HV0061Cattle Production

December 2010

Beef cattle production- USA

By:

Zaman Farahi, Emma Pettersson, Therese Pettersson & Gunilla Ström

IntroductionThe United States is the largest cattle meat producer in the world and has been that for several years with about 11 445 000 million tons produced in the year 2008. They are followed by the second largest producer Brazil and the third largest producer China (FAO, 2010). There are about 49 different breeds of beef cattle in the USA. The most common breeds in 2000 were Angus (270 000), Hereford (98 000), Red Angus (51 000), Gelbvieh (55 000), Limousin (48 000) and Charolais (45 000). Crossbreds are also common with Angus being the most important. Branded meat products with constant eating quality have been developed during the last decade (FAO, 2003). Especially the Angus breed suits good as a branded product and therefore the number of Angus or Angus crosses has increased. All major beef cattle breeds have genetic evaluation programs for growth, carcass and fertility traits (FAO, 2003). The total number of cattle is about 93.7 million heads (USDA, 2010a) and the beef cows are about 33.6 million heads (2000) which have remained stable during the past decade. The average herd size in 2000 was between 100 and 499 for 36.8% of the whole population. Cattle production is dispersed throughout the U.S.; Texas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and South Dakota have had the greatest numbers of brood cows. The number of beef cattle producers were approximately 830 000 in 2000 (FAO, 2003).

The total beef consumption in the U.S. was 26.9 billion pounds (about 12.2 billion kilos) in 2009. For the commercial slaughter about 33.3 million in total where slaughtered and the majority was steers and heifers and the rest were beef and dairy cows. The total beef export were 7.2% in 2009. The average price for beef was about $4.26/pound in 2009 (USDA, 2010a).

The demand for meat products in the U.S. has been assumed to remain relatively constant to 2020. Annual U.S. growth rate of meat consumption was 1.8% per year from 1982 to 1993. The annual growth is expected to continue between 1993 and 2020 at an annual rate of 0.6%. The increase in the rate of consumption is due to increased human population. Per capita meat product consumption is projected to decrease from 118 kg per person to 114 kg per person. Although the per capita consumption is projected to decrease during this period total meat demand will increase by approximately 5 million tons (FAO, 2003).

Production systemsCow-calf operationIn the United States there are three main production systems being used; grazing, mixed farming and industrial. The extensive grazing systems are applied in semi-dry or dry areas with so called cow-calf operations (FAO, 2003). On the pasture beef cows and calves are kept together. The calf-cow operations are an extensive system because it is based on pasture where the cows raise a calf with very little or none grain input (USDA, 2010b). The cows are usually kept outside in the winter in winter lots with haystacks and some sort of windbreak. The calves are born in the spring (MPS, 1986). They are maintained on pasture all year round until the calf it is weaned. Some calves may be kept on pasture after weaning to gain more weight until the following spring when they are sold. This type of system is located throughout USA, especially on land that is not

suited for crop production. The average heard size with beef cows is about 40 animals. In addition to cow-calf production in the mixed system, recently weaned cattle can be placed on forage resources until the calves have reached targeted weights and are ready to enter the feedlot phase of production. For the beef industry, the industrial production system consists of the final stage of growing and fattening cattle with concentrate feeds in feedlots. This segment of the industry plays a vital role in standardizing carcass composition and quality (USDA, 2010b).

Mixed crop-livestock farming systems combine cattle production and cultivation of crops. Slaughter beef cattle are kept in feedlots and are fed high quality diets. Some farmers use feedlots even for dairy heifers for increasing their body weight and body condition and also to reduce the time to first breeding (FAO, 2003).

