Executive Summary

FIFTY YEARS OF PHARMACEUTICAL TECHNOLOGY AND ITS IMPACT ON THE BEEF WE PROVIDE TO CONSUMERS

Thomas E. Elam, PhD, and Rodney L. Preston, PhD
July 20, 2004

Through a combination of research, technology development and innovation, the U.S. beef cattle industry has increased beef production per head of cattle by over 80 percent in the last 50 years. Furthermore, the total production of beef has doubled, from 13.2 to about 27 billion pounds, in the same period of time. Pharmaceutical technology, genetics, nutrition, pasture management, stocker management and feedlot production have all played important roles. Increases in grain (corn) yields and a reduction in the real prices of grains have been pivotal in the growth of the feedlot industry, which has enhanced the efficiency of beef production and improved the consistency and quality of the end product. The overall impact of these technologies has been to keep beef cost-competitive in the consumer’s market basket while simultaneously improving its quality. Pharmaceuticals have greatly facilitated and enhanced the increased importance of grain feeding in the U.S. beef production system.

The most significant impact of technology on U.S. beef production has been to increase grain-fed beef production and decrease the proportion of non-fed beef production. A synergistic combination of a number of technologies has increased our ability to feed cattle high-grain diets, the most significant contributor to increased beef industry productivity, efficiency and product quality over the past 50 years. Our feedlot technology is what differentiates U.S. beef production from that of the rest of the world. Based on beef production per head of cattle, the U.S. today is the most efficient beef producer in the world.

Compared to beef from pasture cattle, feedlot beef is generally regarded as superior in tenderness, taste and consistency. Thus, a direct effect of progress in technology has been to increase the quality and consistency of the U.S. beef supply. In fact, all of the beef supply increase since 1955 has come from grain-fed cattle. We produced about 7.5 billion pounds in 1955 compared to an estimated 22.9 billion pounds projected for 2005, while the total beef produced from cattle not fed grain has actually declined from about 5.7 billion pounds to an estimated 3.6 billion pounds for the same time period.

The effect on the composition of the per capita beef supply has been just as dramatic. Since 1955, per capita beef production from non-fed beef animals has decreased by 65 percent while per capita feedlot beef production has increased by 71 percent. The increased supply of feedlot beef has revolutionized the consumer beef-eating experience, both in terms of quality and consistency, while at the same time we have also significantly improved overall production efficiency.

None of the technologies alone can account for this increase in overall beef productivity and efficiency. The beef production system has improved and developed into its current form as a result of a number of technologies. If, for example, growth-promoting implants were eliminated from the current technologies, the effects would extend far beyond those of the gain and feed efficiency effects they have in feedlots. It has been estimated that without implants, retail sales of beef would decrease about $1.4 billion, resulting in a reduction of 1.2 million beef cows. Genetics, feeding programs, stocker programs and feedlot management would all have to be extensively modified. It would be very likely that the amount of beef produced in feedlots would fall, negatively affecting beef quality. Lower beef quality could lead to a drop in beef demand and financial losses for producers. Similarly, other pharmaceutical technologies, such as ionophores, antibiotics, repartitioning agents, parasiticides, vaccines and estrus regulators, have contributed to improved growth and efficiency, enhanced animal health and well-being, and improved reproductive performance of the nation’s cattle herd.

Another major implication of the increase in beef industry productivity has been a dramatic reduction in the industry’s overall environmental impact. Had these productivity improvements not occurred, we would need a much larger cattle herd to produce a smaller total beef supply. Those extra cattle would occupy significant amounts of land now needed for other agricultural crops and land now in non-agricultural uses. In addition, the impact of lower cattle productivity would also be felt in the form of increased demand for alternative meats.

The primary benefits of increased productivity have accrued to the cattle industry and to U.S. beef consumers. In 2004, we have a more plentiful, less expensive and higher quality beef supply than we did in 1955. That we have managed to simultaneously increase efficiency, quality and production, while reducing the real price of beef, is a testament to the remarkable work of thousands of men and women involved in this industry over the last 50 years. As a result of their efforts, the industry produces more, and higher quality beef than it would have had these productivity increases not occurred.

As Alan Greenspan recently said, “…(T)he phenomenal gains in U.S. agricultural productivity of the past century brought profound benefits to all consumers, regardless of their connection to a farm, in the form of lower prices, better quality and more choices at retail outlets. … Although dislocations are bound to accompany economic growth, we should rise to the challenges that come with innovation, because innovation brings great improvements in material well-being.”

The cattle industry of the U.S. can be proud of its record on innovation and technology application. It should continue to look for opportunities to contribute to the U.S. economy, and its own well-being, through continued innovation over the next 50 years.