Table of Contents

    Topic review

    Productivity-Enhancing Technologies in Beef Production

    View times: 9
    Submitted by: Isaac Aboagye

    Definition

    Use of productivity-enhancing technologies (PET: growth hormones, ionophores, and beta-adrenergic agonists) to improve productivity has recently garnered public attention regarding environmentally sustainability, animal welfare, and human health.

    1. Introduction

    It is estimated that the human world population will exceed nine billion by 2050 [1], raising a global concern over food security, especially in developing countries. Increasing consumption of animal protein has been suggested as one of the sustainable strategies to address food security, especially for the nearly 800 million people in the world who subsist on less than US$ 2.0 a day [2]. Globally, of the 60 g of daily protein intake recommended for an adult (>18 years and 75 kg [3]), approximately one third is acquired from animal protein [4]. Animal protein is a rich source of the most commonly limiting essential amino acids, including leucine, methionine, and lysine [5][6][7], as well as vitamin B12 [8], calcium [9], and heme-iron [10]. Furthermore, animal protein is generally more digestible and the amino acids more bioavailable due to the absence of the anti-nutritional factors associated with plant-based proteins [11][12][13].
    Despite these benefits, the potential of animal agriculture to feed a growing population has been questioned over environmental concerns, including the use of 30% of the global arable land for feed production, 32% of the world’s freshwater [14], and production of 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG [15]). Beef cattle production has been deemed to be the most environmentally unsustainable among the major livestock production systems [16] as its land, water, and carbon footprints are 28-, 11-, and five-fold higher, respectively, than pork or chicken production [17]. However, studies in Brazil [18], Australia [19], United States (US [20]), and Canada [21][22] have demonstrated that modern intensive cattle production has lowered the environmental footprint of beef production on an intensity basis, as result of reductions in land and water use, as well as GHG emissions.
    The beef production systems in these countries usually involve transitioning animals from a cow–calf system (cow herd produces calves) to a backgrounding system (weaned calves fed forage-based diets) and then to finishing diets (steers/heifers, fed high-energy grain-based diets), prior to being sent to a processor or packer. Use of productivity-enhancing technologies (PET) in these “conventional” production systems has been adopted to improve productivity [23] and may reduce the environmental footprint. Cattle operations not using PETs are often referred to as “natural” production systems. Growth-enhancing technologies include implants, estrous suppressants, beta-adrenergic agonists (βAA), and ionophores [23].
    Despite demonstrated benefits in productivity, consumers perceive that PETs may have negative impacts on the environment, food safety, and animal welfare [24][25][26]. As a result, more than half of consumers participating in a global internet survey declared that they preferred meat and other animal food products from beef cattle that did not receive growth implants or antibiotics [27]. These online responses may contain inherent biases, as they were based on claimed behavior rather than direct measurement of product preferences within the food service and the retail sectors.

    2. Productivity-Enhancing Technologies in Beef Production

    Globally, many PETs such as hormones and ionophores have been used in beef for more than 60 years, while other approved products such as βAA have only been approved within the last few decades (Table 1 [28][29]).
    Table 1. Productivity-enhancing technologies commonly used in beef production.

    Class a

    Mode of Action

    Substance b

    Mode of Administration

    Growth hormones

         

    Endogenous/Synthetic

    Increase protein deposition at the expense of fat to increase growth rate and decrease amount of feed required for the animal to gain weight.

    Estradiol-17β, Testosterone, Progesterone/Zearalenone, Trenbolone acetate

    Implants

    Melengestrol acetate

    In-Feed

    Beta-adrenergic agonists

    Redirect nutrients from digestive organs into muscle tissue, thus increasing muscle mass accretion at the expense of fat deposition.

    Ractopamine chloride, Zilpaterol chloride

    In-Feed

    Antibiotics c

         

    Ionophores

    Act against Gram-positive bacteria by altering membrane permeability to promote propionate formation in the rumen, which is more energetically favorable than acetate production.

    Monensin, Lasalocid, Salinonmycin

    In-Feed

    Macrolides

    Has bacteriostatic effect on both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, thus reducing microbial competition for nutrients.

    Tylosin, Neomycin

    In-Feed, water, or parenteral

    Aminoglycosides

    Tetracyclines

    Oxytetracycline, Chlortetracyclic

    a Used in growth promotion by beef producing countries, including countries in North America (US, Canada, Mexico), Australian–New Zealand region, South America (Brazil and Argentina), and Africa (South Africa). Approval of specific products depends on the regulatory framework within each country. b Synthetic derivatives of estrogen, testosterone, and progesterone are zearalenone, trenbolone acetate, and melengesterol acetate, respectively. c Globally not recommended for feed efficiency, except ionophores. However, implementation is subject to local and national legislation or regulation.