Cattle feedlotsIn the industrial system the animals are kept in smaller paddocks and are fed mainly grain. This system is called cattle feedlots and this is an intensive system where high-quality beef is produced (USDA, 2010b). The lot sizes are about 120-240 animals and approximately 100 animals/acre (1 acre ≈ 40 hectares) (MPS, 1986). It takes about 140 days to get the cattle ready for slaughter. However, depending on several factors such as feeding and weight they can be finished from 90 days to 300 days (Stull et al., 2007). Most of the calf's nutrition comes from grass until they are weaned and in the feedlots the feed rations are consisting of 70-90% grain and protein concentrates (MPS, 1986). The average weight gain is around 1-1.8 kilos per day when given about 2.7 kilo dry matter feed per kilo gained weight. Finishing cattle weigh around 480-590 kg at an age of 15-18 months (Stull et al., 2007). The feedlot systems are mostly used in the Great Plains, which is a region that covers parts of the United States of Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming, and the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan and it is also important in parts of the Corn Belt, Southwest, and Pacific Northwest. These land areas are of prairie, steppe and grassland which suit this production system. The cattle feedlot systems have an average heard size of 1000 thought, it only comprise a small share of fed cattle. Feedlots with herd size of 1000 animals or more comprise only 5% of total feedlots but market 80-90% of fed cattle. There are even feedlots with up to 32,000 cattle. The industry tends to develop towards a smaller number of feedlots which are very large and specialized (USDA, 2010b).

The beef cattle need some type of windbreak, sunshade or shelter (MPS, 1986). A windbreak is recommended in mounded, south-sloping feedlots in the northern part of the U.S. to provide dry resting areas with low air velocities. During hot conditions water sprinklers are sometimes used to cool down the cattle. The type of pen surface affects dustiness during hot, dry weather and mud or manure build-up during wet periods. Good drainage of outside pens is important. There is often a hard surface in front of the feed bunks and around water troughs. The area requirements for cattle in feedlots are influenced by group size. Each steer should be provided with a minimum of 24 square meters of open space, and 10 square meters of shaded area (FASS, 2010). The fences used are made of wood or electric wires. In feedlot systems, feedbunks are used when feeding the animals that are placed along the fence line (MPS, 1986).

ManureThe manure produced from the beef cattle in feedlots can be problematic. There will be a lot of dung to remove and the nutritional value of the manure will be lost to a large extent by leaching

to the ground or evaporation. The feedlots are cleaned and prepared before new cattle in entering the pen (Progressive Dairyman, 2006).

FeedFeed has an important role in livestock production and to achieve higher productions, companies have to allocate enormous amount of costs to feeding programs (Myer & Maddock, 2009). The main nutritional resources for livestock’s are cereal grains (corn, grain sorghum, oats, barley), forage feeds (grass hay, legume hay) and oilseed meals (soybean meal, cottonseed meal). In addition to mentioned resources, a range of feedstuffs classified as by-products (co-products) are used as well as edible waste products from the food processing, food service industries and bio fuel industries. All these feedstuffs can be used as diet for livestock. Some example of industries, as mentioned above, are meat, milk and egg processing, seafood processing, prepared food manufacturing, grain milling, brewing and distillation, baking, fruit and vegetable processing etc. Wheat can also be considered as a fair alternative resource for livestock but attention to time of usage is important for example during the time of low price. Livestock can also use other alternative feedstuffs in their diet. Some of these alternatives consist distiller’s grains, soy hulls, corn gluten feed, citrus pulp, rice mill feed and whole cottonseed. The main point regarding alternative resource are lower cost and high quality, on the other hand, these alternatives can either provide a diet with high quality or lower price so can be important from economical aspect (Mellon et al., 2001).

In Florida and Southeastern USA, most of these feedstuffs are available but due to a poor knowledge about their nutritional value and limitations, consumption is limited (Myer & Maddock, 2009).

Feeding Beef Cattle in Dry lot

At first it’s necessary to know what Dry lot means:

Dry lot is an enclosure area without vegetation and used for fattening, feeding of livestock. Some preliminary factors that should be considered in Dry lot programs:

- cattle class play an important role in feeding program - For Breeding and stocker classes because of meeting the nutritional requirements its

compulsory be fed with more roughage- 10-20% Concentrate is recommended for finishing classes primarily - Different type of roughage should be provided for cattle with considering this point that

fresh roughage especially legume can be caused Bloat in cattle’s and shouldn’t exceed from a distinct level

- Grain also should be met in cattle diet gradually without attention to age of cattle’s. This diet can start with 1-2 lb per cattle daily and increasing this amount slowly about 0.5-1 lb per head daily until they to be on full feed

- 3% of body weight of cattle’s on full feed should be supplied by air-dry feed or corresponding dry matter like silage, haylage grain with high moisture.

