Animal Frontiers46

Key words: feedlot, land use, methane emission, Nellore, pasture

Introduction

Brazil has a mature beef cattle industry based on grass-fed cattle, where feeding Bos indicus cattle, especially the Nellore breed (Figure 1), is a common practice. However, the production cycle conducted ex-clusively on grazing systems with only mineral supplementation leads to older animals at market, mainly because cattle gain body weight during the rainy season (summer) and lose body weight during the dry season

(winter). On the other hand, large farm land availability, ample feedstuffs supplies, a large domestic consumer market, and liberalization of trade barriers have allowed large fi rms to achieve economies of size that have made the country a major, growing source of meat production (Somwaru and Valdes, 2004). Since 2003, Brazil has been the world’s largest beef exporter with the world’s largest commercial cattle herd (USDA, 2011).

With respect to strategies to make the Brazilian production cycle more effi cient and supply the external demand for beef, feedlot operations be-came a reality in the last decade. The relatively new Brazilian beef feedlot industry has grown substantially in the last 8 years as the external market demand for fed cattle has increased. Nonetheless, Brazilian cattle are fed in feedlots mostly during the dry season, when pasture availability is de-creased. This strategy is used to maintain a constant beef supply (Millen et al., 2009).

Thus, this review will describe historical facts and the current situation of beef production in Brazil as well as future perspectives for the industry in terms of sanitary status and economic and environmental sustainability.

The Brazilian Beef Cattle Industry

BackgroundBeef production in Brazil, as in North America, is characterized by

three major components: cow-calf, stocker, and feedlot operations. How-ever in Brazil, cattle spend most of their lives grazing tropical pastures, which often leads to slaughter of older animals. Usually, the production cycle from birth to market averages 36 months (Oliveira et al., 2006). In general, feedlot operations are utilized just to fi nish beef cattle to achieve a minimum of 4 mm of fat cover for Brazilian market requirements. In a survey conducted by Millen et al. (2009) with 31 feedlot cattle nutrition-ists in Brazil, it was reported that on average yearling bulls, steers, heifers, and cull cows are fed during 83.6, 74.0, 67.5, and 57.4 days, respectively, in the Brazilian feedlots, which accounts for approximately 7% of the length of the production cycle from birth to market.

Regarding cow-calf operations, Brazilian calf production increased 9.5% in the last 10 years from 44.3 to 47.5 million animals (ANUALPEC, 2011). Because of the foot-mouth disease issue in 2005, many ranchers left the business and a large number of cows were slaughtered in 2005 and 2006. As a result, the calf production decreased in 2006 and 2007; however, in 2008 the number of calves produced returned to the level achieved before the outbreak of foot-mouth disease (ANUALPEC, 2011). In general, cows give birth at the end of winter and the beginning of spring

© 2011 Millen, Pacheco, Meyer, Rodrigues, and Arrigoni. doi:10.2527/af.2011-0017

Current outlook and future perspectives of beef production in BrazilDanilo Domingues Millen,*1 Rodrigo Dias Lauritano Pacheco,† Paula M. Meyer,‡ Paulo H. Mazza Rodrigues,§ and Mario De Beni Arrigoni†*Animal Science College, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Dracena, São Paulo, Brazil 17900-00;†Department of Breeding and Animal Nutrition, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil 18618-000;‡Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), Pirassununga, São Paulo, Brazil 13630-095; and§Department of Animal Nutrition and Production, University of São Paulo (USP), Pirassununga, São Paulo, Brazil 13635-900

Implications • Brazil is the world’s largest beef exporter with the world’s larg-

est commercial cattle herd; however, the production cycle needs to be more effi cient to supply internal and external demands in the future.

• Feedlot operations are currently a reality for the Brazilian beef cattle industry; nonetheless the beef cattle industry in Brazil is still based on grass-fed animals in which the Nellore breed pre-dominates. At some point this constitutes an important advan-tage for Brazilian beef exportations because some countries look for “natural beef.”

• Brazilian packing plants regulate the use of antibiotics, espe-cially ionophores used as growth promoters, on farms certifi ed to export beef to European countries. In addition, the use of any implant or beta-agonist for cattle is forbidden in Brazil.

• From 1970 to 2006, the Brazilian bovine herd increased at 2.04%/year, total pasture at 0.07%/year, area with cultivated pasture at 3.5%/year, and ratio of animals/hectare of total pas-ture at 1.97%/year, whereas the area with natural pasture de-creased at 2.26%/year. These trends alleviate some of the pres-sure on Brazilian authorities with respect to deforestation of the Amazon forest.

