Implications of Mexican Beef Demand Change on Cattle and
Beef Production in Mexico and U.S.-Mexican Cattle and Beef Trade§
Introduction
The initiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in January
1994 implied that the historical economic differences in the U.S. and Mexican beef
cattle industries should begin to narrow as the two markets integrated. Additionally,
one would expect that trade flows would emerge or strengthen which reflect the
comparative advantage of specific products in the two markets. This is generally
observed to be the case.
Over much of the last two years, average beef carcass values in Mexico City
have been at or above average U.S. values. In November, 2002, the average beef
carcass price in Mexico City was $1.07/lb. while U.S. prices were reported at $1.02/lb.
for Choice and $0.94/lb. for Select (carcass basis) (SNIIM). Apparent economic and
income growth is resulting in increased beef demand in Mexico and changes in beef
consumption preferences. Beef demand growth is the major driver of a sweeping set of
changes affecting domestic Mexican cattle and beef production and international trade
patterns (Peel, 2002a).
In the last five years, Mexico has risen to a strong second place as an export
market for U.S. beef. From a Mexican perspective, this is a source of concern as
imports have risen to account for roughly 30 percent of domestic beef consumption.
There are many questions among Mexican producers about the future of the their
Derrell S. Peel, Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University. Presented
as a Selected Paper for the Southern Agricultural Economics Association annual meeting, February, 2003,
Mobile, Alabama.
§
1
industry and what changes are needed to maintain a viable industry in a global market
(Peel, 2002b).
At the same time, despite growing beef demand in Mexico, imports of Mexican
cattle into the U.S. continue to average roughly 1 million head per year. U.S. producers
struggle to understand why Mexican cattle continue to be exported when domestic
Mexican beef production appears to be insufficient. There is a growing need on both
sides of the border to have a clear understanding of the economic forces at work, which
determine production in, and trade between, the two countries.
Objectives
There are two specific objectives for this study:
1) To develop and specify plausible scenarios for beef demand change in Mexico
which reflect apparent changes in total beef consumption and quality profiles in
consumption.
2) To analyze these demand scenarios with the GANAMEX model to determine
impacts of demand change on domestic Mexican production and international
trade.
Methodology
Results presented in this paper are based on scenario analysis using the
GANAMEX (Ganadería Mexicana) model. GANAMEX is a linear programming model that
represents regional production alternatives and consumption patterns in the Mexican
cattle and beef industry. The focus of the model is the long run structure of the industry
2
and it is most useful to understand the long run implications or tendencies of the
industry in response to changes in internal and external economic forces.
The objective function in the GANAMEX model is to minimize the cost of
providing a specified quantity of beef consumption in the Mexican market. The
optimization determines the level (or quantity) for the subset of production,
transportation and trade activities among possible alternatives that minimizes the
national cost of providing the quantity and type of beef consumption specified. The
perspective is that of viewing the entire industry as being under a single management
control and choosing the least cost management plan for a given set of circumstances.
Principal characteristics of the GANAMEX model are summarized below with respect to
endogenous variables, exogenous variables and technical parameters needed in the
model. Complete documentation of the GANAMEX model is available in Peel (2001a).
Endogenous Variables
The activities or endogenous variables in GANAMEX includes each of the
following groups of activities:
-
-
-
Forage use by region (by type, up to maximum)
Quantity, type and location of
- Cow-calf production (four cow-calf production systems)
- Stocker production (intensive and extensive systems)
- Slaughter animal production
- Finishing in feedlots (two finishing systems)
- Finishing in pasture
Domestic shipments of cattle by type
- Stockers between production regions
- Feeders between production regions
- Feeders from production regions to feedlots
Production of meat by type and location (four meat qualities)
Quantity, type and location of Slaughter (two slaughter systems)
Domestic shipments of meat by type
3
-
- From production regions to consumption regions (Grass-fed and Cull beef)
- From feedlot regions to consumption regions (Fed beef)
Exports of calves by production region
- Male and female
Exports of feeders by production region
- Male and female
Exports of rodeo calves (constrained)
Imports of meat by consumption region (two meat qualities)
Imports of slaughter cows by production region
Exports of meat by production region
Imports of Central American calves and feeders (constrained).
