Do Domestic Producers of Beef Gain or Lose When the United States Imposes a Tariff onã¢â‚¬â€¹ Beef?
Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2018 Jul; 31(vii): 1007–1016.
Current situation and futurity trends for beefiness production in the United states of America — A review
James S. Drouillard
1Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
Received 2016 Jun 8; Accepted 2018 Jun 8.
Abstract
Usa beef production is characterized by a diversity of climates, environmental conditions, animate being phenotypes, management systems, and a multiplicity of nutritional inputs. The United states beefiness herd consists of more than 80 breeds of cattle and crosses thereof, and the industry is divided into distinct, but oft overlapping sectors, including seedstock production, cow-dogie production, stocker/backgrounding, and feedlot. Exception for male dairy calves, production is predominantly pastoral-based, with young stock spending relatively brief portions of their life in feedlots. The beef industry is very technology driven, utilizing reproductive management strategies, genetic improvement technologies, exogenous growth promoting compounds, vaccines, antibiotics, and feed processing strategies, focusing on improvements in efficiency and cost of product. Young steers and heifers are grain-based diets fed for an boilerplate of v months, more often than not in feedlots of 1,000 head chapters or more, and typically are slaughtered at 15 to 28 months of age to produce tender, well-marbled beef. Per capita beef consumption is nearly 26 kg annually, over half of which is consumed in the grade of footing products. Beef exports, which are increasingly important, consist primarily of high value cuts and variety meats, depending on destination. In recent years, adverse climatic conditions (i.due east., draught), a shrinking agricultural workforce, emergence of food-borne pathogens, concerns over evolution of antimicrobial resistance, animal welfare/well-being, environmental impact, consumer perceptions of healthfulness of beef, consumer perceptions of food brute production practices, and alternative uses of traditional feed grains have get increasingly important with respect to their touch on on both beefiness product and need for beefiness products. Similarly, changing consumer demographics and globalization of beef markets have dictated changes in the types of products demanded by consumers of USA beef, both domestically and abroad. The industry is highly adaptive, however, and responds quickly to evolving economical signals.
Keywords: Beef, Production Systems, Growth Promotion, Carcass Quality
INTRODUCTION
Beef production systems in the Us are characterized past a wide range of climates, environmental conditions, brute phenotypes, direction practices, and a multiplicity of nutritional inputs. In dissimilarity to international perceptions, U.s.a. 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. Beef production at the cow-dogie level is widely distributed, and exists in all 50 states, spanning the range from tropical savannah to Chill tundra, temperate plains, and mountain pastures. Vast differences in geographies and climatic weather necessitate the employ of a wide spectrum of animal phenotypes that are suited to these environments, encompassing both Bos taurus and Bos indicus breeds and crosses thereof. The feedlot phase of production, which normally is between 100 and 300 days duration, is heavily concentrated within the interior of the continental USA, and relies heavily on cereal grains and grain byproducts produced within this area as predominant feed resource, and feedlot cattle nearly usually are marketed at ages ranging from 15 to 28 months. Production of beefiness in the U.Southward. historically has been very technology driven, utilizing reproductive management strategies, genetic improvement technologies, exogenous growth promoting compounds, vaccines, antibiotics, and feed processing strategies, all of which focused on improving efficiency and(or) decreasing cost of beef product. In more than contempo years, adverse climatic conditions (i.e., draught), a shrinking agronomical workforce, command of nutrient-borne pathogens, concerns over evolution of antimicrobial resistance, animal welfare, animal well-being, environmental touch on of solitude feeding operations, consumer perceptions of healthfulness of beef, consumer perceptions of food animal production practices, and culling uses for traditional feed grains have become increasingly important with respect to their impact on both beef production and demand 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.South. beef. Beef 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-Calf OPERATIONS AND FEEDLOTS
As of January 31, 2018, total USA inventory of beef cows was estimated at 31.7 million head, with cow-calf operations in all l states [i]. The beef cow inventory fluctuates considerably from yr to year, as shown in Figure 1, and tin can be influenced heavily by market weather and ecology factors, such as persistent draught weather. In the Us, about 320 million hectares are used for livestock grazing [2], which is equivalent to 41% of the total state area of the continental USA. Approximately 55% of all beef cows are maintained in the Central region of the continental United states of america [3], which is characterized by vast native grasslands and expansive production of row crops such as corn, soybeans, wheat, grain sorghum, and other crops. Roughly xx% of the national herd is in the Western region, usually utilizing expansive land areas that are federally owned and leased to beef producers by regime agencies. The Southeastern region, frequently typified by smaller production units that rely heavily on improved pastures, also is habitation to approximately twenty% of the national herd. The remaining 5% are interspersed throughout the Northeast, Alaska, and Hawaii. Each of these regions makes use of very different systems of beef production, attributable to a divergent range of climates and feed resources in each area. For example, western herds frequently employ federal lands for grazing in the spring and summertime, and cattle then are removed from federal lands and overwintered on privately-owned pastures and/or fed harvested forages until the outset of the next grazing bicycle. By contrast, operations in the Central region oft make utilise of a mixture of native grass pastures, crop residues, harvested forages, and protein concentrates to sustain their moo-cow herds.