    3. The Role of PETs in Global Beef Production

    Differences in the regulatory framework among countries regarding the use of PETs not only impacts domestic production, but can also create non-tariff barriers to export. The use of PETs is permitted in North America (US, Canada, and Mexico) and Australia–New Zealand [30], which produced 20% (13.5 million tonnes: Mt) and 4% (2.9 Mt), respectively, of total global beef in 2018 (67.4 Mt [31]). Brazil and Argentina, which also supplied 15% (9.9 Mt) and 5% (3.1 Mt), respectively, of the global beef market in 2018 [31] also allow the use of PETs [32]. All of the above countries rely heavily on export markets and therefore, must meet requirements of those countries that do not allow use of PETs, including the European Union (EU), China, and Russia [33], which collectively produced 27% of global beef in 2018 (i.e., 10.6, 5.8, and 1.6 Mt, respectively [31]).

    4. Impact of PET Use on Consumer Choice

    Global per capita beef consumption ranges from 0.5 to 40 kg, with an average consumption of 6.4 kg in 2018 [34]. Consumption is influenced by many factors, including management practices (use of PETs), culture, palatability, appearance, and price [35]. The demand for beef and beef products raised without the routine use of PET and labeled as “raised without antibiotics”, “raised without added hormones”, “natural” (raised without antibiotics and additional hormones), “organic” (raised without antibiotics and additional hormones and feed that was not genetically engineered or produced using synthetic fertilizer), or “100% grass-fed” is growing, but still only constitutes a small portion of the total market as depicted in Figure 1 and Figure 2 [36][37][38]. The increase in consumer demand for beef raised without PET has increased the number of feedlot operators registered in “natural” programs in some regions of the US. From 2010 to 2018, the percentage of the 36,856 Texas beef producers enrolled in “natural” programs (i.e., raised without antibiotics and additional hormones) increased from 35% to 43%, while those enrolled in “raised without added hormone” programs increased from 5.2% to 23.8% (Figure 3 [39]). A study conducted by Nielsen Global Health and Ingredient–Sentiment Survey [27] with 30,000 online consumers from 69 countries indicated that the majority of the respondents from Europe (65%), Latin America (59%), Asia-Pacific (59%), Africa/Middle East (55%), and North America (54%) would avoid animal products containing hormones or antibiotics. Although online survey methodology allows for global outreach, it provides the sentiments of only existing internet users and not the total population. Again, because this survey was based on claimed behavior rather than verified measured data from abattoirs, wholesalers, hotels, restaurants, and grocery stores, biases may not truly represent the market trends in terms of types and volumes of animal products sold. Respondents may also not have a complete understanding as to how these additives are used in the industry and the regulatory oversight for their use. Furthermore, they also likely do not recognize the reduction in retail price associated with the use of PETs, which was estimated to lower the cost of US beef from US$ 15.50 to 13.80/kg [40].
    Figure 1. Volume of US retail beef sold in 2019 by (a) production (“conventional” vs. “100% grass-fed”); (b) total claims ("without claim" vs. "claim"); and (c) type of claim (“no antibiotic” vs. “organic” vs. other (e.g., Halal, Kosher or Kobe-Style)). Source: Modified from Beef [36].
    Figure 2. Total retail value (billions), “organic” and non-organic “grass-fed” beef retail sales (millions) from 2012 to 2016 in US. Source: Modified from Cheung et al. [37]; USDA [38].
    Figure 3. Percentage of feedlots that enrolled in “raised without hormone” or in one or more “natural” programs in Texas, US. Source: Modified from Odde et al. [39].
    In the US, labeling beef as “raised without antibiotics or hormones” can increase its price by as much as US$ 6.56/kg, a 47% premium over conventionally produced beef US$14.06/kg [41]. Similarly, in Canada, a recent study of consumers’ willingness to pay premiums for beef products labeled as “use of antibiotics with no hormones”, “responsible use of antibiotics with hormones”, “responsible use of antibiotics with no hormones”, and “no antibiotics and no hormones” reported that they had dollar premiums/kg of beef product at $12.13, $14.22, $21.08, and $30.07 CAD, respectively [42]. Lewis et al. [43] also examined willingness of European consumers to pay a premium when the average beef price was 18.27€/£ per kg and showed that German and British consumers would pay 29% and 20% more, respectively, for PET-free beef. Furthermore, in Argentina, Colella and Ortega, [44] showed that consumers that purchase from a supermarket were willing to pay a premium of (US$ 2.5/kg) for certified “organic” beef as compared to consumers that were purchasing unverified beef from a local butcher. Willingness to pay more for “natural” or “organic” beef is attributed to concerns over the environment, animal welfare, and food safety [24][26][35][43]. Even though some consumers may express concerns about PET use or preference for PET-free beef when interviewed, at the purchasing point, other attributes such as price largely determine their purchasing behavior [35].
    Recently, Hirvonen et al. [45] showed that meat products were more affordable for high-income nations such as Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and North America than low-income countries in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, globally, the willingness to pay a premium for PET-free beef is likely heavily influenced by consumer income. Such a premium is unlikely to be a viable option for those who live on less than US$ 2.0/day in low-income countries, even though these populations are likely to realize the greatest nutritional benefit as a result of including meat in their diets.

