If you don't remember your password, you can reset it by entering your email address and clicking the Reset Password button. You will then receive an email that contains a secure link for resetting your password
If the address matches a valid account an email will be sent to __email__ with instructions for resetting your password
Our objective was to characterize grass-fed beef cattle production systems in the Northeast United States.
Materials and Methods
We surveyed 70 Northeast grass-fed beef cattle producers to learn about their management practices. Responses were assigned to USDA Plant Hardiness Zones according to their location. Farms were also categorized based on whether they produced or purchased forage to meet the herd’s year-round nutritional needs. Responses were compared using nonparametric methods.
Results and Discussion
Grazing seasons were up to 2.3 mo longer in warmer zones than cooler zones (P < 0.01), likely contributing to 46% less land required per animal for farms in warmer zones (P < 0.01). Animal and herd characteristics were similar across zones (P > 0.1), culminating in 74 to 86% greater (P < 0.05) animal productivity per hectare in warmer than cooler zones. The proportion of feed-sufficient farms producing hay from pastureland was 2.5 times greater than feed-importing farms (P < 0.01). Median market weights on feed-sufficient farms were 10% greater than on feed-importing farms (P < 0.1) at similar market ages (P > 0.1). Feed-sufficient farms also had larger herds (P < 0.01), required less total land per animal (P < 0.1), and had 60% greater animal productivity per hectare than feed-importing farms.
Implications and Applications
Documentation of management characteristics provides support for further assessment of the production practices and overall sustainability of Northeast grass-fed beef production systems.
). These effects are contrasted by the ruminant’s ability to convert human-inedible forage into human-edible food. Forage-based animal production and marketing systems such as those used in grass-fed beef production have been promoted recently as an approach to increase reliance on this capability and reduce the negative effects associated with production of ruminants and their feed (
Although definitions vary, herein “grass-fed” refers to an animal raised from birth to slaughter on a forage-only diet with no grain or grain by-product supplementation, and with access to pasture during the growing season in accordance with the former USDA Agricultural Marketing Service standard (
United States standards for livestock and meat marketing claims, grass (forage) fed claim for ruminant livestock and the meat products derived from such livestock..
). Grass-fed production systems require knowledge of forage management, grazing management, cattle genetics, animal performance, and alternative marketing strategies, all of which must be applied in the context of the producers’ target market. The Northeast is particularly well suited to grass-fed beef production due to high grass productivity and proximity to markets, though feeding cattle through the winter poses a challenge to maintaining ADG.
In an attempt to characterize grass-fed beef production systems in the Northeast to evaluate their environmental footprints and cost of production, we discovered a paucity of information available for the completion of a holistic assessment using life cycle assessment. Specialized information is also needed by extension educators and other service providers as they serve grass-fed beef producers and aid those who are considering transitioning to grass-fed beef production. As such, in addition to informing a regional life cycle assessment of grass-fed beef production systems, this study serves as an important benchmarking reference from which extension and other educators may pull to aid grass-fed producers in achieving their goals. Our objective was to characterize land use, herd characteristics, and animal performance for grass-fed cattle production systems across the Northeast.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study was deemed exempt from human subject review by the Pennsylvania State University Institutional Review Board under federal regulation 4546.101(b) CFR (
) was used to gather information about management characteristics of grass-fed beef operations in the Northeast, following a method developed for a beef industry study (
). The survey consisted of 35 questions about animal, forage, and marketing characteristics of the operation (see Supplemental Material; https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2020-01992). Producers reported information about herd characteristics (e.g., total number of cows, replacement heifers, and market cattle), animal performance (e.g., market weight and age), pasture forage composition, and supplemental forage management practices (e.g., mechanical harvesting of pasture for hay or management of separate crop fields to produce forages for the herd).
A survey link was emailed to producers with the cooperation of state Natural Resources Conservation Service representatives, university extension educators, and managers of grazing-based producer listservs in the Northeast. In addition to the online survey, producers whose operations were listed in the online American Grassfed Association and Eat Wild directories were contacted to request their voluntary participation in an interview and farm visit. Data were collected from producers in Pennsylvania in a pilot survey from August to October of 2014 through a listserv managed by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service state grazing specialist. The remaining northeastern states were surveyed from January through September of 2015.
As the survey was initially deployed in Pennsylvania as a pilot project before distributing to the broader Northeast region, some producers in Pennsylvania may have received the survey twice. Other producers also may have initiated or submitted multiple responses. Individual IP addresses, which are a unique computer identifier, were collected by the survey platform with each submission. To control for this potential for duplicated responses, entries with identical IP addresses were removed. In addition to duplicate responses, responses with only the first page completed and responses from producers that indicated they were not meeting our definition of “grass-fed” were removed from analysis.
