C H A P T E R

5
Nutrition, feeding and management of
beef cattle in intensive and extensive
production systems
Tim A. McAllistera, Kim Stanfordb, Alex V. Chavesc,
Priscilla R. Evansc, Eduardo Eustaquio de Souza Figueiredod,
Gabriel Ribeiroe
a
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research and Development Centre, Lethbridge, AB,
Canada; bAlberta Agriculture and Forestry, Agriculture Centre, Lethbridge, AB, Canada; cSchool of Life
and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia;
d
Department of Food and Nutrition, Federal University of Mato Grosso, Brazil, Cuiaba, MT; eDepartment
of Production Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

O U T L I N E

Introduction 76 Extensive, semi-intensive, and intensive

pasture systems 85
Confined production systems 76
Grazing management 86
Cow/calf production 76
Pasture supplementation 88
Backgrounding 78
Cow/calf, backgrounding, and finishing
Finishing 80
cattle on pasture 90
Grains and by-product feeds 80
Forage sources and processing 82 Nutrient management in beef cattle
Feed additives and growth promoters 82 production systems 90
Confined systems 90
Extensive production systems 84
Extensive systems 91
Temperate versus tropical climates 84
Maximizing forage production Greenhouse gas emissions 92
and quality 85
Implications of climate change 92

Animal Agriculture
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817052-6.00005-7 75 Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
76 5. Nutrition, feeding and management of beef cattle in intensive and extensive production systems
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
Introduction
The global population of cattle is z 1.0 billion
with the largest populations being in India,
Brazil and China.1 Approximately 290 million
head of cattle are slaughtered each year, with
the United States, Brazil and the European
Union producing 48% of the world’s beef.1 The
demand for beef is predicted to increase by
16% between 2017 and 2027, with the majority
of this increase occurring in developing
countries.2
Estimating beef cattle numbers can be chal-
lenging, as population estimates often include
dairy cattle and veal, which ultimately contribute
to the meat supply. This is particularly challenging
in areas of the world such as the European Union,
where a large portion of the herd is dual purpose,
being used equally for meat and milk production.
Among livestock production systems, beef
cattle production is unique, as production often
involves the simultaneous use of both intensive
production, in the form of feedlots, and extensive
production where cow-calf populations graze
tame pasture and rangelands (Fig. 5.1). In the
future, the growing demand for beef will likely
be met through a process of sustainable intensifi-
cation, as the availability of grazing lands for
extensive production is limited. Climate
change-driven processes, like desertification,
expansion in croplands and urbanization may
further reduce the availability of grazing land
in the future. This intensification is already un-
derway in many regions of the world, as evi-
denced by the increasing capital-intensive
investment in beef cattle production in North
America, China, Brazil and Australia. The shift
I. Beef cattle production
93 References 94
94
from extensive to intensive beef cattle produc-
tion systems will require adjustments in nutri-
tion, feeding and management practices. This
chapter focuses on aspects of beef cattle produc-
tion and nutrition under both confined (inten-
sive) and grazing (extensive) production
conditions.
Confined production systems
Cow/calf production
Cows and calves are often managed in
confinement in many production systems during
periods of drought, in the aftermath of a fire,
for protection from predators, or for increased
observation and potential intervention during
calving. In parts of the world where seasonal
supplemental feeding is required, pregnant
and/or lactating beef cows are often confined
and fed in small pastures at stocking rates that
exceed the amount of forage available. More
recently, in response to increased land values,
urban encroachment or long-term drought, man-
aging beef cattle under continuous confinement
in dry lot has been proposed4 and already imple-
mented to a limited extent in North America and
in China.
Research evaluating management of cows
and calves in total confinement is limited.5
Comparing the costs and returns of a cow herd
managed continuously in confinement for three
years to a traditional pasture-based system, it
was noted that while cattle performance does
not differ between the systems, production costs
were increased by approximately $22 per cow-
calf pair raised in confinement.6 Rearing of cattle
 Confined production systems 77

FIG. 5.1 An example of a beef cattle production system that involves the use of both extensive and intensive management
production systems. Native and tame pasturelands and conserved forages are the primary feeds provided to the cow herd.
Backgrounding cattle are either fed conserved forage-based diets or returned to pastureland when forage is available in the
following spring. Finishing cattle are intensively fed high grain diets so as to promote an increase in the fat content and the
marbling of beef. The duration that cattle are fed in confined finishing systems depends on their weight when they enter
the system, but typically ranges from 60 to 140 days. Adapted from Legesse G, Beauchemin K, Ominski K, et al. Greenhouse gas emis-
sions and resource use of Canadian beef production in 1981 as compared to 2011. Anim Prod Sci. 2015;AN15386.

requires additional investment in infrastructure condition can be more effectively managed

for shelter, feed delivery, bedding and manure throughout the year, as measured amounts of
management. On a positive note, energy require- feed can be provided.6 If forages are scarce,
ments of the cow may be reduced, as cattle low-cost by-products or crop residues can be
spend less energy to seek out feed and body fed with restricted amounts of grain and

I. Beef cattle production

78 5. Nutrition, feeding and management of beef cattle in intensive and extensive production systems
supplements. Confinement rearing also enables
early weaning of calves, with subsequent bene-
fits to early breeding of heifers, rebreeding of
cows and growth of calves.7 Confinement man-
agement can also reduce losses from predation
and inclement weather, provided that adequate
drainage and bedding are supplied.
However, rearing calves in dry lots does
generate additional management issues. In
confinement, the risk of lethal or disabling injury
to calves from contact with older cattle is
dramatically increased.4 During parturition,
cows are not able to isolate themselves from
the herd, which can reduce the maternal bond
between cows and calves and result in decreased
colostrum intake.8 Decreased intake of colos-
trum by calves increases the risk of infectious
disease, as does the accumulation of manure
and increased housing density, as these condi-
tions promote the transmission of pathogens
within the herd.
Smith9 proposed “The Sandhills Calving Sys-
tem” as an approach to reduce transmission of
scour-associated bacteria and viruses among
newborn calves with their dams in confined pas-
tures. In this system, calves are segregated by
age and pregnant cows are moved just prior to
calving to areas that have been unoccupied by
cattle for several months. Recently, Burson10
compared health outcomes of 250 calves reared
in a conventional pasture-based system, typical
dry-lot confinement or dry-lot confinement us-
ing the Sandhills Calving System. Calf morbidity
and mortality were dramatically increased in
both confinement treatments, as compared to
pasture-reared calves. Total morbidity was
2.5% in pasture-reared as compared to 68.5%
and 47.4% in the traditional and Sandhills
confinement systems, respectively. Correspond-
ingly, total mortality of calves was 3.6% in the
pasture-based systems, as compared to > 20%
in confined systems. Although the Sandhills
management system did reduce calf morbidity,10
mortality rates were still high compared to
pasture-based systems.
I. Beef cattle production
Due to concern over antimicrobial resistance,
management systems which reduce use of anti-
microbials promote the social license of beef
production. The greater incidence of disease in
confined cow-calf production increases reliance
on antimicrobials, as compared to more exten-
sive calving systems. As well, increasing injury,
mortality, and morbidity of calves in confine-
ment raises animal welfare concerns. Dairy cattle
are commonly managed in confinement, with a
10% death loss in dairy heifer calves reported
in the USA11 Dairy calves are often housed and
fed individually, so as to reduce the risk of path-
ogen transmission and enable the intake of indi-
viduals to be monitored. However, maintaining
beef calves on milk replacer in individual hous-
ing systems fails to utilize the milk produced
by the cow and would be uneconomical. If
confinement cow-calf rearing is the future of
beef production, new management practices to
reduce injury to calves and the transmission of
infectious agents are required. Providing areas
where only calves may access highly palatable
creep-feed is perhaps a partial solution, as
creep-feed would improve calf growth perfor-
mance and calves could safely rest within the
restricted area.
Backgrounding
Backgrounding cattle in confinement is espe-
cially common in temperate regions of the world
where forages are not available year-round. In
this system, weaned calves are managed in
confined dry lots that usually house from 1,000
to 10,000 head and are fed total mixed rations
where 40%e60% of the dry matter is hay or
silage. The remainder of the diet is composed
of grains or by-products and a pelleted or
mash supplement which is composed of a
grain-based carrier alongside vitamins, minerals
and dietary additives. The supplement usually
accounts for 5%e7% of the dietary dry matter.
In areas where year-round grazing is possible,
 Confined production systems
confined backgrounding may be used to take
advantage of abundant by-product feeds, such
as distillers’ grains from ethanol production
and oilseed meal, arising from plant oil produc-
tion or vegetable waste. Backgrounded cattle
generally require time to adapt to feed bunks
and watering systems. High forage diets pro-
mote frame and muscle growth, while avoiding
excess fat deposition. Locating watering systems
in the middle of the pen can help calves find
water upon arrival,12 although the water and
feed intake of calves can be reduced for up to
two weeks or more as they adapt from pasture
to confinement.13 To encourage feed intake of
calves upon entry to the feedlot, it is desirable
for diets to be similar to those previously
consumed, although this can be challenging if
calves arrive from multiple herds or originate
from pastures.
Depending on local market requirements,
castration of bulls may be necessary and is a
major source of stress. Even with repeated intra-
muscular injections of an analgesic to control
pain, 6 month old bull calves had reduced
average daily gain and feed intake for the first
week after surgical castration and for up to
4 weeks after band castration.14 Calves that are
healthy and not highly stressed may receive
79
vaccinations and be de-horned and/or castrated
immediately upon arrival at a backgrounding
feedlot. Sewell et al.15 suggested that induction
procedures should be delayed for a day or
more to allow calves to consume feed and water
and to avoid increased rates of stress-induced
morbidity early in the feeding period.
As calves may be highly stressed by weaning
and transport (Table 5.1), morbidity and mortal-
ity arising from bovine respiratory disease (BRD)
is of major concern during the first 40e60 d of
backgrounding.16 Bovine respiratory disease is
responsible for 65%e80% of morbidities and
45%e75% of mortalities in feedlot cattle and
the heightened use of antimicrobials of greatest
relevance to human health.17 Co-mingling calves
during purchase from auction markets18 or
when filling pens at the feedlot12 can increase
the risk of BRD. Pre-conditioning by weaning,
vaccination and familiarizing calves with feed
bunks and waterers at least 45 days in advance
of transport reduces the risk of BRD.19 However,
this practice is uncommon due to a lack of
clearly-established price premiums for pre-
conditioned calves. Inclement weather during
the first week after entry to the feedlot may com-
pound BRD risk in calves already showing signs
of morbidity.20 Similarly, contracting BRD may

TABLE 5.1 Impacts of common stressors on the health and growth performance of backgrounding calves.

