1 Pasture to Market Providing beef cale industry informaon for producers in Louisiana January—February 2019 Convenonal Versus Non-Convenonal Beef Producon J. D. Rivera* and T. Dinh** *MAFES-South MS Branch Experiment Staon **Department of Animal and Dairy Science, Mississippi State University There is an abundance of misinformaon that exists in regards to “Grass fed”, “Natural”, “Organic” and how they relate to convenonal beef producon. The two main areas that need clarificaon are the nomenclature or wording used to describe how these animals are produced, and the second regards the flavor and health aspects of convenonally produced beef. Producon Standards — In essence, these type systems are aimed towards niche markets. The Organic or Natural producer may be trying to market his or her cale to a parcular social demographic, which is willing to pay more for those types of products. Those products cost more since they are more expensive to produce. Data from USDA report that, on average, these niche systems are less efficient than convenonal producon systems (Mahews Jr. and Johnson, 2013). These consumers purchase these products based upon perceived value. While there are many claims that these systems are healthier than convenonally produced beef, there are no scienfic data to prove that claim. Moreover, there have been claims that these systems produce safer (free from pathogens) than convenonal beef; however, none of these claims have been verified by scienfic data. Convenonal Beef — The majority of cale raised in the south will go towards convenonal beef producon. In this system, calves raised on farms or ranches will either go directly to a feedyard or they will enter into some type of stocker operaon and grown on grass. The direcon those calves go will be based upon available resources and markeng dynamics. Stockers will take advantage of the relavely inexpensive gain on grass prior to shipment to the feedyard, and the length of me they are grown on grass is dependent upon forage availability, and markeng decisions. Once at the feedyard, both stockers and calves will be gradually adapted to a high concentrate (grain) diet and grown to a final slaughter weight 1200-1300, depending upon the markeng of the cale (yield versus quality grade). During their stay in the feedyard, in most instances, they will be given growth promong implants and fed diets containing ionophonres. Growth promong implants are adminis- tered to increase efficiency and gain. Ionophores are addives fed that shiſt rumen bacteria producon to increase the energy derived from feed, they also inhibit the growth of coccidia. It should be noted that the efficacy and safety of these products have been rigorously tested by the FDA, and FDA personnel rounely inspect confined feeding operaons for adherence to medicated feed usage. Producon records (feed batched compared to feed fed) are evaluated to ensure that label adherence is met. All of the technologies used in convenonal beef producon have been thoroughly scienfically veed to ensure their safety and efficacy. In essence, most of the beef that is found at the local grocery store was produced in this manner. Grass Fed Beef — According to USDA, in this system the animals are simply grown on grass or stored forage (hay). The animals can consume grasses, legumes, or cereal grains in their vegetave state. These animals cannot ever be fed grain, or grain-by products, during this process. The USDA does allow for mineral and vitamin supplementaon. However, the authors note instances where claim “grass fed” is made but the animals are supplemented feed for a period of me; according to USDA standards those are not grass fed animals. Addionally, no restricons are made regarding the use of growth promong implants for grass fed beef, the only requirement is that they are solely fed forage for their enre life unl they go to slaughter. Therefore, if the consumer strives to purchase meat produced without growth promong hormones, grass fed beef may not be the answer. Natural Beef — This is the tricky one; while some people claim that they have natural beef according to USDA standards, it simply means that the meat is unadulterated (i.e. no arficial colors, no addives or coloring, preservaves, or other arficial ingredient). Therefore, according to those standards, most beef purchased is Natural! The tricky part is that USDA also has a Naturally Raised claim. I realize the following arcle is lengthy and full of detail, but hopefully you will find it useful as we all work together educang consumers on the nutrional value of beef . Thanks to all of our cale producers and grazers who work relessly in producing the safest, highest quality beef in the world!
8
Embed
Pasture to Market - LSU AgCenter/media/system/4/7/d/d/... · Nutritional values and quality of beef, grain-fed vs. grass-fed All beef cattle are fed with grass at some point in their
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Pasture to Market Providing beef cattle industry information for producers in Louisiana
January—February 2019
Conventional Versus Non-Conventional Beef Production
J. D. Rivera* and T. Dinh**
*MAFES-South MS Branch Experiment Station
**Department of Animal and Dairy Science, Mississippi State University
There is an abundance of misinformation that exists in regards to “Grass fed”, “Natural”, “Organic” and how they relate to conventional
beef production. The two main areas that need clarification are the nomenclature or wording used to describe how these animals are
produced, and the second regards the flavor and health aspects of conventionally produced beef.
