Beef is a good source of several vitamins and minerals but data on the net contribution to the human diet is lacking. The objective was to quantify the net nutrient contribution of the beef supply chain to provide vitamins and minerals to the human diet. Beef cattle production parameters for the beef supply chain were as described by Baber et al., 2018 with the red and organ meat yield from each production segment estimated using literature values of serially-harvested beef cattle. Nutrient concentration of feeds was acquired from feed composition tables in nutrient requirement texts, and the nutrient concentration of beef and organ meats was based on 2018 USDA Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies. The nutrient absorption coefficients of feeds, red meat, and organs were acquired from the literature. The human-edible conversion ratio was >1.0 for phosphorus when only red meat yield was considered indicating that the beef supply chain produced more human-edible phosphorus than it consumed. When organ meats were included, riboflavin, niacin, choline, and phosphorus had conversion ratios >1.0. After adjusting for the absorption of nutrients, the beef supply chain was a net contributor of niacin and phosphorus in the human diet when accounting for red meat yield only, but when including organ meats, iron, riboflavin, and choline also had conversion ratios >1.0. The maximum proportion of corn in the corn grain plus distillers’ grains component of the feedlot diets for the absorbable conversion ratio to be ≥1 ranged from 8.34 to 100.00% when only red meat yield was considered and from 32.02 to 100.00% when red and organ meats were considered. In conclusion, the current beef production system in the Southern Great Plains produces more human-absorbable iron, phosphorus, riboflavin, niacin, and choline to the human diet than is consumed in the beef supply chain.
The relationships among rangeland management practices and ecosystem on soil and nutrient processes are complex. Simulation models can provide valuable insight into this complexity to guide future research and management decisions for sustainable grazing systems. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the combinations of grazing management (continuous vs. rotational), stocking rate (low, moderate, or high), and burning (none vs. annual spring burn) on soil erosion, nutrient losses, and carbon sequestration. Soil, weather, and forage species data were collected for 3 locations in the Central Great Plains (Konza Prairie Biological Station, Kansas; Agricultural Research Center-Hays, Kansas; Central Plains Experimental Range, Wyoming). These data were used to simulate combinations of rangeland management scenarios using the Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender (APEX) model. A stocker cattle operation was simulated at Hays, Kansas and Wyoming locations, and a cow-calf operation at Konza, Kansas location. Burning increased soil loss from water erosion regardless of stocking rate or grazing management. Rotational grazing increased soil loss at the Kansas locations, but decreased soil loss at Wyoming compared with continuous grazing. Stocking rate had little effect on nitrogen losses, but rotational grazing decreased nitrogen loss compared with continuous grazing. Greater stocking rates slightly decreased phosphorus losses with continuous grazing, but not rotational grazing. Burning decreased phosphorus losses with continuous grazing at Konza, but not the other locations. Greater stocking rates decreased the deposition of soil organic carbon especially with continuous grazing, and burning resulted in losses of soil organic carbon at Konza and Wyoming. In conclusion, rangeland management practices differentially affect nutrient processes among ecosystems such that a one-size-fits-all management scheme will not maximize retention of all nutrients in all ecosystems.
Beef is a good source of several vitamins and minerals but data on the net contribution to the human diet is lacking. The objective was to quantify the net nutrient contribution of the beef supply chain to Fe, Zn, Se, P, B12, B6, riboflavin, niacin, and choline in the human diet. Beef cattle production parameters for the beef supply chain were as described by Baber et al. (2018; 10.1093/tas/txy086) with the red meat and liver yield from each production segment estimated using literature values of serially harvested beef cattle. Nutrient concentration of feeds was acquired from feed composition tables in beef, swine, poultry, and equine nutrient requirement texts, and the nutrient concentration of beef and liver was based on 2018 USDA Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies. Nutrient absorption values of feeds, red meat, and liver were acquired from the literature for humans or swine if human studies were unavailable. The human-edible conversion ratio was < 1.0 for all nutrients except for P and B12 when only red meat yield was considered indicating that the beef supply chain consumed more human-edible nutrients than it produced. Results were similar when liver yield was added although the ratios were closer to 1 for other nutrients. After adjusting for the absorptability of nutrients, the beef supply chain was a net contributor of niacin, P, and B12 in the human diet with or without liver. The net nutrient contribution is driven primarily by the ratio of nutrient concentration and absorbability of nutrients in beef relative to corn. In the current production scenario, the combined ratio of nutrient concentration multiplied by the ratio of absorbability must equal 15.17 or 12.45 to achieve equilibrium between nutrient consumed and produced for red meat or red meat plus liver yield, respectively. In conclusion, current beef production system is a net contributor of human-absorbable P, B12, and niacin to the human diet.
Limited research has examined economic cost analyses for rotational-stocking versus continuous-stocking at different stocking rates in a particular region, which makes it difficult to provide guidance to cattle producers in evaluating different grazing strategies. The objective is to evaluate and compare economic costs for rotational and continuous grazing at medium, low, and high stocking rates under stocker grazing in Kansas. This study uses field experiment data collected from a 726-acre rangeland in Hays, Kansas and economic data from the Land Use Survey Center at Kansas State University in 2019. The field experiment from Hays kept detailed records of costs and input such as labor/time, which provides a good basis for number extrapolations to model the other grazing scenarios. We determine fencing, water infrastructure, and time/labor costs for 6 grazing management scenarios, i.e., rotational grazing versus continuous grazing at a low, medium, and high stocking rate. Low, medium, and high stocking rates are 5, 3, 2 acres/animal, respectively. Labor is divided into 6 general categories pertinent to stocker grazing in Kansas. On a per-animal basis, total labor time increases with stocking rates and is greater under rotational grazing relative to continuous grazing. Rotational grazing requires greater total costs, including labor/time on per animal basis than continuous grazing at similar stocking rates. Compared with continuous grazing at the low, medium, and high stocking rates, rotational grazing would require an additional amount of $13.19, $16.67, and $6.04 per animal respectively, to cover the estimated infrastructure and labor costs. Across all scenarios, labor costs account for the largest expense, accounting for more than 60% of total costs. Annualized costs range from $3,205 to $9,277. Fence and water infrastructure costs account for 8.4% to 31% and 3.5% to 7.3% of total costs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.