Stressor Impacts Reference

Transport reduced gain first 2 days 13

18
Weaning at transport increased BRD, reduced gain for 42 days
14
Castration Reduced feed intake and gain for 1e4 weeks

Diet change Reduced feed intake first week 23

New environment Up to 30% decrease in feed intake, first 4 days 24

18
Co-mingling calves Increased BRD, reduced gain for 42 days
20
Bad weather Reduced gain, increased BRD, mortality
16
Bovine respiratory disease Reduced calf growth performance for feeding period, reduced carcass value
25
Multiple 1% mortality for pre-conditioned calves compared to 11% mortality for calves
exposed to multiple stressors.

I. Beef cattle production

80 5. Nutrition, feeding and management of beef cattle in intensive and extensive production systems
exacerbate reductions in feed intake upon entry
of calves to the feedlot.18
To reduce incidence of BRD, more than half of
high-risk calves receive metaphylactic antimicro-
bials at induction to North American feedlots.21
High-risk calves include those sourced from auc-
tions, weaned at transport or otherwise highly
stressed. However, with greater restrictions on
antimicrobials use in livestock,22 alternatives
are needed to maintain the health of back-
grounding calves (see below).
Finishing
Finishing feedlots are larger than background-
ing feedlots and usually house >10,000 head of
cattle, with 150e200 animals per pen (Fig. 5.1).
Unlike backgrounding diets, finishing feedlot
diets contain high amounts of concentrate feeds
(>70%) and are designed to increase both sub-
cutaneous and intramuscular (marbling) fat.
To avoid digestive disturbances, like ruminal
acidosis and bloat, calves must be carefully tran-
sitioned from forage-based to concentrate-based
diets during finishing. This process usually
requires a series of 2e4 diets, where the amount
of concentrate feeds is gradually increased over
a period of 2e4 weeks. Reducing the duration
of adaptation to less than two weeks can impair
the growth performance of cattle.26 This transi-
tion period is the time when cattle are at greatest
risk of developing acidosis or bloat. When cattle
first arrive at finishing feedlots they are typically
provided with access to a total mixed ration
(TMR) receiving diet, consisting primarily of
forage and a smaller proportion of concentrate.
Initially, the feed intake of newly arrived cattle
can be very low and some cattle may not
consume feed.27 The introduction of the final
high-concentrate diet is typically withheld until
all cattle have settled into confinement and
exhibit consistent and stable feed intake.
Abrupt diet change from forage to grain has
been reported by many researchers to result
in ruminal acidosis.7 Even when dietary
I. Beef cattle production
concentrate is increased using a step-up
approach, increases in concentrate may cause
acidosis. On the first day of each transition,
low ruminal pH values are common and Klop-
fenstein et al.28 concluded that during adapta-
tion, it is likely that all cattle experience at least
some mild level of acidosis. In contrast, Bevans
et al.29 accomplished this same objective using
a single diet and encountered only a few cases
of clinical acidosis. Others have proposed that
subclinical acidosis is mainly caused by the
high ruminal concentrations of volatile fatty
acids arising from the fermentation of starch.30
Low ruminal pH also reduces the diversity of
both bacteria and protozoa within the rumen
microbiome,31,32 an outcome that is also associ-
ated with a reduction in fiber digestibility.33 A
shorter adaptation period to grain-based diets
tends to be associated with greater variability
in pH among individuals as opposed to an
absolute pH decline.29 Under these conditions a
small proportion of the herd, typically < 2%
may develop clinical acidosis. The risk of clinical
acidosis and the occurrence of subclinical
acidosis can be reduced by increasing the pro-
portion or lowering the quality of the forage in
the diet.34 This serves to reduce the rate of
ruminal volatile fatty acid production and stim-
ulates rumination and the production of saliva,
which contains sodium bicarbonate that buffers
ruminal pH. Skillful feeding management can
minimize both the occurrence and severity of
acidosis, but as long as feedlot cattle are finished
on high-grain diets, acidosis will pose a health
risk. A detailed understanding of clinical
acidosis has been hampered by its low rate of
occurrence and the multitude of factors that
contribute to the disease (Fig. 5.2).
Grains and by-product feeds
A large portion of the feed in confinement
feedlots consist of grains that fail to make the
quality grade required for human consumption.
For example, in Canada, malt barley commands
 Confined production systems
FIG. 5.2 Possible factors and interrelationships affecting
acidosis in feedlot cattle. Solid arrows indicate relationships
known to exist with a high degree of confidence, whereas
dotted arrows represent putative relationships. Adapted from
Galyean ML, Eng KS. Application of research findings and sum-
mary of research needs - bud britton memorial symposium on meta-
bolic disorders of feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci. 1998;76:323e327.
a price that is 51% greater than feed barley,36 but
over 75 % of malt barley fails to make grade and
is relegated to feed.37
Barley, wheat, corn and sorghum are the most
common grain sources fed to confined back-
grounding and finishing cattle. Grains which
exhibit the fastest rates of ruminal starch diges-
tion generally pose the greatest risk of causing
clinical or subclinical acidosis.38 Starch in wheat,
barley and triticale are fermented at a faster rate
than the starch in corn and sorghum.
Absolute rates of digestion vary among grain
types, due to environmental and genetic factors.
Variation in the rate of fermentation of dry rolled
corn and sorghum varieties is greater than
among dry rolled wheat and barley varieties.
This variation arises primarily from differences
in the ratio of vitreous to floury endosperm
within these grains, with vitreous endosperm
slowing the rate of ruminal starch fermentation.
Grains with the greatest rates of ruminal starch
digestion are generally also high in total tract
starch digestibility. Grains that exhibit a low
rate of ruminal starch digestion can increase
the amount of starch available for digestion in
the small and large intestines. Starch that escapes
ruminal digestion often also resists digestion in
the lower digestive tract, increasing the amount
of starch in feces. Up to 25% of the dry matter
I. Beef cattle production
81
of feces can consist of starch in feedlot cattle
that are fed poorly-processed grains.39
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations currently estimates that of
worldwide production, 30% of cereals, 45% of
roots and tubers, 45% of fruits and vegetables
and 20% of oilseeds and pulses are wasted
each year due to spoilage.40 Although a large
portion of these agricultural products are unsuit-
able for human consumption, they may still have
value as feed for livestock. Ruminants are partic-
ularly efficient at using fibrous by-products that
arise from food processing and bioenergy pro-
duction of ethanol and biodiesel. For example,
distillers’ grains are rich in energy, protein, and
minerals and can safely constitute up to 50% of
the diet of confined cattle on a dry matter basis.41
Accordingly, if waste streams could be redir-
ected and feed quality preserved, feed resources
currently not used by humans would be suffi-
cient to support an expansion in confinement
backgrounding and finishing of beef cattle.
However, a number of challenges exist in
feeding by-products to cattle. Most by-products
are high in moisture, making long-distance
transport uneconomical and promoting spoilage
during handling and storage. In some instances,
by-products can be dried prior to transport, as is
the case with dried distillers’ grains, although
the use of energy in the drying process increases
the price of the by-product. Some high moisture
by-products may also be preserved through
ensiling, but their incorporation into total mixed
diets can be challenging. For example, cull vege-
tables and wet distillers’ grains can contain 70%
e80% water and are subject to freezing in cold
climates and spoilage in warm climates.
Confinement operations located inproximity to
sources of these high moisture by-products are
best suited to utilize these feed resources.42
Composition of by-product feeds can vary by
source and from lot to lot, or even within the
same lot,43 making it difficult to balance the
nutrient content of the diet to meet the require-
ments of cattle. The nutrient composition of
82 5. Nutrition, feeding and management of beef cattle in intensive and extensive production systems
by-products needs to be frequently measured, so
diets can be reformulated as necessary. Indus-
trial by-products with potential as feed are
numerous and after their safety, utility and man-
agement are confirmed, they could be a valuable
feed resource for confined cattle.
Forage sources and processing
Forages are the foundational feed in all beef
cattle production systems. Even in intensive
feedlot production (Fig. 5.1), forages account
for 80% of the feed consumed by the cattle
herd over the production cycle.3 As grass forages
mature, protein and soluble carbohydrate
concentration in the dry matter (DM) declines
and concentration of lignified fiber (DM-basis)
increases, resulting in a decline in the overall
quality and digestibility.44 This pattern of
change in forage quality with advancing matu-
rity occurs regardless of whether the forage is
harvested for silage or hay or grazed directly
by the animal.
In feedlots, forage is most often included in
the diet as silage, with corn, barley, wheat and
sorghum being the most common sources. Le-
gumes and grasses can also be ensiled, but are
more difficult to ensile than cereals because of
their lower water-soluble carbohydrate content
and higher buffering capacity. Legume silages
also tend to be higher than cereal silages in pro-
tein and in confined feedlots, it is often more
economical to use by-product protein sources
like soybean or canola meal. A dry matter con-
tent of between 30% and 40% is optimal for the
harvest of forages for silage, as yield of digestible
dry matter is maximized. Moisture concentra-
tions are also optimal for microbial fermentation
and not too high to promote seepage from the
silo. This optimal moisture range usually corre-
sponds to the mid-dough stage in cereals or in
corn at about 50% milk line within the kernel.
Preserving forage as silage as opposed to hay,
expands the harvest window during inclement
weather and it is generally easier to mix into a
I. Beef cattle production
total mixed ration than dry forage. In larger
confined operations, silage is often stored in a
pit silo which can contain thousands of tonnes,
whereas in smaller feedlots it is more often
stored in plastic bags. Starch content of cereal
forages is a key indicator of their energy value,
and harvesting using a silage chopper equipped
with a kernel processor can ensure that the
starch in the kernels is available for microbial
fermentation in the rumen.
Preserving forages as hay requires more
favorable weather conditions, as the moisture
content of the forage must be reduced to less
than 15%. Hay is used primarily as feed for the
cow herd, when pasture is unavailable during
the winter or during periods of drought. Gener-
ally, hay is sun-dried in the field, but it can be
dried through the use of drum driers, at a signif-
icant increase in cost. Desiccants such as sodium
or potassium carbonate can also be used to accel-
erate the drying of legumes, but not grasses.
Both legumes (e.g., alfalfa, clover, cicer milk
vetch, sainfoin, birdsfoot trefoil) and grasses
(e.g., ryegrass, orchard grass, bromegrass, blue-
grass, Tifton 85, elephant) can be conserved as
hay, with the predominant species being region-
ally specific to growing conditions. In high rain-
fall regions, where it is difficult to achieve forage
moisture concentrations of < 15%, buffered acids
are often applied to the forage at baling to
prevent molds from causing spoilage. Forage
can be harvested as large round or square bales,
or as small square bales. Hay is often processed
using a bale processer prior to feeding to the
cow herd, which chops the forage to a finer
particle size, a practice that can increase the
intake of poor to moderate-quality forages.
Feed additives and growth promoters
The majority of additives used in confined
beef cattle are used during the backgrounding
and finishing stages of production to enhance
rumen fermentation, improve feed efficiency
and prevent rumen acidosis, liver abscesses
 Confined production systems 83
TABLE 5.2 Some feed additives and growth promoters used to alter ruminal fermentation and improve the efficiency
of beef cattle production.50

