50 years of Pharmaceutical
Technology and Its Impact
On The Beef We Provide To
Consumers
AUTHORS
Thomas E. Elam, Ph.D.
Rodney L. Preston, Ph.D.
THEME
Technology Is a Key
Factor in Keeping Beef
Competitive in the
Consumer’s Food
Basket
PHARMACEUTICAL
TECHNOLOGY
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
Domestic Beef Production/Head, Total Jan. 1 Cattle
1955-2003 Actual, 2004-2005 Forecast
Herd
1955-2003 Actual, 2004-2005 Forecast
2011 Actual = 289 Lbs.
300
200
Trend Equation:
Beef/Head = 131.58 + 2.3364*Time
R2 = 94.23%
150
100
+119% improvement!
50
2005f
2003
2001
1999
1997
1995
1993
1991
1989
1987
1985
1983
1981
1979
1977
1975
1973
1971
1969
1967
1965
1963
1961
1959
1957
0
1955
Pounds/Head
250
750
0.450
700
0.400
650
0.350
600
0.300
550
0.250
500
450
+50% increase in carcass weight
+36% increase in head harvested
per head inventory
400
0.200
0.150
0.100
Estimated Carcass Pounds/Head of Domestic Cattle Harvest
Harvest/Head Inventory
Harvest/Jan. 1 Cattle Inventory
Carcass Weight, Pounds/Head,
Domestic Slaughter
CARCASS BEEF POUNDS/HEAD AND
HARVEST/HEAD OF JAN. 1 TOTAL
INVENTORY
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
Pounds Beef/Head Harvested
COMPARISONS OF BEEF & VEAL
PRODUCTION PER HEAD OF INVENTORY,
2011
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
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
TOTAL HEAD OF CATTLE REQUIRED TO
PRODUCE THE DOMESTIC BEEF SUPPLY
2011
200,000
175,000
125,000
100,000
75,000
Total Cattle (1955 Productivity)
2003
2000
1997
1994
1991
1988
1985
1982
1979
1976
1973
1970
1967
1964
1961
1958
50,000
1955
Head (000)
150,000
Total Cattle (actual)
200
183 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
% Change in Feedlot Performance and Feed Use,
1955-2005
% Change 1955-2005
Feed Conversion Ratio
100 lbs. fed beef production/acre corn
100 lbs. of fed beef production/acre roughage
-23%
218%
700%
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)
199%
229%
-6%
-20%
-36%
-63%
-69%
-16%
-28%
-200% -100%
0%
100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600% 700%
SOURCES OF TECHNOLOGY
CHANGE




Animal Health; Pharmaceuticals
Genetics
Nutrition & management
Grain yields & feed costs
PHARMACEUTICAL
TECHNOLOGY







Antibiotics
Implants
Ionophores
Repartitioning agents
Parasiticides
Vaccines
Estrus regulation
ESTIMATES OF PERFORMANCE
GAINS FROM KEY PHARMACEUTICAL
TECHNOLOGIES
1955
2004
% difference
Improvement from:
Implants
Ionophones
Antibiotics
Estrus Control
Parasiticides
Feed
Efficiency,
Feedlots
8.0
6.2
-23%
10%
6%
7%
5%
n/a
Average Daily
Feed
Average Daily
Gain, pounds, Efficiency, Gain, pounds,
Feedlots
Stockers
Stockers
2.2
n/a
n/a
3.5
n/a
n/a
59%
n/a
n/a
17%
3%
7%
5%
n/a
7%
10%
n/a
n/a
n/a
12%
10%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Weaning
Weights,
pounds, Calves
400
500
25%
20
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 breakevens & 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
CORN PRICES - ACTUAL AND
INFLATED 1955
$10.00
$9.00
$8.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
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
19
55
$-
19
$/Bushel
$7.00
Actual Price
Inflated 1955 Price
Beef from Grain-Fed
& Non-Fed Cattle
Million Pounds, Carcass Weight
30,000
25,000
3,607
20,000
Beef from Non-Fed Cattle
Beef from Fed Cattle
15,000
10,000
5,000
5,723
22,882
7,490
1955
2005
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