• Although Brazil had the greatest growth rate of enteric methane emissions, it also had the greatest growth rate of beef produc-tion, resulting in Brazil having a negative growth rate (−1.82%/year) of methane emissions per unit of product (kilogram of methane/kilogram of beef).

October 2011, Vol. 1, No. 2 47

seasons, and calves are weaned at late summer or in the beginning of fall, when they are an average of 7 months old. The largest ranching operations are located in midwest region in the states of Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, and Goiás, which accounts for 29.8% of calves produced in Brazil. In addition, states such as Minas Gerais (southeast region) and Pará (north region) together produced 21.3% of Brazilian calves in 2010 (ANUAL-PEC, 2011). Unlike North America, most Brazilian ranching operations are on private lands.

Stocker cattle operations, which involve animals averaging from 180 kg (weaned calves) to approximately 380 kg (steers and yearling bulls), are a common practice in the Brazilian beef production and generally con-stitute the greater part of the production cycle. Strategies to reduce the length of the stocker phase include concentrate supplementation during the dry season and intensive grazing throughout the year because forage mass production is extremely reduced during the winter season and ani-mals typically lose body weight during this phase if they are not supple-mented with sources of energy and protein. As in North American sys-tems, the stocker system provides a bridge between cow-calf operations and feedlots.

With respect to feedlots, the beef feedlot industry in Brazil was just consolidated in the last decade as an option for fi nishing cattle because of the increasing external demand. Moreover, the feeding period at Brazil-ian feedlots is usually short, on average around 70 days (Millen et al., 2009). In addition, the number of animals fi nished in feedlots in Brazil increased 50% (from 2 to 3 million animals) from 2003 to 2010 (ANU-ALPEC, 2011), and most beef produced in Brazilian feedlots is destined for external markets. Most feedlots in Brazil are located in the states of São Paulo, Goiás, Mato Grosso, and Mato Grosso do Sul, where most of the stocker cattle operations (Figure 2) and grain producer areas, such as corn and soybean, are located.

Land UseWith increased awareness of global warming and degradation of natu-

ral resources, serious attention has been given to animal agriculture pro-duction methods with sustainability perspectives. To understand the evo-lution of Brazilian husbandry along with the land use since 1970, a study was carried out (Meyer et al., 2011) using data from different regions. Databases about bovine herd size and area of natural and cultivated pas-ture were obtained from the available offi cial Agricultural Census (IBGE, 2010). Herd size was divided by total pasture area, creating the ratio of animals/hectare of total pasture. Annual average growth rate (%/year) was calculated by regression analysis, obtaining the slope between natural logarithm of each variable and the corresponding year.

In 1970, Brazil had approximately 78.6 million cattle, raised on 124.4 million hectares of natural pasture and 29.7 million hectares of cultivated pasture, with a ratio of 0.51 animals/hectare of total pasture. In 2006, the Brazilian bovine herd increased to approximately 171.6 million ani-mals, with decreased use of natural pasture to 57.3 million hectares and increased cultivated pasture area to 101.4 hectares and a ratio of 1.08 ani-mals/hectare of total pasture. Therefore, from 1970 to 2006, the Brazilian bovine herd increased at a rate of 2.04%/year, total pasture at 0.07%/year, area with cultivated pasture at 3.5%/year, and ratio of animals/hectares of total pasture at 1.97%/year, whereas the area with natural pasture de-creased at a rate of 2.26%/year (Table 1).

The Brazilian territory is divided in fi ve regions: north, northeast, mid-west, south, and southeast (Figure 2). The southeast, which is the most technologically developed region, had the largest bovine herd (34.17% of total herd) in 1970, but decreased to 19.85% in 2006 due to the replace-ment of pasture by sugarcane and orange crops. On the other hand, in 2006 the midwest region had the largest bovine herd (33.52% of total herd), with the greatest growth effi ciency (from 0.31 in 1970 to 0.98 ani-

Figure 1. Nellore cattle.

