Current situation and future trends for beef production in the United States of America — a review
Open accessAbstract
USA beef production is characterized by a diversity of climates, environmental conditions, animal phenotypes, management systems, and a multiplicity of nutritional inputs. The USA beef herd consists of more than 80 breeds of cattle and crosses thereof, and the industry is divided into distinct, but ofttimes overlapping sectors, including seedstock production, cow-calf production, stocker/backgrounding, and feedlot. Exception for male dairy calves, production is predominantly pastoral-based, with young stock spending relatively brief portions of their life in feedlots. The beef industry is very technology driven, utilizing reproductive management strategies, genetic improvement technologies, exogenous growth promoting compounds, vaccines, antibiotics, and feed processing strategies, focusing on improvements in efficiency and cost of production. Young steers and heifers are grain-based diets fed for an average of 5 months, mostly in feedlots of 1,000 head capacity or more, and typically are slaughtered at 15 to 28 months of age to produce tender, well-marbled beef. Per capita beef consumption is nearly 26 kg annually, over half of which is consumed in the form of ground products. Beef exports, which are increasingly important, consist primarily of high value cuts and variety meats, depending on destination. In recent years, adverse climatic conditions (i.e., draught), a shrinking agricultural workforce, emergence of food-borne pathogens, concerns over development of antimicrobial resistance, animal welfare/well-being, environmental impact, consumer perceptions of healthfulness of beef, consumer perceptions of food animal production practices, and alternative uses of traditional feed grains have become increasingly important with respect to their impact on both beef production and demand for beef products. Similarly, changing consumer demographics and globalization of beef markets have dictated changes in the types of products demanded by consumers of USA beef, both domestically and abroad. The industry is highly adaptive, however, and responds quickly to evolving economic signals.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the US, efficiency-based strategies appear to have limited remaining scope, partly because the sector has historically been technology-driven.
“In the US, efficiency-based strategies appear to have limited remaining scope (Cusack et al., 2021;Pelton et al., 2024), partly because the sector has historically been technology-driven (Drouillard, 2018).”
From Impact of 10 years of adaptive multi-paddock grazing on soil carbon and beef's greenhouse gas footprint in the US Upper Midwest (2026) · cites this paper as Drouillard, 2018
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- [7]Samuelson KL Hubbert ME Galyean ML Löest CA Nutritional recommendations of feedlot consulting nutritionists: The 2015 New Mexico State and Texas Tech University survey J Anim Sci 2016 94 2648 63 27285940
- [10]OECD/FAO OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2017–2026 Paris, France OECD Publishing c2017 [cited 2018 June 1]. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2017-en · DOI
- [12]Younts-Dahl SM Galyean ML Loneragan GH Elam NA Brashears MM Dietary supplementation with Lactobacillus-Propionibacterium-based direct-fed with microbials and prevalence of Escherichia coli O157 in beef feedlot cattle and on hides at harvest J Food Prot 2004 67 889 93 15151223
- [15]Flythe MD The antimicrobial effects of hops (Humulus lupulus L.) on ruminal hyper ammonia-producing bacteria Lett Appl Microbiol 2009 48 712 7 19413813
- [17]Yang WZ Benchaar C Ametaj BN Beauchemin KA Dose response to eugenol supplementation in growing beef cattle: Ruminal fermentation and intestinal digestion Anim Feed Sci Technol 2010 158 57 64 19854990
- [18]Yang WZ Ametaj BN Benchaar C He ML Beauchemin KA Cinnamaldehyde in feedlot cattle diets: intake, growth performance, carcass characteristics, and blood metabolites J Anim Sci 2010 88 1082 92 19933423
- [19]Samii SS Wallace N Nagaraja TG Effects of limonene on ruminal concentrations, fermentation, and lysine degradation in cattle J Anim Sci 2016 94 3420 3430 27695807
- [20]Aarestrup FM Hasman H Susceptibility of different bacterial species isolated from food animals to copper sulphate, zinc chloride and antimicrobial substances used for disinfection Vet Microbiol 2004 100 83 9 15135516
- [21]Aperce CC Amachawadi R Van Bibber-Krueger CL Effects of menthol supplementation in feedlot cattle diets on the fecal prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli PLoS ONE 2016 11 e0168983 28030622 PMC5193447
- [22]Jacob ME Fox JT Nagaraja TG Effects of feeding elevated concentrations of copper and zinc on the antimicrobial susceptibilities of fecal bacteria in feedlot cattle Foodborne Pathog Dis 2010 7 643 8 20482227
- [23]Amachawadi RG Scott HM Aperce CC Effects of in-feed copper and tylosin supplementations on copper and antimicrobial resistance in fecal enterococci of feedlot cattle J Appl Microbiol 2015 118 1287 97 25739516
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Predictive Modeling of Bovine Respiratory Disease Outcomes in Feedlot Cattle: A Narrative Review
Wisnieski, L., Amrine, D. E., & Renter, D. G. (2021) · Livestock Science · doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104666 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Garcia, L., Stanley, P. L., Sacramento, J. P., Dillon, J. A., Thorbecke, M., Thompson, L. R., Ambike, V., Sharma, P., Xu, S., Chiavegato, M. B., et al. (2026) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2026.104879 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Drouillard, J. S.
- Affiliations
- Kansas State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Drouillard, James S.
- ORCID
- Drouillard, James S.
- Venue
- Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences
- Published
- 2018-07-01
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1007-1016
- ISSN
- 1011-2367 (ISSN-L)
- 1976-5517
- PMC
- PMC6039332
- OpenAlex
- W2809280069
- Cited by
- 195
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 26.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Livestock Farming and Management
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural and Food Production Studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Meat and Animal Product Quality
- Keywords
- beef production, United States beef industry, cattle breeds, cow-calf production, feedlot finishing, beef cattle nutrition, growth promoters, reproductive management, genetic improvement, antimicrobial resistance, foodborne pathogens, animal welfare, beef consumption, beef exports
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review