- In some cases like limitation in grazing period we can reduce dry-lot ration also, so this reduction in grazing program can be correlated with producer’s target.

- Its also very important for cattle’s with free grazing, the availability of grains should be gradually until caws digestibility system adjust with new ration*

Use of growth stimulantsUsage of Antibiotic in diets as supplement for growth is as a feeding program for herds so it has been used in many countries like united state. In United state because of high usage of antibiotics (approximately 70%), in order that the risk of antibiotics resistant bacteria have also increased, like MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). (Mellon et al., 2001).

Hormone implantsIn addition to use antibiotic to stimulate growth in cattle’s, the hormones is also routinely using in cattle production. Some benefits that can be achieved from hormones like carcass quality increase in feed efficiency and muscles growth, can lead to higher meat production and as a result, can be more profitable for producers, but with attention to this fact that hormones contain synthetic compounds and it also can be appeared in meat production, thus, this agitation have always been because of unnatural compounds of hormones which can be dangerous for consumers.With attention to this background, American experts believe that usage of hormones doesn’t have any danger for meat consumers, and they permit using of hormones in diet with limitation.Some scientists believe, hormones can interfere to build estrogenic compounds in body and as a result for example premature maturation in girls can be one of the traces of it.The F.D.A (Food and drug administration) is investigating to remove this problem, but for now, implanting hormones in beef cattle is legal and financially appealing why?For example an implant costs is approximately $1.50 and adds 40 and 50 pounds to the weight of a steer at slaughter, for a return of at least $25! With attention to this example, we see usage of hormones has so profitable and it induces producers to use hormone implants in herds! (Pollan, 2002).

Parasite controlInfections with parasites decrease the production of beef cattle through decreased weight gain. Improved control programs will therefore have a direct economic impact on beef operations. Parasites affecting cattle can be divided into internal or external parasites.

Internal parasitesThis category includes roundworms, flukes and tapeworms, where roundworms are considered as the biggest problem, especially in cattle younger than 2 years (Whittier & Currin, 2009). Most of the older cows have developed immunity and de-worming of these cows may not be of economic importance, unless younger cattle pasture in the same field. Then de-worming of all cows will decrease the exposure of young animals. De-wormers for beef cattle have different lengths of activity and costs and come in forms of paste, injections, drench, pour-on, bolus and as a feed or mineral additive. It is most profitable to de-worm in the spring when the cattle enter the pasture.

External parasitesExternal parasites affecting cattle are lice, warbles and flies (Whittier & Currin, 2009). The lice have three stages and in order to kill all of them the cattle need to be treated either twice two weeks apart or with a product that has a greater than two weeks’ persistent activity. Lice are most commonly a problem in late winter and the problem will clear up when temperatures rise in spring and summer. Warbles cannot be treated between November 15 and Mars 1, as the larvae can cause damage to the spinal cord, resulting in paralysis. Flies have the most economic impact on beef production, as they result in decreased weight gain of the animals. Flies are controlled by two different chemicals and farmers rotate between the two types on an annual basis to reduce the risk of development of resistant fly populations.

Feeding and managementAccording to the United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.) there are approximately 25,000,000 to 33,000,000 head of feed cattle that move through Custom and Commercial Cattle Feed yards annually

The feed cattle are a fairly large industry where millions of dollars move through these custom and private cattle feeding facilities every year. The business of feeding cattle is based on a commodity market mechanism. Both the corn and the cattle are bought and sold via commodity market prices. This makes for huge variations within the final outcome of profit and loss within the enterprise. However, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) provides producers with price protection in the form of Options or Hedges preventing much loss and volatility with the final outcome of the cattle feeding enterprise. Additionally, forward contracts and pre-paying for feedstuffs counteracts the variables in both raw commodities.