Animal Frontiers48

mals/hectares of total pasture in 2006) and the second greatest increase in herd size (3.25%/year). The midwest region, which is the traditional producer of beef cattle and grains, is the region where the savannah biome (cerrado, or upland scrub forest, characteristic of the Brazilian central pla-teau) predominates. In addition, the north region, an agricultural border and the location of the Amazon forest, showed the greatest increase in herd size (8.96%/year), in natural pasture area (2.07%/year, whereas the other regions decreased), in cultivated pasture area (9.95%/year), and fi -nally in total pasture area (5.67%/year). The effi ciency of the north region increased from 0.39 in 1970 to 1.18 animals/hectares of total pasture in 2006 (the second largest growth rate of 3.12%/year). The northeast region showed the least growth in effi ciency of pasture use (1.27%/year) with the smallest (0.83) amount of cattle/hectare of total pasture in 2006. This is a traditional region with ancient colonization, low social and economic development, and where the desert is the predominant biome, with poor soil and vegetation. Finally, the south region had the second largest bovine herd size (24.12% of total herd) in 1970, decreasing to the smallest herd in 2006 (13.61% of total herd), but with the greatest pasture use effi ciency (1.50 animals/hectares of total pasture in 2006). This region is tradition-ally and strongly dominated by European immigrants, and animal agricul-ture is still based on smallholders, with very intensive production systems.

For the last two decades, the cattle industry has moved towards the midwest region. But the recent expansion of soybean production, which has increased land prices in the midwest (Steiger, 2006), has moved cattle production to the north region. Fearnside (1980) commented about Brazil-ian investors being lured, in the 1970s, to establish ranches in the Ama-zon. However, international organizations have pressured the Brazilian government to limit deforestation. In response, Brazilian Environmental Institution (IBAMA) has intensifi ed supervision and applied severe laws and regulations in the attempt to restrain deforestation and to increase and improve sustainability of the production systems already established.

Current SituationOver the last 8 years, beef production in Brazil has become one of the

most important activities in terms of generating employment and wealth for the country. Because of international requirements, a traceability sys-

tem was created in 2002 and is applied throughout the supply chain. From 2002 to 2010, the prices paid by packing plants per kilogram of beef in-creased from US$1.12 to US$3.29, and slaughter rates increased 11.6% from 21.6 to 24.1% (ANUALPEC, 2011) as a result of a more organized beef industry. The Brazilian beef exportation was one of the main fac-tors that contributed to this expansion in the beef industry as the percent-age of the total beef production exported increased from 13.4 to 28.2% from 2002 to 2007. However, since 2008 Brazilian beef exports have de-creased, and in 2010 they represented only 19.9% of total beef production (ANUALPEC, 2011). Also in 2010, approximately 35% of the Brazilian beef exported had European countries as the main destination (ABIEC, 2011a). Based on this fact, since 2006 when Europe banned the use of antibiotics in animal production, Brazilian packing plants have regulated their use, especially ionophores used as growth promoters, in the farms

Table 1. Annual average growth rate of bovine herd, natural pasture area, cultivated pasture area, total pasture area, ratio of animals/hectare of total pasture in different regions of Brazil from 1970 to 2006 (adapted from Meyer et al., 2011)

RegionRel. herd1 in

1970 (%)Rel. herd2 in

2006 (%)Bovine

herd3 (%/year)

Natural pasture4 (%/year)

Cultivatedpasture5 (%/year)

Total pasture6 (%/year)

Animals/hectare in

19707 (ratio)

Animals/hectare in

20068 (ratio)

Animals/hectare9 (%/year)

North 2.17 18.26 8.96 2.07 9.95 5.67 0.39 1.18 3.12Northeast 17.57 14.76 1.41 −0.99 2.47 0.14 0.50 0.83 1.27Southeast 34.17 19.85 0.41 −3.29 1.44 −1.36 0.60 1.24 1.80South 24.12 13.61 0.55 −1.32 0.89 −0.77 0.88 1.50 1.33Midwest 21.96 33.52 3.25 −3.79 4.41 0.03 0.31 0.98 3.22Brazil 100.00 100.00 2.04 −2.26 3.50 0.07 0.51 1.08 1.971Relative bovine herd in 1970 (% of Brazilian herd).2Relative bovine herd in 2006 (% of Brazilian herd).3Annual average growth rate of bovine herd (%/year).4Annual average growth rate of natural pasture area (%/year).5Annual average growth rate of cultivated pasture area (%/year).6Annual average growth rate of total pasture area (%/year).7Ratio of cattle/hectare of total pasture in 1970.8Ratio of cattle/hectare of total pasture in 2006.9Annual average growth rate of ratio of cattle/hectare of total pasture area (%/year).

Figure 2. Map of Brazil showing the fi ve regions and the respective states. Gray represents areas where cattle are located. Gray intensity indicates concentration of cattle. Data from IBGE (2010).

October 2011, Vol. 1, No. 2 49

certifi ed to export beef to European countries. In addition, the use of any implant or beta-agonist for cattle is forbidden in Brazil.

