Grass Fed Beef Vs Factory Beef Back Fat Grass Fed Vs Grain Fed

Grass-fed Beef Markets and Terminology

There has been a growing interest in the production of "grass-fed beefiness". 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 claim on their website for producers to follow. Nevertheless, many grass-fed or grass-finished markets persist. This interest in grass-fed beef stems not but from consumers looking for a perceived comeback in animal welfare or quality of the product they buy; just, it also stems from producers looking to fill a niche market place or maintain cattle in a more than pastoral setting. Along with this interest from both consumers and producers comes a lot of terms and ideas that may or may not be fully understood. The objective of this article is to clarify 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 knowledge, and other constraints. Despite the consumer demand, however, approximately 95% of the cattle in the United states of america continue to be finished, or fattened, on grain for the last 160 to 180 days of life (~25 to thirty% of their life), on average. The logic behind grain finishing dates dorsum to research as early as the 1800'south. Cattle get less efficient, less able to catechumen feed to muscle or meat, as they age. Grain contains more energy assuasive cattle to maintain greater growth rates later in to their lives when compared to feeding only grass or forage. In addition, feeding grain frees up valuable land resources necessary to produce forages and other grain crops past concentrating the cattle in a smaller area. Considering of the challenges with land mass availability in the U.S., some of the beef in the U.South. that comes in labeled as grass-fed actually comes from outside the U.S.

Rather than debate advantages and disadvantages of the grain versus grass-fed systems, the take-dwelling house here is that all beef cattle, whether farmers choose to heighten them as grass-fed or grain-fed animals, spend at least 2-thirds of their lifetime in a pasture setting. Therefore, all beefiness may be considered "grass-fed" for the majority of its life. Thus, beef production in the United States has been, and continues to exist, a forage-based industry. The differentiation in what makes cattle grass-fed then, by and large occurs towards the terminate of life and will be discussed in more item.

One of the key areas scientists have investigated are the characteristics of the beefiness from cattle finished on grass, as they tin can be quite unlike from characteristics of beef from grain-fed cattle. Research suggests that when finished to the same fat endpoint (0.4 in. dorsum fat) there is no consumer detectable departure in tenderness between beef from grass-fed or grain-fed cattle (Faucitano et al., 2008). However, beef from grass-fed cattle is more often than not more lean than beef from cattle fed grain, especially when compared at the same age. Therefore, cattle finished on grass typically have lower USDA quality grades, an indication of fat inside the muscle, than grain fed cattle (Matthews and Johnson, 2013). For some consumers, less fat may be a desirable trait. The reduction in full fat institute in grass-fed beef has been lauded every bit one of the benefits for consumers looking to cut cholesterol, for instance. While no difference in cholesterol concentrations have been reported between beef from grass-fed and grain-fed cattle (Matthews and Johnson, 2013), consumers being advised to lower their full fat consumption may find grass-finished beef or USDA Select grain-finished beef to be a amend fit in their diet.

Regardless of the personal choices consumers may have for purchasing grass-fed beefiness, producers must kickoff manage the cattle and the grass they are consuming to produce the production. During this product, grazing management and provender quality are both essential factors to consider.

Grass-Fed Beef Management

Provender Quality

Forage quality as it relates to grass-fed beef production is really a discussion of the energy supply. If adequate energy is supplied to the grazing cattle, cattle may be expected to gain two.0 to 2.5 lbs per twenty-four hour period. The greatest boilerplate daily gains in grass-finished cattle can be expected when the forage provided is more than 65% digestible and supplies between fourteen to 18% crude poly peptide (CP), more than 20% dry matter (DM), and more 20% water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC). Forages supplying the aforementioned nutritive values are considered very skilful quality. In whatever grass-fed production system, a minimum of 2 lbs boilerplate daily gain (ADG) should exist the goal in order to go along cattle on a trajectory towards appropriate finishing. Because of the high forage quality necessary to meet or exceed these gains, forage nutritive value should be monitored and managed accordingly.

