DOCSLIB.ORG

Guidelines for Uniform Beef Improvement Programs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guidelines for Uniform Beef Improvement Programs Guidelines For Uniform Beef Improvement Programs Ninth Edition “To develop cooperation among all segments of the beef industry in the compilation and utilization of performance records to improve efficiency, profitability and sustainability of beef production.” First Edition 1970 Second Edition 1972 Third Edition 1976 Forth Edition 1981 Fifth Edition 1986 Sixth Edition 1990 Seventh Edition 1996 Eighth Edition 2002 Ninth Edition 2010 Guidelines is a publication of the Beef Improvement Federation, Joe Cassady, Executive Director, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7621, Raleigh, NC 27695 www.beefimprovement.org CONTRIBUTORS Editors Larry V. Cundiff, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, ARS, USDA, L. Dale Van Vleck, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, ARS, USDA and the University of Nebraska William D. Hohenboken, Virginia Tech Chapter 1, Introduction Ronnie Silcox, University of Georgia Chapter 2, Breeding Herd Evaluation Bill Bowman, American Angus Association Bruce Golden, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Lowell Gould, Denton, Texas Robert Hough, Red Angus Association of America Kenda Ponder, Red Angus Association of America Robert E. Williams, American International Charolais Association Lauren Hyde, North American Limousin Foundation Chapter 3, Animal Evaluation Denny Crews, Colorado State University Michael Dikeman, Kansas State University Sally L. Northcutt, American Angus Association Dorian Garrick, Iowa State University Twig T. Marston, University of Nebraska Michael MacNeil, Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Lab., ARS, USDA, Larry W. Olson, Clemson University Joe C. Paschal, Texas A&M University Gene Rouse, Iowa State University Bob Weaber, University of Missouri Tommy Wheeler, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Steven Shackelford, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Robert E. Williams, American International Charolais Association Doyle E. Wilson, Iowa State University -----------------------------BIF Guidelines 1------------------------- Chapter 4, Biotechnology Sue DeNise, Pfizer Animal Genetics Bridger Feuz, MMI Genomics Ronnie D. Green, Pfizer Animal Genetics Tom Holm, MMI Genomics Stephen D. Kachman, University of Nebraska Michael Tess, Montana State University Chapter 5, National Cattle Evaluation Keith Bertrand, University of Georgia Larry Cundiff, Agricultural Research Service, USDA Bruce Golden, Colorado State University Stephen D. Kachman, University of Nebraska Richard Quaas, Cornell University Dale Van Vleck, University of Nebraska Robert E. Williams, American International Charolais Association Chapter 6, Utilization Darrh Bullock, University of Kentucky Mark Enns, Colorado State University Lowell Gould, Red Angus Association of America Mike MacNeil, Agricultural Research Service, USDA Dan Moser, Kansas State University Gary P. Rupp, University of Nebraska Glossary John Hough, EPD International Ronnie Silcox, University of Georgia ________________________________________________________________ Acknowledgments The Beef Improvement Federation acknowledges, with appreciation, the efforts of the many committee members and authors who have contributed to previous editions of Guidelines for Uniform Beef Improvement Programs. It was the work of these people over the last fifty-two years that laid the foundation for this publication. -----------------------------BIF Guidelines 2------------------------- TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 4 Chapter 2 Breeding Herd Evaluation ............................................................... 6 Chapter 3 Animal Evaluation ......................................................................... 16 Chapter 4 Biotechnology................................................................................ 56 Chapter 5 National Cattle Evaluation ............................................................. 65 Chapter 6 Utilization ...................................................................................... 83 Glossary Beef Performance Glossary ........................................................ 105 Appendix 1.1 BIF Member Breed Organizations ............................................... 126 Appendix 2.1 NAAB Uniform Coding System for Identifying Semen ................. 128 Appendix 2.2 International Year/Letter Designations for Animal Identification .. 133 Appendix 3.1 BIF Standard Adjustment Factors for Birth & Weaning weight .... 134 Appendix 3.2 Marbling Scores and Quality Grades in the U.S. and Canada .... 135 Appendix 4.1 Incorporation of Marker Scores into National Genetic Evaluations ... .................................................................................................... 137 Appendix 5.1 National Cattle Evaluation Methods ............................................ 