BovINEBeef Innovation Network Europe
BovINEView the Good Practices and Research Innovations relating to this topic on the BovINE Knowledge Hub here
Concepts and management measures to prevent dystocia problems (including stillbirths and infertilities post partum). Different strategy examples focusing on one or more risk factors (e.g. feeding, breeding, obstetrics etc.) and managing them (i.e. which approach is most promising).
View the Good Practices and Research Innovations relating to this topic on the BovINE Knowledge Hub here
Assessing methods of health and welfare indicators for lameness (i.e. tools, knowledge sources, external expertise or training) and from available data of on-farm self-assessments or from slaughter. Additionally, examples of improved housing concepts (including floor and space arrangements) in refurbished or new built stables.
View the Good Practices and Research Innovations relating to this topic on the BovINE Knowledge Hub here
View the Good Practices and Research Innovations relating to this topic on the BovINE Knowledge Hub here
Tools that allow fast and effective farmer inspections and on-farm assessments through mobile devices and paper exercises. Knowledge transfer and training programmes for farmers.
Animal products that are produced with a high AHW standard are increasingly in demand. This is particularly true in situations where beef is marketed directly from a farm and/or under specific sustainability labels. In order to be certified to sell beef under labels indicating high levels of animal health and welfare, certain standards must be achieved and communicated through the recording and documentation of the specific animal health and welfare indicators. Subsequent results can also be used for internal identification of problems and risks to animal health, feedback-oriented communication in marketing and as a basis of discussion for advice, operational decision-making or training. Simple and time-saving tools and procedures are therefore needed to reduce the labour and organisational effort required of farmers to measure such standards.
Our TWG will therefore filter sophisticated methods and inspection procedures of targeted animal control, present their parameters and animal indicators and assess their practicability (time and scope of the recordings, available tools). The focus is on methods for (a) calf health, (b) postnatal care and animal health and (c) lameness and damage to the integument in beef bulls. Particularly successful methods on other subtopics are not excluded.
We will look in scientific literature to determine the parameters with the highest informative value and in their context to other parameters and indicators. Another aim should be to present recommended quantitative or qualitative limit and threshold values. These are seen as essential in order to be able to achieve a harmonization of different AHW evaluation schemes worldwide in the future (ICAR / IDF webinar: OIE, ISO, SSAFE). We will formulate different research innovations to carry out targeted animal controls with the necessary science-based background knowledge. In addition, it also seems important to us to point out and collect routines with non-targeted animal control. These include GP procedures, how and with what aids/tools abnormalities among the animals or unexpected husbandry problems are communicated within the company and between employees until these can be clarified in a targeted manner. If necessary, we want to give recommendations as to which housing facilities are appropriate in order to be able to carry out a targeted animal control, especially on individual animals, quickly and safely. Finally, our RI should be linked with options for further education and training.
Influence of stressors such animal handling operations and antagonistic interactions between animals or access to resources, on ADG and thus economic performance.
Availability of resources and animal management can have a large impact on the performance and otherwise animal health and welfare of beef animals. A win-win situation is achieved when the interests of the farmer and the needs of the livestock are equally considered and secured. The requirements and demands of the animals in rearing and finishing units can be described by specific animal welfare criteria (WELFARE QUALITY) or by the “Five Freedoms for animal welfare”. Using these criteria, influencing factors can be derived, which effectively ensure animal health and animal performance are maintained thereby enabling a stress-free and competition-free environment for all individuals.
The Animal Health & Welfare (AHW) technical working group will therefore select husbandry factors and management measures that influence animal performance in beef production units. A focus will be placed on factors with the strongest economic effects on mean weight gain will be identified and linked to AHW indicators. Practical examples of successful technical designs for animal housing units that ensure the correct environmental conditions (adequate supply of animals with feed, litter, etc.) will be presented. Innovations from national recommendations on animal husbandry and scientific reports that lead to or ensure stable animal performance will also be unearthed. Since not every change in the influencing factors on animal health and welfare can be represented as a specific change in animal performance, the innovations found will use both performance-based and welfare-based indicators.
Introduced disease are a major problem when buying youngstock from outside the farm which can have consequences for calf/herd health and welfare. The topic focuses on possible tools to prevent introducing disease into the farms including vaccination programs.