United states of america beef moo-cow inventory on Jan 1, from 1938 to 2018. Source: United states Department of Agriculture [1].
Feedlots, different moo-cow-calf operations, are far more full-bodied geographically, with over 72% of feedlot production occurring in the 5-state area [4] of Nebraska (19.8%), Texas (eighteen.nine%), Kansas (17.v%), Iowa (9.0%), and Colorado (7.1%). Concentration of feedlots in this area is largely driven past access to cereal grains and grain byproducts that predominate the diets of finishing cattle. Other of import regions for cattle feeding have developed throughout the state in response to availability of low-cost feedstuffs, especially byproduct feeds. For example, the Washington-Idaho region is a major site for production and processing of potatoes, fruits, and vegetables as foods for humans. Cattle feeding operations have adult in response to availability of large quantities of processed food residues in this region, and stand for an important means for disposal of these byproducts, thereby creating additional value to the food chain.
CATTLE BREEDS USED FOR BEEF Product IN THE U.s.a.
The USA beef herd is very heterogeneous in nature, consisting of more than lxxx breeds and crosses thereof, and reflecting the diversity of environments in which they are produced. According to the near recent report on brood registrations by the National Pedigreed Livestock Quango [5], fellow member brood 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., most cattle fed for slaughter actually are crossbreds, with lx% or more having some degree of Angus influence. Dairy breeds, near notably Holsteins, too make upward a substantial portion of United states of america feedlot cattle, with as many every bit 3 to iv million dairy calves being fed in USA feedlots each year.
U.s. SYSTEM FOR BEEF PRODUCTION
The United states of america system of beef production is highly segmented, oft 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-calf operations. The chief product of 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 production chain before beingness slaughtered. Calves from cow-calf operations more often than not follow one of two paths. They tin be transferred directly to feedlots at or around the time of weaning, in which instance they are referred to as "calf-feds" that remain in the feedlot for 240 days or more earlier being harvested. Calf-fed may make up 40% or more of the fed cattle population in the United states of america. The largest share of the calf population, ordinarily 60% or more, is first placed into a backgrounding or stocker operation, or a combination thereof, to be grown for a period of fourth dimension earlier fattened on loftier-concentrate diets. These animals are grown mostly using provender-based diets and then transferred to feedlots when they are a yr or more of age, and thus are referred to as "yearlings". Stocker (grazing) and backgrounding (drylot) systems rely heavily on forages equally the predominant component of the diet, supplementing protein, energy, vitamins, and minerals as needed to optimize cattle performance. A relatively minor proportion of backgrounded cattle are grown at small-scale rates of gain using limit-feeding programs in which they are fed high-concentrate diets, like to a high-free energy finishing diet, merely in restricted amounts to forbid premature fattening.
