Animal 15 (2021) 100295

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Animal
The international journal of animal biosciences

Review: An overview of beef production from pasture and feedlot

globally, as demand for beef and the need for sustainable practices
increase
Paul L. Greenwood
NSW Department of Primary Industries, Livestock Industries Centre, J.S.F. Barker Building, Trevenna Road, UNE Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Beef is a high-quality source of protein that also can provide highly desirable eating experiences, and
Received 18 October 2020 demand is increasing globally. Sustainability of beef industries requires high on-farm efficiency and pro-
Revised 31 January 2021 ductivity, and efficient value-chains that reward achievement of target-market specifications. These fac-
Accepted 5 February 2021
tors also contribute to reduced environmental and animal welfare impacts necessary for provenance and
Available online 15 July 2021
social licence to operate. This review provides an overview of beef industries, beef production, and beef
production systems globally, including more productive and efficient industries, systems and practices.
Keywords:
Extensive beef production systems typically include pasture-based cow-calf and stocker-
Beef quality
Efficiency
backgrounding or grow-out systems, and pasture or feedlot finishing. Cattle in pasture-based systems
Productivity are subject to high levels of environmental variation to which specific genotypes are better suited.
Supplementary feeding Strategic nutritional supplementation can be provided within these systems to overcome deficiencies
Sustainability in the amount and quality of pasture- or forage-based feed for the breeding herd and for younger off-
spring prior to a finishing period. More intensive systems can maintain more control over nutrition
and the environment and are more typically used for beef and veal from dairy breeds, crosses between
beef and dairy breeds, and during finishing of beef cattle to assure product quality and specifications.
Cull cows and heifers from beef seedstock and cow-calf operations and dairy enterprises that are mostly
sent directly to abattoirs are also important in beef production. Beef production systems that use beef
breeds should target appropriate genotypes and high productivity relative to maintenance for the breed-
ing herd and for growing and finishing cattle. This maximizes income and limits input costs particularly
feed costs which may be 60% or more of production costs. Digital and other technologies that enable rapid
capture and use of environmental and cattle performance data, even within extensive systems, should
enhance beef industry productivity, efficiency, animal welfare and sustainability.
Ó 2021 The Author. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Animal Consortium. This is an open access
article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Implications sustainable, productive, and profitable beef industries with high

standards of cattle welfare.
Global population growth and increasing pressure on the envi-
ronment including land resources will drive improvements in pro-
ductivity and efficiency of beef production systems. Practices that Introduction
result in improved reproductive and growth efficiencies and rapid
cattle turnoff through more efficient use of feed resources will con- Land areas used in livestock production represent 77% (40 mil-
tribute to this objective. Profitability of beef production systems lion km2) of land used for agriculture (51 million km2) and con-
also requires improvements in achieving target-market specifica- tributes 18% of global food energy intake and 37% of global food
tions using appropriate genotypes and management practices, protein supply (Ritchie and Roser, 2020). Population growth and
including for higher-value, premium quality beef production. pressures on availability of productive land for livestock produc-
New measurement technologies notably electronic sensors will tion underlie the need for improvements in productivity and effi-
enhance development of decision support tools to achieve more ciency of beef production. Sustainability of beef production
requires improved on-farm efficiency and productivity (Capper
and Bauman, 2013), and efficient value-chains that reward
E-mail address: [email protected] achievement of target-market specifications. These factors can also

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100295
1751-7311/Ó 2021 The Author. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Animal Consortium.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
P.L. Greenwood Animal 15 (2021) 100295

contribute to reduced environmental and animal welfare impacts and major South American beef producing nations. Cull cows and
necessary for provenance and social licence to operate. heifers from beef seedstock, cow-calf operations, and from dairy
Beef production systems that use beef breeds should target enterprises in countries that have large dairy herds are also impor-
appropriate genotypes and high productivity relative to mainte- tant for the supply of beef.
nance for the breeding herd and for growing and finishing cattle In this section, a brief overview of the scale and characteristics
to maximize income and to limit input costs, particularly for feed, of the beef industries within world regions and countries is pro-
which may be 60% or more of production costs. Where grasslands vided. Most emphasis is on those countries with more advanced
or rangelands are the primary source of nutrients, beef production beef industries that contribute substantially to global beef con-
can be sustainably practised. This is particularly so given feed sumption and trade.
resources within these systems are not suitable for consumption
by humans. Dairy cows can also efficiently produce calves for veal North America
and beef due to their milk production while carrying a foetal calf.
Hence, they can outperform traditional beef breed systems in rela- United States of America
tion to productivity, efficiency and climatic impacts due to the The USA had 94.8 million head of cattle in 2019 and slaughtered
level of productive outputs relative to feed resource use and green- 34.3 million head (USDA, 2020). Beef production in the USA
house gas production. Established and emerging technologies totalled 12.3 million tonnes in 2019 making it the largest beef pro-
include molecular genotyping, electronic sensors, imaging and ducing nation. Exports were 11.1% or 1.36 million tonnes in 2019.
wireless networks. Coupled with increasing capacity to rapidly Japan, South Korea, Mexico and Canada were the largest export
capture, integrate and use data on the environment, cattle perfor- markets for beef from the USA in 2019. The USA has the heaviest
mance, and across the supply chain, they should enhance beef average carcass weight of all beef producing countries (Fig. 2).
industry productivity, efficiency and sustainability, including The USA spans a wide array of geographic, environmental and
within extensive systems. agro-climatic zones resulting in the use of many different cattle
Hence, this review provides an overview of beef production and genotypes and types and scales of production systems (Herring,
beef production systems globally in the context of production effi- 2014; Drouillard, 2018). Over 40% of the land area of the contigu-
ciency and achievement of market specifications. It includes infor- ous states in the USA is used for beef production. Beef production
mation on factors important for beef production at pasture, in systems in the USA are predominantly pasture-based, followed by
feedlot and within dairy systems, and on some emerging technolo- a period of lot-feeding for young steers and heifers destined for
gies likely to aid in improving productivity and efficiency of beef market as beef. Typically, there are 30 million or more beef cows
production and the beef industries globally. The reader should also with the predominant breeds being Angus, Hereford, Simmental,
refer to definitions of terms used in this paper to describe classes of Red Angus, Charolais, Gelbvieh, Brangus, Limousin, Beefmaster,
cattle and beef production systems that are provided in Tables 1 Shorthorn, and Brahman among 80 or so in the USA (Drouillard,
and 2. 2018). However, slaughter cattle are mainly crossbred with the
majority having some Angus genetics. Some 55% of cows are in
the Central region; 20% in the Western region; 20% in the South-
Overview of global beef production and production systems eastern region; and 5% in the Northeast, Alaska and Hawaii. The
reader is also referred to reviews of USA beef industry by Herring
There are approximately 1.5 billion head of cattle globally (2014), Drouillard (2018) and USDA (2020).
(FAOSTAT, 2020). World demand for beef was 70 million tonnes Cow-calf operations produce weaner steers and heifers, includ-
in 2019 and is projected to increase to 74 million tonnes by ing many cross-bred animals from beef breeds or beef and dairy
2023. Beef is a high-quality source of protein that provides highly breeds. Weaners are sent for pasture (stocker cattle) or forage-
desirable eating experiences. It was the third most consumed meat based feeding in backgrounding dry lots prior to feedlotting
after poultry (125 tonnes) and pork (118 million tonnes) in 2019. (Herring, 2014; Drouillard, 2018). These systems include approxi-
International trade in beef was a record 18% of beef produced in mately 60% of weaner calves produced in the USA. Cow-calf oper-
2019. The major beef producing nations or regions are the USA ations also produce calves for feedlot production for 240 days or
(17% of beef production), Europe (15%), Brazil (13%), China (9%), more from weaning. These calves are known as ‘‘calf-feds” and rep-
Argentina (4%), India (4%), and Australia (4%) (Table 3). The largest resent approximately 40% of beef weaner calves. Backgrounding
beef exporters were Brazil (20% of world beef exports), Australia may also include limit feeding of high-concentrate diets to restrict
(16%), India (15% including carabeef from buffalo), USA (13%), growth rate and avoid premature fattening prior to feedlot entry.
New Zealand (6%), Argentina (6%) and Canada (5%) in 2018/9, with There are approximately 9.4 million dairy cows in the USA
the rest of the world supplying about 18% of exported beef (FAOSTAT, 2020) of which Holstein is the predominant breed. They
(Fig. 1 and Table 3). produce 3–4 million dairy calves for feedlotting each year
The type and scale of beef production systems and supply (Drouillard, 2018). Male dairy calves are typically transported to
chains are highly variable between and within major geographic calf ranches at 3 days of age and are reared in individual stalls to
regions and countries. Major beef producing regions that con- limit spread of disease. These calves are fed milk-replacer, grain
tribute substantially to the global beef trade, notably in North and sometimes forage until weaning at 40 to 80 days of age. They
America, South America, and Australia, have more specialized beef are then group-fed until 150 to 200 kg and sold to feedlots
cattle production systems in addition to dairy beef production. (Herring, 2014; Drouillard, 2018). As in Europe (see below), dairy
Beef industries in Europe, New Zealand and India rely heavily on females are increasingly being inseminated with sexed semen
their substantial dairy industries for beef and veal production. including beef breed semen to produce males destined for beef
Most cow-calf operations within major advanced beef producing production.
regions and countries are pasture-based. South America and Aus- Most culled beef cattle from seedstock and cow-calf operations
tralia have pasture-based systems for growing cattle and finish a and culled dairy cattle are sent directly to slaughter for meat. How-
substantial proportion of cattle and use pasture for a considerable ever, some culled animals may enter feedlots for 50 to 100 days to
proportion of cattle for slaughter. North American production sys- fatten prior to slaughter depending on economics (Drouillard,
tems include a higher proportion of cattle that are feedlot finished 2018). Dairy enterprises in the USA typically cull almost 30% of
for slaughter, although feedlot finishing is increasing in Australia their dairy cows annually (Edwards et al., 2019).
2
P.L. Greenwood Animal 15 (2021) 100295

Table 1
Brief description of classes of cattle used in beef production, including synonyms and sub-categories.

Class of cattle Description

Calf Young bovine with no permanent incisor teeth, can be a male or a female with no secondary sex characteristics.
Bobby calf A calf that has been removed from its mother. In the case of a dairy cow, this generally happens when the calf is only a few days old, so it
does not deplete the cow’s milk supply.
Vealer Calf with no evidence of eruption of permanent incisor teeth. Typically, not weaned for more than seven days. Exclusively or primarily fed
milk for bobby calf, white veal or rosé veal production.
Weaner A young animal that has been weaned from its mother’s milk to live completely on pasture or other solid feed.
Calf-fed Calves feedlot-fed from weaning for 240 days or more.
Yearling Young, fully weaned bovine without permanent incisor teeth. Animal does not show any secondary sex characteristics. Approximately 12 to
18 months of age.
Heifer Female bovine that has not produced a calf and is under 42 months of age.
Cow Mature female bovine used for breeding with eight permanent incisor teeth.
Steer Castrated male bovine showing no secondary sex characteristics.
Bull Male bovine with sexual organs intact and that is capable of reproduction. A mature male animal used for breeding.
Backgrounder Young bovine ready for lot-feeding. In the USA, weaned cattle grown on forage-based diets or limit fed concentrate-based diets in dry lots to
feedlot entry weight prior to fattening. In Australia, weaned cattle usually grown on pasture to feedlot entry weight for fattening.
Stocker Young bovine ready for lot-feeding. In the USA, weaned cattle grown on pasture to feedlot entry weight for fattening.
Finished Cattle that have reach market specifications and are ready for processing are described as ’finished’. Cattle can be either pasture, forage or
grain finished.
Pasture finished Cattle fattened on high-quality pasture to slaughter specification.
Forage finished Cattle fattened on forage-based diet such as high-quality pasture, silage or hay to slaughter specification.
Feedlot finished Cattle fattened on a high energy grain-based diet to slaughter specification. May be described as lot finished, grain finished, lot fattened,
grain fattened or feedlot fattened.
Short-fed Cattle fed on a grain-based diet in a feedlot for a short period of time. Usually refers to cattle that are fed for 50 to 100 days generally for a
domestic market that requires leaner beef. May be described as domestic fed or domestic finished.
Long-fed Cattle fed on a grain-based diet in a feedlot for a longer period of time. Usually refers to cattle that are fed for > 100 days up to 600 days.
Includes what may be referred to as medium-fed cattle that are feedlot-fed for 150 to 200 days. Used for supply of marbled beef for export
markets such as Japan and Korea, and for hotel, restaurant and institution (HRI) trade. May be described as export fed, export fattened, or
export finished.
Cull Cattle removed or culled from a herd due to factors including age, performance, ill-health, lack of soundness, lack of available feed and
economics. May be sent to directly for slaughter, or for short duration finishing prior to slaughter depending on health and soundness.
Purebred An animal whose parents are of the same breed and may be recorded with a breed registry association.
Crossbred Animal produced by crossing two breeds.
Synthetic breed Breed developed from specific crossbreeding programme to create a new breed.
Indigenous breed or Local or regional long-established or native genotype or breed. Typically well-adapted to the local environment.
genotype
Dual-purpose breed Milk and meat producing breed.
Temperate breed Breed or type that originates from and is adapted to temperate regions. Includes Bos Taurus or taurine cattle, British breeds and European
breeds.
Tropical breed Breed or type that originates from and is adapted to tropical regions. Includes Bos indicus, indicine or Zebu cattle, Brahman and Nelore
breeds.