USDA Plant Hardiness Zones
Farm size, animal productivity, and land-management practices were expected to differ throughout the region due to differences in climate and landscape. To account for this effect, farms were grouped according to their location within temperature delineations provided by the USDA Plant Hardiness Zone (USDA PHZ; Figure 1). The USDA PHZ is a reference for defining geospatial patterns of extreme cold weather. The zones are delineated based on ranges of annual extreme minimum temperatures in 5.5°C increments, with adjustments made for landscape effects on extreme minimum temperature patterns (
), and zones were assigned to survey responses based on zip code information retrieved using the IP address recorded for each online survey response or the farm address for producer interviews. Responses with missing zip code information were assigned the most commonly observed USDA PHZ in their state.
Figure 1The USDA Plant Hardiness Zone map. Temp = temperature. Adapted from the USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map (
In addition to zone, farms were classified according to their forage purchasing behavior. Farms were assigned to 1 of 2 categories based on the use of purchased supplemental forage (or lack thereof) to meet the herd’s year-round nutritional requirements. Feed importers were farms that purchased supplemental forage to meet the herd’s year-round forage requirements. Feed-sufficient farms produced all required supplemental forage on the farm.
Land Use
On-farm land use was calculated by summing the reported grazed and nongrazed, mechanically harvested land area for each farm. Total land use was the sum of on-farm land use and an estimate of the land required to produce purchased feeds on farms in the region. Land required to produce purchased feeds was calculated using 5-yr average hay and soybean yields based on producer reports for purchased feed types. Yield data were obtained from the National Agricultural Statistics Service for 2010 to 2015 (
). As most producers were purchasing grass hay or silage and not alfalfa, the average yield for grass hay or grass silage was used for both the “Dry hay” and “Grass or alfalfa silage” purchased feed categories, respectively. Average hay yield for the most common state in each zone was used in the calculation (zone 4: Vermont, zone 5: Pennsylvania, zone 6 and 7: New York) and was 3.9, 4.0, and 2.2 t of DM/ha, respectively. Soybean hulls were assumed as 0.28 t of DM/ha, which was 5% of average soybean yields in the zone where soybean hulls were reported to be used as a supplement. The quantity of feed purchased (t of DM) was divided by the average yield (t of DM per hectare) to calculate the land area required to produce purchased feeds. Producers were asked to report grazed land used to make hay or silage as a percentage within a range of options (see Supplemental Material; https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2020-01992). The number of hectares used to produce hay and silage from grazing land was estimated by multiplying the median of the range reported by the producer by the total pasture area reported.
Animal Productivity
Total production (kg) was defined as the total market weight sold from the farm. This total was calculated by multiplying the reported market weight by the number of market animals sold. Animal productivity (kg of BW/ha) was the total market weight per hectare sold by the farm and was calculated by dividing total production by (1) on-farm land area and (2) total land use (which included land to produce purchased feeds) for reporting on (1) an on-farm and (2) total land-use basis. Lifetime ADG was the estimated daily weight gain for market animals from birth to finish, which was calculated as market weight divided by market age in days. Postweaning ADG was the estimated daily weight gain for market animals from weaning to finish, calculated as the difference between market and weaning weight divided by the difference between market and weaning age in days. Producers in the pilot survey were not asked for weaning age, so this calculation was made on the subset of the data for which weaning weight, weaning age, market weight, and market age were available (n = 28).
Statistical Analysis
Responses for all variables reported herein were analyzed for normality using the Shapiro-Wilks test (
). All variables were determined to be non-normally distributed (P < 0.01), which may have been a reflection of our relatively small sample size distributed across a large geographic range that included diverse soil types and climates. As such, the Kruskal-Wallis test (
), a nonparametric means comparison method, was used to test for differences in farm responses across USDA PHZ and farm type. As the survey sample contained farms that varied in scale, management, herd genetic potential, production goals, and agronomic environments, high variability was observed for most responses. Therefore, due to the high variability of the data, we identified differences as statistically significant at α = 0.1. Where the Kruskal-Wallis test resulted in P ≤ 0.1, Dunn’s test of multiple comparisons using rank sums was applied to test for differences between factor levels (
). A Bonferroni P-value correction was applied to reduce the inflated type 1 error rate associated with multiple hypothesis testing. Kendall’s rank correlation was used to explore correlations between 2 variables (
We discuss survey results first in terms of differences in forage production between zones and farm types, as these relationships explain some of the trends observed for operation size, animal performance, and land-management characteristics. Then we relate the implications of the forage production results to animal performance and productivity by zone and farm type.
We analyzed a total of 70 responses, the majority of which were received from Pennsylvania, New York, and Vermont. Based on a literature review we conducted, there were no publicly available estimates of the size of the grass-fed cattle population in the Northeast for comparison at the time of this analysis. Grass-fed beef makes up about 4% of total US beef market share, and the operations are managed by more than 3,900 producers nationwide (
Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture. 2017. Back to Grass: The Market Potential for US Grassfed Beef. Stone Barns Center Food Agric., Pocantico Hills, NY.