Schematic for catamenia of cattle through the U.Southward. beef production chain, illustrating direct entry from cow-calf and dairy operations into feedlots (blueish lines) and abattoirs (reddish 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 as well constitute an important com ponent of the beefiness cattle marketplace. These calves are gathered from dairies at an early on age (normally nearly 3 days) and transferred to specialized rearing operations known as calf ranches. Calves typically are confined to private stalls to forestall 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 minor amounts of forage until weaning at 40 to lxxx days of age, and then transferred to group housing within the same operation. These animals ordinarily are sold to feedlots when they attain a weight of approximately 150 to 200 kg.
Cull beef and dairy animals too contribute to the beef sup ply, and virtually commonly are shipped from seedstock, cow-dogie, or dairy operations directly to abattoirs for harvest. A relatively small and variable proportion is sent to feedlots to be fed loftier-energy diets for 50 to 100 days before being slaughtered. The number of cull animals that are fattened in feedlots before beingness slaughtered varies substantially from year to year, and is largely a function of the relationships between feed costs, beefiness supply, and beef demand.
Male person cattle in the United states are nearly always fed as steers, and abattoirs apply heavy discounts to intact males or males that brandish advanced secondary sex activity characteristics. Castration effectively decreases the occurrence of undesirable social behaviors and meat quality characteristics, such as dark, firm, and dry out 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 various times betwixt birth and after entry into feedlots, with the vast majority being castrated before or most the age of weaning. A relatively small proportion is castrated after entry into feedlots, though this exercise is heavily discouraged and meaning discounts are practical to intact feeder cattle due to high morbidity rates in animals that are castrated at an advanced age. In terms of methodology, balderdash calves are almost ofttimes castrated surgically or by banding.
Heifers fed in feedlots found approximately 28% to 30% of beef supply in the United states of america [4]. Compared to steers, however, well-nigh feedlot heifers are fed intact, and while some are ovariectomized, information technology is far more common to feed melengestrol acetate (a constructed form of progesterone) to inhibit heat behavior.
Market atmospheric condition at the time of weaning can greatly im pact the historic period at which cattle are placed into feedlots. Size of the national herd is cyclical in nature, owing to fluctuations in weather (such 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 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 accept incentive to grow cattle earlier placing them into feedlots. By contrast, when grain prices are low relative to prices for forages, a greater proportion of eligible animals may enter the feedlot directly.
Weather also plays a very significant role in the historic period at which cattle are placed into feedlots. Environmental temperatures and precipitation patterns apparently impact both quantity and quality of forages produced, so information technology stands to reason that agin climatic conditions tin influence duration of the grazing season, and as a result the proportion of cattle that are marketed as calves versus every bit yearlings. For example, several million cattle usually are grazed on small grain pastures in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas in the autumn and winter each year. In the absence of acceptable rainfall, poor forage yield may dictate premature termination of the grazing flavor, in which instance cattle are transferred to feedlots to be fed. The same is true for native grass pastures that are grazed in the bound, summer, and autumn. Drought conditions tin force producers to market cattle early, as they often have limited feed reserves. Regardless of crusade, the system of merchandising cattle is very dynamic, responding quickly to marketplace conditions.
Prices paid for slaughter cattle in the U.S. are influenced by age, quality grade, yield course, and weight. The USA quality grading system takes into business relationship historic period, as determined by os ossification patterns, color of lean tissue, and the amount of intramuscular fatty (marbling). Increased intramuscular fatty deposition increases grade, and premiums are paid for cattle that have loftier intramuscular fatty content. Yield grade is a measure of fatness that accounts for increases in fatty inside the subcutaneous, intermuscular, and peritoneal regions of the carcass. Animals that deposit excesses of fat in these areas by and large have poor red meat yield, and prices are discounted accordingly. Weight of carcasses also is an important determinant of value, as carcasses that are less than 250 kg or more than 430 kg are subject to substantial discounts. Given the high correlation between intramuscular fat and other fat depots, securing high market place value requires that cattle be fed long enough to reach sufficient (merely non excessive) body fat, produce carcasses ranging in weight from 250 to 430 kg, and do so at fewer than 30 months of age. Consequently, there are limitations with respect to the ability to shift cattle into unlike production scenarios. For example, cattle that are heavily influenced by British-brood ancestry often are smaller framed, and therefore benefit from extended growing programs that allow for skeletal growth and musculus degradation before fattening, thereby ensuring that they achieve desired market weights at appropriate fatness. Initiating the feedlot phase too early on in the life of the animals tin predispose them to premature fattening, depression carcass weights, or both. This is particularly true for heifers, which comprise a substantial portion of the fed cattle population in the U.s.. Alternatively, large-framed phenotypes that are typical of breeds from continental Europe tin can produce carcasses with excessive weights if grown for extended periods of time earlier finishing in feedlots. These animals are well-suited to the calf-fed feedlot system in which they are placed into feedlots directly after weaning.