    5. PETs and the Environment

    The use of PETs leads to improved production efficiencies [46][47][48]. However, assessments of the effects of PETs on the environmental footprint, including GHG emissions, land use and land use change, water and energy use, and impacts on biodiversity, water quality, and other ecosystem services are limited. Moreover, available studies have focused primarily on production systems in Canada and the US (Table 2).
    Table 2. Summary of studies measuring the environmental impacts of productivity-enhancing technologies (PET) used in beef production.

    Reference

    Summary of Trial Design

    Environmental Indices e,f

    Country

    Methodology a

    Production Stage b

    Treatment c

    Days on Feed

    CO2eq

    Land

    Water

    Energy

    NH3 /Manure Excretion

     

    Basarab et al. [49]

    LCA

    Backgrounding and

    finishing phases

    IMP or control

    Backgrounding: 312 days.

    Finishing: 146 to 207 days.

    5.8% ↓

    7.8% ↓

    NR

    NR

    NR

    Canada

    Capper [50]

    LCA

    Backgrounding and

    finishing phases

    βAA + IMP + MGA + ION (“conventional”); and no additives (“grass-fed” or “natural” animals).

    Backgrounding: 123 to 159 days.

    Finishing: 110 to 313 days.

    14.8–40.3% ↓

    18.3–44.7% ↓

    17.9–75.2% ↓

    14.9–28.6% ↓

    17.9–50.5% ↓ N and 20.7–51.4% ↓ P excretions

    US

    Capper and Hayes [51]

    LCA

    Backgrounding and

    finishing phases

    βAA + IMP + ION + MGA; or control.

    Backgrounding: 148 to 159 days.

    Finishing: 116 to 209 days.

    8.9% ↓

    9.1% ↓

    4.0%↓

    7.1% ↓

    8.9% and 9.6%, ↓ N and P excretions, respectively.

    US

    Cooprider et al. [52]

    Animal trial

    Finishing phase

    βAA + IMP + ION; or control.

    146 to 188 days.

    31.4% ↓ non-CO2 emissions

    NR

    NR

    NR

    NR

    US

    Stackhouse et al. [53]

    LCA

    Backgrounding and

    finishing phases

    IMP + ION only; βAA + IMP + ION; or control.

    Backgrounding: 182 days.

    Finishing: 121 to 212 days.

    6.6–8.0% ↓

    NR

    NR

    NR

    7.7–13.5% ↓ NH3 emissions.

    US

    Stackhouse-Lawson et al. [54]

    Animal trial

    Finishing phase

    ION only; IMP + ION only; βAA + IMP + ION; or control

    107 days.

    9.6–16.4% ↓CH4 emissions

    NR

    NR

    NR

    30% ↓ NH3 emissions

    US

    Webb [55]

    Animal trial and LCA

    Cow–calf, backgrounding, and

    finishing phases

    ION only; IMP + ION only; βAA + IMP + ION; or control.

