Hubbry Logo
FeedlotFeedlotMain
Open search
Feedlot
Community hub
Feedlot
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Feedlot
Feedlot
Feedlot
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Beef cattle in a feedlot in Texas

A feedlot or feed yard is a type of animal feeding operation (AFO) which is used in intensive animal farming, notably beef cattle, but also swine, horses, sheep, turkeys, chickens or ducks, prior to slaughter. Large beef feedlots are called concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) in the United States[1] and intensive livestock operations (ILOs)[2] or confined feeding operations (CFO)[3] in Canada. They may contain thousands of animals in an array of pens.

The basic purpose of the feedlot is to increase the amount of fat gained by each animal as quickly as possible; if animals are kept in confined quarters rather than being allowed to range freely over grassland, they will gain weight more quickly and efficiently with the added benefit of economies of scale.

Regulation

[edit]

Most feedlots require some type of governmental approval to operate, which generally consists of an agricultural site permit. Feedlots also would have an environmental plan in place to deal with the large amount of waste that is generated from the numerous livestock housed. The environmental farm plan is set in place to raise awareness about the environment and covers 23 different aspects around the farm that may affect the environment.[4] The Environmental Protection Agency has authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate all animal feeding operations in the United States. This authority is delegated to individual states in some cases.[5] In Canada, regulation of feedlots is shared between all levels of government. Certain provinces are required by law to have a nutrient management plan, which looks at everything the farm is going to feed to their animals, down to the minerals.[6] New farms are required to complete and obtain a license under the livestock operations act, which looks at proper manure storage as well as proper distance away from other farms or dwellings.[7] A mandatory RFID tag is required in every animal that passes through a Canadian feedlot, these are called CCIA tags (Canadian Cattle Identification Agency)[8] which is controlled by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency CFIA.[9] In Australia this role is handled by the National Feedlot Accreditation Scheme (NFAS).[10]

Scheduling

[edit]

The cattle industry works in sequence with one another, prior to entering a feedlot, young calves are born typically in the spring where they spend the summer with their mothers in a pasture or on rangeland. These producers are called cow-calf operations and are essential for feedlot operations to run.[11] Once the young calves reach a weight between 300 and 700 pounds (140 and 320 kg) they are rounded up and either sold directly to feedlots, or sent to cattle auctions for feedlots to bid on them. Once transferred to a feedlot, they are housed and looked after for the next six to eight months where they are fed a total mixed ration[12] to gain weight.

Feedlot diets encourage growth of muscle mass and the distribution of some fat (known as marbling in butchered meat). The marbling is desirable to consumers, as it contributes to flavour and tenderness. These animals may gain an additional 400-600 pounds (180 kg) during its approximate 200 days in the feedlot,[13] depending on its entrance weight into the lot, and also how well the animal gains muscle.[14] Once cattle are fattened up to their finished weight, the fed cattle are transported to a slaughterhouse.

Feedlot near Rocky Ford.

Diet

[edit]

Typically the total mixed ration (TMR) consist of forage, grains, minerals, and supplements to benefit the animals' health and to maximize feed efficiency. These rations are also known to contain various other forms of feed such as a specialized animal feed which consists of corn, corn byproducts (some of which is derived from ethanol and high fructose corn syrup production), milo, barley, and various grains. Some rations may also contain roughage such as corn stalks, straw, sorghum, or other hay, cottonseed meal, premixes which may contain but not limited to antibiotics, fermentation products, micro & macro minerals and other essential ingredients that are purchased from mineral companies, usually in sacked form, for blending into commercial rations.

Many feed companies are able to be prescribed a drug to be added into a farms feed if required by a vet. Farmers generally work with nutritionists who aid in the formulation of these rations to ensure their animals are getting the recommended levels of minerals and vitamins, but also to make sure the animals are not wasting feed in their manure.[15] In the American northwest and Canada, barley, low grade durum wheat, chick peas (garbanzo beans), oats and occasionally potatoes are used as feed.[citation needed]

In a typical feedlot, a cow's diet is roughly 62% roughage, 31% grain, 5% supplements (minerals and vitamins), and 2% premix. High-grain diets lower the pH in the animals' rumen. Due to the stressors of these conditions, and due to some illnesses, it may be necessary to give the animals antibiotics on occasion.[16]

Animal health and welfare

[edit]
See also: Antibiotic use in livestock
Feedlot in Córdoba, Argentina.

A feedlot is highly dependent on the health of its livestock, as disease can have a great impact on the animals, and controlling sickness can be difficult with numerous animals living together. Many feedlots will have an entrance protocol in which new animals entering the lot are given vaccines to protect them against potential sickness that may arise in the first few weeks in the feedlot. These entrance protocols are usually discussed and created with the farm's veterinarian, as there are numerous factors that can impact the health of feedlot cattle.[17] One challenging but crucial role on a feedlot is to identify any sick cattle, and treat them in order to rebound them back to health. Knowing when an animal is sick is sometimes difficult as cattle are prey animals and will try and hide their weakness from potential threats. A sick animal will generally look gaunt, may have a snotty nose and/or dry nose, and will have droopy ears, catching these symptoms early may be the key to successfully treating an animal. The best indicator of health is the body temperature of a cow, but this is not always possible when looking over many animals per day.[18]

The diet of the animals and the different ingredients within the ration are controversial. Cattle in feedlots are fed grain rather than more natural forage. This is designed to make them gain weight faster, but it leads to internal abscesses and discomfort.[19] Grain-based diets can also lead to the growth of harmful bacteria such as Clostridium perfringens and E. coli.[20] Too much grain in the diet can cause cattle to have issues such as bloating, diarrhea and digestive discomfort, which is why close monitoring of the animals, as well as working with ruminant nutritionists is very important for farmers.[21]

Animal welfare is a pressing subject in intensive agriculture today since consumers have voiced concerns over maltreatments and poor animal health. Indoor feedlots with concrete surfaces can cause leg problems including swollen joints. On outdoor feedlots, welfare issues include mud in rainy areas; heat stress in feedlots that are not shaded; insufficient water to drink; excessive cold, and problems with cattle handling (e.g. electric prods).[22]

Water troughs shared among many cattle can increase the spread of diseases including bovine respiratory disease.[22]

Waste recycling

[edit]

There are a few common methods of waste recycling within feedlots, with the most common being spreading it back on the cropping fields used to feed the livestock. Generally, feedlots provide animal bedding such as straw, sawdust, wood shaving, or other byproducts from crops (soybean chaff, corn chaff), which then takes up manure during use. Once the bedding has outlasted its use, the manure is either spread directly on the fields or stock piled to breakdown and begin composting. A less common type of recycling in the feedlot industry is liquid manure which is where minimal bedding is found in the manure, so it stays a liquid and is then spread on the fields in a liquid form. Increasing numbers of cattle feedlots are utilizing out-wintering pads made of timber residue bedding in their operations.[23] Nutrients are retained in the waste timber and livestock effluent and can be recycled within the farm system after use. Biogas plants are also able to use livestock manure to create biofuels, and these anaerobic digestion systems are known to capture methane in a usable form, while concentrating nitrogen, a valuable nutrient found in the manure which they then use to spread on their fields.