Pasture production systems. Cow-calf and stocker- Canada

backgrounding beef enterprises in the Central region of the USA Canada has about 11.5 million head of cattle including 9.5 mil-
make use of the extensive native grasslands (Drouillard, 2018). lion beef cattle and 2.0 million dairy cattle. Beef production in
Beef producers use these pastures in combination with residues Canada ranks twelfth globally, producing 2% or 1.40 million tonnes
from crops, harvested forages, and protein concentrates for cow of beef in 2018. Canada exports 45% of its beef, ranking seventh
herds. In the Western region producers typically lease large feder- among beef exporters with 4.8% of world exports in 2019
ally owned grazing areas for spring and summer grazing and use (Canadian Beef, 2019). The USA (74% of exports), Japan, Hong
pasture or stored forage such as silage and hay on private lands Kong/Macau, Mexico and China were the major export markets
during winter. Enterprises in the Southeast more commonly use for Canadian beef in 2018.
improved pastures within smaller operations. In western Canada there are 3.7 million beef cows and 2.9 mil-
Feedlotting. Most feedlot operations are in Nebraska, Texas, Kan- lion or 76% of beef cattle finished for slaughter in Canada (Canadian
sas, Iowa and Colorado which have ready access to high energy cer- Beef, 2019). Cow-calf operations have about 6.5 million head, fee-
eal grains, especially corn but also wheat and sorghum, and to der and stocker operations 1.6 to 2.2 million head, and feedlots 1.4
grain by-products (Drouillard, 2018). Access to human food by- to 1.6 million head. Alberta has most beef cows (1.5 million) and
products has also enabled establishment of feedlots in other areas the largest average herd size (255 head of cattle), followed by Sas-
of the USA such as Washington-Idaho which use wheat and barley katchewan (1.1 million beef cows, 191 head/producer, respec-
as primary energy sources in feedlot diets. Oilseed meals including tively) and Manitoba (412 thousand beef cows and 167 head/
soybean, cottonseed, sunflower and canola are traditional sources producer), and the national average herd size is 69 head. Beef pro-
of protein in feedlot diets in the USA. Distiller’s grains fed wet or duction systems in western Canada, where there are the most cat-
dried and wet corn gluten feed are important cereal by-products. tle within Canada, are similar to those in central and western USA.
Various by-products can replace at least some of the oilseed meals These enterprises are typically cow-calf operations on ranches that
used to provide additional protein in feedlot diets. Feedlot diets produce calves for backgrounding or dry lot, and large feedlots for
typically include by-products at 40% of the diet. By-products may finishing cattle on high energy concentrate-based diets.
be included at up to 70% of the diet if economic conditions are
favourable. This often increases the protein content of the diet Mexico
beyond nutritional requirements for finishing cattle (Drouillard, Mexico had 16.7 million cattle and slaughtered 6.3 million head
2018). from which 2.03 million tonnes of beef were produced in 2019
3
P.L. Greenwood Animal 15 (2021) 100295

Table 2
Brief description of systems for beef production.

Production system Description

Seedstock Supplier of registered, purebred cattle to multiplier or commercial enterprises. Seedstock cattle have documented pedigrees and
estimates of genetic merit, such as expected progeny differences or estimated breeding values.
Multiplier Producer of offspring from cattle purchased from seedstock herds, usually for supply to commercial enterprises.
Cow-calf Beef breeding and calf rearing system, also known as suckler herds.
Veal Calves exclusively or primarily milk feeding for white veal or rosé veal production. Calves with no evidence of eruption of permanent
incisor teeth. Typically, not weaned for more than seven days.
Yearling beef Beef from young, fully weaned cattle without permanent incisor teeth. Animal does not show any secondary sex characteristics.
Approximately 12 to 18 months of age.
Backgrounding Growing programme for feeder cattle from the time calves are weaned until they enter a feedlot to be fattened or finished. In the USA,
refers to weaned cattle grown on forage-based diets or limit fed concentrate-based diets in dry lots to feedlot entry weight prior to
fattening. In Australia, refers to weaned cattle usually grown on pasture to feedlot entry weight for fattening.
Stocker Growing programme for feeder cattle from the time calves are weaned until they enter a feedlot to be fattened or finished. In the USA,
refers weaned cattle grown on pasture to feedlot entry weight for fattening.
Dairy beef Weaned dairy cattle grown on forage and/or concentrates to slaughter at ages typically ranging from 12 to 30 months. Includes dairy bull,
heifer and steer beef. Can include cattle sired by beef breed bulls mated to dairy females including use of artificial insemination with
sexed semen.
Pasture fed Cattle grown on pasture for manufacturing or lean beef, or for pasture or feedlot fattening. Cattle that have grazed primarily on pastures
or crops rather than grains.
Manufacturing beef System that produces lean, lower eating quality beef used for manufacturing purposes. Also known as commodity beef or grinding beef.
Typically uses resilient, lower fatness genotypes, such as tropically adapted cattle, within extensive production systems, and cull cattle.
Pasture finishing Cattle fattened for slaughter on high-quality pasture or grazed forage crops.
Feedlot finishing Cattle fattened for slaughter on high energy concentrate-based diets. Where cattle are fed a high energy grain-based diet to reach market
specifications.
Marbled beef System that produces meat with high levels of intramuscular fat known as marbling. Typically uses high marbling genotype cattle and a
long feedlot period with high energy concentrate-based diets.
Subsistence Small-scale family enterprise for self-grown food for consumption to maintain self or family.
Backyard Small-scale or hobby family enterprise, not usually the primary source of income.
Smallholder Small-scale enterprise usually family based for food as a primary source of income.
Family Variable-scale family enterprise often inherited. A primary source of family income.
Corporate Large-scale organization or company, often horizontally and vertically integrated.
Intensive Higher input and output per unit land area system. Includes confinement or housed, penned, or fenced enterprise on small land holding,
or higher stocking density and productivity grazing enterprise on relatively small land holding that may include irrigation, controlled
grazing and grazed or harvested forage crops.
Extensive Lower input and output per unit land area system. Larger-scale, generally lower stocking density foraging based enterprise including
pasture, browse, savanna and/or rangelands.
Forage based Herbage based including feeding on pasture, browse, savanna or rangelands, or harvested or grazed forage crops.
Pastoral Pasture-based grazing.
Rangelands Grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, wetlands and deserts grazed by domestic livestock.
Mixed livestock Mixed livestock species production system.
Mixed agricultural or Mixed cropping and livestock system.
agropastoral

tion systems (Peel et al., 2010 and 2011). Production systems

include various cow-calf systems that may also produce live cattle
for export, confinement or semi-intensive finishing for domestic
production, dual-purpose beef and dairy, and backyard production.
Cow-calf systems range from high productivity systems that may
use improved and/or irrigated pastures and include improved
non-Zebu genotypes for live export to the USA. Cow-calf systems
also include semi-intensive systems with somewhat lesser produc-
tivity producing beef for domestic consumption, and traditional
low productivity systems. The latter two systems also include
dual-purpose cattle for meat and milk production. Mexico has a
high proportion of small herds. Increasingly, however, confine-
ment, semi-intensive or feedlot finishing of cattle using
concentrate-based rations are being used, with sorghum having
been used as the primary grain within rations (Peel et al., 2011).
Fig. 1. Share of global beef exports of the major beef producing countries or regions
(MLA, 2020a).

Europe

(Lara and Kuypers, 2019). Mexico exported 225 thousand tonnes of Europe has a diverse range of beef production systems depend-
beef in 2019, the major export markets being the USA, Japan and ing on factors including widely varying agro-climatic regions, the
Korea, respectively. Mexico supplied 19% of total USA beef imports scale of dairy production within regions, and market requirements.
in 2019, making it the third largest supplier to the USA after Europe has about 119 million head of cattle (FAOSTAT, 2020), of
Canada and Australia. which the European Union (EU) had 86 million head in 2019. Of
Beef enterprise types in Mexico have traditionally used Bos indi- these about 35 million in Europe are dairy cows (FAOSTAT, 2020)
cus breeds. Mexico has arid, semi-arid, temperate and humid and or 65% of the European or EU cow herd (MLA, 2020a). Annual Euro-
dry tropical zones with differing levels and types of beef produc- pean slaughter is about 40 million head producing 10.6 million
4
P.L. Greenwood Animal 15 (2021) 100295

Table 3
Summary of production and market characteristics of major beef producing and exporting nations in 2019 (MLA 2020a).

USA Brazil European Union China India Argentina Australia Mexico Canada New Uruguay
Zealand
Cattle
Cattle (million head) 95.0 244.1 86.1 87.5 308.71 54.1 26.0 16.9 11.1 10.1 11.4
Dairy % of cow herd 23 43 65 20 100 8 12 31 21 83 7
Cattle and calf slaughter (million 34.0 40.6 27.0 50.0 38.8 13.5 8.9 6.3 3.7 4.4 2.3
head)
Cattle exports (million head) 0.27 0.63 0.95 0.02 0 - 1.18 1.35 0.71 0.02 0.15
Beef production and consumption
Beef and veal production (‘000 tonnes 12 289 10 7 910 6 850 4 287 3 040 2 397 2 030 1 330 686 568
cwt2) 210
Total domestic consumption (‘000 12 240 8 003 7 905 9 233 2 687 2 360 634 1 880 967 50 137
tonnes cwt)
Domestic share of production (%) 88 78 95 100 63 77 26 83 57 5 17
Per capita domestic consumption 38.2 35.1 15.4 5.4 0.8 56.7 25.0 12.5 25.2 16.8 26.1
(‘000 tonnes cwt)
Beef exports
Beef exports (‘000 tonnes cwt) 999 1 504 226 - 1 130 436 1 158 225 379 453 335
Chilled % share of exports 44 13 5 2 1 20 26 85 79 7 11
Average export price ($US/kg) 5.61 3.90 4.23 7.02 2.92 5.13 5.54 5.57 7.24 4.93 5.02
Top three export markets Japan China Bosnia and - Vietnam China China USA USA China China
Korea EU Herzehovia Malaysia EU Japan Japan Japan USA EU
Mexico Chile Hong Kong Iraq Chile USA Korea Hong Taiwan USA
Israel Kong
1
Includes 110 million buffalo from which carabeef is produced.
2
cwt = carcass weight.

nal traditions, and markets. European beef production zones can be

broadly categorized as Northern mountainous, Northern lowland,
Central and the Po Valley, Alpine, and Mediterranean (European
Commission, 2001). The Central and Po Valley and Northern Low-
land systems are the most highly productive for beef. Breeds
include dairy which are predominantly Friesian/Holstein, dual-
purpose, and beef. Beef breeds include highly muscled, late-
maturing European breeds, earlier maturing British breeds, and
local rustic breeds such as in Spain. Dairy cows in some European
countries are increasingly being inseminated with beef breed
semen, including sexed semen (Pahmeyer and Britz, 2020;
Skelhorn et al., 2020). Beef breed sexed semen is more typically
used to mate heifers to produce males for intensive feeding and
Fig. 2. Average beef carcass weights for major beef producing and exporting
females for pasture-based or lot-feeding systems. These practices
nations (MLA 2020a). allow for better integration of dairy and beef production. They also
provide opportunities to rear dairy calves for meat in Europe and
elsewhere that would otherwise be killed at birth (Skelhorn
tonnes carcass weight equivalent (cwe) of beef. The EU had 27 mil- et al., 2020).
lion head producing 7.9 million tonnes cwe of beef in 2019, 95% of Milk-fed veal production accounts for about six million calves
which was consumed domestically. The EU’s largest beef export annually, but a larger proportion of offspring from dairy cows enter
markets are Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hong Kong and Israel. A total beef fattening systems. White veal production mainly uses male
of 0.95 million live cattle was also exported from the EU in 2019. dairy calves fed milk-replacer up to 6 months of age (Skelhorn
Compared to other highly developed cattle industries globally, et al., 2020). Rosé veal is mostly produced from male dairy calves
the cost of beef production from beef enterprises in the EU and up to 12 months of age. They are fed milk-replacer then weaned
other European countries can be high, and within the EU may be onto diets with roughage and concentrates (Skelhorn et al., 2020)
subsidized. However, the high proportion of beef from dairy herds Dairy calves destined for fattening systems are reared on milk-
results in beef production from Europe and the EU being among replacer plus solid feed from 1 to 2 days of age until weaned at 6
the most efficient and least polluting in the world (Nguyen et al., to 9 weeks of age. They are then fed forages or forages and concen-
2010; Buleca et al., 2018; Hocquette et al., 2018). trates prior to entering systems for fattening (European
Beef production in Europe is highest in France, Germany, United Commission, 2001).
Kingdom, Italy, Spain and Ireland, respectively (Hocquette et al., The major beef fattening systems used in Europe are described
2018). Most European beef is produced as a by-product from dairy in more detail by European Commission (2001). Mainland Europe
farms which have two-thirds of European cattle. Dairy enterprises primarily produces young dairy bull beef fattened for 120–250 days
contribute to white and rosé veal (Skelhorn et al., 2020), finished to slaughter at 12–14 months of age, or beef breed bulls weaned at
beef, and beef from culled dairy cattle. More specialized beef farms 6–8 months of age and slaughtered at 12–16 months of age. These
include cow-calf (suckler) herds and fattening systems (European systems include supply of young beef breed calves for fattening in
Commission, 2001; Malau-Aduli and Holman, 2014). other counties, for example, 6-month-old weaned calves from beef
Climate and farming systems are highly variable across Europe cows in France that are fattened in Italy. Ireland, the UK and north
and beef production systems depend on available feedstuffs, regio- western France produce steers fattened on grass or fattened
5
P.L. Greenwood Animal 15 (2021) 100295