However, the foot-mouth disease issue is still a sanitary problem when the aim is to increase Brazilian beef exports. Moreover, out of 27 Brazil-ian states, only 16 are considered foot-mouth disease-free areas, and 15 of them are only free with vaccination (Bahia, Tocantins, Rondônia, Acre, Espírito Santo, Goiás, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Paraná, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul, São Paulo, Sergipe, and Distri-to Federal). Only the Santa Catarina state is considered free of foot-mouth disease without vaccination. Another factor that does not contribute to increased Brazilian beef exports is the lack of a carcass grading system similar to the one performed in the United States by the US Department of Agriculture.

Current Situation on Greenhouse Gas ProductionTo investigate Brazilian status regarding greenhouse gas emissions, a

study was carried out to evaluate the evolution of methane production by livestock from the 10 largest beef exporters in the world during the last 20 years. Databases of herd size and quantity of beef produced, obtained between 1988 and 2007, were collected from FAO (2009), and methane production per animal was obtained from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2006). From these data, emissions were calcu-lated, in terms of methane quantity per country and in terms of methane production per unit of product (kilograms of beef). The annual average growth rate (%/year) was calculated by regression analysis, obtaining the slope between natural logarithm of each variable and the corresponding year. It is important to emphasize that databases (FAO, 2009) do not dif-ferentiate among specialized breeds (beef or dairy), and thus, each country was considered as a farm. The 10 main beef exporters in the world are, in decreasing rank based on the amount of beef exported, the European Union, Australia, Brazil, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Argen-tina, India, Uruguay, and Paraguay (Table 2).

In the last 20 years, among the 10 main beef exporters, Brazil showed the greatest growth rates in annual methane emission estimates (2.12%/year), followed by Canada, Paraguay, Uruguay, Australia, and New Zea-land. The European Union, India, Argentina, and the United States present-ed negative values for these rates. However, the increased rate of methane emissions in Brazil refl ects the increase in herd size over the last 20 years. From all the studied countries, Brazil showed the greatest growth rate of beef production (4.01%/year) in the last 20 years, followed by Uruguay, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Paraguay, the United States, India, and Argentina, whereas the European Union showed negative growth for this variable. Although Brazil had the greatest growth rate of enteric methane emission, it also had the greatest growth rate of beef production, resulting in Brazil having the most negative value (−1.82%/year) for net increase in rate of methane emissions per unit of product (kilograms of methane/kilogram of beef), followed by Uruguay, India, Canada, the United States,

Argentina, and Australia. However, New Zealand, the European Union, and Paraguay showed positive growth rates for this variable. These data suggest that in the last 20 years methane emissions per unit of product decreased up to 29.4% in Brazil, whereas it increased 1.9 and 7.7% in the European Union and Paraguay, respectively.

Future Perspectives

Industry Intensification Toward Better Efficiency: Pros and Cons

As discussed in previous sections, Brazilian beef operations are mostly based on perennial tropical grass pasture systems. A large portion of those pastures is severely deteriorating, but there is extraordinary potential to lodge a large number of cattle on a single hectare. Additionally, cow-calf producers in particular are constantly pushed to move to less expensive areas or change to production of other crops (e.g., sugarcane or citrus). Thus, it is obvious that the fi rst step towards improvement of beef sys-tem operations is to take advantage of tropical grasses stocking capability, which may lead to greater stocking rates on lands, particularly for those producers who intend to continue to root their operations in areas of more developed states. Consequently, growing and fi nishing cattle in feedlots, mainly during the dry season, may become a common practice.

On the other hand, Brazilian genetics in commercial herds must contin-uously act to improve effi ciency. It was reported that feedlot Nellore cattle have 6 to 8% less feed intake compared with crossbred animals (Millen et al., 2009). In addition, when Nellore calves were placed in a feedlot after weaning, a 34% slower rate of body weight gain was noted when compared with either Continental or Britannic crossbred calves (Millen et al., 2007). From the reproductive standpoint, Bos indicus breeds start to cycle and are bred at older ages. Nellore heifers raised in extensive graz-ing systems under midwest savannah conditions are bred only after they have reached 24 months of age and around 310 kg of body weight (Vieira et al., 2006). Based on these facts, crossbreeding zebu cattle with Euro-pean breeds plays an important role in reducing the beef operation cycle of production. In 2010, 39.41% of the total semen sold came from European beef or its compound breeds (ASBIA, 2010). In 2006, Angus semen con-tributed 20.04% and increased 370.41% in 2010 (ASBIA, 2010). Nellore semen is still the most commercialized and accounted for 44.40% of total commercialized doses in 2010. Greater application of industrial crosses (Bos indicus cows bred with European or compound breeds) will become a reality in the Brazilian beef industry in the coming years. According to a survey conducted by Millen et al. (2009), feedlot nutritionists reported that 46.4% of their clients had fed crossbred animals. Oliveira and Millen (2011a), in a more recent survey, observed that 55.2% of a nutritionist’s clients fed crossbred animals. Besides that, at the present moment, feed-lots owned by packing plants, with static capacity for more than 20,000 animals, operate basically with Britannic crossbred animals.

