How Many Pounds of Beef on a Grassfed Cow
Grass-fed Beef Markets and Terminology
In that location has been a growing interest in the production of "grass-fed beef". On January 12, 2016, the USDA actually revoked the "USDA Grass-fed" label or claim (USDA, 2016); although, the USDA left the standards for the merits on their website for producers to follow. However, many grass-fed or grass-finished markets persist. This interest in grass-fed beef stems not only from consumers looking for a perceived improvement in beast welfare or quality of the production they purchase; simply, it as well stems from producers looking to fill a niche market or maintain cattle in a more than pastoral setting. Forth with this involvement from both consumers and producers comes a lot of terms and ideas that may or may non be fully understood. The objective of this article is to analyze some of the production methods used to raise grass-fed beef.
Because of the aforementioned consumer perceptions, demand for the grass-fed beef is greater than the supply in much of the U.S. due to state values, lack of grazing infrastructure, lack of grass-finishing product noesis, and other constraints. Despite the consumer need, however, approximately 95% of the cattle in the United states of america go on to be finished, or fattened, on grain for the last 160 to 180 days of life (~25 to 30% of their life), on average. The logic backside grain finishing dates back to enquiry as early on as the 1800'south. Cattle get less efficient, less able to convert feed to muscle or meat, every bit they age. Grain contains more free energy allowing cattle to maintain greater growth rates later on in to their lives when compared to feeding only grass or forage. In add-on, feeding grain frees up valuable land resources necessary to produce forages and other grain crops by concentrating the cattle in a smaller area. Because of the challenges with land mass availability in the U.South., some of the beef in the U.Southward. that comes in labeled as grass-fed actually comes from outside the U.S.
Rather than argue advantages and disadvantages of the grain versus grass-fed systems, the accept-home here is that all beef cattle, whether farmers choose to heighten them as grass-fed or grain-fed animals, spend at least two-thirds of their lifetime in a pasture setting. Therefore, all beef may be considered "grass-fed" for the majority of its life. Thus, beefiness product in the United States has been, and continues to be, a provender-based industry. The differentiation in what makes cattle grass-fed then, generally occurs towards the end of life and will be discussed in more detail.
1 of the key areas scientists take investigated are the characteristics of the beef from cattle finished on grass, as they can be quite dissimilar from characteristics of beef from grain-fed cattle. Research suggests that when finished to the aforementioned fat endpoint (0.4 in. back fat) there is no consumer detectable deviation in tenderness between beef from grass-fed or grain-fed cattle (Faucitano et al., 2008). Notwithstanding, beef from grass-fed cattle is mostly more lean than beefiness from cattle fed grain, especially when compared at the aforementioned age. Therefore, cattle finished on grass typically have lower USDA quality grades, an indication of fat within the musculus, than grain fed cattle (Matthews and Johnson, 2013). For some consumers, less fatty may be a desirable trait. The reduction in total fat institute in grass-fed beef has been lauded as 1 of the benefits for consumers looking to cut cholesterol, for example. While no difference in cholesterol concentrations have been reported between beefiness from grass-fed and grain-fed cattle (Matthews and Johnson, 2013), consumers being advised to lower their full fatty consumption may detect grass-finished beef or USDA Select grain-finished beef to be a meliorate fit in their diet.
Regardless of the personal choices consumers may accept for purchasing grass-fed beefiness, producers must first manage the cattle and the grass they are consuming to produce the product. During this production, grazing management and forage quality are both essential factors to consider.
Grass-Fed Beef Direction
Provender Quality
Forage quality as it relates to grass-fed beef production is really a give-and-take of the energy supply. If adequate energy is supplied to the grazing cattle, cattle may be expected to gain 2.0 to two.5 lbs per twenty-four hour period. The greatest average daily gains in grass-finished cattle tin can be expected when the forage provided is more than than 65% digestible and supplies between xiv to 18% crude poly peptide (CP), more than 20% dry out matter (DM), and more than xx% water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC). Forages supplying the same nutritive values are considered very adept quality. In whatever grass-fed production organization, a minimum of ii lbs average daily gain (ADG) should be the goal in order to keep cattle on a trajectory towards appropriate finishing. Because of the high provender quality necessary to run across or exceed these gains, fodder nutritive value should exist monitored and managed accordingly.