    Backgrounding: 91 days,

    Finishing: 152 to 183 days

    1.1–7.7% ↓

    NR

    1.0–5.8% ↓

    1.1–5.5% ↓

    0.7–5.1% ↓ reactive N

    US

    a Type of study conducted: LCA = Life cycle assessment, with PETs administered during backgrounding and finishing phases only, except Webb [55], who included implanted pre-weaned calves during the cow–calf phase; Animal trial = a study that used steers at the finishing phase. b Assumes a production system comprised of three distinct phases: cow–calf, backgrounding, and finishing. Grain-based diet during finishing phase except where indicated. c IMP = Implants (trenbolone acetate, estradiol, zearalenone); MGA= melengestrol acetate; ION = Ionophores (Monensin); βAA = Beta-adrenergic agonist (zilpaterol chloride and ractopamine chloride). d ADG = average daily gain; G:F = gain:feed. In Stackhouse et al. [53] and Webb [55], linear growth was assumed during the backgrounding phase; and during the finishing phase, ADG was adjusted when days on feed were extended as a consequence of lower feed quality and availability, which were assumed to limit growth. e Where ↓= decrease, ↑ = increase, and NR= not recorded; In all studies, the production indices and environmental parameters for all PET treatments were compared with control (no additives); however, in Capper [50], “conventional” animals (administered PETs) were compared with “natural” or “grass-fed” animals (no PETs administered for either). f Environmental indices were expressed on an intensity basis (per kg of beef); CO2eq = carbon dioxide equivalent; CH4 = methane; NH3 = ammonia; N = Nitrogen; and P = Phosphorus. g The total number of cattle considered under “grass-fed” was 12,510,000 and for “natural” was 8,257,000 animals. h The total number of cattle in the production system without PETs was 3,651,000 animals.

    6. PET, Food Safety, and Animal Welfare

    Concerns regarding the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance due to the use of antibiotics for growth promotion in animals has recently led to the ban of in-feed antibiotics such as tetracycline and tylosin for growth promotion in many countries including Canada (Table 1 [56]). These antibiotics are used in treating infectious disease in animals as well as humans, and therefore there are concerns that this practice may compromise the therapeutic effectiveness of antimicrobial drugs in human medicine [57]. The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB), which represents beef producers, veterinarians, scientists, retailers, and other value chain partners in over 20 countries, recommended that with the exception of ionophores, antimicrobials should not be used for feed efficiency [58]. Ionophores are not currently used for therapeutic purposes in humans [57]. Wong [59] argued that ionophores such as MON are technically antibiotics and should also be banned. However, implementation of this recommendation is at the discretion of local and national legislative and regulatory authorities.
    Furthermore, approval of PETs for use requires toxicology testing to determine maximum residue limits (MRLs) in beef for human consumption. While others have adopted the guidelines of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), some countries have developed their own guidelines [60][61][62]. Due to differences among guidelines, the MRLs established for PETs in beef and beef products may be low or non-existent in some countries. Independent institutions including JECFA and government institutions from several countries including Canada, Australia, and the US do not analyze the offal (i.e., abomasum, omasum, small intestine, and reticulum) for βAA. Consequently, there are no established MRLs for this PET in these tissues. In a recent US study by Davis et al. [63], RC concentrations were higher in offal (13 to 105 ppb) and in small intestinal digesta (20 ppb) from beef cattle than the limits recommend in the muscle tissue by most countries (i.e., 10 to 30 ppb). The lack of established MRLs means that beef products such as edible offal may exceed recommended allowable limits, as was the finding of Davis et al. [63]. There are limited studies on the effects of RC and ZC on human health, but preliminary data reviewed by authorities at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) suggested that a single dose (≥ 0.76 μg/kg body weight) of these βAA may cause transient cardiovascular disease and bronchodilation, posing a risk to asthmatic patients [64]. However, residue levels in muscle, liver, and kidney were well below the MRLs established by regulatory agencies in Canada [65], Australia [66], and the US [67].
    There are also animal welfare concerns due to the use of diethylstilbestrol (a hormone) and clenbuterol (a βAA) as a consequence of their endocrine disrupting properties [68][69], dilation of the trachea [70], and disruption of metabolism [71]. As result of concerns over these responses, the use of these additives in beef production has been discontinued. Nevertheless, worldwide, there are animal welfare concerns regarding currently used βAA products such as ZC. More recently in the US, Neary et al. [72], hypothesized that ZC (8.3 mg/kg on feed DM basis for 21 days) increased the risk of cattle developing heart disease. In that same year of their experiment, the use of this product also was proposed to contribute to the development of lameness and increase the mortality of cattle during the finishing phase [73]. In 2013 and 2014, some of the largest meat processing plants such as Tyson Foods and Cargill in both the US and Canada suspended the purchase of cattle fed this product. Subsequently, Merck Animal Health also removed this product from the market until such a time that additional data can be generated to evaluate product safety [74][75].
    To address concerns relating to ZC use, scientists from EFSA reviewed 12 studies between 2012 and 2016 (excluding [72]) to examine the animal health and welfare of more than 200 cattle and concluded that ZC was not responsible for death and lameness in beef cattle [64]. Although a study by Neary et al. [72] (n = 11) suggested that ZC may compromise cardiac function, it is possible that other respiratory diseases were responsible, possibly making the link between cardiac injury and ZC coincidental [76][77][78]. A follow-up US study using 30 Angus steers showed no evidence of myocardial injuries or an increase in heart rate associated with ZC (8.3 mg/kg on feed DM basis) and RC (300 mg/d) after 23 days of treatment [79]. Similarly, after feeding RC to finishing cattle at 400 mg/d, Hagenmaier et al. [80] did not report an increase in heart rate. In addition to concerns regarding physiological responses to PETs, public perception suggests that their use leads to increased stocking density and compromised animal welfare. Decisions regarding stocking density are based on adequate bunk space in conventional systems and forage availability in pasture-based systems, and in either case are not dictated by PET use. Thus, with the current recommended dosages and administration guidelines, these PETs have not been reported to have adverse effects on consumer health or animal welfare.

