Feedlot health expert Matt May priced beef at his local Costco store in mid-March. He found that organic hamburger was $16.66 per kilogram, which was 119.5 percent more than $7.59 per kg hamburger produced in conventional ways.
May, who is the feedlot nutrition and production consultant for Feedlot Health Management Services in Okotoks, Alta., said cost is obviously a factor when comparing the two types of beef production, but it’s not the only one that consumers consider when buying beef.
He presented data March 16 from the International Consumer Attitudes Study, which found that 95 percent of food buyers say taste, cost and nutrition are their priorities when buying meat. Another four percent indicated luxury, organic or local as priorities.
Read Also
Hogs’ transport stress called costly
Poor trailer design and transportation stress are killing pigs and costing the pork industry millions of dollars in penalties, meat quality downgrades and failed welfare audits, according to research by a federal scientist.
As for the remaining one percent, “we do have a fringe group that are maybe anti-production or wanting to limit a lot of the things that we do … but I really want to focus on the 99 percent.”
May said it is important to provide consumers with choice, whether it is conventional, organic or natural beef. However, that means calculating the costs or efficiency losses associated with supplying those products.
He said research and technology have led to many tools in the cattle production toolbox:
- genetics
- feed additives
- ionophores
- beta agonists
- implants
- antibiotics
- parasiticides
- vaccines
Each of those has changed cattle production practices, but some are now controversial.
“Losing a lot of these tools is what really scares me as we talk about sustainability and feeding that ever-growing population, especially if those consumers want to consume beef and other products,” May said.
He showed results from two small-pen feedlot studies, one on steers and another on heifers.
Results from the steer study showed that animals raised conventionally using feed additives and implants (Rumensin, Tylan, Optaflexx and Revalor-200) were almost 100 pounds heavier at finish with better dressing percentage and higher carcass weight.
There was no difference in animal health, said May.
Similar results were seen in the heifer study, with those that were given feed additives and implants (Rumensin, Tylan, MGA, Optiflexx and Revelor-200) showing better feed efficiency and higher weights.
May said there is a place for natural beef as part of available choice. Producers need to understand the higher cost of producing animals for that market so they know the premium prices required to make it cost-neutral or profitable.
One group of animals in both the steer and heifer studies was given Oleobiotech, a blend of essential oils and spices marketed by Pro-Active Nutrients. May said cattle that were given natural product and no other additional feed additives or implants showed better performance than the control group and had fewer liver abscesses.
“It looks to be potentially beneficial,” he said.
However, further research on a larger scale would be needed for true evaluation.
