Substitutes for meat. — Historically, rising per 

 capita incomes have led to increased per capita con- 

 sumption of beef and fresh fruits and decreased con- 

 sumption of foods such as milk, eggs, potatoes, and 

 grain products. ^^ This in turn has led to an increase in 

 demand for grazing and harvested roughages. 



The only major permanent penetration of the 

 animal protein market by plant protein in the United 

 States has been by soybean products. Soybeans have 

 been used both as meat extenders in processed meats 

 and as meat substitutes. Per capita consumption of 

 soybean products is not expected to increase unless it 

 is assumed that preferences of consumers change. 

 Evidence supporting such a change in preference is 

 not available. Therefore, soybean-derived meat sub- 

 stitutes are expected to have only a negligible effect 

 on the demand for meat. Furthermore, when energy 

 requirements for production of soybean meat analogs 

 are compared to those for beef production, and when 

 other land uses and animal byproducts are consid- 

 ered, beef may be more favorable than formerly 

 thought." 



Meat grading and consumer preferences. — Prior 

 to 1975, standards for grading beef as "choice" or 

 "prime" favored grain in cattle rations over grazing 

 and other roughages because extensive feeding of 

 grain was necessary for beef to grade "choice" or bet- 

 ter and thus command top market prices. In 1975, 

 meat grading standards were changed so that a 

 smaller portion of grain was needed in cattle rations 

 for beef to be graded "USDA choice. "^^ Further 

 changes in grading standards favoring a decreased 

 use of grains and an increased use of roughages are 

 still possible. Current efforts of some other consumer 

 groups are also directed toward decreasing the pro- 

 portion of grain in the ration, thereby decreasing the 

 amount of fat in beef. However, since consumers 

 have developed a preference for marbled beef pro- 

 duced by using grains as a large part of the total feed 

 ration, the amount and duration of change in con- 

 sumer preferences are uncertain at this time. Changes 

 in the production process which decrease the quantity 

 of grain fed per animal will increase the amount of 

 roughages needed to produce a given quantity of beef 

 and eventually will cause increases in the demand for 

 grazing. 



Relative Prices of Feed Elements 



Just as many potential combinations of meat, 

 cereals, and vegetables provide a satisfactory diet for 

 people, there are many combinations of feeds which 

 can be used to produce a given livestock product. 

 Range grazing is one of the several feed elements in 

 the production of livestock. The demand for range 

 grazing is greatly influenced by the relative prices and 

 costs of production of other feed sources, including 

 nonrange grazing. 



Feed represents a major portion of total hvestock- 

 production costs. Because livestock can be raised 

 effectively on grain or forage or combinations of the 

 two, anything which substantially affects the prices of 

 either will have an impact on the livestock production 

 process. If feed grain prices are relatively low, grain 

 feeding will replace forage in the livestock production 

 process. 2' For example, in the I950's, grain was rela- 

 tively inexpensive and it became profitable to feed 

 more grain to livestock, especially beef cattle. Pro- 

 ducers placed calves in the feedlot at an earlier age 

 and fed the animals relatively more grain and less 

 forage to reach marketable weight. 



Conversely, high grain prices encourage producers 

 to finish animals for slaughter with less feeding of 

 grain. For example, in the early 1970's, high grain 

 prices caused livestock producers to rely more on 

 grazing and other forage. ^o As a result of low prices 

 for slaughter and feeder cattle, producers reduced or 

 liquidated herds, and the beef market became satu- 

 rated, leading to depressed beef prices which raised 

 the price ratio of grain to beef. Because of the high 

 ratio, roughages inci^eased from 80 percent of total 

 feed consumed by all beef cattle in 1971 to 88 percent 

 in 1974. During the same period, the percent of rough- 

 ages in the ration of cattle not in feedlots remained 

 stable at 96 percent. Fluctuating grain prices have 

 little effect on rations fed to sheep because pasture 

 and range grazing has always been their principal 

 source of nutrients.^' 



World Agricultural Trade 



World demands for food and fiber have the poten- 

 tial to influence the domestic prices of livestock prod- 



2' U.S. Department of Agriculture, Interagency Work Group, 

 op. cii. 



-' Yorks, Terence P. Energy use in soybean analog manufacture: 

 a comparison with beef. J. Sci. Food and Agric. (29)895-902. 1978. 



2* U.S. Department of Agriculture, Interagency Work Group, op 

 cii. 



-'Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Multiple 

 use of public lands in 17 western States. Dep. of Agronomy, Iowa 

 State University, Ames, Rep. 45, 36 p. 1975. 



3° Ward, Gerald M. Structure of the United States beef industry 

 as it affects resource use. Unpublished manuscript developed as 

 part of National Science Foundation's Research Applied to 

 National Needs (RANN) Project. "Resource requirements for 

 alternative beef production systems." Washington, D.C. 1976. 



31 Ward, 1976, op. cii. 



174 