The segmented nature of the beef industry in the U.s.a. is an important stardom from the vertical integration normally associated with other meat creature production systems such every bit pork and poultry. While there is a relative absence of vertical integration in the beef supply chain, at that place are increasingly attempts for producers representing the various product 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 example, marketing of some branded beef products is based on the premise of no antibody or steroidal hormone use throughout the lifetime of the animate being, requiring that purveyors have control over production methods employed through each phase of production in order to ensure compliance. This frequently is accomplished using supply agreements that advantage producers with premiums for producing animals that meet specifications of the branded beefiness plan.
Use OF GROWTH PROMOTING TECHNOLOGIES IN U.S. BEEF Product SYSTEMS
Beefiness producers in the U.s. historically have been very engineering driven. Examples of this include strategic supplementation of forage-based diets to fulfill animal requirements for protein, free energy, vitamins, or minerals. Several central classes of growth promotants also are used widely, either every bit feed additives or as hormone-impregnated implants that are inserted beneath the peel of the ears.
Steroidal-based growth implants have been used in the U.s. for decades, thus making it possible to regain some of the growth-promoting effects of endogenous hormones that are lost every bit a result of castration. Implants employ estrogenic (estradiol or zeranol) and androgenic (testosterone or trenbolone acetate) components, or combinations thereof. Steroidal implants stimulate feed intake and protein degradation, and take dramatic impact on cattle performance and efficiency of feed utilization. Their utilize is very widespread, encompassing both growing and finishing phases of production. They are most heavily used in solitude 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 accept been widely used in USA cattle production systems. Ionophore antibiotics, the well-nigh common of which are monensin and lasalocid, are used widely for beef production in the USA, both for control of coccidiosis and for improving feed efficiency. Feed additive forms of tetracyclines and macrolide antibiotics accept been used extensively in the United States. Starting in January, 2017, the USA Food and Drug Administration imposed new regulations that prohibit sub-therapeutic feeding of medically-of import antibiotics [six], which includes oxtetracyline, chlortetracycline, and the macrolide antibody, tylosin. These drugs now are restricted for utilise only 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 involvement in alternative product methods and research aimed at reducing or eliminating antibiotics from food animal production systems, peculiarly for compounds that are deemed medically of import for human health. Essential oils, minerals, prebiotics, and probiotics are among the many product 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 muscle accession. Beta agonists are not-steroidal, and they stimulate muscle accession by increasing protein synthesis and decreasing protein catabolism. The beta adrenergic agonist, ractopamine hydrochloride, was canonical for use in cattle starting in 2003. Zilpaterol was approved for use in the United states in 2008, and though more than potent than ractopamine, zilpaterol it is now seldom used due to restrictions imposed past major abattoir 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 USA feedlots. A recent survey of feedlot nutritionists [seven] revealed that approximately 85% of feedlots represented in the survey employ beta agonists.
Synthetic progestin (melengestrol acetate) is fed to synchro nize rut in convenance herds, peculiarly where artificial insemination is used. It is estimated that fewer than x% of beef females are bred by bogus insemination, so the greatest use of synthetic progestin is in feedlots, where they are included in the nutrition to suppress oestrus 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 likewise improves efficiency of feed utilization. Melengestrol acetate is not approved for employ in male person bovines.