Probability of economic
Feed additive/Promoter Primary rationale for use return for beef cattle Method of administration
a
Antibiotics e.g., Decreased feed intake, High Feed- variable with antibiotic type
monensin, tetracycline, increased feed efficiency,
tylosin disease treatment/prevention
Buffers Stabilization of rumen pH Low (Feedlot) Feed -0.75 e 1% of DM
Bacterial direct fed Maintains low concentrations Low Feed -1  108 to 1  1012 colony
microbials of lactic acid in the rumen, forming units
increases propionate synthesis
Bacteriophage Pathogen control, disease Experimental ND
treatment/prevention
Essential oils Anti-microbial effects Moderate, highly Feed - < 2 g/d
variable amongst
formulations

Saponins Anti-protozoal effects Experimental ND

Tannins Binds with protein, decreases Experimental Feed < 3% of DM
nitrogen excretion and
methane emissions
Active dry yeast Improved feed consumption, Moderate Feed 1e4 g/d
improved fiber digestion
Yeast culture Improved feed consumption, Moderate Feed - Variable
improved fiber digestion
Enzymes Improved fiber digestion Experimental, depends ND
on formulation
3-Nitrooxypropanol Methane reduction, may Experimental Feed - 1e2 g/d
methane inhibitor improve feed efficiency
Nitrate Methane reduction, may Depends on price of Feed - Max 2% of diet DM (substitute
improve feed efficiency in non-protein nitrogen for urea), adaptation needed
finishing cattle sources
a
Hormonal implants Improve feed efficiency High Ear implant e 20e200 mg over feed
e.g. zeronol, estradiol and gain, carcass yield period
trenbolone acetate,
a
Beta-agonists eg. Increases protein deposition, High Feed e 8.3e30 mg/kg diet 42 to 20 d
ractopamine, improves feed efficiency prior to slaughter
zilpaterol
a
Antibiotics listed have been banned from inclusion in feed in the European Union and the use of hormonal implants and beta-agonists is also not permitted.

and foot rot (Table 5.2). The ionophores, monen- efficiency. Concern over antibiotic resistance
sin and lasalocid have been extensively has led to the ban of antibiotics for growth pro-
researched and are included in the diet to motion in many countries, with ionophores
prevent ruminal acidosis and improve feed being exempt in some regions as they are not