Different countries have different regulations regarding the training of animal keepers, handlers or transporters especially in the area of animal welfare. This topic does not focus on the multiple regulations in each country but rather on general principles in beef cattle handling with the aim to reduce stress and improve welfare in beef cattle during handling. During weighing and transport cattle are especially exposed to increased stress and the role of an experienced handler and/or specifically designed equipment to minimize stress are important.
The recording of technical and economic data, that enables the beef cattle farmer to improve his/her technical and economic performance. Examples could be long term and short term planning tools.
View the Good Practices and Research Innovations relating to this topic on the BovINE Knowledge Hub here
View the Good Practices and Research Innovations relating to this topic on the BovINE Knowledge Hub here
Beef cattle farms face risks of different natures such as diseases, extreme weather conditions and/or strong variations of input and output prices. Examples are management practices to reduce diseases, forward purchasing of feed and fertiliser, and cattle sales contracts.
View the Good Practices and Research Innovations relating to this topic on the BovINE Knowledge Hub here
View the Good Practices and Research Innovations relating to this topic on the BovINE Knowledge Hub here
The consumption of beef and veal in the EU declined from 7.5 million tons in 2005 to 6.4 million tons in 2012. After a short period of recovery of consumption levels, beef consumption in the EU was sharply down in 2020 due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue its downward trend. By 2030, it could further drop from 10.6 kg to 9.7 kg per capita. Moreover, in many countries, we notice a shift from high-quality cuts to ground beef. Many reasons can be mentioned that explain the lower appeal of beef for consumers: relatively high price with respect to other types of meat, the BSE scandal in the nighties of the last century, high consumption of red meat with a probable higher incidence of cancer (report of WHO), the carbon footprint of beef is worse with respect to pork and poultry meat. All this information caused a loss of the image of beef on the market and damaged the trust of consumers.
How can beef cattle farmers act to reverse this trend or at least halt its further decline? Can they implement strategies, individually or collectively, that attract consumers? Do direct sales increase the trust of consumers by offering full transparency? May certification systems contribute to informing consumers about healthy and environmentally sound production systems?
These are some of the questions we will try to answer in 2021. We will consult the scientific and grey literature to collect innovative approaches of beef cattle farmers, that are able to tackle these questions. Results of research projects concerning short food chains involving beef sales will be analysed. The objective of this analysis is to provide beef cattle farmers with alternative and innovative practices, that can be adopted to improve the image of beef on the market.
Housing systems for beef cattle are essential for their health and welfare. Housing systems are able to provide as well comfort for operators and may allow the reduction of labour and alleviate the handling of animals. Climate control systems are useful to reduce heat stress both for cattle and operators during the summer months. Some flooring systems may be labour efficient for the removal of manure but may impair feet health of beef cattle. Innovative solutions are necessary that are able to meet apparently contradictory requirements. In the last 20 years more efficient housing systems have been developed both for suckler cows as well as for finishing cattle.
For this topic we will look at novel housing systems and equipment, that may improve the welfare and health of beef cattle and that may reduce the workload for the operators. Special attention will also be paid to the efficient use of water and energy. Scientific and grey literature will be collected and analysed in order to find the most innovative housing systems, that can be disseminated among the beef cattle farmers in Europe. As the housing systems differ between stables for suckler cows and finishing cattle the collection of innovative systems will be distinctive for these two “target” groups of beef cattle. The collection of innovative housing systems will not only be limited to the stable constructions but will be extended to the equipment used in the different housing systems that are able to reduce the level of stress on both the animal and the operators.
For decades a debate is ongoing about a fairer distribution of value added between the actors of the food supply chains. The increasing bargaining power of multiple retailers is always being put forward as one of the causes of an unfair distribution of welfare between demand and supply. Policy at all levels (EU and national governments) tries to intervene in order to establish equal market conditions for the economic actors and to reduce excess of market power of retailers. Producers organisations have been set up to increase market power of farmers with respect to slaughterhouses and retailers. Direct sales strategies can be considered as an alternative to maintain more value added on the farm. At first sight direct sales look very attractive, but these strategies need focused programmes in order to be successful.
