Meat Science 84 (2010) 238–243
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Meat Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci
Review
Production systems – An example from Brazil
José Bento Sterman Ferraz a,*, Pedro Eduardo de Felício b
a
b
Animal Breeding and Biotechnology Group, College of Animal Science and Food Engineering, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
College of Food Engineering, State University of Campinas, Brazil
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 5 March 2009
Received in revised form 22 May 2009
Accepted 2 June 2009
Keywords:
Meatl
Beef
Bos indicus
Beef quality
Brazilian beef
a b s t r a c t
Important information about the Brazilian agribusiness, population and economy are presented in this
paper, as well as details of beef production, market, industry and production system, to inform people
involved in meat industry about details on demography, production, economy and production systems
of a country that is the largest player in beef exports in the world and that uses, mostly, Bos indicus based
bovine population, reared under pasture conditions, for meat production purposes. Herd size, genetic
evaluation programs, quantity of beef produced and market is informed, with figures about the global
and major players’ production. Some discussion related to environmental concerns, methane emission
and carbon fixation is also presented, as well as meat quality. Meat quality of fed animals is also compared with beef from animals that are raised in pasture conditions.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.
Brazil and it’s agriculture production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The importance of beef production: breeds and crosses used in Brazilian production systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Brazilian beef production systems and genetic evaluation programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Brazilian beef market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Risks of Brazilian beef industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Grass-fed animals and beef quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Meat quality differences among breeds used in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Environmental impact: methane production and beef production in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Introduction
1.1. Brazil and it’s agriculture production
Brazil, the largest south-american country, has a population of
190.8 million inhabitants (IBGE, 2008), an area of 8,514,876.6
km2, equivalent to 47% of South American territory, close to 12%
of the fresh water reserves of the planet, a growth rate of 1.4%
p.y., a gross national product (GNP) in 2008 of US$1.30 trillion
(RS$2.9 trillion, Instituto Brasileiro De Geografia Estatística (IBGE),
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 1935654093; fax: +55 1935654107.
E-mail addresses: jbferraz@usp.br (J.B.S. Ferraz), efelicio@fea.unicamp.br (Pedro
Eduardo de Felício).
0309-1740/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.06.006
238
238
239
240
241
241
241
242
242
242
242
2009, <www.ibge.gov.br>). The per capita GNP was, in 2009,
around US$6,830.00 (R$15.240), according to the same official
source. Close to 23% of population (43 million people) works with
the Brazilian agribusiness.
Brazil has relatively low prices for land and labor and no extreme weather, which helps to compound the competitive frame
for Brazilian agricultural and animal products. As a counterbalance,
socio-economic problems, unsolved for centuries, span several
dimensions and reach hazardous levels.
Brazilian livestock and agriculture production is important
when compared to other countries. According to FAO (2009)
and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2009) data,
based on 2005 crops and 2004 exports, the country has very
important production in several crops, besides beef. As related
to broiler, Brazil is responsible by 15.5% of production and
J.B.S. Ferraz, Pedro Eduardo de Felício / Meat Science 84 (2010) 238–243
40.7% of exports. In the pork business, the country accounts to
close to 3% of world’s production, but is the 4th largest exporter,
with 15% of international market. The country is the bigger exporter of several agriculture products like soybean (24% of world’s
production and 33.4% of total trade), sugar cane (32.5% of production and 42.4% of exports), orange juice (29.7% of production and
57% of exports), and coffee (28.3% of production and 23% of exports). Brazilian agribusiness was responsible for 31% of the
GNP, 37% of the jobs and 42% of the total exports in 2003. More
details on the Brazilian economy can be found in
<www.ipeadata.gov.br>.
Livestock production in Brazil is important to the world’s food
commerce. The population size of different livestock is: beef and
dairy cattle: the estimated herd size varies from 191.37 million
animals (Scot Consultoria, 2006) to 199.7 million heads, at the
end of 2007, according to IBGE (2008), swine: 32.39 million (CONAB, 2006), goats and sheep (9.09 million and 14.18 million; FAO,
2009), water buffaloes: 1.13 million heads (IBGE, 2008) and poultry: 1.127 million (IBGE, 2008).