145 Appendix 5.2 Heritabilities and Selected Genetic Correlations Used in NCE Programs for Several U.S. Breed Associations .......................... 156 Appendix 5.3 Threshold Traits .......................................................................... 157 Appendix 5.4 Genetic Evaluation of Survival Traits .......................................... 164 Appendix 5.5 Analytical Models for Across-Breed Factors ............................... 169 Appendix 6.1 Guidelines for the Bull Breeding Soundness Examination as Recommended by the Society for Theriogenology...................... 172 Index .................................................................................................... 176 -----------------------------BIF Guidelines 3------------------------- CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION The Beef Improvement Federation was formed on February 1, 1968 to standardize programs and methodologies and to create greater awareness, acceptance and usage of beef cattle performance concepts. The purposes of BIF as expressed in its by-laws are: Uniformity – To work for establishment of accurate and uniform procedures for measuring, recording and assessing data concerning the performance of beef cattle which may be used by participant organizations. Development – To assist member organizations and/or their affiliates in developing their individual beef improvement and quality management programs consistent with the needs of their members and the common goals of such generally accepted record keeping programs. Cooperation – To develop cooperation among all segments of the beef industry in the compilation and utilization of performance records to improve efficiency, profitability and sustainability of beef production. Education – To encourage the Federation’s member organizations to develop educational programs emphasizing the use and interpretation of performance data and quality management programs in improving the efficiency, profitability and sustainability of beef production. Confidence – To develop the increased confidence of the beef industry in the economic potential available from performance measurement and assessment. BIF is a federation comprised of member organizations that include: Provincial, state and national beef cattle improvement associations and other organizations that sponsor beef cattle improvement. Breed associations in the United States and Canada that are involved in performance programs. Other organizations involved in beef improvement such as the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Association of Animal Breeders, and artificial insemination organizations. Associate memberships are available to individuals or agencies interested in beef cattle performance. -----------------------------BIF Guidelines 4------------------------- The ninth edition of Uniform Guidelines for Beef Improvement Programs represents a legacy of work that spans over fifty years of cooperation among the various segments of the beef cattle industry. The first edition of Guidelines was published in 1970 and it was revised in 1972, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1990, 1996, 2002 and 2010. Committees established by the BIF Board of Directors develop recommendations based on scientific research results and industry experience. Through the years Guidelines has evolved as new information has become available. Contributing authors have updated, revised or added sections in this edition based on BIF committee recommendations. The Guidelines are published primarily to assist member organization in the development and operation of performance programs for their members. The objectives of this publication are to outline standard procedures for measuring, recording and using beef cattle performance data and to facilitate greater uniformity in terminology and methodology in the beef industry. BIF shows no preference for, or discrimination against, any breed of cattle or industry organization. The Guidelines contain recommended procedures. BIF does not mandate or dictate that any organization follow all or any of these recommendations. There are situations where individual organizations can develop procedures that are more suitable for their members. For example, this publication contains BIF’s weaning weight adjustment factors. Most associations, while adopting the BIF standard adjustment ages of 205 and 365, have used their extensive databases to develop adjustment procedures that are more appropriate for the specific breed. It is not the purpose of BIF to recommend one standard program for all segments of the industry or to discourage the development of better procedures when specific data are available. The Guidelines contain standard procedures based on research and industry
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Beef Showmanship Parts of a Steer