History

[edit]

Cattle feeding on a large scale was first introduced in the early 60's[when?], when a demand for higher quality beef in large quantities emerged.[24] Farmers started becoming familiar with the finishing of beef, but also showed interest in various other aspects associated with the feedlot such as soil health, crop management, and how to manage labour costs. From the early 60's to the 90's feeding beef cattle in the feedlot style showed immense growth, and even today the feedlot industry is constantly being upgraded with new knowledge and science as well as technology. In the early 20th century, feeder operations were separate from all other related operations and feedlots were non-existent.[25] They appeared in the 1950s and 1960s as a result of hybrid grains and irrigation techniques; the ensuing larger grain crops led to abundant grain harvests. It was suddenly possible to feed large numbers of cattle in one location and so, to cut transportation costs, grain farms and feedlot locations merged. Cattle were no longer sent from all across the southern states to places like California, where large slaughter houses were located. In the 1980s, meat packers followed the path of feedlots and are now located close by to them as well.

Marketing

[edit]

There are many methods used to sell cattle to meat packers. Spot, or cash, marketing is the traditional and most commonly used method. Prices are influenced by current supply & demand and are determined by live weight or per head. Similar to this is forward contracting, in which prices are determined the same way but are not directly influenced by market demand fluctuations. Forward contracts determine the selling price between the two parties negotiating for a set amount of time. However, this method is the least used because it requires some knowledge of production costs and the willingness of both sides to take a risk in the futures market. Another method, formula pricing, is becoming the most popular process, as it more accurately represents the value of meat received by the packer. This requires trust between the packers and feedlots though, and is under criticism from the feedlots because the amount paid to the feedlots is determined by the packers' assessment of the meat received. Finally, live- or carcass-weight based formula pricing is most common. Other types include grid pricing and boxed beef pricing. The most controversial marketing method stems from the vertical integration of packer-owned feedlots, which still represents less than 10% of all methods, but has been growing over the years.[26]

Alternatives

[edit]

The alternative to feedlots is to allow cattle to graze on grass throughout their lives, but this is considered less efficient and can be challenging. For Canada and the Northern USA, year round grazing is not possible due to the severe winter weather conditions. Controlled grazing methods of this sort necessitate higher beef prices and the cattle take longer to reach market weight.[27][unreliable source?]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Feedlot

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A feedlot is a confined outdoor lot or structure designed for the intensive feeding of , primarily , using high-energy rations to achieve rapid weight gain for slaughter market preparation. These operations concentrate animals in areas without vegetative cover, facilitating efficient feed delivery and accumulation management, though requiring robust waste handling to mitigate environmental risks. Emerging prominently in the United States during the mid-20th century, feedlots capitalized on surplus production to finish imported from regions, transforming production into a specialized, industrialized process concentrated in states like , , , and with access to feed grains. By the , large-scale commercial feedlots had proliferated, enabling in finishing that now handle the majority of U.S. market , typically for 100-200 days on diets dominated by corn and . While feedlot systems enhance feed conversion efficiency and carcass uniformity—key to meeting for consistent quality—they generate concentrated volumes posing challenges for and , necessitating technologies like lagoons and nutrient recovery to align with metrics. Peer-reviewed assessments indicate that optimized feedlot management can yield lower global warming potentials compared to extensive in certain contexts, underscoring the causal trade-offs between intensification and .

Overview

Definition and Purpose

A feedlot is a type of animal feeding operation (AFO) consisting of confined pens or lots where are intensively fed high-energy, grain-based diets to accelerate weight gain for slaughter. These operations typically receive after a preliminary backgrounding phase on or , with incoming animals weighing 600 to 900 pounds, and hold them for 90 to 300 days until they reach live slaughter weights of 1,200 to 1,500 pounds. This confinement period allows for controlled nutrition that supports average daily gains of 2.5 to 4 pounds per head. The core purpose of feedlots is to optimize the biological efficiency of converting feed inputs—primarily grains like corn—into lean and fat tissue, achieving feed conversion ratios often around 6 to 7 pounds of per pound of gain. By focusing on this finishing stage, feedlots enable scalable production that bypasses the variability of availability, facilitating consistent year-round output decoupled from seasonal constraints. This system underpins much of the global commercial supply, processing millions of head annually to meet urban consumer demand for standardized, grain-influenced meat quality. In contrast to pasture-based finishing, which yields slower growth on lower-energy forages, feedlots emphasize rapid deposition of for enhanced marbling and tenderness, aligning with preferences in high-volume markets like the and . This targeted approach maximizes throughput in the beef while minimizing per unit of output compared to fully extensive systems.

Scale and Global Prevalence

Feedlots in the United States finish approximately 80% of for slaughter, with the majority handled by operations with capacities of 1,000 or more head, which account for about 85% of all fed . These facilities range from small operations under 1,000 head to large-scale ones exceeding 100,000 head capacity, such as those processing up to 180,000 annually at single sites. On January 1, 2025, U.S. feedlot inventories totaled 14.3 million head, representing 16.5% of total inventories. Annually, U.S. feedlots market around 25 million head of fed , contributing to production of approximately 26 billion pounds of and supporting the country's position as the world's largest and a leading exporter of . The sector, including feedlot operations, generates over $95 billion in industry revenue, with feedlots playing a central role in value-added finishing that enhances export competitiveness to markets worldwide. Globally, feedlot systems predominate in high-output beef regions including the , , , and , where they facilitate concentrated finishing of for efficient slaughter and export. In , feedlots support beef consumption above the global average, while 's expanding feedlot sector complements its pasture-based systems amid rising production volumes. These countries collectively drive over 40% of world output, with feedlots enabling scalability in response to international demand.

Historical Development

Origins and Early Practices

The precursors to modern feedlots appeared in 19th-century U.S. stockyards and rail yards, where were gathered for holding and provided supplemental winter feeding to counteract shortages from cold weather and cover. These practices addressed the limitations of extensive ranching on open ranges, where herds often faced during severe winters, as dramatically illustrated by the blizzard of January 1887, which killed an estimated 90% of open-range in parts of the due to inadequate preparation of stored feed. Railroad expansion from the onward enabled the concentration of at stockyards for fattening prior to shipment, reducing the physical toll of long drives and minimizing shrinkage—weight losses of up to 10-15% during of underfed animals. This marked a transition from purely range-based systems, strained by recurring droughts like those of the that collapsed the open-range model, toward localized feeding to meet rising urban demand for heavier, more uniform carcasses with better marbling than grass-finished range . In the early , pioneered more structured feedlot operations, initially utilizing meal and hulls—byproducts from the booming industry—as cost-effective feeds after mill owners observed cattle consuming them readily. Facilities like the Lewter Feed Yard near Lubbock emerged as among the first large-scale examples on the , focusing on finishing yearlings with available grains including surplus corn to enhance and condition for rail markets, thereby empirically lowering overall mortality and variability in compared to unfed shipments.