). Based on this estimate, our sample represents about 2% of grass-fed producers in the United States and about 0.3% of the total number of beef cows in the states surveyed at the time of data collection (
). Assuming grass-fed cattle make up 7% of the beef cattle in the Northeast, this equates to a response representing about 4% of the grass-fed beef cows in the region. As reported in a 2009 survey of grass-fed cattle producers in the Northeast (
), the variation in most values was very high in our study. As we only received 4 responses from zone 7, we combined responses from zones 6 and 7 for the purpose of our analysis.
Land Use
Of the total land represented by survey responses, 70% was grazed, 30% was only harvested for stored forage, and 8% was both grazed and harvested for stored forage. Eighty-eight percent of grazed land was perennial pasture, 9% was annual pasture, and 1% was crop residue. Two percent of grazed land was classified as “other,” described by producers as wooded lots or silvopasture, and small hay fields the producer could access for grazing.
Total land use was similar across zones (Table 1). On average, 42% of the total land used by each operation was mechanically harvested for supplemental forage. This proportion was 22% smaller in zones 6 and 7 than zone 4 (P = 0.001) and 14% smaller in zones 6 and 7 than zone 5 (P = 0.04). Despite these differences in the proportion of land that was mechanically harvested across zones, the proportion of feed-sufficient and feed-importing farms in the survey sample was 43% and 57%, respectively, and did not differ across zones (P = 0.72, data not shown). On average, on-farm land use per animal was about 87 and 64% greater for zones 4 and 5, respectively, than for zones 6 and 7 (Figure 2). Similarly, total land required per animal was about 82% greater in cooler zones than in warmer zones (P = 0.006 and 0.001 for zone 4 vs. 6 and 7 and zone 5 vs. 6 and 7, respectively). Overall, the average farm size of 46 ha in this study was over 2 times larger than the 20-ha average reported in the earlier Northeast study by
. This difference is likely explained by differences in our survey samples, as the earlier study sampled 22 farms and we surveyed 70 farms. This may also reflect a trend for increasing farm size in the region, as cow inventory on beef operations increased by an average of 37% from 2012 to 2017 in New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont, the states representing 77% of the responses in our sample (
Figure 2Land use per animal for northeastern grass-fed beef operations by USDA Plant Hardiness Zone [see Figure 1; zone 4 (n = 13); zone 5 (n = 22); zones 6 and 7 (n = 35)] and farm type [feed-sufficient farms (n = 40): produced all required supplemental forage on the farm; feed-importer farms (n = 30): purchased supplemental forage to meet the herd’s year-round forage requirements]. ***P ≤ 0.01. Boxplots represent the interquartile range of the data for each variable. The lower and upper whiskers represent the minimum and maximum values, respectively. The bolded midline represents the median. Quartile 1 is bound by the lower whisker and the bottom of the box, quartile 2 is bound by the bottom of the box and the midline, quartile 3 is bound by the midline and the top of the box, and quartile 4 is bound by the top of the box and the upper whisker.
Feed-sufficient farms used 71% more land on an on-farm basis, and 24% more land on a total land use basis, than feed-importing farms (Table 2). Greater total land use by feed-sufficient farms is partially a reflection of herds on those farms being 2.2 times larger than herds on feed-importing farms. Interestingly, we did not observe a difference in on-farm land use per animal between farm types (P = 0.68; Figure 2), but feed-importing farms required 37% more total land per animal than feed-sufficient farms (P = 0.05; Figure 2). While total land use differences between farm type is due to larger herd sizes on feed-sufficient farms, differences in total land on a per-animal basis may reflect differences in underlying soils, access to land, labor, capital, or off-farm income, all of which may influence a producer’s decision to maintain a particular herd size or to import feed. In addition to differing stocking rates, feed-importing farms mechanically harvested 17% more of their total land for stored forage (P = 0.01, data not shown).
Table 2Summary of land use for feed-sufficient and feed-importing grass-fed beef operations in the northeastern United States
Feed-sufficient farms were those that produced all required supplemental forage on the farm (n = 40). Feed importers were farms that purchased supplemental forage to meet the herd’s year-round forage requirements (n = 30).
This represents land on the farm that was mechanically harvested to produce hay or silage and never grazed.
ha
Feed sufficient
30 ± 27
27
1
127
0.58
Feed importer
24 ± 22
23
4
81
Total land (without purchased feed)
ha
Feed sufficient
69 ± 50
62
2
206
0.004
Feed importer
41 ± 43
31
1
190
Total land (with purchased feed)
ha
Feed sufficient
69 ± 50
62
2
206
0.08
Feed importer
56 ± 57
36
3
247
1 Feed-sufficient farms were those that produced all required supplemental forage on the farm (n = 40). Feed importers were farms that purchased supplemental forage to meet the herd’s year-round forage requirements (n = 30).
