Current outlook and future perspectives of beef production in Brazil

Danilo Domingues Millen,*1 Rodrigo Dias Lauritano Pacheco, Paula M. Meyer, Paulo H. Mazza Rodrigues, and Mario De Beni Arrigoni
*Animal Science College, So Paulo State University (UNESP), Dracena, So Paulo, Brazil 17900-00; Department of Breeding and Animal Nutrition, So Paulo State University (UNESP), Botucatu, So Paulo, Brazil 18618-000; Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), Pirassununga, So Paulo, Brazil 13630-095; and Department of Animal Nutrition and Production, University of So Paulo (USP), Pirassununga, So Paulo, Brazil 13635-900

Brazil is the worlds largest beef exporter with the worlds largest commercial cattle herd; however, the production cycle needs to be more efcient 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 predominates. At some point this constitutes an important advantage for Brazilian beef exportations because some countries look for natural beef. Brazilian packing plants regulate the use of antibiotics, especially ionophores used as growth promoters, on farms certied 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 pasture at 1.97%/year, whereas the area with natural pasture decreased at 2.26%/year. These trends alleviate some of the pressure 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 production, resulting in Brazil having a negative growth rate (1.82%/ year) of methane emissions per unit of product (kilogram of methane/kilogram of beef).

Implications

(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 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 worlds largest beef exporter with the worlds largest commercial cattle herd (USDA, 2011). With respect to strategies to make the Brazilian production cycle more efcient and supply the external demand for beef, feedlot operations became 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 decreased. 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

Background
Beef production in Brazil, as in North America, is characterized by three major components: cow-calf, stocker, and feedlot operations. However 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 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 nutritionists 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

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

46

Animal Frontiers

Figure 1. Nellore cattle.

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 Gois, which accounts for 29.8% of calves produced in Brazil. In addition, states such as Minas Gerais (southeast region) and Par (north region) together produced 21.3% of Brazilian calves in 2010 (ANUALPEC, 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 constitute 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 animals typically lose body weight during this phase if they are not supplemented with sources of energy and protein. As in North American systems, 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 nishing cattle because of the increasing external demand. Moreover, the feeding period at Brazilian feedlots is usually short, on average around 70 days (Millen et al., 2009). In addition, the number of animals nished in feedlots in Brazil increased 50% (from 2 to 3 million animals) from 2003 to 2010 (ANUALPEC, 2011), and most beef produced in Brazilian feedlots is destined for external markets. Most feedlots in Brazil are located in the states of So Paulo, Gois, 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 Use
With increased awareness of global warming and degradation of natural resources, serious attention has been given to animal agriculture production methods with sustainability perspectives. To understand the evolution 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 pasture were obtained from the available ofcial 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 animals, 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 animals/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 decreased at a rate of 2.26%/year (Table 1). The Brazilian territory is divided in ve regions: north, northeast, midwest, 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 replacement 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 efciency (from 0.31 in 1970 to 0.98 ani-

October 2011, Vol. 1, No. 2

47

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)
Natural Bovine Rel. herd1 in Rel. herd2 in pasture4 1970 (%) 2006 (%) herd3 (%/year) (%/year) Region North 2.17 18.26 8.96 2.07 Northeast 17.57 14.76 1.41 0.99 Southeast 34.17 19.85 0.41 3.29 South 24.12 13.61 0.55 1.32 Midwest 21.96 33.52 3.25 3.79 Brazil 100.00 100.00 2.04 2.26 1 Relative bovine herd in 1970 (% of Brazilian herd). 2 Relative bovine herd in 2006 (% of Brazilian herd). 3 Annual average growth rate of bovine herd (%/year). 4 Annual average growth rate of natural pasture area (%/year). 5 Annual average growth rate of cultivated pasture area (%/year). 6 Annual average growth rate of total pasture area (%/year). 7 Ratio of cattle/hectare of total pasture in 1970. 8 Ratio of cattle/hectare of total pasture in 2006. 9 Annual average growth rate of ratio of cattle/hectare of total pasture area (%/year). Cultivated pasture5 (%/year) 9.95 2.47 1.44 0.89 4.41 3.50 Animals/ Total pasture6 hectare in (%/year) 19707 (ratio) 5.67 0.39 0.14 0.50 1.36 0.60 0.77 0.88 0.03 0.31 0.07 0.51 Animals/ hectare in 20068 (ratio) 1.18 0.83 1.24 1.50 0.98 1.08 Animals/ hectare9 (%/year) 3.12 1.27 1.80 1.33 3.22 1.97

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 plateau) 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 nally in total pasture area (5.67%/year). The efciency 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 efciency 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 efciency (1.50 animals/hectares of total pasture in 2006). This region is traditionally and strongly dominated by European immigrants, and animal agriculture 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 Brazilian investors being lured, in the 1970s, to establish ranches in the Amazon. However, international organizations have pressured the Brazilian government to limit deforestation. In response, Brazilian Environmental Institution (IBAMA) has intensied 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.