Post-War Expansion and Industrialization

Following , the U.S. feedlot industry experienced rapid expansion, driven by innovations in animal nutrition and feed processing that enabled large-scale confinement operations. Antibiotics, first integrated into feeds in the early , promoted growth by reducing incidence and improving feed efficiency, with sub-therapeutic doses accelerating weight gain in confined . Synthetic hormones, such as (DES), were introduced post-1945 as feed additives, allowing to fatten more rapidly on diets and making feedlot finishing economically viable at scales previously unattainable, with operations growing from hundreds to tens of thousands of head. Mechanized feed mills and improved corn hybrid varieties further supported this shift, as surplus from expanded acreage—facilitated by federal price supports under the Agricultural Acts of 1949 and subsequent farm bills—kept feed costs low. This industrialization was causally linked to economic factors, including surging domestic demand for amid and rising incomes, which incentivized producers to adopt confinement systems for their predictability and throughput. Feedlot diets, high in corn and protein supplements, yielded average daily gains of over 3 pounds per animal, compared to 1-2 pounds on , compressing finishing times from months to 120-150 days and enabling year-round production independent of seasonal . By 1965, U.S. feedlot inventories approached 10 million head, reflecting a transition where ranchers specialized in calf production and sold weaned animals directly to feeders, optimizing for while concentrating finishing in arid regions like the and . The scale-up contributed to structural changes in the beef supply chain, with packing relocating near feedlot concentrations to capture efficiencies from boxed beef innovations pioneered by Iowa Beef Processers (IBP) in the . By the early , fed comprised the majority of U.S. slaughter volumes, as evidenced by rising on-feed numbers and direct procurement from lots, which reduced transportation costs and supported expanded output without proportional land increases. This efficiency helped stabilize supply amid fluctuating pasture conditions, though it intensified reliance on inputs and pharmaceutical interventions, setting the stage for later debates on .

Late 20th Century to Present

During the 1980s and 1990s, the U.S. feedlot sector experienced accelerated consolidation as meat packers pursued to control costs and supply chain variability. , initially dominant in , expanded into through acquisitions like IBP in 2001, incorporating feedlot operations to ensure consistent sourcing and efficiency. This trend reduced the number of independent feedlots while enhancing scale economies, with large operators handling tens of thousands of head daily by the early 2000s. By 2021, four firms controlled over 80% of , exerting downstream pressure on feedlots to standardize practices for just-in-time delivery. The 2003 bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) detection in Washington state prompted feedlots to integrate traceability technologies, including electronic eartags and RFID systems, to enable backward tracking within 48 hours. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) accelerated the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), mandating official identification for interstate movement by 2013, which feedlots adopted to mitigate export bans and rebuild international trust—evidenced by restored access to markets like Japan by 2006. These measures, grounded in epidemiological needs rather than unsubstantiated welfare narratives, preserved herd health without widespread culling, as U.S. BSE cases remained isolated at under 10 confirmed since 2003. Into the , feedlots navigated grain price surges, such as the 2008 spike where corn costs doubled from 2006 levels due to demand and global shortages, by selecting heavier incoming (over 800 pounds) and refining rations for optimal intake. Efficiency persisted with average feed conversion ratios of 6:1—requiring 6 pounds of per pound of gain—outperforming systems by concentrating production on limited . This resilience underpinned U.S. expansion, rising from 1.1 billion pounds in 1990 to 3.0 billion pounds by 2023, more than doubling volume and supporting protein supply for a global exceeding 8 billion.

Operational Mechanics

Facility Design and Management

Feedlot facilities are engineered as open-air enclosures with sloped earthen pens to facilitate drainage and management, typically featuring feed bunks along one edge, elevated shade structures for mitigation, and dispersed troughs for access. Pen dimensions prioritize stocking densities of 100-200 square feet per head, with receiving pens often at the lower end (around 100 sq ft) to accommodate acclimation and higher densities for finishing up to 150-161 sq ft, optimizing throughput while allowing sufficient space to reduce competition and mud accumulation. A 2-5% from bunk to pen rear promotes natural runoff, preventing pooling that could exacerbate risks. Operational management emphasizes logistical efficiency through centralized feed alleys for vehicle access and automated delivery systems, such as mixer wagons or conveyor belts, which distribute rations directly into bunks to minimize labor and spillage. Daily bunk reading—visual or sensor-based assessment of residual feed—guides precise ration adjustments to match intake, with emerging tools scanning bunks via vehicle-mounted cameras to quantify refusals and predict needs, achieving parity with manual methods in trials. Ventilation relies on open and wind flow, supplemented by pen watering or sprinklers for suppression during dry conditions, enhancing air quality without mechanical fans. Design principles incorporate via segregated receiving and isolation pens, positioned peripherally to incoming for 14-30 days, thereby curtailing introduction and intra-herd spread through spatial separation and restricted personnel movement. These layouts reduce labor demands by streamlining monitoring from perimeter and alleys, allowing oversight of multiple pens without direct entry, which supports in large operations handling thousands of head.

Cattle Intake and Scheduling

Cattle intake at feedlots primarily consists of weaned calves weighing 450 to 600 pounds or steers and heifers weighing 700 to 900 pounds, sourced from ranches after backgrounding on or forage. These animals are selected for their growth potential, with emphasis on frame size, muscling, and freedom from respiratory or digestive issues that could impair finishing performance. Upon arrival, cattle undergo including identification, checks, and sorting into uniform groups by initial weight, sex, and status to optimize and minimize variability in daily gains. This grouping practice ensures that cohorts progress synchronously, reducing competition for feed and space while allowing tailored rations based on similar metabolic demands. Feedlot scheduling revolves around finishing periods of 120 to 180 days, calibrated to starting weights and target slaughter endpoints of approximately 1,200 to 1,400 pounds live weight. Closeouts, or marketing decisions, are triggered when or visual assessments indicate sufficient (typically 0.4 to 0.6 inches) and ribeye area for prime or grading, prioritizing carcass value over uniform chronological timelines. In the terminal phase, often the last 28 to 42 days, beta-adrenergic agonists like ractopamine hydrochloride are commonly incorporated at labeled doses to repartition nutrients toward lean growth, yielding 10 to 20 percent improvements in average daily gain and feed efficiency compared to controls. These compounds bind to receptors in muscle and cells, enhancing protein synthesis without altering overall intake levels. By maintaining uniform weight groups and staggered intake cohorts, feedlots achieve predictable throughput, enabling consistent slaughter-ready supply throughout the year rather than aligning with seasonal availability peaks and troughs. This operational cadence supports steadier packer and mitigates price volatility from supply gluts or shortages inherent in systems. Empirical from U.S. operations demonstrate that such scheduling reduces variability in out-weights by up to 15 percent within pens, facilitating more precise hedging against feed cost fluctuations.