Brazilian beef production is the second largest in the planet. It
produced 9.7 million t carcass weigh equivalent (CWE) in 2008,
when USA produced a little over 12 million t, EU-27 around 8.1
million t, Australia and Argentina, between 2 and 3 million t and
India, that did not appear in statistics before, around 2.5 million t
CWE (ABIEC, 2009);
Regional distribution of the Brazilian cattle herd is 12% in North,
13% in Northeast, 21% in the Southeast, 15% in South and 39% in the
Center-West (midwestern region). More than 160 million heads are
located in areas free of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), with vaccination. The major beef production of the country is done in medium to
low fertility soils, in regions similar to savanas, called ‘‘cerrados”,
where
African
grasses,
specially
Brachiaria
spp.
and
Panicum spp. adapted very well. The strong growth of the Brazilian
beef production is based in the tripoid Nellore-Cerrado-Brachiaria,
after 1970.
Brazilian beef production has low cost, estimated to be 60% lower
than in Australia and 50% lower than in the United States. The average slaughter age is at 4 years and the slaughter rate is around 21%,
compared to 2 years and 37% in the United States (Dyck & Nelson,
2003), and that means that the Brazilian beef industry is less
efficient.
2. The importance of beef production: breeds and crosses used
in Brazilian production systems
The country has the second largest bovine herd in the world,
following India, but has the biggest commercial herd. Important
information about the Brazilian beef and dairy business (Fries &
Ferraz, 2006; Rosa, 1977 and Instituto Brasileiro De Geografia Estatística (IBGE), 2009) are presented in following lines:
The herd size is estimated in around 199.7 million heads, at the
end of 2007, according to (IBGE, 2008, <http://www.ibge.gov.br/
home/presidencia/noticias/noticia_visualiza.php?id_noticia=1269
&id_pagina=1>). Other sources estimate slightly different sizes
for the Brazilian bovine population (191.37 million animals;
Scot Consultoria, 2006).
80% of that herd has influence of zebu cattle (Bos indicus),
according to the Brazilian Zebu Breeders Association (ABCZ,
<www.abcz.com.br>);
Although around 80% of the Brazilian herd has B. indicus contribution, only less than 7,000 purebred Zebu animals have been
imported from India in 19th (beginning in 1870) and 20th century. The importation from India was forbidden around 1962.
239
From 1870 to 1930, only 1904 B. indicus animals were imported
from India. Between 1952 and 1962, 565 bulls were imported
from India (Santiago, 1987).
The Brazilian B. indicus population was, mostly, produced by
‘‘grading up”, mating Bos taurus cows, brought to America by
Portuguese and Spanish colonizers to B. indicus bulls, imported
from India or animals with ancestry of imported animals (Santiago, 1987);
The beef breed that has the largest number of animals in Brazil is Nellore (standard/horned and polled), followed by Guzerat and Gir. Indubrasil is, also, a B. indicus Brazilian breed
originated from crossbreeding among other Zebu breeds,
mainly Gyr and Guzerath, with some Ongole (Nellore),
decreased sharply in number of animals. Details of those
breeds can be seen in <http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/
cattle/> and, also, in the website of the Brazilian Zebu Breeders Association (ABCZ: <http://www.abcz.org.br/>). A newer
Brazilian B. indicus breed, that has growing numbers is a
pooled
breed,
Tabapuã
(<http://www.tabapua.org.br/>,
<http://www.abcz.org.br/>);
Purebred Bos taurus is raised in Southern Brazil, a temperate
region. Some of that meat, due to better quality, specially tenderness and marbling, is exported and other part supply special
niche domestic market;
Crossbreeding is used in all regions of the country, but the
higher the percentage of Bos taurus contribution, the poorer
the adaptability to tropical environment, especially to ecto parasites (flies and ticks), what causes an important impact in production costs, in insects control;
The major European breeds that are used in beef crossbreeding
are Angus and Red Angus, Simmental, Charolais, Polled Hereford,
Limousin and Braunvieh, among others;
Synthetic breeds, like Brangus, Braford, Canchin/Charbray and
Santa Gertrudis are also used. In the last decade, Bos taurus
breeds, adapted to tropical environment, like the Brazilian
Caracu, showed renewed interest. Breeds like Senepol and Bonsmara were introduced and, also, composite programs (e.g. Montana Tropical) started to grow in the country;
Uses 140 million hectares of land (all other crops, together, use
75 million hectares);
Is produced in 1.8 millions farms. The small beef enterprises
raise less than 500 head per household per year. The so-called
medium specialized beef operations on average produce over
1000 head annually. The last category is called commercialized
beef production enterprises with over 4000 head per year (Somwaru & Valdes, 2004).
Generates 6.8 million direct or indirect employees (8.3% of the
82 million employment positions);
40.5 million head were slaughtered in 2008, with offtake rate of
21.2% (CNPC,2009);
Roughly 150 million animals are used for beef production and 40
million for dairy and dual-purpose.