indoors on grass silage plus concentrate to 20–30 months of age, tinian beef. Increasingly, beef production has shifted from older,
and heifers intensively or pasture finished to about 20 months heavier cattle to one-year-old cattle (MLA, 2018a).
old. Beef production systems that are integrated within cropping Grass pastures are the predominant cow-calf feeding and finish-
systems are more prevalent in central and eastern European coun- ing systems which may also include supplementation with grain or
tries (Zjalic et al., 2006). silage. Feedlot finishing accounted for 28% of cattle slaughtered in
2016 (MLA, 2018a). Efficiency improvements have not been evi-
dent over the past 15 years or so, particularly in cow-calf produc-
South America
tivity. This has led to an effort by the Argentinian government
through policy support to help industry increase weaning rates
Brazil
through technology, health, genetic and nutritional improvements
Brazil has had the highest rate of growth in beef production of
(Joseph, 2018a; MLA, 2018a).
any major beef producing country globally since 2008 and is the
world’s largest beef exporter (ABIEC, 2019; FAOSTAT, 2020). Brazil
Uruguay
had 215 million head of cattle in 2019 which were predominantly
Uruguay has about 12 million cattle including 4.4 million cows
Bos indicus cattle. Beef production of 11 million tonnes cwe con-
of which 0.33 million were dairy cows. Uruguay slaughtered 2.3
tributed about 9% to its national gross domestic product in 2018
million head in 2019. Total beef production was 0.54 million ton-
when over 44 million head were slaughtered (ABIEC, 2019). About
nes cwe and beef exports were 0.42 million tonnes cwe in 2019
80% of beef produced was consumed domestically, and 20% or 2.2
making Uruguay the seventh largest beef exporter internationally.
million tonnes cwe was exported in 2018. Brazil has primarily been
Uruguay’s major export markets are China, EU, USA, Israel and Bra-
a supplier of commodity beef and production efficiency is lower
zil (MLA, 2018a and 2020a). Beef production is the major contrib-
than in the USA and Australia. However, productivity in Brazil
utor to Uruguay’s agribusiness sector.
has been gaining on its major international competitors through
Cattle are predominantly bred, grown and finished on temper-
improved beef genetics and management and increasing number
ate pasture, but grain finishing is practised for exported beef as
of feedlot cattle (MLA, 2020a). China was Brazil’s largest export
well as for live cattle exports of which there were 270 thousand
market by value in 2018, followed by Hong Kong, EU, Egypt, and
head in 2017. British breed cattle, particularly Hereford that have
Chile.
comprised 65% of the national herd, are most prevalent in Uruguay.
Cattle numbers in Brazil have increased by 35% since 1998
Grain-fed cattle represent about 15% of Uruguayan cattle slaugh-
although they have been relatively stable in recent years (ABIEC,
tered, with 80% of grain-fed beef shipped to the EU and 20% con-
2019). Brazil’s cattle herd is the largest national cattle herd in
sumed domestically. Profitable conditions and expansion of the
the world. Numbers of cattle in feedlots have been steadily increas-
national herd since 2013 have enabled the Uruguayan beef indus-
ing and accounted for 5.6 million head or 12.6% of the 44.2 million
try to invest in improved genetics, nutrition and management
cattle slaughtered in Brazil in 2017. The Midwest is the region with
(Joseph, 2018b; MLA, 2018a).
the most cattle in Brazil, followed by the North, Southeast, then
Northeast and South regions. There were 2.6 million beef produc-
Paraguay
ers in 2017, of which 0.5% had 19.2% of cattle on farms of more
Paraguay had 13.8 million head of cattle in 2019 on 145 thou-
than 2 500 hectares, 1.1% had 14.2% of cattle on farms of 1 000–
sand beef producing properties (Meador and Balbi, 2019). Almost
2 500 hectares, 6.6% had 26.9% of cattle on farms of 200–1 000
two-thirds of the nation’s beef cattle are on 4 300 properties, and
head, 43.4% had 31.2% of cattle on farms of 20 to 200 head, and
about 90% of beef producers have less than 100 head of cattle. Beef
48.4% had 8.5% of cattle less on properties with less than 20 head.
production is around 0.53 million tonnes cwe of which 0.35 million
There are about 162 million hectares of pasture lands which is
tonnes is exported, making Paraguay the tenth largest beef expor-
equivalent to 19% of Brazil’s 852 million hectares, and an
ter globally. Major export markets are Chile, Russia, Taiwan and the
additional 71 million hectares of perennial, semi-perennial and
EU.
annual agricultural lands (ABIEC, 2019). Of the pastured land,
Growth of Paraguay’s beef industry is being supported by
137 million hectares (84%) is pasture classified as in good condi-
improved weaning rates in expanding numbers of newer cow-
tion, 9.7 (6.0%) million ha is pasture requiring recovery, 4.2 million
calf operations in the Chaco region. Paraguay has had relatively
ha (2.6%) is pasture in an advance stage of biological or agricultural
poor weaning rates due to poor nutrition, reproductive health,
deterioration, and 11.8 million hectares (7.3%) includes grain or
and management of cow-calf herds compared to other major South
other crops integrated with livestock. Productivity increased by
American beef producing countries (Meador and Balbi, 2019). Pas-
176% from 1990 to 2018. During this period, there was an increase
ture underpins production systems on ranches in Paraguay, espe-
in productivity per ha from 24.5 to 67.5 kg beef, and an increase
cially in the Chaco and Oriental regions, and 15% or less of cattle
from 4.6 to 11.0 million tonnes of beef production in total. Pastured
are finished for slaughter on grain-based feed. Northern and cen-
area in Brazil is reported to have declined from 192 to 162 million
tral Chaco have increased use of Gatton Panic (Megathyrus maximus
hectares between 1990 to 2018 due to reduced deforestation and
var. Maximus ‘Gatton Panic’). Gatton Panic is a variety of Guinea
area under pasture according to ABIEC (2019). However, beef pro-
grass that is a deep-rooted clumping grass suitable for inclusion
duction and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has been
in mixed pasture species swards and is highly productive for all
increasing, with adverse implications for greenhouse gas produc-
but the winter period in Paraguay. Increasing corn and sorghum
tion and hence climate change (Vale et al., 2019).
grain production in these areas provides opportunity for finishing
cattle on grain and silage.
Argentina
Argentina ranks tenth among beef exporting countries and pro- Oceania
duced about 3.0 million tonnes of beef of which it exported 0.58
million tonnes cwe in 2019 (Table 1: Joseph, 2018a). The national Australia
cattle herd was 54 million head of mainly Bos taurus cattle, and Australia is the world’s second largest beef exporter supplying
13.2 million head were slaughtered in 2019 (Table 1). Argentina about 16% of beef exported, despite producing only 4% of world
produces both high-quality and lower quality beef and China, EU, beef production (MLA, 2020a). Australia has about 26 million head
Chile, Israel and Brazil are the largest export markets for Argen- of cattle of which the dairy herd comprises only 12%. Beef produc-
6
P.L. Greenwood Animal 15 (2021) 100295

tion is about 2.4 million tonnes cwe annually of which about two- million head of cattle in New Zealand of which 6.5 million (65%)
thirds is exported. Australia is also the leading long-haul exporter were dairy cattle and 3.6 million (35%) were beef cattle in 2017
of live cattle globally, and currently exports over one million head (StatsNZ, 2019). The New Zealand cattle herd is not large by world
each year. Live cattle are primarily sent from Northern Australia to standards. However, New Zealand exports about 650 thousand
South-East Asia and the Middle East for feedlotting, slaughter or tonnes cwe of beef which is 95% of its total beef production of
breeding (MLA, 2020a). Australia’s major beef export markets are about 680 thousand tonnes cwe. This is the highest proportion of
China, Japan and USA, and Indonesia is Australia’s most important beef for export compared to domestic consumption of any country
live cattle market. Beef eating quality standards from Australian (Beef + Lamb New Zealand, 2017) and ranks New Zealand fifth
cattle grown and finished at pasture or finished in feedlots are among beef exporting countries.
assured through Australia’s internationally renowned beef quality Beef production in New Zealand is largely seasonal from cull
grading system, Meat Standards Australia (Greenwood et al., 2018). adult and young dairy cattle including many grown out on beef
Beef production systems in Australia are diverse (Bell et al., 2011; and sheep properties. Beef is also produced from more specialized
Burrow, 2014; Campbell et al., 2014; Greenwood et al., 2018). Pas- beef producers that use Bos taurus breeds such as Angus, Hereford
ture or foraging systems encompass northern tropical areas includ- and their crosses that are well suited to New Zealand’s temperate
ing more coastal, pastoral, and savanna or rangeland regions, arid environment (Beef + Lamb New Zealand, 2017). About 70% of New
inland areas, subtropical, and southern warm and cool temperate Zealand’s beef cattle are on the North Island. Beef cattle numbers
regions. Most Australian beef production systems are highly sea- have declined by about 13% while dairy cattle numbers have
sonal. There are a diverse range of cattle genotypes that include trop- increased by 41% over the past 20 years or so. New Zealands major
ically adapted Bos indicus Brahman cattle in the harsher more markets for beef are China, USA and Taiwan.
northern regions. Increasingly in northern Australia, crosses with New Zealand is renowned for its highly productive, high-quality
Bos taurus breeds including Wagyu and Angus, and other synthetic temperate pastures. Pasture production in New Zealand is seasonal
tropically adapted breeds are being used to improve beef eating which contributes to seasonality in the supply of beef (Beef + Lamb
quality characteristics, including tenderness and marbling. British, New Zealand, 2017). The most productive grazing land in New
European and Wagyu Bos taurus beef breeds, and Bos taurus dairy Zealand has generally been used for dairy cows and heifers and
breeds and their crosses, including Wagyu, predominate in more sheep meat production. Specialized beef and sheep production
temperate beef production systems. However, tropically adapted can be complementary or compete for similar land resources
genotypes and their crosses with Bos taurus breeds are becoming including hill farms that are somewhat less productive and more
more common in the more extensive subtropical and temperate sys- extensive than those for dairying (Bell et al., 2011; Beef + Lamb
tems. Similarly, tropical C4 pasture species are increasingly being New Zealand, 2017). Increased numbers of cattle for dairying have
grown in more temperate areas of Australia. They provide high also been encroaching on more typical beef and sheep producing
DM yield but have generally poorer digestibility and nutritional areas.
quality than the temperate pasture species.
Northern beef production systems have a distinct wet season Asia
that coincides with the warmer months, and a prolonged dry sea-
son during the cooler months (Bell et al., 2011; Burrow, 2014; China
Greenwood et al., 2018). Southern systems have a climate with China had 86.5 million head of cattle that produced 6.85 million
rainfall predominating during the cooler months and a distinct tonnes cwe of beef from 50 million head slaughtered in 2019 (MLA,
dry season in the warmer months (Bell et al., 2011; Campbell 2020a), and demand for beef in China is continuing to grow (Li
et al., 2014; Greenwood et al., 2018). Northern systems specialize et al., 2019). About 20% of cattle in China are dairy cattle. Domestic
in beef production on larger holdings, whereas southern beef pro- production supplies over 70% of the 9.2 million tonnes of beef con-
duction includes specialist beef production, mixed livestock, and sumed, and the widening gap between local supply and demand
mixed agricultural enterprises. Rainfall declines towards the more has resulted in continuing growth in beef imports into China.
interior parts of Australia, and cattle may be run at very low stock- Imported beef into China is mainly from Brazil, Australia, USA,
ing rates on extremely large properties in the semi-arid zone. New Zealand, Argentina and Uruguay (Li et al., 2019; MLA, 2020a).
Northern systems have mainly produced leaner beef of lower value More than half of beef production in China is from small-scale
or live cattle for export, whereas southern systems have mainly operations that represent 90% of beef producers, although the
produced higher value beef for domestic consumption or export. numbers of these small-scale producers has been declining since
Northern systems produce more beef than southern systems, but 2003 (Li et al., 2019). These small-scale farmers produce less than
due to different qualities and markets the value of beef production 10 head of mainly indigenous breed cattle for slaughter annually,
from the north and the south of Australia is approximately equal. usually in small abattoirs. Most cattle are in intensive cropping
Australia also has a significant beef feedlot industry that has regions particularly in the Central Plains and Northeast, with
grown over recent decades (Gaughan and Sullivan, 2014). Beef cat- two-thirds of beef production from the agricultural regions
tle for domestic Australian household consumption enter feedlots (Waldron and Brown, 2014; Li et al., 2019). There are larger grazing
to improve the eating quality of relatively lean beef, in which case herds in more extensive systems in the Northwest, diverse inten-
the periods in feedlot are shorter (<100 days). Cattle genotypes sive cropping-cattle systems and mountainous grazing systems
with greater propensity to marble enter feedlots for longer periods in the Southwest, and lower numbers in the Southeast. More
(100 to
350 days, including up to 600 days). They produce more extensive pasture systems use little supplementation, and crop
highly marbled, higher value beef which is primarily for export to residues and grains are used to feed cattle in farming regions. Cat-
Japan and Korea and the domestic and export hotel, restaurant and tle graze during daylight and are intensively housed with crop resi-
institution (HRI) trades. Northern Australian cattle destined for due and grain supplements in farming-pastoral regions (Li et al.,
slaughter on arrival in export markets such as Indonesia and Viet- 2019). Imported cattle from Australia for slaughter and breeding
nam may also spend time in a feedlot prior to shipment. have been enhancing beef production in some regions (Waldron
and Brown, 2014; Li et al., 2019). However, limited numbers of
New Zealand young cattle to finish in feedlots has constrained development of
New Zealand is an important beef exporting country and almost the Chinese beef industry, and China has among the lowest average
exclusively produces beef from pasture. There are about 10.1 carcass weights of the major beef producing countries (Fig. 2). The
7
P.L. Greenwood Animal 15 (2021) 100295

