beef production forms standards

8/8/2019 Beef Production Forms Standards

1/6

Cattle fattening:The Italian exampleM. Vecchiettini and A. Giardini

Department of Agronomy, Universityof Bologna, Via Filippo Re 6-8, 40126 Bologna, Italy

SUMMARY - Beef cattle production systems are widely adopted on large stock farms (from00 to 5,000 animals)in northern Italy and are characterized by advanced technology and a strong entrepreneurial altitude. The animalsused are predominantly young bulls (6-8 months of age). After being mported, hey are reared n stables onslatted floors with tanks underneath for slurry collection. They are subjected to prophylaxis and consume a dietbased on maize silage. All hese echnical aspects are nvestigated experimentally n order o ind solutionscapable of improving the overall efficiency of the system.n spite of the current difficulties in the beef sector dueto a fall in onsumption, the Italian fattening centres remain competitive due to the growing professionalism of thestock farmers.Key words: Cattle fattening, slatted floor, maize silage.RESUME - "Engraissement des bovins 'exemple italien". Les systmes pour engraisseres bovins sont pouraplupart pandusdans enordde 'Italie, o la ailledeslevagesestdeplusgrandechelle de 500 5 O00 ttes de btail). Ces systmes sont caractriss par un apport technologique lev et par un fort espritd'entreprise. Les bovins utiliss sont des broutards (gs de 6 8 mois) mports, levs sur caillebotis avecbassin nfrieur de collecte des djections ;esanimaux eqoiventdes raitementsprophylactiquesetunealimentation base de mas ensil. Tous ces aspects techniques font 'objet d'tudes exprimentales visant mettre au point des solutions qui permettent d'optimiser globalement le systme. Le secteur de la viande bovinetraverse actuellement une priode de crise due la diminution de a consommation ; outefois, es centresd'engraissement italiens restent actifs grce au niveau de qualification sans cesse croissant des leveurs.Mots-cls : ngraissement bovin, caillebotis, mas ensil.

IntroductionMany aspects of beef production have seen considerable echnological evolution over he ast

twenty years: stock farm location, marketing of the animals, housing system, feeding, health control,etc. Italy is a highly representative example, n this sense, because the change in mentality has beenevenmore adical hanadvances in technology. In thepast,beefproductionwaspracticallyaby-product of the breeding of dairy cattle and work purposes, an activity that enjoyed widespreaddistribution throughout the country for reasons mainly connected withoil fertility. Today production sconcentrated in a small number of large and highly specialized stock farms that are run according todistinctly entrepreneurial criteria. This innovative process first began towards the mid-1970s and ledto the development of the new-style farms either private enterprises or co-operatives more or essthroughout the entire country but with a prevalence in the northern regions. Just a few years ater,however, the farms still operating were those run as private concerns n the Po valley accounting forabout 40% of the total bovine meat production. The concentration of the activity in this area is duefirstly to the fact that environmental conditions (climate and soil) are very favourable for the productionof maize silage, the basic forage for beef cattle, and secondlyo the existence of numerous farms ofconsiderable dimensions (100 ha and above) suitable for ntensive farming. The failure of the co-operatives was due on the one hand to the ower availability of public money, and on the other todifficulties of a bureaucratic nature which slowed decision-making processes.

The phi losophyof the fattening centresBeef cattle production s run as an independent activity within farms. It can be expanded or shoutdownwithoutsubstantiallyaffecting outine armadministration GiardiniandVecchettin,1981;Vecchiettini and Gaspari, 1985; Vecchiettini, 1987). Beef production is virtually an ndustrial activity.

133

CIHEAM - Options Mediterraneennes

Serie A: Seminaires mediterraneens


2/6

The young animals, which transform feed and are the end product of the process, are: (i) obtainedfrom various sources, mostly abroad; (i) reared in stables that require very ittle in terms of capitalinvestment and/or labour; (iii) fed with well-balanced diets, which are continuously adapted accordingto cost and availability of the various components and are varied to produce animals that meet thechanging needs of the market; and (v) subjected to selective prophylaxis and therapyn order to keeplosses due o health problems within acceptable limits.

The only true link between stock farms and the lands the need o recycle manure.