Forages grown for livestock production tin take a broad range of nutritive values, based on how they are managed and when they are harvested or grazed (Figures 1 and ii). Because of the wide variation in nutritive value that exist, quality should always be monitored. As a general rule-of-thumb, the less mature the forage, the greater the nutritive value. Therefore, if grazing, or feeding, growing cattle – either stockers or feeders – forages should exist maintained at a vegetative stage and should not be allowed to set seed. When plants go into a reproductive phase, after seed head emergence, forage quality declines rapidly.

In addition to quality of provender, the grass-finished beef producer needs to exist concerned with quantity of forage consumed by 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 instance, overgrazed pastures volition non only result in poor long term pasture productivity, but volition also cause the cattle to have restricted forage intake and result in poor average daily gains.

Figure i

Ranges in percent digestibility of mutual forages found in the northeastern The states. Actual digestibility largely depends on maturity of the forage at the time of feeding besides as grazing and harvest management. The ruddy bar indicates range that forages should fall within for optimal growth in a grass-fed system.

Figure ii

Ranges in percent crude protein of common forages found in the northeastern United States. Actual crude protein largely depends on maturity of the forage at the fourth dimension of feeding as well as grazing and harvest management. The scarlet bar indicates range that forages should fall within for optimal growth in a grass-fed organization.

Forage Management

Cool-flavour perennial forages, which are the most common permanent forages used in the northeastern United States, should not exist grazed or mowed lower than 3 inches during the most rapid growing season (Effigy 3), and no lower than 4 inches during the slower growing time of the year – the hot summer months. Warm-flavor annuals and perennials typically should be grazed to a higher grazing summit than cool-season perennials – unremarkably warm-season annuals and perennials should exist grazed no lower than 8 inches. Leaving adequate remainder superlative ensures that there will be enough leaf mass left for the establish to continue photosynthesis, allowing for regrowth to occur as speedily equally possible.

Effigy 3

Growth pattern of cool-season perennial forages. Nigh rapid growth occurs during spring "dark-green-up", or May through the first part of June. Later on the atmospheric condition turns warm and dry, forage growth dramatically slows as plants go into dormancy to survive the summer. Equally the days cool and precipitation increases in the early fall, cool-season perennial growth increases until the first killing frost, in which they become back into dormancy to survive the winter.

Figure 4. Common forage species, growing seasons, and life cycles in the northeastern United states of america.

Species	Growing Season	Life Cycle
Orchardgrass	Cool-season	Perennial
Timothy	Cool-flavor	Perennial
Smooth Brome	Absurd-season	Perennial
Tall Fescue	Cool-season	Perennial
Perennial ryegrass	Cool-season	Perennial
Reed canarygrass	Cool-flavour	Perennial
White Clover	Cool-season	Perennial
Alfalfa	Cool-season	Perennial
Reddish Clover	Absurd-season	Perennial
Sorghum x sudan	Warm-season	Almanac
Sudangrass	Warm-flavor	Almanac
Pearl millet	Warm-season	Annual
Browntop millet	Warm-season	Annual
Annual ryegrass	Cool-season	Annual
Cereal rye	Absurd-season	Almanac
Wheat	Cool-season	Almanac
Oats	Cool-season	Annual
Barley	Cool-season	Annual
Indiangrass	Warm-season	Perennial
Big Bluestem	Warm-season	Perennial
Gamagrass	Warm-flavour	Perennial
Switchgrass	Warm-season	Perennial

Rotational grazing – rotating animals from one paddock afterward they accept grazed the forage downwards to the desired tiptop and so moving them into another ungrazed paddock – has been shown to increase stocking rate and carrying capacity, as well as reduce the incidence of selective grazing (Williamson et al., 2016). Selective grazing over time volition reduce the pasture productivity and crusade the selected-confronting provender to go over-mature with a severe refuse in fodder 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 performance, high quality forage is a necessity for obtaining targeted gains of at least 2 lbs/solar day. Merely as with grazing, forages should exist harvested earlier seedhead emergence while still in the vegetative stage, regardless of whether it is being harvested as dry hay, haylage, or baleage. More often than not, the more mature a forage is, the lower the feeding value, resulting in poorer animal performance.

