Source: LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY submitted to NRP
PRODUCTION AND MARKET DEVELOPMENT FOR GRASS-FED BEEF IN THE GULF COAST REGION OF THE U.S.
Sponsoring Institution
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Project Status
COMPLETE
Funding Source
AFRI COMPETITIVE GRANT
Reporting Frequency
Annual
Accession No.
1008807
Grant No.
2016-68006-24625
Cumulative Award Amt.
$479,880.00
Proposal No.
2015-07576
Multistate No.
(N/A)
Project Start Date
Jan 1, 2016
Project End Date
Dec 31, 2021
Grant Year
2016
Program Code
[A1601]- Agriculture Economics and Rural Communities: Small and Medium-Sized Farms
Recipient Organization
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
202 HIMES HALL
BATON ROUGE,LA 70803-0100
Performing Department
Office of Sponsored Programs
Non Technical Summary
Our project will provide comprehensive information on grass-fed beef management practices, economics, marketing, and breed type effects that will close a gap of missing information needed by producers, extension agents, businesses, and other clientele. Specific objectives are: 1) Evaluate the interaction between forage systems and traditional (Angus) and non-traditional (Holstein and Pineywoods) breed types for grass-fed beef production; 2) Measure the impact of breed type (Pineywoods, Braford, and Dexter) and the use of cover crops under different management practices (rotationally grazed, stockpiled forages) at the farm level; 3) Determine the types of strategic alliances currently being used in the grass-fed beef industry and evaluate their effectiveness in meeting their stated objectives; 4) Determine the functions grass-fed beef producers prefer for strategic alliances; 5) Determine the grass-fed beef attributes and structure of alliances most preferred by restaurants and retailers; 6) Conduct outreach programs (pasture walks, field days, workshops). Diversification of dairy enterprises by increasing dairy beef production and the promotion of heritage beef breeds may improve the economic return and sustainability of small producers. On-farm evaluation of the productivity and economic performance of different breed types and cover crops for grazing will give this proposal the support for promoting these practices as well as the appropriate setting for demonstration of the viability of these practices to producers, agents and other stakeholders. Research on strategic alliances will provide the industry with information on how to organize such that grass-fed beef can be more efficiently marketed to consumers.
Animal Health Component
30%
Research Effort Categories
Basic
60%
Applied
30%
Developmental
10%
Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)Subject of Investigation (SOI)Field of Science (FOS)Percent
3071610106020%
3073310106020%
3083320106015%
6016199301015%
6046299301020%
7013320106010%
Knowledge Area
601 - Economics of Agricultural Production and Farm Management; 308 - Improved Animal Products (Before Harvest); 604 - Marketing and Distribution Practices; 307 - Animal Management Systems; 701 - Nutrient Composition of Food;

Subject Of Investigation
6199 - Economy, general/other; 3320 - Meat, beef cattle; 3310 - Beef cattle, live animal; 1610 - Pasture; 6299 - Marketing, general/other;