Fattening animalsAnimals or atteningareusuallyyoungbulls mportedprimarily rom EU countries (especiallyFrance), but also rom outside he EU (mainly Poland). However, here are cases where suckingcalvesareeitherweaned on thesame armwhere heyare attened,ormore requentlyarecontracted out for weaning o small family-run farms (to reduce labour costs) or to "weaning centres"in the countries of origin of the animals (to lower health risks).An aspect that has always caused concern is the assumed fragility of a production system that

depends on foreign countries to supply the young animals. Experience of the past twenty years hasshown that these fears are ungrounded. In any case, economic conditions in Italy at present are notsuitable or he earing of breedingcows osupply he atteningcentreswithcalves.There isconsiderable ustification in stating hatco-operationbetween heFrench,Polish, rish,etc.,cowbreeders and the Italian calf fattening centress one of the most successful examples of the creationof a common agricultural market.

Another important factor concerns cattle breeds. For a long time there was much discussion overwhether t was preferable to select beef cattle breeds (Limousine, Charolaise, etc.), dairy breeds(Friesian), or crosses. Beef breeds provide the maximum return on feed and facilities as a result ofthe greater commercial value f live weight gain,but on he other hand the calves are more expensive(being the only product of the cow). Dairy breeds have the opposite advantages and disadvantages,while crosses give ntermediate results (Vecchiettini, 1989; Giardini, 1993). In reality, as he mostacute observers predicted, market results haveroved that there s room for all categories of animals.And indeed production covers Charolaise and Limousine onhe one hand and Polish Friesians on theother. Likewise consumers prefer meatof both breeds. In any case, as long as it s possible to offsetthe difference in commercial value of mature animals with the cost f the young animals, there will beroom forall breeds.

Although forecasts are difficult, in the future it appears likely that there will be a shift towards therearing of dairy cattle, principally because the male calf is in a certain sense a by-product of dairyproduction and therefore has a ow initial value. This is a very broad issue that goes beyond thescope of this paper and nvolves such complex subjects as morphology and productivity of dairycattle,andconsequentlyhe elationshipbetween milk andmeatproductionand EU policiesregarding the rearingof "white meat" calves ed on powdered milk.The aspect of "meat quality" in a certain way is linked to the animals chosen for fattening. Thegeneral opinion on this matter vary widely and often betray considerable confusion. "good quality"means irst and oremost he production of meat ree of harmful or llegal substances (antibiotics,hormones and other growth stimulants) and having nutritional characteristics adequate or humanrequirements.However, marketing practices may effect the type f cuts on the carcass weight or he size of thesides, which determines sizing of pre-packed portions for arge-scale distribution, etc., or even thepromotional requirements (i.e., protection of "labels" that guarantee certain production systems) and,last but not east, he consumer aste, which is notoriously variable, especially as regards colour,tenderness and presenceof veined fat (i.e., in Florence consumers ike meat with characteristics that

would be barely satisfactoryn Milan and unacceptable n Naples).The different quality aspects we have mentioned are both depending on genotype and nutrition:early breeds produce animals that are ready for slaughter at a young age and with relatively ow




3/6

weights, and likewise high-energy diets result in theanimalsmaturingmore apidly.Clearly allchoices that nfluence meat quality ikewise affect other technical parameters (i.e., feed efficiency)and economic factors (i.e., incidence of initial cost of the calf on gain). It is easy to understand howdifficult and fraught with dangers it is to attempt to control quality. Cattle breeders must bave a highlevel of professional skills together with great sense of enterprise if they are not to suffer from thewhims of a market where pretexts are often used as contractual tools. In order to overcome theseobstacles, new contractual formulas are being created based on a commitment on the part of thecattle-breeder to provide the slaughterhousewithnimals of well-definedndonsistentcharacteristics breed,weightandageat time of slaughter, attens). This in turnensures hecontinuous supply of a highly uniform product to large-scale distribution outlets and requires a highlevel of integration between he various segmentsof the production chain.

Housing systemThe criteria used by beef cattle-breeders to decide which kinds of stables to use could not havebeen more complicated, andndeed a large numberof extremely heterogeneous solutions have beenadopted. All the systems have one hing in common: very little concern for the welfare of the animalsin the conviction hat the buildings to house the cattle had little importance and also any effect on their

performance. In reality there is a lack of research which would allow for a real analysisf the variousfactors involved, perhaps becausehis type of investigation wouldbe long, difficult and expensive. Forthis reason the choices made in this sector are still based on the experiences of individual breedersand tend to be highly empirical. The predominant rends are to nvest ittle capital or okeepmanagement costsas low as possible.