The statement above also provides alarming information because, un-like in North America, most of the large feed yards (static capacity greater than 20,000 heads) are owned by packers. Construction of new larger plants is constantly observed in midwestern and southeastern states. Me-dium meat processers also tend to have a self-suffi cient strategy. Meat processing capacity of these companies varies from 800 to 2,000 animals per day. It is likely to be a long road before the self-suffi cient strategy of Brazilian meat companies is achieved. However, the manipulation of beef

These data suggest that in the last 20 years methane emissions per unit of product decreased up to 29.4% in Brazil, whereas it increased 1.9 and 7.7% in the Euro-pean Union and Paraguay, respectively.

Animal Frontiers50

price is more feasible as the years go by. Associations of producers are essential for beef industry development and protection, based on circum-stances just described.

Another possible long-term trend is worth mentioning. The continu-ous purchase of meat and feedlot companies overseas by Brazilian groups called attention of international investors for the Brazilian beef industry. On the other hand, allied by the increment of the internal economy, beef operation profi tability may provide an attractive opportunity for foreign companies to establish branch operations in the Brazilian market.

Production and ManagementAs previously discussed, the boom of feedlot operations is a continu-

ously strong trend. In 1991, about 785,000 cattle were fed on feedlots. Moreover, at the end of 1990s, approximately 1,555,000 cattle were fi n-ished in feedlots, whereas in 2010, the census reported that 3,047,717 ani-mals (ANUALPEC, 2011) were fed in Brazilian feedlots, a greater than 4-fold increase in the past two decades.

Concomitant with the greater number of intensively fi nished cattle, feed yards are also increasing plant size. Millen et al. (2009) observed that 70% of feedlot consultants interviewed assisted clients with less than 5,000 animals, 25.8% consulted for clients ranging from 5,000 to 10,000 animals, and only 3.2% attended feedlots with a capacity of greater than 10,000 animals. In addition, in 2010, 65.6% of the feedlot nutritionists as-sisted clients with less than 5,000 animals, 21.9% attended feedlots with more than 10,000 animals, whereas 12.5% assisted feedlots ranging from 5,001 to 10,000 animals (Oliveira and Millen, 2011a). Based on this fact, as feedlot operations become larger, there will be a tendency over the next few years to decrease the amount of roughage in feedlot diets. In the fi rst survey conducted with Brazilian feedlot nutritionists, Millen et al. (2009) reported that the forage level averaged 28.8%. Moreover, in the survey conducted in 2010, Oliveira and Millen (2011a) observed a reduction of roughage level from 28.8% in 2009 to 21.0% in 2011.

In the long term, installation of large feeding plants may pull cattle from the respective region. In a few years, the average initial body weight of cattle entering in feedlots in many regions may be reduced because of the greater number of yearlings currently being fed (84.5% of the clients of nutritionists; Oliveira and Millen, 2011b). During the time the two surveys were being conducted (Millen et al., 2009; Oliveira and Millen, 2011b), there was a slight decrease (−3.2 kg) in average initial body weight of year-ling bulls. Consequently, a longer period of feeding might be expected.

Furthermore, Brazil is well known for the variety and level of co-products included in fi nishing diets. More than 80% of Brazilian cattle feeders include at least one type of co-product in the diet (Oliveira and Millen, 2011a). Nonetheless, the use of co-products, such as citrus pulp and soybean hulls, is becoming more diffi cult because of the mismatch between demand and supply. Thus, the management alternative for large feed yards may be to deal with greater inclusion of grains and improve their processing, such as steam fl aking or reconstitution. All in all, a series of trends is expected to occur because of intensifi cation of the fi nishing cattle process. In the meantime, the critical factor of the Brazilian feedlot industry is still the amateurism, grounded by the fi nding that 54.4% of the Brazilian feedlots use continuous ration delivery (Millen et al., 2009); in other words, the amount of feed offered per pen is not controlled.