Since 2021 the prices of raw materials for feed has increased significantly. Soybean prices skyrocketed since 2020 due to the increased world demand, primarily triggered by China’s imports. This country is reconstituting its pig population after the dramatic consequences of the African Swine Fever disease. Cereal prices have increased at a lower rate, but have reached peak prices. In particular maize rose from 220 €/ton in January 2021 up to 260€ in January 2022..
This tendency poses the question for beef cattle farms to reduce their economic vulnerability and look for alternative feeds. On farm production of feeds may be attractive, as it may increase self-sufficiency. There are different options for the farmers, as these heavily depend on the starting position. Grass based cattle farms have to look for different alternatives than farmers that rely primarily on arable crops. Alternative feeds might also be found on the market, but their energy and protein contents needs to be compatible with growth requirements of beef cattle. Also alternative feed should not compromise final meat quality.
Automated animal monitoring or precision livestock farming tools developed for the fattening phase, in order to improve production efficiency and meat quality of beef cattle
View the Good Practices and Research Innovations relating to this topic on the BovINE Knowledge Hub here
View the Good Practices and Research Innovations relating to this topic on the BovINE Knowledge Hub here
View the Good Practices and Research Innovations relating to this topic on the BovINE Knowledge Hub here
Ready available data, such as traceability or quality measures, that could be used to improve by genetics animal carcass and beef quality (and their effect in productivity). Use of that information for individual farmers.
View the Good Practices and Research Innovations relating to this topic on the BovINE Knowledge Hub here
Meat quality: We include attributes relevant for consumers, such as appearance: visible fat, meat and fat colour; eating quality: tenderness, flavour, juiciness; shelf-life; and credence attributes. Credence attributes relate to the mode of production that accomplish niches expectations, such as higher standards of animal welfare, use of local food, organic production; or production of healthier meat (Henchion et al 2017, Meat Science 128: 1-7). Consumer perceives these attributes by information provided, certifications, labels, brands.
Feeding: Animal feeding can greatly impact the meat quality, for example, by using organic feeds or local resources or exploitation of available by-products, changes in the nutritional quality of the feeds, inclusion of antioxidants, pasture base systems, finishing on concentrates. The idea is to collect innovations that use animal feeding to improve some of the mentioned meat quality aspects and exploit such differentiated products (i.e. by a brand).
Stress: good management can reduce animal stress which improves animal welfare and therefore the credence attribute associated (i.e. meat with an animal welfare assurance scheme certification), but at the same time a proper pH can be reached so no alterations of meat colour and shelf-life will be produced. There is evidence that even meat from pH compliant carcasses (with pH24h less than 5.8) could deteriorate the eating quality of the meat influenced by pre-slaughter stress (Loudon et al. 2019, Animals, 9: 2-14). There are several stressors, but we will tackle two of them:
A key driver of profitability on suckler beef farms is the ability to produce one calf per cow per year. In order for this to occur reproductive efficiency must be optimised. After calving, cows go through a recovery period, known as the post–partum anoestrus interval which can often vary between 25-180 days in suckled beef cows. Various farm management factors can affect this duration such as nutrition of the cow and management of the suckling calf amongst many others. Following this, a period of time occurs where successful mating and conception must take place followed by a standard gestation length. In order for a live calf to be weaned, herd health must be optimised at all stages throughout the production cycle.
Good practices that the farmer can undertake to ensure that they reach the target figure of one live calf per cow per year can be related to:
Instruments or methods that can be used in the farm or in the slaughter line to measure or predict carcass (conformation and fattening, carcass composition, retail yield, etc.) and meat quality (colour, pH, ribeye area, marbling, fat thickness, tenderness, safety, etc.) of beef cattle.
For the purpose of this topic, we have defined “tool” as any instrument or method that can be used to measure or predict carcass and meat quality traits, in the farm or in the slaughterhouse. In the farm, these evaluations will help in decision making about management, such as definition of the slaughter time. In the slaughterhouses, they would allow carcasses to be classified according to their potential value and, among other things, to establish more transparent payment systems and to ensure homogenous products. Additionally, some tools could target meat quality attributes, therefore, carcasses and cuts could be graded according to consumer expectations. In both locations (farm and slaughterhouse), the data collected can be used for genetic improvement of animals.