reader is referred to the more comprehensive reviews of Chinese Feed costs are a major issue for Hanwoo beef production, and pas-
beef production and beef industry by Waldron and Brown (2014) ture and corn silage are being used to reduce costs in the southern
and Li et al. (2019). area of South Korea (Chung et al., 2018).

India Indonesia
Bovine meat production in India is from cattle, and from buffalo Demand for beef in Indonesia is growing, and self-sufficiency in
which produce carabeef. India has about 190 million cattle and 110 beef production is a national priority (MLA, 2018b). Indonesia has
million buffalo (Kochewad et al., 2017; MLA, 2017b). India’s about 17 million head of cattle mainly on smallholder farms which
national bovine herd of approximately 309 million head is the supply about 45% of domestic beef consumption. Australian beef
world’s largest (FAOSTAT, 2020). India was projected to produce and live cattle imports for slaughter or fattening in feedlots con-
over six million tonnes cwe of beef in 2020. Of this, 4.3 million ton- tribute to the balance of beef consumed in Indonesia (Agus and
nes is beef and 2.2 million tonnes is carabeef (MLA, 2020a) but has Widi, 2018). Indonesian smallholder beef production systems pro-
the lowest average carcass weight of the major beef producing vide meat, manure, draught power and financial assets. Mixed pro-
nations (Fig. 2). duction systems are typical and vary in scale and practices
Beef and carabeef production in India are mainly by-products of depending on location and land availability (Waldron and Brown,
the dairy industry and use of draft animals, and meat supply chains 2014; Agus and Widi, 2018). For example, Javanese producers typ-
in India are poorly developed compared to other major beef pro- ically have 2–4 stall-fed cattle on holdings with cropping and live-
ducing countries (Kochewad et al., 2017; MLA, 2017b). Cattle and stock, whereas there are herds of 5–50 or more cattle within more
buffalo are important financially for smallholders and landless extensive systems in other regions or islands with more plentiful
labourers. Over 60% of Indian farmers have livestock, with 80% land. Smallholder production systems are rudimentary and often
farming on less than 2 hectares (Kochewad et al., 2017). Buffalo keep breeding cattle that produce offspring for sale rather than just
meat production has been increasing due to growth and improve- having cattle grown for slaughter. Reproduction rates are typically
ments in the Indian dairy industry of which water buffalo comprise low, and low-quality crop residues which are cheap and abundant
about 45% of animals (MLA, 2017b). India exports about one-third and by-products or other non-conventional feeds are fed. Some
of bovine meat produced, with Vietnam, Egypt, Malaysia, Indonesia crossbreeding of local cattle with Bos taurus breeds including Sim-
and Saudi Arabia the major export markets. The balance of produc- mental and Limousin is practised. Feedlots including large-scale
tion is eaten domestically by the 20% of the population who are not commercial feedlots with associated infrastructure for imported
Hindu or otherwise vegetarian i.e., mainly Muslims and Christians live cattle from northern Australia is practised in West Java and
(MLA, 2017b, 2020a and 2020b). Sumatra Island. Feedlots use by-products from agriculture and
industry in their rations to enhance profitability. About 75% of
Japan the cattle imported into Indonesia from Australia are 280–350 kg
Beef production and consumption in Japan has focused mainly liveweight that enter feedlots, whereas imported finished cattle
on highly marbled beef. Domestic beef production is low by inter- weighing 400 kg or more are consigned directly to abattoirs
national standards at 324,000 tonnes cwe in 2016, representing (MLA, 2018b; Agus and Widi, 2018). Indonesia has a 5–1 feeder
38% of beef consumed in Japan. A further 526,000 tonnes cwe of to breeder policy for imported cattle in order to increase local pro-
imported beef was consumed in 2016, with Australia and the duction (MLA, 2018b). Comprehensive reviews of the Indonesian
USA being the largest suppliers (Gotoh et al., 2018; MLA, 2019a beef industry and beef production systems are provided by
and 2020a). There are about 2.5 million head of beef cattle in Japan Waldron and Brown (2014) and Agus and Widi (2018).
of which the Wagyu breeds, predominantly Japanese Black,
comprise about 1.6 million head and 0.8 million are either F1- Other south-east Asia
Wagyu-cross or Holstein. Average herd size is about 50 head Beef production in other south-east Asian countries mainly
among the 50 thousand or so specialist beef producers, with pro- comprises small herds of indigenous breed cattle that may have
ducer numbers gradually declining. Dairy and dairy crossbreed cat- low reproductive rates and some crossbreeding with imported
tle average herd size is larger at approximately 250 head per farm improved breeds. Producers are typically smallholders who feed
(Komatsu and Malau-Aduli, 2014; Gotoh et al., 2018). Cow-calf cattle crop residues, agro-industrial by-products and other non-
enterprises have about 15 head per farm and are smaller than fat- conventional feeds. Supply chains are less developed than in major
tening enterprises which typically have more than 100 head. Pen beef producing countries. Demand for beef in these countries is
feeding using grown forage and imported concentrate feeds is increasing and most domestic production is consumed locally.
more typical, some imported forages are fed, and 13% or so of beef Additional demand may be met by imports including of carabeef
producers graze cattle (Komatsu and Malau-Aduli, 2014). Beef pro- from India. Reviews of the beef industries in Thailand (Bunmee
duction in Japan is high cost and low efficiency with relatively et al., 2018) and Laos (Napasirth and Napasirth, 2018) were
small profit margins for producers despite very high retail prices recently published.
for Japanese beef (Gotoh et al., 2018).
Africa
South Korea
Beef production and consumption in Korea is primarily for mar- Africa has 356 million head of cattle including 44 million that
bled beef, although there is increasing demand for leaner beef were slaughtered in the production of 6.7 million tonnes of beef
(Chung et al., 2018). There are about 2.6 million head of Hanwoo in 2018 (FAOSTAT, 2020). Most African cattle are in sub-Saharan
cattle on about 84 thousand farms in Korea (Chung et al., 2018) Africa which covers an area of 22.4 million km2 and has 700 mil-
from which 277 thousand tonnes cwe of beef was produced in lion hectares of grasslands between the tropics of Cancer and
2016 (MLA, 2017a). Imports of beef have grown from less than Capricorn (Otte and Chilonda, 2002; Otte et al., 2019). The coun-
100 thousand tonnes in 1990 to about 400 thousand tonnes in tries with the largest cattle herds in Africa are Ethiopia (63 million
2018/19, primarily from the USA, Australia and New Zealand head), Sudan (31 million), Chad (29 million), Tanzania (27 million)
(MLA, 2019b). The Hanwoo beef industry in Korea comprises seed- Nigeria (21 million) and Kenya (20 million). Uganda, Niger, South
stock, multiplier or cow-calf, and feedlot sectors, with many farms Africa, South Sudan, Mali, Madagascar and Burkina Faso each have
having both breeding and feedlot enterprises (Chung et al., 2018). 10–15 million head (FAOSTAT, 2020). The five main agropastoral
8
P.L. Greenwood Animal 15 (2021) 100295

regions are Arid (38% of sub-Saharan Africa), Semi-arid (18%), Sub- Cow-calf systems represent 60–70% of production costs to
humid (21%), Humid (18%) and Highland (5%) (Otte and Chilonda, slaughter (Jenkins and Ferrell, 2002). Pasture-based or foraging
2002). Livestock production including beef production are impor- systems predominate in major beef producing countries such as
tant contributors to gross domestic product of sub-Saharan African USA, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Uru-
countries, having roles in the stability of incomes, food supply and guay, in some European countries including France, UK and Ireland,
farming systems. and in sub-Saharan Africa. They include grazing and rangeland pro-
Productivity of beef production in sub-Saharan Africa is gener- duction within beef only or mixed livestock and farming systems.
ally poor and coupled with the growing population has resulted Pasture-based backgrounding and finishing systems and feedlot
in low per capita consumption of beef and other meats and milk grow-out and finishing systems are used to varying degrees in
(Otte and Chilonda, 2002; Otte et al., 2019). This is despite Africa major beef producing countries, depending on available feed
undergoing one of the most rapid rates of economic development resources, environment, market requirements and costs of produc-
in the world, and no major decline in the extensive areas covered tion. Strategic nutritional supplementation may include by-
by grasslands in sub-Saharan Africa (Otte et al., 2019). Beef produc- products and can overcome deficiencies in the amount and quality
tion in sub-Saharan Africa can be broadly categorized as traditional of pasture- or forage-based feed for the breeding herd, for offspring
which includes pastoral, agropastoral and mixed production sys- prior to finishing, and during pasture finishing to ensure efficient
tems, and non-traditional which includes beef cattle properties growth and target-market specifications are met.
or ranches and dairy farms (Otte and Chilonda, 2002). There are Efficiency of beef production is affected by numerous factors
a diverse range of indigenous cattle breeds in Africa (Mwai et al., and can be assessed at various levels including animal biological,
2015) but traditional systems are characterized by low calving enterprise, sector and industry (Cottle and Pitchford, 2014). A
rates, high calf mortality, and low milk production. These factors major impact on efficiency and profitability of beef production is
combine to result in poor production efficiency and limited supply reproductive rate and reproductive efficiency due to the cow-calf
of beef and milk. Poor productivity of traditional systems is a con- phase of production typically accounting for at least 60% of produc-
sistent feature across all agropastoral zones, with the major factor tion costs. Reproductive rate is assessed as percentage of calves
influencing productivity being cattle stocking density (Otte and weaned relative to cows joined. Reproductive efficiency can be
Chilonda, 2002). defined as weight of calf weaned per cow joined per year
Improved nutrition, management and health within non- (Holroyd and McGowan, 2014), or the ratio of calf weight at wean-
traditional systems such as in South Africa (Visser et al., 2020; ing to cow weight. Although not currently measurable within
Oduniyi et al., 2020) that are more aligned with higher performing extensive systems but important for efficiency of feed resource uti-
production systems elsewhere in the world, contribute to far lization and enterprise economics, reproductive efficiency should
greater on-farm productivity and efficiency. Relatively small quan- more correctly be defined as maternal DM intake from first mating
tities of beef are exported from some African countries including exposure to weaning (Bell and Greenwood, 2013).
South Africa, Botswana and Namibia, although health restrictions Maternal productivity and efficiency have been reviewed and
limit export market access. Recently, Namibia commenced export- discussed in detail within the context of production systems by
ing small quantities of beef to the USA, the first African country to Walmsley et al. (2018). In temperate systems with improved pas-
do so (Reuters, 2020). ture feed base and improved beef cattle genetics the reproductive
rates are typically high and can be 90% or more. Extensive range-
land systems with harsher environments and more marked sea-
Brief overview of beef production systems sonal effects on pasture availability and quality can result in
negative energy balance and reduced fatness of breeding females.
Beef production systems may be broadly classified as extensive Hence, reproductive rates can be substantially lower at 50% or so
including rangeland and pastoral, agropastoral, mixed farming, and in harsher, more extensive tropical systems such as in far northern
intensive. Extensive beef production systems typically include Australia, compared to 80 to 85% target weaning rates considered
pasture-based cow-calf and stocker/backgrounding or grow-out achievable (Holroyd and McGowan, 2014). Maternal genotype is
systems, and pasture or feedlot finishing. Cattle in pasture-based an important consideration and can interact with nutritional and
systems are subject to high levels of environmental variation to other environmental factors to affect reproductive efficiency (Bell
which specific genotypes are better suited. Strategic nutritional and Greenwood, 2013).
supplementation may be required within these systems. More Within systems for growing cattle after weaning, adequate
intensive systems can maintain more control over nutrition and intake of nutrients from pasture and if necessary, as supplements
the environment and are more typically used for dairy veal and are important to ensure more rapid growth and increased produc-
beef production and during finishing to assure product quality tivity relative to maintenance and to ensure more rapid turnoff of
and specifications. cattle for slaughter or feedlot. This is especially important in sea-
The characteristics of beef production systems vary widely and sonally variable beef production systems such as in northern Aus-
are influenced by available resources and by market and supply tralia to avoid the costs including feed resources of having to
chain development. Beef enterprise characteristics are also deter- maintain cattle through an additional dry season before target-
mined by whether beef is a primary focus of the enterprise or a market weights are achieved (Bell et al., 2011; Burrow, 2014;
by-product of other uses, including dairy production. Beef produc- Greenwood et al., 2018).
tion systems that use beef cattle genetics include cow-calf and Finishing systems require feed of high energy value, typically
grow-out systems, may include finishing systems. A large propor-
10 MJ ME/kg DM or more to ensure rapid, efficient growth and
tion of global beef production is also associated with cull cattle, off- specified levels of growth and fattening that may include marbling
spring that are a by-product of dairy production. Europe and the to meet target-market specifications (Hynd, 2014). Where beef fin-
USA produce large quantities of dairy beef and veal for domestic ishing systems are used, they generally include fattening of cattle
consumption, whereas New Zealand is a major exporter of beef on higher quality improved pastures, or on high energy concen-
from the dairy industry. Increasingly, dairy industry females are trate feed in feedlots to better meet market specifications and opti-
being mated with beef breed sires to enhance the volume and qual- mize efficiencies (Hynd, 2014).
ities of beef and veal produced and includes the use of sexed semen A well-developed feedlot sector provides additional options for
(Pahmeyer and Britz, 2020; Skelhorn et al., 2020). growing and finishing cattle or even maintaining breeding stock.
9
P.L. Greenwood Animal 15 (2021) 100295