Feed and Nutrition Protocols

Feedlot finishing diets typically consist of 70-90% grains on a basis, primarily corn or , to provide high-energy carbohydrates for rapid weight gain, with the remainder including roughages like , protein supplements such as , and mineral-vitamin premixes. These grain-heavy rations replace pasture-based , enabling average daily gains of 1.5-2.0 kg per animal during the 90-180 day finishing period. Ionophores, such as monensin, are routinely incorporated into these diets at levels of 20-40 mg/kg of to alter microbial , reducing production and propionate precursors while improving feed efficiency by 3.5-8%. This enhancement stems from decreased intake without proportional reductions in energy utilization, as evidenced by meta-analyses of feedlot trials. Rations are prepared as total mixed rations (TMR) to ensure uniform nutrient distribution and delivered 2-3 times daily, with bunk management practices like face-reading to control intake and prevent overconsumption. To mitigate risks of subacute rumen acidosis from rapid , protocols include gradual diet adaptation over 2-3 weeks, incorporation of buffers like or at 0.5-1% of diet , and monitoring of fecal or . Grain-based protocols yield beef with superior intramuscular fat deposition, resulting in higher marbling scores (e.g., USDA Choice or Prime grades in 70-80% of feedlot cattle versus 40-50% in grass-fed) and enhanced tenderness due to increased lipid content softening muscle fibers during cooking. Compared to pasture systems, feedlot nutrition supports 20-30% lower land requirements per kilogram of beef, as concentrated crop feeds convert biomass more efficiently than extensive grazing.

Animal Husbandry

Health Management and Veterinary Practices

Health management in feedlots emphasizes preventive protocols to mitigate (BRD), the primary cause of morbidity and mortality. Upon arrival, receive vaccinations targeting key respiratory pathogens, including infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) virus and parainfluenza-3 (PI3) virus, with virtually all U.S. feedlots administering these alongside (BVD) vaccines to nearly 100% of incoming animals. treatments are standard to control internal parasites like , often applied at intake or strategically based on fecal egg counts to optimize efficacy and minimize resistance. Growth-promoting implants, typically combining estradiol-17β and trenbolone acetate, are implanted subcutaneously to enhance protein synthesis and reduce fat deposition, yielding 10-30% increases in average daily gain during the finishing phase. Monitoring involves daily pen walks by trained personnel to identify clinical signs such as or reduced feed intake, augmented by precision technologies like electronic ear tags that track rumination, activity, and ear skin temperature for automated alerts on potential illness up to 4-7 days earlier than visual methods alone. Veterinary practices prioritize metaphylaxis for high-risk groups but advocate judicious therapeutic antibiotic use—guided by culture and sensitivity testing where feasible—to curb , with records maintained per principles outlined in USDA guidelines. These measures contribute to average feedlot mortality rates of 1.4-1.6% across U.S. operations, with respiratory causes predominant in the first 30-60 days post-placement. Economic pressures reinforce efficacy, as BRD-affected incur $100-111 per head in direct treatment costs (averaging $23-63 per case) plus indirect losses from 3% reduced gain and chronic underperformance.

Welfare Metrics and Outcomes

Lameness prevalence in feedlots typically ranges from 1.3% to 46% across operations, with rates held low through practices such as soft bedding materials and routine hoof trimming to prevent and other causes. Heat stress during events poses mortality risks, as evidenced by incidents like the 2022 heat wave claiming an estimated 10,000 head, but infrastructure such as shade structures and sprinklers mitigates impacts by reducing physiological strain and associated deaths in well-managed pens. Confinement in feedlots facilitates daily health monitoring, enabling early intervention for illness or that might otherwise progress undetected, in contrast to systems where risks from predation, parasites, and environmental exposures like prolonged hunger or gastroenteric disorders persist without equivalent oversight. Empirical comparisons demonstrate faster average daily weight gains in feedlots (1.38 kg/day) versus (0.98 kg/day), reflecting optimized and reduced energy expenditure on , which supports net welfare gains by minimizing prolonged negative states relative to derived from growth. Animal welfare advocates cite confinement-related stressors, such as cattle standing in mud during rainfall, which can exacerbate discomfort, lameness, and risks in poorly drained pens. Voluntary industry initiatives like Beef Quality Assurance promote protocols for handling, facility maintenance, and health checks that enhance overall outcomes by standardizing care and reducing morbidity from such issues. These measures address activist concerns empirically, though alternatives carry their own unmonitored hazards like neonatal predation and vectors.

Environmental Considerations

Resource Efficiency and Land Use Benefits

Feedlot systems enhance resource efficiency by concentrating on minimal land footprints while maximizing output through controlled and rapid growth, contrasting with extensive pasture-based methods that demand vast areas. Conventional feedlot-finished requires approximately 5,457 × 10³ hectares to produce 1 × 10⁹ kg of , whereas grass-fed systems necessitate 9,868 × 10³ hectares—an 80.8% increase—for equivalent yields, primarily due to slower and dependence on land. This intensification allows feedlots to utilize only a fraction of the land per unit of protein compared to distributed , freeing marginal or forested areas from conversion. In the United States, production has sustained or increased output since the amid stable or declining pastureland use, attributable to feedlot finishing that boosts average carcass weights through grain-based diets and shorter production cycles. numbers have decreased since 1975, yet total output maintains an upward trend via efficiencies like heavier market weights (often exceeding 1,200 pounds), crediting feedlot practices for decoupling production from expansive requirements. From 1977 to 2007, modern systems, incorporating widespread feedlot use, reduced overall resource inputs including a 33% drop in area per unit of produced, alongside 18.6% less and 12.1% lower intensity. Feedlots further optimize by sourcing feed from high-yield croplands, where grains and byproducts like crop residues support dense animal populations without dedicating additional acreage to . This approach leverages agricultural intensification, with reaching slaughter weight in 15 to 18 months total—typically 6 to 12 months backgrounding followed by 4 to 6 months finishing—versus extended timelines in grass systems, yielding lower per kilogram of due to abbreviated periods and higher daily gains. By concentrating production, feedlots mitigate expansion pressures on natural habitats, enabling land sparing that counters risks associated with low-density beef systems elsewhere.

Waste Outputs and Pollution Risks

Beef cattle in feedlots generate substantial manure volumes, typically 8 to 12 metric tons of wet manure per head annually, consisting primarily of , , and or pen packing material with high water content from rainfall and cleaning. This concentrated output, when unmanaged, poses risks of nutrient leaching, including volatilization into the air and runoff into surface waters during storms, potentially contributing to and contamination if storage overflows or application exceeds crop uptake capacity. Modern manure management systems, such as anaerobic lagoons for liquid separation and solids stacking, followed by controlled land application, substantially mitigate these risks by capturing 70-90% of runoff and enabling as , which historical open-lot practices without often failed to achieve. Proper design and lining prevent seepage, while site-specific application rates based on tests and needs minimize leaching; studies of active feedlots show packed subsurface soils further limit , resulting in low levels beneath compliant facilities. Ammonia emissions from feedlot average 119 grams per head per day, driven by high-protein diets and alkaline pen conditions, but per unit of produced, these can be lower than in extensive systems due to centralized treatment options like acidifiers or covers that reduce volatilization by up to 50% compared to dispersed deposition where patches cause rapid losses. U.S. EPA assessments of permitted concentrated animal feeding operations indicate minimal impacts from nitrates or pathogens when best management practices are followed, though non-compliance amplifies localized risks; regulatory frameworks emphasizing planning overlook manure's soil-enhancing value, such as addition that improves and when applied judiciously.