I. Beef cattle production

84 5. Nutrition, feeding and management of beef cattle in intensive and extensive production systems
used in humans. In North America, tetracycline
and tylosin antibiotics are included in diets to
prevent liver abscesses and BRD in feedlot cattle.
However, the pressure to restrict antimicrobial
use in beef cattle production has promoted the
exploration of a number of potential alternatives.
Direct-fed microbials (DFM) that contain live,
beneficial microorganisms may serve as a poten-
tial alternative to antimicrobials in beef cattle
diets. Yeasts and strains of Lactobacillus would
be the most common DFM, although multiple
organisms have been investigated.45 These addi-
tives can vary in efficacy,46 but have been shown
to benefit calves that have just arrived at the
feedlot, by improving intake and growth perfor-
mance. Mechanisms for DFM include competi-
tive exclusion of pathogenic bacteria, immune
stimulation and favorably altering ruminal
digestion.45
Additional additives, such as bacteriophage,
plant bioactives (i.e., essential oils, saponins, tan-
nins), vaccines and immune stimulators (i.e.,
Cationic liposomes, cytosine-guanine rich DNA
motifs), are also being investigated as alternatives
to antimicrobials,47 but many of these are still at a
developmental stage.48 Efforts to enhance sus-
tainability has also led to the emergence of
additives targeted at lowering enteric methane
emissions (i.e., nitrate, 3-nitrooxypropoanol),
raising the possibility for a claim that they reduce
environmental impacts through a reduction in
enteric methane emissions. Most additives
attempt to gain label claims for improved feed
efficiency, rather than disease prevention, as the
latter claim triggers the same rigorous assessment
by regulatory agencies as is required for the
registration of an antibiotic.
Hormonal implants and beta agonists
generate the most consistent improvement in
feed efficiency (i.e., typically 5%e20%) of any
of the growth promoters. Steroidal hormones
have the added advantage of being administered
as an ear implant, enabling cattle to be implanted
prior to release on pasture. Most of the other
additives listed in Table 5.2 need to be
I. Beef cattle production
administered through the diet, making their
use in extensive pasture systems challenging
and often impractical (see pasture supplementa-
tion). Monensin has been incorporated into a
slow-release bolus that gradually releases this
additive into the rumen, but their use in beef cat-
tle is not widespread. Despite their ability to pro-
mote a marked improvement in feed efficiency,
the European Union has a total ban on the use
of these agents in livestock production, even
though research supports that they are safe.49
Prevention of the use of additives that offer ben-
efits in production efficiency without posing a
health or environmental threat has negative
consequences for the environment, as the
production of greenhouse gas emissions and
manure arising from beef production are
increased. If cattle production systems are to
meet the future demand for beef, advanced tech-
nologies that improve the efficiency of produc-
tion, while meeting science-based regulatory
requirements, are needed.
Extensive production systems
Temperate versus tropical climates
The type and scale of beef production must be
tailored to regional climates, which are influ-
enced by factors such as longitudinal and
latitudinal location, the proximity to warm or
cold ocean currents and topography.51 In the
southern hemisphere, land north of the Tropic
of Capricorn typically experiences tropical, and
even monsoonal conditions, with summer-
dominant rainfall.52 Regions immediately to the
south are considered subtropical, with an
increasingly temperate climate developing
across the Mediterranean and high-rainfall
coastal regions that span Australia’s south.51
The interaction between rainfall and tempera-
ture dictates the pasture species best suited to a
given geographical location. Tropical pastoral
zones favor C4 perennial grasses, due to their
ability to capture more carbon dioxide, produce
 Extensive production systems
higher yields, tolerate higher temperatures and
lower moisture. In contrast, C3 species occur in
temperate regions and are more cold tolerant.53
The C4 species also exhibit faster regrowth after
grazing, but are typically higher in neutral
detergent fiber and lower in non-structural carbo-
hydrates and protein than C3 species, lowering
their nutritional value and digestibility.54 Trop-
ical beef enterprises tend to use pure or compos-
ite, large-framed, Bos indicus breeds, as a result
of their heat tolerance and resistance to
parasites.55 Cold tolerant Bos taurus breeds pre-
dominate in temperate regions and have higher
meat quality than B. indicus breeds.56
Improved grasslands, especially in areas
where rainfall and temperatures are suitable,
often contain introduced C3 species. The higher
protein content within C3 legumes increases the
carrying capacity of pasture and promotes more
efficient growth in cattle.54 Winter-dominant rain-
fall and temperatures between 15 and 25  C
provide the optimal conditions for germination
of C3 pastures, which provides a rising level of
nutrition to support spring-calving herds.57
Maximizing forage production and quality
The profitability of a beef enterprise is depen-
dent on the average daily weight gain of each
animal unit, a measure representative of pasture
productivity. Without sustainably maintaining a
diverse, digestible and dynamic pasture sward,
the optimal carrying capacity of the pasture
cannot be reached.58 Balancing enterprise inputs
with pasture management is crucial to maximise
the quantity and quality of beef produced.59
Forage production and quality is predeter-
mined by selecting species that are appropriately
adapted to the site of pasture production.
Aiming for a palatable, compatible pasture
composition that is well adapted to the local
climate, persists and responds to fertiliser will
generate the highest yields of beef per hectare.58
Although native species are persistent, drought
tolerant and self-replenishing, they are often
I. Beef cattle production
85
less digestible and have lower yields than forage
varieties that have been specifically selected for
greater yield and digestibility.60 Improvements
in pasture composition using mostly perennial
species can enable higher stocking rates and
increased productivity.61 Many mixed farming
operations alternate between pasture and crop-
ping phases, to improve fertility via the inclusion
of nitrogen-fixing legumes, such as alfalfa, in
crop rotations.
Although profitable, grazing requires a contin-
uous transfer of nutrients from the lithosphere to
biosphere.62 This can drain accessible minerals
from soils and if not replaced, results in depleted
pastures that are less productive and vulnerable
to weed invasion. Soil improvement is vital in
creating a nutrient-rich medium that promotes
vigorous pasture growth, enabling weeds to be
outcompeted.63 Cattle play a key role in this
nutrient recycling as the manure that they pro-
duce adds organic matter, nitrogen and minerals
back into the system.64 Sustainable grazing can
also stimulate carbon sequestration in grass-
lands,65 a process that will be critical in meeting
targets to restrict climate change-induced global
temperature increases.66
Sustainable management practices, like main-
taining a minimum herbage mass of 1000e1500 kg
DM/ha, and not exceeding 2500e3000 kg DM/
ha, can also increase annual forage production.67
Preserving ground-cover beyond 70% in the dry
season limits top-soil erosion, while in the
rainy season, an oversupply of pasture can be
conserved.68 This oversupply can often be grazed
as stockpiled forage during periods of forage
senescence and drought (see below) or harvested
as hay (see above).
Extensive, semi-intensive, and intensive
pasture systems
The productivity of a beef operation is depen-
dent on the intensity of inputs entering the sys-
tem. If left undisturbed, the natural carrying
capacity of extensive pastures is generally lower
86 5. Nutrition, feeding and management of beef cattle in intensive and extensive production systems
than pastures that are intensively managed.69 By
investing in fertilisers, herbicides, irrigation and
pasture improvement strategies, it is possible to
boost productivity by increasing the stocking
density and the yield of beef per hectare.
Extensive systems have lower stocking rates
and minimal inputs of labor and capital. These
operations are usually located on marginal
lands, where the availability of water, topog-
raphy or altitude restricts intensive pasture man-
agement. Extensive cattle operations are nearly
always holistically managed using traditional
stewardship practices that focus on utilising sea-
sonal fluctuations in natural pasture availability
and preserving endemic biodiversity.70,71 As
stocking density is dependent on climatic vari-
ability, extensive operations typically have
boom and bust years,51 where cattle are either
sold or purchased to match fluctuations in forage
availability. Prolonged dry periods can reduce
fodder quality and dry matter intake, leading
to below average daily weight gains, prolonging
the time needed for animals to achieve mature
body weight.72
Dry, poor-quality pastures exhibit low digest-
ibility, protein and mineral concentrations, often
resulting in energy, protein and mineral defi-
ciencies.73 During the wet season, extensive pas-
tures can become high in protein and digestible
fiber, but potentially low in some minerals,
such as phosphorus, which can lead to impaired
growth and fertility. Provision of a free-choice
mineralized salt mixture is a common practice
to avoid mineral deficiencies in pastured cattle
(see below). Depending on the pasture quality,
cattle can be maintained on extensive pastures
for 3e5 years before they reach mature weight.
Extensive production systems that have the least
amount of capital input, while managing the
grazing ecosystem in a sustainable manner, are
often the most profitable.
Intensive beef operations are highly stocked,
with the goal of ever-increasing yield to achieve
targeted finished weight in a shorter period
of time. Such enterprises require increased
I. Beef cattle production
land-use and a wide range of inputs, including
genetic selection, supplementary feeding and
high labor inputs.74 In these systems, supple-
ments are often provided to cattle on pasture to
enable them to reach their full genetic potential
and to avoid deficiencies. To achieve higher pro-
ductivity, more complicated grazing manage-
ment practices, like rotational or zero grazing,
are often utilized (see below). The objective of
these management practices is to have the cattle
consume the forage in the leafy or vegetative
stage, when energy and protein content is high-
est. Forage availability in these systems has to
be carefully monitored because if it is impeded,
paddocks can quickly become over grazed. Like-
wise, under wet conditions, the high stocking
density can result in cattle damaging pastures
through compaction and trampling.
Semi-intensive systems contain elements of
both intensive and extensive grazing, with the
benefit of fewer risks. These systems preserve
natural resources during stressful periods, while
utilising any excess feed supply during periods
of abundance.75 Mixed semi-intensive farming
operations often occur in high rainfall zones
where paddock management involves rotational
grazing, alternating between pasture and crop-
ping phases over multiple years.75 Long rest
periods prevent erosion from trampling, while
introducing different pasture and cropping spe-
cies, like legumes, benefits the mineral profile
and improves the management of soil organic
matter and nitrogen levels.63
Grazing management
The selection and implementation of a suc-
cessful grazing management strategy depends
on a deep understanding of the complex interac-
tions among cattle, forage, soil, and the environ-
ment. In grazing systems, the nutritional quality
and quantity of the pasture available for con-
sumption is the main factor that drives produc-
tivity. The selection of forages that are adapted
to the soil, environment and the grazing method
 Extensive production systems
will contribute to a long-lived, productive, and
healthy pasture with lower production costs.76
Seasonality results in large fluctuations in the
quantity and quality of forage throughout the
year, impacting animal performance. Grazing
management can be used to alter the sward
structure and improve forage quality.77
Sustainable grazing management starts by
calculating the average number of animals that
a pasture can support during the season or the
carrying capacity. High yields and greater
longevity of the swards are usually achieved
by avoiding overgrazing, where plant persis-
tence and growth are negatively impacted, and
under grazing, where plants become overly