    Beef Showmanship Parts of a Steer Wholesale Cuts of a Market Steer Common Cattle Breeds Angus (English) Maine Anjou Charolaise Short Horn Hereford (English) Simmental Showmanship Terms/Questions Bull: an intact adult male Steer: a male castrated prior to development of secondary sexual characteristics Stag: a male castrated after development of secondary sexual characteristics Cow: a female that has given birth Heifer: a young female that has not yet given birth Calf: a young bovine animal Polled: a beef animal that naturally lacks horns 1. What is the feed conversion ratio for cattle? a. 7 lbs. feed/1 lb. gain 2. About what % of water will a calf drink of its body weight in cold weather? a. 8% …and in hot weather? a. 19% 2. What is the average daily weight gain of a market steer? a. 2.0 – 4 lbs./day 3. What is the approximate percent crude protein that growing cattle should be fed? a. 12 – 16% 4. What is the most common concentrate in beef rations? a. Corn 5. What are three examples of feed ingredients used as a protein source in a ration? a. Cottonseed meal, soybean meal, distillers grain brewers grain, corn gluten meal 6. Name two forage products used in a beef cattle ration: a. Alfalfa, hay, ground alfalfa, leaf meal, ground grass 7. What is the normal temperature of a cow? a. 101.0°F 8. The gestation period for a cow is…? a. 285 days (9 months, 7 days) 9. How many stomachs does a steer have? Name them. a. 4: Rumen, Omasum, Abomasum, and Reticulum 10.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Breed Averages for Epd Traits
    2014 BREED AVERAGES FOR EPD TRAITS The table below contains the most recent averages from breed association genetic evaluation programs as compiled by the U. S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, Nebraska. Averages are for individuals born in 2012, the best estimate of where a breed stands in 2014. These figures can be used to determine how individual animals compare to their current breed average. Every association calculates EPDs independently, so these averages can not be used to compare breeds. For instance, the average Weaning EPD of +48 for Angus compared to +26 for Charolais does not mean the Angus breed averages 22 pounds heavier than Charolais for weaning weight. Breed comparisons can be seen on this website (http://beef.tamu.edu) in the list of publications under “Genetics & Selection”. Look for “2014 Sire-Breed Comparisons for EPD Traits”. Factors to adjust EPDs for comparison of individuals of different breeds, also based on U. S. Meat Animal Research Center studies, can be found in another publication on the above website under “2014 Across-Breed EPD Adjustments.” Note that most of the breed averages are not zero. They are calculated in relation to breed average for a base (often the starting year), which varies for each breed. Since the base can be the year when the breed’s EPD program started (as much as 40 years ago in some breeds) many breed averages are now markedly different from zero for some traits, especially weaning and yearling weight. Also, breed averages often change each year, possibly significantly if an association chooses to use a different base from preceding years, so the most recent average should always be used.
    [Show full text]
  • Mad-Cow’ Worries Intensify Becoming Prevalent.” Institute
    The National Livestock Weekly May 26, 2003 • Vol. 82, No. 32 “The Industry’s Largest Weekly Circulation” www.wlj.net • E-mail: [email protected] • [email protected] • [email protected] A Crow Publication ‘Mad-cow’ worries intensify becoming prevalent.” Institute. “The (import) ban has but because the original diagnosis Canada has a similar feed ban to caused a lot of problems with our was pneumonia, the cow was put Canada what the U.S. has implemented. members and we’re hopeful for this on a lower priority list for testing. Under that ban, ruminant feeds situation to be resolved in very The provincial testing process reports first cannot contain animal proteins be- short order.” showed a possible positive vector North American cause they may contain some brain The infected cow was slaugh- for mad-cow and from there the and spinal cord matter, thought to tered January 31 and condemned cow was sent to a national testing BSE case. carry the prion causing mad-cow from the human food supply be- laboratory for a follow-up test. Fol- disease. cause of symptoms indicative of lowing a positive test there, the Beef Industry officials said due to pneumonia. That was the prima- test was then conducted by a lab Canada’s protocol regarding the ry reason it took so long for the cow in England, where the final de- didn’t enter prevention of mad-cow disease, to be officially diagnosed with BSE. termination is made on all BSE- food chain. they are hopeful this is only an iso- The cow, upon being con- suspect animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Name: Livestock and Products Semi-Annual