Also in the coming years, organic beef production should increase due to its sustainable appeal. Nowadays, in the swampy part of the midwest region (Pantanal), there is the largest organic herd of Brazil (approximate-

Tab

le 2

. De

scrip

tive

da

ta a

bo

ut e

xpo

rta

tions

, liv

est

oc

k tr

aits

, be

ef p

rod

uctio

n, a

nd m

eth

ane

em

issi

on

by

the

Eur

op

ea

n Un

ion

(EU)

and

oth

er

stud

ied

co

untr

ies

Vari

able

EU

Aus

tral

iaB

razi

lU

nite

d St

ates

Can

ada

New

Zea

land

Arg

entin

aIn

dia

Uru

guay

Para

guay

Bee

f exp

orta

tion

(tonn

es)

Ave

rage

(200

1–20

06)

2,31

6,53

11,

249,

092

1,22

9,04

669

4,51

250

5,07

249

2,24

040

8,93

135

8,74

328

8,45

110

5,89

4 R

ank

12

34

56

78

910

Her

d si

ze (A

)

1

988

108,

156,

133

21,8

50,8

1613

9,59

9,10

499

,622

,000

10,7

56,2

008,

057,

898

52,2

57,0

0020

0,65

0,00

010

,330

,911

7,77

9,55

8 2

007

89,7

30,8

2028

,400

,000

207,

170,

000

97,0

03,0

0014

,155

,000

9,65

0,00

050

,750

,000

177,

840,

000

12,0

00,0

0010

,000

,000

Met

hane

em

issi

on/a

nim

al

k

g/an

imal

per

yea

r58

.060

.455

.252

.552

.560

.455

.226

.955

.255

.2M

etha

ne e

mis

sion

/cou

ntry

198

8 (to

nnes

)6,

273,

055

1,31

9,78

97,

705,

870

5,23

0,15

556

4,70

048

6,69

72,

884,

586

5,39

7,48

557

0,26

642

9,43

1 2

007

(tonn

es)

5,20

4,38

71,

715,

360

11,4

35,7

845,

092,

657

743,

137

582,

860

2,80

1,40

04,

783,

896

662,

400

552,

000

Rat

e (1

988–

2007

)−1

.01

1.31

2.12

−0.1

41.

621.

13−0

.36

−0.7

61.

351.

36B

eef p

rodu

ced

(tonn

es)

198

89,

334,

702

1,58

7,72

44,

050,

000

10,8

79,0

0094

7,38

057

1,62

62,

506,

467

1,09

3,97

232

8,68

213

1,31

0 2

007

8,10

5,88

52,

261,

000

7,90

0,00

012

,044

,305

1,27

8,58

063

2,37

82,

830,

000

1,28

2,35

057

0,00

022

0,00

0 R

ate

(198

8–20

07)

−1.1

11.

724.

010.

712.

921.

120.

130.

523.

030.

97M

etha

ne/b

eef (

kg/k

g)

1

988

0.67

20.

831

1.90

30.

481

0.59

60.

851

1.15

14.

934

1.73

53.

270

200

70.

642

0.75

91.

448

0.42

30.

581

0.92

20.

990

3.73

11.

162

2.50

9 R

ate

(198

8–20

07)

0.10

−0.3

9−1

.82

−0.8

4−1

.26

0.02

−0.4

9−1

.27

−1.6

30.

39 R

esul

ts in

20

year

s1.

85−7

.23

−29.

41−1

4.82

−21.

340.

31−8

.87

−21.

57−2

6.79

7.65

October 2011, Vol. 1, No. 2 51

ly 55,000 animals on 110,000 hectares; ABPO, 2011). It is an interesting production strategy for this region because geological factors do not allow greater intensifi cation.

Food Safety and Environmental IssuesHistorically, incidence of Escherichia coli outbreaks and bovine spon-

giform encephalopathy has been low in Brazil; therefore, traceability will be the main issue. Since 2002, the Ministry of Agriculture has imple-mented SISBOV, a national program to establish a database for individual identifi cation of bovine and water buffalo (MAPA, 2002). Surely, because of Brazilian herd size, it will take a bit longer to include all animals. How-ever, a premium of US$0.04 to US$0.19 per kilogram of carcass weight is paid for traced animals as a common strategy adopted by Brazilian pack-ing plants that export beef.

Environmental pressures against Amazon deforestation will continue to weaken the image of the Brazilian beef industry throughout the world. Nonetheless, the area with natural pasture has decreased at 2.26%/year (Meyer et al., 2011) in the last 30 years and the greatest part of exporter meat processing plants (73.25%) is located on states where Amazon For-est vegetation is not present (ABIEC, 2011b).

