Growing and Selling Pasture-Finished Beef: Results of a Nationwide Survey

Lozier, John; Rayburn, Edward B.; Shaw, Jane

doi:10.1300/j064v25n02_08

Cited by 21 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to manage these contrasting attributes and to inform government policy (Asgedom and Kebreab 2011), it is important to document the current husbandry practices used in beef cattle operations and to document changes that have occurred over time. The last targeted, extensive farm survey of beef cattle husbandry in Canada, the Livestock Farm Practices Survey (LFPS), was completed in 2006 (Sheppard et al 2009;Sheppard and Bittman 2012), with a more limited survey of the sale and consumption of pasture-finished beef being conducted in 2005 (Lozier et al 2005). The LFPS was conducted at an important juncture in the industry as a consequence of the lingering trade restrictions related to the identification of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Canadian cattle in 2003, which disrupted the export of Canadian beef.…”

Section: Mots Clé Smentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beef cattle husbandry practices across Ecoregions of Canada in 2011

SheppardS.¹,

BittmanS.

DonohoeG.

et al. 2015

Can. J. Anim. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sheppard, S. C., Bittman, S., Donohoe, G., Flaten, D., Wittenberg, K. M., Small, J. A., Berthiaume, R., McAllister, T. A., Beauchemin, K. A., McKinnon, J., Amiro, B. D., MacDonald, D., Mattos, F. and Ominski, K. H. 2015. Beef cattle husbandry practices across Ecoregions of Canada in 2011. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 95: 305–321. Beef production in Canada is diverse in many dimensions with numbers of cattle per operation ranging over 10 000-fold, pasture usage from nil to 100%, and types of operations from solely cow–calf to exclusively feedlot finishing. This study summarizes management information obtained from a survey conducted in 2012 (about 2011) on 1009 beef operations in Canada. Many of the results clearly differentiate the practices in the Prairies from those in Ontario and Quebec. Compared to eastern Canada, the Prairies had earlier and shorter calving seasons, higher weaning weights, utilized more winter grazing with a variety of strategies, grew and fed more barley than corn, used more seasonal feeding areas and feedlots (and hence fewer barns), and more commonly spread manure in the fall. Many of the management practices used by cow–calf operations would have low environmental impact, including extensive use of grazing even in winter, low fertilizer inputs and feeding perennial forages with a high content of legumes. Some practices such as not covering forages or manure storage structures were common and could be changed to improve forage quality and reduce manure emissions. Most forage was harvested 3–7 d after full bloom. Earlier harvest has the potential to improve forage quality, which could reduce dependence on arable crops. Finishing operations used more housing, fed more arable-land crops and less perennial forages, and practiced little grazing. Rationale regarding the adoption of many of the management strategies was reported by the producers. For example, winter grazing was adopted primarily to reduce costs and labour, but for some it was also linked to a late calving season. Preferred sources of technical information included their own experience, farm print media, producer organisations and demonstrations at field days. The survey also identified several areas in which the industry may realize improved sustainability.

show abstract

Section: Mots Clé Smentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, because of the increased land use associated with pasture finishing, this too may be criticized. Lozier et al (2005) and Perillat et al (2004) reported on the risks and benefits of finishing beef on pasture.…”

Section: Warm Season Grazingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beef cattle husbandry practices across Ecoregions of Canada in 2011

SheppardS.¹,

BittmanS.

DonohoeG.

et al. 2015

Can. J. Anim. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A price sensitivity analysis could also indicate the economic feasibility of increased production levels and the need to consider new markets (other than hay) for alfalfa and other forages as production increases. One possibility could be the expansion of pasture-based livestock systems, demanded by a growing consumer sector 89 and offering many ecological services as compared to decoupled row crop and livestock systems 90 91 . Although alfalfa (and most other crop) prices have risen along with corn, the high corn prices of 2006 made corn, on average, more profitable than alfalfa.…”

Section: Som 148% Greater Som With C-s-o/a-a-a Than C-s-c-s-c 26 Soilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefits and barriers to perennial forage crops in Iowa corn and soybean rotations

Olmstead

Brummer

2008

Renew. Agric. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The transition away from forage-based cropping systems in Iowa to corn and soybean rotations since World War II has corresponded with degraded economic and environmental conditions in the state. Falling net incomes for farmers and concern over global warming and the effects of agriculture-related pollution on water, wildlife and human health have increased interest in diversified cropping systems. This paper reviews the benefits of diversifying Iowa corn and soybean rotations with perennial forage species such as alfalfa and red clover. Perennial forage crops improve soil quality, decrease NO 3 -N leaching and soil erosion, increase carbon sequestration and decrease pesticide and herbicide needs by controlling weed and insect pests. Forage legumes reduce N fertilizer needs for succeeding corn crops at a higher rate than soybeans, and corn crops following forages have higher yields than after corn or soybeans. Farmers who add alfalfa to corn and soybean rotations could realize significant economic gains. A simulated 5-year rotation in Iowa including corn-soybeansoats/alfalfa-alfalfa-alfalfa would result in a 24% net income increase over 5 years of corn-soybean-corn-soybean-corn, even with government farm support payments for the row crops. Farm policies that encourage commodity production create little incentive for Iowa farmers to diversify their cropping systems beyond corn and soybeans, despite the clear economic and ecological benefits. We recommend increasing federal support for conservation programs that reward environmentally beneficial farm practices such as the Conservation Securities Program and we encourage land grant universities to hire researchers interested in alternative agricultural systems.

show abstract

“…Two surveys targeted only grass-based beef producers and focused on their production and marketing practices (Lozier et al 2005;Steinberg andComerford 2009). Evans et al (2007) used stochastic simulations to compare productions systems in the Appalachian cow-calf sector.…”

Section: Grass-based Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ohio Livestock Producers’ Perceptions of Producing and Marketing Grass-Based Beef and Lamb

McCutcheon

Morton

Zerby

et al. 2014

Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although small and mid-size cattle and sheep producers may be positioned to meet local market demand for grass-based meat and meat products, they share similar challenges as they consider converting to grass-based systems. A survey of Ohio beef and sheep producers reveals a number of underlying factors that influence the decision to convert a livestock management system to a grass-base including available infrastructure, knowledge and technical skills, financial costs and a desire to change their system. These findings demonstrate that there are substantive production and marketing issues that influence producer decisions to change an existing management system. A better understanding of the livestock production system and direct marketing opportunities can improve local food programs' capacity to increase the supply of grass-based meat and meat products.

show abstract

Growing and Selling Pasture-Finished Beef: Results of a Nationwide Survey

Cited by 21 publications

References 1 publication

Beef cattle husbandry practices across Ecoregions of Canada in 2011

Beef cattle husbandry practices across Ecoregions of Canada in 2011

Benefits and barriers to perennial forage crops in Iowa corn and soybean rotations

Ohio Livestock Producers’ Perceptions of Producing and Marketing Grass-Based Beef and Lamb

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About