Production Standards — In essence, these type systems are aimed towards niche markets. The Organic or Natural producer may be trying
to market his or her cattle to a particular social demographic, which is willing to pay more for those types of products. Those products cost
more since they are more expensive to produce. Data from USDA report that, on average, these niche systems are less efficient than
conventional production systems (Matthews Jr. and Johnson, 2013). These consumers purchase these products based upon perceived value.
While there are many claims that these systems are healthier than conventionally produced beef, there are no scientific data to prove that
claim. Moreover, there have been claims that these systems produce safer (free from pathogens) than conventional beef; however, none of
these claims have been verified by scientific data.
Conventional Beef — The majority of cattle raised in the south will go towards conventional beef production. In this system, calves raised
on farms or ranches will either go directly to a feedyard or they will enter into some type of stocker operation and grown on grass. The
direction those calves go will be based upon available resources and marketing dynamics. Stockers will take advantage of the relatively
inexpensive gain on grass prior to shipment to the feedyard, and the length of time they are grown on grass is dependent upon forage
availability, and marketing decisions.
Once at the feedyard, both stockers and calves will be gradually adapted to a high concentrate (grain) diet and grown to a final slaughter
weight 1200-1300, depending upon the marketing of the cattle (yield versus quality grade). During their stay in the feedyard, in most
instances, they will be given growth promoting implants and fed diets containing ionophonres. Growth promoting implants are adminis-
tered to increase efficiency and gain. Ionophores are additives fed that shift rumen bacteria production to increase the energy derived from
feed, they also inhibit the growth of coccidia. It should be noted that the efficacy and safety of these products have been rigorously tested
by the FDA, and FDA personnel routinely inspect confined feeding operations for adherence to medicated feed usage. Production records
(feed batched compared to feed fed) are evaluated to ensure that label adherence is met. All of the technologies used in conventional beef
production have been thoroughly scientifically vetted to ensure their safety and efficacy. In essence, most of the beef that is found at the
local grocery store was produced in this manner.
Grass Fed Beef — According to USDA, in this system the animals are simply grown on grass or stored forage (hay). The animals can consume
grasses, legumes, or cereal grains in their vegetative state. These animals cannot ever be fed grain, or grain-by products, during this process.
The USDA does allow for mineral and vitamin supplementation. However, the authors note instances where claim “grass fed” is made but
the animals are supplemented feed for a period of time; according to USDA standards those are not grass fed animals. Additionally, no
restrictions are made regarding the use of growth promoting implants for grass fed beef, the only requirement is that they are solely fed
forage for their entire life until they go to slaughter. Therefore, if the consumer strives to purchase meat produced without growth
promoting hormones, grass fed beef may not be the answer.
Natural Beef — This is the tricky one; while some people claim that they have natural beef according to USDA standards, it simply means
that the meat is unadulterated (i.e. no artificial colors, no additives or coloring, preservatives, or other artificial ingredient). Therefore,
according to those standards, most beef purchased is Natural! The tricky part is that USDA also has a Naturally Raised claim.
I realize the following article is lengthy and full of detail, but hopefully you will find it useful as we all work together educating consumers on the
nutritional value of beef . Thanks to all of our cattle producers and grazers who work tirelessly in producing the safest, highest quality beef in the
world!
2
(Continued from page 1)Naturally Raised — USDA defines this as being cattle raised without the use of growth promoting implants,
ionophores, antibiotics, nor are the animals allowed to consume animal by product feed (i.e. feather meal, blood meal, etc.). Cattle are
allowed to receive ionophores if they have been used to control parasites, however, the producer must make that claim. There are no
other restrictions regarding what they may be fed; therefore, these cattle marketed under naturally raised can be fed high grain diets.
This is probably the most common niche that we see.
Organic — This one is probably the most difficult one to achieve due to all the restrictions. In essence USDA states that Organic beef is
produced without use of antibiotics, ionophores, animal byproducts (think Naturally Raised). However, the land that they are grown on
must fall under organic standards (i.e. no chemical pesticides, herbicides, or conventional fertilizer); moreover, any feed fed to these
animals must have been grown under organic standards as well (grain produced without chemical pesticides, herbicides or conventional
fertilizer). Additionally, cattle grown for slaughter in this program must have been on the program 3 months prior to their birth! When you
consider the length of time it takes to get an animal ready for slaughter, and you think about the feed requirements, it is easy to see how
this can be difficult to achieve.