mature.78 Provision of an appropriate rest period
for the plant after grazing is important to restore
energy reserves and to support the root develop-
ment needed to tolerate drought and outcom-
pete weeds.76
Ensuring an appropriate stocking rate [i.e.
number of animals on a pasture for a specified
time period, usually expressed as Animal Unit
(450 kg of live weight) Months (AUM) per hect-
are] is essential to maximize pasture quality,
longevity and beef production per unit of area.
The stocking rate of a pasture is determined by
a number of factors including vegetative cover,
rainfall, fertility and moisture-holding capacity
of the soil. The nature of the grazing system
used (rotational vs. continuous grazing) and
the size and type of animals to be grazed can
also influence productivity. Individual weight
gains are greater at low stocking rates as cattle
can selectively graze the more nutritious parts
of plants. At intermediate stocking rates, cattle
are less able to preferentially select for diet qual-
ity, resulting in a decline in individual weight
gain but an increase in gains per unit area.
Further increases in stocking density restrict
pasture availability and promote pasture degra-
dation, resulting in reduced gains per animal
and per area.79 Low stocking rates can also
reduce plant diversity in mixed pastures through
competitive exclusion, where highly-productive
I. Beef cattle production
87
plant species shade out less productive species
and cattle may only selectively graze the most
palatable species.80
In traditional continuous grazing systems,
cattle are kept on the same area of pasture
throughout the year. In this system, the only
way to optimize grazing is to adjust stocking
rates to have a perfect balance between forage
growth and consumption by cattle. Stocking
rates are adjusted to match the daily amount of
forage consumed and trampled with the daily
forage produced. However, this is rarely
achieved, as animals graze selectively and over
time some areas in the pasture will be over-
grazed and others under grazed. Generally, ani-
mals prefer to graze younger swards and will
often re-graze these areas after an insufficient
rest period, whereas other less-palatable plants
will remain ungrazed, mature and lignify. Wa-
tering areas, supplement stations, and fencing
can be used to improve the grazing distribution
of cattle. However, the greater cost of these man-
agement tools often impedes their adoption in
extensive grazing systems.81 The main advan-
tages of continuous grazing system are the lower
management and input costs (fence, watering)
and their applicability for slower-growing native
forages.76
Rotational grazing systems involve moving
cattle to another pasture or paddock before
they can re-graze previously grazed plants,
thus promoting foliage growth and allowing cat-
tle to continuously graze high quality vegetative
stands.76 Post grazing, paddocks are rested
until plant energy stores and leaf area are
re-established. The simplest system uses two
paddocks and as the system intensifies more
paddocks are used. For example, a more inten-
sive pasture system may involve 29 paddocks,
with cattle grazing each for 1 day and thus
allowing a rest period of 28 days for each
paddock. When properly managed, this system
considers plant physiology, maintains the
pasture in a vegetative state and provides a
consistent supply of high-quality forage.82
88 5. Nutrition, feeding and management of beef cattle in intensive and extensive production systems
Optimal stubble height to leave in paddocks af-
ter grazing are specific for each pasture type.
Grazing intensity can be controlled by varying
the stocking density and number of paddocks.
Adjusting the number of paddocks will affect
the rest period, which changes with seasonal dif-
ferences in forage growth. During periods of
slow growth, more paddocks will be needed to
increase the rest period of the pasture. During
rapid growth, some paddocks can be harvested
for hay, to prevent pastures from becoming
overly mature. Usually a 10%e15% increase in
carrying capacity can be achieved by establish-
ing a properly managed rotational grazing sys-
tem.82 In rotational systems, cattle have less
opportunity for selective grazing due to greater
stocking density, consequently forage is grazed
more uniformly, resulting in more homogen-
ous plant growth during the rest period.83
Compared to continuous grazing, rotational
grazing systems also improve diet quality84
and forage consumption.85 Beck et al.86 conduct-
ed a four year study looking at the effects of
stocking rate, forage management, and grazing
management on performance and the economics
of cowecalf production in the Southeastern
United States. Compared to continuous grazing,
rotational grazing (0.4 ha/cow) with the use of
stockpiled bermuda grass drastically reduced
winter feed requirements, while increasing
carrying capacity and net returns (107%).
Deferred rotational grazing is a management
practice that is often used to recover pastures
and extend the grazing season. In this system,
pasture is periodically rested for a specific time
so as to enhance the forage stand and improve
plant vigor. The rest period is usually until the
forage goes to seed and can be as long as the
full growing season. This management is also
used to stockpile forages for use in late fall and
winter or during the dry season. In this system,
pastures mature and consequently, protein con-
tent declines and fiber and lignin concentration
in the DM increase, reducing animal intake and
digestibility.87
I. Beef cattle production
Zero grazing involves cattle being confined
and the forage is mechanically harvested and
delivered to them. This system reduces losses
caused by cattle trampling, while preventing se-
lective and overgrazing of pastures. Forages are
allowed to grow and can be harvested at the
appropriate time that maximises forage yield
and quality. This system has the disadvantage
of increased costs associated with the daily
harvest and transport of forage to the cattle.
Pasture supplementation
Due to continuous changes in forage quality,
it can be difficult to ensure that grazing cattle
are consuming a balanced diet that fully meets
their nutrient requirements. Minerals, vitamins,
protein, and/or energy may limit cattle produc-
tivity, depending on soil conditions, pasture
type, forage availability, and sward maturity
and structure. Superior grazing management
systems maximize forage utilization and supple-
ment only with those nutrients that are impeding
production efficiency.
Mineral deficiencies or imbalances have been
reported for grazing cattle all over the world.
Calcium, P, Na, Co, Cu, I, Se and Zn are the
most common mineral deficiencies observed in
grazing cattle. Low concentrations of minerals
in forages can result in deficiencies, but excessive
concentrations of minerals, particularly F, Mo
and Se can be toxic.88 The vitamin content of pas-
tures is highly variable depending on plant type,
climatic conditions, and stage of maturity with
vitamin A precursors and vitamin E being the
most frequently deficient. As with protein,
vitamin A (i.e. b-carotene) and E (i.e. a-tocoph-
erol) concentrations in grasses and legumes
decline with increasing plant maturity, often
reaching deficient concentrations late in the
grazing season.88,89 To avoid deficiencies, it is a
standard practice to provide grazing cattle a
complete free-choice mineral/vitamin supple-
ment as insurance against production losses.
Mineral/vitamin products are usually mixed
 Extensive production systems
with 50% NaCl to target an intake of 50e70 g per
day. In low phosphate, acidic soils in the tropics,
mineral/vitamin products should also contain at
least 8% phosphate.88 Mineral/vitamin products
that are used to supplement cattle on pasture
should be formulated on a regional basis with
consideration for soil composition, climatic con-
ditions, pasture type and the level of animal
productivity.
Grazing beef cattle can experience marked
seasonal fluctuations in feed supply and pasture
quality.90 As a consequence, grazing systems
often do not supply sufficient protein and energy
to achieve optimal body condition for beef cows
or to finish cattle at a young age (24 months) at
target carcass weights (300 kg). In addition,
increases in land cost promote grazing systems
to maximize productivity so as to stay economi-
cally competitive against other land uses. Protein
and/or energy supplementation can maximize
animal productivity, conserve forage, improve
forage utilization, increase stocking rates, and in-
fluence cattle behavior.91 It is quite challenging,
however, to predict the effect of energy and/or
protein supplementation on forage intake and
utilization. Production responses to supplements
have often been either greater or less than ex-
pected, due to associative effects of supplements
on animal intake and the total energy available
to the animal.92 Supplement intake can substi-
tute for pasture intake and associative effects
can cause the supplement to decrease the
ruminal degradation of fiber. In general, with
high quality pastures the variability in impact
of supplementation is on intake substitution,
whereas on low quality pastures it relates more
to alteration in fiber digestion.
To formulate a supplement, it is important
to first determine the nutrient requirements
of the specific class of cattle and to estimate
nutrient availability in the forage. The supple-
ment is then formulated to supply only those
nutrients that are deficient in the forage to
achieve a targeted production outcome. This
approach can be complicated, as cattle graze
I. Beef cattle production
89
forages selectively, making it difficult to estimate
the forage nutrient profile that is being
consumed. It also can be very difficult to esti-
mate the quantity of forage consumed. Thus, a
balance must be achieved between losses in
growth performance as a result of a specific
nutrient deficiency and the cost of supplying
that nutrient in a supplement.91 Supplements
are most often formulated to exceed animal re-
quirements so as to account for variation in the
nutrient profile of the grazed pasture. Supple-
mental energy such as cereal grains must be
used cautiously as they are more likely to
decrease forage intake and digestibility through
substitution and associative effects. Economical
returns are usually the greatest when low quality
forages are supplemented with ruminal degrad-
able protein sources, as forage intake is increased
and digestibility improved.92 Examples of nitro-
gen sources include urea, oilseed meals, cotton-
seed meal, peanut meal, peas or alfalfa pellets.
Forage intake and digestibility are reduced if en-
ergy-rich feeds like grains exceed 0.4% of body
weight (BW),91 as they negatively impact fiber
digestion.88 Highly-digestible fiber by-products,
like distiller’s dried grains with solubles
(DDGS), soybean hulls, citrus and beet pulp
can also serve as energy sources. Supplements
are usually fed at 0.05%e1.0% of BW, and
intake can be limited through the inclusion of
salt (10%e35%) in the supplement to achieve
the desired intake.91 Ensuring uniform intake
of supplements among all members of the herd
can still be challenging, due to variation in palat-
ability and the dominance behavior of individual
cattle.
Liquid pasture supplements have also been
widely used in North America.94 Earlier studies
found improvements in both supplement palat-
ability and cattle performance with urea -
molasses supplements.90 However, results with
molasses-based supplements have been inconsis-
tent. Moore et al.92 conducted a meta-analysis
using 66 publications and found that gains on
native forages supplemented with molasses alone
90 5. Nutrition, feeding and management of beef cattle in intensive and extensive production systems
or containing non-protein nitrogen (NPN) were
lower than those achieved when true protein
was included in the molasses supplement.
Cow/calf, backgrounding, and finishing
cattle on pasture
Cow-calf units have the greatest nutritional
demand on pasture, as the cow requires energy
for maintenance, lactation, reproduction and
for heifers, growth. In grazing systems, the plane
of nutrition for the cow should steadily increase
throughout gestation and pre-calving, peaking
immediately postpartum when nutritional needs
are greatest. Post weaning, the nutritional
demands of the cow decline and at this point
cows can be maintained on low-quality for-
ages.96 Matching the nutritional profile of the
pasture with the demands of the animal is a crit-
ical step in good pasture management. This is
accomplished by having lactating cows graze
forage at the vegetative, leafy or boot stages
when nutritional quality is the greatest. Even at
these stages, some of the energy and mineral
needs of the cow will come from body stores.
Care must be taken to ensure that mineral
deficiencies are not encountered, particularly
calcium, which can lead to milk fever, magne-