2 P-values were calculated using the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test.
3 This represents land on the farm that was mechanically harvested to produce hay or silage and never grazed.
Generally, grass-fed beef producers in the Northeast use rotational grazing practices; diverse pasture swards containing cool- and warm-season grasses, legumes, and forbs; and stored forages to meet the herd’s nutritional requirements throughout the year (
). Forage management was similar across zones (Table 3) and farm types (Table 4) in our sample, with the exception of grazing season length, pasture legume content, hay production from pasture, and the use of annual forages in the grazing program. Although we observed differences between farm types in the proportion of farms making hay from pasture, we did not observe differences between farms that made hay and those that did not in whether or not they reseeded pastures (P = 0.22) or used tillage (P = 0.80) for pasture maintenance, or applied commercial fertilizer (P = 0.89) or manure (P = 0.23) to pasture soils. About 49% of producers reported reseeding or replanting pastures at some interval and 46% reported using no-tillage seeding practices for pasture forage management, whereas 34% reported never replanting pastures. Most producers reported applying lime to soils (67%), and manure application was more commonly reported than commercial fertilizer use (27 and 11%, respectively). Grass hay was by far the most common supplemental feed used on farms. Of the producers who reported harvesting supplemental storage from pasture (n = 39), 73% reported storing it as dry hay and 85% of those reported storing it “under cover.” Of the producers who reported harvesting supplemental forage from nongrazed land (n = 43), 70% reported storing it as grass hay (Figure 3a). Grass hay was also the most purchased forage (Figure 3b). About 26% of producers who produced supplemental forage from pasture reported storing it as bale silage, whereas about 29 and 6% reported purchasing “alfalfa or grass silage” and “bale silage,” respectively.
Table 3Summary of adoption rates of land-management practices for northeastern grass-fed beef operations by USDA Plant Hardiness Zone
These results were calculated by dividing the number of producers who selected this response by the number of observations in the region. See the Supplemental Material (https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2020-01992) for a table of response rates for each survey question.
P-values for effects of zone on each land management practice were calculated using the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test. P-values for differences between zones were calculated using Dunn’s test of multiple comparisons using rank sums.
USDA Plant Hardiness Zone
Overall
Zone 4
Zone 5
Zones 6 and 7
Produce hay from pasture
54
36
57
50
0.38
On-farm tillage use
15
14
11
13
0.91
Graze annual forages
38
18
23
24
0.10
Commercial fertilizer use
23
5
11
11
0.53
Manure use
38
18
29
27
0.62
Lime use
31ab
45a
80b
67
0.03
a,bValues with differing subscripts within a row indicate significant differences.
1 See Figure 1 for a map of the zones. Zone 4 (n = 13); zone 5 (n = 22); and zones 6 and 7 (n = 35).
2 These results were calculated by dividing the number of producers who selected this response by the number of observations in the region. See the Supplemental Material (https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2020-01992) for a table of response rates for each survey question.
3 P-values for effects of zone on each land management practice were calculated using the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test. P-values for differences between zones were calculated using Dunn’s test of multiple comparisons using rank sums.
Table 4Summary of adoption rates of land management practices for feed-sufficient and feed-importing grass-fed beef operations in the northeastern United States
Feed-sufficient farms were those that produced all required supplemental forage on the farm (n = 40). Feed importers were farms that purchased supplemental forage to meet the herd’s year-round forage requirements (n = 30).
These results were calculated by dividing the number of producers who selected this response by the number of observations in the region. See the Supplemental Material (https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2020-01992) for a table of response rates for each survey question.
P-values for effects of zone on each land-management practice were calculated using the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test.
Farm type
Overall
Feed sufficient
Feed importer
Produce hay from pasture
68
27
50
<0.01
On-farm tillage use
10
17
13
0.43
Graze annual forages
23
27
24
0.64
Commercial fertilizer use
13
10
11
0.57
Manure use
30
23
27
0.39
Lime use
63
73
67
0.34
1 Feed-sufficient farms were those that produced all required supplemental forage on the farm (n = 40). Feed importers were farms that purchased supplemental forage to meet the herd’s year-round forage requirements (n = 30).
2 These results were calculated by dividing the number of producers who selected this response by the number of observations in the region. See the Supplemental Material (https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2020-01992) for a table of response rates for each survey question.
3 P-values for effects of zone on each land-management practice were calculated using the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test.
Figure 3(a) Feeds produced on farm. Values were calculated as the proportion of producers who reported harvesting non-grazed crops (n = 43). (b) Feeds purchased by farms. Values were calculated as the proportion of producers who reported purchasing feeds (n = 30). Values add up to more than 100% because producers could select more than one feed.