Field Of Science
1060 - Biology (whole systems); 3010 - Economics;
Goals / Objectives
1) Evaluate the interaction between forage systems and traditional (Angus) and non-traditional (Holstein and Pineywoods) breed types. This evaluation will be conducted by measuring the productivity and economic sustainability of producing beef on 100% forage diets.2) Measure the impact of breed type (Pineywoods, Braford, and Dexter) and the use of cover crops (brassicas, clovers, small grains and native grasses) under different management practices (rotationally grazed, stockpiled forages) at the farm level.3) Determine the types of strategic alliances currently being used in the grass-fed beef industry and evaluate their effectiveness in meeting their stated objectives.4) Determine the functions grass-fed beef producers prefer for strategic alliances.5) Determine the grass-fed beef attributes most preferred by restaurants and retailers and the structure of strategic alliances through which they would most prefer to purchase grass-fed beef.6) Conduct outreach programs.
Project Methods
Objective 1. In October of years 2 and 3, 54 (18/breed type) fall-weaned steers (Angus, Holstein, and Pineywoods) will be at the IRS and managed together until the beginning of the experiment. At this time, they will be randomly allotted to 9 groups of 6 steers each (3 replicates of each breed type). This allotment of steers will allow us to compare breed types based on their natural differences of body weight (Holstein > Angus > Pineywoods) which may affect animal performance and pasture utilization, and hence sustainability of the system. The forage system to be used is conventional and no-till planted multispecies cover crops for the fall transition period and winter grazing (25% of the area), followed by ryegrass+berseem clover for winter grazing (50% of the area), then alfalfa/peanut hay until alyceclover + pearl millet + cowpeas mixed pastures (25% of the area) for summer grazing are available. Two harvest times (14 and 18 months of age) will be evaluated and carcass characteristics obtained. The first harvest time is after winter pastures play-out (May of years 2 and 3), while the second one is after the summer grazing period (September of year 2 and 3). At each harvest date, half the steers of each breed type from each of the replicates (9 per breed type or a total of 27 steers) will be randomly selected and harvested at a commercial plant by humane procedures under meat inspection supervision. Carcass data will be collected. Beef chemical composition (protein and fat content) and tenderness will be determined from a rib-steak obtained by cutting the 11th rib from the left side of the carcass. Data will be analyzed in a randomized block design (Lentner and Bishop, 1993) with 3 replicates per treatment. Animal performance, carcass, and forage data will be analyzed using Proc GLM (SAS) with the model including treatment (breed type), year, and their interaction. Treatment least squares means will be calculated and means compared using LSD protected by a significant (P < 0.05) F-value.Record-keeping systems will be developed to collect detailed economic data on inputs and outputs associated with each treatment × replication × year group. These data will be collected so that a total of 3 treatments × 3 replications × 2 years = 18 cost and returns estimates will be made for the experiment. Objective 2. Four farms have been selected for collaboration. Two of these farms will use a similar diverse cover crop pasture during the transition period for recently weaned calves (Angus and Angus crossbred) as the one proposed to be evaluated at the IRS. Two other farms qualified as SVS grass-fed producers as described by the USDA. Information on cattle (stocking rate, stocking management), soil characteristics, and pasture management (fertilizer, herbicide, seed rate, etc.) will be collected following the same procedures described under Objective 1.Objective 3. We will develop a survey to conduct case studies of grass-fed beef strategic alliances. This survey will be similar to that conducted by Gillespie et al. (2006) for Southeastern U.S. cow-calf producers. Strategic alliance managers will receive letters requesting their participation in the case study and be informed that they will receive a phone call in the near future to set up an interview. The extensive data collected on each alliance will be used to compare and contrast their effectiveness in meeting their stated objectives. Case studies will be conducted via personal interview, as the questions to be asked cannot be effectively asked in a mail or internet survey. All procedures will be approved by the LSU Agricultural Center Internal Review Board for Human Subjects prior to surveying. We will target the conduct of 20 case studies with strategic alliances that range in scope, but will consider our efforts successful if 10 case studies can be conducted.Objective 4. This objective will entail the conduct of a mail survey to all known U.S. grass-fed beef producers. The survey for the present study will focus specifically on identifying marketing needs of grass-fed beef producers and the type of strategic alliance they would most prefer to join. After being provided a definition for a strategic alliance, producers will be asked whether they are involved in a strategic alliance at present and, if so, specific questions about the functions of the alliance. Producers will then be asked to participate in a choice-based conjoint analysis where they will make choices among hypothetically offered strategic alliances. To identify producers for the grass-fed beef producer mail survey, our existing mailing list of U.S. grass-fed beef producers will be checked to determine which of the producers continue to advertise via the Internet. All procedures will be approved by the LSU Agricultural Center Internal Review Board for Human Subjects prior to survey administration.Objective 5. This objective involves the survey of 1,500 grocery store managers and 1,500 restaurant managers in 10 U.S. metropolitan areas: Seattle, WA, San Francisco, CA, Phoenix, AZ, and Denver, CO, Chicago, IL, Dallas, TX, New Orleans - Baton Rouge, LA, New York, NY, Washington, DC, and Atlanta, GA (averages of 150 per metropolitan area each). We will survey full-service grocery stores and ethnic (Asian, Mexican, Italian, etc.) stores, but not convenience stores. We will survey restaurants including diners and upscale restaurants, but not fast food restaurants since few of these restaurants offer grass-fed beef.As with the producer survey, choice-based conjoint analysis will be included that asks restaurant managers and grocery store managers to choose among grass-fed beef products of different attribute levels. Determination of the specific questions will be made through our initial interviews with restaurant and grocery store managers (as discussed earlier).Names and addresses of grocery stores and restaurants in the ten metropolitan areas will be downloaded from Infogroup Business Listing, which is available in the LSU Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness. This mail survey will be developed and administered in a manner similar to the producer survey, with an initial questionnaire and personally addressed letter sent via first class mail, followed by a postcard reminder. Objective 6. Collaborating farms where research data will be collected will host pasture walks. For two farms (with cover crops), pasture walks will be held in October/November; for the other two (grass-fed beef production) in March/April. Also, the IRS will host 2 pasture walks each year (October/November and August). Data collected and the experiment itself, as well as results of the strategic alliance research, will be also presented during the station's annual field day (March of every year). Information will also be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals, factsheets, regional and national farmers' magazines, eXtension, and annual scientific meetings. Workshops will be organized by the project team and collaborating producersAnother outreach effort will target enhanced marketing opportunities through an existing program - MarketReady, which will be modified and directed to grass-fed beef producers in Louisiana. Six all-day training workshops will be provided across the state, targeting 20 grass-fed producers at each workshop. Training focuses on best business practices identified by buyers in these markets who are actively seeking local suppliers. Business functions covered include: communication and relationship building, packaging, labeling, pricing, delivery, invoicing, storage, inventory, insurance, quality control and marketing, among others. Existing curriculum will be modified to grass-fed beef producers with emphasis on strategic alliance issues identified by Objectives 4 and 5.