Table 1. Number of farms, land in farms, and average herd size in the United States between year 1990 and 2007

(Modified from Info please, 2007)

YearNumber

of farms

Land in farms (1,000 acres)

Average farm size

(acres)

1991 2 116 760 981,736 464

1993 2 201 590 968,845 440

1995 2 196 400 962,515 438

1997 2 190 510 956,010 436

1999 2 192 070 947,440 432

2001 2 155 680 941,310 437

2003 2 126 860 938,750 441

2005 2 100 990 933,400 444

2007 2 076 000 930,920 449

Organic beef productionIn October 2002 the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) certified that organic beef production must have a fully verified production system where all animals’ history is collected, including breed history, veterinary care and feed (National Organic Program, 2010). The cattle also have to be born and raised on organic pasture, fed only organic grains and grasses and have unrestricted outdoor access. Furthermore they may never receive either antibiotics or growth-promoting hormones.

The two different feeding methods used in organic beef production are grass-fed and grain-fed. Grass-fed animals continue to eat organic grass until the time of slaughter while grain-fed cattle, which are more common, are fed organic grain.

Breeding programsThe breeding work in the U.S. is managed by many organisations, but mainly by the breed organisations (AAA, 2010; AHA, 2010; Cassady, 2010). The breeding goals and breeding strategies differ between breeds but two important economical breeding goals are growth rate and efficiency of gain. There are three main traits that are evaluated in the breeding programs in the US; growth traits, carcass traits and functional traits (Cassady, 2010). The growth traits include birth weight, weight at weaning and mature body weight. The carcass traits include carcass weight, sidefat thickness, ribeye area, amount of fat in heart and pelvic, kidney size and marbling. The functional traits include calving ease, conception rate of heifers and cows, calf losses at birth and from birth until weaning, cow age at culling/death (longevity) and udder and teat quality (Beef Magazine, 2010; Cassady, 2010; NALF, 2010). Traditionally in the US, little effort has been put on reproduction traits in the genetic improvement, but today there are reproduction traits included in many breeding programs (Cassady, 2010).

Like almost all markets, the beef market is constantly changing and the breeding work has to keep up with those changes. The breeding programs are adapted to the needs of the national and international market which results in that the breeding goals are changing with the preferences of the consumers (Cassady, 2010).

The genetic evaluation of beef cattle is rather complex, but simplified one can say that the individual animal is evaluated based upon how well it is performing in comparison to herd mates that are raised under equal environmental conditions (Cassady, 2010). The breeding evaluation is therefore performed in so called contemporary groups. A contemporary group is a group of cattle that are of the same breed composition, of the same sex, of similar age and that has been raised under the same management conditions.

Reproduction systemsToday, the frequency of AI is 5%, but it is unclear whether this number will remain the same or increase. If the use of AI can be kept as low as 5% there will be an advantageous in that the level of inbreeding will not increase. Oestrous synchronisation is used to some degree in beef cattle (Fanning et al., 2009; AAA, 2010).

Embryo transfer (ET) is today used in at least some of the beef breeds in USA. But the use of ET is very low and not at all as frequently used as in the dairy cattle industry (AAA, 2010; AHA, 2010; RWDCA, 2010).

Animal genetic resourcesThe interest in conservation of animal genetic resources is today large in the US. In late 1990's the National Animal Germplasm Program (NAGP) was formed for conservation of animal genetic recourses (FAO, 2003). Some aims of the project are initiation of cryopreserved breed collections, understanding breed population trends over time and the status of genetic diversity within breeds. Cryopreserved cells are cells that have been preserved by cooling to low sub-zero temperatures (often -196oC) (GRS, 2010). NAGP are working directly with the producers and their organisations and the collected germplasm will hopefully result in:

That the genetic resources are secured and can be used in times of need by the industry and public

A germplasm source are created for the industry that can be used in the formation of new characteristics that meet the consumers demand

That researchers will have a source of germplasm and/or DNA that can be used for new research