The first solution to be adopted was open housing, which requires theree administering of feed tomeet nutritive requirements of all the animals. Buildings which are widely used differ mainly for thecollection. With concrete, construction expenses are relatively lownd there is little incidence of hoofdisease, but litter is required so manure handling becomes very expensive. With slatted floors theopposite tends to be the case. In stables with slatted floors the animals are reared in conditions ofhigh density (0.4-0.5 m* of surface for each 100 kg of live weight) in order to ensure a rapid return oninvestments.

types ofloors,which are either in concreterrelattedwithanknderneathorffluents

Stables with slatted floors are always covered, argely o prevent rainwater rom entering theeffluent tanks. Stables with concreteloors can be either uncovered or covered,nd the concrete floormay sometimes be limited to a 1.8-2.5 m strip running parallel to the feed-trough. There are alsoexamples of stables similar to American feed-lots. For each of these basic solutions exist numerousvariants. Often many different solutions are adopted on the same farm, partly due to the uncertaintythat abounds in the sector and partly to the different degrees of adaptability of the animals to therearing conditions. Animals belonging to breeds that reachigh weights on maturityand animals thathave in the past been reared on pasture appear to tolerate slatted floors less than lighter animalswhich have always ived in stables.

Out of such a broad array of solutions, the closed stable with slatted floor appears o be the onethathas been mostwidelyadopted.There are several ypes of construction, romsimple oofscovering heboxes to enormousbuildings hatcontain heboxes. The latter are clearlymoreexpensive and have proved the east efficient, because amortization bears heavily on managementcosts. In most cases they have been built with public money applied for y co-operatives and are heend resultof the bureaucratic philosophyhat buildings constructed with state resourcesust be solidenough to last for many decades.In our view the solutions we have described do ot represent a satisfactory inal result, but simply

an intermediate stage n the process of farm modernization, a stage that has superseded the old-stylesmall masonry stables with chained-up animals, where construction and management costs wouldnow be unfeasible. Today there is a need for further progress, for building solutions and generalhusbandry principles that better meet the animals physical and psychological needs. Public opinioncalls for it and on-site observations tend to indicate that mprovements in farming conditions couldgive higher levels of production and economic benefits. Farm size, typeof stables, box size (surfacearea per animal), size of groups and human-animal relations re subjects that have perhaps not been

135




4/6

taken nto sufficient consideration in the past, but which will almost certainly be the most mportanttesting ground for beef cattle breedersf the year2000.

FeedingThe atteningcalf is abiologicalmachine hatconverts eedstuffsntoanimalproducts. ts

production life is short, so it is general able to withstand strong production stimuli without sufferingundue damage, in other words excess nutrition levels capable of ensuring maximum growth rate. hebreeder must choose a growth rate by striking a balance between the cost of feed and the price ofmeat. The following aspects should also be taken into consideration:

(i)Aboveacertainnutritional level theeffectiveness of theadditionalenergy allsas headministered quantity increases (law f diminishing returns).(i ) Increasing heenergycontent of thedietshortens the life of theanimal,whichbecomesmature at a relatively young age (affecting the qualityf the meat) and at a relatively low weight (withconsequences on the ratio between purchased and produced weight).It is in the eeding area hat he professional skill of the breeder is the most mportant. Feedaccounts for roughly two-thirds of the cost of meat production, and the breakdownof feed expensesshows hat he argest portion of he cost s attributable to energy supplied (85-90% of the total)(Vecchiettini et al., 1995). This results in the following strategy: proteins, minerals and vitamins mustbe present in the diet in quantities sufficient to ensure the complete utilization of the energetic levelthe breeder chooses to give the animals. The main problem is to find economical energy sources:

broadly speaking the ower the cost of the energy feedstuffs, the more advantageous it will be toincrease the energyn the diet.In Italy the primary feed used for beef cattle is maize silage and it is mainly for this reason thatbeef cattle arms are ocated in the areas avourable or maize growin (Vecchiettini, 1993).Maizesilage is obtained from a normal maize crop (with a density-3 lantdm higher than average), whichis harvested and stored in silos (in large trench silos) until the grain has reached a "waxy" maturity.This feed contains about0.8 F.U. kg-' of dry matter, and energy level that is good but not sufficient toensure acceptable performances.So in addition to protein, mineral and vitamin supplements, the dietmust also be enriched with energy feedstuffs, principally cereals. The greater the ratio between the

prices of the meat and cereals, the higher the optimum dosagef cereals.