Exogenous Variables and Parameters (Technical Coefficients)
Exogenous variables represent the availability and productivity of resources;
contributions of sectors exogenous to the model; and the requirements that must be
met in each model solution. Input costs and trade sector values are specified as cost
parameters. The GANAMEX model includes exogenously specified levels of each of the
following:
-
-
-
Quantity of beef consumption
- Regional population
- Regional per capita consumption
- Regional consumption profile
Forage availability, productivity and cost
Dairy sector contributions to cattle supplies and cull meat production by
location
Feedlot capacity by feedlot region
Trade sector values
- Value of export calves
- Cost of meat imports (two qualities)
- Cost of slaughter cow imports
- Value of meat exports
- Value of rodeo calf exports
- Cost of Central American cattle imports
Animal production and feed costs
- Cow-calf by type and location
- Stocker by type and location
- Feedlot by type and location
- Ration cost and conversion
4
-
- Daily charge
- Receiving cost
Slaughter costs by type of slaughter
Transportation costs for live animals and meat
- Load Sizes
- Cost per loaded kilometer
Each of the above values must specified for each model solution and can be changed to
reflect different scenarios of interest.
Other parameters in the linear programming model reflect the input
requirements and productivity of production activities. The GANAMEX model includes
explicit specification of animal production parameters in order to facilitate
understanding of specified systems and to permit maximum control of production
system assumptions. For example, the linear programming model includes a parameter
for the quantity of calf produced per cow for each cow type. However, this value is the
net result of several production assumptions including weaning weight, birth
percentage, calf death loss, and cow culling rate. Each of these parameters is specified
individually in the model and can be changed individually with the impacts automatically
reflected in the model. The GANAMEX model includes the following exogenously
specified parameters:
-
-
Forage productivity by type and location
- Stocking rates for native pasture
- Forage yield of crop residues
- Forage yield of irrigated pasture
Cow-calf production by animal type and location
- Male and female weaning weight
- Birth (calving) percentage
- Calf death loss (preweaning)
- Cow culling rate
- Cow death loss
- Cow:Bull ratio
5
-
-
- Cow mature and slaughter weight
- Cow dressing percentage
Stocker production by animal type, production system and location
- Beginning weight (same as calf weaning weight)
- Total stocker gain
- Gain per day
- Death loss
- AU factor per animal
- Ending weight
Animal finishing systems by animal type and location
- Beginning weight (same as stocker ending weight)
- Days on feed
- Gain per day
- Death loss
- Feed conversion rate (for feedlot and supplementation systems)
- AU factor per animal (for pasture systems)
- Ending weight
- Dressing percentage
- Carcass weight
Regional delineation used in this paper includes four cow-calf and stocker
production regions, six feedlot regions and five consumption regions. In tableau
format, the model used for the analysis presented here consists of 200 activities (or
columns) and 136 constraints (or rows).
The choice of linear programming methodology for the GANAMEX model
reflects considerations of the types of analysis desired and the realities of data
requirements and availability. The strengths of linear programming in this application
include:
-
The ability to represent different production systems in considerable detail
and to understand conditions under which each would be economically
preferred.
6
-
The ability to understand the impacts of resource limitations (availability and
productivity) and how changing market conditions will affect the optimal
allocation of those resources.
-
The ability to represent regional differences in production and consumption;
transportation of inputs and outputs; and the impacts of changes on product
flows.
-
The ability to analyze impacts of changes in specific factors in isolation.
-
The ability to analyze scenarios of hypothetical situations for which no
historical data exists
-
The ability to overcome limitations in data availability or quality and to
incorporate data from diverse sources.
In general, the GANAMEX model can be used to evaluate the regional and
national impacts of changes in technology and management, domestic and international
market conditions, changes in consumer demand, development or expansion of
production systems, government programs and policies, and severe climatic conditions.
Model Validation and Baseline Values
Linear programming is sometimes referred to as a normative methodology. This
term derives from the fact that the structure and parameters are specified subjectively.
The GANAMEX model incorporates data and information from a wide variety of sources.
As is typical of this type of large structural model, it is not possible to validate linear
programming models objectively. Validation is a subjective consideration of the overall
plausibility of the total set of results, including levels of production and the particular
combination of activities included in the optimal solution.