    Required Report: Required - Public Distribution Date: March 06,2020 Report Number: AR2020-0007 Report Name: Livestock and Products Semi-annual Country: Argentina Post: Buenos Aires Report Category: Livestock and Products Prepared By: Kenneth Joseph Approved By: Melinda Meador Report Highlights: Argentine beef exports in 2020 are projected down at 640,000 tons carcass weight equivalent as lower prices and animal and human health issues generate negative trade dynamics. Lower exports will be reflected in marginal growth expansion of the domestic market in 2020. FAS/USDA has changed the conversion rates for Argentine beef exports. THIS REPORT CONTAINS ASSESSMENTS OF COMMODITY AND TRADE ISSUES MADE BY USDA STAFF AND NOT NECESSARILY STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT POLICY Conversion Rates: Due to continuing efforts to improve data reliability, the “New Post” trade forecasts reflect new conversion rates. Historical data revisions (from 2005 onward) will be published on April 9th in the Production, Supply and Demand (PSD) database (http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline). Beef and Veal Conversion Factors Code Description Conversion Rate* 020110 Bovine carcasses and half carcasses, fresh or chilled 1.0 020120 Bovine cuts bone in, fresh or chilled 1.0 020130 Bovine cuts boneless, fresh or chilled 1.36 020210 Bovine carcasses and half carcasses, frozen 1.0 020220 Bovine cuts bone in, frozen 1.0 020230 Bovine cuts boneless, frozen 1.36 021020 Bovine meat salted, dried or smoked 1.74 160250 Bovine meat, offal nes, not livers, prepared/preserve 1.79
    [Show full text]
  • Crossbreeding of Cattle in Africa
    Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences June 2018, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 16-31 ISSN: 2334-2404 (Print), 2334-2412 (Online) Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved. Published by American Research Institute for Policy Development DOI: 10.15640/jaes.v7n1a3 URL: https://doi.org/10.15640/jaes.v7n1a3 Crossbreeding of Cattle in Africa R Trevor Wilson1 Abstract Africa is endowed with a very wide range of mostly Bos indicus indigenous cattle breeds. A general statement with regard to their performance for meat or milk is that they are of inferior genetic value. Attempts to improve their performance have rarely relied on within-breed improvement but have concentrated on crossing to supposedly superior exotic Bos taurus types. Exotic types have not always – indeed have rarely -- been chosen on objective criteria and the imported breeds generally indicate the colonial past of individual African countries rather than on use of “the right animal in the right place”. Most attempts at increasing output have been undertaken under research station conditions. Results on station have been very variable but the limited success achieved has rarely been carried over in to the general African cattle population. This paper documents a number of attempts to alter the genetic make-up of African cattle in several countries and discusses the reasons for the failure of most of these. Keywords: Bos indicus, Bos taurus, livestock experiments, milk production, meat production 1. Introduction African countries differ greatly in climatic, ecological and agricultural conditions and in socioeconomic factors. In many countries, nonetheless, cattle are the most important livestock species.
    [Show full text]
  • Type and Breed Characteristics and Uses
    E-190 3/09 Texas Adapted Genetic Strategies for Beef Cattle V: Type and Breed Characteristics and Uses A 1700s painting of the foundation cow of one of the first cattle breeds. Courtesy of Michigan State University Animal Science Department. Stephen P. Hammack* he subject of breeds intrigues most beef cattle sphere. The Bos taurus in the United States originated in producers. However, breeds are only part of a ge- the British Isles and western continental Europe. The Bos netic strategy that should include: indicus arose in south central Asia. T• Matching applicable performance or functional There are some intermediates containing both Bos levels to environmental, management, and taurus and Bos indicus. Some intermediates created in the marketing conditions United States, particularly in Texas, are commonly re- • Choosing a breeding system, either continuous ferred to as American breeds, which will be discussed later. (in which replacement females are produced Although it has no strict definition, a breed can be within the herd) or terminal (in which replace- described as animals of common origin with certain dis- ments are introduced externally) tinguishing characteristics that are passed from parent • Selecting genetic types, breeds within types, and individuals within breeds that are compat- *Professor and Extension Beef Cattle Specialist–Emeritus, The Texas A&M System ible with the performance level needed and breeding system chosen. Genetic classifications and breeds Cattle can be divided into two basic classifications, Bos taurus (non-humped) and Bos indicus (humped, also called Zebu). Cattle are not native to the western hemi- to offspring. Breed characteristics result from To characterize milking potential accurately, both natural selection and from that imposed it should be evaluated relative to body size.
