Agri-food supply chains in North America have become remarkably efficient, supplying an unprecedented variety of items at the lowest possible cost. However, the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and the near-total temporary loss of the foodservice distribution channel, exposed a vulnerability that many found surprising. Instead of continued shortages, however, the agri-food sector has since moved back to near normal conditions with prices and production levels similar to those typically observed in years prior to the pandemic. Ironically, the specialization in most food supply chains designed for “just-in-time” delivery to specific customers with no reserve capacity, which led to the initial disruptions, may have also been responsible for its rapid rebound. A common theme in assessing the impacts across the six commodities examined is the growing importance of understanding the whole supply chain. Over the longer term, a continuation of the pandemic could push the supply chain toward greater consolidation of firms and diversification of products given the increasing option value of maintaining flexibility. Other structural changes will be felt through input markets, most notably labour, as the trend toward greater automation will continue to accelerate as a response to meeting concerns about a consistent supply of healthy and productive workers. The economic fall out from the pandemic may lead to greater concentration in the sector as some firms are not able to survive the downturn and changes in consumer food buying behaviour, including movement toward online shopping and enhanced demand for attributes associated with resiliency, such as local. On the other hand, online shopping may provide opportunities for small producers and processors to shorten supply chains and reach customers directly. In the long term, COVID-19 impacts on global commerce and developing country production are more uncertain and could influence poverty reduction. While COVID-19's impacts on North American agriculture should have minimal effect on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through food prices, the ongoing global trends in trade and agribusiness accelerated by the pandemic are relevant for achievement of the SDGs.

As consumers have become more interested in understanding how their food is produced, scrutiny and criticism have increased regarding intensified food animal production methods. Resolution of public concerns about animal agricultural practices depends on understanding the myriad factors that provide the basis for concerns. An online survey of 798 U.S. households was conducted to investigate relationships between household characteristics (demographics, geographic location, and experiences) and level of concern for animal welfare as well as sources used to obtain information on the subject. Because recent media attention has focused on animal care practices used in the U.S. swine industry, respondents were also asked specific questions pertaining to their perceptions of pig management practices and welfare issues and their corresponding pork purchasing behavior. Respondents reporting higher levels of concern about animal welfare were more frequently female, younger, and self-reported members of the Democratic Party. Fourteen percent of respondents reported reduction in pork consumption because of animal welfare concerns with an average reduction of 56%. Over half of the respondents (56%) did not have a primary source for animal welfare information; those who identified a primary information source most commonly used information provided by animal protection organizations, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Midwest participants were significantly, at the 5% significance level, less concerned about domestic livestock animal welfare and more frequently reported not having a source for animal welfare information than those from other regions of the United States. Overall, the U.S. livestock and poultry industries and other organizations affiliated with animal agriculture appear to be less used public sources of information on animal welfare than popular animal protection organizations. Improved understanding of the factors that contribute to consumers' evolving perceptions of the care and welfare of farm animals is an essential step toward enhanced sustainability and social responsibility in contemporary food production systems.

This research used surveys of the public and dairy farmers in the United States to assess perceptions and attitudes related to dairy cattle welfare. Sixty-three percent of public respondents indicated that they were concerned about dairy cattle welfare. Most public respondents agreed that animal welfare was more important than low milk prices but that the average American did not necessarily agree. Most public respondents had not viewed media stories related to dairy cattle welfare. Respondents who had viewed these stories did so on television or Internet. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was viewed as the most accurate source of information related to dairy cattle welfare, followed by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the American Veterinary Medicine Association (AVMA). Both public and dairy farmer respondents viewed farmers as having the most influence on dairy cattle welfare. However, there was a general pattern of public respondents indicating that groups including USDA, HSUS, and AVMA had a relatively larger influence on dairy cattle welfare than did farmer respondents. In contrast, dairy farmers indicated that individual actors-farmers, veterinarians, consumers-had more influence than the public indicated. When asked about production practices, most public respondents indicated that they would vote for a ban on antibiotic use outside of disease treatment or for the mandated use of pain control in castration. However, a minority indicated they would vote to ban the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) or to pay a premium for milk produced without rbST. With respect to explaining public support for the production practice bans and limits, respondents were more likely to vote for the restrictions if they were older, female, had higher income, or had viewed animal welfare stories in the media.