    The entry is from 10.3390/su13084283

    References

    1. United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division. World Population Prospects. 2019. Available online: (accessed on 10 January 2020).
    2. Adesogan, A.T.; Havelaar, A.H.; McKune, S.L.; Eilittä, M.; Dahl, G.E. Animal source foods: Sustainability problem or malnutrition and sustainability solution? Perspective matters. Glob. Food Sec. 2020, 25.
    3. Lonnie, M.; Hooker, E.; Brunstrom, J.M.; Corfe, B.M.; Green, M.A.; Watson, A.W.; Williams, E.A.; Stevenson, E.J.; Penson, S.; Johnstone, A.M. Protein for life: Review of optimal protein intake, sustainable dietary sources and the effect on appetite in ageing adults. Nutrients 2018, 10, 360.
    4. Van Zanten, H.H.E.; Meerburg, B.G.; Bikker, P.; Herrero, M.; De Boer, I.J.M. Opinion paper: The role of livestock in a sustainable diet: A land-use perspective. Animal 2016, 10, 547–549.
    5. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Dietary Protein Quality Evaluation in Human Nutrition; Report of an FAO Expert Consultation; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013.
    6. Gorissen, S.H.M.; Witard, O.C. Characterising the muscle anabolic potential of dairy, meat and plant-based protein sources in older adults. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2018, 77, 20–31.
    7. Van Vliet, S.; Burd, N.A.; van Loon, L.J.C. The skeletal muscle anabolic response to plant- versus animal-based protein consumption. J. Nutr. 2015, 145, 1981–1991.
    8. Obersby, D.; Chappell, D.C.; Dunnett, A.; Tsiami, A.A. Plasma total homocysteine status of vegetarians compared with omnivores: A systematic review and meta-Analysis. Br. J. Nutr. 2013, 109, 785–794.
    9. Magkos, F.; Tetens, I.; Bügel, S.G.; Felby, C.; Schacht, S.R.; Hill, J.O.; Ravussin, E.; Astrup, A. A Perspective on the transition to plant-based diets: A diet change may attenuate climate change, but can it also attenuate obesity and chronic disease risk? Adv. Nutr. 2020, 11, 1–9.
    10. Haider, L.M.; Schwingshackl, L.; Hoffmann, G.; Ekmekcioglu, C. The effect of vegetarian diets on iron status in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 58, 1359–1374.
    11. Phillips, S.M. Nutrient-rich meat proteins in offsetting age-related muscle loss. Meat Sci. 2012, 92, 174–178.
    12. Tang, J.E.; Moore, D.R.; Kujbida, G.W.; Tarnopolsky, M.A.; Phillips, S.M. Ingestion of whey hydrolysate, casein, or soy protein isolate: Effects on mixed muscle protein synthesis at rest and following resistance exercise in young men. J. Appl. Physiol. 2009, 107, 987–992.
    13. Wilkinson, S.B.; Tarnopolsky, M.A.; Macdonald, M.J.; Macdonald, J.R.; Armstrong, D.; Phillips, S.M. Consumption of fluid skim milk promotes greater muscle protein accretion after resistance exercise than does consumption of an isonitrogenous and isoenergetic soy-protein beverage. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2007, 85, 1031–1040.
    14. Herrero, M.; Havlík, P.; Valin, H.; Notenbaert, A.; Rufino, M.C.; Thornton, P.K.; Blümmel, M.; Weiss, F.; Grace, D.; Obersteiner, M. Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 20888–20893.
    15. Gerber, P.J.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013.
    16. Poore, J.; Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 2018, 360, 987–992.
    17. Eshel, G.; Shepon, A.; Makov, T.; Milo, R. Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 11996–12001.
    18. Lobato, J.F.P.; Freitas, A.K.; Devincenzi, T.; Cardoso, L.L.; Tarouco, J.U.; Vieira, R.M.; Dillenburg, D.R.; Castro, I. Brazilian beef produced on pastures: Sustainable and healthy. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 336–345.
    19. Wiedemann, S.G.; Henry, B.K.; McGahan, E.J.; Grant, T.; Murphy, C.M.; Niethe, G. Resource use and greenhouse gas intensity of Australian beef production: 1981–2010. Agric. Syst. 2015, 133, 109–118.
    20. Capper, J.L. The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 89, 4249–4261.
    21. Legesse, G.; Beauchemin, K.A.; Ominski, K.H.; McGeough, E.J.; Kroebel, R.; MacDonald, D.; Little, S.M.; McAllister, T.A. Greenhouse gas emissions of Canadian beef production in 1981 as compared with 2011. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2016, 56, 153–168.