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 increased 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 factors that contributed to this expansion in the beef industry as the percentage of the total beef production exported increased from 13.4 to 28.2% from 2002 to 2007. However, since 2008 Brazilian beef exports have decreased, 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

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

48

Animal Frontiers

certied 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 Brazilian states, only 16 are considered foot-mouth disease-free areas, and 15 of them are only free with vaccination (Bahia, Tocantins, Rondnia, Acre, Esprito Santo, Gois, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Paran, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul, So Paulo, Sergipe, and Distrito 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.

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 rst step towards improvement of beef system 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 nishing cattle in feedlots, mainly during the dry season, may become a common practice. On the other hand, Brazilian genetics in commercial herds must continuously act to improve efciency. 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 grazing 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 European 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 contributed 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 nutritionists clients fed crossbred animals. Besides that, at the present moment, feedlots 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, unlike 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. Medium meat processers also tend to have a self-sufcient 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-sufcient strategy of Brazilian meat companies is achieved. However, the manipulation of beef

Current Situation on Greenhouse Gas Production

To 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 calculated, 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 differentiate 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, Argentina, India, Uruguay, and Paraguay (Table 2).

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.

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 Zealand. The European Union, India, Argentina, and the United States presented negative values for these rates. However, the increased rate of methane emissions in Brazil reects 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,

October 2011, Vol. 1, No. 2

49

Table 2. Descriptive data about exportations, livestock traits, beef production, and methane emission by the European Union (EU) and other studied countries

10,330,911 12,000,000

price is more feasible as the years go by. Associations of producers are essential for beef industry development and protection, based on circumstances just described. Another possible long-term trend is worth mentioning. The continuous 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 protability may provide an attractive opportunity for foreign companies to establish branch operations in the Brazilian market.

Paraguay

7,779,558 10,000,000

105,894 10

429,431 552,000 1.36

131,310 220,000 0.97 328,682 570,000 3.03

55.2

288,451 9

570,266 662,400 1.35

Uruguay

1.735 1.162 1.63 26.79 4.934 3.731 1.27 21.57 0.672 0.642 0.10 1.85 0.831 0.759 0.39 7.23 1.903 1.448 1.82 29.41 0.481 0.423 0.84 14.82 0.596 0.581 1.26 21.34 0.851 0.922 0.02 0.31 1.151 0.990 0.49 8.87

55.2

3.270 2.509 0.39 7.65

Production and Management

As previously discussed, the boom of feedlot operations is a continuously strong trend. In 1991, about 785,000 cattle were fed on feedlots. Moreover, at the end of 1990s, approximately 1,555,000 cattle were nished in feedlots, whereas in 2010, the census reported that 3,047,717 animals (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 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 assisted 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 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 yearling bulls. Consequently, a longer period of feeding might be expected. Furthermore, Brazil is well known for the variety and level of coproducts included in 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 difcult 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 aking or reconstitution. All in all, a series of trends is expected to occur because of intensication of the nishing cattle process. In the meantime, the critical factor of the Brazilian feedlot industry is still the amateurism, grounded by the 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-

200,650,000 177,840,000

5,397,485 4,783,896 0.76 2,884,586 2,801,400 0.36 486,697 582,860 1.13 564,700 743,137 1.62 5,230,155 5,092,657 0.14 7,705,870 11,435,784 2.12 6,273,055 5,204,387 1.01 1,319,789 1,715,360 1.31

New Zealand

52,257,000 50,750,000

8,057,898 9,650,000

492,240 6

United States

10,756,200 14,155,000

99,622,000 97,003,000

139,599,104 207,170,000

1,229,046 3

21,850,816 28,400,000

1,249,092 2

50

Variable Beef exportation (tonnes) Average (20012006) Rank Herd size (A) 1988 2007 Methane emission/animal kg/animal per year Methane emission/country 1988 (tonnes) 2007 (tonnes) Rate (19882007) Beef produced (tonnes) 1988 2007 Rate (19882007) Methane/beef (kg/kg) 1988 2007 Rate (19882007) Results in 20 years

108,156,133 89,730,820

2,316,531 1

9,334,702 8,105,885 1.11

EU

58.0

1,587,724 2,261,000 1.72

Australia

60.4

4,050,000 7,900,000 4.01

Brazil

55.2

10,879,000 12,044,305 0.71

694,512 4

52.5

947,380 1,278,580 2.92

Canada

505,072 5

52.5

571,626 632,378 1.12

60.4

2,506,467 2,830,000 0.13

Argentina

408,931 7

55.2

1,093,972 1,282,350 0.52

358,743 8

India

26.9

Animal Frontiers

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 intensication.