    [Show full text]
  • Proc1-Beginning Chapters.Pmd
    Implications of Breed Type Evaluations Larry V. Cundiff Research Leader, Genetics and Breeding Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Agricultural Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Clay Center, NE ()(,) Introduction 23.3 Quality, quantity, and cost of feed resources available for beef production vary from one region of the country to another and within regions, depending upon climatic factors and natural 23.3 resources available in specific production 14.8 situations. Diversity among breeds can be exploited by crossbreeding to optimize performance levels 8.5 and to match genetic resources with the climatic environment, feed resources, and consumer Percent preferences for lean and tender beef products. 8.5 Crossbreeding also provides for significant benefits 14.8 of heterosis on components of production efficiency. In this presentation, research results will be reviewed focusing on effects and utilization of 8.5 8.5 heterosis and breed differences, and on the importance of matching genetic potential with Straightbred Straightbred X-bred consumer preferences and the climatic cows cows cows environment. straightbred X-bred X-bred calves calves calves Heterosis Figure 1. Cumulative effects of heterosis for weight of calf weaned per cow exposed to breeding in crosses A crossbreeding experiment involving of Hereford, Angus, and Shorthorns (Cundiff et al., Herefords, Angus, and Shorthorns demonstrated 1974). that weaning weight per cow was increased by about 23% (Cundiff et al., 1974) due to beneficial was significantly greater than that of either effects of heterosis on survival and growth of straightbred Angus or Herefords (Nunez et al., crossbred calves and on reproduction rate and 1991; Cundiff et al., 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • Prion Protein Gene (PRNP) Variants and Evidence for Strong Purifying Selection in Functionally Important Regions of Bovine Exon 3
    Prion protein gene (PRNP) variants and evidence for strong purifying selection in functionally important regions of bovine exon 3 Christopher M. Seabury†, Rodney L. Honeycutt†‡, Alejandro P. Rooney§, Natalie D. Halbert†, and James N. Derr†¶ †Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4467; ‡Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2258; and §National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Peoria, IL 61604-3999 Communicated by James E. Womack, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, September 1, 2004 (received for review December 19, 2003) Amino acid replacements encoded by the prion protein gene indel polymorphism has not been observed within the octapep- (PRNP) have been associated with transmissible and hereditary tide repeat region of ovine PRNP exon 3 (8, 10–20), whereas spongiform encephalopathies in mammalian species. However, an studies of cattle and other bovine species have yielded three indel association between bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and isoforms possessing five to seven octapeptide repeats (20–31). bovine PRNP exon 3 has not been detected. Moreover, little is Despite the importance of cattle both to agricultural practices currently known regarding the mechanisms of evolution influenc- worldwide and to the global economy, surprisingly little is known ing the bovine PRNP gene. Therefore, in this study we evaluated about PRNP allelic diversity for cattle collectively and͞or how the patterns of nucleotide variation associated with PRNP exon 3 this gene evolves in this lineage. In addition, although several for 36 breeds of domestic cattle and representative samples for 10 nondomesticated species of Bovinae contracted transmissible additional species of Bovinae.
    [Show full text]
  • Customer Product List
    Heartland Home Foods, Inc. Product List Product Id Description Package Farm / Brand * Special Beef - Prime Cut Steaks 1126 Bavette 1-6 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1127 Bavette 1-8 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1116 Chuck Eye 1-8 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1117 Chuck Eye 1-12 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1136 Chuck Filet 1-8 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1135 Chuck Filet 1-16 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1109 Coulotte 1-6 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1111 Coulotte 1-9 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1279 Filet Medallion 1-3 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1138 Filet Mignon 1-6 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1139 Filet Mignon 1-8 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1137 Filet Mignon 1-10 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1202 Flank 1-12 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1219 Flank 1-1.5 lb Creekstone Farms ANF 1220 Flank 1-2.5 lb Creekstone Farms ANF 1140 Flat Iron 1-6 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1168 Flat Iron 1-9 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1128 Hanger 1-6 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1129 Hanger 1-9 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1133 New York Strip ~ Butcher's Thick Cut 1-8 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1141 New York Strip 1-9 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1142 New York Strip 1-12 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1143 New York Strip 1-16 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1144 Porterhouse 1-18 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1146 Porterhouse 1-26 oz Creekstone Farms ANF 1134 Ribeye ~ Butcher's Thick Cut 1-8 oz Creekstone Farms ANF ANF=All Natural, No Hormones, No Chemicals, No Preservatives, No Antibiotics, No Steroids AN=All Natural, nothing added after processing NF=Nitrate Free, O=Organic, GF=Gluten Free, WC=Wild Caught, OR=Ocean Raised, FR=Farm Raised * Substitutions may apply