Progress 01/01/16 to 12/16/21

Outputs
Target Audience:Beef cattle and hay producers,undergraduates, graduate students, extensionspecialists and researchers in forages and animal production disciplines, genarl public through social media (Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube), reaching public from outside the state too. Changes/Problems:The COVID-19 pandemic had a tremendous negative impact on our efforts to accomplishing our goals. Many of the work still to do need the continue communication in person with producers, retailers, focus groups, etc. Hence, these activities were not completed, although there is the willingness and the scientific need to conclude this work as established by Drs. Bampasidou and Mark in their respective reports.The fact that for some data collection we are doing it in different states increased the difficulty. One other factor that is the result of the pandemic is that some stores, restaurants, etc. went out of business due to the pandemic. Many regional meetings (i.e. Southern Pasture and Forage Crop Improvement Conference) where we were planning to present data were cancelled for the same reason. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Two undergraduate students were hired during the summer months to assist with the interviews. These students gained training in research methods for reviewing literature, training in scientific protocols for administering survey so that findings from research are robust and scientifically rigorous - following current ethics and standards in social science research. An undergraduate student assisted in compiling the grass-fed beef producer directory. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Field days, scientific conferences, workshop on Grassfed production and Marketing, online videos, and website devoted to GrassFed Beef production (https://www.lsuagcenter.com/topics/livestock/beef_cattle/grass-fed_beef) under the LSU AgCenter (lsuagcenter.com) website. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Considering this is the final report, the following actions will continue after the end of the project by Dr. M. Bampasidou: 1)continue to analyze survey data to provide input to the grass-fed beef industry; 2)publish factsheets, reports and articles recognizing funding from the agency; 3)present findings to professional meeting and industry-oriented meetings;4) explore opportunities with graduate students to continue research in the area; 5)provide expertise, as needed, to local constituencies. Dr. T. Mark will continue his work on Objective 5.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? 1) Steers (Brangus and Brangus x Angus crosses) grazed winter annual ryegrass pastures until mid-May; ADG during this period was 1.38 kg while during summer a combination of naturalwarm season grasses was grazed (0.95 kg of ADG).No steer was harvested in 2021. 2) One producer collaborating with the project did not harvest any steers in 2021 due to health issues and hence production goals were not achieved during the year. Due to COVID restriction there was no chance to participate in the harvesting of steers from another collaborator. For reasons not specified there were no chance to collect carcass data.Average daily gains during winter months of Pineywoods and Dexter cattle was 1.7 and 1.1 kg when grazingwinter pastures. 3) A web-search was conducted to identify grass-fed beef strategic alliances in the US during the summer of 2020. The search was meant to identify alliances that are still in business or are not. In addition, the search tracked changes in the website content and helped identify main attributes to be used in the producer survey. As part of the final report the alliances documented were re-examined to verify their presence in November 2021. We have confirmed the presence of the alliances listed in the table below. Our research has shown that alliances in the grass-fed beef are mainly producer based, mostly family-focused operations or contract-based operations. However, past research has shown that the alliances do not persist and change name. The respective alliances were documented and categorized as per their main formation, and business structure. As main formation we categorized them in producer oriented family business or contract-based, and alliances that had members in more than one segment of the supply chain. Business structure were (family businesses) sole proprietorships, LLCs, cooperatives. The alliances main focus areas include: Secure production base (quantity and quality), Minimize production costs, Product certifications, Environmental attitudes, Soil management, Animal welfare, and Community/consumer education (lifestyle, nutrition, etc.) 4) Continued review of literature and previous research on producer preferences. Most of the recent references were from the conventional beef industry exploring state branded programs. This literature was relevant considering the similarities and differences between branded programs and strategic alliances. Both have a goal to secure a strong producer base however they differentiate in terms of marketing and business models. The survey instrument to gauge producer perceptions on marketing through strategic alliances and alliance structure was finalized. Focus groups of grass-fed beef producers were scheduled but due to scheduling conflicts personal interviews were conducted as an alternative in spring and fall 2021. In addition, the Co-PI scheduled meeting with Farm Bureau experts in other Southern states to get information on grass-fed beef producer needs and marketing initiatives and test the survey instrument. The survey instrument was developed based on feedback from producers, researchers and industry experts. Dr Jerrod Penn from LSU, an expert on choice modeling with the Co-PI revised the choice experiment to tackle strategic alliance features. The features used followed the initial grant application objectives and were adapted to incorporate feedback from the interviews and relevant research projects. The attributes in the choice experiment include: Number of producers in a strategic alliance, Alliance members in different segments of the supply chain,Certifications, Breed requirement, Processing facility options and distance to the facility, Business structure, Longevity of the business, and Price premium. The survey was administered initially online and also in paper formats. The Co-PI with the help of a graduate student and an undergraduate research assistant compiled a list of grass-fed beef producers at the national level. A total of 1,930 entries were reported. The directories used included American Grassfed Alliance, EatWild, Market Ready, FarmersPal, and directories from grass-fed beef state initiatives. Due to COVID-19, the survey was not administered early in the year 2021 where discussions with producers focused on supply chain stress and lack of processing facilities which would dilute the focus of the survey. We are currently completing the paper format push and administering the second push of the online survey. 5) One of the critical components of this project was to understand how both groceries and restaurants understand the term strategic alliance. Within the grocery and restaurant sector, this term is not common. This is evident from the pretesting, survey, and even the workshop conducted. For the purposes of this study we settled on the following definition of a strategic alliance: "Strategic alliances are a linkage between independent participants that share compatible goals, strive for mutual benefits, and share a high level of mutual dependence. This linkage is shared in the production and marketing channels of a particular sector and depends on sharing of information which allows for each participant to optimize profitability. While these agreements are oftentimes informal agreements, the de facto governing majority of the strategic alliance can dictate management practices and resulting product-specific attributes (i.e. feed programs, antibiotic use, etc.)." It is more detailed than we would have liked to use, but this provided the most detail to help the individual taking the survey a deeper understanding from pretesting. The survey design was modified to deal with several issues that presented themselves in the pretesting: 1) Chain restaurants and grocery stores make up 60% of the dataset. However, this does vary by city. This is problematic because they tend to buy and negotiate pricing as a group. Therefore, the response rate will be negatively impacted, and in response, we decided to oversample relative to the original proposal so we can potentially deal with the lower response rates; 2) In both the grocery and restaurant datasets, significant cleaning was performed to minimize sending a survey to businesses who have gone out of business. During the period of building the dataset the closure rate for restaurants was over 10%. It was slightly higher for fine dining, which is a target for the survey. This also led to the decision to oversample. The survey itself was soft launched in October 2021.This was in response to the comments from both sectors that tight labor availability and the number of them going out of business is starting to dissipate. So we delayed as long as possible with the survey. Therefore, the response has been very slow, and in fact, we are now trying to contact restaurants to make sure they received and asked them to complete the survey. Therefore, the findings presented below are taken from both the pretesting and minimal observation we have back. As of 12/6/2021 we have 115 grocery and 75 restaurant responses. Many of these are incomplete as well. Since this is a voluntary survey, there were no forced answers. One of the pitfalls pointed out in this project was that collecting the data would be problematic. Once we complete the calling protocol, we will resume work on the manuscripts and additional outreach materials. Takeaways These are based on the current sample and pretesting of the survey. We don't expect them to change as we continue to collect more information. Grocery Have to build strategic alliances that can support their supply chain year around Need to educate meat counter managers on what labels and strategic alliances can do. Restaurant Open to strategic alliances Need the story to go with the product Only need certain cuts Have a better understanding of grass-fed 6) Field days and a Workshop on Grassfed Beef Production were organized where project data were presented and discussed with the audience.