The herd has around 64 million cows, 50 million of them used in
beef production and the rest in dual purpose or dairy
production;
There are close to 3 million bulls what leads to a need of around
450,000 young replacement bulls per year;
Between 5% and 7% of beef cows are inseminated. Since less
than 5% of these replacement bulls were selected based on
EPDs (estimations of the animals’ breeding value, expressed
in Expected Progeny Differences) or performance data one
can conclude that more, better and larger breeding programs
are needed.
The Brazilian beef industry exports over US$1.1 billion in leather
and US$1 billion in shoes, produced in 4200 shoe companies and
560 tanning plants.
240
J.B.S. Ferraz, Pedro Eduardo de Felício / Meat Science 84 (2010) 238–243
3. The Brazilian beef production systems and genetic evaluation
programs
The normal production system in the country is to produce animals under pasture condition. A small amount of animals, around
2.7 million in 2008, that corresponded to 6.7% of slaughtered animals were fed in feedlots (ASSOCON, 2009). According to the same
source, that number was larger than the number of animals in
feedlot in 2008 in Australia, that fed 2.13 million animals in the
same year, as informed by the Meat and Livestock Australia. The
leader country in fedding beef is the USA.
Normally, purebred Zebu have higher dressing percentages and
finish 6–12 month later then crossbreds but have better fat cover
for the market, at the same weights as continental crossbred animals. Those animals that have better genetics and potential to
grow faster are kept in pastures until 18–21 month and part of
them are fed, with diets of average growth potential and medium
level of energy by only 3–4 months, being slaughtered between 21
and 25 month. Those diets’ basic composition is corn, sorghum or
grass silage, ground sugar cane, sugar cane by-products (mainly
molasses and dried hydrolyzed bagasse) and soybean meal, with
very little, if any, grain addition, just for finishing and backfat
deposition. That means that that kind of animals stayed more than
82% of their lives in pasture conditions, exercizing, walking freely,
searching for water, etc., what help animal’s welfare (Paranhos da
Costa & Cromberg, 1997; Quintiliano & Paranhos Da Costa, 2008).
In the rest 18% of their lives under feedlots (of only 6.7% of the total
production of the country), those animals are kept in fiber-rich,
medium energy level diets. That has major implications in the Brazilian beef quality. Animals raised under technologies that are
more adequate to production systems and environment, considering animal and human health, nutrition, genetics and sanity, are,
normally, certified by independent companies and sent to exports
and branded beef in domestic market. The vast majority of Brazilian beef production, more than 83% of animals, are kept in grass
pastures. Legums are not very common in Brazilian pastures,
although native in Southern and North-Western Brazil, where they
grow with grasses.
Important studies on animal welfare are being conducted in
Brazil, specially by Dr. M.J.R. Paranhos da Costa and his group
(<http://www.grupoetco.org.br>).
Different production systems have been developed to cater for
differences in environment, technological levels and resources.
The extensive grazing system exists in all regions of the country
and nearly all cow-calf production is in that system. Most soils
are acid and of medium to low fertility and support important
grass species like Brachiaria spp. and Panicum spp. (originally from
Africa), that show good production and adaptation to Brazilian
conditions. Tropical forage quality and availability decreases markedly in the dry season and mineral supplementation is a requirement. In some areas, animal supplementation is needed in the
dry season, but a very small number of farmers do so due to cost
constraints.
Some of the cow-calf operations are changing to a complete,
pasture-based turnoff system. Due to fluctuations in feed availability, animals that are raised in that system can lose weight in the
dry season. Under controlled mating, the season starts in November/December and ends in late February. Calves are weaned from
May to June and are kept on dryland pastures until next rainy season, which, normally, starts next October. In such system, the best
(about 50%) animals are finished with 24 to 30 months of age
(crossbreds) and the balance at 36 to 42 months.
In Southern Brazil, the rule is to use native and low productivity
pastures. Some producers use cultivated winter pastures in rotation with cropland which results in high quality feed that makes
animals (with a high percentage of Bos taurus genes) finish earlier
than on native pastures.
As stated by Fries and Ferraz (2006), Brazilian beef cattle industry was built mainly through two imported components: zebu cattle from the Indian subcontinent and tropical grasses from Africa.
They interacted positively and with the local climate, soils and
management. The last 50 years has shown an unprecedented
growth in the cattle population and important increases in production and productivity in spite of the restrictive economic
environment.