Forages grown for livestock production tin can have a wide range of nutritive values, based on how they are managed and when they are harvested or grazed (Figures 1 and 2). Because of the broad variation in nutritive value that exist, quality should always be monitored. As a general rule-of-thumb, the less mature the provender, the greater the nutritive value. Therefore, if grazing, or feeding, growing cattle – either stockers or feeders – forages should be maintained at a vegetative stage and should not exist immune to set seed. When plants become into a reproductive phase, after seed head emergence, forage quality declines rapidly.
In addition to quality of forage, the grass-finished beef producer needs to be concerned with quantity of fodder consumed past the cattle. Cattle demand to be given the opportunity to maximize their consumption of forages throughout the whole production process. At no fourth dimension should cattle be restricted in their intake of forage. For case, overgrazed pastures will not only effect in poor long term pasture productivity, but will too cause the cattle to have restricted provender intake and event in poor boilerplate daily gains.
Effigy one
Ranges in percentage digestibility of mutual forages found in the northeastern United States. Actual digestibility largely depends on maturity of the forage at the fourth dimension of feeding equally well every bit grazing and harvest management. The red bar indicates range that forages should fall inside for optimal growth in a grass-fed system.
Figure 2
Ranges in percent crude poly peptide of common forages establish in the northeastern Us. Actual rough protein largely depends on maturity of the forage at the fourth dimension of feeding as well as grazing and harvest management. The reddish bar indicates range that forages should autumn within for optimal growth in a grass-fed arrangement.
Provender Direction
Cool-flavour perennial forages, which are the about mutual permanent forages used in the northeastern United States, should non be grazed or mowed lower than three inches during the most rapid growing flavor (Effigy 3), and no lower than four inches during the slower growing time of the year – the hot summer months. Warm-flavour annuals and perennials typically should be grazed to a higher grazing height than cool-season perennials – unremarkably warm-season annuals and perennials should be grazed no lower than viii inches. Leaving acceptable residual superlative ensures that there will be enough leaf mass left for the plant to go along photosynthesis, assuasive for regrowth to occur as quickly as possible.
Figure iii
Growth pattern of cool-flavor perennial forages. Almost rapid growth occurs during spring "green-up", or May through the beginning part of June. After the weather turns warm and dry out, forage growth dramatically slows as plants go into dormancy to survive the summer. Every bit the days cool and precipitation increases in the early fall, cool-flavour perennial growth increases until the first killing frost, in which they go back into dormancy to survive the winter.
Figure 4. Common forage species, growing seasons, and life cycles in the northeastern U.s..
| Species | Growing Season | Life Bicycle |
| Orchardgrass | Cool-season | Perennial |
| Timothy | Cool-flavour | Perennial |
| Smooth Brome | Cool-flavor | Perennial |
| Tall Fescue | Cool-flavor | Perennial |
| Perennial ryegrass | Cool-season | Perennial |
| Reed canarygrass | Cool-season | Perennial |
| White Clover | Absurd-season | Perennial |
| Alfalfa | Absurd-flavor | Perennial |
| Red Clover | Absurd-season | Perennial |
| Sorghum x sudan | Warm-season | Annual |
| Sudangrass | Warm-season | Almanac |
| Pearl millet | Warm-season | Annual |
| Browntop millet | Warm-season | Annual |
| Almanac ryegrass | Cool-season | Annual |
| Cereal rye | Cool-flavor | Almanac |
| Wheat | Absurd-flavour | Almanac |
| Oats | Cool-flavour | Annual |
| Barley | Absurd-season | Annual |
| Indiangrass | Warm-season | Perennial |
| Large Bluestem | Warm-flavour | Perennial |
| Gamagrass | Warm-season | Perennial |
| Switchgrass | Warm-season | Perennial |
Rotational grazing – rotating animals from ane paddock after they have grazed the forage down to the desired height and then moving them into another ungrazed paddock – has been shown to increase stocking charge per unit and carrying capacity, besides equally reduce the incidence of selective grazing (Williamson et al., 2016). Selective grazing over time volition reduce the pasture productivity and cause the selected-against forage to become over-mature with a severe decline in forage quality and a proliferation of the undesirable species.