Publications

  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Scaglia, G. 2021. Grazing Brassicas during the Fall Transition Period. In: Proceedings of the 2021 ASA-CSSA-SSSA International Annual Meetings. November 7-10. Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Awaiting Publication Year Published: 2022 Citation: Reyes, M. J., J. Penn, M. Bampasidou, and G. Scaglia. Grass-fed beef strategic alliances: what motivates producer participation?. 2022 SAEA Annual Meeting on February 13-15.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Awaiting Publication Year Published: 2022 Citation: Bampasidou, M., J. Penn, and G. Scaglia. Grass-fed beef strategic alliance: Producer perceptions. Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Meetings, Anaheim, 2022.
  • Type: Other Status: Awaiting Publication Year Published: 2022 Citation: Bampasidou, M., and G. Scaglia. Grass-fed beef strategic alliances: marketing challenges and producer needs. Louisiana Agriculture Magazine.


Progress 01/01/20 to 12/31/20

Outputs
Target Audience:Beef cattle and hay producers at the Iberia Research Station field day (March 2020).Presentations (electronic poster and taped)at a national conference 2020 ASAS-CSAS-WSASAS Virtual Annual Meeting and Trade Show, July 19-23.Reached county agents and extension specialists from Louisiana and neighboringstates through phone calls and virtual meetings through Microsoft Teams and other platforms.Presentationin Microsoft Teams "Grazing Nutrition" conducted by the PI included information from this project. This presentation is available under the Beef Brunch Educational Series in the Beef Cattle link of the LSU AgCenter website. Changes/Problems:The COVID-19 pandemic had a tremendous negative impact on our effortsto accomplishing our goals. Many of the work still to do need the continue communication in person with producers, retailers, focus groups, etc. Hence, these activities were not completed. Only a field day with an attendance of 102 producers was organized at the Iberia Research Station (in March, right before the state declared some guidelines to fight COVID-19). It was not possible to have morein-person field daysor pasture walks. Also, thefact that for some data collection we are doing it in different states increased the difficulty. One other factor that is the result of the pandemic is that some stores, restaurants, etc. went out of business due to the pandemic. Many regional meetings (i.e. Southern Pasture and Forage Crop Improvement Conference) where we were planning to present data were cancelled for the same reason . What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Two undergraduate students were hired during the summer months to assist with the interviews. These students gained training in research methods for reviewing literature, training in scientific protocols for administering survey so that findings from research are robust and scientifically rigorous - following current ethics and standards in social science research How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Data generated in objectives 1 and 2 were disseminated in a field day (March 2020), newsletter articles, scientific manuscript, scientific meetings (virtuals), and a video. Awebsite for grass-fed beef production located in the AgCenter website was developed by the PI and will be updated as more information is generated. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We will continue our efforts to collect valuable data from producers working on grass-fed beef production (Obj. 1 and 2). Dr. Bampasidou will continue the efforts of administering another round of interview (Obj. 3 and 4). The survey of grocery store managers and restaurant managers in 10 US metropolitan areas: Seattle (WA), San Francisco (CA), Phoenix (AZ), Denver (CO), Chicago (IL), Dallas (TX), New Orleans-Baton Rough (LA), New York (NY), Washington (DC), and Atlanta (GA) (averages of 150 per metropolitan area each) will be implemented. We will survey full-service grocery store and ethnic (Asian, Mexican, Italian, etc.) stores, but not convenience stores. We willmail out 4,500 (2,250 grocery stores and 2,250 restaurants). Once information is received, we will proceed with data entry, analyses, and preparation of materials for presentation and publication (Obj. 5). If the conditions are appropriate (and we have no restrictions due to COVID), Dr. Scaglia will organize a 1-day Workshop on "Grass-fed Beef Production and Marketing" in which all the members of the team, producers collaborating in the project, and other grass-fed beef producers will participate with presentations. Producers presentations will refer to their own production and marketing systems. If not possible to do it in person, then we will do presentations through Microsoft Teams which will then be posted in the project's website.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? 1) Steers grazed winter annual ryegrass pastures until mid-May;ADG during this period was 1.20 kg. No steer was harvested in 2020. 2) Carcass weights collection was conducted by producers' collaborating with the project (PI was not able to attend the harvest of the steers because ofrestrictions/guidelines due to COVID-19)forPineywoods, Dexter, Braford crosses,and South Poll crosses.Hot carcass weight varied from 187 to 343 kg depending on breed type, age, and nutritional management. Some references as to pastures grazed was provided by producers. These include: winter annuals (annual ryegrass, rye, clovers), bermudagrass hybrids, pearl millet, BMR sorghum sudans, among others. One of the producers used brassicas (radish and turnips). 3) Additional web-search was conducted to identify grass-fed beef strategic alliances in the US during the summer of 2020. The search was meant to identify alliances that are still in business or are not. In addition, the search tracked changes in the website content and helped identify main attributes to be used in the producer survey. Continuous efforts in scheduling meeting with strategic alliance representatives were not successful during the reporting period. 4) Continue review of literature and previous research on producer preferences; a revised survey instrument was developed and fine-tuned with the University of Kentucky. A few suggestions were received in order to improve the development of the choice experiment. 5) Survey instrument completed for mailing and also a Qualtrics version has been created; the survey has not been mailed out at this point or the qualtrics version gone live as the large number of restaurants that have closed their doors due to COVID. This is problematic and impacts the response rate. However, states are starting to open up and this should provide some stability and slow restaurant closings. Database developed for grocery and restaurant mailing addresses; we have had issues with restaurants going out of business and dropping out of sample. We will continue to add to the database and updating until survey is released. In our updating of the database and trying to verify if they are still in business and 6% of the restaurants we had in the data set were now closed. We are in the process now of conducting this same exercise to make sure we meet at least the minimum of 1,500.

Publications

  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Scaglia, G. 2020. Effect of timing of urea application or red clover incorporation on forage and animal production. J. Sust. Agric. Vol. 9(3): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v9n3p1
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Scaglia, G. 2020. Extending the grazing season for grass-fed beef production into the spring transition period. ASAS-CSAS-WSASAS Virtual Meeting.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Scaglia, G. 2020. Matching forage resources with animal requirements. Pasture to Market Newsletter. May-June. Pages 2-3.