Other management considerations

Every scenario is a little chip dissimilar. In some grass-fed situations, intensively managed perennial pasture may be the best option. The country may be besides steep, too rocky, or accept soil that is too shallow to support assisting production of annual crops. Still, in other situations, annual grazing crops may be a better choice. In the United states of america, there has been gradual adoption of no-till crop production practices for the past 50 years. In more than recent times there has been an explosion of involvement in the use of embrace crops as no-till crop growers have realized that an constructive cover crop arrangement tin make no-till crop production piece of work fifty-fifty meliorate. Following the interest in cover crops has been an uptick of involvement in using the cover 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 almanac forages integrated into a ingather rotation. In improver to agronomic benefits, this scenario direct adds revenue to the cropping budget via livestock, and when combined with the crop revenue would brand more than efficient utilize of expensive cropland.

Producing grass-fed beef may non be for everyone. Cattle managers interested in grass-finishing need to assess the resources available to them to decide how to best finish cattle on that particular farm. I resource that should non exist forgotten is the cattle themselves. In most grass-fed situations, minor to medium-framed British-based breeds are about ideal. These cattle tend to mature faster (at an earlier age) and have a lighter finishing weight than large-framed Continental types of cattle. Large-framed Continental cattle tend to be more suited to grain-fed, feedlot scenarios.

Conclusions

Demand for grass-fed beef is greater than the supply in the U.Southward. due to land values and other constraints. Even though all beefiness may be considered "grass-fed" for the majority of its life, finishing cattle on grass takes a great deal of management and requires practiced quality forages to achieve gains of at least 2 lbs per day. Cool-flavour perennial forages are the almost common permanent forages used in the northeastern Us, and will probable supply the most benefit in terms of digestible energy and poly peptide to cattle finishing on forages. Finishing cattle on grass can exist a style for producers to maintain a pastoral setting on their farms and fill up the niche market for grass-fed beef that consumers are demanding.

References

Capper, J.L. 2012. Is the Grass Always Greener? Comparison the Environmental Bear on of Conventional, Natural and Grass-Fed Beef Production Systems. Animals. ii:127-143. doi:10.3390/ani2020127

Faucitano, Fifty., P.Y. Chouinard, J. Fortin, I.B. Mandell, C. Lafrenière, C.L. Girard, and R. Berthiaume. 2008. Comparison of alternative beefiness production systems based on provender finishing or grain-provender diets with or without growth promotants: 2. Meat quality, fatty acid limerick, and overall palatability. J Anim Sci. 86:1678-89. doi: x.2527/jas.2007-0756.

Matthews, K.H., and R.J. Johnonson. 2013. Alternative beef product systems: issues and implications. United State Section of Agriculture: Economical Research Service. LDPM-218-01. Available online January 22, 2017.

NAMI. 2015. Corn-fed versus Grass-fed Beef. Due north American Meat Institute: Fact Sheet. Washington, D.C. Available online Jan 22, 2017.

USDA. 2016. Grass fed marketing claim standard. United State Section of Agriculture: Agricultural Marketing Service. Washington, D.C. Available online Jan 22, 2017.

Williamson, J.A., Thou.E. Aiken, East.South Flynn, and M. Barrett. 2016. Animal and Pasture Responses to Grazing Management of Chemically Suppressed Alpine Fescue in Mixed Pastures. Crop Sci. 56:2861-2869. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2016.04.0206

petersonwitesse.blogspot.com

Source: https://extension.psu.edu/grass-fed-beef-production

Share this post