On average, reported grazing seasons were 40% longer in zones 6 and 7 (8.1 ± 1.6 mo) than in zone 4 (5.8 ± 1.0 mo, P < 0.001) and 21% longer in zones 6 and 7 than in zone 5 (6.7 ± 1.0 mo, P = 0.002). Farms in zones 6 and 7 reported greater legume content in pastures than farms in zone 4 (29 vs. 19% of the pasture sward, respectively; P = 0.007). Based on a moderate correlation between length of the grazing season and legume content of pasture (R2 = 0.24; P = 0.016), differences in pasture legume content between zones may be partially explained by longer growing seasons in warmer zones, which may have enabled legume proliferation during slumps in grass growth. Common pasture legumes such as white clover have greater optimal growth temperatures than cool-season grasses (
) and have been found to contribute more to pasture botanical composition in warmer summer periods than later in spring and autumn as compared with multiple cool-season grasses (
Sheaffer, C. C., and G. W. Evers. 2007. Chapter 12. Cool-season legumes for humid areas. Pages 179–190 in Forages, Volume 2: The Science of Grassland Agriculture. 6th ed. R. F. Barnes, C. J. Nelson, K. J. Moore, and M. Collins, ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Ames, IA.
) also likely contributed to differences in legume content within and between zones. Grazing management differences can also contribute to the types and abundance of legume species that may proliferate in pastures (
) and may have influenced our results. For instance, studies have found that rotational grazing with high stocking densities or more frequent grazing compared with low stocking densities tends to reduce the sward content of tall growing legumes such as alfalfa (
). Although we did not ask producers about stocking density or rotation frequencies used in their grazing management in the online survey, conversations with producers during our interviews indicated that a range of approaches to rotational grazing were commonly used by grass-fed beef producers in our sample. More detailed characterization of climate, soil types and fertility, and farm management practices, such as pasture species selection and seeding rate, and grazing management, would be needed to explain differences in pasture legume content across farms and zones.
The proportion of producers who reported grazing summer annuals was affected by zone (P = 0.10, Table 3). Producers who incorporated warm-season annuals into the grazing program were more likely to apply manure as a fertilizer (59 vs. 17%, respectively; P = 0.01) and to replant pastures (59 vs. 40%, respectively; P = 0.12) than producers who did not. Lime was more commonly applied to soils in warmer zones, with 35% more producers reporting lime application in zones 6 and 7 than zone 5 (P = 0.01). Though lime application differed across zones, manure (P = 0.43) and commercial fertilizer use (P = 0.40) did not. On average, zone 5 farms purchased over twice the amount of forage per animal than farms in zones 6 and 7 (2.9 ± 1.9 and 1.1 ± 1.1 t of DM/animal, respectively, P = 0.01).
About 68% of feed-sufficient farms produced hay from pasture, whereas only about 27% of feed-importing farms produced hay from pasture (P = 0.001). In addition to being more likely to produce hay from pasture, more feed-sufficient farms produced supplemental forage from nongrazed land than feed-importing farms (83 vs. 33%, respectively, P < 0.001). Feed-importing farms purchased about 1.4 t of DM of grass hay per animal (median; purchased by 41% of producers) and about 0.6 t of DM of grass or alfalfa silage per animal (median; purchased by 13% of producers). Other forage management practices were similar between farm types (Table 4). Neither the length of the grazing season (P = 0.29) nor the proportion of the pasture sward represented by legumes (P = 0.60) differed between farm types.
Our forage management results were similar to those reported in a 2001 national survey of grass-fed beef producers (
). As minimal commercial fertilizer is used on many grass-fed beef operations in the Northeast (Table 3), most producers rely on the nitrogen-fixing ability of legumes as fertilizer for pasture forage. Eighty-one percent of producers in the 2009 Northeast study (
) indicated that their cattle grazed mixed grass–legume pastures and that about 83% of the total farm was seeded in this mixture. When asked about the importance of legumes in pasture as a nitrogen source on a scale of 1 = “not” to 5 = “extremely” important, 27 and 57% of grass-fed beef producers surveyed in that study rated pasture legumes as a 4 or 5, respectively. Our findings for median pasture legume content were 20% for zone 4, 25% for zone 5, and 30% for zones 6 and 7, which were comparable to the low end of recommendations for pasture legume content in the literature (
In addition to legumes, producers seeking to shorten the length of the finishing period, maintain energy content and digestibility in the pasture sward, or improve carcass quality are often advised to incorporate warm-season annual forages into the forage program or to use strategic supplementation of high-quality hay during periods of protein and energy imbalance in cool-season forages (
Gerrish, J. 2007. Managing perennial forages for finishing. Pages 13–15 in Proc. Natl. Grass-Fed Beef Conf. Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA.