Economic Dimensions

Productivity Gains and Cost Reductions

Feedlots enhance productivity through superior feed conversion efficiency, typically achieving a ratio of 6:1, whereby 6 pounds of dry matter feed yield 1 pound of liveweight gain in beef cattle. This controlled environment allows for rapid growth, with cattle reaching slaughter weight in 120-180 days compared to 24-30 months on pasture systems, minimizing variable factors like seasonal forage availability and enabling consistent throughput. These efficiencies translate to cost reductions of 20-30% relative to pasture-based finishing, primarily via optimized protocols that leverage high-energy grains and reduce requirements per unit of output. in the further amplifies gains by aligning production stages, improving coordination between feeders and processors to minimize and ensure uniform carcass specifications that streamline fabrication. In 2012, amid severe U.S. reducing , elevated placements into feedlots—reaching levels comparable to prior peaks—helped stabilize output by shifting reliance to grain-based finishing, buffering supply disruptions from volatility. Economically, these dynamics have contributed to a halving of real U.S. retail prices since the , driven by scaled efficiencies that outpaced input cost and expanded output volumes. The sector supports over 500,000 jobs in rural U.S. economies through feedlot operations, allied feed milling, and transport, fostering localized multipliers in regions dependent on .

Industry Contributions and Market Dynamics

Feedlots underpin the efficient finishing of for slaughter, enabling the to export and products valued at $10.46 billion in 2024, which accounted for nearly 14% of total domestic production. This export volume supports global protein supply chains, with U.S. reaching over 100 countries and contributing to in regions with limited local production capacity. The sector's scale generates downstream economic benefits, including job support in processing and logistics, as part of the broader and industry's role in 22% of U.S. agricultural cash receipts totaling $515 billion in 2024. Feedlot operations drive substantial demand for feed grains, creating positive spillovers for crop agriculture; U.S. and exports alone generated $2.24 billion in for the corn sector and $1.12 billion for soybeans in 2024. This integrated demand incentivizes innovations in grain yields and , enhancing overall and efficiency. By concentrating animal finishing, feedlots optimize for high-value outputs, prioritizing nutrient-dense animal protein over less calorie-efficient alternatives and thereby supporting affordable for a global population exceeding 8 billion. In market dynamics, feedlots exhibit responsive supply adjustments to signals, with elastic production scaling that mitigates volatility; for example, elasticity estimates around -0.48 indicate that increases lead to moderate consumption shifts, buffered by feedlot capacity expansions. This elasticity has historically kept retail inflation below broader food trends, delivering consumer benefits through stable access to protein amid and . Critiques of industry concentration often overlook these efficiencies, which stem from capital-intensive operations that reduce per-unit costs and enable competitive global positioning.

Regulatory Framework

Key Regulations and Compliance

In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to control discharges of , , and into waters of the U.S. Large CAFOs, defined as those confining 1,000 or more , must obtain NPDES permits requiring comprehensive plans to minimize pollution risks from runoff and storage overflows. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees feed ingredients and growth-promoting implants, approving steroid hormones for use in after evaluating data showing residues remain below established tolerances with no demonstrated health effects in humans. Internationally, regulations vary, with the imposing a stricter ban on implants in production since 1989, prohibiting imports of treated despite U.S. monitoring indicating residues in are minimal and pose no quantifiable cancer or other risks, as residues typically fall orders of magnitude below safe daily intake levels per FDA assessments. This EU approach reflects precautionary principles, contrasting U.S. reliance on empirical residue testing and toxicological studies that have not substantiated consumer threats from approved implants. Compliance in U.S. feedlots involves obtaining permits, implementing best management practices, and conducting self-audits through industry-led programs such as the U.S. Cattle Industry Feedyard Audit and Beef Quality Assurance assessments, which verify adherence to environmental and feed safety standards. These measures, including regular record-keeping and site-specific plans, help operators avoid penalties and maintain access to domestic and export markets, though they entail ongoing investments in infrastructure and monitoring.

Recent Developments and Adaptations

In 2025, the Control Agency (MPCA) proposed amendments to Minnesota Rules Chapter 7020, governing animal feedlots, to enhance land application practices aimed at reducing and associated fish kills in waterways. These updates include stricter requirements for storage, spreading timing, and application rates, marking the first major revision in 25 years, with public comments accepted through July 2025. Additionally, larger feedlots holding National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or State Disposal System (SDS) permits face expanded monitoring obligations to track potential contaminants more rigorously. Updated general permits, finalized in January 2025, incorporate online compliance tools and enhanced water protections, effective phased implementation through 2026, though critics argue they impose administrative burdens without proportionally addressing verified sources. New federal and industry guidelines on growth implants, effective 2025, require labeling specifying approval for reimplantation within defined production phases to prevent off-label reuse, aiming to ensure efficacy and residue safety in fed . This limits multi-phase applications unless explicitly permitted, responding to variability in delivery observed in extended-use scenarios, with data indicating compliant practices maintain average daily gains without significant welfare trade-offs. Feedlot operators have integrated drone technology for routine pen inspections, including thermal imaging for health detection and automated counting of and feed troughs, addressing persistent labor shortages in the sector since the early 2020s. trials in 2025 demonstrated drones reduce manual walkthrough time by up to 70% while identifying heat-stressed animals early, enabling targeted interventions amid workforce constraints exacerbated by immigration policy shifts. In response to 2024 grain price spikes—driven by disruptions and demand—feedlots adopted precision feeding systems optimizing rations with real-time analysis, cutting feed costs by 5-10% per head through reduced and tailored inclusion. These adaptations, while increasing upfront compliance expenses—estimated at $50-200 per animal unit for monitoring tech—have shown negligible impacts on overall production throughput, with empirical tracking favoring site-specific metrics over uniform restrictions to achieve measurable environmental gains without broad economic distortion.

