DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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

  • Drouillard, James S. (Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University)
  • 투고 : 2016.06.08
  • 심사 : 2018.06.08
  • 발행 : 2018.07.01

초록

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.

키워드

참고문헌

  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

피인용 문헌

  1. Recent advances to improve nitrogen efficiency of grain-finishing cattle in North American and Australian feedlots vol.59, pp.11, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1071/an19259
  2. Antimicrobial Policies in United States Beef Production: Choosing the Right Instruments to Reduce Antimicrobial Use and Resistance Under Structural and Market Constraints vol.6, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00245
  3. Predator-Friendly Beef Certification as an Economic Strategy to Promote Coexistence Between Ranchers and Wolves vol.7, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00476
  4. Environmental sustainability assessment of the manufacturing process of a biological active pharmaceutical ingredient vol.94, pp.6, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.5975
  5. Strategic Grazing in Beef-Pastures for Improved Soil Health and Reduced Runoff-Nitrate-A Step towards Sustainability vol.12, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020558
  6. Historical Trends in New Mexico Forage Crop Production in Relation to Climate, Energy, and Rangelands vol.12, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052051
  7. Effects of Exogenous Glucoamylase Enzymes Alone or in Combination with a Neutral Protease on Apparent Total Tract Digestibility and Feces D -Lactate in Crossbred Angus Bulls Fed a Ration Rich in Roll vol.10, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10061077
  8. Optimum roughage proportion in barley-based feedlot cattle diets: total tract nutrient digestibility, rumination, ruminal acidosis, short-chain fatty absorption, and gastrointestinal tract barrier fun vol.98, pp.6, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaa160
  9. Sobre algunos mitos y realidades de la ganadería bovina vol.21, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.21930/rcta.vol21_num3_art:1524
  10. Impact of beef consumption on saturated fat intake in the United States adult population: Insights from modeling the influences of bovine genetics and nutrition vol.169, pp.None, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108225
  11. Economic considerations of enhanced BRD control vol.21, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1466252320000304
  12. Nitrogen loss to the environment due to various nitrogen-use efficiencies during milk and beef production in Japan vol.15, pp.12, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abc447
  13. Assessing the Standard of Health and Welfare in Individual Categories of Cattle from the Viewpoint of Intravital Pathological Changes vol.10, pp.12, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10120619
  14. Laboratory and field studies of ice-nucleating particles from open-lot livestock facilities in Texas vol.21, pp.18, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-14215-2021
  15. Horn Fly (Diptera: Muscidae)-Biology, Management, and Future Research Directions vol.12, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmab019
  16. The Welfare of Beef Cattle in the Scientific Literature From 1990 to 2019: A Text Mining Approach vol.7, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.588749
  17. Health-Promoting Phytonutrients Are Higher in Grass-Fed Meat and Milk vol.4, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.555426
  18. Annual forage impacts on dryland wheat farming in the Great Plains vol.113, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20513
  19. Food Preservation Performance of Residential Refrigerators: Pasteurized Milk and Ground Beef as Animal Food Models vol.13, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12393-020-09230-3
  20. A history of antimicrobial drugs in animals: Evolution and revolution vol.44, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/jvp.12895
  21. Researching Human-Cattle Interaction on Rangelands: Challenges and Potential Solutions vol.11, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11030725
  22. Simulating human behavioral changes in livestock production systems during an epidemic: The case of the US beef cattle industry vol.16, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253498
  23. Water Footprint of Rangeland Beef Production in New Mexico vol.13, pp.14, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/w13141950
  24. Tree Canopy Management Affects Dynamics of Herbaceous Vegetation and Soil Moisture in Silvopasture Systems Using Arboreal Legumes vol.11, pp.8, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11081509
  25. Introducing the World’s First Global Producer Price Indices for Beef Cattle and Sheep vol.11, pp.8, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11082314
  26. The Meat Quality Characteristics of Holstein Calves: The Story of Israeli ‘Dairy Beef’ vol.10, pp.10, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10102308
  27. Influence of beef genotypes on animal performance, carcass traits, meat quality, and sensory characteristics in grazing or feedlot-finished steers vol.5, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txab214
  28. Animal board invited review - Beef for future: technologies for a sustainable and profitable beef industry vol.15, pp.11, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100358
  29. New approach to sustained cow fertility trait vol.5, pp.suppl1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txab155
  30. Review: An overview of beef production from pasture and feedlot globally, as demand for beef and the need for sustainable practices increase vol.15, pp.suppl1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100295
  31. Gene bank collection strategies based upon geographic and environmental indicators for beef breeds in the United States of America vol.254, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104766
  32. Towards an integration of pre- and post-slaughter factors affecting the eating quality of beef vol.255, pp.None, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104795