This includes options during drought, depending on availability differing rates of outputs and hence income from the systems.
and quality of pasture and cost of concentrate feeds among other More marginal productivity land for beef production is often used
economic factors, and to achieve market specifications. The USA for breeding herds, whereas growing and/or finishing cattle gener-
has the largest beef feedlot industry, although the proportion of ally require more productive land suitable for higher yielding
beef from feedlot finishing has been increasing in various countries improved pastures (Hynd, 2014). This reflects the availability and
including Australia, Brazil, Canada and Indonesia. quality of pasture required to ensure adequate intake of nutrients
Small-scale subsistence or commercial cow-calf operations that for different classes of cattle depending on their stage of produc-
often use indigenous breeds generally rely on cut and carry of for- tion and desired level of performance (Table 4 and Figs. 3 and 4).
age, or foraging on pasture, stubble and/or browse. These systems The favoured genotypes within temperate beef production sys-
are more typical in Asia, Africa and less developed regions of South tems are Bos taurus breeds and crosses that include British or
and Central America. Smaller-scale commercial production using larger-framed, leaner European breeds. Increasingly, Wagyu and
harvested forages, grains and/or agro-industrial by-products are Wagyu crosses or British breeds and their crosses genetically
more typically used in Europe, Japan, South Korea and parts of selected for intramuscular fat content are used for markets requir-
South America. Moderate-scale, more intensive commercial graz- ing more marbled meat (Pitchford, 2014; Greenwood et al., 2019).
ing systems occur within more favourable rainfall environments Tropically adapted cattle and their crosses with temperate Bos tau-
for pasture growth within the USA, Europe, Australia, New Zealand rus breeds are also increasingly being used in temperate systems in
and South America. These systems may be combined with sheep regions where heat tolerance is becoming more important, and due
and other agricultural production such as cropping. to their high meat yielding characteristics (Greenwood et al.,
More extensive beef systems include grazing and foraging in 2018).
rangelands across large land areas including in harsher and more Commercial beef production systems in more tropical-seasonal
seasonal rainfall environments. These systems for beef production rainfall and arid regions generally have lower stocking rates on lar-
are more typical in western North America, parts of South America, ger properties due to limitations to productivity. These limitations
and in northern and inland Australia on properties that can range can be geological, climatic and nutritional including lower pasture
up to millions of hectares (Burrow, 2014; Drouillard, 2018; quality than in temperate grazing systems that restricts cattle
Greenwood et al., 2018). growth rates and productivity (‘t Mannetje, 1981). Introduction
of tropical legumes and management to encourage more tropical
Grazing and foraging systems legumes within grazing and foraging systems aims to redress
issues with feed quality in tropical systems (Bell et al., 2011). Trop-
Grazing and foraging systems for beef production vary widely ical and subtropical production systems favour tropically adapted
depending on environmental, animal, and economic factors and cattle genotypes and their crosses that have heat tolerance and
their interactions. They require appropriate soil, plant and grazing resistance to disease and parasites such as ticks (Burrow, 2014).
animal management to maintain productive, sustainable pasture Tropical beef production systems have distinct wet and dry sea-
and rangeland environments (Earl, 2014). Factors contributing to sons with correspondingly higher and lower pasture and forage
the success of grazing and foraging systems can be complex, partic- availability and quality. Hence, strategic nutritional supplementa-
ularly where there is substantial environmental variation due to tion with forages, concentrates and/or lick blocks is necessary to
seasonal effects and climatic variation including drought. These provide additional energy, protein or nitrogen and minerals to
factors result in the need for systems that can maintain adequate maintain productivity during the dry season (Poppi and
nutrition during severe pasture deficits relative to livestock needs. McLennan, 2010). This can avoid the costs of having to carry cattle
Approaches to limiting the impacts of climatic variability include destined for slaughter through additional dry seasons to meet tar-
increasing the range of forages to incorporate species with differ- get live weights, although lower cost options particularly for nitro-
ing growth characteristics across seasons, harvest and storage of gen or protein supplements would enhance their use (Poppi and
excess forage, and use of irrigation where feasible. They also McLennan, 2010).
include supplementation with forage and/or concentrates and
may include feedlots, although in more environmentally sensitive Grazing management
areas supplementary or intensive feeding may be subject to Grazing management affords beef producers options for opti-
restrictions. mizing the productivity, sustainability and regeneration of pas-
Various defined grazing and foraging systems are used in beef tures (Earl, 2014). More critical management factors that interact
production and provide options to manage and maintain pasture with the soil and the plants they support to affect pasture and for-
and cattle productivity. In Australia, which covers widely ranging age productivity include: i) grazing or foraging interval which
agroclimatic zones and is subject to frequent drought, grazing sys- affects plant defoliation, recovery and seeding rates; ii) grazing
tems include continuous, set-stocked, rotational, strip, tactical or or foraging period which impacts on duration of exposure of plants
strategic, cell or time-controlled, and planned systems, as detailed to animals; iii) residual herbage mass after grazing or foraging
by Earl (2014). Similarly, in the western rangelands of North Amer- which influences regrowth or recovery potential and subsequent
ica, rest-rotational, deferred rotational, seasonal suitability, best biomass availability; and iv) stocking rate or density which
pasture, short duration, season-long, and continuous grazing or impacts on the above factors and also determines animal produc-
foraging systems are practised (Frost and Mosely, 2020). Among tivity per head and per unit of land. The productive potential of
these systems in extensive environments, evidence exists that pastures during annual production cycles is also affected by the
rotational or cell grazing is no more productive and is less prof- mix of warm and cool climate pasture species and their seasonal
itable than set stocking for beef production (Briske et al., 2008; growth patterns (Allan and Bell, 1996).
Hall et al., 2014, 2016; Hawkins, 2017). Pasture species productivity within swards can be predicted for
Temperate, higher rainfall commercial beef production systems planning purposes from historical pasture growth data. However,
typically have higher stocking rates than tropical systems and use grazing and pasture management is enhanced by actual measure-
native and more productive improved pasture and forages. Irriga- ments of availability and growth which are affected by prevailing
tion is less practised for beef than for dairy production due to fac- seasonal conditions, prior management, and animal consumption
tors including location and production potential of land, and selectivity of pasture species. Measurement of pasture and
availability of water for irrigation, and economic factors such as forage availability and quality and pasture utilization across the
10
P.L. Greenwood Animal 15 (2021) 100295