GANAMEX model solutions include a large set of values for regional production
activities, product flows, levels of resource use, and trade activities. A summary of the
7
major results is presented as the Baseline scenario in Table 1. These results are
believed to generally represent the overall production and trade situation in Mexico in
2000. Each of the demand change scenarios will be compared to the initial values in
the Baseline scenario.
Alternative Demand Scenarios
Government officials, analysts and Mexican industry participants all agree that
beef demand in Mexico is increasing. However, official data sources disagree on overall
levels of production and consumption. Aggregate consumer surveys confirm that
income is growing and that meat consumption is increasing in Mexico (Peel, 2001b;
INEGI, 1998 and 2000).
Just as important, but even more difficult to document is that the components or
profile of beef consumption are changing as well. Peel distinguishes four types
(qualities) of beef consumption in Mexico (Peel, 2001b). Two of these are different
types of fed beef, which are easily aggregated and will be presented as an aggregate
here. It is important to remember that what is demanded (preferred) by Mexican
consumers as fed beef is not necessarily U.S.-style fed (quality) fed beef Peel (2001b).
Therefore, the results presented in Table 1 include 3 beef types: Fed beef, Grass-fed
beef, and Cull beef.
Baseline Scenario: Initial Beef Demand
The initial beef demand scenario is determined as a result of the validation of the
GANAMEX model to realistically represent production and trade patterns in the year
2000. In the absence of detailed data on the precise level and profile of beef
8
consumption, these factors are determined as part of the validation process. The
resulting beef demand characteristics can then be evaluated subjectively.
The overall level of beef consumption per capita is set at 15.3 kilograms per
capita (Table 2). This level does not include consumption of beef offals and offals are
excluded from all analysis presented here. Consumption at this level is less than
Mexican government official estimates but is more consistent with consumer surveys on
expenditures and meat consumption (Peel, 2001b and 2001c); Los Porcicultores y Su
Entorno).
Table 2 also indicates that the baseline beef demand consists of a consumption
profile of 42 percent Fed beef, 33 percent Grass-fed Beef, and 25 percent Cull beef.
With total consumption at 15.3 kilograms per capita, this profile implies the following
annual per capita consumption quantities: Fed beef, 6.43 kg., Grass-fed beef, 5.05 kg.,
and Cull beef, 3.83 kg.
Scenarios of Beef Demand Change
Three scenarios of beef demand change are specified and evaluated. Each of
these is based on a 10 percent increase in per capita consumption with no change in
population. However, Scenarios A, B and C differ in that the profile of consumption of
this higher level is different in each scenario. The scenarios are summarized in Table 2
and can be characterized as follows:
Scenario A: A 10 percent increase in beef consumption with no change in the
proportions of each beef type from the Baseline. This scenario implies an increase in
consumption for each beef type.
9
Scenario B: A 10 percent increase in beef consumption and a decrease in the
proportion of Cull beef consumed from 25 percent to 15 percent, with a corresponding
increase in the Fed beef proportion from 42 to 52 percent of the total. This scenario
implies a net increase in consumption for Fed and Grass-fed beef and a decrease in
consumption for Cull beef.
Scenario C: A 10 percent increase in beef consumption and a decrease in the
proportion of Grass-fed beef from 33 percent to 22 percent, with a corresponding
increase in the Fed beef proportion from 42 to 52 percent of the total. This scenario
implies a net increase in consumption for Fed beef and Cull beef and a decrease in
consumption for Grass-fed beef.
Results
Results comparing of each of the demand scenarios to the Baseline is presented
in Table 1, although much of the regional detail has been omitted from this summary.
Additionally, details of specific production alternatives and changes in production
systems are not included here due to space limitations. Generally, these results confirm
that the impacts of demand change depend critically on the precise nature of the
change in demand.
Most basic to the results is the impacts of demand change on the overall size of
the Mexican cow herd. Although beef demand is increasing in each scenario, the total
cow inventory decreases in two of the three scenarios. The decrease occurs in each of
the scenarios where demand for Grass-fed beef is increasing. Since Grass-fed beef and
cow-calf production compete for use of limited forage resources, increased Grass-fed
10
production can only happen if cow numbers are reduced. The regional impacts are even
more pronounced as most of the cow herd declines in scenarios A and B happen in the
Central and Tropical regions.