We propose for this theme, the collection of innovations to evaluate the following variables:
Carcass quality: beef carcass classification (conformation and fattening) in the EU (SEUROP) is based on visual patterns. Replacing visual assessment with automatic systems could ensure more accurate and objective data, which can generate higher mutual confidence among the stakeholders involved. Furthermore, the marketable meat prediction would be very useful towards a more efficient production.
Meat quality: here are included meat intrinsic attributes, both measured or predicted, such as visible fat, meat and fat colour, pH, size of the steak, and eating quality (tenderness, flavour, juiciness). It can include safety assessment as well, such as bacterial contamination.
Network Manager Refinements:
Genetic, nutritional and management factors applied in beef cattle farms that contribute to increase or improve meat quality attributes such as marbling, tenderness and colour.
The content of intramuscular fat perceived visually as white flecks or a streak within muscles, determines marbling level in the meat, which is positively associated with a tender, flavoursome and juicy beef and consumers are being aware of this (Kang et al. 2022, Meat Science 186, 108730). Marbling can be modified through on-farm practices to increase added value and a higher consumer eating satisfaction, but potential negative impacts on production efficiency should be considered.
Innovations that the farmer can adopt to increase marbling in the beef meat can be related to one or a combination of the following factors, recently reviewed by Nguyen et al. 2021 (Veterinary and Animal Science, 14, 100219):
The colour of the meat influences purchase decisions, but what colour is preferable (light red, intense red, etc.) may change according to different markets or type of consumers. Tenderness is related to the eating satisfaction and affect repurchase decisions. At farm, both attributes can be modified at farm level with genetic, age at slaughter, production systems, feeding…
Network Manager Refinements:
View the Good Practices and Research Innovations relating to this topic on the BovINE Knowledge Hub here
Within this priority topic, we will map different strategies to reduce enteric emission. Good practices could be those that investigate different feed options, feed additives, farm types (extensive vs intensive) and management strategies (breeding and fertility). Farm types can include calf producer, beef finisher or both.
View the Good Practices and Research Innovations relating to this topic on the BovINE Knowledge Hub here
View the Good Practices and Research Innovations relating to this topic on the BovINE Knowledge Hub here
For this topic, we will search for solutions on how to reduce the nutrient leaching into surface water. Mainly nitrogen (N) losses into surface water by the use of animal manure and fertilizer on crops/fields. Good practices should be those that decrease the use of manure/fertilizer and improve efficient fertilization of the crops/field, etc.
View the Good Practices and Research Innovations relating to this topic on the BovINE Knowledge Hub here
Lately, the consumer becomes more aware of environmental issues and wants to help tackle global warming. From their perspective, labels are a good way to know better what they are buying. However, to achieve such a label, a farmer has to invest time and money, which is not always available. How can we help the farmers? Which reward systems are available for tackling environmental problems? Which environmental problems should be tackled?
From the European Union, the Green Deal is coming up with the Farm-to-Fork strategy. This strategy promotes a healthy and more sustainable EU food system. It is a very ambitious strategy with tight goals related to global warming and environmental pollution from agriculture. It also describes, via the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), how initiatives should be rewarded. However, the CAP cannot finance all these investments; they rely also on other public or private initiatives. These are only a few of the options to support the farmer, but how exactly will this help the farmer?
These are a few of the questions and topics we would like to tackle in the upcoming year. During a brainstorming session in our TWG, we developed the following road map for the coming year: we will map all existing reward systems over the different regions, related to beef production. Once we have the overview, we will classify them to have a better overview of the different types that are already available. In addition, we will look to other animal systems (small ruminants, poultry, swine) if certain reward systems used could be interesting for beef production. Further, we will look in scientific literature to cluster all relevant (and correct) information on environmental pollution, problem areas, global change, etc. to have information to educate the consumer better. In addition, we will also add information on the positive role of beef systems on environmental issues (diversity, landscape, etc.). When all information is collected, we would like to sit together with beef farmers to discuss which parts in such a system are feasible and which parts are difficult to achieve. Also, it would be interesting to hear from the farmer what their vision is on a reward system and how to finance this. At the end, based on everything we gathered, we will propose different innovations within a reward system and would like to be able to describe the best (potential) reward system.
