Forage management practices used in production of US grass-fed beef

被引:3
|
作者
Sitienei, I [1 ]
Gillespie, J. [2 ]
Scaglia, G. [3 ]
机构
[1] Austin Peay State Univ, Dept Agr, 601 Coll St, Clarksville, TN 37044 USA
[2] Econ Res Serv, USDA, 355 E St SW, Washington, DC 20024 USA
[3] Louisiana State Univ, Iberia Res Stn, 603 LSU Bridge Rd, Jeanerette, LA 70544 USA
来源
APPLIED ANIMAL SCIENCE | 2019年 / 35卷 / 06期
基金
美国食品与农业研究所;
关键词
beef cattle; grasses; grazing management; legumes;
D O I
10.15232/aas.2019-01890
中图分类号
S8 [畜牧、 动物医学、狩猎、蚕、蜂];
学科分类号
0905 ;
摘要
Objective: Management of forage resources is critical to ensuring animals destined for the grass-fed beef (GFB) market have access to quality forage needed for growth and development for acceptable meat products. The objective of this study was to evaluate the forage management systems and species used by US GFB producers, adoption rates of rotational grazing systems, producers' perceptions of the profitability associated with rotational grazing systems, and the economic effect of intensive grazing systems on GFB production costs and profitability. Materials and Methods: A survey questionnaire was mailed to 1,052 US GFB producers to examine forage management systems used in US CUB production. A total of 384 completed questionnaires were received. An ordered probit model was used to determine the types of farms and demographics of producers more likely to be involved in an intensive rotational grazing system. Results and Discussion: A total of 59 different forage species and types were listed in the study. In all US regions represented in the study, the average and median farm reported use of 3 to 4 forage species or types in their systems. More than half of the respondents indicated rotational grazing increased farm profit by greater than 20% relative to continuous grazing. Implications and Applications: The level of rotational grazing differed by region with producers in the Pacific region rotating the least relative to others. Producer demographics and farm size also significantly affected the frequency of rotation.
引用
收藏
页码:535 / 542
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Management characteristics of Northeast US grass-fed beef production systems
    Dillon, Jasmine A.
    Rotz, C. Alan
    Karsten, Heather D.
    APPLIED ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2020, 36 (05): : 715 - 730
  • [2] US grass-fed beef premiums
    Wang, Yangchuan
    Isengildina-Massa, Olga
    Stewart, Shamar
    AGRIBUSINESS, 2023, 39 (03) : 664 - 690
  • [3] IMPETUS FOR GRASS-FED BEEF PRODUCTION IN THE BEEF BELT
    Romig, Kevin
    GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW, 2013, 103 (01) : 112 - 120
  • [4] Grass-Fed Beef: How is it Marketed by US Producers?
    Gillespie, Jeffrey
    Sitienei, Isaac
    Bhandari, Basu
    Scaglia, Guillermo
    INTERNATIONAL FOOD AND AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 2016, 19 (02): : 171 - 188
  • [5] Winter Management of Yearling Steers in a Grass-Fed Beef Production System
    Mata-Padrino, Domingo
    Felton, Eugene
    Bryan, William B.
    AGRONOMY JOURNAL, 2015, 107 (03) : 1048 - 1054
  • [6] GEORGIA - GRASS-FED BEEF CAPITAL
    REAGAN, JO
    GEORGIA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, 1980, 21 (03): : 13 - 15
  • [7] Scaling-up Sustainable Livestock Production: Innovation and Challenges for Grass-fed Beef in the US
    Gwin, Lauren
    JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE, 2009, 33 (02): : 189 - 209
  • [8] Grass-Fed Beef, Alterity, and Care: Complicating food Binaries, Relations, and Practices
    Carley MacKay
    Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 2023, 36
  • [9] Assessing the Performance of Multiple Grass-fed Beef Production Systems in California
    Klopatek, Sarah C.
    Duarte, Toni
    Yang, Crystal
    Oltjen, James W.
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2020, 98 : 46 - 46
  • [10] Grass-Fed Beef, Alterity, and Care: Complicating food Binaries, Relations, and Practices
    MacKay, Carley
    JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS, 2023, 36 (02):