ResearchAdoption of management practices and breed types by US grass-fed beef producers1
Section snippets
INTRODUCTION
United States grass-fed beef (GFB) production has increased over the past decade as producers have responded to increased consumer demand for GFB products. This increased demand is part of a larger shift in demand toward animal products for which the animals were raised on local farms under production practices that are perceived to be more animal-welfare and environmentally friendly. Health benefits associated with GFB relative to conventional beef have also been marketed (McCluskey et al.,
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data from a 2013 mail survey of US GFB producers were used for this study. Names and addresses of GFB producers were obtained via an extensive search of the internet through sites such as www.eatwild.com, MarketMaker, and individual farm websites. This was considered to be a reasonable way to generate a representative sample of GFB producers because many GFB producers market a differentiated, consumer-ready product. A total of 1,052 US GFB producers and their addresses were identified. Using
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 1 presents adoption rates of the 14 management practices, by region. Note that for the reproduction practices, only those producers who bred cows to produce calves answered those questions, so the percentages are on the basis of those producers who could have realistically used the technology or management practice. Access to shade during the summer, castration, and internet search for GFB information were the most heavily adopted management practices, each with more than 80% adoption for
IMPLICATIONS
Grass-fed beef production systems differ in many ways from what is now considered a conventional beef production system in the United States. Conventional production is much more segmented, with cow-calf producers, some separate stocker operations, and feedlots that are often far away from the other segments. Cow-calf producers, those who sell GFB meat, those who have family labor available, and those with college degrees tend to be the greater adopters of most management practices. On the
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported in part by the intramural research program of the USDA, Economic Research Service. The authors acknowledge funding from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture/Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (2011-67023-30098) and USDA Hatch funds (LAB 4178).
LITERATURE CITED (19)
- et al.
Producer perceptions of the importance of challenges currently facing the United States grass-finished beef industry
Prof. Anim. Sci.
(2015) - et al.
Case study: A survey of pasture-finished beef producers in the northeastern United States
Prof. Anim. Sci.
(2009) - et al.
Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for grass-fed beef: Empirical evidence from in-store experiments
Food Qual. Prefer.
(2010) - et al.
Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood
Stata J.
(2003) - et al.
Demand for pasture-raised livestock products: Results from Michigan retail surveys
J. Agribusiness
(2008) - et al.
Internet, Mail, and Mixed Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method
(2007) - et al.
Grass-fed beef: How is it marketed by US producers?
Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev.
(2016) Econometric Analysis
(2000)- et al.
Factors affecting adoption of recommended management practices in stocker cattle production
J. Agric. Appl. Econ.
(2010)
Cited by (6)
Assessing best management practice adoption by pasture-based beef producers: The Whole Herd Beef Risk Index
2022, Applied Animal ScienceCitation Excerpt :Therefore, these producers may have perceived the implementation of health-related BMP as essential to lowering herd-level risk. Furthermore, Sitienei et al. (2018) reported larger-scale grass-fed beef producers engaged in producing grass-fed meat and maintained a cow herd were more likely to adopt the 14 BMP used in their survey. Several indices exist to measure the use of farm-level management practices.
Management characteristics of Northeast US grass-fed beef production systems *
2020, Applied Animal ScienceCitation Excerpt :Median total market weight tended to be greater for feed-sufficient farms (8,845 and 7,325 kg/farm, respectively, P = 0.12), a reflection of larger herd sizes and slightly heavier market weights for feed-sufficient farms. The mean and median market weight for our sample agreed closely with values previously reported for the 2009 Northeast study (Steinberg and Comerford, 2009) and a 2013 national survey of grass-fed beef producers (Sitienei et al., 2018), but they were heavier than those reported in the 2001 national study (Lozier et al., 2005). The mean market age in this sample was older and less variable than the values reported in earlier studies (Lozier et al., 2005; Steinberg and Comerford, 2009).
Pasture-finished beef production in the south
2020, Management Strategies for Sustainable Cattle Production in Southern PasturesForage management practices used in production of US grass-fed beef*
2019, Applied Animal ScienceCitation Excerpt :Thus, GFB production systems differ from conventional beef finishing systems primarily in that the animals are finished only on forage, with no grains, but may include additional standards such as for antibiotics and hormones. Grass-fed-beef farms are found in all regions of the United States, with information on GFB production systems provided by Lozier et al. (2005), Steinberg and Comerford (2009), and Sitienei et al. (2018). Relatively few studies have addressed farmers’ selection of GFB forage systems in the US context.
Pasture-finished beef production in the south
2019, Management Strategies for Sustainable Cattle Production in Southern PasturesImpact of the Federal Conservation Program Participation on Conservation Practice Adoption Intensity in Louisiana, USA
2021, Environmental Management
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- 1
The findings and conclusions in this preliminary publication have not been formally disseminated by the USDA and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.