50 years of pharmaceutical technology and its impact on the beef we provide to consumers
TRANSCRIPT
50 years of Pharmaceutical Technology and Its Impact On The Beef We Provide To
Consumers
Thomas E. Elam, Ph.D.
Rodney L. Preston, Ph.D.
AUTHORS
Technology Is a Key Factor in Keeping Beef
Competitive in theConsumer’s Food
Basket
THEME
PHARMACEUTICALTECHNOLOGY
Applied to the beef industry over the past 55 years is one of the
major contributors to providing the consumer with affordable
and wholesome beef
None of these technologies alone is solely responsible
But, together, they have revolutionized the U.S. beef production system
DOMESTIC BEEF PRODUCTION/HEAD,TOTAL JAN. 1 CATTLE HERD
1955-2003 Actual, 2004-2005 Forecast
Domestic Beef Production/Head, Total Jan. 1 Cattle Herd
1955-2003 Actual, 2004-2005 Forecast
Trend Equation:Beef/Head = 131.58 + 2.3364*Time
R2 = 94.23%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
19
55
19
57
19
59
19
61
19
63
19
65
19
67
19
69
19
71
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05f
Pou
nds/H
ead
+119% improvement!
2011 Actual = 289 Lbs.
2011 Trend = 262
Lbs.
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
Har
vest
/Jan
. 1
Cat
tle I
nve
nto
ry
Car
cass
Wei
ght,
Pou
nds
/Hea
d,
Dom
estic
Sla
ugh
ter
Estimated Carcass Pounds/Head of Domestic Cattle Harvest
Harvest/Head Inventory
CARCASS BEEF POUNDS/HEAD ANDHARVEST/HEAD OF JAN. 1 TOTAL INVENTORY
+36% increase in head harvested per head inventory
+50% increase in carcass weight
2011
WHICH HAS ALLOWED US TO…
More than double total beef production From about the same herd size as in
1955 Reduce real consumer beef prices Reduce our impact on the environment And increase the quality of beef by grain
feeding a higher proportion of cattle
COMPARISONS OF BEEF & VEAL PRODUCTION PER HEAD OF INVENTORY, 2011
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Poun
ds B
eef/
Hea
d H
arve
sted
WHAT IF TECHNOLOGY WERE FROZEN IN 1955?
Lower beef production/consumption Higher cost/pound of beef produced Higher cattle/beef prices Larger cattle herd, but lower beef production Greater environmental impact
More waste produced More land needed for pasture and feed
Higher retail price/pound of beef Greater market share for alternative meats
50,000
75,000
100,000
125,000
150,000
175,000
200,0001
955
19
58
19
61
19
64
19
67
19
70
19
73
19
76
19
79
19
82
19
85
19
88
19
91
19
94
19
97
20
00
20
03
He
ad (
00
0)
Total Cattle (1955 Productivity) Total Cattle (actual)
TOTAL HEAD OF CATTLE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE DOMESTIC BEEF SUPPLY
2011
200183 million cattle would need
About 500 million additional acres (at current stocking rates)
That is more than the combined area of: Texas Arizona NM Kansas Colorado
Clearly, this amount of additional land would be expensive, and entail environmental consequences
Unrealistic? Brazil is the same size as the U.S., produces beef at about our 1955 level, uses 190 million head, and has cleared rain forest for pasture
-23%
218%
199%
229%
-6%
-20%
-36%
-63%
-69%
-16%
-28%
700%
-200% -100% 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600% 700%
Feed Conversion Ratio
100 lbs. fed beef production/acre corn
100 lbs. of fed beef production/acre roughage
Feedlot LW pounds of beef produced
Bushels corn consumed by fed cattle
Acres of corn required for all fed cattle
Value of corn used ($1982-84)
Tons of roughage consumed by fed cattle
Acres of roughage required for all fed cattle
Value of roughage used ($1982-84)
Total acres used for corn and roughage
Value of corn and roughage used ($1982-84)
% Change 1955-2005
% Change in Feedlot Performance and Feed Use,
1955-2005
SOURCES OF TECHNOLOGY CHANGE
Animal Health; Pharmaceuticals Genetics Nutrition & management Grain yields & feed costs
PHARMACEUTICALTECHNOLOGY
Antibiotics Implants Ionophores Repartitioning agents Parasiticides Vaccines Estrus regulation
ESTIMATES OF PERFORMANCE GAINS FROM KEY PHARMACEUTICAL TECHNOLOGIES
Feed Efficiency, Feedlots
Average Daily Gain, pounds,
Feedlots
Feed Efficiency, Stockers
Average Daily Gain, pounds,
Stockers
Weaning Weights,
pounds, Calves1955 8.0 2.2 n/a n/a 4002004 6.2 3.5 n/a n/a 500% difference -23% 59% n/a n/a 25%
Improvement from:Implants 10% 17% 7% 12% 20Ionophones 6% 3% 10% 10% n/aAntibiotics 7% 7% n/a n/a n/aEstrus Control 5% 5% n/a n/a n/aParasiticides n/a n/a n/a n/a 30
Beta agonists yield ~15-25 pounds of added carcass weight on same days and feed.
GENETICS
Beef cattle genetics is a mixed bag Small frame (1950) vs. large frame English vs. exotic breeds Dairy genetics has greatly increased
milk production/cow; fewer dairy cows Quantitative genetic measures (EPD)
and gene marker technology will identify gene combinations for improved growth, efficiency & eating qualities of beef
NUTRITION
Research has defined the nutrient requirements of cattle (NRC)
Feeding for optimum breeding performance in large frame cattle
Pasture & stocker cattle supplemented to maximize roughage utilization
Predicted gains, efficiency and final weight of feedlot cattle facilitate break-evens & hedging to lock in profit
GRAIN (CORN) YIELDS
While not exactly beef technology, corn yields and relative price have had a major influence on the U.S.
beef production system, beef technology application, and the cost
of beef to the consumer
$-
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
$8.00
$9.00
$10.00
$/B
ush
el
Actual Price Inflated 1955 Price
CORN PRICES - ACTUAL AND INFLATED 1955
Beef from Grain-Fed& Non-Fed Cattle
7,490
22,8825,723
3,607
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
1955 2005
Mill
ion
Po
un
ds,
Ca
rca
ss W
eig
ht
Beef from Non-Fed CattleBeef from Fed Cattle
BEEF QUALITY
USDA grades are the industry’s standard of quality measurement
For several reasons, their relation to the eating quality of beef is marginal
Little change in grain-fed beef quality over last 50 years
No strong relation between use of pharmaceutical technologies and fed beef quality
Overall beef quality has increased due to higher proportion of grain-fed beef
CONCLUSIONS
Over the past 55 years, efficiency of U.S. beef production has improved over 100%
Several technologies have played important roles in efficiency gains
Without these improvements, environmental impact would be greater
Pharmaceutical technologies are an integral part of the efficiency improvement
Technology has kept beef competitive in the consumer’s food basket
By helping to increase cattle feeding, technology has improved beef quality