    [Show full text]
  • The Vermont Journal 11-13-19
    Rifle PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE Season PAID Holiday Happenings POSTAL CUSTOMER RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER PERMIT #2 Early Holiday Deadlines Opens N. HAVERHILL, NH See Page 3B ECRWSSEDDMECRWSS See Bottom of Page Nov. 16 FREE Your Local Community Newspaper THE NOVEMBERVermont 13, 2019 | WWW.VERMONTJOURNAL.COM JournaVOLUME 19, ISSUEl 46 Area schools welcome Gov. Scott and community to Veterans Day Assembly BY SHARON HUNTLEY to thank someone for their ser- tell his stories and meet gover- The program, celebrating its The Vermont Journal vice. “You should take the time nors. Scott was the 24th gov- seventh year, is due to the vi- to thank a vet or any member ernor that Walton visited. “It sion and hard work of BRHS LUDLOW, Vt. – The seventh of the military, every chance we was a special day for me,” he Booster Club President An- annual Veterans Day Assem- get, every single day,” he said. said. “It’s so important for you, drea Sanford of Ludlow. Ac- bly, Friday, Nov. 8, at Ludlow He then asked all veterans and the younger generation, to do cording to an introduction Elementary School welcomed those serving in the Military to whatever you can to thank our by Color Guard Commander Gov. Phil Scott as part of their stand to be recognized. vets and listen to their stories of American Legion Post 36, moving program to honoring Scott also paid special at- because they truly are heroes Ned Bowen, Sanford went to veterans and active military tention to those of “the great- that set an example for all of the School Board over seven members.
    [Show full text]
  • For Immediate Release Brangus Are Not “Eared” Cattle
    For Immediate Release Contact: Doc or Patricia Spitzer FAIR PLAY, SC [email protected] or November 8, 2011 (864)972-9140 or (864)710-0257 Brangus Are Not “Eared” Cattle First and foremost we need to wrap our minds around the fact that God created cattle, he did not create breeds. And while in some cases natural barriers such as oceans and mountain ranges did affect genetic selection, for the most part it is humans who created breeds. And, if you go back far enough in history there really are no pure breeds, only our inflated misconceptions that they exist. That being said, there are two species that make up all cattle of the world; Bos Taurus cattle are primarily cattle populations that originated in the more temperate climates and Bos Indicus cattle populations developed in the more tropical regions of the world. Generally the US beef industry further subdivides Bos Taurus beef cattle into two groups. Continental Breeds of cattle are those breeds originating on the European Continent while British Breeds were originally from selections of bovine populations from the British Isle. It is also typical of US producers to wrongly lump all Bos Indicus breeds of cattle together. This is rather astounding as there are more recognized different breeds of Bos Indicus derivation scattered around the world than specific breeds of Bos Taurus derivation. Americans have also further compounded the confusion by creating new breeds by crossing a variety of specifically recognized Bos Indicus cattle to create the American Brahman and crossing cattle of Bos Indicus and Bos Taurus origin to create what some refer to as the American Breeds.
    [Show full text]
  • Grass: the Market Potential for U.S. Grassfed Beef 3 Table of Contents
    BACK TO GRASS THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR U.S. GRASSFED BEEF Photo: Carman Ranch ABOUT THIS REPORT Grassfed beef in the U.S. is a fast-growing This report was produced through the consumer phenomenon that is starting to collaboration of Stone Barns Center for Food attract the attention of more cattle producers and Agriculture, a nonprofit sustainable and food companies, but there is a lack of agriculture organization dedicated to changing coherent information on how the market works. the way America eats and farms; Armonia LLC, While the U.S. Department of Agriculture a certified B-Corp with a mission to restore (USDA) produces a vast body of data on the harmony through long-term investments; conventional beef sector, its data collection and Bonterra Partners, an investment consulting reporting efforts on grassfed beef are spotty. firm specializing in sustainable agriculture and Pockets of information are held by different other natural capital investments; and SLM private sector organizations, but they have Partners, an investment management firm that rarely been brought together. focuses on ecological farming systems. The lead authors were Renee Cheung of Bonterra This report addresses that gap by providing Partners and Paul McMahon of SLM Partners; a comprehensive overview of the U.S. they were assisted by Erik Norell, Rosalie Kissel grassfed beef sector, with a focus on market and Donny Benz. and economic dynamics. It brings together available data on the current state of the sector, Dr. Allen Williams of Grass Fed Insights, identifies barriers to growth and highlights LLC acted as a consultant to the project and actions that will help propel further expansion.
    [Show full text]