The impacts on the calf crop do not exactly match the changes in the cow herd
because the are changes in the types of production systems being utilized in each
scenario. For example, in Scenario A, the calf crop increases slightly despite a nearly
three percent decrease in the cow herd. This occurs as the result of shifting cow-calf
production to more intensive (and costly) production systems. In scenario B the
decrease in calf crop is similarly less pronounced than the decrease in the cow herd. In
both Scenarios A and B, the calf crop percent is higher, reflecting the change to more
intensive cow-calf systems. However, in Scenario C, a 10.5 percent in the cow herd is
accompanied by only a 2.5 percent increase in the calf crop because the industry once
again switches to cheaper, less intensive production systems.
The impact on stocker production also varies by scenario. Scenario A results in a
3.1 percent increase in stockers while Scenario B results in an 11.3 percent reduction in
stocker production. Again there are changes in production systems with regional shifts
in stocker production and switching between intensive and extensive stocker
production. In Scenario C, stocker production declines despite an increase in overall
cow-calf production.
The only source of Grass-fed beef in the GANAMEX model is grass finished beef
produced domestically. As expected, Scenarios A and B result in increased grass
finishing of cattle to meet Grass-fed beef demand. The reduction in grass finishing in
11
Scenario C is the primary source of additional forage to allow increased cow-calf
production in this scenario.
Total domestic cattle slaughter is increased in Scenario A and reduced in
Scenarios B and C. Although slaughter is a basic measure of productivity in a beef
system it is also important to consider exports since the sum of slaughter and exports
represents the total extraction or productivity of the system. This is the intent of the
harvest percent in Table 1, which is the sum of cattle slaughter plus calf exports divided
by the total cattle inventory. Thus, Scenario A represents the only scenario with a
higher harvest percent than the baseline. In Scenario B, the reductions in slaughter
and exports represent a lower harvest percent relative to reduced cattle inventories. In
Scenario C, an increase in exports partially offsets the reduced slaughter to restore the
harvest percentage closer to baseline levels.
The breakdown of Fed, Grass-fed and Cull beef production in Table 1 reflect the
tradeoff occurring in Mexico as a result of the increased beef demand and changing
consumption profile. The strictest constraint on the system in Scenarios A and B is the
need to increase Grass-fed beef pound for pound to match the increased demand. This
forces the rest of the system to adjust as well as possible and make up the difference
with imports of Fed beef and cows for Cull beef.
Calf exports, which represent a high value market for Mexican producers, depend
on the overall levels of calf production in the country and on the relative demand for
cattle for domestic beef production. In Scenarios A and B, exports are reduced as a
result of the squeezing of the system, primarily to meet the needs for Grass-fed beef
12
production. However, exports continue in all scenarios despite the increased need for
imported meat for domestic consumption. Calves (of suitable quality) are usually more
valuable in the U.S. market, even when there is insufficient domestic production in
Mexico.
Historically, cow (or Cull) beef has played an important role in Mexican beef
demand. In the Baseline, Cull beef is assumed to represent 25 percent of total beef
consumption. To meet Cull beef demand, limited numbers of cows have been imported
into Mexico to be slaughtered in many recent years. In the Baseline these imports
represent less than 9 percent of total Cull beef production. Increases in Cull beef
demand in Scenarios A and C result in increased cow imports, slightly less in Scenario C
because domestic cow numbers are higher. However, in Scenario B, the reduction in
Cull beef demand from 25 to 15 percent (of total consumption) results in a net surplus
of Cull beef such that Cull beef is now available for export.
Overall, beef imports into Mexico represent a larger percentage of total
consumption in each of the scenarios. In all cases it appears that Mexico is unable to
meet the increased demand for Fed beef. Beef imports increase by 37 percent in
Scenario A, by 86 percent in Scenario B and by 63 percent in Scenario C. Mexican selfsufficiency in beef production drops from 77 percent in the Baseline to 71 percent in
Scenario A, 61 percent in Scenario B and 66 percent in Scenario C. Beef imports
represent 23 percent of domestic consumption in the Baseline, increasing to 28.7
percent in Scenario A, 39 percent in Scenario B and 34.1 percent in Scenario C.