Research ImportanceBrazilian research institutions rely mostly on governmental fund-

ing. Last year, São Paulo State Foundation increased approximately R$860,070,963.00 (US$537,544,352) and was reverted to either research funding or scholarships (FAPESP, 2011). This number is 2.25 greater than the amount in 2000 (R$382,164,610.00 or US$238,852,881), and there is a tendency for increasing the investments in research in the coming years. Thus, research in Brazil is not strongly related to private sectors and is more resilient to economic crises. However, competition is fi erce, and not all students or institutions receive grants and funding every year.

Conclusions

The Brazilian production cycle is getting shorter, and the expansion of feedlots is partly responsible for that. Moreover, feedlots are an important tool to bring younger animals to the market by reducing the length of the stocker phase. Brazil produces predominantly lower value and leaner grass-fed beef and recognizes the need to increase quantity but also quality of its beef products. The increasing number of younger animals at market may improve the quality of Brazilian beef because the feeding of calves and growing animals will become a reality in the coming years, which may be an alternative to increasing beef exports. However, producers’ al-liances play an important role in the fi nishing segment of the Brazilian beef industry because the major packing plants are also the largest feedlot owners. Also, the Brazilian bovine production system has become more effi cient, especially when considering the feedlot industry, as the herd size increased and the pasture area remained stable. On one hand, pasture areas have been migrating toward the midwestern and northern regions, but on the other hand, the effi ciency of pasture use has increased because of the replacement of natural pasture by cultivated pastures.

The decrease in methane emissions per unit of product can be achieved through the adoption of technologies that improve animal productivity. Putting aside the problems involving deforestation of the Amazon, these data suggest that the Brazilian livestock industry has improved effi ciency and reduced emissions of enteric methane per kilogram of beef.

Literature CitedABIEC. 2011a. Brazilian Beef Exports. Associação Brasileira das Indústrias Ex-

portadoras de Carne. Accessed Aug. 11, 2011. http://www.abiec.com.br/down-load/Relatorio%20exportacao%202010.pdf.

ABIEC. 2011b. Mapa das plantas frigorífi cas. Associação Brasileira das Indús-trias Exportadoras de Carne. Accessed Aug. 11, 2011. http://www.abiec.com.br/2_mapa.asp.

ABPO. 2011. ABPO Pantanal Orgânico. Associação Brasileira de Pecuária Orgâni-ca. Accessed Aug. 14, 2011. http://www.abpopantanalorganico.com.br/pt/quem-somos.

ANUALPEC. 2011. Anuário da Pecuária Brasileira. 1st ed. Instituto FNP and Agra Pesquisas Ltda, São Paulo, Brazil.

ASBIA. 2010. Relatório estatístico de importação, exportação e comercialização de sêmen. Associação Brasileira de Inseminação Artifi cial. Accessed Aug. 13, 2011. http://www.asbia.org.br/novo/upload/mercado/relatorio2010.pdf.

FAO. 2009. FAO Statistics – FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Accessed Aug. 12, 2011. http://faostat.fao.org/.

FAPESP. 2011. Evolução das receitas de 1962 a 2011. São Paulo State Foundation. Accessed Aug. 12, 2011. http://www.fapesp.br/estatisticas/receitas/.

Fearnside, P. M. 1980. The effects of cattle pasture on soil fertility in the Brazilian Amazon: Consequences for beef production sustainability. Trop. Ecol. 21:125–137.

IBGE. 2010. Censo Agropecuário. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografi a e Estatística. Accessed Aug. 11, 2011. http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br.

IPCC. 2006. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Pages 1–87. In-tergovernmental Panel On Climate Change. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html Accessed Aug. 15, 2011.

MAPA. 2002. Instrução Normativa Nº01. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Accessed Aug. 15, 2011. http://www.sirb.com.br/entenda_sis-bov.php?q=bm9ybWF0aXZhJTNEMQ==#nrm.

Meyer, P. M., T. A. Barros, E. C. Cassiano, C. T. Marino, and P. H. M. Rodrigues. 2011. Evolution of the land use effi ciency by Brazilian bovine husbandry dur-ing the last three decades. Page 12 in Proc. 3rd International Conference on Sustainable Animal Agriculture for Developing Countries, Nakhon Ratcha-sima, Thailand.

Millen, D. D., R. D. L. Pacheco, M. D. B. Arrigoni, M. L. Galyean, and J. T. Vas-concelos. 2009. A snapshot of management practices and nutritional recom-mendations used by feedlot nutritionists in Brazil. J. Anim. Sci. 87:3427–3439.