). Farms in zone 4 reported the lowest pasture legume content of all zones but the highest proportion of warm-season annual forages for grazing. As the pasture legume content in zone 4 was below the aforementioned target range and zone 4 had the shortest grazing seasons, it may be that farms in zone 4 used more summer annuals to increase total forage and quality produced during the grazing season. With more pastures in summer annuals, this may also be why zone 4 reported a lower proportion of legumes in the pasture sward. Although annual forages provide high-quality nutrition to cattle during times of slow perennial forage growth, incorporation of annuals into the grazing program may result in increased total forage costs and reduced net value when compared with grazing cool-season grass, or cool-season grass and alfalfa, pastures (
). Consumers may pay premiums for USDA QG or other product attributes the market desires, which could potentially address questions of the profitability of forage systems including annuals (
). A recommendation to include warm-season annuals in the grazing program should be based on the individual producer’s goals, production conditions, and the demands of their target market.
Herd Characteristics
Grass-fed cattle are typically managed in cow-calf through finish production systems, wherein the breeding herd is maintained on the farm and calves remain on the farm through weaning and finishing on grass (
Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture. 2017. Back to Grass: The Market Potential for US Grassfed Beef. Stone Barns Center Food Agric., Pocantico Hills, NY.
). The producer is typically responsible for arranging processing and product marketing and delivery to the end consumer. Our results agreed with these findings, as 87% of the farms were cow-calf to finish and only 3 and 10% were cow-calf or finish only.
Generally, herd composition was similar across zones (Table 5) but different between farm types (Table 6). Most producers reported raising Angus cattle. Herds on feed-sufficient farms were a little over twice as large as herds on feed-importing farms (P = 0.001), resulting in greater absolute numbers of replacement heifers (P = 0.001) and market cattle (P = 0.01) for feed-sufficient farms, but there was no difference in the number of replacement heifers or market cattle retained per cow. Our sample had a smaller average number of cows per herd than that reported in a survey of grass-fed cattle operations in Ohio (
), which may reflect smaller farm sizes in the Northeast. The average number of market cattle reported in our sample was comparable to estimates reported in the 2009 Northeast study (
) and slightly larger than the number reported as finished on grass only in the Ohio study. Our results were also similar to those of the 2001 national survey, wherein most producers (87%) managed cattle on farm from birth through finishing (
Postweaning ADG was calculated for the subset of the data (n = 28) for which weaning weight, weaning age, market weight, and market age were available.
kg/d
Zone 4
0.61 ± 0.31
0.51
0.31
1.31
0.33
Zone 5
0.65 ± 0.23
0.60
0.44
1.26
Zones 6 and 7
0.68 ± 0.14
0.62
0.53
0.88
Full region
0.64 ± 0.23
0.59
0.69
2.89
1 See Figure 1 for a map of the zones. Zone 4 (n = 13); zone 5 (n = 22); and zones 6 and 7 (n = 35).
2 P-values were calculated using the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test.
3 Postweaning ADG was calculated for the subset of the data (n = 28) for which weaning weight, weaning age, market weight, and market age were available.
Table 6Summary of animal performance and herd composition for feed-sufficient and feed-importing grass-fed beef operations in the northeastern United States
Feed-sufficient farms were those that produced all required supplemental forage on the farm (n = 40). Feed importers were farms that purchased supplemental forage to meet the herd’s year-round forage requirements (n = 30).
Postweaning ADG was calculated for the subset of the data (n = 28) for which weaning weight, weaning age, market weight, and market age were available.
kg/d
Feed sufficient
0.70 ± 0.28
0.64
0.32
1.31
0.25
Feed importers
0.58 ± 0.13
0.56
0.41
0.87
1 Feed-sufficient farms were those that produced all required supplemental forage on the farm (n = 40). Feed importers were farms that purchased supplemental forage to meet the herd’s year-round forage requirements (n = 30).
2 P-values were calculated using the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test.
3 Postweaning ADG was calculated for the subset of the data (n = 28) for which weaning weight, weaning age, market weight, and market age were available.
Animal performance and farm productivity are 2 of many variables important to the profitability of grass-fed beef production systems. Despite longer grazing seasons in warmer zones, animal performance was similar across zones (Table 5). Differences in productivity on both an on-farm and total land use basis (Figure 4) mirrored results for length of the grazing season and pasture legume content, suggesting that forage availability and nutritive value were drivers of these differences. As a greater proportion of farms in zone 4 reported grazing warm-season annuals, it is possible that the incorporation of annuals into the forage program provided additional quantity and quality of forage to make up for any loss of animal performance due to reduced perennial pasture growth as a result of shorter grazing seasons. Animal performance was also similar across farm types (Table 6), except for mean market weight, which was 31 kg heavier and less variable for feed-sufficient farms than for feed-importing farms (P = 0.04). Median total market weight tended to be greater for feed-sufficient farms (8,845 and 7,325 kg/farm, respectively, P = 0.12), a reflection of larger herd sizes and slightly heavier market weights for feed-sufficient farms.