13
Since linear programming is a mathematical optimization, there is “one” answer,
which in the case of the GANAMEX model, is the minimum cost of providing the
specified levels of beef consumption in the Mexican market. Dividing the total
(minimized) cost by total beef consumption provides an estimate of the average cost of
beef in the Mexican market. The average cost of beef in the Baseline is 19.04
pesos/kilogram (about $0.92/lb in 2000), wholesale basis. This cost rises to 19.17
pesos/kilogram in Scenario A, an increase of 0.7 percent. In Scenario B, the cost rises
to 19.98 pesos/kilogram, up 4.9 percent and in Scenario C, the cost rises to 19.84
pesos/kilogram, an increase of 4.2 percent.
Conclusions and Implications
Historically, Mexico has had a beef cattle industry that was very forage intensive
and was essentially isolated economically from other agricultural sectors. Recent
growth in beef demand and increasing consumer preferences for fed beef are causing a
multitude of changes in the industry. The full set of results from the GANAMEX model
for the scenarios reported in this paper carry many implications for the Mexican beef
cattle industry and Mexico’s global trading partners. Although many of the regional and
production results were excluded from this summary, several general conclusions can
be made.
The Mexican beef cattle industry appears to be “maxed out” in term of
production capability at the current time with limited ability to respond to needed
increases in beef production in the short run. In part, this is a short run limitation due
to drought reduced cattle numbers and the current economic constraints, which limit
14
producers’ ability to expand production. As shown in these results, growth in beef
demand, especially fed beef demand generally pushes the Mexican industry to more
intensive production systems. However, these are more costly and dramatically change
the economic environment in which the industry is operating.
The opportunities presented by increased fed beef demand to the fledgling
Mexican feedlot sector actually imply a very difficult situation. In order to increase fed
beef production, Mexican feedlots must compete for nonforage feed resources against
other livestock sectors (dairy, pork and poultry) in unprecedented fashion and more
generally, increased derived demand for crop-based feed resources puts livestock
production more in competition with production of crops used directly by humans. This
is a growing issue as total food demand increases rapidly. Mexico faces generally
strong constraints on arable land and water resources for crop production. This, in
effect, puts cattle and beef into serious economic competition with the rest of
agriculture for the first time in Mexican history.
Additionally, Mexican cattle feeders must compete for limited cattle supplies
against a traditional domestic demand for grass-finishing of cattle and the economic pull
of the U.S. market for high-quality Mexican cattle. It is clear from the results presented
here that one of the keys to relieving the constraints in the Mexican beef cattle industry
is if Fed beef demand is replacing traditional Grass-fed beef demand such that net
Grass-fed beef demand is actually decreasing despite increased overall beef
consumption.
15
This simultaneously allows more Fed beef production and exports of calves to
the U.S. market. Given that Mexico is likely to require imported beef to meet demand,
this tendency suggests that economic integration of the U.S. and Mexican cattle an beef
industries would have Mexico specialize in cow-calf production, with a limited feedlot
industry and the U.S. would provide efficient grain feeding and processing of cattle,
which are then exported back to Mexico as beef for consumption.
Improved productivity might be suggested as a solution for inadequate levels of
beef production in Mexico. Table 1 shows that the overall calf-crop percentage is barely
50 percent in Mexico. In general, the GANAMEX model Baseline suggests that Mexican
beef productivity, on a per cow basis, is less than half that of the U.S. beef cattle
industry. Obviously, even small increase in calf crop percentage would reduce forage
use to produce the same number of cattle. However, technology (in most all forms)
and capital are more expensive in Mexico. There is little indication that, with current
resource values, Mexican production is economically inefficient to any large degree.
However, if beef demand significantly changes relative values for various types of cattle
or systems of production, there could be an economic need to shift to more intensive
production activities. Moreover, even in the current situation, there may be policy or
macro level considerations for affecting relative values in ways that increase the
economic efficiency of more intensive production systems.
Finally, the results presented here highlight the need for additional data and
analysis of Mexican beef demand and meat demand generally. The increased beef
demand specified in these scenarios is not a forecast per se, although few would likely
16
dispute that it will or has (since 2000) happened. However, the breakdown of overall
consumption by type of beef is much less well understood and there is an almost total
lack of data on beef consumption by quality. There are regional differences in
preferences and consumption that are also very important but poorly understood and
documented. Thus, is difficult to anticipate which of the three scenarios analyzed here
is more likely to represent the actual situation. Nevertheless, these results clearly
demonstrate that such knowledge is absolutely vital as the impacts on production and
trade depend critically on precise nature of demand changes. With somewhat
increased global market tensions at the current time and both the U.S. and Mexico
considering various trade and domestic policy alternatives, it is particularly important for
the industries and policymakers in both countries to understand and carefully consider
the complex forces behind evolving international market environments.
