ucts and, therefore, indirectly influence domestic 

 demands for those products and uhimately, range 

 grazing. Although some meat is exported, the United 

 States is a feed grain exporter rather than a meat 

 exporter. 



Many nations have greater potential as producers 

 of meat supplies than as markets for United States 

 meat production. They could produce more livestock 

 through increasing their own forage and feed grain 

 production and through increased imports of feed 

 grains. Some nations are protecting their own red 

 meat producers by restricting imports of meat. 



The food consumption in several nations has 

 shifted from cereal grains toward animal protein. The 

 result has been a growth in demand for livestock feed 

 grains and oilseeds, and acceleration of world trade in 

 these commodities. The impact of these changes upon 

 the United States livestock industry has been more 

 evident in the feed grain market than directly through 

 meat exports. The effect of increasing United States 

 grain exports may be of greater significance upon the 

 demand for forage than the exportation of meat. 

 However, in projecting the demand for range grazing, 

 agricultural trade is assumed to continue its historical 

 trend in world economic development and trade poli- 

 cies. This includes the policies of trade constraint by 

 countries promoting self-sufficiency. These world 

 trade attributes constitute a moderate growth in 

 demand and will not have a major impact on range 

 grazing in this country. ^2 



Livestock-Grazed Roughage Relationships 



Grazed roughage consumed by beef cattle in- 

 creased 19 percent from 1965-67 to 1974-76 (table 

 5.9). At the same time, producers of dairy cattle 

 reduced their use of grazed roughage by 55 percent, 

 as they moved to increased use of concentrates and a 

 reduced number of dairy cows. Despite an increase in 

 horse and mule populations, use of grazed roughage 

 decreased by 20 percent, or 5 million AUM's, because 

 horse owners shifted to greater use of concentrates 

 and harvested roughage. 



Declining sheep and goat populations and reduc- 

 tions in the use of grazed roughage by cattle in feed- 

 lots resulted in further reduction of 35 million and 4 

 million AUM's respectively. Thus, the increase of 150 

 million AUM's in demand for grazing for beef cattle 

 was almost offset by the 146 million AUM's decline 



for the other kinds of livestock. Total grazing use, 

 therefore, increased only by 4 million AUM's during 

 that period." 



This small increase in grazing use is more apparent 

 than real and should not be used to estimate trends in 

 grazing use during the period 1965-1978. Average use 

 of only two peak periods, 1965-1967 and 1974-1976, 

 were compared to show the changes in grazing use by 

 different kinds of livestock and their effects upon 

 total grazing use. When the annual grazing use data 

 are used to estimate the linear trend, a downward 

 trend of total grazing use becomes apparent for the 

 1965-1978 period (fig. 5.6). 



This downward trend occurred during a period 

 when significant increases occurred in beef produc- 

 tion. From 1965 to 1978, beef cattle production was 

 able to increase without increasing total range graz- 

 ing supplies because a large amount of grazing was 

 released by sheep and dairy cattle and by the substitu- 

 tion of grains for grazing. While the use of grains was 

 caused by need to produce a particular kind of meat, 

 the overall effect on feed supplies was to produce a 

 larger total meat quantity without requiring addi- 

 tional grazing. 



Table 5.9— Comparison of average total grazing 



by kinds of livestocl<, for ttie contiguous States, 



1965-1967 and 1974-1976 



(Million animal unit months-AUM'sy 



Year 



Total 



Beef 



FeecJIot 

 cattle 



Dairy 



Sheep 

 and 



Horses 

 and 











goats 



mules 



1965-1967 



1,063 



775 



9 



187 



67 



25 



1974-1976 



1,067 



925 



5 



85 



32 



20 



Change 



+4 



+ 150 



-4 



-102 



-35 



-5 



percent 















change 



* 



+ 19 



-44 



-55 



-52 



-20 



" Liu, Chun-Ian, Gerald Plato, and Allen G. Smith. The demand 

 for grazing roughages in the United States: alternative futures to 

 the year 2030. Unpublished manuscript developed under coopera- 

 tive agreement between Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives 

 Service and Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1978, 

 revised 1979. 



'Less than 1 percent. 



'An animal unit month (AUM) is the amount of forage required by a 1,000- 

 pound cow or equivalent in 1 month. 



The Projected Demand for Range Grazing 



The history of grazing use does not provide suffi- 

 cient basis for projecting future demand for grazing. 

 The projected demand for range grazing is related to 

 all aspects of national and international agriculture 

 as discussed in the previous section, including chang- 

 ing demands for livestock products and changes in 

 the livestock production process. From this general 

 framework, projections of roughage requirements 



" U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

 Livestock-feed relationships: National and State. Sta. Bull. No. 

 530. 192 p. 1974. Supplement 1974 to Sta. Bull. No. 530. 101 p. 

 1975. Also unpublished data. 



175 