sium, which can cause grass tetany, and phos-
phorus, which can impede reproduction.
Provision of mineral or formulated supplements
can help avoid these deficiencies.
Growing bulls, steers and heifers can also be
backgrounded or finished on pasture. Pasture-
based backgrounding and finishing is an alterna-
tive to the forage-based backgrounding and
grain-based finishing employed in confined
feedlots. Rates of gain are generally lower than
those achieved in confinement, unless intensive
grazing practices are employed. Consumer
demand for grass-fed beef has been steadily
increasing,97 however, under some extensive
grazing conditions it can require 3e4 years for
growing cattle to reach mature weight. In some
cases, finishing of cattle under these conditions
is not possible without including a period of
I. Beef cattle production
intensive feeding in feedlots. If this is not
possible, cattle are often marketed under-
finished and at a discount in carcass value.
Nutrient management in beef cattle
production systems
Confined systems
Nutrient management is a continuous envi-
ronmental concern facing the feedlot industry.
It is critical to develop a nutrient management
plan (NMP; Table 5.3) that documents when
and how much manure is applied to crop lands.
Matching crop nutrient requirements with a
manure nutrient profile is the most effective
way to prevent surface water and groundwater
pollution.98 To develop a superior NMP, it is
necessary to estimate the total amount of manure
produced, analyze its nutrient content, test soil
TABLE 5.3 Confined beef cattle system and
implications to nutrient management.
Nutrient management plan
Determine amount of manure produced
Determine nutrient content of manure
Obtain soil-test recommendations
Calibrate application equipment
Incorporate manure as quickly as possible
Monitor soil nutrient and salt levels
Account for residual nutrient carryover when calculating
application rates
Identify sensitive landscapes with respect to groundwater
and surface water vulnerability
Keep accurate and detailed records
Formulate environmentally responsible diets
Consider the existence of pathogens in vegetables products
fertilized with manure
Adapted from Alberta Agriculture and Forestry (AAF). Manure Nutrient
Management. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Bulletins.
IB004-2000. 2015. Web Available: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/
$Department/deptdocs.nsf/all/irr5716
 Nutrient management in beef cattle production systems
nutrient concentrations and understand the
nutrient requirements of the crop that is to be
grown.99 For a NMP, computerized records of
feed nutrient deliveries to animals can provide
key information on nutrient intake, as well as
enable nutrient excretion to be estimated. Proper
records of cattle or feed sales are needed to esti-
mate the nutrients that are exported off farm, so
as to estimate the overall nutrient balance.100
Beef cattle manure (urine and feces) contains
organic matter, Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P),
Potassium (K), Calcium (Ca) and micronu-
trients,101 as well as potential pathogens.102 Ni-
trogen volatilization from animal excreta into
the atmosphere is a major challenge facing inten-
sive cattle production systems, as well as nitro-
gen and phosphorus contamination of surface
and ground water. However, manure is a valu-
able fertilizer for crop production and unlike
chemical fertilizer, it directly increases soil
organic matter. When over-applied, manure
can cause water, air, and land pollution.103
Poor manure management creates odors, partic-
ulate matter emissions and eutrophication of
surface waters.101 It should therefore be applied
at rates that do not adversely affect the environ-
ment. If feeding distillers grains, concentrations
of N and P in manure are increased104 and this
is associated with manure application chal-
lenges, while also increasing its fertilizer value.
Frequent cleaning of pens reduces the amount
of N lost through volatilization, making it an effi-
cient management strategy.101
When using manure as fertilizer, the potential
presence of microbial pathogens also requires
consideration (i.e., Escherichia coli serotype
O157:H7, non O157 Shiga-producing E. coli,
Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., Listeria mono-
cytogenes, Yersinia enterocolitica, Mycobacterium
spp. Bacillus spp., Clostridium spp.).105 These
pathogens are usually asymptomatic to the
host, but are shed into the environment within
feces.106 Contamination of fruits and vegetables
has been increasingly associated with land appli-
cation of manure and use of contaminated
I. Beef cattle production
91
irrigation water for crops.97 This has caused a
number of disease outbreaks in humans,107,108
with the likelihood of infection depending on
the type of bacteria, its infective dose and the im-
mune status of the infected individual. Owing to
the variation in pathogenic potential across the
bacterial domain, the number of cells necessary
to cause infection differs from one bacterium to
another.109 Composting of the manure prior to
land-application is one method that kills most
pathogens.110 During composting, manure typi-
cally reaches > 55  C,111 which is sufficient in
decreasing foodborne pathogens to thresholds
acceptable to Public Health Agencies.
Extensive systems
Grazing management affects the rate and
timing of nutrient cycling. Intensive short-duration
grazing with a high stocking density results in
rapid, uniform forage utilization and manure
deposition. In turn, many nutrients become avail-
able for pasture regrowth in a short period. Tram-
pling mixes plant residues and manure into the
soil, increasing the decomposition rate of organic
materials. In contrast, an extensive system using
a low stocking rate and density for a complete sea-
son may cycle a similar amount of nutrients, but
over an extended period of time.112 These factors
should be noted to avoid accumulating N, P and
K on pasture and increasing the probability of
environmental impacts like soil erosion, soil
compaction, runoff, eutrophication and ground-
water contamination.98,101
Rotational stocking can reduce soil compac-
tion, as compared to intensive continuous stock-
ing, resulting in increased forage yield and
vegetative cover.113 Improved forage growth
reduces raindrop impact, increases infiltration
rates, minimizes soil erosion, and improves wa-
ter quality.114 These practices can also prevent
harmful levels of zoonotic pathogens entering
surface and groundwater, decreasing the proba-
bility of pathogen spread during heavy rainfall
92 5. Nutrition, feeding and management of beef cattle in intensive and extensive production systems
and flooding events. This is important because
pathogens can survive in the environment for
months, depending on pH, concentrations of
dry matter, moisture and oxygen, as well as tem-
perature and microbial competition.105 A NMP
should be a compulsory part of grazing beef cat-
tle systems, and as with intensive systems,
budget and requirement of nutrients for plant
production should be balanced against those
arising from manure. Care should be taken to
minimize point sources of nutrient accumula-
tion, as can occur around water sources or sup-
plement stations. If possible, water should be
pumped out of surface water sources to a trough
that lies outside of riparian areas, which serve as
a buffer against the flow of nutrients and patho-
gens into streams and lakes. Riparian areas also
enhance the level of biodiversity within beef cat-
tle production systems, as they serve as corridors
for the movement of wildlife and provide
sheltered access to water supplies.
Greenhouse gas emissions
Beef cattle produce about between 2.5 and
3.0 billion tonnes of C02-eq of greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions each year, with the intensity
of these emissions varying from 14 to over
70 kg C02-eq per kg of beef.115 GHG emissions
arising from beef cattle production include
CO2, CH4 and N2O, with enteric CH4 emissions
accounting for the largest proportion.116 The in-
tensity of GHG emissions from beef is greater
in extensive than intensive production systems.
A number of factors contribute to this difference,
including the longer period of time to reach
finished weight in extensive systems and that
the emissions per kg of feed consumed are
higher for forage-than concentrate-based di-
ets.117 Considerable research has been invested
in identifying additives (Table 5.2), developing
vaccines, designing animal breeding programs
and formulating diets that lower enteric methane
emissions from ruminants.118 Of these, dietary
I. Beef cattle production
formulation is the most common approach,
with increasing grain levels being the most pre-
dictable method to lower GHG intensity from
beef cattle. Balancing the diet to avoid excessive
excretion of N can reduce N2O emissions from
manure, while manure handling systems that
avoid promoting anaerobic conditions can lower
CH4 emissions. If the manure is directed into a
biodigester, the CH4 that is produced can be
captured and used to generate electricity.
Although extensive beef production systems
tend to have a larger carbon footprint, many ap-
proaches that estimate these emissions do not
consider the vast amounts of carbon that are
stored in the world’s grazing lands. It is esti-
mated that global grasslands harbor up to
120 billion tonnes of carbon, nearly 50% of that
contained in global forests and prudent grazing
management practices that promote photosyn-
thesis in grassland ecosystems can add to these
stores.119 Furthermore, rangelands serve as
habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species,
some of which are endangered or threatened
with extinction.116 Grasslands also help prevent
water and wind erosion and their ability to filter
nutrients from both ground and surface water
improves water quality. Consequently, a true
evaluation of the sustainability of beef cattle pro-
duction requires a holistic assessment of each
production system with an appreciation for their
various negative and positive impacts on the
delivery of ecosystem services.116
Implications of climate change
Unlike poultry or swine, which are mainly
housed in climate-controlled barns, the use of
extensive pasturelands makes beef production
particularly sensitive to climate change. Depend-
ing on geographical location, climate change
may have either negative or positive impacts
on beef production.120 Negative impacts of
climate change on beef production will likely
be greatest in tropical and subtropical regions.
 Conclusion
An increase in extreme weather events, like
droughts and floods, is predicted to occur
globally; particularly if climate change induced
temperature increases exceed 2 C. These envi-
ronmental changes will have direct impacts on
the physiology, behavior, and welfare of cattle
by affecting thermoregulation and the availabil-
ity and quality of feed. There is also the possibil-
ity that climate change could alter the regional
distribution of livestock pests and disease, an
outcome that could be exacerbated by climate
driven changes in land use.
Although considerable effort has been
expended on lowering GHG from beef cattle
production systems, the continued increase in at-
mospheric GHG has prompted a renewed focus
on approaches to adaptation. Adaptation strate-
gies are broad in scope, focusing on the genetic
traits and management of crops, pasturelands
and the animal. More extreme, future weather
events are anticipated to increase the variation
in crop and pasture yields. With increasing
temperatures, C4 grasses could become more
dominant in pastures and, when combined
with genetic selection, expansion of these crops
into temperate regions is likely to occur, an
outcome that is already apparent for corn in
Canada.121 A mixture of C3 and C4 species could
enhance carbon capture in grasslands that are
subject to both warm and cool season rainfall.122
It is also predicted that climate change will alter
forage quality, reducing crude protein and
lowering the digestibility of fiber. Harvesting
and conservation of forage and the use of by-
product feeds may become even more critical
to meet shortfalls during times of forage scarcity
and to ensure that nutritional requirements of
cattle are satisfied throughout the production cy-
cle. Elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2
may also change the composition of pastureland,
promoting bush encroachment,123 which could
enhance the amount of carbon captured in these
ecosystems, but reduce their productivity for
beef production. At this point, the extent that
individual plant species are capable of adapting
I. Beef cattle production
93
to climate change remains unknown. Intensive
selection programs for traits like temperature
and drought tolerance could result in plant vari-
eties that are capable of remaining productive
under conditions of high climatic variability.