    22. Legesse, G.; Cordeiro, M.R.C.; Ominski, K.H.; Beauchemin, K.A.; Kroebel, R.; McGeough, E.J.; Pogue, S.; McAllister, T.A. Water use intensity of Canadian beef production in 1981 as compared to 2011. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 619–620, 1030–1039.
    23. Strydom, P.E. Performance-enhancing technologies of beef production. Anim. Front. 2016, 6, 22–30.
    24. Godfray, H.C.J.; Aveyard, P.; Garnett, T.; Hall, J.W.; Key, T.J.; Lorimer, J.; Pierrehumbert, R.T.; Scarborough, P.; Springmann, M.; Jebb, S.A. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science 2018, 361.
    25. Jeong, S.H.; Kang, D.; Lim, M.W.; Kang, C.S.; Sung, H.J. Risk assessment of growth hormones and antimicrobial residues in meat. Toxicol. Res. 2010, 26, 301–313.
    26. Nachman, K.E.; Smith, T.J. Hormone use in food animal production: Assessing potential dietary exposures and breast cancer risk. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2015, 2, 1–14.
    27. Nielsen Global Health and Ingredient-Sentiment Survey. What’s in Our Food and on Our Mind? Ingredient and Dining-Out Trends around the World. 2016. Available online: (accessed on 25 March 2020).
    28. Johnson, B.J.; Beckett, J. Application of Growth Enhancing Compounds in Modern Beef Production Executive Summary. Available online: (accessed on 25 March 2020).
    29. Stewart, L. Implanting Beef Cattle; The University of Georgia Cooperative Extension: Athens, GA, USA, 2013; Available online: (accessed on 5 March 2020).
    30. Kerr, W.A.; Hobbs, J.E. The North American-European union dispute over beef produced using growth hormones: A major test for the new international trade regime. World Econ. 2002, 25, 283–296.
    31. FAO. 2020. Available online: (accessed on 25 March 2020).
    32. Dilger, A. Beta-Agonists: What are They and Why Do We Use Them in Livestock Production. Available online: (accessed on 5 March 2020).
    33. Davis, H.E.; Belk, K.E. Managing meat exports considering production technology challenges. Anim. Front. 2018, 8, 23–29.
    34. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Meat Consumption (Indicator). 2020. Available online: (accessed on 31 January 2020).
    35. Tait, P.; Rutherford, P.; Driver, T.; Li, X.; Saunders, C.; Dalziel, P.; Guenther, M. Consumer insights and willingness to pay for attributes: New Zealand beef products in California, USA. In Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit Research; Lincoln University New Zealand: Lincoln, New Zealand, 2018.
    36. Beef Checkoff. When It Comes to Beef, Consumers Have Options. 2020. Available online: (accessed on 16 August 2020).
    37. Cheung, R.; McMahon, P.; Norell, E.; Kissel, R.; Benz, D.; Back to Grass: The Market Potential for U.S. Grass-Fed Beef. Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture. 2017. Available online: (accessed on 3 April 2020).
    38. United States Department of Agriculture. Statistics and Information; United State Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. Available online: (accessed on 14 January 2021).
    39. Odde, K.G.; King, M.E.; McCabe, E.D.; Smith, M.J.; Hill, K.L.; Rogers, G.M.; Fike, K.E. Trends in “natural” value-added calf programs at superior livestock video auction. Kansas Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Reports 2019, 5.
    40. Olvera, I.D. Economic Implications Associated with Pharmaceutical Technology Bans in U.S. Beef Production. Ph.D. Thesis, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX, USA, 2016.
    41. White, R.R.; Brady, M. Can consumers’ willingness to pay incentivize adoption of environmental impact reducing technologies in meat animal production? Food Policy 2014, 49, 41–49.
    42. Norris, A. Context Specific Factors Affecting Consumer Preferences for Antibiotic and Hormone Use during the Production of Beef in Canada. Master’s Thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada, 2020.
    43. Lewis, K.E.; Grebitus, C.; Colson, G.; Hu, W. German and British consumer willingness to pay for beef labeled with food safety attributes. J. Agric. Econ. 2017, 68, 451–470.
    44. Colella, F.; Ortega, D.L. Where’s the beef? Retail channel choice and beef preference in Argentina. Meat Sci. 2017, 133, 86–94.