9

Analternative to cereals orboosting heenergycontent of thediet is by-products of theagri-industry. These materials are becoming available n increasing quantities due to the boom n theagriculturalproductprocessingndustrysugaractories, tarchactories,distilleries, fruit andvegetable processing plants). To be of real utility they must be cheap and relatively rich in energy.Great success has been achieved in Italy with the use of pressed sugar-beet pulp, which has anenergy content (F.U. kg-' of dry matter) 30-40% higher than that of maize silage and an energy cost(lire F.U.-') of just half (Vecchiettini et al., 1994).The widespread adoption of these feed, which canrepresent up to 65-70% of the dry weight of the ration, has had the additional merit of breaking downthe cultural barrier that prevented it from being thought possible that such a high-quality foodstuffs asbeef could be produced by animals fed on a by-product. his is leading to akind of virtuous circle: theagri-industry exploits agricultural production, while cattle breeding makes use of the least valued by-product of the industrial process.

Health problemsHealth control is one of the most problematical and least easily defined aspects of stock farming.

Breeders often find themselves powerless in the face of unexpected and apparently unexplainablepathologies. Losses attributed to pathological conditions fluctuate around lo%, covering the sum ofdead animals and hose hat have to be slaughtered prematurely, unachieved performances andveterinary and medical expenses.

136




5/6

Fattening calves are subject to all the diseases common to the species. However, due o thespecial nature of this arming practice, he most serious health problems concern the respiratorysystem, the hoof and metabolic disorders.

Respiratory infections strike the animals athe most vulnerable point n their life, on arriving athefarm after the severe strain of the journey. To protect against viral infection the animals are normallytreated with vaccines f various kinds, which are continually upgradedo improve their range of actionand efficacy. The animals can also be treated against bacteria with antibiotics and sulpha drugs.

In the fattening centres that use stables with slatted floors, injuries to the animals' hooves are afrequent occurrence, both in young animals during the initial adaptation period and in heavy matureindividuals. These small injuries are generally caused by the floor and disturbances between animals,and can provide a gateway for bacterial infection. Furthermore t is believed that a low fibre diet canheightensusceptibility to disorders of thehoof egion. To alleviate the consequences of thispathology, antibioticsare administered to control secondary bacterial infection and in the most severecases the animals have tobe transferred on litter.

Disorders of the digestive system can be caused by mistakes in the formulation of the diet, butvery frequently are due to "calculated risks". They generally stem from a lack of crude fibre that isliable to arise when the energy content of the diet is increased in order to boost the performancesofthe animals. The cattle breeder has to strike a very fine balance: by reducing the fibre content, hepromotes energy recovery, but at the same ime places the animal's digestive system at risk. Hisobjective is to reach the imit where potential risk is equal to potential benefit. This is a risky andethicallyquestionablebusiness,but oday is the factor that has hegreatest nfluenceon hecompetitiveness of the breeders.

Protectionof the environmentOn farms that use stables with concrete floorand litter, the manure left does not in practice causepollution problems. With slatted floors, by contrast, effluents are considered by public opinion and

legislators o pose a risk for the environment and health. This has led to the passing of strictlegislationgoverning the handling of this manure. In oneyear an animalexpels 8-10 tonnes ofeffluents, containing various pathogens (Salmonella spp., Brucella spp., Escherichia coli, etc.) and0.3-0.4% nitrogen. In the Italian regions where beef cattle breeding is concentrated severe imits oflive weight that can be reared per unit surface area available for the effluents spreading are adopted(2.5-4.0 t ha-'). In some regions it is also mandatory to store the effluents in lagoons separated fromthe stable for aperiod of 3-6 months to reducehe microbial content.In recent years the problem of manure disposal has come to the fore and is an issue that theentrepreneurial world is perhaps not culturally prepared to tackle. Research has not yet solved theproblem concerning the relation between distribution of manure on fields (time-scales, quantities and

methods, which depend amongst other hings on soil and rainfall) and potential pollution of watertables with nitrates (Giardini and Vecchiettini, 1990). Legislators, more sensitive to the pressure ofpublic option than to the needs of cattle breeders, have generally opted or restrictive legislation.There is an urgent need for an in-depth analysis of the situation to assess whether such restrictionsare really consistent with environment protection.