Progress 01/01/19 to 12/31/19

Outputs
Target Audience:Beef cattle and hay producers at field days, soil workshop and visit from scientists. Presentations at international and national conferences. Reached county agents and extension specialists from other states. Changes/Problems:There has been some delays and time-line changes from the sub-awardee (University of Kentucky); based on discussions, compromises have been made to ensure all goals are achieved this year. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Graduate student and PI (Dr. Bampasidou) have increased their research skills in reviewing economic literature, gathering secondary information and reviewing previous research efforts related to strategic alliances among producers. Graduate student has gained training in research methods for reviewing literature and developing survey instruments, training in scientific protocols for administering surveys so that findings from research are robust and scientifically rigorous - following current ethics and standards in social science research. Graduate student has gained training in research methods for conducting case studies. Graduate student has gained training in developing reports and factsheets. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Data generated in objectives 1 and 2 were disseminated in international congress, extension agents meetings, and pasture walks organized at collaborative farms. Developing the website for grass-fed beef production located in the AgCenter website. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Graduate student and Dr. Bampasidou are considering administering another round of interviews or attending meetings and trying to get more information in person.The Co-PIs will work more closely with the U. of Kentucky sub awardee to make sure they meet their deliverables. We have agreed to an action plan to be implemented starting in January. In the meantime they will share with me all their material including papers, drafts, survey instrument, and focus group results. A 1-day workshop will be held to present all information to all clientele: scientists, extension personnel, stakeholders, restauranteurs, etc. Data will be presented at different meetings, classes to undergraduates.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? 1) Steers started grazing cover crops on October 30 and continued into mixed pastures of cereal rye+ryegrass and clovers. Gains throughout winter grazing season were 1.1, 1.23,and 0.89 kg/d forHolsteins, Angus,and Pineywoods, respectively. All animals were kept for summer period althoughhalf of them were outside the experiment. No steer was harvested in 2019. 2) Follow-up on Pineywoods and South Poll crosses was completed although failure on the electronic scale precluded us from getting weights. Hot carcass weight varied from 198 to 389 kg. 3) Additional web-search was conducted to identify grass-fed beef strategic alliances in the US during the summer of 2019. Seventeen alliances were found. A list can be provided upon request. Based on the list compiled we initiated communications with the alliances through: Phone calls, Direct mail, and Email. Two survey instruments were developed (1 online + 1 interview). A new student was part of the project for 3 months and he assisted in the development of the questionnaires. The student graduated in June 2019. After 3 rounds of effort (May 2019, Jun. 2019, Aug. 2019) seven alliances expressed interest to learn more about our project. Only 1 alliance completed the interview process and parts of the online questionnaire. Three alliances reviewed the online portion. 4) Continued review of literature and previous research on producer preferences. A revised survey instrument was developed and is currently being fine-tuned with the U of Kentucky team. The updated survey instrument discussed versions of the strategic alliances term. 5) The LSU Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness department did not have the capacity to complete this objective and a sub-award was given to University of Kentucky under the direction of Dr. Mark Tyler. The group was expected to complete the survey instrument to be administered to retailers and restaurants. A focus group and pretesting of the survey was completed. Through their preliminary and test round survey, they discovered complications with the term 'strategic alliance'. They used two different terms and collected information on how the focus group understoodeach term. A revised survey instrument was developed. We are currently working on finalizing this instrument. 6) Data from objectives 1 and 2 were presented in different venues including annual meeting of county agents, international symposium, and to stakeholders visiting the research station.

Publications

  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Sitienei, I., Gillespie, J. M., and Scaglia, G. 2019. Forage management practices used in production of US grass-fed beef. Appl. Anim. Sci. 35:535542.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Sitienei, I., Gillespie, J. M., and Scaglia, G. 2019. U.S. Grass-fed beef producers: Goal structure and reasons for enterprise selection. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2019.36
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Sitienei, I., Gillespie, J. M., Harrison, R. W., and Scaglia, G. 2019. Estimating preference heterogeneity for Grass-fed beef cattle traits. Agric. Res. Econ. Rev. 125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/age.2019.14
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Scaglia, G. 2019. Effect of breed type in grass-fed production systems. In: Proc. of the European Federation of Animal Science Annual Meeting; August 26-30, Ghent, Belgium. Page 618.
  • Type: Book Chapters Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Poore, M., Scaglia, G., Andrae, J., Harmon, D., Rogers, J., and Blacklin, S. 2019. Chapter 10: Pasture-finished beef production in the south. In: Management Strategies for Sustainable Cattle Production in Southern Pastures. Ed: M. Rouquette and G. Aiken. Elsevier. 362 p. Paperback ISBN: 9780128144749.