THE FEEDLOT SECTOR
The most recent census of agriculture [3] reported an estimated 26,586 feedlots in the U.s.a.. Of these, approximately 61% accept fewer than 100 cattle. Approximately 77% of cattle were produced in feedlots with capacity greater than 1,000 animals. These feedlots be throughout the U.s., but by far the heaviest concentration of cattle finishing occurs in the Great Plains region, which is mostly characterized by a semi-arid, temperate climate that is well-suited to cattle production. Approximately two thirds of USA feedlot cattle production is concentrated within the states of Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas. Logically, large abattoirs also are full-bodied inside this region. Crop production in this geography is heavily dependent on groundwater from the underlying Ogallala aquifer, which is used extensively for irrigation of corn, wheat, sorghum, and other crops.
FEEDLOT FINISHING DIETS
Free energy content of finishing diets, expressed equally net free energy for gain (NEthousand), typically ranges from 1.50 to i.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 generally is regarded equally a human nutrient crop, oft is used to displace a portion of corn in feedlot diets. Its use typically is restricted to certain times of the yr when wheat prices are low in comparison to corn, such every bit immediately following wheat harvest. Wheat and barley are, yet, the predominant grains used by feedlots in the Pacific Northwest. Sorghum is an of import cereal crop produced in the semi-arid states of Kansas and Texas, and to a lesser extent Oklahoma, Colorado, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Though regarded as existence nutritionally inferior to corn, information technology too is incorporated into feedlot diets when economic conditions favor its use.
Feedlots are opportunistic users of a wide range of by product energy feeds. Cereal grain byproducts take go 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'south grain, which is a byproduct of fuel ethanol production from cereal grains. Distiller'southward grains can be fed either as moisture or dried co-products, the course 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 menses of alter for the USA beef industry, during which traditional feedstuffs (i.e. grains) reached historically high prices while distiller'due south grains increased dramatically in abundance. This was crusade for major shifts in limerick of feedlot diets. Wet corn gluten feed (approximately 60% dry matter), which is derived as a byproduct from the production of corn sweeteners and starches, likewise is widely used in the feedlot sector. Distiller's grains, gluten feed, and other byproducts most ordinarily comprise between 10% and forty% 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 diet dry out thing in some circumstances. Other byproducts are used also, including cull potatoes or potato processing wastes (predominantly in the Pacific Northwest), fruit and vegetable byproducts, byproducts from sugar refining, and co-products derived from milling of wheat and processing of soybeans. Many of these byproduct feeds as well contain intermediate to loftier 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 of import environmental implications. Byproduct feeds typically contain more phosphorus than the cereal grains that they replace, further contributing to environmental challenges associated with confined beast feeding operations.
Forages usually establish a relatively small fraction of feedlot diets, and are used primarily to promote digestive wellness. Alfalfa hay and corn silage are the most unremarkably used roughages. Increased reliance on byproduct feeds in recent years has made it economically feasible to employ low protein roughages in feedlot diets, including corn stalks, wheat straw, and other low-value crop residues. Provender content of finishing diets typically is in the range of 6% to 12% [seven].
PRODUCTION AND DISPOSITION OF BEEF
The objective of USA feedlots is to produce beef from young cattle (<30 months of historic period) with ample tenderness and with relatively high intramuscular fat content. The Us system of beef quality grading rewards feedlots for product of highly marbled beef, only likewise discourages over-fattening of cattle through classification of carcasses into one of five yield class categories. Animals that yield carcasses in higher yield class categories (4 or 5) generally incur heavy market penalties. Size of carcasses too is important, and butchery companies more often than not apply heavy price discounts for undersized (<250 kg) or oversized (>430 kg) carcasses.
The beefiness slaughter industry in the Us is heavily concen trated, with merely four firms accounting for more than 80% of the beefiness slaughter capacity. Most of the beef they process is distributed in boxed form, a meaning portion of which is exported to other countries. Domestic beef production in 2017 was 11.98 million metric tonnes, approximately 10.6% (1.26 million tonnes) of which was exported [8], either as diversity meets or as high-quality beef products. The largest volume export markets for USA beef in 2017 were Japan (24.3%); Mexico (18.viii%); Southward Korea (14.6%); Hong Kong (10.4%), Canada (9.ii%); and Taiwan (iii.5%). Exports were roughly start past imports (1.36 1000000 tonnes), with Canada (24.7%), Commonwealth of australia (23.2%); Mexico (19.2%), and New Zealand (18.six%) making up the vast majority of imported beefiness (and veal) products.
