production of corn sweeteners and starches, also is widely used in the feedlot sector. Distiller'southward grains, gluten feed, and other byproducts well-nigh normally contain between x% and xl% of the diet dry matter for feedlot cattle. Large differentials in pricing betwixt grain and grain byproducts occasionally dictate much greater rates of inclusion, with concentrations of byproducts reaching 70% or more of diet dry matter in some circumstances. Other byproducts are used as well, including choose potatoes or white potato processing wastes (predominantly in the Pacific Northwest), fruit and vegetable byproducts, byproducts from sugar refining, and co-products derived from milling of wheat and processing of soybeans. Many of these byproduct feeds also contain intermediate to loftier concentrations of poly peptide, thus making it possible to displace all or a portion of the oilseed meals (soybean, cottonseed, sunflower, canola, and others) traditionally used to satisfy protein requirements of cattle. Consequently, dietary protein oftentimes is fed in excess, which has potentially of import environmental implications. Byproduct feeds typically comprise more phosphorus than the cereal grains that they supervene upon, further contributing to ecology challenges associated with confined animate being feeding operations.
Forages commonly constitute a relatively small fraction of feedlot diets, and are used primarily to promote digestive wellness. Alfalfa hay and corn silage are the almost usually used roughages. Increased reliance on byproduct feeds in recent years has made it economically feasible to utilize depression protein roughages in feedlot diets, including corn stalks, wheat straw, and other low-value crop residues. Forage content of finishing diets typically is in the range of half dozen% to 12% [vii].
Product AND DISPOSITION OF BEEF
The objective of USA feedlots is to produce beef from young cattle (<30 months of age) with aplenty tenderness and with relatively high intramuscular fatty content. The USA system of beef quality grading rewards feedlots for production of highly marbled beef, simply besides discourages over-fattening of cattle through classification of carcasses into one of five yield course categories. Animals that yield carcasses in higher yield grade categories (4 or five) by and large incur heavy market place penalties. Size of carcasses besides is of import, and abattoir companies mostly utilize heavy price discounts for undersized (<250 kg) or oversized (>430 kg) carcasses.
The beef slaughter industry in the USA is heavily concen trated, with only 4 firms accounting for more than than 80% of the beefiness slaughter chapters. Nigh of the beefiness they process is distributed in boxed form, a significant portion of which is exported to other countries. Domestic beef production in 2017 was eleven.98 million metric tonnes, approximately 10.half dozen% (ane.26 1000000 tonnes) of which was exported [eight], either as diverseness meets or as high-quality beef products. The largest volume export markets for USA beef in 2017 were Nihon (24.iii%); Mexico (18.8%); Republic of korea (14.half dozen%); Hong Kong (10.4%), Canada (9.2%); and Taiwan (3.5%). Exports were roughly offset by imports (1.36 million tonnes), with Canada (24.seven%), Australia (23.2%); Mexico (19.two%), and New Zealand (eighteen.6%) making up the vast majority of imported beef (and veal) products.
Per capita beef consumption of beef in the USA in 2017 was 25.8 kg [9], and consumption is expected to be slightly higher or stable through 2027 [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 beef products.
Future TRENDS IN THE BEEF INDUSTRY
Domestic demand for beef products is expected to remain stable. Consequently, consign markets are increasingly recognized as being an important target for increasing demand for Usa beefiness products. OECD/FAO estimates of 1.5% annual increases in need for meat products through 2026 [x] are cause for optimism among producers. Though it is projected that most of this demand volition be fulfilled by increases in production of poultry products, it is likely that all meat sectors will benefit to some degree.
In that location is a growing trend within the Usa for large purveyors of meat products to exert influence on livestock producers, encouraging them to implement production practices that are perceived as being in line with consumer interests. Amongst the major players are slaughter-house companies, wholesalers, grocery chains, the hotel and restaurant industries, and others. Topics such as sustainability, beast welfare/wellbeing, environmental compatibility, traceability, antimicrobial resistance, utilize of exogenous growth promotants, natural or organic production systems, and other areas are condign increasingly common, and have emerged as central elements in marketing campaigns adopted by many major food companies. This development in thinking challenges conventional food animate being production systems, and is forcing rapid alter in production practices. Every bit a consequence, the focal points of many enquiry programs across the United states of america have shifted to cover these topics.