Figure 4Animal productivity for northeastern grass-fed beef operations by USDA Plant Hardiness Zone [see Figure 1; zone 4 (n = 13); zone 5 (n = 22); zones 6 and 7 (n = 35)] and farm type [feed-sufficient farms (n = 40): produced all required supplemental forage on the farm; feed-importer farms (n = 30): purchased supplemental forage to meet the herd’s year-round forage requirements]. **P ≤ 0.05, ***P ≤ 0.01. Boxplots represent the interquartile range of the data for each variable. The lower and upper whiskers represent the minimum and maximum values, respectively. The bolded midline represents the median. Quartile 1 is bound by the lower whisker and the bottom of the box, quartile 2 is bound by the bottom of the box and the midline, quartile 3 is bound by the midline and the top of the box, and quartile 4 is bound by the top of the box and the upper whisker.
). Though feed-sufficient farms marketed animals at heavier weights, their market ages were similar to those on feed-importing farms. On average, cattle were about 100 d older at slaughter for cattle in our sample than for the sample surveyed in the 2009 Northeast study. Older market ages in our sample are the result of a longer postweaning grazing period and lower ADG compared with the earlier study. The average and median length of the period from weaning to slaughter was 478 ± 148 d and 517 d, respectively, which were much longer than the average of 283 ± 11 d reported by
Our data indicate that animals are being fed through a second winter, which may have implications for carcass quality and farm profitability. We would like to note that the postweaning gain and finishing period length estimates for our sample are based on a subset of the data (n = 28) that largely excluded responses from Pennsylvania, as this question was not asked in the pilot study. In addition, there may be producers who alter their management during the last 2 to 3 mo of the finishing period, but this was not asked in the survey. Feed-sufficient farms reported a greater range in mature cow weight and with more variability than feed-importing farms, but median mature cow weights were equivalent.
Maintaining a high plane of nutrition year-round enables consistent gains, thus improving certain carcass quality characteristics (
), as rate of gain in combination with frame size, early life nutrition, and other biological factors influence the proportion of gain that is protein versus fat (
). Reports in the literature suggest that maintaining an ADG of 0.8 to 0.9 kg/d is critical to support fat cell proliferation sufficient for a high-quality eating experience (
Gerrish, J. 2007. Managing perennial forages for finishing. Pages 13–15 in Proc. Natl. Grass-Fed Beef Conf. Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA.
Effect of frame size and time-on-pasture on steer performance, longissimus muscle fatty acid composition, and tenderness in a forage-finishing system..
). However, the climate and land limitations of the Northeast pose a challenge to maintaining consistent gains, which is particularly important for producers targeting the USDA High Select or better grass-fed beef market due to seasonal variations in cool-season perennial forage availability and nutritive value that limit ADG (
). These challenges are evidenced by the aforementioned ADG and finishing period values for our sample, which were lower than the recommended targets for producers prioritizing USDA High Select or higher markets. These seasonal variations can lead to inadequate and variable daily gains, resulting in carcass quality losses and the potential for increased production costs by having to feed cattle through a second winter.
Interestingly, farms in our sample that were grazing annual forages tended to have median market weights that were 45 kg lighter (P = 0.10) and market ages that were 2 mo younger (P = 0.03) than farms that were not, but there were no differences in lifetime ADG (P = 0.95), postweaning ADG (P = 0.94), or length of the finishing period (P = 0.36). As market weights were lighter but finishing periods were about the same length of time, it is possible that these differences in market weight were explained by greater rumen fill for the animals consuming lower quality forage. As the earlier studies indicated that visible fat thickness (
) were important evaluation criteria for determining whether animals were ready for slaughter, it is also possible that these animals reached a target carcass quality endpoint at lower weights than animals on farms that did not use annual forages. This would be made possible by greater and more consistent forage availability and quality throughout the animals’ lifetimes. A comparison of 3 southeastern forage systems showed that at similar ages, cooked rib-eye steaks from the system that included warm-season annual forages had comparable consumer acceptability and meat quality characteristics to conventional rib-eye steaks, further supporting this potential explanation (
). As only about 25% of respondents to the survey reported grazing annual forages, incorporation of annual forages into the forage chain with consideration of the potential increased costs (
Mean animal productivity on a total land use basis was 439 ± 334 kg/ha, but was, on average, 74% greater in zones 6 and 7 than in zone 4 (P = 0.02) and 86% greater in zones 6 and 7 than in zone 5 (P < 0.001). We observed similar animal productivity between farm types on an on-farm land use basis, but feed-sufficient farms were 52% more productive than feed-importing farms on average (P = 0.004) when total land use was considered. As the relative proportions of farm types were similar across zones (P = 0.72) and average herd and farm sizes for feed-importing farms were about half that of feed-sufficient farms, this difference may be the result of economies of scale on feed-sufficient farms (
), no producers in our sample reported using implants.