production landscape are important to improving productivity of Table 4

grazing and foraging beef enterprises. More details are provided Typical minimum herbage mass (kg of green DM per hectare) required to maintain
satisfactory production levels in grazing cattle (Bell, 2006).
in the section on ‘Measurement tools and applications to enhance
beef production’ below. Digestibility of pasture
Class of cattle 75% 68% 60%
Feedlot and other intensive systems Dry cow 700 1 100 2 600
Pregnant cow (7–8 months pregnant, not lactating) 900 1 700 ns2
Feedlots are used to fatten or finish cattle and can also help Lactating cow (with 2-month-old calf) 1 100 2 200 ns
maintain the supply of nutrients to cattle when pasture availability Growing cattle (% of potential growth)1
30 (0.39 kg/d) 600 1 100 2 900
is grossly inadequate to meet the nutritional needs of cattle such as
50 (0.61 kg/d) 800 1 600 ns
in drought. Feedlot finishing assures the eating quality of beef for 70 (0.85 kg/d) 1 200 2 600 ns
domestic markets and the supply of marbled beef for premium 90 (1.12 kg/d) 2 200 ns ns
markets including the HRI trade and export markets such as Japan 1
Predicted growth rates in brackets are based on a weaned 13-month-old steer
and Korea (Greenwood et al., 2018 and 2019). of approximately 320 kg live weight from a cow with a standard reference live
Cattle entering feedlots undergo induction programmes typi- weight of 500 kg.
2
cally comprising vaccinations for respiratory and clostridial dis- ns = not suitable: at these digestibilities, no matter how much pasture is
eases and parasite treatments. They also include gradual available, pregnant stock are unable to maintain live weight, lactating stock are
likely to experience an unacceptable level of weight loss, and growing stock will not
adaptation to a feedlot diet using a starter ration with more rough- achieve higher targeted weight gains.
age and less energy than finisher diets (Gaughan and Sullivan,
2014). Feedlot entry live weights in the USA average 364 kg, and
water and blocks with minerals, salt, and a diuretic (Gotoh et al.,
in Australia, cattle live weights at feedlot entry typically range
2018). During the earlier phase from 11 to 18 months of age, the
from 280 to 400 kg although for production of heavier carcasses
formulated concentrate portion of the ration increases from 37%
340–450 kg live weight at feedlot entry is preferred. Feedlot diets
to 86% with corresponding reductions in roughage which includes
provide high energy and include grains such as corn, wheat, barley
beer bran, hay and rice straw. Subsequently, from 18 months of age
and sorghum, hay or silage for fibre, a protein source such as soy-
to slaughter, the ration comprises 86% to 84% concentrate and 14%
bean, cottonseed, sunflower, canola and lupins, and vitamins and
to 16% roughage. Hanwoo cattle are fed a concentrate with 69%
minerals. They may include by-products including dried distillers’
TDN (10.2 MJ ME) and 14% CP per kg DM plus ad libitum pasture
grains with solubles which can replace more traditional protein
or rice straw from 6 to 11 months of age. They are then fed a con-
sources if cost-effective, and rumen modifiers (Gaughan and
centrate with 71% TDN (10.5 MJ ME) and 13% CP per kg DM plus
Sullivan, 2014; Hynd, 2014; Drouillard, 2018).
ad libitum rice straw from 12 to 20 months of age. Finally, they
Feedlot finishing diets in the USA typically contain about 11 MJ
are fed a concentrate with 73% TDN (10.8 MJ ME) and 11% CP per
of metabolizable energy (ME)/kg DM (derived from Drouillard,
kg DM plus 10% rice straw from 21 to 29 months of age (Chung
2018) and 6–12% forage (Drouillard, 2018). Typical Australian
et al., 2018).
feedlot finishing diets have a minimum of 10 MJ ME/kg DM and
Efficiencies of feedlot production and target market dictate the
11–15% CP/kg DM within diets with 75:25 or 80:20 grain to rough-
genotypes of cattle preferred for feedlot finishing. Higher yielding
age ratios fed at 2.5–3% of live weight (Hynd, 2014; Gaughan and
cattle that may be bred from high-yielding terminal-sire European
Sullivan, 2014). Feedlot diets in the USA and Australia are reported
breeds are favoured for efficient, leaner beef production using
to often contain protein in excess of nutritional requirements for
shorter feedlot finishing periods (100 days) to improve consis-
cattle that have reached the fattening or finishing phase (Pethick
tency of eating quality. Higher-value markets that demand highly
et al., 2004; Gaughan and Sullivan, 2014; Drouillard, 2018). This
marbled beef including export markets to Japan and South Korea
is primarily due the declining need for protein relative to energy
require longer-feedlotting periods (100 to
350 days, including
in the diet as cattle approach mature lean body mass. During this
up to 600 days). Growth in these markets has resulted in selection
phase the proportion of live weight gain as fat increases, and the
pressure for marbling in British breeds and increased use of Wagyu
proportion as muscle or protein decreases.
and Wagyu-cross cattle (Greenwood et al., 2019). Achievement of
Feedlot diets aim to maximize efficiency as measured by feed
high levels of marbling also results in high levels of deposition of
efficiency or feed to gain ratios. This is mostly although not always
fat in the other depots and the associated costs and inefficiencies
achieved near maximum growth rates depending on factors
of feed use (Gotoh et al., 2018; Greenwood et al., 2019).
including intake and the composition of live weight gain. The
There is a need to uncouple deposition of intramuscular fat
degree of marbling impacts on eating quality and achievement of
from deposition of other fat depots to reduce use of feed resources,
market specifications and is also an important objective for feedlot
carcass wastage and costs (Gotoh et al., 2018; Greenwood et al.,
operations. The primary determinant of expression of marbling
2019). Genetic improvement through use of selection indices has
within a genotype appears to be total energy balance which is a
made progress in this regard although meaningful, practical
function of energy intake and net energy available for tissue
options other than genetics have yet to be established to uncouple
growth during finishing coupled with the duration of the finishing
deposition rates for intramuscular fat from those for other fat
period (Pethick et al., 2004; Hocquette et al., 2010; Park et al.,
depots (Greenwood et al., 2019). These efforts would be enhanced
2018).
by reliable identification prior to feedlot and/or prior to long-
Japanese Wagyu (Gotoh et al., 2018) and South Korean Hanwoo
feeding of individuals with a greater propensity to marble. Progress
(Chung et al., 2018) production systems aim to maximize intra-
towards identification of biomarkers for marbling in live cattle has
muscular fat development to achieve highly marbled beef. High
been limited, although recently several oxysterols in blood were
costs and inefficiencies exist in the current production systems
identified as being specifically associated with marbling pheno-
for highly marbled Wagyu (Gotoh et al., 2018) and Hanwoo
types (Hudson et al., 2020). The range of factors known to affect
(Chung et al., 2018) beef. This includes the need to import 90% of
intramuscular fat deposition in cattle including genetics, sex, age
the concentrate feed for fattening Wagyu cattle (Gotoh et al.,
and live weight at slaughter, environment, nutrition and growth
2018). Wagyu breeds of cattle are fed in group pens a diet high
paths has been reviewed by Pethick et al. (2004); Hocquette
in energy two or three times daily from 11 months of age until
et al. (2010), Park et al. (2018) and Greenwood et al. (2019).
slaughter at 28 to 30 months of age, with unrestricted access to
11
P.L. Greenwood Animal 15 (2021) 100295

Fig. 3. Phases of pasture growth showing typical changes in digestibility and energy density (megajoules (MJ) of metabolizable energy (ME) per kg DM), with increasing
maturity over time for temperate grass species fed to beef cattle (Allan and Bell, 1996).

(Larson et al., 2009; Underwood et al., 2010; Radunz et al., 2012).

While genetic potential for muscling, fatness and marbling estab-
lishes capacity for accretion of these tissues, total energy balance
as determined by energy intake and the net energy available for
tissue growth during finishing is the primary determinant of phe-
notypic expression of fatness and marbling within a genotype
(Pethick et al., 2004; Hocquette et al., 2010).
Evidence suggests few or only modest effects of early-life
growth on eating quality characteristics of beef (Greenwood
et al., 2019). More immediate preslaughter factors and abattoir
processing effects can interact with animal fatness and nutrition
prior to transport to the abattoir to affect, for example, muscle
glycogen, carcass chilling rates and ultimate pH, which in turn
Fig. 4. Typical relationship between herbage mass (kg DM per hectare) and intake
affect meat quality characteristics including tenderness, ageing
of pasture (as percent of maximum pasture intake) for beef cattle (adapted from rates and colour (Warner et al., 2010).
Bell, 2006). Hormonal growth promotants also play an important role in the
beef industries in various countries including the USA and Aus-
tralia (reviewed by Sillence, 2004; Hunter, 2010). They can mark-
Consequences of growth paths for beef production edly increase growth rates, feed efficiency and the proportion of
muscle in carcasses and meat. However, they may also have
Within grazing systems, particularly extensive systems, the adverse effects on meat eating quality including on beef tenderness
environment results in continual variation in growth trajectories and the degree of marbling and can preclude access to certain
across the different phases of production. These so-called growth domestic and some export beef markets such as the European
paths can have implications for performance during later phases Union.
of production including during lot-feeding and on carcass and meat
characteristics at slaughter, as described in more detail in reviews
by Robinson et al. (2013), Greenwood and Bell (2019) and Measurement tools and applications to enhance beef
Greenwood et al. (2019). production
Growth capacity during later life can be compromised by condi-
tions adverse to growth during prenatal life which can be com- Measurement of pasture availability and quality
pounded by restricted nutrition and growth prior to weaning.
Variation in carcass and eating quality characteristics is generally A range of methods and tools that measure or predict various
more affected by nutrition and the environment closer to slaugh- pasture characteristics are available or being developed to provide
ter, i.e., during backgrounding and more particularly during finish- estimates of pasture availability and quality, essentially in real-
ing, than by earlier life and developmental programming effects time as an aid to grazing and pasture management. These can be
(Table 5; Warner et al., 2010; Greenwood et al., 2019). However, combined with soil assessments such as moisture content, salinity
at all stages of postnatal growth additional intake of energy above and fertility to manage soils and manage and predict pasture
requirements for lean tissue growth capacity for prolonged periods growth. Currently, the methods most widely used by beef cattle
can result in increased fatness that may persist into later life and producers to estimate pasture DM on offer are based on visual
may increase marbling (Greenwood et al., 2019). There is also evi- assessments and pasture height measurement rulers (e.g. Beef +
dence that marbling in offspring may be enhanced by providing Lamb New Zealand, 2012; MLA, 2020b) or metres that may also
grazing mid to late-pregnant cows with supplementary protein have Global Positioning System (GPS) capability (Platemeters,
12
P.L. Greenwood Animal 15 (2021) 100295

2020). These methods can be used by beef producers in conjunc- 2018; Halachmi et al., 2019) also have potential application in beef
tion with pasture quality testing or with information from visual feedlots.
assessments of the proportion and stage of maturity of plant spe-
cies within swards. Such visual species-based assessments are Decision support tools and adoption programmes
based on, for example, the BOTONAL method for estimating yield
and composition of pastures (Tothill et al., 1992). The application of measurement technologies within beef pro-
Newer, more automated methods to measure height, DM on duction systems requires development of tools with interfaces that
offer and quality of pasture are emerging (González et al., 2018). can be easily used by beef producers and within other enterprises
These include existing vehicle-towed and developing robotic pas- across the beef supply chain (Tedeschi et al., 2021). These decision
ture height metres with GPS (C-Dax, 2020) and aerial photogram- support tools (DSTs) include genetic improvement programmes
metry (Viljanen, et al., 2018) for pasture DM measurement and and precision management tools to enhance grazing, feedlot, nutri-
mapping. Ground-based, aerial and satellite (e.g., Satellite tional and landscape management, to optimize reproductive out-
Imaging Corporation, 2020) imagery or sensing including across comes, and to improve reliability in meeting target-market
the visible and near infrared spectra to produce vegetation indices specifications.
and multispectral and hyperspectral data are also evolving. Appli- DSTs have been available for many years as herd improvement
cations include estimation of pasture ground cover (Meyer et al., programmes, such as those offered by breed societies and sup-
2013), yield (Viljanen et al., 2018) and quality characteristics ported by national and international genetic improvement pro-
(Pullanagari et al., 2011; Oliveira et al., 2020). Machine-learning grammes such as BREEDPLAN in Australia (Pitchford, 2014; ABRI,
and artificial intelligence are being applied to development of 2017). Comprehensive beef industry training and adoption pro-
these methods which can be mapped on scales ranging from indi- grammes such as More Beef from Pastures (MLA, 2020b) will be
vidual paddocks to the broader landscape. enhanced as scientific, industry and commercial entities develop
new DSTs. The capacity to link objective measurement tools, inte-
Measurement of cattle performance grate data across the supply chain, and use of so-called dashboards
that enable easy access to a range of DSTs will also support
The use and application of various sensor, imaging and other improvements in beef industry productivity and efficiency
emerging technologies were reviewed in relation to extensive beef (Greenwood et al., 2016 and 2018).
production by Greenwood et al. (2014 and 2016), and for livestock Establishment of phenomics platforms for livestock will
production more generally by González et al. (2018) and Halachmi enhance development of DSTs to improve performance of cattle
et al. (2019). Technologies exist or are in development for auto- within their grazing environment and in feedlots. Livestock phe-
mated measurement of live weight (Charmley et al., 2006; nomics platforms can provide a broad and deep array of environ-
González et al., 2014 and 2018; Simanungkalit et al., 2020), mus- mental and cattle performance and physiological data
cling or body composition (McPhee et al., 2017; Miller et al., (Greenwood et al., 2016; Visser et al., 2020). In doing so, they will
2019; Zhao et al., 2020). On-animal sensor devices are also being help overcome current limitations to collection of data for develop-
developed to assess behavioural variables such as time spent graz- ment of more relevant productivity and efficiency traits. This is
ing or eating, ruminating, walking, lying and drinking, and other particularly so for traits grazing cattle, to be used in genomic and
cattle performance, health and welfare related parameters quantitative genetic selection and in development of management
(González et al., 2018; Rahman et al., 2018; Halachmi et al., tools and practices (Greenwood et al., 2016). Such data capture and
2019) including intake of pasture (Andriamandroso et al., 2016; data management platforms will also enable timely generation of
Greenwood et al., 2017). Efficiency of cattle in feedlots can also environmental and health and welfare metrics to improve cattle
be determined using commercially available equipment to auto- well-being and environmental outcomes, which are increasingly
matically assess feeding behaviours and measure intake of feed being required for provenance of beef sold to consumers (Scollan
and water and live weight of cattle (e.g. Growsafe, 2020; et al., 2011). New technologies such as virtual fencing can remotely
Intergado, 2020). Other fixed and on-animal imaging and sensor control cattle and herd access to pastures and environmentally
devices developed for dairy and extensive beef production systems sensitive areas without the need for conventional fencing
to assess location, health, welfare and productivity (González et al., (Campbell et al., 2019 and 2020). Combing virtual fencing with

Table 5
Summary of outcomes for cattle of poor nutrition at pasture and reduced offspring growth during different phases of development, and of pasture compared to feedlot finishing
(prepared from results reviewed by Robinson et al. (2013) and Greenwood et al. (2019)).

Restricted growth during1 Pasture vs feedlot

Outcome Pregnancy Lactation Backgrounding Finishing2
3
Growth to weaning ; NA NA NA
Backgrounding growth ;M M" NA NA
Age at feedlot entry " " " NA
Feedlot/finishing growth ;M M " NA
Feedlot/finishing efficiency M M " ;
Slaughter and carcass weights4 ; ; ;M ;7
Carcass characteristics5 M Slightly leaner6 Leaner Leaner
Carcass retail yield5 M Slightly higher6 Higher Higher
Meat eating quality M M ;M ;
Marbling M M ;M ;
1
Relative to adequate pasture and growth: ; = reduced; ; M = reduced or no change; M = no change; M " = no change or increased; " = increased.
2
Pasture relative to feedlot at the same growth rate.
3
NA = not applicable.
4
At same age.
5
At same carcass weight.
6
Unless recovered for a prolonged period on high energy concentrate feed which may result in increased fatness and reduced retail yield.
7
Carcass weight.