Nutritional values and quality of beef, grain-fed vs. grass-fed
All beef cattle are fed with grass at some point in their life. They can be finished on grass or grain, depending on what is best for specific
operation, including the marketability of beef from such an operation in a specific market. No beef production system can be sustained by a
sole feeding regime. However, the most common myth is that grass-finished beef is safer and healthier than grain-finished beef. Not only
does no conclusive evidence support such a claim, but also many nutritional composition studies have reported that grass-finished and
grain-finished beef had very similar nutritional composition. The reason is that unlike monogastric animals, cattle convert feed to body
mass with special help from the microbial population in the rumen.
In terms of nutritional composition, grass-finished beef has been praised for its “healthier” fat, scientifically termed “lipid composition” or
“fatty acid composition”. Two publicly recognized components of lipids are cholesterol and fatty acids. We have been analyzing thousands
of samples of all kinds of beef and never have we seen any difference in cholesterol content. Cholesterol is part of every cell structure in
animal tissues. It is possible that very well-marbled beef has few more milligram cholesterol per 100 g (3.5 oz) of beef compared with very
lean beef. This increase is negligible compared with 800 to 1000 mg of cholesterol that our body produces daily just to function properly.
Fresh beef has approximately 43 to 84 mg cholesterol/100 g, whereas cooked beef has about 57 to 100 mg/100 g, an increase
corresponding to the lost water during cooking. Fatty acid composition is the most interestingly debated issues. It is very important to
understand that fatty acids from grass fed beef cattle, which are touted as plant-origin and being healthier, are NOT the fatty acids that are
deposited into beef lean and fat tissues. Bacteria in the rumen are capable of hydrogenating (i.e. adding more hydrogen to the double
bonds of fatty acids to make them more saturated) polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA; fatty acids with more than one double bonds) from
plant sources. The most common product of this biohydrogenation process is vaccenic acid (18:1 trans 11), a fatty acid that has 18 carbons,
1 double bond at carbon 11 with trans configuration. Vaccenic acid is either further saturated in the rumen, forming stearic acid (18:0) or
desaturated by desaturase enzyme to 18:2 cis 9, trans 11, one of conjugated linoleic acids (CLA), a collection of fatty acids specific to
ruminant products (meat and dairy) that have many documented health benefits. It is true that the more polyunsaturated fatty acids,
readily available in grass, are fed to cattle, the more PUFA can pass through the rumen without being biohydrogenated and remain
polyunsaturated. However, PUFA are toxic to microbes in the rumen and biohydrogenation is part of the protective mechanism of the
microorganisms in the rumen. Effort to delivery more PUFA to small intestines seems to be unsuccessful unless the PUFA are supplemented
and protected in encapsulated forms. An increase in PUFA in grass-finished beef is normally in the range of 10 to 25%. However, it is
important to note that PUFA only contribute 3-5% of total fatty acids, 60 to 80% of which is linoleic acid (18:2 n-3). Therefore, the increase
can be calculated at approximately less than 20 mg per 100 g (3.5 oz). We need to keep in mind that most of the increase is of n-3 linolelic
acid (C18), the roles of which in human health are uncertain. The long-chain PUFA n-3 similar to those in fish oils, which have more
established roles in cardiovascular health, are NOT significantly different between grass- and grain-finished beef and are found at trace
levels in all beef. Conjugated linoleic acids also increase, at a much lower rate than linoleic acids, in grass-finished beef. However, because
the fat content of grass-finished beef is normally lower than that of grain-finished beef, such an increase in CLA and n-3 fatty acids becomes
negligible. A very interesting fact that has been neglected in many discussions regarding grass- vs. grain-fed is that monounsaturated fatty
acids (MUFA), 40 to 45% of total fatty acids and mostly oleic acid with reported benefits in lowering LDL cholesterol (low-density lipo-
protein cholesterol or BAD cholesterol) and increasing HDL cholesterol (high-density lipoprotein cholesterol or GOOD cholesterol), is
significantly greater in grain-fed beef in term of both percentage and absolute concentration. Moreover, saturated fatty acids (SFA), mostly
stearic acid known for having a neutral effect (or NO effect) on LDL cholesterol is present in a similar proportion and/or concentration in
both grass- and grain-finished beef. Therefore, grass-finishing increases a negligible amount of n-3 fatty acids that have uncertain health
benefits at the great expense of MUFA that are evidently beneficial to human health.
3
(Continued from page 2) Substituting grass for grain in the diet has been reported to cause off-odor, shortened shelf life, decreased tender-
ness, darker lean color, and ultimately a less desirable and more difficult to preserve beef. There are a variety of mechanisms such as grass-
finished beef being more susceptible to stress, having greater glycogen depletion, higher pH, etc. In all consumer studies that we have
conducted, grass-finished beef scored significantly lower than grain-finished beef. Similar findings were reported in both ground and whole
muscle beef (based on differences in flavor and color profiles). It is obvious that an increase in PUFA, even in a small amount, is detrimental
to beef quality. Most PUFA are deposited in the polar lipid fractions such as phospholipids as part of muscle cell membranes or lean tissues.