Marketing, Processing, and Labor
Generally, producers marketed directly to consumers without the use of externally verified grass-fed labels or other certified labels such as organic or natural (Figure 5), which agrees with findings from the earlier surveys of grass-fed beef producers in the United States (
). Some grass-fed beef producers capitalize on economies of scope by marketing additional products from the farm to improve the economic viability of their operations. Supporting this idea, 53% of producers in our sample reported marketing products from other species managed on the farm, including poultry (36%), swine (27%), sheep (21%), goats (4%), or multiple species (29%).
Figure 5Marketing practices used by grass-fed beef producers in the Northeast. (a) Marketing outlets; (b) certified grass-fed labels; and (c) additional labels.
The modal distance traveled to a processing facility in this study was “fewer than 50 miles” (74% of producers), indicating that grass-fed beef producers in our sample were able to find nearby processors. There were no effects of zone (P = 0.49) or farm type (P = 0.25) on distance traveled to a processor. We were surprised by this result, as previous studies indicated that producers considered processing to be a challenge to grass-fed beef production (
) and that producers in the Northeast were more likely to consider a shortage of grass-fed beef processors close by to be a challenge facing the grass-fed beef industry (
On average, producers reported 26 h of labor per week required to maintain and feed the herd. Average labor per animal was similar across zones (P = 0.22) but was greater for feed-importing farms than feed-sufficient farms (1.0 ± 0.9 and 0.6 ± 1.0 h per week per animal, respectively; P = 0.04). As an earlier study showed that economies of scale result in lower costs per animal for large grass-fed beef operations than small (<15 animals) operations (
), the difference in labor per animal may be the result of economies of scale on feed-sufficient farms, which were larger in terms of total animal numbers and land managed than feed-importing farms. Mean annual labor per animal was 41 h, about 3 times larger than the mean annual labor per animal reported for forage systems of differing complexity on grass-fed beef operations in the Southeast (
). This is likely partly a reflection of the differences in animal types managed; the Southeast study was managing stocker cattle for 10 to 12 mo, whereas the farms in our sample managed cattle from birth through finish and maintained a reproductive herd. In addition, there may be differences in the quantity of supplemental forage harvested, stored, and fed on farm, as an earlier study showed that producers from the Southeast were less likely to consider pasture management or land availability as challenges to grass-fed beef production (
Northeast grass-fed beef operations are relatively small, cow-calf to finish systems with low reliance on synthetic inputs. About 57% of farms are self-sufficient in forage production, whereas the remainder purchase some forage to supplement herd nutrition. Farms in warmer zones have longer grazing seasons, up to 86% greater animal productivity per hectare, and 46% lower land requirements per animal than farms in cooler zones. Herds on farms that purchased forage were about half the size of those on farms that produced all their own forage but required 37% more land per animal. The influence of off-farm income on management decisions, differences in climate, soils, access to land, capital, labor, and grazing management are potential explanations for these differences. These data provide a reference for further research, personnel working with Northeast grass-fed beef producers, technical assistance programs, and the basis for a life cycle assessment of grass-fed beef production systems in the region.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was funded by the USDA Agricultural Research Service, project no. 1902-11130-002; the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture and Hatch Appropriations under Projects #PEN04600 and accession #1009362; and in part by The Beef Checkoff. The authors thank the producers who supported this work by providing information on their production practices. The authors also thank Susan Parry, Diane Schivera, Bill Fosher, Jill Ott, Karen Hoffman, Elizabeth Collins, Joe Emenheiser, and Ed Rayburn for their help distributing the survey through grazing networks in the Northeast United States.
LITERATURE CITED
Abidoye B.O.
Bulut H.
Lawrence J.D.
Mennecke B.
Townsend A.M.
U.S. consumers’ valuation of quality attributes in beef products..
Effect of frame size and time-on-pasture on steer performance, longissimus muscle fatty acid composition, and tenderness in a forage-finishing system..
Gerrish, J. 2007. Managing perennial forages for finishing. Pages 13–15 in Proc. Natl. Grass-Fed Beef Conf. Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA.
Sheaffer, C. C., and G. W. Evers. 2007. Chapter 12. Cool-season legumes for humid areas. Pages 179–190 in Forages, Volume 2: The Science of Grassland Agriculture. 6th ed. R. F. Barnes, C. J. Nelson, K. J. Moore, and M. Collins, ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Ames, IA.
Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture. 2017. Back to Grass: The Market Potential for US Grassfed Beef. Stone Barns Center Food Agric., Pocantico Hills, NY.
United States standards for livestock and meat marketing claims, grass (forage) fed claim for ruminant livestock and the meat products derived from such livestock..
30142-7&id=gr1.jpg){kind=link}
30142-7&id=gr2.jpg){kind=link}
30142-7&id=gr3.jpg){kind=link}
30142-7&id=gr4.jpg){kind=link}
30142-7&id=gr5.jpg){kind=link}