About BovINE

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.

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.

1. We are looking for tools to assess the potential risks prior to purchase that include but are not limited to health, nutrition, management and immune status.
2. The focus of this topic aims to find control strategies prior to purchase that can assess the potential health risks including disease and exposure risk.
3. For this topic, we also aim to find solutions for minimizing the risk of introducing disease, such as vaccination status and vaccination programs as well as post purchase management of animals.
4. Also, non-disease problems that can affect herd health by introducing youngstock from other farms will be included in this topic, e.g. group size, feeding practices, facility design, transport etc.

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.

1. The topic aims to find tools and animal welfare indicators for beef cattle that are able to assess animal welfare in a farm setting that can easily be applied by farmers, but also by animal handlers, transporters and staff of slaughterhouse.
2. We are seeking concepts and/or training programs of stress-free handling of beef cattle especially during weighing and transport, including innovative designs of equipment and facilities that improve animal welfare, prevent injuries and reduce stress for animals during handling.

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:  

• How to evaluate the live animal pre slaughter (conf, fat score) 
• What systems are in place across partner regions in factories to implement the EUROP scale? (mechanical or manual grading?) 
• What information is fed back to farmers in each country (final carcass wt etc.)? 
• What info is fed back to suppliers? 

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):  

• Genetic factors: High marbled beef breeds are used by some farmers. Furthermore, the intramuscular fat accumulation is regulated by various associated genes, and the heritability is moderate to high and therefore can be increased by selection. 
• Nutritional factors: concentrate to roughage ratios, the supplementation or restriction of vitamins (A, C, and D), and even feeding during pregnancy, are crucial nutritional factors affecting the formation and development of intramuscular fat. 
• Management factors: castration and age and weight at slaughter are some examples of management factors affecting marbling. 

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:  

• Does the market dictate the requirement? 
• Does the farmer receive a premium? 

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.