To address escalating concerns about livestock animal care and welfare it is necessary to better understand the factors that may predispose people to develop such concerns. It has been hypothesized that experiences with, beliefs about, and emotional connections to animals may influence level of perceived obligation toward and therefore concern for animals. However, the extent to which people's classifications of animals and their status as pet owners may impact their views on food animal care and welfare practices remains unclear. An online survey of 798 U.S. households was therefore conducted in June 2012 to understand differences in consumer sentiment towards various animal species, classification of certain species (as pet, livestock or neither), and variations in food animal welfare concerns between dog and/or cat owners and those who do not own such species. Sixty-six percent of households in the survey owned at least 1 animal. Forty-eight percent owned dogs, 41% owned cats, 3% owned horses, and 10% owned other animals. As expected, dogs and cats were classified by most respondents (90%) as pets. Most respondents similarly categorized rabbits (58%) and horses (55%) as pets, although consensus was not found for horses with 27% classifying them as livestock animals and 18% as neither pets nor livestock. Over 80% of respondents classified beef cows, dairy cows, pigs, chickens, and turkeys as livestock. The majority of survey respondents were opposed to eating cats and dogs followed closely by horses due to ethical and/or spiritual reasons. Dog and/or cat owners more often reported having a source for animal welfare information (68%) than those who did not own these species (49%). Additionally, dog and/or cat owners were more concerned about food animal welfare for both domestically raised food animals and those raised outside the United States (dog and/or cat owners mean level of concern was 3.88 for domestic animal welfare and 5.16 for those raised outside the United States compared with non-dog or -cat owners with means of 4.46 and 5.46, respectively). Although a causal relationship cannot be established, pet ownership and increased concern for food animal welfare appear to be correlated. These data suggest that increased interest in protecting food animals may stem from interactions with and emotional connections to pets, especially when combined with other factors such as having a source for animal welfare information, education level, age, and gender.

A 2-yr study was conducted to evaluate the effects of beef genotypes and feeding systems on performance, carcass traits, meat quality, and sensory attributes. A 2×2 factorial experiment was used to randomly allocate 60 steers in year 1 (YR1) and 44 steers in year 2 (YR2). The two beef genotypes evaluated were Red Angus (RA), and RA x Akaushi (AK) crossbreed. The steers were allotted to two finishing feeding systems: grazing, a multi-species forage mixture (GRASS) and feedlot finishing, conventional total mixed ration (GRAIN). All steers were slaughtered on the same day, at 26 and 18 mo of age (GRASS and GRAIN, respectively), and carcass data were collected 48 h postmortem. Growth and slaughter characteristics were significantly impacted by the finishing system (P < 0.01), with the best results presented by GRAIN. Beef genotype affected dressing percent (P < 0.01), ribeye area (P = 0.04), and marbling score (P = 0.01). The AK steers had a tendency (P = 0.09) for lower total gain; however, carcass quality scores were greater compared to RA. There was a genotype by system interaction for USDA yield grade (P < 0.01), where it was lower in GRASS compared to GRAIN in both genotypes, and no difference was observed between the two genotypes for any GRASS or GRAIN systems. There was no difference in meat quality or sensory attributes (P > 0.10) between the two genotypes, except that steaks from AK tended to be juicier than RA (P = 0.06). Thawing loss and color variables were impacted by the finishing system (P < 0.01). L* (lightness) and hue angle presented greater values while a* (redness), b* (yellowness), and chroma presented lower values in GRAIN compared to GRASS. Sensory attributes were scored better in GRAIN than GRASS beef (P < 0.01). There was a genotype by system interaction for flavor (P = 0.02), where beef from RA had a lower flavor rating in GRASS than in GRAIN, and no difference was observed for AK. Within each system, no difference was observed for flavor between RA and AK. Beef from steers in GRASS had greater (P < 0.01) WBSF than those from GRAIN. These results indicate that steers from GRAIN had superior performance and carcass merit and that AK enhanced these traits to a greater degree compared to RA. Furthermore, the beef finishing system had a marked impact on the steaks’ sensory attributes and consumer acceptability. The favorable results for texture and juiciness in GRAIN, which likely impacted overall acceptability, may be related to high marbling.