Literature Cited
ABIEC. 2011a. Brazilian Beef Exports. Associao Brasileira das Indstrias Exportadoras de Carne. Accessed Aug. 11, 2011. http://www.abiec.com.br/download/Relatorio%20exportacao%202010.pdf. ABIEC. 2011b. Mapa das plantas frigorcas. Associao Brasileira das Indstrias Exportadoras de Carne. Accessed Aug. 11, 2011. http://www.abiec.com. br/2_mapa.asp. ABPO. 2011. ABPO Pantanal Orgnico. Associao Brasileira de Pecuria Orgnica. Accessed Aug. 14, 2011. http://www.abpopantanalorganico.com.br/pt/ quem-somos. ANUALPEC. 2011. Anurio da Pecuria Brasileira. 1st ed. Instituto FNP and Agra Pesquisas Ltda, So Paulo, Brazil. ASBIA. 2010. Relatrio estatstico de importao, exportao e comercializao de smen. Associao Brasileira de Inseminao Articial. 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. Evoluo das receitas de 1962 a 2011. So 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 Agropecurio. Instituto Brasileiro de Geograa e Estatstica. Accessed Aug. 11, 2011. http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br. IPCC. 2006. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Pages 187. Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/ public/2006gl/index.html Accessed Aug. 15, 2011. MAPA. 2002. Instruo Normativa N01. Ministrio da Agricultura, Pecuria e Abastecimento. Accessed Aug. 15, 2011. http://www.sirb.com.br/entenda_sisbov.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 efciency by Brazilian bovine husbandry during the last three decades. Page 12 in Proc. 3rd International Conference on Sustainable Animal Agriculture for Developing Countries, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand. Millen, D. D., R. D. L. Pacheco, M. D. B. Arrigoni, M. L. Galyean, and J. T. Vasconcelos. 2009. A snapshot of management practices and nutritional recommendations used by feedlot nutritionists in Brazil. J. Anim. Sci. 87:34273439. 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 preparation 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: General information and adaptation. Proc. 48th Annual Meeting of Brazilian Animal Science Society, Belm, Brazil. Oliveira, C., and D. D. Millen. 2011b. Survey of nutritional recommendations and management practices used by Brazilian feedlot consulting nutritionists: Feeding management and challenges faced. Proc. 48th Annual Meeting of Brazilian Animal Science Society, Belm, Brazil. Oliveira, R. L., M. A. A. F. Barbosa, M. M. Ladeira, M. M. P. Silva, and A. C. Ziviani. 2006. Nutrio e manejo de bovinos de corte na fase de cria. Page 8 in Proc. 2nd SIMBOI, Braslia, Brazil. Somwaru, A., and C. Valdes. 2004. Brazils beef production and its efciency: A comparative study of scale economies. GTAP Seventh Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, Washington, 119. 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 Department 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. Corra, R. A. A. T. Jnior, and F. P. Costa. 2006. Growth and reproductive performance of grazing females Nelore on Cerrado of Central Brazil. Brazilian J. Anim. Sci. 35:186192.

Food Safety and Environmental Issues

Historically, incidence of Escherichia coli outbreaks and bovine spongiform encephalopathy has been low in Brazil; therefore, traceability will be the main issue. Since 2002, the Ministry of Agriculture has implemented SISBOV, a national program to establish a database for individual identication of bovine and water buffalo (MAPA, 2002). Surely, because of Brazilian herd size, it will take a bit longer to include all animals. However, 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 packing 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 Forest vegetation is not present (ABIEC, 2011b).

Research Importance
Brazilian research institutions rely mostly on governmental funding. Last year, So 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 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 alliances play an important role in the 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 efcient, 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 efciency 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 efciency and reduced emissions of enteric methane per kilogram of beef.

October 2011, Vol. 1, No. 2

51

About the Authors

Danilo Domingues Millen has been an assistant professor at the Animal Science College of the So 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 rumen fermentation, protocols of adaptation for Nellore cattle, and rumen health. In 2008 and 2010, he conducted surveys with feedlot cattle nutritionists in Brazil to characterize the evolution of the Brazilian feedlot industry. Millen is an animal scientist with masters and PhD degrees in animal science. Correspondence: danilomillen@dracena.unesp.br

Paulo H. Mazza Rodrigues has been an associate professor of the Department of Animal Nutrition and Production, University of So 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 masters and PhD degrees in animal science.

Rodrigo Dias Lauritano Pacheco is currently a professor of animal and ruminant nutrition at So Paulo State University (UNESP/Botucatu Campus). Pacheco received his masters and PhD degrees at the same institution. His research interests are mainly feedlot management, nutrition, behavior, and meat quality. For the past ve years, he has been conducting research on feed additive alternatives and adaptation methods for Bos indicus cattle fed high-concentrate diets.

Mrio De Beni Arrigoni has been an associate professor of the Department of Breeding and Animal Nutrition at So 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 quality, and lately on manipulation of rumen fermentation and use of carbon isotopes in beef cattle studies. Arrigoni is an animal scientist with masters and PhD degrees in animal science.

Paula M. Meyer has worked as an agricultural researcher at the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), assessing the agriculture and animal husbandry statistics over the past decade. Lately, she has focused on the efciency and sustainability of animal agriculture production systems and land use, with a special interest in dairy and beef production. Meyer belongs to a family of smallholders and is an agricultural engineer with masters and PhD degrees in animal science.

52

Animal Frontiers