Given current projections, it is uncertain if selec-
tion of adaptive traits through traditional
breeding programs can keep up with the pre-
dicted accelerated pace of climate change.
Adaptions of the animal will involve a combi-
nation of management practices as well as
genetic selection. Integrated crop-livestock-
forestry systems can provide valuable shade to
beef cattle, reducing their susceptibility to heat
stress, a system that is already widely used in
Brazil.124 In confined feedlots, shade covers,
sprinklers and fans can help alleviate heat stress,
but at extreme temperatures feed intake is still
reduced and productivity is impaired.125 Match-
ing the appropriate breed of cattle to local envi-
ronmental conditions is already a pivotal step
in ensuring the sustainability of beef cattle
production systems.126 Selection for health and
viability under conditions of extreme climate
may not be compatible with traits associated
with increased production efficiency or high
meat quality. Whole genome sequencing and
marker assisted selection may be able to accel-
erate selection for climate adapted beef cattle.
Recent developments in gene editing through
CRISPR technologies may also help accelerate
breeding programs aimed at enhancing climate
adaptation of both plants and beef cattle, but to
be widely used, these approaches need to first
gain public acceptance.127,128
Conclusion
Beef cattle are unique, compared to poultry
and swine in that they can convert low-quality
forages into high-quality protein for humans.
Recently, there has been growing pressure to
globally restrict beef production, due to its
perceived negative impact on the environment.
94 5. Nutrition, feeding and management of beef cattle in intensive and extensive production systems
Beef cattle play a significant role in the produc-
tion of food for humans, from forages and vast
tracks of both tame and native pasturelands. In
native grasslands, beef cattle largely replace the
role of the bison that previously occupied this
ecosystem. Care must be taken to ensure that
the nutritional needs of beef cattle are aligned
with the productivity of the pasture, so as to
avoid detrimental impacts on both the animal
and the ecosystem. Global appetite for beef is
projected to increase and in light of the emerging
pressures of climate change and the scarcity of
new tracts of pasture and arable land, sustain-
able intensification will be the only means of
satisfying demand. Intensified systems will
need to increase the use of by-product feeds
and food wastes in beef cattle production.
Nutrient management plans will be needed to
ensure that nutrient flows are aligned with the
principals of a circular bioeconomy. Finally,
advanced technologies that improve the effi-
ciency of feed utilization with an emphasis on
both the plant and the animal will need to gain
societal acceptance if more beef is to be produced
on less land.93,95
Acknowledgments
CAPES/Brazil, Visiting Professor, Process: PVEX-88881.
169965/2018-01 Citations.
References
1. USDA. Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade;
2018. https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/livestock-
and-poultry-world-markets-and-trade.
2. FAO. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2018-2027; 2018.
http://www.fao.org/publications/oecd-fao-
agricultural-outlook/2018-2027/en/.
3. Legesse G, Beauchemin K, Ominski K, et al. Green-
house gas emissions and resource use of Canadian
beef production in 1981 as compared to 2011. Anim
Prod Sci. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN15386.
4. Gunn PJ, Sellers J, Clark C, et al. Considerations for
managing beef cows in confinement. Driftless Region
Beef Conference January 30e31 2014, Dubuque, Iowa.
5. Anderson VL, Ilse BR, Engel CL. Drylot vs Pasture Beef
Cow/calf Production: Three Year Progress Report. 2013:
13e16. North Dakota Beef Report.
I. Beef cattle production
6. Miller HJ, Faulkner DB, Cunningham TC, et al.
Restricting time of access to large round bales of hay
affects hay wastage and cow performance. Prof Anim
Sci. 2007;23:366e372.
7. Meyer NF, Bryant TC. Diagnosis and management of
rumen acidosis and bloat in feedlots. Vet Clin Food
Anim. 2017:33481e33498.
8. Kjaestad HP, Simensen E. Cubicle refusal and rearing
accommodations as possible mastitis risk factors in
cubicle-housed dairy heifers. Acta Vet Scand. 2001;42:
123e130.
9. Smith DR. Basic principle used in the “Sandhills
calving system” and how they apply to other produc-
tion environments. Proceedings of the Range Cow Beef
Symposium. 2007;XX. https://beef.unl.edu/beef
reports/symp-2007-17-xx.shtml.
10. Burson WC. Confined versus Conventional Cow-Calf
Management Systems: Implications for Calf Health. Texas
Tech University; 2017. PhD Thesis.
11. Hulbert LE, Moisa SJ. Stress, immunity and the man-
agement of calves. J Dairy Sci. 2016;99:3199e3216.
12. Hay KE, Morto JM, Clements AC, et al. Associations
between feedlot management practices and bovine
respiratory disease in Australian feedlot cattle. Prev
Vet Med. 2016;128:23e32.
13. Schwartzkopf-Genswein KS, Booth-McLean ME,
Shah MA, et al. Effects of pre-haul management and
transport duration on beef calf performance and
welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2007;108:12e30.
14. Moya D, Gonzalex LA, Janzen E, et al. Effects of castra-
tion method and frequency of intramuscular injections
of ketoprofen on behavioral and physiological indica-
tors of pain in beef cattle. J Anim Sci. 2014;92:
1684e1695.
15. Sewell HB, Jacobs VE, Gerrish JR. Backgrounding Calves
Part 2: Herd Health and Feeding. University of Missouri
Extension; 1993. www://extension2.missouri.edu/g2096.
16. Duff GC, Galyean ML. Recent advances in manage-
ment of highly stressed, newly received feedlot cattle.
J Anim Sci. 2007;85:823e840.
17. Taylor JD, Fulton RW, Lehenbauer TW, et al. The
epidemiology of bovine respiratory disease: what is
the evidence for preventative measures? Can Vet J.
2010a;51:1351e1359.
18. Step DL, Krehbiel CR, DePra HA, et al. Effects of com-
mingling beef calves from different sources and wean-
ing protocols during a forty-two -day receiving period
on performance and bovine respiratory disease. J Anim
Sci. 2008;86:3146e3158.
19. Macartney JE, Bateman KG, Ribble CS. Health perfor-
mance of feeder calves sold at conventional auctions
versus special auctions or vaccinated or conditioned
calves in Ontario. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2003;223:
677e683.
 References
20. Hutcheson DP, Cole NA. Management of transit-stress
syndrome in cattle: nutritional and environmental
effects. J Anim Sci. 1986;62:555e560.
21. Woolums AR, Loneragan GH, Hawkins LL, et al. Base-
line management practices and animal health data
reported by US feedlots responding to a survey
regarding acute interstitial pneumonia. Bov Pract.
2005;39:116e124.
22. Van Boeckel TP, Brower C, Gilbert M, et al. Global
trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. Proc Natl
Acad Sci Unit States Am. 2015;112:5649e5654.
23. Enriquez D, Hotzel MJ, Ungerfeld R. Minimizing the
stress of weaning of beef calves: a review. Acta Vet
Scand. 2011;53:28.
24. Sowell BF, Branine ME, Bowman JGP, et al. Feeding
and watering behavior or healthy and morbid steers
in a commercial feedlot. J Anim Sci. 1999;77:1105e1112.
25. Roeber DL, Speer NC, Gentry JG, et al. Feeder cattle
health management: effects on morbidity rates, feedlot
performance, carcass characteristics and beef
palatability. Prof Anim Sci. 2001;17:39e44.
26. Brown MS, Ponce CH, Pulikani R. Adaptation of beef
cattle to high concentrate diets: performance and
ruminal metabolism. J Anim Sci. 2006;84:25e33.
27. Gibb DJ, Schwartzkopf-Genswein KS, Stookey JM,
et al. The effect of a trainer cow on health, behaviour
and performance of newly weaned calves. J Anim Sci.
1999;78:1716e1725.
28. Klopfenstein TG, Erickson GE, Stock R, et al. Nutrition
and rumen pH in feedlot cattle. In: Proceedings 24th An-
imal Nutrition Conference Winnipeg, MB. 2003:91e104.
29. Bevans DW, Beauchemin KA, Schwartzkopf-
Genswein KS, et al. Effects of rapid vs. gradual grain
adaptation on subacute acidosis and feed intake of
feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci. 2005;83:1116e1132.
30. Nagaraja TG, Tigemeyer EC. Ruminal acidosis in beef
cattle: the current microbiological and nutritional
outlook. J Dairy Sci. 2007;90:E17eE38.
31. Petri RM, Schwaiger T, Penner GB, et al. Character-
ization of the core rumen microbiome in cattle during
transition from forage to concentrate as well as
during and after an acidotic challenge. PLoS One.
2013;8:12.
32. Tapio I, Fischer D, Blasco L, et al. Taxon abundance, di-
versity, co-occurrence and network analysis of the
ruminal microbiota in response to dietary changes in
dairy cows. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0180260.
33. Dixon RM, Stockdale CR. Associative effects between
forages and grains: consequences for feed utilisation.
Australas J Agric Res. 1999;50:757e773.
34. Jaramillo-L
opez E, Itza-Ortiz MF, Peraza-Mercado G.
Ruminal acidosis: strategies for its control. Austral J
Vet Sci. 2017;49:3.
I. Beef cattle production
95
35. Galyean ML, Eng KS. Application of research findings
and summary of research needs - bud britton memorial
symposium on metabolic disorders of feedlot cattle.
J Anim Sci. 1998;76:323e327.
36. Wood J, Kaliel D. Evaluating Feed Barley vs Malt Barley
Production Choices. Alberta Agriculture and Forestry
Agri-Profits Technical Bulletin; 2013. https://tinyurl.
com/y8sm2p75.
37. Ribeiro GO, Swift ML, McAllister TA. Effect of dia-
static power and processing index on the feed value
of barley grain for finishing feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci.
2016;94:3370e3381.
38. Stock RA, Brink DR, Brandt RT, et al. Feeding combi-
nations of high moisture corn and dry corn to finishing
cattle. J Anim Sci. 1987;65:282.
39. Jancewicz LJ, Penner G, Swift ML, et al. Predictability
of growth performance in feedlot cattle using fecal
near infrared spectroscopy. Can J Anim Sci. 2017;95:
455e474.
40. Food and Agriculture Organization. Food Wastage
Statistics; 2019. www.fao.org/save-food/resources/
keyfindings/infographics/.
41. Leupp JL, Lardy GP, Karges KK, et al. Effects of
increasing level of corn distillers dried grain with solu-
bles on intake, digestion and ruminal fermentation in
steers fed 70% concentrate diets. J Anim Sci. 2009;87:
2906e2912.
42. Gilani GS, Xiao CW, Cockrell KA. The impact of
antinutritional factors in food proteins on the digest-
ibility of protein and the bioavailability of amino
acids and on protein quality. Br J Nutr. 2012;108:
S315eS332.
43. Myer RO, Hersom M. Alternative Feeds for Beef Cattle;
2001. Document AN128 https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/
an128.
44. White H, Wolf D. Controlled Grazing of Virginia
Pastures. July 2016. Virginia Cooperative Extension
Publication Number 418-012.
45. McAllister TA, Beauchemin KA, Alasseh AY, et al.
A review of the use of direct fed microbials to mitigate
pathogens and enhance production in cattle. Can J
Anim Sci. 2011;91:193e211.
46. Stanford K, Hannon S, Booker CW, et al. Variable effi-
cacy of a vaccine and direct-fed microbial for control-
ling Escherichia coli O157:H7 in feces and on hides of
feedlot cattle. Foodb Pathog Dis. 2014;11:379e387.
47. McAllister TA, Wang Y, Diarra MS, et al. Challenges of
a one-health approach to the development of alterna-
tives to antibiotics. Anim Front. 2018;28:10e20.
48. Ribble CS, Stitt T, Iwasawa S, et al. A review of alterna-
tive practices to antimicrobial use for disease control in
the commercial feedlot. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol.
2010;21:128e129.
96 5. Nutrition, feeding and management of beef cattle in intensive and extensive production systems
49. Lamming GE, Ballarini G, Baulieu EE, et al. Scientific
report on anabolic agents in animal production. Scien-
tific working group on anabolic agents. Vet Rec. 1987;
121:389e392.
50. Beauchemin KA, Koenig KM, Yang WZ, et al. Additives
that alter ruminal fermentation and gastrointestinal
function in beef cattle. In: de Campos Valadares
Filho S, ed. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium
of Beef Cattle Production (Symposio Internacional de Produ-
cao de gado de corte, SIMCORTE). Livaria UFV; 2018:
89e114. https://doi.org/10.26626/978-85-8179-152-4/
res. ISBN 978-85-8179-152-4. online, Brazil. 524 pp.
51. Howden SM, Crimp SJ, Stokes CJ. Climate change and
Australian livestock systems: impacts, research and
policy issues. Aust J Exp Agric. 2008;48:780e788.
52. Ashok K, Guan Z, Yamagata T. Influence of the Indian
ocean dipole on the Australian winter rainfall. Geophys
Res Lett. 2003;30:1e4.
53. Taylor SH, Hulme SP, Rees M, et al. Ecophysiological
traits in C3 and C4 grasses: a phylogenetically
controlled screening experiment. New Phytol. 2010b;
185:780e791.
54. Barbehenn RV, Chen Z, Karowe DN, et al. C3 grasses
have higher nutritional quality than C4 grasses under