There are two levels that will formulate and implement strategies for conservation and use and develop animal genetic resources, and that is the public sector and the private sector (FAO, 2003). These sectors include NAGP, breed associations, universities and non-governmental organisations. Since cryopreservation in cattle is quite hard, collection of germplasm is performed on regular basis. This has resulted in that germplasm from many breeds are collected. The utilisation of the genetic resources is driven by market forces and by a consumer policy. The policy is that consumers should be provided with low cost food, which in turn has a stimulating effect on the economy in other national sectors. Because of changed consumer demands the breeding programs and utilisation of breeds have changed. Actions by the market and consumer policy have resulted in:

Development of genetic evaluation technologies New genetic recourses for productive advantages have been introduced and evaluated Increased meat quality and lower production costs Narrowing of the genetic base of many breeds The number of primary breeds has decreased and the utilisation of selected families within a

breed had increased (FAO, 2003).

The best strategy for conservation of breeds is extension cryopreserved samples, especially since the market forces do not favour a particular breed. Market forces are the factor that controls the genetic resource utilisation; subsidies for rare or unique genetic resources are not seen as an effective way (FAO, 2003).

The biggest threats to decreased genetic diversity are selection between breeds and between families within breeds. Since the market forces are heavy, the number of breeds that considerably contributes to the commercial beef production is expected to decrease (FAO, 2003).

Minor breeds are primarily maintained by small scale producers in either extensive or mixed farming systems. To be able to maintain the small breeds, an infrastructure for minor breed associations is needed. This infrastructure should assist in evaluating production characteristics, establish genetic characterization, develop and maintain databases for pedigree information and production characteristics, and plan conservation strategies to ensure the maintenance of genetic diversity and possibly increase the marketability of the breed (FAO, 2003).

There are genetic evaluation programs for growth, carcass and fertility traits for all major beef cattle breeds in the US. The minor breeds are, however, lacking characterization of performance. Multi-breed genetic evaluations are also used by some breed associations. This makes it harder for the minor breeds to increase their share on the market, unless they have genes for improved production, product quality advantage, disease resistance or climatic adaptation (FAO, 2003).

Future planFeedIn the future the quantity and variety of by-products and edible waste can be increased and at the same time disposal for many of these wastes such as landfills will be more limited, also livestock will increasingly play an important role for” recycling” and “adding value” to many of these by-products and wastes as a viable waste management option. Even though using alternative feedstuffs may be cost effective, cost is not the only factor to be considered. Variations in processing methods, availability, and form (pellet, meal, wet or dry) can impact the value of these feeds (Myer & Maddock, 2009).

BreedingSince the consumers on the national and international markets indirect control the breeding, the breeding programs will in the future have to adapt to the changes of the consumers demands. Health and fertility traits are quite new in the breeding programs compared to many other traits. Since an increase in health and fertility traits has been observed the traits will also remain in the breeding evaluation. The selection for growth and carcass traits will remain important and the selection for longevity might increase.

DiscussionIn the feedlot system a lot of manure is produced in a rather small area. The manure handling on the farm is important both for the environment and the economics. Since a lot of nutrients in the manure can be lost by evaporation and leaching (Progressive dairyman, 2006). We think this discussion is important.

The use of rotational grazing systems could be used to a larger extent to raise beef or dairy cattle wholly on pastures instead of feed lots. This system provides recycling of nutrients directly and reduces soil erosion by ensuring continuous soil cover, reduce feed costs, eliminate the need for most pesticides, reduce veterinary costs, and help preserve ecosystems. Producers using these systems report lower capital requirements, lower labour requirements, improved profitability, and enhanced quality of life (FAO, 2003).

Fertility and health in cattle are very important. Decreased fertility or health results in decreased longevity. The breeding for increased health and fertility has increased in the US. The initiation of The National Animal Germplasm Program is a good step in the challenge of preserving animal breeds. But to really maintain the minor breeds the organisation around the breeds must be developed.

The frequent use of antibiotics in U.S. beef production increases the growth rate and thus shortens the raising period which will improve the economy for the farmer. It also decreases the risk of infections and deceases in the herd. However, a frequent use of antibiotics will undoubtedly lead to an increased resistance among bacteria and other micro organisms which may cause problems in the future.