Progress 01/01/18 to 12/31/18

Outputs
Target Audience:Groups targeted were beef cattle and forage producers on field days and pasture walks (103 and 23 respectively), undergraduate international students from Honduras (18 students),graduate students (3), scientists (animal scientists, forage agronomists, meat scientists, and agricultural economists) from LA and other states in scientific conferences,county agents, and extension specialists. Changes/Problems:As indicated previously Objectives 5 was sub-awarded to Dr. M. Tyler at the University of Kentucky. This delays some the original timeline and planning but Dr. Tyler is working towards accomplishing the plans in a timely manner. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Graduate student has gained training in research methods for reviewing literature and developing survey instrument, training in scientific protocols for administering survey so that findings from research are robust and scientifically rigorous - following current ethics and standards in social science research. Graduate student has gained training in research methods for conducting case studies. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Data generated in Objectives 1 and 2 will be disseminated through field days, pasture walks and conferences. The findings from the web-search along with the objectives of the study for objective 3 were presented at the Annual meetings of the Applied and Agricultural Economics Association in 2018. The PI and Co-PI at LSU AgCenter are developing a website that will hold all information collected in the present project. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Objectives 1 and 2. Continue generating data as indicated in the projectexcept if limitations or issues not under the PI control occur. Objective 3) Graduate student and Dr. Bampasidou will conduct the interviews and prepare reports of the case studies. Objective 4) A newly hired graduate student with the PI/Co-PIs will finalize survey instrument to administer to producers gauging interest in, participation level and factors influencing participation in strategic alliances for grass-fed production. The survey will be pre-tested to grass-fed beef producers in Louisiana and an IRB protocol will be used informing participants of the content and context of the study. Objective 5) Timeline explained before will be followed including but not limited to the development of the database of restaurants and grocery store chains that will be surveyed as well as completion of survey. Focus groups discussion and testing will follow. Once completed survey instruments have been returned, responses will be entered into secure database, data will be checked for accuracy and consistency with returned surveys. Objective 6) A field day in March 2019, a pasture walk at a collaborator farm and 2 cattlemen's meetings are already planned to present and discuss data.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Description of accomplishments is presented by objective. 1) Steers of different breed types grazed on stockpiled bermudagrass ('Jiggs') and were supplemented with alfalfa hay from October to December. Holsteins,Angus, and Pineywoods gained 0.89,0.86, and 0.52 kg/d, respectively until were placed on winter pastures. During this period steers gained1.17, 1.29, and 0.81 kg forHolsteins, Angus and Pineywoods, respectively. During the summer steers grazed a mix pasture of crabgrass and bermudagrass for 36 days and a mix pasture of alycelcover/sorghum sudan hybrid for 62 days, with bermudagrass hay fed during the transition period. ADG were0.58, 0.61, and 0.49 kg/d, respctively.Steers grazed these pastures based onstocking rate expressed as kg BW/ha; Pineywoods steers used 69% of the area that Angus steers used, and Holstein steers used 7% more area than Angus. Representative number of steers of each breed were harvested in May and September. Average BW of steers (order of presentation will be Angus, Holstein, and Pineywoods) at the first harvest (May) was 441, 536, and 306 kg; hot carcass weight 243, 276, and 166 kg;fat thickness 5.3, 2.0, and 1.4 mm; ribeye area 65, 56, and 55 square centimeters; and % kidney, pelvic and heart fat was 1, 1.75, and 1.75, respectively. Carcass information of steers harvested in September was as follows (Angus, Holstein, Pineywoods steers): average bodyweight was 516, 545, and 342 kg; hot carcass weight 293, 289, and 191 kg; fat thickness 8.5, 1, and 2,4 mm; ribeye area 68, 52, and 63 square centimeters; percent kidney, pelvic and heart fat was 2.5, 1.75, and 3; respectively. 2) Performance of Dexter, South Poll crosses and Pineywoods cattle at farm level was lower than data obtained at the research station. As the year before, winter pastures were a mix of annual ryegrass and clover; ADG of Pineywoods cattle in Farm A was 0.68 kg and grazed pearl millet and cowpeas during the summerfor a smaller ADG (0.39 kg). A bermudagrass/bahiagrass pasture was used for time periods of lack of forage from annual summer pastures. Dexter and South Poll crosses grazing annual winter forages at 1 steer per ha gained 1.58 kg/d. At harvest (no carcass data available) they were on average 22 months of age and 462 kg of BW. 3) A detailed web-search was conducted to identify grass-fed beef strategic alliances in the US. A total of 15 strategic alliances/cooperatives were identified, with 12 of them reporting a physical address (1 in Texas; 1 in Colorado; 1 in New Mexico; 1 in Illinois; 1 in Pennsylvania; 1 in Massachusetts; 1 in Florida; 1 in Montana; 1 in Wisconsin; 1 in Virginia; 1 in Hawaii; and 1 in Oregon). A further analysis deemed that 10 fit the criteria of this study. This subsample of alliances/cooperatives were established between early 2000s and some in 2010s. The majority of the formations are rancher-based (25% of them are family owned farms). Thirty percent of them reported that are certified, and 1 alliance listed that were focusing on a breed (the Parthenais breed). Based on information found on their respective websites, a list of goals was compiled which includes i) provide a healthy product, improve health (human, ecological, animal); ii) guarantee a market for their product; iii) reduce costs; iv) strengthen local communities. These findings were summarized and were developed into a manuscript submitted for review for the Annual meetings of the Applied and Agricultural Economics Association in 2017. Based on these observations, discussions with producers and using the information collected via literature review of studies pertaining to the structure of beef strategic alliances, grass-fed beef alliances and extension publications on grass-fed beef production systems a survey instrument was developed. The questionnaire format complied with previous case studies on beef strategic alliances. The questionnaire, letter of introduction for the study and letter of commitment for the study cleared LSU IRB. We followed research protocol for case studies an initial introduction was made on May 2017 via mail, phone-call and email. One alliance agreed to collaborate and 3 were asked not to be considered. Due to the low response, we re-developed the survey instrument into an online component and an interview component to decrease the survey fatigue. 4) Continued review of literature and previous research on producer preferences. A revised survey instrument is under development after discussions with Louisiana grass-fed beef producers. Initiated discussion with the representative of the National Grass-fed Beef association to assist with compiling a list of grass-fed beef producers in the US. Completed literature review on data management techniques and econometric models that will be used in this project. 5) The LSU Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness Department did not have the capacity to complete this objective after a few Faculty members left the University, soa sub-award was given to University of Kentucky under the direction of Dr. Mark Tyler. Dr. Tylerhavestarted the IRB process at the University of Kentucky for an expedited review of our instrument. Furthermore, in spring 2019a Post-Doc, at no cost to the grant, who will be working with the data to bring us back to the revised schedule. Beyond finalizing the development of the instrument, Dr. Tyler is working to develop the database of restaurants and grocery store chains we will be surveying. 6) Atthe Field Day in March 2018 data were reported and pasture use discussed with attendees. Similalry, all visits reported (graduate and undergraduate students, producers, etc.) were shown the experiment and data discussed.