Controversies and Debates

Animal Welfare Criticisms and Rebuttals

Critics of feedlot systems contend that high stocking densities and confinement restrict natural behaviors such as and locomotion, potentially elevating stress levels and contributing to issues like lameness, with studies estimating lameness at 16% of feedlot problems. Floor type and allocation influence these outcomes, as surfaces and limited pen (e.g., below recommended minimums) can exacerbate foot disorders and social in . groups often highlight outlier cases of amplified in media reports, framing feedlots as inherently stressful environments that prioritize throughput over welfare. Empirical rebuttals emphasize low overall morbidity and mortality rates, with feedlot death losses typically at 1-2%, indicating that the majority of recover from illnesses under managed conditions rather than succumbing to chronic confinement stress. Bruising incidence at slaughter remains modest, with only 18.8% of showing a single and fewer than 5% exhibiting multiple, often attributable to handling rather than systemic overcrowding. Facility designs incorporating behavioral principles, such as curved single-file chutes and low-stress handling protocols advocated by , have reduced handling-related stress by facilitating calmer movement and minimizing balking, with anecdotal and observational data from commercial operations showing correlated drops in respiratory deaths and faster recovery post-treatment. Producers face strong economic disincentives for , as each dead or injured represents direct loss—equivalent to deadweight in feed costs and —prompting investments in monitoring, veterinary interventions, and welfare audits that align self-interest with health maintenance. Participation in third-party humane programs, while voluntary, further incentivizes adherence to and handling standards, though data suggest these do not always outperform well-managed conventional feedlots in key metrics like injury rates. In contrast to extensive systems, where unmonitored exposure to predators, , and parasites can elevate risks, feedlot centralization enables rapid detection and treatment, yielding comparably low mortality despite differing welfare trade-offs. Prioritizing verifiable metrics over anecdotal distress reveals feedlots' capacity for effective welfare when guided by evidence-based rather than idealized naturalism.

Environmental and Health Concerns

Feedlot operations generate substantial volumes, raising concerns over nutrient runoff that can lead to and algal blooms in surface waters when lagoons overflow or leach during heavy rains. Peer-reviewed analyses link unmanaged feedlot waste to elevated levels in , with soil-manure interfaces facilitating pollutant infiltration up to several meters deep. and residues in runoff further exacerbate risks to aquatic ecosystems and downstream sources if containment fails. Health-related apprehensions center on (AMR) from prophylactic s administered to prevent diseases in densely packed animals, with harboring resistance genes that may disseminate via runoff or . U.S. accounts for a majority of medically important sales, predominantly in feedlots for control affecting up to 36% of incoming . Critics, including activist groups, frame feedlots as "factory farms" amplifying superbug threats, though direct causal pathways to human infections remain epidemiologically challenging to establish beyond environmental reservoirs. Mitigation strategies counter these issues through targeted interventions; for instance, feedlot confinement enables veterinary monitoring that curtails widespread outbreaks, potentially lowering per-animal doses compared to untreated systems prone to unchecked infections. Concentrated waste facilitates , capturing with recovery efficiencies of 28-32% of digestible energy potential, converting emissions into renewable fuel while stabilizing for safer land application. CDC assessments emphasize that human clinical AMR stems primarily from medical overuse, with agricultural contributions detectable in environmental samples but not demonstrably dominant in patient isolates. Feedlot intensification also yields land-use efficiencies that indirectly temper pressures; grain finishing requires less acreage per kilogram of than extensive systems, as evidenced by soy-cattle dynamics in the Amazon where cropland expansion often repurposes degraded pastures rather than , displacing low-yield frontiers. This contrasts with direct conversion, which historically drove higher net loss before feedlot efficiencies scaled production on fixed bases. Vegetative treatment systems further reduce runoff volumes by 70-90% through filtration, underscoring engineering rebuttals to narratives.

Innovations and Alternatives

Technological and Sustainability Advances

systems have been deployed in feedlots to optimize feed rations through , integrating data from bunk management and animal monitoring to adjust daily allocations and reduce overfeeding. Such technologies enable precise bunk scoring and intake predictions, enhancing feed efficiency by minimizing waste associated with uneaten portions. GPS-guided precision manure application facilitates variable-rate spreading, mapping distribution to match needs and mitigate excess application that contributes to soil emissions and runoff. studies confirm that GPS-equipped sensors towed over feedlot pens and fields allow for accurate manure mapping, optimizing land application and reducing reliance on synthetic fertilizers. Sustainability efforts include methane-inhibiting feed additives, with trials of compounds like (3-NOP) in the 2020s demonstrating average reductions of 30% in enteric from without compromising growth performance. Feedlots have also implemented advanced water reclamation systems, filtering lagoon water for reuse in drinking and cleaning, thereby conserving freshwater resources in water-scarce regions. These innovations have empirically reduced the environmental footprint of feedlot beef production, with greenhouse gas emissions intensity per kilogram of carcass weight declining in major markets since 2000 through compounded gains in feed conversion, animal health, and . For instance, U.S. beef production achieved lower emissions per unit output amid rising total production, underscoring feedlots' adaptability in addressing critiques while preserving productivity advantages.

Comparative Systems and Trade-offs

Feedlot systems, which concentrate on high-energy grain-based diets for rapid finishing, contrast with pasture-based or grass-fed production, where animals rely primarily on foraged . Grass-fed beef requires substantially more per animal, with estimates indicating that a grass-fed cow demands approximately three times the acreage of a grain-fed counterpart due to lower in and slower . This disparity arises because feedlots utilize efficiently for crop-based feeds, enabling higher stocking densities, whereas grass-fed systems depend on extensive or , often marginal lands unsuitable for crops. Time to slaughter further highlights efficiency trade-offs: feedlot cattle typically reach market weight in 12-18 months, with finishing phases lasting 90-300 days, compared to 18-30 months for grass-fed animals sustained on . The prolonged duration in grass-fed systems stems from lower daily gains—often half those in feedlots—necessitating extended periods that elevate . Per of beef, grass-fed production generates 10-25% higher than feedlot systems, primarily from increased output over the animal's lifespan and greater feed production demands per unit of output. Economic trade-offs favor feedlots for scalability and affordability, as grass-fed commands premiums of $2.50 or more per pound over conventional grain-finished cuts, reflecting higher land, labor, and time inputs. Feedlots achieve superior feed conversion efficiency, requiring less total intake per pound of gain due to nutrient-dense rations, which supports higher calorie yields per unit of land or feed resource. In the U.S., grass-fed constitutes only about 4% of the market, insufficient to meet national protein demands without supplemental grain-fed production or dietary shifts, underscoring its role as a niche rather than a viable mass alternative. Regenerative grazing, an adaptive pasture management variant emphasizing through rotational stocking, promises ecosystem benefits but faces scalability constraints for yields. While small-scale implementations show potential for , expanding to replace feedlot output would demand vast additional land—exceeding available U.S. pasture capacity for current volumes—potentially displacing and native habitats without proven yield parity. Critics note that regenerative claims often rely on over large-scale data, with emissions and productivity trade-offs mirroring broader grass-fed limitations, including unverified net carbon benefits at industrial volumes. Feedlots, despite criticisms of confinement, enable concentrated production that minimizes land footprint and supports global , though consumer perceptions of naturalness bias favor less efficient alternatives.