United states of america beef producers have a long history of adapting quickly to changing market signals in an endeavour to capture added value. Branded beef programs, which constitute a course of vertical integration or alignment, are relatively commonplace. Perhaps the best known of these is the Certified Angus Beef program, which since its inception in 1978 has arguably transformed the USA beef manufacture as a result of substantial premiums paid to cattle producers for producing beef that fulfills certain quality standards. In backlog of threescore% of cattle fed in the USA now have some proportion of Angus beginnings, which is testimony to the success of the program that is now recognized globally as beingness consistent with quality. Numerous other programs take been spawned in the last 40 years, with the The states Department of Agronomics (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service at present list 90 unlike federal certification programs for beef, eighty of which were conceived in the yr 2000 or later. Scores of other non-certified branding programs have appeared at the consumer level likewise, touting features such as omega-three enrichment of beef; antibiotic free; hormone-complimentary; 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 advertizement appealing attributes for which consumers are willing to pay price premiums. As branding programs get more prevalent, vertical alignment between diverse sectors of the beef industry too is increasingly mutual. A course of symbiosis tin develop in which big product units or consortia of producers marshal themselves with retail outlets, hotels, or large eatery companies to ensure ongoing demand or to capture market premiums for their products. In plough, the food companies benefit through supply agreements that guarantee availability or pricing of products that are produced to come across certain standards that can encompass beefiness quality, meat composition (equally in the instance of omega-3 enrichment), environmental compatibility, sustainability, or product practices that exclude antibiotics and(or) growth promotants, and numerous other marketable concepts.
Traceability programs take been a topic of much discus sion for the past two decades. This word intensified immediately post-obit events in December of 2003 surrounding importation of a choose dairy cow from Canada that was discovered to have been infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Several key export markets subsequently were closed to U.s. beefiness, which had devastating financial consequences for beef producers and abattoir companies in the USA. Producer organizations are, for the most office, however, opposed to development of a federally-mandated traceability system, opting instead for a voluntary system of animal identification and traceability that is market-driven.
In Jan of 2017 the United states of america Food and Drug administration fully enacted revised regulations aimed at decreasing apply of medically-important antibiotics in food brute production systems [6]. Cardinal to the new regulations is the necessity for veterinary oversight of antibiotic use. Drugs that previously were bachelor "over the counter" now can exist used but with the written prescription of a licensed veterinarian. Since the regulations took effect, pharmaceutical companies that produce affected drug compounds have cited precipitous declines in demand for their products, meat purveyors and retailers take publicly appear timelines for procurement of products produced without antibiotics, and major beef producers have announced strategies that volition be (or have been) implemented to decrease antibiotic use. The "anti" antibiotic movement is thus well underway, and it has given birth to an era of research pertaining to identification of antibiotic alternatives for use in livestock. Much of our own enquiry at Kansas Country University is devoted to the task of finding alternative strategies for mitigation of digestive disorders or infectious diseases, but without utilise of antibiotics. Whether as a issue of market pressures or regulatory changes, it seems inevitable that beefiness production systems of the hereafter are apt to employ production practices that preclude use of antibiotics.
Probiotics are condign increasingly prevalent in the beefiness production chain, only especially feedlot systems. Information technology has been estimated that approximately lx% of feedlot cattle receive some form of probiotic [7]. Often these consist of Lactobacillus species, fed solitary 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 ordinarily cited reasons for their use. More recently, Megasphaera elsdenii, a lactate-utilizing bacteria, has been introduced into the market. Reported benefits include avoidance of ruminal acidosis and the ability to transition more apace to high-concentrate diets [13], as well every bit improved cattle functioning and decreased incidence of disease in young cattle subsequently arrival in feedlots [xiv]. Anecdotal evidence from commercial abattoirs has suggested it may also decrease fecal shedding of food-borne pathogens, but this effect has yet to be validated in a controlled research experiment.
Plants extracts equally feed additives constitutes another agile expanse of inquiry, with the notion that these compounds may be useful as substitutes for conventional antimicrobial drugs as a result of their antimicrobial activities. Several plant extracts take been studied in depth, including beta acids of hops [15], menthol [xvi], eugenol [17], cinnamaldehyde [18], limonene [xix], and others, and their impact on gut microflora is in some cases well documented. These compounds often emulate the actions of traditional antibiotic drugs, owing in part to similarities in chemic structure. Similarly, heavy metals, including the trace minerals copper and zinc, accept been exploited for antibiotic-like effects [20], specially when used in pigs or poultry, simply also in cattle. Zinc is the antimicrobial mineral of choice in cattle due to the relative toxicity of copper, and oft it is fed at supra-nutritional concentrations to suppress bacteria that cause human foot-rot (infectious pododermatitis), or to assistance in combatting respiratory affliction. Numerous studies have revealed that it is possible to co-select for resistance to antimicrobial drugs when bacteria are exposed to establish extracts [21] or high concentrations of heavy metals [22,23], even without exposure to the antimicrobial drugs themselves. Given that the ground 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 caution is warranted in the application of institute extracts or heavy metals as 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 it was estimated that over 4% of retail foods sold in the U.S. were organically produced [24]. Fruits and vegetable led the marketplace in organic sales, while 3% of meat/poultry/fish were estimated to have been produced organically. According to the Organic Trade Association [25], sales of organic meat and poultry surged by 17% in 2016, and total sales were expected to exceed $ane billion dollars for the outset fourth dimension in 2017. Certification of organically produced meats is administered by the USDA, which maintains official standards for organic production practices. Currently, availability of sufficient quantities of certified organic feedstuffs constitutes a major limitation for growth of this segment of the beef industry. Several branding programs certified by the USDA Agronomical Marketing Service specify beef as being "antibiotic costless" or "not-hormone treated". Some of these restrict their definition to a specified production phase, while others reflect production practices employed throughout the lifetime of the animal. There is a sense that need for this market place segment is increasing, but official estimates are not available. Programs for production of cattle without utilize of hormones, referred to every bit not-hormone treated cattle, are key to penetrating certain markets, both domestically and internationally. Toll of production generally is higher for whatsoever of the specialty programs compared to conventional production systems, and producers must therefore be rewarded accordingly with price premiums.