Per capita beef consumption of beefiness in the USA in 2017 was 25.8 kg [9], and consumption is expected to exist slightly higher or stable through 2027 [10]. It is estimated that 57% of the beef consumed is in the form of basis products [11]. Imported products, particularly from Australia, are important in fulfilling the increasing demand for ground beefiness products.
Time to come TRENDS IN THE BEEF INDUSTRY
Domestic demand for beef products is expected to remain stable. Consequently, export markets are increasingly recognized as existence an important target for increasing demand for USA beef products. OECD/FAO estimates of ane.5% annual increases in demand for meat products through 2026 [10] are cause for optimism among producers. Though it is projected that about of this demand will be fulfilled past increases in production of poultry products, information technology is probable that all meat sectors will do good to some degree.
In that location is a growing trend within 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 bondage, the hotel and restaurant industries, and others. Topics such as sustainability, animal welfare/wellbeing, environmental compatibility, traceability, antimicrobial resistance, utilise of exogenous growth promotants, natural or organic production systems, and other areas are becoming increasingly mutual, and have emerged as central elements in marketing campaigns adopted by many major food companies. This development in thinking challenges conventional food fauna production systems, and is forcing rapid change in product practices. As a consequence, the focal points of many inquiry programs across the The states have shifted to encompass these topics.
USA beef producers take a long history of adapting quickly to changing market signals in an attempt to capture added value. Branded beef programs, which constitute a grade of vertical integration or alignment, are relatively commonplace. Perhaps the best known of these is the Certified Angus Beef plan, which since its inception in 1978 has arguably transformed the The states beefiness industry equally a result of substantial premiums paid to cattle producers for producing beef that fulfills certain quality standards. In backlog of sixty% of cattle fed in the The states now take some proportion of Angus ancestry, which is testimony to the success of the program that is at present recognized globally as being consistent with quality. Numerous other programs take been spawned in the final forty years, with the US Department of Agronomics (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service now list ninety different federal certification programs for beefiness, lxxx of which were conceived in the yr 2000 or afterwards. Scores of other non-certified branding programs have appeared at the consumer level likewise, touting features such equally omega-3 enrichment of beef; antibiotic gratuitous; 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 past advertising appealing attributes for which consumers are willing to pay price premiums. As branding programs get more prevalent, vertical alignment betwixt various sectors of the beef industry also is increasingly mutual. A form of symbiosis can develop in which large production units or consortia of producers align themselves with retail outlets, hotels, or large eating house companies to ensure ongoing demand or to capture market place premiums for their products. In turn, the food companies do good through supply agreements that guarantee availability or pricing of products that are produced to meet certain standards that can encompass beef quality, meat composition (as in the case of omega-3 enrichment), environmental compatibility, sustainability, or production practices that exclude antibiotics and(or) growth promotants, and numerous other marketable concepts.
Traceability programs have been a topic of much discus sion for the past 2 decades. This discussion intensified immediately following events in December of 2003 surrounding importation of a choose dairy moo-cow from Canada that was discovered to have been infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Several key consign markets subsequently were closed to Usa beef, which had devastating fiscal consequences for beef producers and abattoir companies in the Usa. Producer organizations are, for the most part, however, opposed to development of a federally-mandated traceability organisation, opting instead for a voluntary system of animate being identification and traceability that is market-driven.
In Jan of 2017 the USA Food and Drug administration fully enacted revised regulations aimed at decreasing apply of medically-of import antibiotics in nutrient animal product systems [half dozen]. Cardinal to the new regulations is the necessity for veterinary oversight of antibody use. Drugs that previously were bachelor "over the counter" now can be used merely with the written prescription of a licensed veterinary. Since the regulations took effect, pharmaceutical companies that produce affected drug compounds have cited abrupt declines in demand for their products, meat purveyors and retailers have publicly announced timelines for procurement of products produced without antibiotics, and major beef producers have appear strategies that will be (or have been) implemented to decrease antibiotic apply. The "anti" antibiotic movement is thus well underway, and it has given nativity to an era of research pertaining to identification of antibody alternatives for use in livestock. Much of our own inquiry at Kansas State 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 result of marketplace pressures or regulatory changes, it seems inevitable that beef production systems of the time to come are apt to employ production practices that preclude utilise of antibiotics.