    45. Hirvonen, K.; Bai, Y.; Headey, D.; Masters, W.A. Affordability of the EAT–Lancet reference diet: A global analysis. Lancet Glob. Health 2020, 8, e59–e66.
    46. Dunshea, F.R.; D’Souza, D.N.; Channon, H.A. Metabolic modifiers as performance-enhancing technologies for livestock production. Anim. Front. 2016, 6, 6–14.
    47. Neumeier, C.J.; Mitloehner, F.M. Cattle biotechnologies reduce environmental impact and help feed a growing planet. Anim. Front. 2013, 3, 36–41.
    48. Smith, Z.K.; Anderson, P.T.; Johnson, B.J. Finishing cattle in all-natural and conventional production systems. Open J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 10, 237–253.
    49. Basarab, J.; Baron, V.; López-Campos, Ó.; Aalhus, J.; Haugen-Kozyra, K.; Okine, E. Greenhouse gas emissions from calf- and yearling-fed beef production systems, with and without the use of growth promotants. Animals 2012, 2, 195–220.
    50. Capper, J.L. Is the grass always greener? Comparing the environmental impact of conventional, natural and grass-fed beef production systems. Animals 2012, 2, 127–143.
    51. Capper, J.L.; Hayes, D.J. The environmental and economic impact of removing growth-enhancing technologies from U.S. beef production. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 90, 3527–3537.
    52. Cooprider, K.L.; Mitloehner, F.M.; Famula, T.R.; Kebreab, E.; Zhao, Y.; van Eenennaam, A.L. Feedlot efficiency implications on greenhouse gas sustainability. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 89, 2643–2656.
    53. Stackhouse, K.R.; Rotz, C.A.; Oltjen, J.W.; Mitloehner, F.M. Growth-promoting technologies decrease the carbon footprint, ammonia emissions, and costs of California beef production systems. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 90, 4656–4665.
    54. Stackhouse-Lawson, K.R.; Calvo, M.S.; Place, S.E.; Armitage, T.L.; Pan, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Mitloehner, F.M. Growth promoting technologies reduce greenhouse gas, alcohol, and ammonia emissions from feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 5438–5447.
    55. Webb, M.J. Influence of Production System on Animal Performance, Carcass Characteristics, Meat Quality, Environmental Impacts, Production Economics, and Consumer Preference for Beef. Ph.D. Thesis, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, USA, 2018.
    56. Government of Canada. Responsible Use of Medically Important Antimicrobials in Animals; Government of Canada: Ottawa, AB, Canada, 2019; Available online: (accessed on 19 August 2020).
    57. Aidara-Kane, A.; Angulo, F.J.; Conly, J.; Minato, Y.; Silbergeld, E.K.; McEwen, S.A.; Collignon, P.J.; Balkhy, H.; Collignon, P.; Friedman, C.; et al. World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on use of medically important antimicrobials in food-producing animals. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2018, 7, 1–8.
    58. Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef. Sustainability Report. 2018. Available online: (accessed on 17 August 2020).
    59. Wong, A. Unknown risk on the farm: Does Agricultural use of ionophores contribute to the burden of antimicrobial resistance? mSphere 2019, 4, 1–6.
    60. Baynes, R.E.; Dedonder, K.; Kissell, L.; Mzyk, D.; Marmulak, T.; Smith, G.; Tell, L.; Gehring, R.; Davis, J.; Riviere, J.E. Health concerns and management of select veterinary drug residues. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2016, 88, 112–122.
    61. FAO; WHO. Carryover in feed and transfer from feed to food of unavoidable and unintended residues of approved veterinary drugs. In Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Meeting from 8 to 10 January 2019; Animal Production and Health; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019.
    62. Sakai, N.; Sakai, M.; Mohamad Haron, D.E.; Yoneda, M.; Ali Mohd, M. Beta-agonist residues in cattle, chicken and swine livers at the wet market and the environmental impacts of wastewater from livestock farms in Selangor State, Malaysia. Chemosphere 2016, 165, 183–190.
    63. Davis, H.E.; Badger, C.D.; Brophy, P.; Geornaras, I.; Burnett, T.J.; Scanga, J.; Belk, K.; Prenni, J. Quantification of ractopamine residues on and in beef digestive tract tissues. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 97, 4193–4198.