13
P.L. Greenwood Animal 15 (2021) 100295

DSTs based on technologies for measuring environment variables, Acknowledgements

pastures and cattle provides the opportunity to create a step-
change in the way cattle are managed. These developments will The reviewers of this paper are thanked for their insightful contri-
enhance productivity and efficiency, and the beef industry’s capac- butions that helped improve the quality of the paper.
ity to use objective data on productivity and well-being of cattle
and environmental outcomes of beef production. Uses of these data
will include provision of more reliable, objective information to Financial support statement
consumers and policy makers who influence the way in which beef
industries can operate. This review received no specific grant from any funding agency,
commercial or not-for-profit section.

Conclusions and future perspectives

Transparency Declaration
Increasing population growth and environmental constraints
This article is part of a supplement entitled ‘Sustainable livestock
will continue to pressure beef producers and beef industries glob-
systems for high-producing animals’, supported by the European
ally to improve productivity, efficiency and sustainability. Within
Federation of Animal Science (EAAP) and the World Association
the more advanced and developing beef industries, these objec-
for Animal Production (WAAP).
tives are underpinned by continuing improvements in beef cattle
genetics and nutritional and other management practices. These
practices will need to enhance reproductive and growth efficiency, References
carcass and beef quality and animal welfare and environmental ABIEC, 2019. Beef Report. Brazilian Livestock Profile. ABIEC – Brazilian Beef
outcomes. They should also result in cattle that contribute to Exporters Association, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
improved efficiencies along the entire beef supply chain. More ABRI, 2017. BREEDPLAN. A modern genetic evaluation system for beef cattle.
Retrieved on 15 October 2020, from http://breedplan.une.edu.au/brochures/
advanced beef industries such as those in the USA and Australia
BREEDPLAN%20Flyer%20Web.pdf.
maintain a high degree of flexibility in their options for producing Agus, A., Widi, T.S.M., 2018. Current situation and future prospects for beef cattle
a consistent supply of beef to market specifications. This allows production in Indonesia – a review. Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 31,
them to deal with continual climatic variation due to longer- 976–983.
Allan C.J., Bell, A.K.1996., PROGRAZE manual. NSW Agriculture and Meat Research
term trends, seasonal effects and extreme events such as drought. Corporation, Orange, Australia.
An array of cattle genotypes and of nutritional options contribute Andriamandroso, A.L.H., Bindelle, J., Mercatoris, B., Lebeau, F., 2016. A review on the
to this adaptive capacity. Nutritional options include grazing, for- use of sensors to monitor cattle jaw movements and behavior when grazing.
Biotechnologie, Agronomie Société et Environnement 20(Special Issue 1), 273–
aging, and strategic nutritional supplementation appropriate for 286.
specific classes of cattle and in feedlots including by-product feeds Buleca, J., Kováč, V., Kočanová, D., 2018. Cluster analysis of beef production
and feeds or feed additives that reduce greenhouse gas production. distribution in Europe. Slovak Journal of Food Sciences 12, 789–797.
Beef + Lamb New Zealand, 2012. Pasture quality. Visual Assessment. Beef + Lamb
New measurement technologies will enhance development of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
decision support tools and adoption programmes for genetic Beef + Lamb New Zealand, 2017. Guide to New Zealand cattle farming (ed. K.
improvement of cattle, and for grazing, nutritional, landscape and Geenty, S. Morris). Beef + Lamb New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
Bell, A., 2006. Pasture assessment and livestock production. Primfact 323. NSW
supply chain management and contribute to more productive, effi- Department of Primary Industries, Orange, Australia.
cient and sustainable beef industries. The impact of current and Bell, A.W., Greenwood, P.L., 2013. Optimising maternal cow, grower and finisher
future beef industry practices requires on-going, rigorous life cycle performance in beef production systems. In Optimisation of Feed Use Efficiency
in Ruminant Production Systems. FAO Symposium 27. FAO Animal Production
analyses to ensure that those practices aimed at improving produc-
and Health Proceedings, No. 16 (ed HPS Makkar, D Beever). Food and
tivity and efficiencies also have the strategic advantage of better Agriculture Organisation and Asian-Australasian Association of Animal
environmental outcomes. Production Societies, Rome, Italy, pp. 51–72.
Bell, A.W., Charmley, E., Hunter, R.A., Archer, J.A., 2011. The Australasian beef
industries – Challenges and opportunities in the 21st century. Animal Frontiers
1, 10–19.
Ethics approval Briske, D.D., Derner, J.D., Brown, J.R., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Teague, W.R., Havstad, K.M.,
Gillen, R.L., Ash, A.J., Willms, W.D., 2008. Rotational grazing on rangelands:
Not applicable. reconciliation of perception and experimental evidence. Rangeland Ecology &
Management 61, 3–17.
Bunmee, T., Chaiwang, N., Kaewot, C., Jaturasitha, S., 2018. Current situation and
furture prospects for beef production in Thailand – a review. Asian-Australasian
Author ORCIDs Journal of Animal Sciences 31, 968–975.
Burrow, H.M., 2014. Northern Australian beef production. In: Cottle, D., Khan, L.
Paul Greenwood https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7719-8233. (Eds.), Beef cattle production and trade. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood,
Australia, pp. 161–183.
Campbell, M.A., King, B.J., Allworth, M.B., 2014. The southern Australian beef
industry. In: Cottle, D., Khan, L. (Eds.), Beef cattle production and trade. CSIRO
Author contributions Publishing, Collingwood, Australia, pp. 185–204.
Campbell, D.L., Lea, J.M., Kesharvarzi, H., Lee, C., 2019. Virtual fencing is comparable
to electric tape fencing for cattle behaviour and welfare. Frontiers in Veterinary
Paul Greenwood conceived the content and prepared this
Science 6, 445.
manuscript. Campbell, D.L., Ouzman, J., Mowat, D., Lea, J.M., Lee, C., Llewellyn, R.S., 2020. Virtual
fencing technology excludes beef cattle from an environmentally sensitive area.
Animals 10, 1069.
Data and model availability statement Capper, J.L., Bauman, D.E., 2013. The role of productivity in improving
environmental sustainability of ruminant production systems. Annual Review
of Animal Biosciences 1, 469–489.
Not applicable. Canadian Beef, 2019. Canada’s beef industry fast facts. Retrieved on 13 August 2020
from https://canadabeef.ca/canadian-beef-industry-fast-facts/.
C-Dax, 2020. Pasture meter. Retrieved on 15 October 2020, from http://
Declaration of interest www.pasturemeter.co.nz/.
Charmley, E., Gowan, T.L., Duynisveld, J.L., 2006. Development of a remote method
for the recording of cattle weights under field conditions. Australian Journal of
The author declares no conflicts of interest. Experimental Agriculture 46, 831–835.

14
P.L. Greenwood Animal 15 (2021) 100295

Chung, K.Y., Lee, S.H., Cho, S.H., Kwon, E.G., Lee, J.H., 2018. Current situation and and nutritional control, and identification of putative markers. Animal 4, 303–
future prospects for beef production in South Korea – a review. Asian- 319.
Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 31, 951–960. Hudson, N.J., Reverter, A., Griffiths, W.J., Yutac, E., Wang, Y., Jeanes, A., McWilliam, S.,
Cottle, D.J., Pitchford, W.S., 2014. Production efficiency. In: Cottle, D., Khan, L. (Eds.), Pethick, D.W., Greenwood, P.L., 2020. Gene expression identifies metabolic and
Beef cattle production and trade. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia, pp. functional differences between intramuscular and subcutaneous adipocytes in
421–457. cattle. BMC Genomics 21, 77.
Drouillard, J.S., 2018. Current situation and future trends for beef production in the Hunter, R.A., 2010. Hormonal growth promotant use in the Australian beef industry.
United States of America. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 31, Animal Production Science 50, 637–659.
1007–1016. Hynd, P.I., 2014. Growing and finishing beef cattle at pasture and in feedlot. In:
Earl, J., 2014. Grazing and pasture management and utilisation in Australia. In: Cottle, D., Khan, L. (Eds.), Beef cattle production and trade. CSIRO Publishing,
Cottle, D., Khan, L. (Eds.), Beef cattle production and trade. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia, pp. 381–400.
Collingwood, Australia, pp. 339–379. Intergado, 2020. Intergado. Retrieved on 15 October 2020 from https://www.
Edwards, L.N., Walker, J., Tucker, C.B., 2019. Culling decisions and dairy cattle intergado.com.br/.
welfare during transport to slaughter in the United States. Frontiers in Jenkins, T.G., Ferrell, C.L., 2002. Beef cow efficiency – revisited. Proceedings of the
Veterinary Science 5, 343. 34th Beef Improvement Federation Research Symposium, 10-13 July 2002,
European Commission, 2001. The welfare of cattle kept for beef production. Omaha, Nebraska, USA, pp. 32–43.
Report SANCO.C.2/AH/R22/2000. Scientific Committee on Animal health and Joseph, K., 2018a. Argentina. Livestock and products annual. Livestock and products
Animal Welfare. European Commission, Health and Consumer Protection annual. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service Gain Report. USDA Foreign
Directorate General. Retrieved on 17 December 2020 from http://orgprints. Agricultural Service, Washington DC, USA.
org/00000742. Joseph, K., 2018b. Uruguay. Livestock and products annual. Livestock and products
FAOSTAT, 2020. Food and agriculture data. Retrieved on 15 October 2020 from annual. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service Gain Report. USDA Foreign
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home. Agricultural Service, Washington, DC, USA.
Frost, R., Mosely, J., 2020. Grazing systems. Retrieved on 17 August 2020 from Kochewad, S.A., Gadekar, Y.P., Meena, L.R., Kumar, S., 2017. Meat production in
https://globalrangelands.org/topics/uses-range-and-pasture-lands/grazing- India – a review. International Journal of Animal and Veterinary Scientists 4,
systems#collapse2. 24–29.
Gaughan, J.B., Sullivan, M.L., 2014. Australian feedlot industry. In: Cottle, D., Khan, L. Komatsu, M., Malau-Aduli, A.E.O., 2014. Japanese beef production. In: Cottle, D.,
(Eds.), Beef cattle production and trade. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Khan, L. (Eds.), Beef cattle production and trade. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood,
Australia, pp. 205–233. Australia, pp. 143–160.
González, L.A., Bishop-Hurley, G., Henry, D., Charmley, E., 2014. Wireless sensor Lara, G., Kuypers, K., 2019. Mexico. Livestock and products annual. USDA Foreign
networks to study, monitor and manage cattle in grazing systems. Animal Agricultural Service GAIN Report Number MX9027. USDA Foreign Agricultural
Production Science 54, 1687–1693. Service, Washington, DC, USA.
González, L.A., Kyriazakis, I., Tedeschi, L.O., 2018. Review: Precision nutrition of Larson, D.M., Martin, J.L., Adams, D.C., Funston, R.M., 2009. Winter grazing system
ruminants: approaches, challenges and potential gains. Animal 12 (Suppl. 2), and supplementation during late gestation influence performance of beef cows
s246–s261. and steer progeny. Journal of Animal Science 87, 1147–1155.
Gotoh, T., Nishimura, K., Kuchida, K., Mannen, H., 2018. The Japanese Wagyu beef Li, X.Z., Yan, C.G., Zan, L.S., 2019. Current situation and future prospects for beef
industry: current situation and future prospects – a review. Asian-Australasian production in China – A review. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences
Journal of Animal Sciences 31, 933–950. 31, 984–991.
Greenwood, P.L., Bell, A.W., 2019. Developmental programming and growth of Malau-Aduli, A.E.O, Holman, B.W.B., 2014. World beef production. In Beef cattle.
livestock tissues and meat production. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Production and Trade (ed D Cottle, L Kahn). CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, VIC,
Food Animal Practice 35, 303–319. Australia, pp. 65–79.
Greenwood, P.L., Walmsley, B.J., Oddy, V.H., 2019. Regulation of growth and ‘t Mannetje, L., 1981. Problems of animal production from tropical pastures. In
development of skeletal muscle and adipocytes and its impact on efficiency and Nutritional limits to animal production from pasture (ed JB Hacker).
meat quality. In Energy and protein metabolism and nutrition. EAAP publication Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough, United Kingdom, pp. 67–85.
no. 138. (ed ML Chizzotti). Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Meador, M.M., Balbi, M.J., 2019. Paraguay. Livestock products annual 2019. USDA
Netherlands, pp. 53–71. Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service,
Greenwood, P.L., Valencia, P., Overs, L., Paull, D.P., Purvis, I.W., 2014. New ways of Washington, DC, USA.
measuring intake, efficiency and behaviour of grazing livestock. Animal Miller, G.A., Hyslop, J.J., Barclay, D., Edwards, A., Thomson, W., Duthie, C.-A., 2019.
Production Science 54, 1796–1804. Using 3D imaging and machine learning to predict liveweight and carcass
Greenwood, P.L., Bishop-Hurley, G.J., Gonzalez, L.A., Ingham, A.B., 2016. characteristics of live finishing beef cattle. Frontiers in Sustainable Food
Development and application of a livestock phenomics platform to enhance Systems 3, 30.
productivity and efficiency at pasture. Animal Production Science 56, 1299– MLA, 2017a. The Korean beef market: insights and prospects from an Australian
1311. perspective. Meat & Livestock Australia, North Sydney, Australia.
Greenwood, P.L., Paull, D.R., McNally, J., Kalinowski, T., Ebert, D., Little, B., Smith, D. MLA, 2017b. Market supplier snapshot - Beef - India. Meat & Livestock Australia,
V., Rahman, A., Valencia, P., Ingham, A.B., Bishop-Hurley, G.J., 2017. Use of North Sydney, Australia.
sensor-determined behaviours to develop algorithms for pasture intake by MLA, 2018a. Market supplier snapshot - Beef - Argentina and Uruguay. Meat &
individual grazing cattle. Crop and Pasture Science 68, 1091–1099. Livestock Australia, North Sydney, Australia.
Greenwood, P.L., Gardner, G.E., Ferguson, D.M., 2018. Current situation and future MLA, 2018b. Market snapshot – Beef - Indonesia. Meat & Livestock Australia, North
prospects for the Australian beef industry – a review. Asian-Australasian Journal Sydney, Australia.
of Animal Sciences 31, 992–1006. MLA, 2019a. Market snapshot - Beef and Sheepmeat - Japan. Meat & Livestock
GrowSafe, 2020. GrowSafe SYSTEM. Retrieved on 15 October 2020 from Australia, North Sydney, Australia.
https://growsafe.com/. MLA, 2019b. Market snapshot - Beef and Sheepmeat - Korea. Meat & Livestock
Halachmi, I., Guarino, M., Bewley, J., Pastell, M., 2019. Smart animal agriculture: Australia, North Sydney, Australia.
Application of real-time sensors to improve animal well-being and production. MLA, 2020a. Global snapshot - Beef. Meat & Livestock Australia, North Sydney,
Annual Review of Animal Biosciences 7, 403–425. Australia.
Hall, T.J., McIvor, J.G., Reid, D.J., Jones, P., MacLeod, N.D., McDonald, C.K., Smith, D.R., MLA, 2020b. More beef from pastures online manual. Retrieved on 11 October 2020
2014. A comparison of stocking methods for beef production in northern from https://mbfp.mla.com.au/.
Australia: pasture and soil surface condition responses. The Rangeland Journal McPhee, M.J., Walmsley, B.J., Skinner, B., Littler, B., Siddell, J.P., Cafe, L.M., Wilkins, J.
36, 161–174. F., Oddy, V.H., Alempijevic, A., 2017. Live animal assessments of rump fat and
Hall, T.J., McIvor, J.G., Jones, P., Smith, D.R., Mayer, D.G., 2016. Comparison of muscle score in Angus cows and steers using 3-dimensional imaging. Journal of
stocking methods for beef production in northern Australia: seasonal diet Animal Science 95, 1847–1857.
quality and composition. The Rangeland Journal 38, 553–567. Mwai, O., Hanotte, O., Kwon, Y.-J., Cho, S., 2015. African indigenous cattle: Unique
Hawkins, H.-J., 2017. A global assessment of Holistic planned grazingTM compared genetic resources in a rapidly changing world. Asian Australasian Journal of
with season-long, continuous grazing: meta-analysis findings. African Journal Animal Sciences 28, 911–921.
of Range and Forage Science 34, 65–75. Meyer, H. Lehnerta, L.W., Wang, Y., Reudenbach, C., Bendix, J., 2013. Measuring
Hocquette, J.F., Ellies-Oury, M.-P., Lherm, M., Pineau, C., Deblitz, C., Farmer, L., 2018. pasture degradation on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau using hyperspectral
Current situation and future prospects for beef production in Europe – a review. dissimilarities and indices. In Earth Resources and Environmental Remote
Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 31, 1017–1035. Sensing/GIS Applications IV (ed U Michel, DL Civco, K Schulz, M Ehlers and KG
Herring, A.D., 2014. North American beef production. In: Cottle, D., Khan, L. (Eds.), Nikolakopoulos). Proceedings of the International Sociey for Optical
Beef cattle production and trade. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia, pp. Engineering 8893, Article 88931F.
82–105. Napasirth, P., Napasirth, V., 2018. Current situation and future prospects for beef
Holroyd, R.G., McGowan, M.R., 2014. Reproductive management of beef cattle. In: production in Laos Peoples Democratic Republic – a review. Asian-Australasian
Cottle, D., Khan, L. (Eds.), Beef cattle production and trade. CSIRO Publishing, Journal of Animal Sciences 31, 961–967.
Collingwood, Australia, pp. 291–338. Nguyen, T.L.T., Hermansen, J.E., Mogensen, L., 2010. Environmental consequences of
Hocquette, J.F., Gondret, F., Baéza, E., Médale, F., Jurie, C., Pethick, D.W., 2010. different beef production systems in the EU. Journal of Cleaner Production. 18,
Intramuscular fat content in meat-producing animals: development, genetic 756–766.