African tropical grass were introduced in Brazil in late 60’s,
early 70’s. Embrapa, the Brazilian federal agriculture research
institution, that received a very big African forage germplasm
collection from FAO in the 70’s, made a very good work adapting
varieties of those forage, specially of genus Brachiaria to Brazilian
conditions, in special to the cerrados, acid, low fertility soils, similar to savanas, in southern and midwestern part of country.
Those grasses adapted so well to those areas, as well as Nellore
breed, that beef production grew very fast, reaching the cerrados
in the northern region, in the border of amazon rain forest.
There is an alternative production system in Brazil, where finishers buy 2 years-old steers and finish them in better pastures, for
one year. That system normally requires more investment and
management,
using
mineral
and,
if
needed,
feed
supplementation.
Ranches that supplement calves during pre-weaning period
(creep-feeding) are producing heavier weaned animals that can
go directly to three different finishing schemes:
(1) The ‘‘super early-maturing” system that send animals to
feedlots at 8 months of age and 240 kg live weight, where
they stay for 120 days, and are harvested at 420 kg liveweight. These feedlots use a low percentage grain ration,
composed of maize, sorghum or grass silage, sugar cane
and agriculture by-products. Animals used in that system
are in general crossbreds.
(2) The ‘‘early-maturing” system, where weaned animals being
sent to pastures for a growing phase, where they stay until
they are 18–24 months-old and then sent to regular feedlots. Both crossbred and purebred animals are used in this
system.
(3) The ‘‘pasture growing system” where animals are kept on
variable quality pastures and are harvested at an age of
30–42 months, with liveweights between 450 and 500 kg.
The majority of animals are B. indicus but some crossbred
steers are fed in this system.
There is currently a strong movement in ownership concentration of processing plants with the few companies that share the
internal and export market investing strongly in their own feedlots, in order to regulate prices, meat quality and regularity of supply for their plants. However, due to problems in currency parity,
sanitary troubles and other risks, the amount of animals kept in
feedlots decreased by 20% from 2004 to 2005.
An interesting review about Brazilian genetic improvement programs was presented by Fries and Ferraz (2006). The authors stated that during the last 50 years there has been an
unprecedented growth in the cattle population and important increases in production and productivity in spite of the restrictive
economic environment. Imported genetic technologies also contributed heavily although after initial import most technologies
were adapted for local use. The advent of a program of the Brazilian
Ministry of Agriculture, called ‘‘CEIP – Certificado Especial de Identificação e Produção”, that allowed superior breeding stock from
commercial herds to attain the same status as the seedstock sector
(pedigreed animals), cannot be ignored. That program assures that
J.B.S. Ferraz, Pedro Eduardo de Felício / Meat Science 84 (2010) 238–243
the best 20–30% of animals controlled by approved genetic evaluation programs pay the same taxes as breeders association registered animals. For the future, one can foresee full integration of
quantitative and molecular technologies with both scientific communities working in harmony. Better understanding of genotypic
elements and their interaction with the environment will support
new strategies for planned crossbreeding.
Brazilian beef agribusiness is getting organized (Fries & Ferraz,
2006). A very strong progress can be verified, especially since the
80’s, when several genetic evaluation programs were established
and EPDs and focused/oriented mating systems started to be used
in beef companies. The results very quickly changed the marketing
of genetics in the country. Ferraz and Fries (2004) reviewed the
history and comprehensively describe, in English, existing beef
breeding programs in Brazil, including Bos taurus, B. indicus and
synthetic breeds and beef composites.
4. The Brazilian beef market
The Brazilian domestic market absorbs close to 7.03 million t
CWE, with a percapita consumption of 37 kg CWE/person/year
(CNPC., 2009). That means that 72.5% of total production is absorbed by the internal market.
Brazil is the largest beef exporter in the world. Exports of 2.163
million t CWE in 2008, with revenues of US$5.325 billion and an
average of US$3,824.27/t. (ABIEC, 2009; CNPC,2009). The amount
exported decreased 15% over 2007, but the value increased around
20% over the same time.
In the same year, Australia around 1.4 million t, USA exported
under 1 million t CWE, India a little less than USA, New Zealand,
around 500 thousand t. and Uruguay around 400 thousand t, EU27 around 100 thousand t CWE and Argentina was almost out of
market in that year (ABIEC, 2009). Brazilian beef business is
responsible by around 1/3 of beef trades in the world.
The number of beef processing plants and abattoirs is around
750. Some huge plants, that processes more than 2000 animals/
day, with very modern equipment are in operation, mainly in midwestern part of country.
