The current study investigated the effects of pre-grazing herbage mass (PGHM, 1500 or 2500 kg dry matter (DM)/ha) and post-grazing sward height (PGSH, 4 or 6 cm) on herbage production and its nutritive value and DM intake, grazing behaviour and growth of Charolais steers (n = 96; 12 months of age; 396 ± 19.0 kg) during a 222-day grazing season, and the subsequent effect of an indoor finishing diet (grass silage alone or supplemented with concentrates) for 146 days, on performance and carcass traits. Steers were assigned to one of 12 grazing groups and group was assigned to a 2 (PGHM) × 2 (PGSH) factorial arrangement of treatments. At the end of the grazing season, live-weight was 16 kg heavier for PGHM-1500 than PGHM-2500 and 34 kg heavier for PGSH-6 than PGSH-4. After indoor finishing, there was no difference in carcass weight between PGHM treatments, but PGSH-6 had a 19 kg heavier carcass than PGSH-4. Herbage production was 881 and 517 kg DM/ha greater for PGHM-2500 than PGHM-1500 and for PGSH-4 than PGSH-6, respectively. Grazing stocking rate did not differ between PGHM treatments but PGSH-4 carried 1.35 more steers/ha than PGSH-6. Supplementing concentrates during the indoor period increased carcass weight (42 kg) and fat score (2.10 units). In conclusion, grazing to 6 rather than 4 cm, increased individual carcass weight but not carcass weight gain/ha. Compared to PGHM-2500, grazing PGHM-1500 increased steer live-weight gain at pasture, but did not affect carcass weight following indoor finishing.

We examine the relative importance of eight goals U.S. grass-fed beef (GFB) producers have for their farms and the relative importance of nine reasons for selecting the GFB enterprise. We further analyze factors affecting goal structure and reasons for selecting the enterprise. The data used for this study are from a 2013 mail survey of U.S. GFB producers. The most important reasons for selecting the GFB enterprise included “producing healthy beef” and “GFB is good for the environment,” classified in the study as social and environmental sustainability reasons, respectively. Reasons such as “profitability” and “strong demand for GFB” were generally of lower importance.

This paper examines grass-fed beef producer preferences for cattle traits using data from a mail survey of 384 U.S. grass-fed beef producers. Conjoint analysis and Likert scale questions were used to determine preferences. Generally, results indicated that producers preferred easy-to-handle, heavy, black, and relatively lower-priced feeders raised from their own cows. The Kernel density figures for source, color, and temperament confirm the mixed logit standard deviation estimates that suggest heterogeneity in producer preferences.

A stochastic production frontier approach was used to estimate input distance functions for U.S. grass-fed beef (GFB) production. Average technical efficiencies of 0.84 and 0.79 were found for U.S. GFB whole farms and enterprises, respectively. Producer education level, experience, farm size, annual net farm income from the GFB operation, annual net household income from off-farm sources, and regional differences are the efficiency drivers of U.S. GFB farms. Increasing returns to scale were found for U.S. GFB farms. Our results suggest that U.S. GFB farms can be scale efficient if the optimal size of the operation is greater than approximately 100 GFB animals.

Pasture systems for grass-fed beef production in the Gulf Coast region were evaluated for profitability and sustainability over the period 2009/2010 to 2011/2012. May-weaned steers were divided into groups and randomly placed into different pasture systems. Data on input usage, output quantities, and carbon emissions were recorded and analyzed. The least complex grazing system yielded higher profit than the most complex, but the most complex produced the lowest greenhouse gas impact. A trade-off was found between profitability and greenhouse gas impact among the systems.