Probiotics are becoming increasingly prevalent in the beefiness production chain, merely particularly feedlot systems. It has been estimated that approximately 60% of feedlot cattle receive some form of probiotic [vii]. Oft these consist of Lactobacillus species, fed alone or in combination with Propionibacterium. Normalization of gastrointestinal tract office and competitive inhibition of food-borne pathogens, such every bit E. coli O157:H7 [12], are the virtually commonly cited reasons for their utilise. More recently, Megasphaera elsdenii, a lactate-utilizing bacteria, has been introduced into the market. Reported benefits include abstention of ruminal acidosis and the power to transition more quickly to high-concentrate diets [xiii], likewise as improved cattle performance and decreased incidence of affliction in young cattle after inflow in feedlots [14]. Anecdotal show from commercial abattoirs has suggested it may too decrease fecal shedding of food-borne pathogens, merely this effect has yet to be validated in a controlled research experiment.
Plants extracts as feed additives constitutes another active area of inquiry, with the notion that these compounds may be useful as substitutes for conventional antimicrobial drugs as a result of their antimicrobial activities. Several plant extracts have been studied in depth, including beta acids of hops [fifteen], menthol [16], eugenol [17], cinnamaldehyde [18], limonene [19], and others, and their affect on gut microflora is in some cases well documented. These compounds oftentimes emulate the actions of traditional antibiotic drugs, owing in function to similarities in chemical structure. Similarly, heavy metals, including the trace minerals copper and zinc, accept been exploited for antibiotic-like furnishings [20], particularly when used in pigs or poultry, only as well in cattle. Zinc is the antimicrobial mineral of choice in cattle due to the relative toxicity of copper, and frequently it is fed at supra-nutritional concentrations to suppress bacteria that cause foot-rot (infectious pododermatitis), or to aid in combatting respiratory illness. Numerous studies take revealed that information technology is possible to co-select for resistance to antimicrobial drugs when leaner are exposed to institute extracts [21] or loftier concentrations of heavy metals [22,23], fifty-fifty without exposure to the antimicrobial drugs themselves. Given that the basis 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 plant extracts or heavy metals as antimicrobials, in spite of the fact that they are not marketed specifically every bit antibiotics.
The USDA does non maintain official statistics on volumes of antibiotic-costless, not-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 market place in organic sales, while 3% of meat/poultry/fish were estimated to have been produced organically. According to the Organic Trade Association [25], sales of organic meat and poultry surged by 17% in 2016, and total sales were expected to exceed $1 billion dollars for the first time in 2017. Certification of organically produced meats is administered by the USDA, which maintains official standards for organic product 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 by the USDA Agronomical Marketing Service specify beef as being "antibiotic gratis" or "non-hormone treated". Some of these restrict their definition to a specified product phase, while others reflect production practices employed throughout the lifetime of the animal. In that location is a sense that demand for this market segment is increasing, merely official estimates are not available. Programs for product of cattle without employ of hormones, referred to as not-hormone treated cattle, are key to penetrating certain markets, both domestically and internationally. Toll of production mostly is higher for any of the specialty programs compared to conventional production systems, and producers must therefore be rewarded appropriately with price premiums.
CONCLUSION
USA beef supply is the product of a multi-segmented manufacture that is consolidating into larger and larger production units, and is increasingly characterized by vertical alignment among industry segments, likewise as with food wholesalers and retailers and the hotel and restaurant industries. The industry makes use of a broad spectrum of nutritional inputs and beast phenotypes that span a wide range of geographies and climates. The industry is closely tied to natural grazing resources, too equally cereal grains and cereal grain byproducts. It is highly adaptive, responding rapidly to market signals that reward innovation and alignment with consumer demands. The industry makes extensive use of a wide range of technologies related to feed processing, identity preservations, and growth promotion. Complexity of beef markets is increasing due to all-encompassing branding efforts and development of niche markets, and demand for product of beef representing grass-fed, not-hormone, non-antibiotic, and organic beef markets is growing steadily. Maintaining and expanding need for U.s.a. 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 18-601-J of the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Manhattan.
