DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Current situation and future trends for beef production in the United States of America - A review

  • Drouillard, James S.
  • Received : 2016.06.08
  • Accepted : 2018.06.08
  • Published : 2018.07.01

Abstract

USA beef production is characterized by a diversity of climates, environmental conditions, animal phenotypes, management systems, and a multiplicity of nutritional inputs. The USA beef herd consists of more than 80 breeds of cattle and crosses thereof, and the industry is divided into distinct, but ofttimes overlapping sectors, including seedstock production, cow-calf production, stocker/backgrounding, and feedlot. Exception for male dairy calves, production is predominantly pastoral-based, with young stock spending relatively brief portions of their life in feedlots. The beef industry is very technology driven, utilizing reproductive management strategies, genetic improvement technologies, exogenous growth promoting compounds, vaccines, antibiotics, and feed processing strategies, focusing on improvements in efficiency and cost of production. Young steers and heifers are grain-based diets fed for an average of 5 months, mostly in feedlots of 1,000 head capacity 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 form of ground 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.e., draught), a shrinking agricultural workforce, emergence of food-borne pathogens, concerns over development of antimicrobial resistance, animal welfare/well-being, environmental impact, consumer perceptions of healthfulness of beef, consumer perceptions of food animal production practices, and alternative uses of 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 by consumers of USA beef, both domestically and abroad. The industry is highly adaptive, however, and responds quickly to evolving economic signals.

Keywords

Beef;Production Systems;Growth Promotion;Carcass Quality

References

  1. USDA Economic Research Service. Livestock and meat domestic data: Livestock and poultry slaughter. United States Department of Agriculture; c2018 [cited 2018 June 1]. Available from: http://www.ers.usda.gov
  2. USDA Economic Research Service. Major land uses. United States Department of Agriculture; c2018 [cited 2016 June 1]. Available from: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/major-land-uses.aspx
  3. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Census of Agriculture; c2012 [cited 2016 June 1]. Available from: www.agcensus.usda.gov
  4. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Cattle on Feed. ISSN: 1948-9080. Released May 25, 2018, by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); 2018.
  5. National Pedigreed Livestock Council. Beef Breeds Registration Statistics; c2016 [cited 2017 Sept 22]. Available from: http://www.nplc.net/aws/NPLC/pt/sp/resources
  6. Federal Register. Veterinary feed directive: final rule. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2015. Available in: 21 CFR Parts 514 and 558 [Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0155] RIN 0910-AG95.
  7. Samuelson KL, Hubbert ME, Galyean ML, Loest CA. Nutritional recommendations of feedlot consulting nutritionists: The 2015 New Mexico State and Texas Tech University survey. J Anim Sci 2016;94:2648-63. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016-0282
  8. U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF). Total beef exports, including variety meats [Internet]. USMEF; c2018 [cited 2016 June 1]. Available from: www.usmef.org.
  9. USDA. Economic Research Service. Quarterly red meat, poultry, and egg supply and disappearance and per capita disappearance [Internet]. USDA; c2018 [cited 2018 June 1]. Available from: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-meatdomestic-data/livestock-meat-domestic-data/#Beef
  10. OECD/FAO. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2017-2026. Paris, France: OECD Publishing; c2017 [cited 2018 June 1]. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2017-en
  11. Rabobank. Ground beef nation: The effect of changing consumer tastes and preferences on the U.S. cattle industry. Food and Agribusiness Research and Advisory. Rabobank International, January 2014.
  12. Younts-Dahl SM, Galyean ML, Loneragan GH, Elam NA, Brashears MM. Dietary supplementation with Lactobacillus-Propionibacterium-based direct-fed with microbials and prevalence of Escherichia coli O157 in beef feedlot cattle and on hides at harvest. J Food Prot 2004;67:889-93. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-67.5.889
  13. Drouillard JS, Henning PH, Meissner HH, Leeuw KJ. Megasphaera elsdenii on the performance of steers adapting to a high-concentrate diet, using three or five transition diets. S Afr J Anim Sci 2012;42:195-9.
  14. Miller KA, Van Bibber-Krueger CL, Hollis LC, Drouillard JS. Megasphaera elsdenii dosed orally at processing to reduce BRD and improve gain in high-risk calves during the receiving period. Bovine Prac 2013;47:137-43.
  15. Flythe MD. The antimicrobial effects of hops (Humulus lupulus L.) on ruminal hyper ammonia-producing bacteria. Lett Appl Microbiol 2009;48:712-7.
  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. https://doi.org/10.4025/actascianimsci.v36i4.23856
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.03.019
  18. 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. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1608
  19. Samii SS, Wallace N, Nagaraja TG, et al. Effects of limonene on ruminal concentrations, fermentation, and lysine degradation in cattle. J Anim Sci 2016;94:3420-3430. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016-0455
  20. Aarestrup FM, Hasman H. Susceptibility of different bacterial species isolated from food animals to copper sulphate, zinc chloride and antimicrobial substances used for disinfection. Vet Microbiol 2004;100:83-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2004.01.013
  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 ONE 2016;11:e0168983. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168983
  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;7:643-8. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2009.0401
  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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.12790
  24. USDA-ERS. Organic market overview; c2018 [Cited 2018 June 1]. Available from: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/naturalresources-environment/organic-agriculture/organic-marketoverview.aspx
  25. Organic Trade Association. Market Analysis; c2018 [Cited 2018 June 1]. Available from: https://ota.com/resources/marketanalysis