The use of hormones makes it easier for the farmer when it comes to heat check of the females since he can regulate the oestrus cycle. Hormones may be harmful to the environment and other species if they are excreted with the urine and manure and reaches the lakes and water reservoirs. Breeding for improved fertility may also be a problem in the future since farmers will not select females that show heat distinctly.

ConclusionThe beef industry in USA is an important production. A production system that is often seen in the U.S. is the feedlots. They are large production plants that produce many beef cattle for slaughter. There is a nationwide preservation program where cryopreserved germplasm are collected. This is a good way of preserving cattle breeds for the future but more effort had to be put in the development of the rare breeds.

ReferencesAAA , 2010. American Angus Association. [online] Available from: http://www.angus.org/

[2010-11-24]

AHA, 2010. American Hereford Association. [online] Available from: http://www.hereford.org/ [2010-11-24]

Beef Magazine, 2010. [online] Available from: http://beefmagazine.com/ [2010-11-24]

Cassady, J. 2010. Guidelines For Uniform Beef Improvement Programs. Ninth edition. [online] Available from: http://www.beefimprovement.org/PDFs/guidelines/2010%20Guidelines%20,%209th%20Edition.pdfFAO, 2003. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Blackburn, H. D., Stewart, T., Bixby, D., Siegal, P. and Bradford, E. 2003. United States of America, Country Report for FAO’s State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources. [online] Available from: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1250e/annexes/CountryReports/USA.pdf [2010-11-24]

FAO. 2010. [online] Available from: http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx [2010-11-23]

Fanning, M., Selph, J., Eubanks, S. 2009. Florida Cow-Calf Management, 2nd edition – Managing Reproduction. [online] University of florida. Available from: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/an119 [2010-11-25]

FASS, 2010. Federation of Animal Science and Societies. Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching, Third Edition. [online] Available from: http://www.fass.org/docs/agguide3rd/Chapter06.pdf [2010-11-25]

GRS, 2010. Georgia Reproductive Specialists. Human embryo cryopreservation [online]. Available from: http://www.ivf.com/cryo.html [2010-11-26]

Infoplease, 2007. [online] Available from: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883511.html [2010-11-27]

Mellon, M et al., 2001. Hogging It: Estimates of Antimicrobial Abuse in Livestock, 1st ed. Cambridge, MA

MPS, 1986. Midwest Plan Service. Beef housing and equipment handbook. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Myer, R., Maddock, T., 2009. Guideline for using alternative feedstuffs for livestock. [online] Available from: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/an124 [2010-11-27]

NALF, 2010. North American Limousin Foundation. [online] Available from: http://www.nalf.org/programs/geneval.html [2010-11-24]

National Organic Program. 2010. [online] Available from: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop [2010-11-24]

Pollan, M., 2002. Power steer. [online] Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/31/magazine/power-steer.html?pagewanted= [2010-11-27]

Progressive Dairyman, 2006. [online] Available from: http://www.progressivedairy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113:0406-anm-feedlot-manure-management [2010-11-25]

RWDCA, 2010. Red&White Dairy Cattle Association. [online] Available from:http://www.redandwhitecattle.com/animals_bulls.html [2010-11-25]

Stull, C., Barry, S., Jensen, W., Drake, D., Forero, L., Guerro, J., Maas, J., Mitloehner, F., Nader, G., Oltjen, J. 2007. Beef Care Practices. Oakland: University of California ANR publication 8257

USDA, 2009. United States Department of Agriculture [online] Available from: (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Beef_from_Farm_to_Table/index.asp [2010-11-23]

USDA, 2010a. United States Department of Agriculture [online] Available from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/BSECoverage.htm [2010-11-22]

USDA, 2010b. United States Department of Agriculture [online] Available from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/cattle/Background.htm [2010-11-22]

Whitter, W. D, Currier, J. F. 2009. Beef Cattle [online] Available from: http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/400/400-802/400-802.html [2010-11-23]

* Tilden Wayne Perry, Arthor E, Cullision, Robert S, Lowerey {Fifth edition 1999}: Feeds&Feeding (P 369-370)