Determination
USA beef 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, also as with food wholesalers and retailers and the hotel and restaurant industries. The industry makes apply of a broad spectrum of nutritional inputs and animal phenotypes that span a wide range of geographies and climates. The industry is closely tied to natural grazing resources, besides equally cereal grains and cereal grain byproducts. It is highly adaptive, responding apace to marketplace signals that reward innovation and alignment with consumer demands. The industry makes all-encompassing use of a broad range of technologies related to feed processing, identity preservations, and growth promotion. Complexity of beef markets is increasing due to extensive branding efforts and development of niche markets, and demand for product of beefiness representing grass-fed, non-hormone, non-antibiotic, and organic beefiness markets is growing steadily. Maintaining and expanding demand for USA beef likely will necessitate ongoing efforts to develop markets for consign, both for variety meats and for high-value cuts of beef.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This is contribution number eighteen-601-J of the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Manhattan.
Footnotes
CONFLICT OF Interest
Nosotros certify that at that place is no disharmonize of interest with whatever fiscal organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. USDA Economic Research Service . Livestock and meat domestic information: Livestock and poultry slaughter. United States Department of Agriculture; c2018. [cited 2018 June i]. 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]. Bachelor from: www.agcensus.usda.gov.
four. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service . Cattle on Feed. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Lath, Us Department of Agriculture (USDA); 2018. Released May 25, 2018. [Google Scholar]
half dozen. Federal Register . Veterinary feed directive: terminal rule. U.South. Section of Wellness and Human Services; 2015. Bachelor 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]
viii. U.South. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) Total beef exports, including diversity meats [Cyberspace] USMEF; c2018. [cited 2016 June 1]. Available from: www.usmef.org. [Google Scholar]
11. Rabobank . Basis beef nation: The effect of changing consumer tastes and preferences on the U.S. cattle manufacture. Food and Agribusiness Research and Advisory. Rabobank International; Jan, 2014. [Google Scholar]
12. Younts-Dahl SM, Galyean ML, Loneragan GH, Elam NA, Brashears MM. Dietary supplementation with Lactobacillus-Propionibacterium-based direct-fed with microbials and prevalence of Escherichia coli O157 in beef feedlot cattle and on hides at harvest. J Nutrient Prot. 2004;67:889–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
thirteen. Drouillard JS, Henning PH, Meissner HH, Leeuw KJ. Megasphaera elsdenii on the functioning of steers adapting to a loftier-concentrate diet, using iii or 5 transition diets. Due south Afr J Anim Sci. 2012;42:195–9. [Google Scholar]
14. Miller KA, Van Bibber-Krueger CL, Hollis LC, Drouillard JS. Megasphaera elsdenii dosed orally at processing to reduce BRD and ameliorate proceeds in high-risk calves during the receiving period. Bovine Prac. 2013;47:137–43. [Google Scholar]
fifteen. Flythe Doc. The antimicrobial furnishings of hops (Humulus lupulus L.) on ruminal hyper ammonia-producing bacteria. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2009;48:712–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. 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 intestinal digestion. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2010;158:57–64. [Google Scholar]
xviii. Yang WZ, Ametaj BN, Benchaar C, He ML, Beauchemin KA. Cinnamaldehyde in feedlot cattle diets: intake, growth performance, carcass characteristics, and blood metabolites. J Anim Sci. 2010;88:1082–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Samii SS, Wallace N, Nagaraja TG, et al. Furnishings 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–ix. [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 I. 2016;xi:e0168983. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Jacob ME, Trick JT, Nagaraja TG, et al. Effects of feeding elevated concentrations of copper and zinc on the antimicrobial susceptibilities of fecal bacteria in feedlot cattle. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2010;7:643–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Amachawadi RG, Scott HM, Aperce CC, et al. Effects of in-feed copper and tylosin supplementations on copper and antimicrobial resistance in fecal enterococci of feedlot cattle. J Appl Microbiol. 2015;118:1287–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Asian-Australasian Periodical of Animal Sciences are provided here courtesy of Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (AAAP)
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039332/
0 Response to "What Perecentage of Beef Does the United States Produce"
Post a Comment