Part of the internal market is still supplied as carcasses and another part as deboned boxed beef. Animals finished in feedlots are
sold in niche markets, normally debonned and vacuum packed,
branded special cuts. Those cuts are sold in supermarkets, and,
specially, restaurants called churrascarias, the typical Brazilian
steak houses that serve rodizio, a all-you-can-eat typical brazilian
system or serving barbecued beef.
In last years, branded meat market is starting to grow. Programs
like Angus Beef, Nelore Natural, Hereford beef, Bonsmara beef and
several other brands try to commercialize special cuts, in Brazil
and other countries, adding value to products.
These branded beef focus, mostly, is barbecue cuts, like ribs
(boned or deboned), rump, rump heart (baby beef), rump cap
(the famous picanha in Brazil, that is more expensive than tenderloin), tenderloin and striploin. A very interesting catalog of Brazilian beef cuts was issued in 2006, by the Brazilian Association of
Beef Export Industries (ABIEC, 2006).
According to USDA (1999), the world’s beef consumption grew
from close to 20,000,000 t (carcass weight equivalent, CWE) early
1960’s decade to around 60,000,000 t at the end of the first decade
of the 21st century, an increase of 175% in less than 50 years. In the
same period, Brazil’s production increased from roughly 1.2 million t CWE to close 10 million t, while domestic consumption enlarged from 1.2 to 7.5 million t. When considering only the last
15 years, the countries’ beef production increased around 60%,
while the internal consumption, only 30%. The surplus of beef in
Brazil is, currently, larger than 2000 t/year.
241
Brown (2007), from Gira – Consultancy & Research Prospective
et Stratégie presented, in a conference in Sao Paulo, Brazil, projections that indicate that gross national product will increase the
next years and so will be meat consumption, reaching, in beef,
around 70 million t CWE. In same presentation, the author indicates China, followed by USA, Japan and even India, as the countries that will have larger increase in beef consumption.
5. Risks of Brazilian beef industry
According to Fries and Ferraz (2006), the Brazilian beef industry
has its’ weaknesses and strengths. Among the limitations, there are
the sanitary risks of FMD that are being controlled with vaccination, and other animal health problems intrinsic to business that
increases the cost of production. Beef quality also can be included
in the weak points, as the high level of Zebu genes decrease tenderness of beef. Also, the proportion of unofficially slaughtered animals in the country is greater than 30% and all that beef goes to
internal market. Another weak point of that producing chain is
the lack of organization and the low use of genetically evaluated
bulls in several layers of the business.
But there are strong points too: the cost of production on Brazilian beef is the lowest in the world and the trend is to keep it that
way. Although feedlots are growing in Brazil, the Brazilian beef
production system still can be considered ‘‘grass-fed animals”,
since animals are in the feedlot for a very short period and the
amount of roughage in feed is very high (e.g. sorghum, corn or even
grass silage). That feeding system eliminates the risk of BSE in the
Brazilian beef herd what constitutes a very powerful commercial
tool, especially with the worries on food safety. The official efforts
in controlling FMD led to the fact that more than 80% of the Brazilian herd being reared within zones free of FMD, with vaccination.
Government and producers are working together on other strategies e.g. traceability. Taken all together, Brazilian beef productivity can be considered low compared to higher input systems but
this system generates a product that is healthy, tasty and genuine
and has a good chance to stand the test of time.
6. Grass-fed animals and beef quality
For international standards of meat quality, the amount of
intramuscular fat or marbling deposited in Longissimus muscle is
the major determinant of carcass value and predictor of palatability. But currently, fat composition and a fat profile of beef that assures healthier food is becoming more and more important.
Marbling fat is comprised of over 20 individual fatty acids. Six of
them contribute over 92% of the total fatty acid content. Those
fatty acids in beef marbling fat that are more important are linoleic, oleic, palmitic, palmitoleic, myristic and stearic acids. Marbling also contains unique fatty acids as a result of ruminal
biohydrogenation of lipids from diets. One of these products is conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) that was first recognized as an anticarcinogen in experiments investigating compounds generated during
the cooking of hamburger. CLA is produced in ruminant animals in
the process of biohydrogenation of linoleic acid in food, by rumen
bacteria such as Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens (Khanal & Dhiman, 2004;
Kim, 2003). Besides that, stearic acid seems to be converted to oleic
acid after dietary ingestion. That fatty acid can influence serum
cholesterol compared to other saturated fats (Duckett, 2003;
Medeiros et al., 2005).