CO2 is a gas emitted by human activity, being released in the atmosphere. It counts for 63% of anthropogenic global warming. Plants are able to capture CO2 by photosynthesis and store it in the soil and in the roots, leaves and stems of the plant. This process is called carbon sequestration/soil sequestration and contributes to mitigating the global warming potential of CO2.
It is known that forests, as well as grasslands, are very efficient in capturing carbon. In addition, the soil type also plays an important role in this storage. For example, clay soil holds C better than sandy soil. But how much C is stored in the different soil types and under different crop types? What is the influence of crop rotation? And what are the best practices for a farmer to adopt on his farm?
Looking into the literature, we would like to provide an answer to these questions. First, we will capture all information related to carbon storage in different crops, soils, etc. to have an overview of what situation has the best potential. Second, we will formulate different research innovations to improve carbon sequestration in beef farming. Third, we would like to provide an overview table where you can see the window of potential carbon sequestration related to the cropping system, region, grassland, etc.
Farmers become more aware of the environmental impact of livestock farming and are experiencing demand from the government and consumers for more sustainable livestock farming. The European Green Deal and Farm-to-Fork strategy came up with tight goals related to global warming and environmental pollution from agriculture and describe, via the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), how initiatives should be rewarded. There are big differences between farms and the efforts they make. Progressive farmer have already implemented several good practices on their farm and are open to innovation. Others are more hesitant because they are unsure of the beneficial effects, possible costs or impact on their economic profitability. Both for farmers, but also for consumers and policy makers, it is important to quantify the environmental impact of a farm and the effect of sustainability efforts a farm has made or intends to make.
Environmental sustainability obviously includes the carbon footprint of a farm (enteric emission, carbon footprint of feeds), but is broader than that. Efforts towards biodiversity, improvements of soil and water quality, water and electricity consumption are also important aspects of ecological sustainability. Through carbon sequestration and sustainable management of permanent pasture the carbon footprint of livestock can be in part compensated and by manure management the nutrient cycle at a farm can be closed, lowering the nutrient inputs and loses.
In the upcoming year we will map, evaluate and compare existing tools for calculating the environmental sustainability of beef cattle farms. One example is the French CAP2ER, which was demonstrated in several counties last year. Once we have the overview of existing tools, we will classify them according to the indicators they evaluate. Further, we will look in scientific literature to collect and evaluate the models and assumptions behind the impact indicators used in the different tools. In addition, we will not only evaluate the tools but also search in publications about the application of these tools how to improve environmental sustainability indicators by measures at farm level.
Biodiversity is, in short, the variety of life in a certain area. It not only includes all species of plants and animals in an ecosystem, but also micro-organisms in soil and interactions between all organisms in an ecosystem. Biodiversity is put under pressure by humans, among other things by intensive agricultural systems and high nutrient pressures. Deforestation causes soil erosion, intensive manure application and nitrous emission cause eutrophication and acidification of soil and water, agricultural monoculture makes can make crops more vulnerable to pests and diseases and reduces insect populations and soil life.
which was demonstrated, such as pests, pollution and drought. So it is important to return to more diverse farming systems. Conventional farms are organised on having monoculture crops and cultivating land as intensively as possible and need to be convinced that it can also bring productivity benefits. At the same time, we are seeing more cooperation between nature conservation associations and farmers, and there are more incentives to engage in biodiverse agriculture, through the EU Biodiversity strategy as part of the EU Green deal, but also from local authorities.
In the upcoming year, we will collect innovations and good practices that can help farmers in different European regions and farming on diverse terrains to take biodiversity measures, at plot level, at farm levels but also at regional level. We will not only focus on measures for crops and grassland management but also on measures that improve soil biodiversity and water quality. Next, it is important that farmers can evaluate the effect of their farming practices on biodiversity indications on the one hand and on their economic return on the other hand. Good examples will rise awareness and encourage other farmers to follow.
© BovINE, all rights reserved unless stated otherwise.
Please address all mail to:
FAO: Maeve Henchion
The BovINE Project
Teagasc Ashtown Food Research Centre
Dublin 15
D15 KN3K
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 rural
renaissance programme | Project No: 862590 under call H2020-RUR-2019-15