    64. Arcella, D.; Baert, K.; Binaglia, M.; Gervelmeyer, A.; Innocenti, M.L.; Ribo, O.; Steinkellner, H.; Verhagen, H. Review of proposed MRLs, safety evaluation of products obtained from animals treated with zilpaterol and evaluation of the effects of zilpaterol on animal health and welfare. EFSA J. 2016, 14, e04579.
    65. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Canadian Beta Agonist-Free Beef Certification Program; Government of Canada: Ottawa, AB, Canada, 2017; Available online: (accessed on 3 April 2020).
    66. Australian Government Department of Agriculture. National Residue Survey 2018–2019 Cattle; Australian Government: Canberra, Australia, 2019. Available online: (accessed on 25 May 2020).
    67. USDA-Food Safety and Inspection Service. Residue Sample Results—“Red Book”; United State Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. Available online: (accessed on 1 May 2020).
    68. Groot, M.J.; Schilt, R.; Ossenkoppele, J.S.; Berende, P.L.; Haasnoot, W. Combinations of growth promoters in veal calves: Consequences for screening and confirmation methods. Zentralbl. Veterinarmed. A. 1998, 45, 425–440.
    69. Pérez-Martínez, C.; García-Iglesias, M.J.; Ferreras-Estrada, M.C.; Bravo-Moral, A.M.; Espinosa-Alvarez, J.; Escudero-Díez, A. Effects of in-utero exposure to zeranol or diethylstilboestrol on morphological development of the fetal testis in mice. J. Comp. Pathol. 1996, 114, 407–418.
    70. Biolatti, B.; Bollo, E.; Re, G.; Appino, S.; Tartari, E.; Benatti, G.; Elliott, C.T.; McCaughey, W.J. Pathology and residues in veal calves treated experimentally with clenbuterol. Res. Vet. Sci. 1994, 57, 365–371.
    71. Zimmerli, U.V.; Blum, J.W. Acute and long-term metabolic, endocrine, respiratory, cardiac and skeletal-muscle activity changes in response to perorally administered β-adrenoceptor agonists in calves. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 1990, 63, 157–172.
    72. Neary, J.M.; Garry, F.B.; Gould, D.H.; Holt, T.N.; Dale Brown, R. The beta-adrenergic agonist zilpaterol hydrochloride may predispose feedlot cattle to cardiac remodeling and dysfunction [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2018, 7, 1–12.
    73. Loneragan, G.H.; Thomson, D.U.; Scott, H.M. Increased mortality in groups of cattle administered the β-adrenergic agonists ractopamine hydrochloride and zilpaterol hydrochloride. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e91177.
    74. Huffstutter, P.J.; Polansek, T. Lost Hooves, Dead Cattle before Merck Halted Zilmax Sales; Reuters: London, UK, 2013.
    75. Merck Animal Health. Animal Safety and Well-Being; Merck Animal Health: Madison, NJ, USA, 2015.
    76. Carll, A.P.; Haykal-Coates, N.; Winsett, D.W.; Rowan, W.H., 3rd; Hazari, M.S.; Ledbetter, A.D.; Nyska, A.; Cascio, W.E.; Watkinson, W.P.; Costa, D.L.; et al. Particulate matter inhalation exacerbates cardiopulmonary injury in a rat model of isoproterenol-induced cardiomyopathy. Inhal. Toxicol. 2010, 22, 355–368.
    77. Chiarella, S.E.; Soberanes, S.; Urich, D.; Morales-Nebreda, L.; Nigdelioglu, R.; Green, D.; Young, J.B.; Gonzalez, A.; Rosario, C.; Misharin, A.V.; et al. β2-Adrenergic agonists augment air pollution-induced IL-6 release and thrombosis. J. Clin. Investig. 2014, 124, 2935–2946.
    78. Neary, J.M.; Booker, C.W.; Wildman, B.K.; Morley, P.S. Right-sided congestive heart failure in North American feedlot cattle. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2016, 30, 326–334.
    79. Frese, D.A.; Reinhardt, C.D.; Bartle, S.J.; Rethorst, D.N.; Bawa, B.; Thomason, J.D.; Loneragan, G.H.; Thomson, D.U. Effect of ractopamine hydrochloride and zilpaterol hydrochloride on cardiac electrophysiologic and hematologic variables in finishing steers. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2016, 249, 668–677.
    80. Hagenmaier, J.A.; Reinhardt, C.D.; Ritter, M.J.; Calvo-Lorenzo, M.S.; Vogel, G.J.; Guthrie, C.A.; Siemens, M.G.; Lechtenberg, K.F.; Rezac, D.J.; Thomson, D.U. Effects of ractopamine hydrochloride on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and physiological response to different handling techniques. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 95, 1977–1992.
    More
    1. Please check and comment entries here.