S. Aft.J. Anim.,Scf.,4, 221-226 (1974) INTENSIVE BEEF PRODUCTION; ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND PROBLEMS R.L. Preston Aninul ScienceDeprtment Ohio Agriculturql Researchand fuvelopment Centre Wooster,Ohio, U.S.A. The utlization of cattle in the production of food lor the total, but marketed48% of the fed cattle in the United hurnan consumption takes place pritmrily in those areas States. There were 2()6 lots with capacitiesover 16,000 that have either an excGs of roughage(x rn exces of grain. head,which eccountedfor 35? of the fed cattle (U.S.D.A., Although cattlc and streeparc the rnajor economic ruminant 1974r. It has been projected that by 1975, the panhandle anirmls that can utilize roughage, it is misleading to sey area of Texas-Oklahorna,Karsas and Nebraskawill finish that cattlc production can only take place where there is two-thirds of the cattle in the US.; lowa and lllinois will an overproduction of roughagein a world that b short of accountfor one*ixth of the total (Detrich, l97l). food. In thqe areas where grain production exceeds the ln the large feedlot areas, most of the operations demand for human food, grains are used to produce bcef. can feed between 5,000 and 50,00Ohead of cettle at one Carst (1963) has said that the real function of livestock is time; $ome foedlots are eyen larger with capacitiesup to to burn off the carbohydratesand to conccntrate protcin. 200,000 head.Since thc typical feedingperiod is 120-150 Thus if carbohydrate is produced in exoess,whether it is days, it is possibleto feed ann"ally up to two and one-half cellulose or starch, livertock Ecrvea pooitive role in human times the capacity of any given lot. More typically, nutrition. ln my opinion, s,t ar€ nowhere near the world's approximately 8O%of capacity is realized; therefore two capacity to producc gfain.This paperwill reviewcertain as- timcs the capacity of thc lot is fed annually. pectsof intensivebeef prodrction utilizing grain as practiced As dready mentioned, such lots require a large in the United States. A comprehensivereview of intensive capital investment not only in physical facilities, but also bccf ploduction has bccn providcd by T.R. heston & in cattle to stock thesc lots. Many lots have feed mills M3. Willb (1970). wtridr areused almost solely to feed the cattle. Typical costs lntensive, rneans to cause an increase in degee or fa physrcal facilities range between $50-150 per head amount, to irrcrease the yield per unit of input. In live- capacity and cattle csts rangc between $175-250 per stock production,there is probablyno better exempleof this head. Thus an initial investment,not consideringfeed, for than the cattle feedlot industry in thc Unit€d States(U.S.). a 20,000 head lot would be near $6 million. Other areasin the world have intensified livestock enter- Few feedlots thcrefo're reprssent e typical farmer prises, but thcse repraent p,rimarily an intensification of owned enterprise.Gencrally they are financed by financial labour. Thc fcedlot industry in the U.S.represcnB an inten- irstitutions (e.g., commercialbanks) and managedby pro' sification of capital input in order to minimize labour input. fessional pqsons familiar with procurement, nutrition, Most of the practiccs which characterizc this industry can vcterinary medicine and marketing. In many cases,the be so described, and the degree of intensiw feedlot pro- cattle are owned by penons irrterestedonly in investing duction and its geogfaphicallocation can be largelyrehted money and are fed in feedlotson contracts,based generally to the willingness of financial systern to invcst in thb in- on feed and yardageccts. tensive systcm of production and to the willingness of Becauseof the heavy outside financial interest, com- feedlot operatorsto undertakea larp financid obligation to plete records are maintained which are essential for the fi- achiwe the scale of operation that mekes many of the nancial transactions involved. These records, however, things to be describedhere a rcality. Agriculnml production serveto wduate practicesthus enablingsmall improvements is charactedzedby diversity, habit and tradition, rather in overall efliciency to be moasured,something that has than beingbasedon sound recqds and busincssjudgements. neyer been possiblein traditional agricultural enterprises. The latter is what characterizes the large cattle feedlot While many advantagesarc claimedfor the location. etc. of operations in the U.S. theselarge feedlots, the evaluation of mcaningful records is, The major ccntrca of laryc unitr in tlr U.S. arc in the in my opinion, the chief advantagethat largefeedlots have prnhandle arca of Tcxrs and Oklahoma, thc South*cst arca over traditional systemsof feedingcattle. of Arizonaand SouthcrnCalifcnia, and in tho