Publications

  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Carabante, K., Ardoin, R., Scaglia, G., Malekian, F., Khachaturyan, M., Janes, M., and Prinyawiwatkul, W. 2018. Consumer acceptance, emotional response and purchase intent of rib-eye steaks from grass-fed steers, and effects of health benefit information on consumer perception. J. Food Sci. Vol.83 Issue 10, Pages 2560-2570. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.14324
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Qushim, B., Gillespie, J. M., Bhandari, B. D., and Scaglia, G. 2018. Technical and scale efficiencies of US grass-fed beef production: Whole-farm and enterprise analyses. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. Vol.50, Issue 3, pp. 408-428. https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2018.7
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Le, N. T., Scaglia, G., and Bampasidou, M. 2018. Marketing channels for grass-fed beef production: The role of strategic alliances. AAEA Annual Meeting; Washington, D.C.
  • Type: Theses/Dissertations Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Turnage, Z. J. 2018. Analysis of alternative forage-based pasture systems for maximizing profitability in grass-fed beef production. MS Thesis. Louisiana State University; 54 pages.


Progress 01/01/17 to 12/31/17

Outputs
Target Audience:Groups targeted werebeef cattle and forage producers (120 people) on field days and pasture walks, undergraduateinternational students(23 students),graduate students, scientists (animal scientists, forage agronomists, meat scientists, and agricultural economists) from LA and other states in scientific conferences and workshops,county agents, and extension specialists. Changes/Problems:1) Due to lack of sources where to harvest animals, the harvest date planned for September (end of the summer grazing period) was not done. 2) Due to Faculty involved in this project leaving the LSU AgCenter, Dr. M. Bampasidou was included as responsible for Objectives 3, 4, and 5; however, some aspects of these objectives will be sub-awarded to the University of Kentucky. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Graduate student and PI have increased research skills in reviewing economic literature, gathering secondary information and reviewing previous research efforts related to strategic alliances among producers. Graduate student has gained training in research methods for reviewing literature and developing survey instrument, training in scientific protocols for administering survey so that findings from research are robust and scientifically rigorous - following current ethics and standards in social science research. Graduate student has gained training in research methods for conducting case studies. Graduate student has gained training in developing reports and factsheets. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Field day and pasture walk at the Iberia Research Station. In both activities handouts provide summary of the data discussed in presentations. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Objectives 1 and 2. Continue generating data as indicated in the project (Objectives 1 and 2) except if limitations or issues not under the PI control occur; disseminating the information in field days and pasture walks that will be conducted at the LSU AgCenter Iberia Resarch Station and at collaborating prodcuers' farms. Objective 3. Graduate student and PI will finalize the questionnaire to be used in the case studies. The survey will pass from IRB review. Graduate student will conduct the interviews and prepare reports of the case studies. Objective 4. Graduate student will complete literature review. Graduate student and PI will finalize survey instrument to administer to producers gauging interest in, participation level and factors influencing participation in strategic alliances for grass-fed production. The survey will be pre-tested to grass-fed beef producers in Louisiana and an IRB protocol will be used informing participants of the content and context of the study. Once completed survey instruments have been returned, responses will be entered into secure database, data will be checked for accuracy and consistency with returned surveys. A preliminary data analysis will be conducted based on economic modeling. Econometric analysis of data, using models as outlined in project, will be completed. Reports and factsheets will be generated. Objective 5. Graduate student and PI plan to finalize review of literature and develop survey instrument to be distributed to sample population as outlined in project. Graduate student and PI will administer survey to retail establishments. Once completed survey instruments have been returned, response will be entered into secure database, data will be check for accuracy and consistency with returned surveys, then preliminary data analysis will be conducted. Econometric analysis of data, using models as outlined in project, will be completed.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Accomplishments reported by objective. 1) The second year of evaluation was conducted and animals harvested in April but not on September as planned. The LSU system does not have a harvest plant available and we depend on commercial slaughter houses to conduct our research. Unfortunately, this year none of the plants bidded on our offer.Steers started the program in November 18. At that time and until December 15,all steers grazed stockpiled bermudagrass (9.7% CP; 54% TDN) plus alfalfa hay at a rate of 0.8% of their BW.ADG were 0.5, 0.7, 0.7, and 0.3 kg for Brangus, Holesteins, Angus, and Pineywoods, respctively. On December15all steersstarted grazing winter pastures (annual ryegrass + oats; annual ryegrass and annual ryegrass + berseem clover) at a stocking rate of 1.8 steers/ha until pastures played off in late April. During this timesteers gained 1.04, 1.11, 1.09, and0.70 kg for Brangus, Holsteins, Angus and Pineywoods, respectively. By design all breeds are managed at the same stocking rate, however, due to their mature size, Pineywoods only require an effective65% of the land available for them.At the end of the winter grazing season (April 2016) 6 steers per breed were harvested at a commercial abbatoir and carcass data collected.Angus had the greatest hot carcass weight (232 kg), ribeye area (59.3 sqcm), fat thickness (4.15 mm), and dressing percentage (52.4%) compared to Brangus (212 kg, 55.2 sqcm, 2.84 mm, and 51.7%, respectively), Holstein (220 kg, 46.7 sqcm, 1.35 mm, and 47.7% respectively), and Pineywoods (153.6 kg,49.35 sqcm, 2.24 mm, and 50.9%, respectively). 2) Following producers' grazing programs the growth of Pineywoods and Dexter grass-fed cattle is being followed. Pineywoods at Farm A (name of farms or ownerships is not provided in this report as per confidentiality agreement) grazed annual ryegrass and white clover during the winter months (ADG was0.57 kg)and have access to a pearl millet/cowpeas from June 5-July 12 (ADG of 0.45 kg) and then amixed sward of bermudagrass and bahiagrass during the rest of the summer (ADG was 0.38 kg). In August 14, 3 steers (approximately age of 23 months and295 kg) were harvested at a commercial abbattoir and carcass data were collected. Hot carcass weight was 140 kg, ribeye area at 35.7 sqcm, fat thickness 1.4 mm, and dressing percent of47.4%. Farm B producing Dexter cattle is going through a process fo verical integration, building their own abbattoir and building their own store in Baton Rouge; due to these issues we were not able to collect all the nexessary data. Another change the farm is going through is the use of crosses with South Poll.Due to 2016 flooding producers could not get cover crops established except for oneof them (Farm E) who usedsunn hemp, kale, oats, red and ball clover, and annual ryegrass. Producer started grazing this pasture in mid-December with replacement heifers and ended in last January. After 22 days of rest pastures were grazed again. At this time only annual ryegrass and clovers were present in the pasture. Sunn hemp proved to be a good producing forage although if let mature its quality would be low due to greater proportion of stems. Kale and oats did not provide much to the mix. For this year, itwas suggested by the PI the use of different cultivars as well as a mix with more forages. 3) Continued review of economic literature on strategic alliances, organizational structures and supply chain (management) in beef industry. Also, a review of literature and research methods on how to conduct case studies was completed. Collected information on existing grass-fed beef strategic alliances via the web. A list of existing grass-fed beef strategic alliances was created and alliances were categorized based on reported attributes. The list will serve as a first contact list for the interviews. A preliminary questionnaire to be administered in the interviews with strategic alliance representatives was developed. A letter of commitment was drafted to be used in the interviews. Additionally, a review of the literature for strategic alliances, and supply chain (management) was undertaken for the poultry and the pork industry. That allowed to document patterns in the industries and see how attributes of those industries affected the beef and grass-fed beef industries. 4) Continued review of literature and previous research on producer preferences. A preliminary survey instrument was developed. 5) Dr. Westra, the project PI moved to another institution and the LSU Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness department does not have the capacity to complete this part of the grant. The current project Co-PI, Dr. Bampasidou is collaborating with Dr. Mark from University of Kentucky (UK). Dr. Mark from the Agricultural Economics department at UK will undertake this research objective. 6) In the pasture walk conducted in January 2017 and the Field Day in March 2017 data was reported and pasture use discussed with attendees.