Forage fed animals has a trend to present lower percentage of
marbling and leaner carcasses. When considering fat profile, however, beef from forage or grass fed animals with have higher CLA
content and PUFA concentration, what means healthier beef. Saturated fat seems to increase level of cholesterol, but not all unsatu-
242
J.B.S. Ferraz, Pedro Eduardo de Felício / Meat Science 84 (2010) 238–243
rated fatty acid does that. Comments on details on growth of farm
animals and product value for human consumption can be found in
Lawrence and Fowler (2002). Many studies on beef quality and
grass concentrate fed animals can be found in literature, pointing
the importance of the subject (French et al., 2001; Mandell, Buchanan-Smith, & Campbell, 1998; Muir, Beaker, & Bown, 1998, among
many others).
There are differences due to breed effects in fat profile of beef.
Crossbred animals B. indicus Bos taurus seem to produce beef
with more saturated beef (Metz et al., 2009). Progeny of AngusHereford cows, sired by Wagyu bulls animals produce more monounsaturated fat than Angus sired ones (Xie et al., 1996), indicating
small differences in fatty acid profiles between breeds and among
sires.
7. Meat quality differences among breeds used in Brazil
There are differences in meat quality among breeds, specially
the use of B. indicus and it’s impact on beef quality, according to
several studies held in countries that can be considered as important players in the international beef market (e.g. the classical papers by Crouse, Cundiff, Koch, Koohmaraie, & Seideman, 1989 and
Wheeler, Cundiff, & Kock, 1994).
Although Thompson (2002), considered that for the Australian
production system B. indicus is an important critical control point,
Sherbeck, Tatum, Field, Morgan, and Smith (1995), stated that results suggest that including Hereford crossbred steers with 50%
Brahman breeding would adversely affect the tenderness of Certified Hereford Beef. However, Hereford crossbreds with 25% Brahman breeding could be allowed in the Certified Hereford Beef
Program without significantly increasing the risk of decreased
product tenderness.
Several research projects were completed in Brazil about the
subject (Bonin, 2008; Hadlich, Morales, Silveira, Oliveira, & Chardulo, 2006; Pereira, 2006; Rezende, 2009; Rubensam, de Felício, &
Termignoni, 1998), and the general conclusion is that there are,
really, influence of breeds or bulls in meat quality. But, usually,
traits on meat quality are measured in the Longissimus muscle,
especially tenderness and acceptable levels of tenderness are
achieved after 7–14 days of ageing. When fresh beef is exported
by Brazilian industries, that phenomenon occurs during transportation and Brazilian beef reaches the market, mainly European,
with satisfactory quality grades (Dr. Pedro E. de Felício, personal
communication).
8. Environmental impact: methane production and beef
production in Brazil
According to USEPA US. (2008, chap. 6), methane emission in
agriculture in USA is responsible to 6.4% of all emissions. Satellite
sensors indicate that the problem is much worse in rice fields in
Asia than in Brazil or the rest of South America. However, the same
sensors show that the problem of methane production is typical of
tropical areas, including amazon region and other rain forests
areas, but also for USA, EC and Asia, where there are mid and high
level areas of methane production. That should be considered as a
major concern not only for Brazil, but, also for any tropical country
or region, including Africa and developed countries.
Barioni, Zen, Guimarães, and Ferreira (2007) reported very
interesting projections of the Brazilian beef herd from 2007 to
2025, in terms of number of cows, herd size, number of heads
slaughtered, beef production (t of carcass equivalent), and methane
emission, indicating that, although the number of cows will probably decrease 3.6% (from 64.3 to 62.0 million production females),
herd size will increase 7.4% (up to a total herd of 223.4 millions
head), beef production will increase 25.4%, reaching 11.08 million
t, but methane emission will increase only 2.9%. That very important paper suggests that methane emission in Brazilian beef production is not a major concern.
However, in pastures that fix nitrogen, the potential of CO2
incorporation is really large and increase beef production in pastures can be very good to help control of greenhouse effect.
Measures directed to water conservation, CO2 fixation, nitrogen
fixation, control of erosion, preservation of trees around rivers,
ponds and creeks, would be very useful to sustainability of beef
production, not only seeking global environmental conditions,
but, and mainly, local conditions and increase of productivity.
Technology more adequate to environment conservation will,
absolutely, reduce or even eliminate deforestation and forest burn
up and contribute to global environment and, also, to improvement
of income and profitability to Brazilian farms. Better grass fed animals will have healthier beef and worldwide consumers will get
that benefit.