Future prospectsA number of clouds hang over the future of Italian fattening centres. EU policies appear intent onfavouring more and more small or medium-sized farms, located mainly in continental Europe. A keyfactor in the formulation of these policies is the declared need to safeguard the environment and theperhaps mistaken assumption hat arge arms equate to large polluters. Nonetheless, the Italianfattening centres arebeing run with increasing levels of professional kill and for this reason continue

to be reasonably competitive.Al l the points we have discussed must be continually kept up to date on the basis of cultural andtechnologicaldevelopment. First and foremost,hephilosophyofntensivearmingmust be

137




6/6

re-examined with greater emphasison the role of the animal. It would be good to refer to ethology tounderstand he behaviourof the animals reared andhence create the best compromise between heirwell-being and production requirements as away to fully rationalize exploitation of animal by humans.

The various practical aspects of the farm (stables, feeding, health care) come under this generalsubject. This means it is necessary to decide on concerted action to make the most of all possiblesynergies. However, he most significant progress can be expected rom attention to he animals,reducing the strain of travel and "environmental discomfort'' by improving ransport,stablesandaggregationcriteria. These innovationswouldcertainlyhavedirectand indirect positive effects,including improved health and performance of the animals and lower environmental mpact of thefarm. Unfortunately hese interesting prospects are held back by a severe lackof research.

We cannot expectanymajornewdevelopments in the nutrition sector.Atpresent hemostpressing requirement in this sector is to find low-cost energy feedstuffs; for this purpose it is veryimportant to keep up to date with he list of by-products offered by he agri-industry and to verify heirreal nutritional value experimentally. Another plausible idea would be to concentrate on feed usagetechnology by controlling the fermentation process in the silos. Here too, research is still at an earlystage.Finally we should look at marketing. The link between meat production and distribution is callingfor urgent attention.Of the three actors currently operating n the sector -breeder, slaughterhouse anddistributor- one is perhaps unnecessary. It appears most reasonable to expect the first two to unite:either the breeders can join forces to run abattoirs and deal directly with the distributors, herebyorienting production towards the standards required by the market, or the large slaughterhouses canobtain the animals and rear them either directly or through agistment contracts. In Italy there have

been examplesof this kind, almost all of which have ailed due to the low level of professionalism withwhich the breeders have tackled the slaughteringsector and theslaughterhouses he breedingsector. We must learn from the errors of the past, althoughwe feel that integration between sectors isthe only real way forward.

ReferencesGiardini, A. and Vecchiettini, M. (1981).Prospettive in Italia nell'ingrasso bovino. L'informatoreagrario, 45: 17991 17993.Giardini, A. and Vecchiettini, M. (1990). Aspetti agronomici ed ambientali dell'utilizzazione dei refhizootecnici. Le scienze agrarie per la societ del domani: agricoltura ed ambiente, Bologna, 24-25January, pp. 21 7-234.Giardini, G. (1 993).Costi e ricavi del bovino da carne. L'informatore zootecnico,5.Vecchiettini, M. (1987). L'ingrasso del vitellone in Italia.L'informatore agrario,25: 37-39.Vecchiettini, M. (1989). Quale vitellone conviene ingrassare? erra e Vita,18: 86-89.Vecchiettini, M. (1 993). Un silomais adattod ogni esigenza.L'informatore zootecnico,9: 38-40.Vecchiettini, M. and Gaspari, F. (1985). La scelta delle oraggere per 'allevamento del bovino dacarne. L'informatore agrario,48.Vecchiettini, M.,Giardini, A. and Gaspari, F. (1994). II punto sull'utilizzazione delle polpe non pressatenell'ingrasso bovino.L'informatore agrario,24: 51-57.Vecchiettini, M., iardini, A. and Gaspari, F. (1995). Twenty years research in the use ofpressedpulpin the eedingofbeefcattle: esults and prospects. ln: Meeting of he Il9 by product

subcommission,Ferrara, 14September.

138


S i A S i i dit

beef production forms standards

Documents