ambient and elevated atmospheric CO2. Glob Chang
Biol. 2004;10:1565e1575.
55. Burrow HM. Importance of adaptation and
genotype  environment interactions in tropical beef
breeding systems. Adv Anim Biosci. 2010;1:371e372.
56. Rodrigues RT, Chizzotti ML, Vital CE, et al. Differ-
ences in beef quality between angus (Bos taurus taurus)
and nellore (Bos taurus indicus) cattle through a proteo-
mic and phosphoproteomic approach. PLoS One. 2017;
12:e0170294.
57. Butler TJ, Celen AE, Webb SL, et al. Germination in
cool-season forage grasses under a range of
temperatures. Crop Sci. 2017;57:1725e1731.
58. Holechek JL, Gomez H, Molinar F, et al. Grazing
studies: what we’ve learned. Rangelands. 1999;21:
12e16.
59. Gerber PJ, Mottet A, Opio CI, et al. Environmental
impacts of beef production: review of challenges and
perspectives for durability. Meat Sci. 2015;109:2e12.
60. Walpole SC. Assessment of the economic and ecolog-
ical impacts of remnant vegetation on pasture
productivity. Pac Conserv Biol. 1999;51:28e35.
61. Ash A, Hunt L, McDonald C, et al. Boosting the pro-
ductivity and profitability of northern Australian beef
enterprises: exploring innovation options using simu-
lation modelling and systems analysis. Agric Syst.
2015;139:50e65.
I. Beef cattle production
62. Schuman GE, Reeder JD, Manley JT, et al. Impact of
grazing management on the carbon and nitrogen bala-
nce of a mixed-grass rangeland. Ecol Appl. 1999;9:65e71.
63. Greenwood KL, McKenzie BM. Grazing effects on soil
physical properties and the consequences for pastures:
a review. Aust J Exp Agric. 2001;41:1231e1250.
64. Bronick CJ, Lal R. Soil structure and management: a
review. Geoderma. 2005;124:3e22.
65. Wang X, McConkey BG, VandenBygaart AJ, et al.
Grazing improves C and N cycling in the northern
great plains: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2016;6:33190.
66. Batjes NH. Technologically achievable soil organic car-
bon sequestration in world croplands and grasslands.
Land Degrad Dev. 2019;30:25e32.
67. Sigua GC, Coleman SW, Albano J. Spatial distribution
of soil phosphorus and herbage mass in beef cattle pas-
tures: effects of slope aspect and slope position.
Nutrient Cycl Agroecosyst. 2011;89:59e70.
68. Butler DM, Franklin DH, Ranells NN, et al. Ground
cover impacts on sediment and phosphorus export
from manured riparian pasture. J Environ Qual. 2006;
35:2178e2185.
69. Scanlan JC, Mckeon GM, Day KA, et al. Estimating safe
carrying capacities of extensive cattle-grazing proper-
ties within tropical, semi-arid woodlands of north-
eastern Australia. Rangel J. 1994;16:64e76.
70. Morgan-Davies J, Morgan-Davies C, Pollock ML, et al.
Characterisation of extensive beef cattle systems: dis-
parities between opinions, practice and policy. Land
Use Policy. 2014;38:707e718.
71. Murgueitio E, Calle Z, Uribe F, et al. Native trees and
shrubs for the productive rehabilitation of tropical cat-
tle ranching lands. Ecol Manag. 2011;261:1654e1663.
72. Dixon RM, Playford C, Coates DB. Nutrition of beef
breeder cows in the dry tropics. 2. Effects of time of
weaning and diet quality on breeder performance.
Anim Prod Sci. 2011;51:529e540.
73. McIvor JG, Guppy C, Probert ME. Phosphorus require-
ments of tropical grazing systems: the northern
Australian experience. Plant Soil. 2011;349:55e67.
74. Garcia-Torres S, Lopez-Gajardo A, Mesias FJ. Intensive
vs. free-range organic beef. A preference study through
consumer liking and conjoint analysis. Meat Sci. 2016;
114:114e120.
75. Villano R, Fleming E, Fleming P. Evidence of farm-
level synergies in mixed-farming systems in the
Australian Wheat-Sheep Zone. Agric Syst. 2010;103:
146e152.
76. Aasen A, Bjorge M. Alberta Forage Manual; 2019. Avail-
able at: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$Department/
deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex16/$FILE/120_20-1_2009.pdf.
 References
77. Hodgson J, Clark DA, Mitchell RJ. Foraging behavior
in grazing animals and its impact on plant
communities. In: Fahey Jr GC, ed. Forage Quality, Eval-
uation and Utilization. Madison, WI, USA: ASA, CSSA
& SSSA; 1994:796e827.
78. Parsons SD, Allison CD. Grazing management as it af-
fects nutrition, animal production and economics of
beef production. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract.
1991;7:77e94.
79. Macdonald KA, Penno JW, Lancaster JAS, et al. Effect
of stocking rate on pasture production, milk produc-
tion, and reproduction of dairy cows in pasture-
based systems. J Dairy Sci. 2008;91:2151e2163.
80. Dumont B, Garel JP, Ginane C, et al. Effect of cattle
grazing a species-rich mountain pasture under
different stocking rates on the dynamics of diet selec-
tion and sward structure. Animal. 2007;1:1042e1052.
81. Bailey DW. Management strategies for optimal grazing
distribution and use of arid rangelands. J Anim Sci.
2004;82:E147eE153.
82. Heitschmidt RK, Dowhower S, Walker JW. Some ef-
fects of a rotational grazing treatment on quantity
and quality of available forage and amount of ground
litter. J Range Manag. 1987;40:318e321.
83. Briske DD, Derner JD, Brown JR, et al. Rotational graz-
ing on rangelands: reconciliation of perception and
experimental evidence. Rangel Ecol Manag. 2008;61:
3e17.
84. Hirschfeld DJ, Kirby DR, Caton JS, et al. Influence of
grazing management on intake and composition of cat-
tle diets. J Range Manag. 1996;49:257e263.
85. O’Sullivan M. Measurement of grazing behaviour and
herbage intake on two different grazing management
systems for beef production. In: Holmes W, ed. Grass-
land Beef Production. Dordrecht: Springer; 1984:
141e150. Current Topics in Veterinary Medicine and
Animal Science; Vol. 28.
86. Beck PA, Stewart CB, Sims MB, et al. Effects of stocking
rate, forage management, and grazing management on
performance and economics of cowecalf production in
Southwest Arkansas. J Anim Sci. 2016;94:3996e4005.
87. Buxton DR, Mertens DR, Moore KJ. Forage quality for
ruminants: plant and animal considerations. Prof Anim
Sci. 1995;11:121e131.
88. Kunkle WE, Johns JT, Poore MH, et al. Designing sup-
plementation programs for beef cattle fed forage-based
diets. J Anim Sci. 2000;77:1e11.
89. Moore JE, Brant MH, Kunkle WE, et al. Effects of
supplementation on voluntary forage intake, diet di-
gestibility, and animal performance. J Anim Sci. 1999;
77:122e135.
90. McDowell LR. Feeding minerals to cattle on pasture.
Anim Feed Sci Technol. 1996;60:247e271.
I. Beef cattle production
97
91. Ballet N, Robert JC, Williams PEV. Vitamins in forages.
In: Givens DI, Owen E, Axelford RFE, Omed HM, eds.
Forage Evaluation in Ruminant Nutrition. England: CAB
International Publishing; 2000:399e431. https://doi.
org/10.1079/9780851993447.0399.
92. Poppi DP, McLennan SR. Protein and energy utiliza-
tion by ruminants at pasture. J Anim Sci. 1995;73:
278e290.
93. Shi Y, Weimer PJ. Response surface analysis of the ef-
fects of pH and dilution rate on ruminococcus flavefa-
ciens FD-1 in cellulose-fed continuous cultures. Appl
Environ Microbiol. 1992;58:2583.
94. Kunkle WE, Moore JE, Balbuena O. Recent research on
liquid supplements for beef cattle. In: Proc. Of the Florid
Ruminant Nutrition Symposium. Gainesville, FL: Uni-
versity of Florida; 1997. Available at: http://dairy.
ifas.ufl.edu/rns/1997/mol97nut.pdf.
95. Helmer LG, Bartley EE. Progress in the utilization of
urea as a protein replacer for ruminants: a review.
J Dairy Sci. 1971;54:25e51.
96. Braungardt TJ, Shike DW, Faulkner, et al. Comparison
of corn coproducts and corn residue bales with alfalfa
mixed hay on beef cow-calf performance, lactation,
and feed costs. Prof Anim Sci. 2010;26:356e364.
97. Umberger WJ, Boxall PC, Lacy RC, et al. Role of
credence and health information in determining US
consumers’ willingness-to-pay for grass-finished beef.
Aust J Agric Resour Econ. 2009;53:603e623.
98. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Introduction to Nutrient Management for Cattle; 2007.
Web Available: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/
animal_health/nahms/dairy/downloads/bamn/
BAMN07_NutMgmt.pdf.
99. Alberta Agriculture and Forestry (AAF). Manure Nutrient
Management. Alberta Agriculture. IB004-2000. Food and
Rural Development Bulletins; 2015. Web Available:
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$Department/deptdocs.
nsf/all/irr5716.
100. Powers WJ, Van Horn HH. Nutritional implication for
manure nutrient management planning. Appl Eng
Agric. 2001;17:27e39.
101. Vasconcelos JT, Tedeschi LO, Fox DG, et al. Review:
feeding nitrogen and phosphorus in beef cattle feedlot
production to mitigate environmental impacts. Prof
Anim Sci. 2007;23:8e17.
102. Conrad C, Stanford K, McAllister T, et al. Shiga toxin-
producing Escherichia coli and current trends in
diagnostics. Anim Front. 2016;6:37e43.
103. Eghball B, Power JF. Beef cattle feedlot manure
management. J Soil Water Conserv. 1994;49:113e122.
104. Pachepsky YA, Sadeghi AM, Bradford SA, et al. Trans-
port and fate of manure-based pathogens: modeling
perspective. Agric Water Manag. 2006;86:81e92.
98 5. Nutrition, feeding and management of beef cattle in intensive and extensive production systems
105. Doyle M, Erickson MC. Reducing the carriage of food
borne pathogens in livestock and poultry. Poultry Sci.
2006;85:960e973.
106. Mathusa EC, Chen Y, Enache E, et al. Non-O157 Shiga
toxin producing Escherichia coli in foods. J Food Prot.
2010;73:1721e1736.
107. Beutin L, Martin A. Outbreak of Shiga toxin-producing
Escherichia coli (STEC) O104:H4 infection in Germany
causes a paradigm shift with regard to human patho-
genicity of STEC strains. J Food Prot. 2012;75:408e418.
108. Manyi-Loh CE, Mamphweli SN, Meyer EL, et al. An
overview of the control of bacterial pathogens in cattle
manure. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13:E843.
109. Bremer VR, Hanford KJ, Erickson GE, et al. Meta Anal-
ysis of UNL feedlot trials replacing corn with WDGS.
Nebraska Beef Rep. 2010;93:61e62.
110. Gurtler J, Doyle MP, Erickson MC, et al. Composting to
inactivate foodborne pathogens for crop soil applica-
tion: a review. J Food Prot. 2018;81:1821e1837.
111. Erickson MC, Liao J, Ma L, et al. Pathogen inactivation
in cow manure compost. Compost Sci Util. 2009;17:
229e236.
112. Baron VS, Mapfumo E, Dick AC, et al. Grazing inten-
sity impacts on pasture carbon and nitrogen flow.
J Range Manag. 2002;55:535e541.
113. Franzluebbers AJ, Wilkinson SR, Stuedemann JA. Ber-
mudagrass management in the Southern Piedmont
USA x Coastal productivity and persistence in
response to fertilization and defoliation refimes. Agron
J. 2004;96:1400e1411.
114. Owens LB, Edwards WM, Van Keuren RW. Sediment
losses from a pastured watershed before and after
stream fencing. J Soil Water Conserv. 1996;51:90e96.
115. Opio C, Gerber P, Mottet A, et al. Greenhouse Gas Emis-
sions from Ruminant Supply Chains e A Global Life Cycle
Assessment. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations (FAO); 2013.
116. Pogue SJ, Kr€ obel R, Janzen HH, et al. Beef production
and ecosystem services in Canada’s prairie provinces:
a review. Agric Syst. 2018;166:152e172.
I. Beef cattle production
117. de Vries M, van Middelaar CE, de Boer IJM.
Comparing environmental impacts of beef production
systems: a review of life cycle assessments. Livest Sci.
2015;178:279e288.
118. Hristov AN, Oh J, Firkins JL, et al. Special topicsd
mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions
from animal operations: I. A review of enteric
methane mitigation options. J Anim Sci. 2013;91:
5045e5069.
119. Conant RT, Cerri CE, Osborne BB, et al. Grassland
management impacts on soil carbon stocks: a new
synthesis. Ecol Appl. 2017;27:662e668.
120. Henry BK, Eckard RJ, et al. Review: adaptation of
ruminant livestock production systems to climate
changes. Animal. 2018;12(S2):445es456.
121. Guyader J, Baron VS, Beauchemin KA. Corn forage
yield and quality for silage in short growing season
areas of the Canadian prairies. Agronomy. 2018;8:164.
122. Cullen BR, Eckard RJ, Rawnsley RP. Resistance of
pasture production to projected climate changes in
south-eastern Australia. Crop Pasture Sci. 2012;63:
77e86.
123. Scheiter S, Higgins SI. Impacts of climate change on the
vegetation of Africa: an adaptive dynamic vegetation
modelling approach. Glob Chang Biol. 2009;15:
2224e2246.
124. Pinheiro FM, Nair PKR. Silvopasture in the Caatinga
biome of Brazil: a review of its ecology, management,
and development opportunities. Off Syst. 2018;27:
eR01S.
125. Mader TL, Davis MS, Brown-Brandl T. Environmental
factors influencing heat stress in feedlot cattle. J Anim
Sci. 2006;84:712e719.
126. Eisler MC, Lee MR, Tarlton JF, et al. Agriculture: steps
to sustainable livestock. Nature. 2014;507:32e34.
127. Bhat SA, Malik AA, Ahmad SM, et al. Advances in
genome editing for improved animal breeding: a
review. Vet World. 2017;10:1361e1366.
128. Gao C. The future of CRISPR technologies in
agriculture. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2018;19:275e276.