Most PUFA are much less likely to be deposited in beef fat than SFA and MUFA because of the low affinity during the synthesis of
triglycerides. PUFA are oxidized more easily than SFA and MUFA because of the effects of double bonds. Therefore, polar lipids, which con-
tribute a significant proportion to the lipid composition of lean beef, are much more susceptible to oxidation, which produces off-odors
(ketones and aldehydes) and 4-hydroxynonenal (HNE). HNE binds (or scientifically termed “alkylation”) myoglobin (lean color pigment),
which makes myoglobin more susceptible to oxidation, thereby a more rapid beef discoloration. This phenomenon can be easily observed in
ground beef, where leaner ground beef (90 to 91% lean) discolors faster and develops more off-flavors as storage progresses.
In closing, the various methods that we use to market beef can be complicated. Oftentimes erroneous claims are made regarding “Natural”
or “Organic. All these marketing options should be a testament to the ingenuity of the American cattle producer, but one group should not
try and move themselves forward at the expense of another. Raising beef cattle on grass needs to be done for the right reason, mostly
profit-related. The argument regarding health benefits and sustainability are currently not justifiable by available data. Cattle on different
diets will produce meat with different nutritional composition, including other components not discussed in this paper such as minerals,
antioxidants, etc. However, the questions are whether the changes are significant enough to make an impact on human health and what
the costs are, financially and nutritionally. There are markets for unconventional raised beef, but producers should understand that there
are added costs and regulations for these types of products. Consumers should be made aware of the different types of production systems
and what they involve, as well as understanding that conventional beef is just as healthy and wholesome as unconventional beef.
Acadiana Beef Cattle Producers Field Day—
Date: Saturday, March 9, 2019
Time: 8:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Place: Iberia Research Station, Jeanerette
Registration starts at 8:00 a.m.
Indoor Program
Toxic Plants for Beef Cattle
Mouthing Cows for Age Estimation
Market Update
Outdoor Program
Mouthing Cows for Age Estimation: Live Demonstration
Nitrogen Fertilizer Sources: Field Demonstration
Forages, Supplements, and Digestion: What Happens in
the Rumen?
Louisiana Master Farmer Program Update
Door Prizes & Lunch Provided
Sponsors: LBIC, LCA, LFGC, LSU AgCenter
Contact: Dr. Guillermo Scaglia 337-276-5527
La. Master Cattleman Course Offerings:
Louisiana Master Cattleman courses will be offered in LaSalle Parish (Jena) beginning Monday, March 4th and ending May
13th, and Winn Parish (Winnfield) beginning Monday, March 4th and ending May 6th. The classes will be on Monday
evenings from 6:00 - 9:00 p.m. The cost of these La. Master Cattle Producer courses will be $125. This fee covers
curriculum, meals, and Master Cattleman metal farm sign. Registration information for both courses can be found by
visiting www.lsuagcenter.com/mastercattleman or contact Jason Holmes ([email protected]) at 318-368-2999
concerning the course in Jena, or Lee Faulk ([email protected]) at 318-927-2578 concerning the course in
If you received this newsletter via email you will continue to receive it unless you “unsubscribe.” To unsubscribe from or subscribe to this bi-monthly emailed newsletter, send an email to the address below with “subscribe” or “unsubscribe” in the subject line.
Jan.—Feb. 2019
Jason E. Holmes
Regional Livestock Specialist
County Agent
LSU AgCenter—Union Parish
318-368-2999 (office) / 318-243-4931
table continued from previous page
Month Management Tip
February spring calving 1. Consult with a veterinarian for pre-breeding vaccination needs
2. Finalize heifer selection on breeding goals, performance, soundness, and disposition
3. Determine number of bulls needed for upcoming breeding season
4. Make bull selections; see May-June 2011 newsletter for purchase price
comparisons
5. Arrange for breeding soundness evaluations
6. If using A.I., have ample semen and breeding supplies on hand
fall calving 1. Determine percentage of cows returning to heat 40 days into breeding season
2. Recheck bulls for breeding soundness if high percentage of cow return to heat
3. Monitor bull condition; adjust nutrition as needed
4. Consider limit-fed grain or winter pasture creep if cow lose excessive condition
Week of Week of Week of
Data Source: USDA-AMS Market News 1/4/2019 12/28/2018 1/5/2018
5-Area Fed Steer
all grades, live weight, $/cwt $ 122.52 $ 118.81 $ 121.61