Millen, D. D., R. D. L. Pacheco, M. D. B. Arrigoni, M. Parrili, S. A. Matsuhara, M. V. Fossa, L. M. N. Sarti, C. L. Martins, J. P. S. T. Bastos, and T. M. Mariani. 2007. Feedlot performance and rumen parakeratosis incidence in Bos indicus type bullocks fed high grain diets and monensin or polyclonal antibody prepa-ration against rumen bacteria. J. Anim. Sci. 85(Suppl. 1):552. (Abstr.)

Oliveira, C., and D. D. Millen. 2011a. Survey of nutritional recommendations and management practices used by Brazilian feedlot consulting nutritionists: Gen-eral information and adaptation. Proc. 48th Annual Meeting of Brazilian Ani-mal Science Society, Belém, Brazil.

Oliveira, C., and D. D. Millen. 2011b. Survey of nutritional recommendations and management practices used by Brazilian feedlot consulting nutritionists: Feed-ing management and challenges faced. Proc. 48th Annual Meeting of Brazilian Animal Science Society, Belém, Brazil.

Oliveira, R. L., M. A. A. F. Barbosa, M. M. Ladeira, M. M. P. Silva, and A. C. Ziviani. 2006. Nutrição e manejo de bovinos de corte na fase de cria. Page 8 in Proc. 2nd SIMBOI, Brasília, Brazil.

Somwaru, A., and C. Valdes. 2004. Brazil’s beef production and its effi ciency: A comparative study of scale economies. GTAP Seventh Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, Washington, 1–19.

Steiger, C. 2006. Modern beef production in Brazil and Argentina. Choices 21:105–110.

USDA. 2011. Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade. United States De-partment of Agriculture. Accessed Aug. 10, 2011. http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp/circular/2011/livestock_poultry.pdf.

Vieira, A., J. F. P. Lobato, E. S. Corrêa, R. A. A. T. Júnior, and F. P. Costa. 2006. Growth and reproductive performance of grazing females Nelore on Cerrado of Central Brazil. Brazilian J. Anim. Sci. 35:186–192.

Animal Frontiers52

About the Authors

Danilo Domingues Millen has been an assis-tant professor at the Animal Science College of the São Paulo State University (UNESP), Dracena campus, since 2010. His research focus is feedlot cattle nutrition. During the past decade, this has involved evaluations of several feed additives, manipulation of ru-men fermentation, protocols of adaptation for Nellore cattle, and rumen health. In 2008 and 2010, he conducted surveys with feedlot cat-tle nutritionists in Brazil to characterize the evolution of the Brazilian feedlot industry.

Millen is an animal scientist with master’s and PhD degrees in animal science. Correspondence: danilomillen@dracena.unesp.br

Rodrigo Dias Lauritano Pacheco is currently a professor of animal and ruminant nutrition at São Paulo State University (UNESP/Botu-catu Campus). Pacheco received his master’s and PhD degrees at the same institution. His research interests are mainly feedlot management, nutrition, behavior, and meat quality. For the past fi ve years, he has been conducting research on feed additive alterna-tives and adaptation methods for Bos indicuscattle fed high-concentrate diets.

Paula M. Meyer has worked as an agricultur-al researcher at the Brazilian Institute of Ge-ography and Statistics (IBGE), assessing the agriculture and animal husbandry statistics over the past decade. Lately, she has focused on the effi ciency and sustainability of animal agriculture production systems and land use, with a special interest in dairy and beef pro-duction. Meyer belongs to a family of small-holders and is an agricultural engineer with master’s and PhD degrees in animal science.

Paulo H. Mazza Rodrigues has been an as-sociate professor of the Department of Ani-mal Nutrition and Production, University of São Paulo, since 1997. He has been working with ruminant nutrition, in particular with dairy cows, focusing on rumen and silage fermentation; lately his research has aimed at reducing methane production through diet manipulation. Rodrigues is a veterinarian with master’s and PhD degrees in animal science.

Mário De Beni Arrigoni has been an asso-ciate professor of the Department of Breed-ing and Animal Nutrition at São Paulo State University (UNESP) since 1984. He has been involved with ruminant nutrition for the past 25 years, in particular with beef cattle, focusing his research on calf-feds, carcass ultrasound measurements, beef qual-ity, and lately on manipulation of rumen fer-mentation and use of carbon isotopes in beef cattle studies. Arrigoni is an animal scientist with master’s and PhD degrees in animal science.