Effects of Productivity on Resource Use — Land Used by Cattle

Cattle are the largest users of land in the U.S. food production system. Pasture for beef cows and stocker cattle, land in feedlots and land in crops used to produce cattle feed account for about 500 million acres in the U.S. or about 53 percent of the total 938 million acres of land in agriculture, including rangeland. The use of this land involves costs to the industry and creates environmental impacts caused by the presence of cattle and associated activities, such as feedlots.

The use of land for cattle is roughly proportional to the number of head of cattle required to produce the beef supply. Technology, by improving the productivity of the cattle herd, has thus helped to reduce the impacts of beef production on land use and the environment. Technology in many other aspects of agriculture, especially grain production, has also improved the efficiency of land use.
As has been pointed out, if we were to attempt to produce the current beef supply with 1955 technology, we would need a cattle herd about 80 percent larger than that of today. Approximately 175 million cattle would be needed, not the current inventory of under 100 million (Figure 6). Even considering the effects of higher beef prices on beef consumption, the total herd would need to be 126 million head to produce 17 billion pounds of beef in the absence of technical progress.

Even if the demand/price adjusted estimate of 126 million head and 17 billion pounds of beef is used, there is still a significant effect on resources needed to produce U.S. beef at 1955 technology levels. Given no increase in stocking rates, the need to pasture and otherwise accommodate a herd of 126 million head would require us to use about 165 million more acres of land for cattle, or an 18 percent increase in our total agricultural land use, and that would produce a smaller U.S. beef supply. This would place an incredible strain on our land inventory and the environment. We would need to use large amounts of our forests, wetlands and other wild lands for cattle pasture. The impact on these natural areas would be substantial. Total animal waste production would also be higher — roughly proportional to the increase in the herd size required, or almost 30 percent more than presently produced. In addition, the land use and animal waste production from increased production of alternative meats would exacerbate the effects of these additional cattle.

Another way to look at the environmental impact is that, since 1975, we have reduced the total cattle inventory by 37 million head. In the absence of productivity increases, the environmental benefits from the reduced cattle numbers would have been largely lost, with no offsetting increase in beef production.

Figure 6^22,23
Total Head of Cattle Required to Produce the
Actual Domestic Beef Supply

Over the last 50 years, the cattle industry has raised an increasing proportion of the beef supply in feedlots rather than on pasture and range lands. A major impact of agricultural technology has been on the amount of land needed to produce the feed required for cattle feedlots. Given the large increases in the fed beef supply since the 1950s, most would assume that the amount of land needed to produce increased amounts of feedlot feeds has increased but, in fact, this is not the case.

Table 1 is an estimate of the impact on the land used to produce the corn and roughage used for beef cattle feed. For purposes of this table, it was assumed that all grain used in feedlots is corn and a 50-50 hay/corn silage mixture is used for roughage. Selected estimates from Table 1 are also shown in Figure 7.

Table 1
Estimated Feedlot Beef Production and Land Used for Corn and Roughage^24,25

The overall impact of technology changes for crops and cattle has been to significantly reduce the land used to meet the feed requirements of feedlot beef production, even though there was almost a 200 percent increase in the pounds of beef produced in feedlots. Despite the large increase in fed-beef production, the real cost of feedstuffs used was also reduced by about 28 percent. The reduction in the real cost of feedstuffs is a significant cost savings to the cattle industry and the beef consumer. The reduction in acreage required for beef feedstuffs has made more land available to produce crops for other purposes, including grain exports.

Figure 7
Percent Change in Feedlot Performance and Feed Use, 1955-2005

²⁰USDA. Census of Agriculture. 2002.
²¹The 50 million-acre estimate consists of cropland used for pasture, woodland used for pasture, all other pasture and rangeland and estimated cropland used to produce beef cattle feed. Some minor amounts of pasture and range may be also used for other ruminants.
²²USDA, NASS. Cattle. 1955-2004 (actual; 1955 productivity estimates are the author's).
²³1955 productivity estimates shown do not account for effects of higher beef prices on amounts of beef demanded.
²⁴Acreage estimates are based on the exclusive use of corn, corn silage and hay in the diet for concentrate and roughage.
² Estimates are based on USDA published statistics and CattleFax data on placement and marketed weights.
²⁶“Roughage” is a 50-50 mix of alfalfa hay and corn silage.
²⁷Steer and heifer slaughter from USDA, NASS. Livestock Slaughter. 1955-2004.