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
  • [11] Assessing the Sustainability of Multiple Grass-fed and Grain-fed Beef Production Systems
    Klopatek, Sarah C.
    Marvinney, Elias
    Yang, Xiang
    Kendall, Alissa
    Oltjen, James W.
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2021, 99 : 48 - 48
  • [12] Grass-fed beef's carbon footprint
    Guglielmi, Giorgia
    SCIENCE, 2017, 358 (6359) : 16 - 16
  • [13] Aging increases lightness of grass-fed beef
    Wicks, Jordan C.
    Wivell, Alexis L.
    Beline, Mariane
    Zumbaugh, Morgan D.
    Bodmer, Jocelyn S.
    Yen, Con-Ning
    Wilson, Thomas B.
    Greiner, Scott P.
    Johnson, Sally E.
    Shi, Tim H.
    Silva, Saulo L.
    Gerrard, David E.
    TRANSLATIONAL ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2024, 8
  • [14] Mid-summer annual forage performance in organic, grass-fed production
    Van Die, Myra
    Entz, Martin H.
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT SCIENCE, 2022, 102 (03) : 566 - 574
  • [15] Metabolic imprinting effects in grass-fed Wagyu (Japanese Black) beef production
    Gotoh, Takafumi
    FASEB JOURNAL, 2010, 24
  • [16] Extending the grazing season for grass-fed beef production into the spring transition period
    Scaglia, Guillermo
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2020, 98 : 324 - 324
  • [17] Producing grass-fed beef using the Herbopack approach
    Poncelet, R.
    Bonnault, R.
    FOURRAGES, 2017, (230): : 127 - 130
  • [18] More than grass: Organizing the emerging grass-fed beef market
    Gwin, L.
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2004, 82 : 166 - 166
  • [19] More than grass: Organizing the emerging grass-fed beef market
    Gwin, L.
    POULTRY SCIENCE, 2004, 83 : 166 - 166
  • [20] SLAUGHTER RESULTS ANALYSIS OF GRASS-FED BEEF CATTLE
    Muizniece, Inga
    Kairisa, Daina
    RESEARCH FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT 2017, VOL 2, 2017, : 62 - 66