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges to fellow Brazilian scientists that
send several important information: M.N. Bonin, M. Cavalcanti,
P.E.de Felício, S.C. Guedes, L.A. Josahkian, D.P.D. Lanna, P.R. Leme,
A.A. Machado, R. Nunes, O. Primavesi, F.M. Rezende, S.L. Silva and
L.A. Teixeira.
References
ABIEC. (2006). Brazilian beef cuts catalogue. ABIEC, Porto Alegre, p. 160.
ABIEC. (2009). <http://www.abiec.com.br/estatisticas> Accessed 03.02.09.
ASSOCON. (2009). <http://www.assocon.com.br/not%2046%202.htm> Accessed
03.02.2009.
Barioni, L. G., Zen, S., Guimarães, R., Jr., & Ferreira, A. C. (2007). A baseline projection
of methane emissions by the Brazilian beef sector: Preliminary results. Cadernos
de Ciência e Tecnologia (EMBRAPA), 55–56.
Bonin, M. N. (2008). Estudo da influência de touro e de genearca da raça Nelore nos
aspectos quantitativos e qualitativos de carcaça e da carne. MSc Thesis. Faculdade
de Zootecnia e Engenharia de Alimentos da Universidade de São Paulo. (<http://
www.teses.usp.br/5554028.pdf>).
Brown, R. (2007). Uma perspective Européia sobre as tendências de longo prazo da
carne da América do Sul. 2000/2005/2010(f)/2015(f). In IMS regional conference.
Sao Paulo, April 2007.
CNPC. 2009. <http://www.abiec.com.br/estatisticas/14.pdf> Accessed 03.02.09.
CONAB. (2006). <http://www.conab.gov.br>.
Crouse, J. D., Cundiff, L. V., Koch, R. M., Koohmaraie, M., & Seideman, S. C. (1989).
Comparisons of Bos indicus and Bos taurus inheritance for carcass beef
characteristics and meat palatability. Journal of Animal Science, 67, 2661–2668.
Duckett, S. K. (2003). Effect of nutrition and management practices on marbling
deposition and composition. <http://www.cabpartners.com/news/research/
duckett_nutrition.pdf> Accessed 16.04.2009.
Dyck, J., Nelson, K. (2003). Structure of global markets for meat. Agriculture
information bulletin number 785. Economic Research Service, US Department
of Agriculture.
FAO. (2009). <http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/ad452e/ad452e2v.htm> Accessed
03.02.2009.
Ferraz, J. B. S., Fries, L.A. (2004). <http://www.sbmaonline.org.br/anais/v/palestras/
palest07.pdf/>.
French, P., O’riordan, E. G., Monahan, F. J., Caffrey, F. J., Mooney, M. T., Troy, M. T., &
Moloney, A. P. (2001). The eating quality of meat of steers fed grass and/or
concentrates. Meat Science, 57(4), 379–386.
Fries, Luiz Alberto, Ferraz, J. B. S. (2006). Beef cattle genetic programmes in Brazil.
In: Proceedings of the 8th world congress on genetics applied to livestock
production. CD Rom Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Hadlich, J. C., Morales, D. C., Silveira, A. C., Oliveira, H. N., & Chardulo, L. A. L. (2006).
Efeito do colágeno na maciez da carne de bovinos de distintos grupos genéticos.
Acta Science and Animal Science Maringá, 28(1), 57–62.
Instituto Brasileiro De Geografia Estatística (IBGE). (2009). Disponível em: <http://
www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/pecua/default.asp?t=2&z=t&o=22&u1=1&u2=1&u3=
1&u4=1&u5=1&u6=1&u7=1> Accessed 03.02.09.
Khanal, R. C., & Dhiman, T. R. (2004). Biosynthesis of conjugated linoleic acid
(CLA):A review. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 3(2), 72–81.
Kim, J. Y. (2003). Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) production in the rumen – roles of
Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens A38. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 51(15),
4258–4262.
J.B.S. Ferraz, Pedro Eduardo de Felício / Meat Science 84 (2010) 238–243
Lawrence, T. L. J., & Fowler, V. R. (2002). Growth of farm animals (2nd ed.). CAB
International.
Mandell, I. B., Buchanan-Smith, J. G., & Campbell, C. P. (1998). Effects of forage vs
grain feeding on carcass characteristics, fatty acid composition, and beef quality
in Limousin-cross steers when time on feed is controlled. Journal of Animal
Science, 76(10), 2619–2630.