Publications


    Progress 01/01/16 to 12/31/16

    Outputs
    Target Audience:Groups targeted include beef cattle and forage producers (200 people) on field days and pasture walks, undergraduate (national and international; 60 students) and graduate students (5 students), scientists (approximately 20 included in professional meetings who were informed of this project), county agents, and extension specialists (10 individuals). Changes/Problems:One of the Co-PIs (Dr. J. Gillespie) who was the main reference for the economics portion of this project (goals 3, 4, and 5) resigned and move to a new job, althoughhe will stillbe involved; however,the point person to achieving the goals for this section of the project will be pursued by Dr. J. Westra. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Graduate student has increased research skills in reviewing economic literature,gathering secondary information and reviewing previous research effortsrelated to marketing and strategic alliances among producers.Graduate student has gained training in research methods for reviewing literature and developing survey instrument,training in scientificprotocols for administering survey so that findings from research are robust and scientificallyrigorous - following currentstandards in social science research. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Field day and visit to producers collaborating with this project. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Continue generating data as indicated in the project; disseminating the information in field days and pasture walks that will be conducted at the LSU AgCenter Iberia Resarch Station andat collaboratingprodcuers' farms. Graduate student will complete literature review. Graduate student and PI will develop survey instrument to administer to producers gauging interest in, participation level and factors influencing participation in strategic alliances for grass-fed production.Graduate student and PI plan to finalize review of literature and develop survey instrument to be distributed to sample population as outlined in project.Graduate student and PI will finalize current draft of survey instrument, after final field-testing. Then graduate student and PI will administer survey to retail establishments. Once completedsurvey instruments have been returned, response will be entered into secure database, data will be check for accuracy and consistency with returned surveys, then preliminary data analysis will be conducted. Econometric analysis of data, using models as outlined in project, will be completed.

    Impacts
    What was accomplished under these goals? 1) The first year of evaluation was conducted and animals harvested in September. By the end of the winter grazing season Angus and Holstein steers presented similar BW at 420 kg while Pineywoods as expected (their mature weight is approximately 450 kg) were much smaller at 226 kg. Their daily gains were 1.31, 1.27, and 0.75 kg for Angus, Holsteins, and Pineywoods respectively; however, Pineywoods cattle performance clearly reflect their genetic make-up with daily gains that corresponds to their breed type. It is worthwhile to note that following the grazing management established, Pineywoods grazed approximately half the area than that assignedto Angus and Holsteins. After the summer grazing season gainswere much smaller for all3 breed types. Angus, Holsteins, and Pineywoods gained 0.67, 0.58, and 0.50 kg respectively. At this time, steers were harvested at a commerical abbatoir. Angus had the greatest hot carcass weight (243 kg), ribeye area (52.9 sqcm), fat thickness (4.6 mm), and dressing percentage (53%) compared to Brangus (222 kg, 45.6 sqcm, 3.2 mm, and 49.9%, respectively), Holstein (212 kg, 42.6 sqcm, 1.7 mm, and 47.3% respectively), and Pineywoods (133 kg, 38.7 sqcm, 2.1 mm, and 49.4%, respectively). 2) Following producers' grazing programs the growth of Pineywoods and Dexter grass-fed cattle is being followed. Carcass data from Pineywoods cattle were collected although there are no data on performance since these were animals that were at the farm sincethe year before the start of this project. Due to limitationson harvest options there was nopossibility to get carcass datafromDexter. Also due to flooding there was no chance fortwo of the producers to get cover crops established; however, we are collecting data from a third producer who planted sunn hemp, kale, oats, red and ball clover, and annual ryegrass. Data collection is being conducted at this time. 3) Begun review of economic literature regarding strategic alliances in beef industry, including grass-fed beef production. Using this information to help formulate questions for survey of producers. 4) Begun reviewing previous research and literature on producer preferences for marketing and strategic alliances for beef and grass-fed beef production. 5) Graduate student has reviewed literature and developed preliminary survey instrument for gauging preferences and attitudes toward grass-fed beef at various retail establishments, including grocery stores and restaurants. 6) During the 2016 Acadiana Spring Field Day at the Iberia Research Station the project was introduced to the audience, mentioning objectives and showing the animals in their respective pastures.

    Publications