Finishing Cattle in All-Natural and Conventional Production Systems
Open Access
- 1 January 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Scientific Research Publishing, Inc. in Open Journal of Animal Sciences
- Vol. 10 (02), 237-253
- https://doi.org/10.4236/ojas.2020.102013
Abstract
Beef cattle producers in the North America have a variety of production and marketing options and must choose the best production system for their situation. This review describes considerations involved in choosing between feeding cattle conventionally versus feeding them in programs that prohibit the use of certain technologies. Data from peer-reviewed journals, extension publications, nutritional consultants, governmental organizations, and feed companies were used to construct this review. Most cattle in North America are fed in conventional production systems. Conventional beef production systems typically use steroidal implants, ionophores, and beta-adrenergic agonists to improve animal productivity; as well as feed grade and injectable antimicrobials to control, treat or prevent disease and improve animal health. These technologies have been shown to lower the cost of production, allowing for beef to be competitive in the global protein market. Some consumers have expressed a preference for beef produced without these technologies. These “All-natural” (AN) cattle may bring a premium price in the market. The economic impact of differing productions systems can be described in relation to 1) cost of production, 2) operating costs of the feedlot, 3) price paid for feeder calves, and 4) price received for fed cattle. Conventional production provides the most favorable outcome for factors 1, 2, and 3, while AN production provides the most favorable outcome for item 4. There are also industry wide and societal aspects related to differing beef production systems related to health and safety of beef, land use, and cost of production allowing for a greater share of the global protein market. Technologies used in conventional production are critical tools to North American beef production. Differences in efficiencies between each type of non-conventional production systems must be re-captured in added premiums when cattle are marketed and sold. Premiums for AN cattle are enticing, but the true differences in the cost of production between the AN and conventional cattle must be evaluated in order for a producer to make the correct decision for their operation.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Nutritional recommendations of feedlot consulting nutritionists: The 2015 New Mexico State and Texas Tech University survey1Journal of Animal Science, 2016
- Evaluation of implant strategies in Angus-sired steers with high or low genetic potential for marbling and gain1Journal of Animal Science, 2015
- The effects of technology use in feedlot production systems on feedlot performance and carcass characteristicsJournal of Animal Science, 2015
- A Meta-Analysis of Zilpaterol and Ractopamine Effects on Feedlot Performance, Carcass Traits and Shear Strength of Meat in CattlePLOS ONE, 2014
- High-dose anabolic implants are not all the same for growth and carcass traits of feedlot steers: A meta-analysis1Journal of Animal Science, 2014
- Characterization of trenbolone acetate and estradiol metabolite excretion profiles in implanted steersEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2014
- Effects of winter growing programs on subsequent feedlot performance, carcass characteristics, body composition, and energy requirements of beef steers12Journal of Animal Science, 2010
- Analysis of modern technologies commonly used in beef cattle production: Conventional beef production versus nonconventional production using meta-analysisJournal of Animal Science, 2009
- Effect of certified health programs on the sale price of beef calves marketed through a livestock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 2006
- Residues from anabolic preparations after good veterinary practiceNote *APMIS, 2001