Medeiros, S. R., Albertini, T. Z., Torres, R. A. A., Carpejani, G. C., Silva, M. C., Cáceres, C.
A., et al. (2005). Efeito do teor de gordura na dieta e do grupo genético no perfil
de ácidos graxos na carcaça de bovinos terminados em confinamento. In: 42°
Reunião Anual da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia, Goiânia.
Metz, Pam, Menezes, Lfg, Angélica, Santos, Dos, Pereira, Brondani, Il, Restle, J., et al.
(2009). Perfil de ácidos graxos na carne de novilhos de diferentes idades e
grupos genéticos terminados em confinamento. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia/
Brazilian Journal of Animal Science, 38, 523–531.
Muir, P. D., Beaker, J. M., & Bown, M. D. (1998). Effects of forage- and grain-based
feeding systems on beef quality: A review. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural
Research, 41, 623–635.
Paranhos Da Costa, M. J. R., Cromberg, V. U. (1997). Alguns aspectos a serem
considerados para melhorar o bem-estar de animais em sistema de pastejo
rotacionado. In: A. M. Peixoto, J. C. Moura, V. C. e Faria (Eds.), Fundamentos do
Pastejo Rotacionado, FEALQ: Piracicaba. pp. 273–296.
Pereira, A. S. C. (2006). Características Qualitativas da Carcaça e da Carne das Progênies
de Touros Representativos da Raça Nelore (Bos indicus) e de Diferentes Grupos
Genéticos. Ph.D. Dissertation. Faculdade de Zootecnia e Engenharia de Alimentos
da Universidade de São Paulo. (<http://www.teses.usp.br/3257750DO.pdf>).
Quintiliano, M. H., Paranhos Da Costa, M. J. R. (2008). The application of driving and
stunning techniques in South America – Practical experiences of good handling
practices in Brazilian slaughterhouses. In: Proceedings of the conference on
animal welfare at slaughter and killing for disease control – emerging issues and
good examples. Sweden, Hindasgarden, October 1–2.
Rezende, F.M. de. (2009). Prospecção da influência de marcadores genéticos sobre
características de crescimento, carcaça e qualidade de carne em bovinos da raça
243
Nelore. MSc. Thesis/ Faculdade de Zootecnia e Engenharia de Alimentos da
Universidade de São Paulo.
Rosa, A. N. (1977). Analise genética de parâmetros de crescimento e proposição de
índices de seleção para animais da raça Nelore. Viçosa (p. 67). Tese (Mestrado) –
Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa.
Rubensam, J. M., de Felício, P. E., & Termignoni, C. (1998). Influência do
genótipo Bos Indicus Na Atividade De Calpastatina E Na Textura Da Carne
De Novilhos Abatidos No Sul Do Brasil. Ciênc. Tecnol. Aliment, 18(4),
405–409.
Santiago, A. A. (1987). Gado Nelore: 100 anos de seleção. São Paulo: Ed. Dos Criadores.
Scot Consultoria. 2006. <http://www.scotconsultoria.com.br/>.
Sherbeck, J. A., Tatum, J. D., Field, T. T., Morgan, J. B., & Smith, G. G.
(1995). Feedlot performance, carcass traits, and palatability traits of
Hereford and Hereford Brahman steers. Journal of Animal Science, 73,
3613–3620.
Somwaru, A., Valdes, C. (2004) Brazil’s beef production and its efficiency: A
comparative study of scale economies. In: GTAP seventh annual conference on
global economic analysis. <https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/
download/1860.pdf>.
Thompson, J. (2002). Managing meat tenderness. Meat Science, 62, 295–308.
USDA (1999). Official United States standards for grades of carcass beef. Washington,
DC: Agriculture Marketing Service.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Disponível em: <http://
www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdResult.aspx> Acesso em 03.02.2009.
USEPA US. (2008). Greenhouse gas inventory reports inventory of US greenhouse gas
emissions and sinks: 1990–2006, #430-R-08-005. Agriculture.
Wheeler, T. L., Cundiff, L. V., & Kock, R. M. (1994). Effect of marbling degree on beef
palatability in Bos taurus and Bos indicus cattle. Journal of Animal Science, 72,
3145–3151.
Xie, Y. R., Busboom, J. R., Gaskins, C. T., Johnson, K. A., Reeves, J. J., Wright, R. W., et al.
(1996). Effects of breed and sire on carcass characteristics and fatty acid profiles
of crossbred Wagyu and Angus steers. Meat Science, 43, 167–177.