15
P.L. Greenwood Animal 15 (2021) 100295

Oduniyi, S.O., Rubhara, T.T., Antwi, M.A., 2020. Sustainability of livestock farming in Satellite Imaging Corporation, 2020. WorldView-2 satellite sensor. Retrieved on 14
South Africa. Outlook on production constraints, climate-related events, and October 2020 from https://www.satimagingcorp.com/satellite-
upshot on adaptive capacity. Sustainability 12, 2852. sensors/worldview-2/.
Oliveira, R.A., Nasi, R., Niemelainen, O., Nyholm, L., Alhonoja, K., Kaivosoja, J., Scollan, N.D., Greenwood, P.L., Newbold, C.J., Yáñez-Ruiz, D.R., Shingfield, K.J.,
Jauhiainen, L., Viljanen, N., Nezami, S., Markelin, L., Hakala, T., Honkavaara, E., Wallace, R.J., Hocquette, J.F., 2011. Future research priorities for animal
2020. Machine learning estimators for the quantity and quality of grass swards production in a changing world. Animal Production Science 51, 1–5.
used for silage production using drone-based imaging spectrometry and Sillence, M.N., 2004. Technologies for the control of fat and lean deposition in
photogrammetry. Remote Sensing of Environment 246, 111830. livestock. The Veterinary Journal 167, 242–257.
Otte M.J., Chilonda, P., 2002. Cattle and small ruminant production systems in sub- Skelhorn, E.P.G., Garcia, A., Nova, R.J., Kinston, H., Wapenaar, W., 2020. Public
Saharan Africa. A systematic review. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the opinion and perception of rosé veal in the UK. Meat Science 167, 108032.
United Nations, Rome, Italy. Simanungkalit, G., Hegarty, R.S., Cowley, F.C., McPhee, M.J., 2020. Evaluation of
Otte, J., Pica-Ciamarra, U., Morzaria, S., 2019. A comparative overview of the remote monitoring units for estimating body weight and supplement intake of
livestock environment interactions in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Frontiers on grazing cattle. Animal 14 (Suppl. 2), s332–s340.
Veterinary Science 6, 37. StatsNZ, 2019. Livestock numbers. Retrieved on 19 December 2020 from https://
Pahmeyer, C., Britz, W., 2020. Economic oppportunities of using crossbreeding and www.stats.govt.nz/indicators/livestock-numbers.
sexing Holstein dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 103, 8218–8230. Tedeschi, L.O., Greenwood, P.L., Halachmi, I., 2021. Advancements in sensor
Park, S.J., Beak, S.-H., Jung, D.J.S., Kim, S.Y., Jeong, I.H., Piao, M.Y., Kang, H.J., Fassah, D. technology and decision support intelligent tools to assist smart livestock
M., Na, S.W., Yoo, S.P., Baik, M., 2018. Genetic, management, and nutritional farming. Journal of Animal Science 99, skab038.
factors affecting intramuscular fat deposition in beef cattle—a review. Asian- Tothill, J.C., Hargreaves, J.N.G., Jones, R.M., McDonald, C.K., 1992. BOTONAL – A
Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 31, 1043–1061. comprehensive sampling and computing procedure for estimating pasture yield
Peel, D.S., Johnson, R.J., Mathews Jr., K.H., 2010. Cow-calf beef production in Mexico. and composition. 1. Field sampling. Tropical Agronomy Technical
Report LDP-M-196-01. Economic Research Service of the United States, Memorandum Number 78. CSIRO Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures, St
Department of Agriculture, Washington DC, USA. Lucia, Brisbane, Australia.
Peel, D.S., Mathews Jr., K.H., Johnson, R.J., 2011. Trade, the expanding Mexican beef Underwood, K.R., Tong, J.F., Price, P.L., Roberts, A.J., Grings, E.E., Hess, B.W., Means,
industry, and feedlot and stocker cattle prodcuction in Mexico. Report LDP-M- W.J., Du, M., 2010. Nutrition during mid to late gestation affects growth, adipose
206-01. Economic Research Service of the United States, Department of tissue deposition, and tenderness in cross-bred beef steers. Meat Science 86,
Agriculture, Washington DC, USA. 588–593.
Pethick, D.W., Harper, G.S., Oddy, V.H., 2004. Growth, development and nutritional USDA, 2020. Cattle & beef. Sector at a glance. Retrieved on 13 August 2020 from
manipulation of marbling in cattle: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/sector-at-a-
Agriculture 44, 705–715. glance/.
Pitchford, W.L., 2014. Genetics and breeding. In: Cottle, D., Khan, L. (Eds.), Beef Vale, P., Gibbs, H., Vale, R., Christie, M., Florence, E., Munger, J., Sabaini, D., 2019. The
cattle production and trade. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia, pp. expansion of intensive beef farming to the Brazilian Amazon. Global
401–419. Environmental Change 57, 101922.
Platemeters, 2020. Pasture measurement made easy. Retrieved on 15 October 2020 Viljanen, N., Honkavaara, E., Näsi, R., Hakala, T., Niemeläinen, O., Kaivosoja, J., 2018.
from https://platemeters.co.nz/. A novel machine learning method for estimating biomass of grass swards using
Poppi, D.P., McLennan, S.R., 2010. Nutritional research to meet future challenges. a photogrammetric canopy height model, images and vegetation indices
Animal Production Science 50, 329–338. captured by a drone. Agriculture 8, 70.
Pullanagari, R.R., Yule, I., King, W., Dalley, D., Dynes, R., 2011. The use of optical Visser, C., Marle-Koster, E.V., Myburgh, H.C., De Freitas, A., 2020. Phenomics and
sensors to estimate pasture quality. International Journal on Smart Sensing and sustainable production in the South African dairy and beef cattle industry.
Intellegent Systems 4, 125–137. Animal Frontiers 10, 12–18.
Radunz, A.E., Fluharty, F.L., Relling, A.E., Zerby, H.N., Loerch, S.C., 2012. Prepartum Waldron, S.A., Brown, C.G., 2014. Chinese and south-east Asian cattle production.
dietary energy source fed to beef cows: II. Effects on progeny postnatal growth, In: Cottle, D., Khan, L. (Eds.), Beef cattle production and trade. CSIRO Publishing,
glucose tolerance, and carcass composition. Journal of Animal Science 90, 4962– Collingwood, Australia, pp. 122–141.
4974. Walmsley, B.J., Lee, S.J., Parnell, P.F., Pitchford, W.S., 2018. A review of factors
Rahman, A., Smith, D.V., Little, B., Ingham, A.B., Greenwood, P.L., Bishop-Hurley, G.J., influencing key biological components of maternal productivity in temperate
2018. Cattle behaviour classification from collar, halter, and ear tag sensors. beef cattle. Animal Production Science 58, 1–19.
Information Processing in Agriculture 5, 124–133. Warner, R.D., Greenwood, P.L., Pethick, D.W., Ferguson, D.M., 2010. Genetic and
Reuters, 2020. Namibia first African country to export red meat to hungry U.S. environmental effects on meat quality. Meat Science 86, 171–183.
market. Retrieved on 19 December 2020 from https://www.reuters.com/article/ Zhao, K.X., Shelley, A.N., Lau, D.L., Dolecheck, K.A., Bewley, J.M., 2020. Automatic
us-namibia-usa-beef-idUSKBN20E1BB. body condition scoring system for dairy cows based on depth-image analysis.
Ritchie. H., Roser. M., 2020. Meat and dairy production. Retrieved on 9 August 2020, International Journal of Agricultural & Biological Engineering 13, 45–54.
from https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production. Zjalic, M., Dimitiadou, A., Rosati, A., 2006. Beef production in the European union and
Robinson, D.L., Cafe, L.M., Greenwood, P.L., 2013. Developmental programming in the CAP reform: an overview of situation and trends. Stočarstvo 60, 181–202.
cattle: consequences for growth, efficiency, carcass, muscle and beef quality
characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 91, 1428–1442.

16