17
References
Instituto Nacional de Estadisticas, Geografía e Informática (INEGI)., “ENIGH-1998:
Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares.”
Instituto Nacional de Estadisticas, Geografía e Informática (INEGI)., “ENIGH-2000:
Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares.”
Peel, Derrell S., “Major Factors Affecting the Mexican Beef and Cattle Industry: What to
Expect in the Coming Years.” Analysis and Comments, Letter #10, Livestock
Marketing Information Center, March 8, 2002a.
Peel, Derrell S., “The Mexican Beef Cattle Industry Faces the Future.” The Cattleman,
December 2002b, pp 10-18.
Peel, Derrell S., “GANAMEX: Ganadería Mexicana.” Working Paper, 2001a.
Peel, Derrell S. “Mexican Income, Consumption and Beef Demand Summary.” Working
Paper, 2001b.
Peel, Derrell S., “Mexican Beef Production and Consumption: Data Issues.” Working
Paper, 2001c.
Los Porcicultores y Su Entorno, “Indicadores Del Consumo de la Carne de Cerdo.” Año
5, No. 27, Mayo-Junio 2002.
Sistema Nacional de Información e Intergación de Mercados (SNIIM). “Abasto de carne
de bovino en el D.F. y A.M.” Boletin Informativo Mensual, Noviembre, 2002.
18
Table 1. GANAMEX model results
BASELINE SCENARIO A
SCENARIO B
%
TOTAL COWS1
10842082
10547831
-2.7
9894062
COWS - NORTH1
2065323
2065323
0
1915697
COWS - N EAST1
1325524
1281358
-3.3
1231603
COWS – CENTL1
2304298
2206936
-4.2
1969940
1
COWS – TROPL
5146937
4994215
-2.9
4776822
CALF CROP1
5565888
5588325 +0.4
5151446
CALF CROP %
51.3
53.0
==
52.1
STOCKERS1
3759180
3875995 +3.1
3336180
GRASS FINISH1
2477600
2707087 +9.3
2774110
FEEDLOT1
1166984
1085803
-7.0
760803
SLAUGHTER1
4826058
4935162 +2.3
4598827
FED
PRODUCTION2
311053
285589
-8.2
209292
GRASS-FED
PRODUCTION2
487494
536244 +10.0
536244
CULL
PRODUCTION2
347807
346186
-0.5
325422
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION2
1489634
1638598 +10.0
1638598
CALF EXPORTS1
1324190
1261620
-4.7
1137473
COW IMPORTS1
148824
329550 +121
0
2
BEEF EXPORTS
0
0
0
70760
BEEF IMPORTS2
343280
470579 +37.1
638400
HARVEST %3
23.8
24.1
==
22.9
IMPORT %4
23.0
28.7
==
39.0
BEEF COST5
19.04
19.17
+0.7
19.98
1
Head
2
Metric Tons
3
(Domestic Slaughter + Cattle Exports)/Total Cattle Inventory
4
Total Imported Beef / Total Domestic Consumption
5
Cost (Pesos) per Kilogram of Beef Consumed
%
-8.7
-7.2
-7.1
-14.5
-7.2
-7.5
==
-11.3
+12.0
-34.8
-4.7
SCENARIO C
11379721
2065323
1449948
2777261
5087190
5706536
50.1
3425072
1965979
1385803
4500784
%
+10.5
0
+9.4
+20.5
-1.2
+2.5
==
-8.9
-20.6
+18.8
-6.7
-32.7
356018
+14.5
+10.0
371772
-23.7
-6.4
351237
+1.0
1638598
1508488
309326
0
559571
23.0
34.1
19.84
+10.0
+13.9
+108
0
+63.0
==
==
+4.2
+10.0
-14.1
-100
+INF
+86.0
==
==
+4.9
Table 2. Mexican Beef Demand Scenarios
Beef Type
Fed
Grass-fed
Cull
Total
Units
% of total
% of total
% of total
Kg/capita
Baseline
42
33
25
15.3
Scenario A
42
33
25
16.83
19
Scenario B
52
33
15
16.83
Scenario C
52
23
25
16.83