Footnotes
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Nosotros certify that in that location is no disharmonize of interest with any financial organization regarding the textile discussed in the manuscript.
REFERENCES
ane. USDA Economic Research Service . Livestock and meat domestic information: Livestock and poultry slaughter. United states of america Department of Agriculture; c2018. [cited 2018 June 1]. Available from: http://world wide web.ers.usda.gov. [Google Scholar]
three. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Demography of Agriculture. c2012 [cited 2016 June 1]. Bachelor from: www.agcensus.usda.gov.
4. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service . Cattle on Feed. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agronomical Statistics Lath, U.s.a. Department of Agriculture (USDA); 2018. Released May 25, 2018. [Google Scholar]
6. Federal Annals . Veterinary feed directive: terminal dominion. U.S. Department of Wellness and Human Services; 2015. Available in: 21 CFR Parts 514 and 558 [Docket No. FDA–2010–N–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 Country and Texas Tech Academy survey. J Anim Sci. 2016;94:2648–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. U.Southward. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) Full beefiness exports, including diverseness meats [Cyberspace] USMEF; c2018. [cited 2016 June one]. Available from: www.usmef.org. [Google Scholar]
11. Rabobank . Basis beef nation: The consequence of changing consumer tastes and preferences on the U.S. cattle manufacture. 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 beef feedlot cattle and on hides at harvest. J Nutrient 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 high-concentrate diet, using three or five transition diets. S Afr J Anim Sci. 2012;42:195–nine. [Google Scholar]
fourteen. Miller KA, Van Bibber-Krueger CL, Hollis LC, Drouillard JS. Megasphaera elsdenii dosed orally at processing to reduce BRD and better gain in high-risk calves during the receiving period. Bovine Prac. 2013;47:137–43. [Google Scholar]
xv. Flythe MD. The antimicrobial furnishings of hops (Humulus lupulus L.) on ruminal hyper ammonia-producing leaner. 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 beast performance and feed efficiency of bulls finished in feedlot. Acta Sci Anim Sci. 2014;36:419–26. [Google Scholar]
17. Yang WZ, Benchaar C, Ametaj BN, Beauchemin KA. Dose response to eugenol supplementation in growing beef cattle: Ruminal fermentation and abdominal digestion. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2010;158:57–64. [Google Scholar]
18. Yang WZ, Ametaj BN, Benchaar C, He ML, Beauchemin KA. Cinnamaldehyde in feedlot cattle diets: intake, growth functioning, carcass characteristics, and claret metabolites. J Anim Sci. 2010;88:1082–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Samii SS, Wallace Northward, 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 dissimilar bacterial species isolated from food animals to copper sulphate, zinc chloride and antimicrobial substances used for disinfection. Vet Microbiol. 2004;100:83–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Aperce CC, Amachawadi R, Van Bibber-Krueger CL, et al. Furnishings of menthol supplementation in feedlot cattle diets on the fecal prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli . PLoS 1. 2016;11:e0168983. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Jacob ME, Fox JT, Nagaraja TG, et al. Effects of feeding elevated concentrations of copper and zinc on the antimicrobial susceptibilities of fecal bacteria in feedlot cattle. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2010;seven:643–viii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Amachawadi RG, Scott HM, Aperce CC, et al. Furnishings of in-feed copper and tylosin supplementations on copper and antimicrobial resistance in fecal enterococci of feedlot cattle. J Appl Microbiol. 2015;118:1287–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences are provided here courtesy of Asian-Australasian Association of Animate being Production Societies (AAAP)
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039332/
0 Response to "Do Domestic Producers of Beef Gain or Lose When the United States Imposes a Tariff onã¢â‚¬â€¹ Beef?"
Post a Comment