References

  1. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/feedlot/downloads/feedlot2011/Feed11_dr_PartI.pdf
  2. https://www.leg.mn.gov/docs/2015/other/151220.pdf
  3. https://www.feedlotmagazine.com/news/industry_news/how-we-got-here-a-brief-history-of-cattle-and-beef-markets/article_1fe3c56c-6739-11ec-a5bb-2b72c548a8a4.html
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731121001385
  5. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-021-01957-3
  6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S187114131500308X
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/feedlot
  8. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/feedlot-health-2021-mgmt-practice-dr1.pdf
  9. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/sector-at-a-glance
  10. https://beef.unl.edu/beefwatch/2020/how-many-pounds-meat-can-we-expect-beef-animal/
  11. https://www.lazyt.com/blogs/journal/cattle-feedlots-what-are-they-and-how-do-they-work
  12. https://www.beefresearch.ca/topics/optimizing-feedlot-efficiency/
  13. https://www.goodmeat.com.au/animal-health-welfare/feedlot/
  14. https://extension.psu.edu/beef-background-production
  15. https://am.gallagher.com/en-US/Solutions/feedlots
  16. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Cattle_On_Feed/index.php
  17. https://ruminants.ceva.pro/beef-production
  18. https://www.drovers.com/markets/market-reports/review-feedlot-structure-and-2024-marketings
  19. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/sector-at-a-glance/
  20. https://www.ibisworld.com/united-states/industry/beef-cattle-production/46/
  21. https://www.worldanimalprotection.org.au/education/reports-library/cattle-feedlots-Australia-hidden-factory-farms/
  22. https://www.nationalbeefwire.com/ranking-of-countries-that-produce-the-most-beef-fao-the-united-states-is-the-largest-producer-of-beef-in-the-world-followed-by-brazil-china-india-and-argentina
  23. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/january-9/record-cold-and-snow-decimates-cattle-herds
  24. https://www.cattlefeeders.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/From-Start-to-Finish-Cattle-Feeding-History.pdf
  25. https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/bitstreams/5313ed95-df83-43e3-81ba-cbb01a2d601d/download
  26. https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/cattle-feeding
  27. https://livinghistoryfarm.org/farming-in-the-1950s/crops/beef-feedlots-ibp/
  28. https://www.britannica.com/topic/feed-agriculture/Antibiotics-and-other-growth-stimulants
  29. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-018-0152-2
  30. https://macmillan.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/colloqpapers/05langston.pdf
  31. http://dasnr39.dasnr.okstate.edu/farm2fork/tbeefhoranti.php
  32. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03066150.2023.2284973
  33. https://www.agriculture.com/family/living-the-country-life/estimating-cattle-rate-of-gain
  34. https://extension.umn.edu/beef-feedlot/matching-cattle-type-and-feedlot-performance
  35. https://pubs.lib.uiowa.edu/annals-of-iowa/article/10311/galley/118904/download/
  36. https://www.tysonfoods.com/who-we-are/our-story/where-we-came-from/our-history
  37. http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/articles/antitrust.pdf
  38. https://faunalytics.org/meat-industry-consolidation-in-the-us/
  39. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32012.html
  40. https://pomsmeetings.org/confproceedings/015/FullPapers/015-0321.pdf
  41. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/news/agency-announcements/aphis-bolsters-animal-disease-traceability-united-states
  42. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2009/march/grain-prices-impact-entire-livestock-production-cycle
  43. https://www.thebeefsite.com/articles/1720/us-beef-and-dairy-outlook-report-october-2008
  44. https://cabcattle.com/feed-conversion-and-profitability/
  45. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/chart-detail?chartId=112657
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1080744617300049
  47. https://www.mla.com.au/globalassets/mla-corporate/research-and-development/program-areas/feeding-finishing-and-nutrition/feedlot-design-manual/09-overall-pen-layout-2016_04_01.pdf
  48. https://extensionpubs.unl.edu/publication/ec777/2007/pdf/view/ec777-2007.pdf
  49. https://www.mla.com.au/globalassets/mla-corporate/research-and-development/documents/beef-cattle-feedlots---design-and-construction---web2.pdf
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6898560/
  51. https://www.beefcentral.com/lotfeeding/automated-bunk-calling-being-commercialised-for-feedlot-operators/
  52. https://bookstore.ksre.ksu.edu/pubs/planning-and-designing-cattle-feedlots_MF2316.pdf
  53. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Feed11_is_Biosecurity_1.pdf
  54. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/beef_feedlot.pdf
  55. https://extensionpubs.unl.edu/publication/g1411/2007/pdf/view/g1411-2007.pdf
  56. https://extension.psu.edu/feeding-beef-cattle/
  57. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1259&context=animalscinbcr
  58. https://www.canr.msu.edu/uploads/resources/pdfs/A_Review_of_Applied_Beef_Nutrition%28E2331%29.pdf
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4093185/
  60. https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/an-introduction-to-finishing-beef.html
  61. https://www.sorghumcheckoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2019_10_01_BeefFeedingGuide_Final.pdf
  62. https://ucanr.edu/?legacy-file=228817.pdf
  63. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/AN285
  64. https://rockriverlab.com/pages/Five-tips-to-prevent-acidosis-and-its-costs.php
  65. https://www.iowabeefcenter.org/bch/Acidosis.pdf
  66. https://discover.grasslandbeef.com/blog/grass-fed-vs-grain-fed-beef/
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4494320/
  68. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Feed11_is_VaccineUsage_1.pdf
  69. https://bi-animalhealth.com/cattle/articles/feedlot-parasite-control-tips-for-a-successful-deworming-program
  70. https://academic.oup.com/jas/article/89/3/863/4764398
  71. https://www.merck-animal-health-usa.com/hub/sensehub/sensehub-feedlot/
  72. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/amu-feedlots.pdf
  73. https://www.beefboard.org/2019/10/21/safeguarding-the-judicious-use-of-antibiotics/
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9923111/
  75. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308764699_PEER_REVIEWED_A_retrospective_evaluation_of_animal_mortality_in_US_feedlots_rate_timing_and_cause_of_death
  76. https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/print-publications/p/economic-effects-of-bovine-respiratory-disease-on-feedlot-cattle-during-backgrounding-and-finishing-phases-p-1027.pdf
  77. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Feed11_is_RespDis_1.pdf
  78. https://www.sites.ext.vt.edu/newsletter-archive/livestock/aps-99_07/aps-0085.html
  79. https://academic.oup.com/tas/article/3/2/595/5377510
  80. https://www.merckvetmanual.com/musculoskeletal-system/lameness-in-cattle/epidemiology-of-lameness-in-cattle
  81. https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2022/06/14/heat-stress-kills-estimated-10-000
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10572074/
  83. http://www.kyfoodandfarm.info/features/2020/10/9/the-ins-and-outs-of-animal-confinement
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12290492/
  85. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Time-course-of-weight-for-pasture-vs-feedlot-steers-Error-bars-represent-SEM-N-11_fig1_338517263
  86. https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/finishing-beef-cattle-on-the-farm.html
  87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159122001769
  88. https://www.publish.csiro.au/an/pdf/AN19621
  89. https://www.thebeefsite.com/articles/3291/quality-assurance-in-us-feedlots
  90. https://www.bqa.org/Media/BQA/Docs/cchg2019.pdf
  91. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.545902/full