plainsrrca of Typically, thesc feedlots utilize weanling calvesand Ncbreska, Ksmss and Colorado. The traditbnal Corn Beh somc yearlings, both steers and heifen. Initial weights arca of the Unitcd States(Iowa, Illhob, Indbna, Mirsoui, rangebetween 160-3m kg. Ovenll, the ration fed consists Minncsota, and Ohio) b sfill a major cattle feeding arca but of 3O%roughage and TOeoconcentrate, and is fed ad lib. practicesare mor€ onwntional,traditioml and generdly or Initidly, the ration contains a lower level of concentrate, a smaller scalc than in the abovementioned arcrs. with the of ln 1973, there were 146,420 fecdlots in thc U.S.; lcvel concentrateincreasing during the feeding recently, there has b€en a dcclhe in the total numbcr of perid up to as high as 90 or even l00e' The amount of feedlots (5% decrersein 1973). Hourever,the numbcr of feeddry matterrequired to producea unit of liveweight gain lots with a capacity of greater then 80m hcad increapd generally rangesbetween 5 and 8. Upon reaching a final by 74in 1973. TbcsGlargpr lots rmdc up lessthan I t of conditionthat is typicalof U.S.D.A.grade Good and Choice, 221 these cattle are gonerally sold direct to pecking oompenies since mud in drives adjaccnt to feed bunks can becomc a for daughter. Slaughterweighb rangebotween 360-540 kg problem and becausecoveragp of the bunk to shield the (Dietrich, 1968). fecd from rain and snow is more easily accomplished. Other points that further characterizc the feedlot Since rations are prepared daily from a standardized industry will be developed in subsequent discussion.The combination of feed ingredients, comlruter formulation of industry as it has developed has rnade some outstanding rations is practiced by many lots to achievespecified nu- accomplishmentsand it hasbeen plagued by some problems. trientlovelsandother ration reguiremenBwhich are known A discrrsEionof these will serveto further describe this in- or found to be desirablefor a particular set of circumstances. dustry. These specificatiors genemlly include energ/ concentration The rmlx reasonfor the scaleand extent of the feed- (net energy), protein, calcium, phosphons, potassium,salt lot industry has been the surplus grain productiqr in the (NaCl), vit4min A, antibiotics, etc. Feedsmay be given an U.S. betweln 1950 and 1970. This obviously nreantcheap rbitrary roughagevalue and a minimum roughagevalue is grain, *rhich lead to nutrition and rnanrgemcnt systcns specified for the total retion. Many other nutrient and feed that permittod the feeding of high grain rations. Rescarch specifications are included depending on feed sourccs sho*ed thet roughegewar not a re4uircmcnt for nunhantr, available and the particular preferencesof the nutritionist although mct studies indicste sornebenefit in performance in control of ration formulation. Wherechoices are possible when low levels (e.9. SUSof roughageare included in the for various ingredients, computer frmulation rsing least ration. cost computations results in minimizing the cct of the Gain processingmethods havebeen a major research total ratiq. It has been emphasized,however, that lcast area, which has been recently reviewed(Waldo, 1973;HaIe, cost forrnulas are not necessarilymaximum profit formulas, l973,Natl. R€s.Council, 1973). Benefitswith certaingains since ration specificationsdo not cqrsidff changesin profit are especially notable. Milo (gain sorghum) is not well potential with changingspecifications (Preston, 1972). It utilized by cattle without pnor processing.Grindhg and can be generalized,howeyer, that costs are minimized by rolling geatly improvesits u^iliz-tion but steamingfollowed feeding nutricnts at levels tbat will allow maximum rates of by flaking results in maximum utilization. Some benefits grin. are derived from processingbarley; dry rolling, however, More eflicient utilization of phyrical facilities is appears to result in mudmum utilization with only incon- another accomplishment of large feedlots, thus enabling sistent further improvenrcnts with steamirry and llaking. higher coet facilities (e.g., feed mills, covercddotted floa Improvemcnts in the utilizadon of corn (rnaize) are not feeding barns) to be part of the feedlot. As mentioned nearly as large and are lessconsistent. Otr research(Vance, above, m(xc traditional systenrsof cattle feeding generrlly heston, Klcternran & Cahill, 1972) has shown that un- feed qre group of cattle annually thus greatly increasing processed whole dry corn will actually gve better per- capital costs per head of cattle fed. formance in finishing cattle than rolled dry corn, depending Bccause of the numben of cattle involved and the on the level of roughage that is concurrently fed. lVith detailed rccords maintained by large feedlots, small al- roughageleveh less-than 15- 2oeoof the