In the northeast, it is rare to exist able to extend the grazing flavour across the entire calendar year, regardless of management practices. Therefore, feeding harvested forages is necessary to provide nutrition to cattle during the time of year when grazed forages are not available. In a grass-fed functioning, high quality forage is a necessity for obtaining targeted gains of at least 2 lbs/day. Merely equally with grazing, forages should exist harvested before seedhead emergence while still in the vegetative stage, regardless of whether it is being harvested equally dry hay, haylage, or baleage. Mostly, the more mature a fodder is, the lower the feeding value, resulting in poorer animal performance.
Other management considerations
Every scenario is a niggling bit dissimilar. In some grass-fed situations, intensively managed perennial pasture may be the best option. The land may be too steep, too rocky, or have soil that is too shallow to support profitable product of annual crops. However, in other situations, almanac grazing crops may be a improve selection. In the U.s.a., there has been gradual adoption of no-till crop product practices for the past fifty years. In more recent times there has been an explosion of interest in the utilize of cover crops every bit no-till crop growers have realized that an effective cover crop system can make no-till crop product work even better. Post-obit the interest in embrace crops has been an uptick of involvement in using the encompass crops for grazing livestock. Farmers who have integrated cattle into cropping systems are seeing positive results from an agronomic standpoint. This type of product would be ideal for finishing cattle on annual forages integrated into a crop rotation. In addition to agronomic benefits, this scenario directly adds revenue to the cropping budget via livestock, and when combined with the crop acquirement would make more efficient utilize of expensive cropland.
Producing grass-fed beef may not exist for everyone. Cattle managers interested in grass-finishing need to assess the resources available to them to decide how to all-time finish cattle on that detail farm. One resource that should not be forgotten is the cattle themselves. In most grass-fed situations, pocket-size to medium-framed British-based breeds are most ideal. These cattle tend to mature faster (at an before historic period) and accept a lighter finishing weight than big-framed Continental types of cattle. Large-framed Continental cattle tend to be more suited to grain-fed, feedlot scenarios.
Conclusions
Need for grass-fed beef is greater than the supply in the U.South. due to land values and other constraints. Even though all beefiness may exist considered "grass-fed" for the majority of its life, finishing cattle on grass takes a great deal of management and requires adept quality forages to achieve gains of at to the lowest degree 2 lbs per day. Cool-season perennial forages are the virtually common permanent forages used in the northeastern Us, and will likely supply the most do good in terms of digestible energy and protein to cattle finishing on forages. Finishing cattle on grass can exist a way for producers to maintain a pastoral setting on their farms and fill up the niche market place for grass-fed beef that consumers are enervating.
References
Capper, J.L. 2012. Is the Grass E'er Greener? Comparing the Environmental Impact of Conventional, Natural and Grass-Fed Beef Production Systems. Animals. 2:127-143. doi:10.3390/ani2020127
Faucitano, L., P.Y. Chouinard, J. Fortin, I.B. Mandell, C. Lafrenière, C.L. Girard, and R. Berthiaume. 2008. Comparison of culling beefiness production systems based on forage finishing or grain-forage diets with or without growth promotants: 2. Meat quality, fatty acid composition, and overall palatability. J Anim Sci. 86:1678-89. doi: 10.2527/jas.2007-0756.
Matthews, K.H., and R.J. Johnonson. 2013. Alternative beefiness production systems: issues and implications. United State Department of Agriculture: Economical Inquiry Service. LDPM-218-01. Available online January 22, 2017.
NAMI. 2015. Corn-fed versus Grass-fed Beef. North American Meat Institute: Fact Sheet. Washington, D.C. Bachelor online January 22, 2017.
USDA. 2016. Grass fed marketing claim standard. United Land Department of Agriculture: Agronomical Marketing Service. Washington, D.C. Available online January 22, 2017.
Williamson, J.A., G.E. Aiken, Eastward.S Flynn, and Thousand. Barrett. 2016. Animal and Pasture Responses to Grazing Direction of Chemically Suppressed Tall Fescue in Mixed Pastures. Crop Sci. 56:2861-2869. doi: x.2135/cropsci2016.04.0206
septimusbehonell87.blogspot.com
Source: https://extension.psu.edu/grass-fed-beef-production