  92. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/2/2/127
  93. https://allianceforscience.org/blog/2017/09/is-feedlot-beef-better-for-the-environment/
  94. https://precisionriskmanagement.com/news/an-overview-of-u-s-beef-productions-past-and-present/
  95. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550742425000168
  96. https://academic.oup.com/jas/article/89/12/4249/4772093
  97. https://www.tcfa.org/news/the-beef-lifecycle
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7070928/
  99. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-20394-y
  100. https://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/agbyproducts/agbychap2.pdf
  101. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1005&context=biosysengfacpub
  102. https://www.epa.gov/npdes/animal-feeding-operations-afos
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1817674/
  104. https://tammi.tamu.edu/files/2014/04/Sweeten.pdf
  105. https://extension.missouri.edu/publications/eq681
  106. https://library.csbe-scgab.ca/docs/journal/42/42_2_87_raw.pdf
  107. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/animal-science/articles/10.3389/fanim.2025.1608387/full
  108. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231097000435
  109. https://www.gao.gov/assets/a280238.html
  110. https://www.c-lockinc.com/blog/optimizing-feed-efficiency
  111. http://beefrunner.com/2012/02/06/cattlemens-college-cattle-feed-efficiency/
  112. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074&context=rangebeefcowsymp
  113. https://www.fb.org/market-intel/cattle-on-feed-back-to-2012-levels
  114. https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/wholesale-and-retail-prices-for-chicken-beef-and-pork/
  115. https://americancattlemen.com/career-options-in-the-modern-beef-industry/
  116. https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/commodities/beef-beef-products
  117. https://www.beefboard.org/2025/07/18/us-beef-global-rise/
  118. https://usmef.org/about/usmef
  119. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/sector-at-a-glance
  120. https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/market-news/u-s-pork-beef-exports-accounted-for-2-24b-in-market-value-to-corn-1-12b-to-soybeans
  121. https://www.thepoultrysite.com/news/2023/07/livestock-contribute-to-global-food-security-fao-report
  122. https://www.nefb.org/07/18/2022/factors-in-beef-demand/
  123. https://www.provisioneronline.com/articles/119333-beef-demand-continues-climbing-despite-record-prices
  124. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/309632/?ln=en
  125. https://www.epa.gov/npdes/animal-feeding-operations-regulations-guidance-and-studies
  126. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-122/subpart-B/section-122.23
  127. https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/steroid-hormone-implants-used-growth-food-producing-animals
  128. https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety/chemical-safety/hormones-meat_en
  129. https://www.ncba.org/Media/NCBAorg/Docs/full_feedyard-audit-2021.pdf
  130. https://www.bqa.org/Media/BQA/Docs/bqa-feedyard-assessment-2021.pdf
  131. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-06/documents/compliance-cafos.pdf
  132. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/get-engaged/animal-feedlots
  133. https://www.mprnews.org/episode/2025/07/17/minnesota-looking-to-make-first-major-change-to-feedlot-regulations-in-25-years
  134. https://landstewardshipproject.org/mpca-feedlot-rules-commentary/
  135. https://www.mncorn.org/2025/02/18/mpca-finalizes-changes-to-feedlot-general-permits/
  136. https://www.feedlotmagazine.com/news/feedlot_special/implanting-adjusting-to-new-rules/article_5fe7abc6-8f20-4411-9f11-5d8be6bd38ac.html
  137. https://hpj.com/2025/06/10/researchers-using-drones-to-aid-cattle-feedyard-sustainability/
  138. https://agupdate.com/midwestmessenger/livestock/beef/article_bb5a2a56-158b-44c2-8839-d906807b419a.html
  139. https://agupdate.com/livestockroundup/news/article_c5560f5b-ff27-49d0-8e44-095c0ccc5a18.html
  140. https://cap.unl.edu/news/impact-higher-grain-prices-feedlots-decision-feed-distillers-grains/
  141. https://www.fredlaw.com/alert-planned-amendments-to-minnesota-animal-feedlot-rules
  142. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-rule4-29f.pdf
  143. https://avmajournals.avma.org/view/journals/javma/250/4/javma.250.4.437.xml
  144. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09712119.2025.2566390
  145. https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-9-summer-2018/the-wrong-animal-welfare-debate
  146. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11117431/
  147. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1080744617300165
  148. https://www.grandin.com/references/reduce.hand.stress.html
  149. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1080744615317836
  150. https://www.grandin.com/welfare/economic.effects.welfare.html
  151. https://meatscience.org/docs/default-source/publications-resources/rmc/1995/the-economic-benefits-of-proper-animal-welfare.pdf?sfvrsn=2
  152. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9280984/
  153. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es4040683
  154. https://water.usgs.gov/owq/AFO/proceedings/afo/OFR/OFR_00-204.pdf
  155. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41545-020-0051-0
  156. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/154/4/e2024068467/199441/Use-of-Antibiotics-in-Animal-Agriculture
  157. https://www.cdc.gov/antimicrobial-resistance/causes/environmental-food.html
  158. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2019.00245/full
  159. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/12/1/198
  160. https://news.mongabay.com/2021/07/study-shows-how-soy-cattle-team-up-to-drive-deforestation-in-south-america/
  161. https://earth.org/how-animal-agriculture-is-accelerating-global-deforestation/
  162. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=biosysengfacpub
  163. https://www.beefmagazine.com/farm-business-management/company-releases-ai-powered-predictive-cattle-feeding-recommendations
  164. https://www.cargill.com/story/artificial-intelligence-in-animal-farming
  165. https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2011/with-feedlot-manure-it-pays-to-be-precise/
  166. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016706125000102
  167. https://zerocarbon-analytics.org/nature/the-effectiveness-of-animal-feed-supplements-in-cutting-methane-emissions/
  168. https://www.agresearch.co.nz/news/backing-the-science-on-methane-reduction/
  169. https://www.farmprogress.com/conservation-and-sustainability/water-reclamation-at-feedlots-just-got-a-boost
  170. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2321245121
  171. https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food
  172. https://praisetheruminant.com/ruminations/another-land-use-debate-feedlot-finished-vs-forage-finished
  173. https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/cattle-and-land-use-differences-between-arable-land-and-marginal-land-and-how-cattle-use
  174. https://www.quora.com/How-does-feedlot-beef-compare-to-grass-fed-beef
  175. https://www.cattletoday.com/threads/grass-fed-to-slaughter-timing.103973/
  176. https://kb.wisc.edu/dairynutrient/375fsc/48431
  177. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2404329122
  178. https://newzealmeats.com/blog/grain-fed-vs-grass-fed-beef-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
  179. https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/08/why-grass-fed-beef-costs-more/index.htm
  180. https://extension.sdstate.edu/grass-fed-beef-market-share-grass-fed-beef
  181. https://biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/pdfs/regenerative-farming-guide-2025.pdf
  182. https://nutritionstudies.org/regenerative-grazing-not-as-sustainable-as-we-think/
  183. https://sentientmedia.org/why-are-farmers-embracing-regenerative-grazing/
  184. https://www.montana.edu/extension/broadwater/blog-article.html?id=21908
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.